This article was downloaded by: [University of Birmingham]

On: 19 March 2015, At: 05:09

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK

International Journal of Public

Administration
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lpad20

A Conceptual Model for

Benchmarking Performance
in Public Sector Ethics
Programs: The Missing Link in
Government Accountability?
Robert W. Smith

Director, Master of Public Administration

Program, Department of Political Science , Clemson
University , Clemson, SC, USA
Published online: 13 Dec 2007.

To cite this article: Robert W. Smith (2007) A Conceptual Model for Benchmarking
Performance in Public Sector Ethics Programs: The Missing Link in Government
Accountability?, International Journal of Public Administration, 30:12-14, 1621-1640,
DOI: 10.1080/01900690701527217
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01900690701527217

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the Content) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,
or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views
expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the
Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any

losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,

and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the
Content.

Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 05:09 19 March 2015

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Intl Journal of Public Administration, 30: 16211640, 2007

Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN 0190-0692 print / 1532-4265 online
DOI: 10.1080/01900690701527217

A Conceptual Model for Benchmarking

Performance in Public Sector Ethics Programs:
The Missing Link in Government Accountability?

Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 05:09 19 March 2015

1532-4265
0190-0692
LPAD
Intl
Journal of Public Administration
Administration, Vol. 30, No. 12-14, September 2007: pp. 143

Benchmarking Performance in Public Sector Ethics Programs

Smith

Robert W. Smith

Director, Master of Public Administration Program, Department of Political Science,

Clemson University, Clemson, SC

Abstract: Ever since Osborne and Gaeblers Reinventing Government[1], the federal governments National Performance Review Act,[2] the American Society for Public Administrations (ASPAs) Center for Accountability and Performance and Hartrys primer on
Performance Measurement,[3] performance, outcome measurement and accountability
have been guiding principles for government at the close of the 20th Century.
Government and society have changed, and performance (and tools of performance
measurement) has taken center stage as citizens expect more and better government for
less. But governments themselves have demanded performance in order to operate in the
complex, interdependent, global and technologically-based environment facing all organizations in the 21st Century. Productivity and efficiency concerns are at the heart of the
performance orientation of government but so too are accountability and ethics.
The application of benchmarking to ethics programs administered by federal, state and
local ethics commissions, boards or offices is the focus of this paper. Specifically, this article presents a variety of models that can be used to successfully adopt benchmarks for use
in government ethics programs. As ethics transgressions or allegations of ethics violations
continue in the public sector (e.g., Congressman Traficants expulsion in 2002 and Secretary of the Army Whites resignation in 2003), this paper posits that ethics benchmarks hold
the key for achieving both efficiency and accountability in government in the 21st century.
Keywords: benchmarks, ethics, ethics commissions, ethics programs, performance
measurement

Benchmarking is a tool in the performance measurement repertoire that establishes widely acceptable parameters, levels of services and expectations that

Address correspondence to Robert W. Smith, Director, Master of Public Administration Program, Department of Political Science, Clemson University, 230 E Brackett
Hall, Clemson, SC 29634, USA; E-mail: rws@clemson.edu

Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 05:09 19 March 2015

1622

Smith

government agencies and programs should strive to provide. These parameters are
derived from comparisons with comparable jurisdictions in terms of services, size
and geographic location.[4] There has long been a debate over the appropriate
benchmarks to utilize for any number of government programs. However, the
establishment of benchmarks for ethics programs has been particularly problematic. Yet many federal and state ethics agencies are required to demonstrate
performance measures and to establish benchmarks to gauge their performance.
At the heart of the debate over the use of ethics benchmarks or other performance criteria for ethics are questions about the effectiveness of ethics programs.
Does conducting 50 investigations per year mean a state ethics commission is
effective? When the federal Office of Government Ethics conducts training for
10,000 employees per year, does this mean all of those employees are now ethical? By collecting financial disclosure forms for all senior policy makers can
the local government ethics board now claim to have a more ethical city government? All of these questions come to the forefront when discussing the role
played by ethics commissions, boards or offices as entities responsible for the
enforcement and cultivation of ethics at the federal, state and local levels.
Surprisingly, there is sparse literature on the subject and little material
identifying the value of pursuing performance criteria for ethics programs.
There is some literature that addresses the issue, but only in the context of
training programs,[5] business considerations of effective ethics and compliance programs[6] and hospital ethics committees.[7] Simply put, there is a
defacto gap in the literature on performance measurement in government ethics programs. This is likely driven by the sparse application of performance
measurement by ethics commissions, boards or offices.
Indeed, there has been longstanding criticism of the watchdog status of
ethics entities and window-dressing portrayal of government
anti-corruption efforts.[8] This article seeks to develop a better understanding
of the normative and practical considerations of applying performance
measurement and benchmarking to ethics programs in view of this criticism.

PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT AND BENCHMARKS

IN GOVERNMENT
Performance Measurement
It is not the purpose of this article to present an exhaustive history of performance measurement; however, it is appropriate to point to the federal governments formal adoption of performance measurement with the passage of the
Government Performance and Review Act of 1993. All federal agencies were
required to document outcomes and benefits of their services to the public.
This federal initiative prompted state and local governments to adopt performance
measurement for their operations. In the year 2003, performance measurement

Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 05:09 19 March 2015

Benchmarking Performance in Public Sector Ethics Programs

1623

is a significant management improvement embraced by many governments

with applications in budgeting, planning and daily operations.
Performance measures involve the selection, definition, and application of
performance indicators to quantify efficiency and effectiveness of services. It is
measurement on a regular basis of the results (outcomes) and efficiency of services or programs.[9] Outcomes are defined as . . . the events, occurrences, or
changes in conditions, behaviors, or attitudes that indicate progress towards
achievement of the mission and objectives of the program.[10] For many
governments, the focus has been on measuring and documenting outputs (numbers served or produced) as opposed to outcomes (impacts). Performance measurement helps guide decision making because it effectively links mission and
goals of agencies to operations and management of those agencies.
Performance measures can take the form of workload measures, efficiency
measures, effectiveness measures and productivity measures. Governments
routinely apply all, or some, of these measures in evaluating success of their
programs. Criteria have been established to identify solid performance measures that cut across many government programs or services. Measures that
embrace validity, reliability, understandability, timeliness, comprehensiveness,
non redundancy, cost effectiveness and at the same time are resistant to
manipulation and continuously examine controllable conditions are desirable.[11]
Performance data can be gleaned from multiple sources such as agency
records, citizen or client surveys, observations, or other data collection
means.[12] Yet, there are challenges in successfully employing a performance
measurement system in terms of:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)

political opposition to measurement for fear of revealing problems,

attitudes that certain services cannot be measured,
the issue of whether the right measures are being used and interpreted, and
the notion that a fully developed performance measurement system is too
costly.

Indeed, the use and application of performance measurement in government

remains uneven. Some governments employ performance measures more as a
symbolic gesture than substantive reform. For example, some governments
identify measures in budget presentations, but do not use the data for resource
allocation decisions or to make management improvements. Ethics organizations equally fall prey to the downsides in the application and utilization of
performance measures.

Benchmarks
This article focuses on one important dimension in the application of a
successful performance measurement system the use of benchmarks.

Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 05:09 19 March 2015

1624

Smith

Benchmarks can be defined as widely accepted professional, national, or

international standards (or indicators) identified as best in class performers
or practices that can be used as part of an analysis to establish how a certain
jurisdictions performance compare to those best in class performers.[13] In
essence, benchmarks are parameters that form the heart of any performance
measurement system. Any performance measure will be useless if it appears
as an isolated, disconnected or abstract number. Benchmarks provide the basis
for a comparative analysis of one jurisdiction, program or agency against
other comparable jurisdictions.
The use of benchmarks is a function of politics, performance expectations
and the availability of comparable data. The greatest challenge in the use of
benchmarks is the selection of comparable jurisdictions or agencies of comparison. Social, geographic, legislative, bureaucratic, political, regulatory, and
economic factors vary widely across units of comparison. Even the establishment of professional standards is complicated in that there are many local or
agency-specific reasons that these standards do not apply neatly to any one
particular jurisdiction. However, benchmarks have been established by many
professions, and national and international organizations to help agencies
establish a baseline for evaluating how they are performing. Despite the
momentum toward wider development of such standards and the widespread
testimony of their success in a variety of government programs, there is little
evidence of widespread or uniform application of benchmarks across all levels
of government.

PERFORMANCE MEASURES, BENCHMARKS, AND ETHICS

PROGRAMS
Ethics Boards, Commissions, and Offices
It is also not the purpose of this article to discuss the role played by ethics
offices, boards and commissions in federal, state and local governments.
However, it is appropriate to provide a brief overview of these entities that are
responsible for ethics in executive branch agencies at each level of government. Many ethics entities are charged with oversight of campaign finance,
lobbyist registration, and financial disclosure forms. They are also expected to
investigate and audit government agencies and covered individuals for
compliance with ethics laws and regulations. Ethics education and training are
important dimensions to the mission of ethics bodies. The existing/proposed
benchmarks presented below represent an overview of the activities and
measures linked to ethics program operations. For a more detailed analysis of
the role and operation of ethics commissions see Smith.[14]
Interestingly, there are virtually no studies or analyses that examine the
use of performance measures by government ethics entities. In addition, there

Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 05:09 19 March 2015

Benchmarking Performance in Public Sector Ethics Programs

1625

are few examples of the active use of benchmarks in government ethics programs. This is not to say that there have not been efforts to identify best practices of ethics organizations, or that ethics offices, boards or commissions are
not concerned about effectiveness of programs, or that performance measures
are not used by some ethics organizations. There is, however, a significant gap
in the literature. The lack of scholarship (or applied research) demonstrates
that the research and active application of performance or benchmarks for
improving ethics in organizational settings is clearly lacking. There is no better evidence of this lack of research and lack of application than the recent
pleas by the federal Office of Government Ethics (OGE) soliciting approaches
to determine ethics program effectiveness.[15]
There is only one examination of how ethics committees, in a health care setting, establish and utilize outcome measures as part of their operations.[16] This
work highlights the importance of establishing outcome measures to help
determine the success or failure of hospital ethics committees. See Table 1 below.
This process sets a baseline for outcome-based performance measures
that can be established and then compared at the end of the year. This
framework establishes standards for operations linked to ethics outcomes.
Is there any evidence that performance measures are or can be utilized by
government ethics entities? The best examples can be found in a survey of
selected ethics organizations across various levels of government. It is important to stress that currently there is no systemic professional effort to examine
or embrace performance measures specific to ethics organizations. However,
there is evidence that performance and issues of effectiveness are important to
ethics organizations. The following Tables 2 and 3 present an abbreviated
review of efforts that a variety of government ethics organizations have made
in the area of performance measurement:

The Federal Office of Government Ethics (Strategic Goals

as Benchmarks)
The federal GPRA of 1993 requires federal agencies to establish performance measures and integrate them into both their strategic plans and budget
Table 1. Performance Measures for Hospital Ethics Committees[17]
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

identify three perceived strengths

identify three accomplishments
identify three perceived weaknesses
identify important issues that need to be addressed
identify new or future-oriented issues that need to be addressed
identify how the organization can support the ethics committee
(Mitchell, 2000, 23)

1626

Smith

Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 05:09 19 March 2015

Table 2. Strategic Goals in the Federal OGE[18]

Goal I Provide Policy Direction
Performance Goals
Maintain a strong working relationship with the Office of Management
and Budget so that advice sought and employed by them in 90 percent of
legislative and policy issues have a substantial effect on the ethics program.
OGE will speak at east monthly to policymakers about changes or additions to
policy and within six months draft any necessary policy changes.
Congress incorporates OGE expertise and comments into at least 75 percent of
legislation under consideration with ethics implications.
Within six months of identified statutory changes, OGE will submit the change
to OMB, and after clearance, follows through to enactment of such changes with
18 months at least 75 percent of the time.
OGEs responses for requests of technical assistance result in positive and
tangible response from requestors at least 75 percent of the time and on repeated
requests, 50 percent of the time.
Strategic Goal II. OGE supports the executive branch in administering fair, effective
and consistent ethics programs
Performance Goals
OGE will over a four year cycle conduct program evaluations in all federal
agencies.
OGE will track and monitor ethics agreements of presidential appointees
concerning financial interests and ensures they are completed within 90 days of
confirmation.
OGE will continually review major trade journals/shows to identify the latest
technologies to support the ethics mission and will actively pursue application of
the technology within 60 days of agency approval and implementation schedules
within 120 days.
Within a four-year period, OGE will review, evaluate and include government
approved electronic signature requirements to allow disclosure forms to be filed
electronically.
Ethics desk officers will respond to requests from agency ethics officials in a
timely and adequate fashion 95 percent of the time.
The OGE will provide adequate interpretations of statutes and regulations
99 percent of the time, and for 90 percent of the requests within two days (within
15 days for written interpretations)
OGE will respond in writing to matters pertaining to the financial disclosure
system within 15 days.
The director of the OGE will meet with new agency heads within six months of
their taking office and the director or staff will meet with members of Congress
on OGE legislative initiatives or issues.
OGE will track, collect and review financial disclosure statements of
approximately 1,000 presidential appointees in a timely fashion.
(Continued)

Benchmarking Performance in Public Sector Ethics Programs

1627

Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 05:09 19 March 2015

Table 2. (Continued)
Strategic Goal III. OGE will develop and make available training and educational
materials to promote quality ethics training and education.
Performance Goals
OGE sets quarterly and other expectations for annual ethics training and
education needs. Conducts needs assessments for training and course development and maintains an ethics information center to disseminate materials.
OGE will in a timely fashion review its teleconference and multi-media training
experiences.
OGE will develop and administer annual ethics program surveys to identify
trends, strengths or weaknesses.
OGE will plan develop and host an annual ethics conference.
Strategic Goal IV. The OGE will administer an effective outreach program
Performance Goals
OGE will participate in 40 in-person or electronic presentations to the public and
pursue publication of one article per year or speech in a publication with a
circulation of at least 2000.
The OGE will produce at least one educational product and one article in the
Ethics Newsgram to promote ethics in general.
OGE will on a monthly basis maintain and update public information on its web
page or through the Government Printing Office.
OGE will seek to meet 90 percent of requests under Freedom of Information Act
by statutory deadlines.
(Source: Annual Performance Report FY 1999, United States Office of Government
Ethics, March 2000).

Table 3. State of Florida Commission on Ethics Performance Data Sets[19]

Calendar year complaints against public officers and employees (including a
breakdown by office and level of government)
Compilation of allegations by type and number
Itemization of complaints by type (e.g., acceptance of gifts)
Number of formal actions taken by the Commission (e.g., violation, dismissal)
Time series history of the number of complaints
Numbers of lobbyist registrations
Lobbyist fines and appeals
Issuance of advisory opinions by number and type (e.g., voting conflict)
Conferences attended and training/education sessions held
Financial disclosure by number and compliance rate
Summary of active litigations
(Source: Annual Report to the Florida Legislature for Calendar Year 2000, State of
Florida Ethics Commission, 2001).

1628

Smith

proposals. The OGE links their four strategic goals to specific performance
goals as follows:

Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 05:09 19 March 2015

The State of Florida Commission on Ethics (Data Sets as Benchmarks)

Many states utilize ethics commissions or boards to coordinate their ethics
activities and programs. The use of performance measures varies widely from
state to state. The State of Florida is required to submit an annual report to the
state legislature. As part of this report the State Ethics Commissions reports
on a number of activities undertaken by the commission during the previous
years. Some of the highlights are presented in Table 3 below.

The South Carolina State Ethics Commission (Outputs as Benchmarks)

All state agencies in the State of South Carolina are required to file
comprehensive accountability reports to the State legislature describing their
activities and highlighting their accomplishments. The State Ethics Commission is also required to produce and submit this report as part of its annual
budget submission. Table 4 identifies some of the items or output indicators
used by the ethics commission.

The Seattle Ethics and Election Commission (Activity-Based Nodes

as Benchmarks)
At the local level of government, ethics offices or boards serve an important
function with oversight responsibility for local appointed and elected officials.
Although most local governments have codes of ethics or public officers
laws, many local governments do not have active (proactive) ethics offices.
However, many major metropolitan governments have well established and
proactive ethics offices that provide important ethics services in their respective governments (e.g., Atlanta, Los Angeles, Miami, and New York).

Table 4. South Carolina State Ethics Commission Performance Outputs[20]

Number of training sessions held and number trained

Numbers of informal and formal opinions
Number of complaints (received, final disposition and pending)
Forms collected (Economic Interests, Campaign Disclosure Lobbyist Registration)

(Source: State of South Carolina State Ethics Commission Annual Report

19981999, 2000).

Benchmarking Performance in Public Sector Ethics Programs

1629

Table 5. Seattle Ethics and Election Commission

Activity-Based Performance Measures[21]

Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 05:09 19 March 2015

Ethics training and workshop sessions

Number of active cases
Inquiries for advice on ethics matters
Number of election and financial disclosure filings
Audit activity associated with disclosures
Scope of public outreach
Time series of narrative yearly accomplishments

(Source: City of Seattle Ethics and Election

Commission 19982002 Strategic Plan. See http://
www.ci.seattle.wa.us/ethics/home/strplan.htm).

However, like the vast majority of ethics boards and offices there is sporadic
and infrequent substantive use of performance measures to guide the operations of the ethics office. Some are more in tune with establishing
performance measures than others. The City of Seattle Ethics and Election
Commission is one such organization. Their performance measures presented
as part of their planning documents are found in Table 5 below.

The King County (State of Washington) Board of Ethics (Hybrid

Strategic Planning Benchmarks)
It is evident that the application of formal performance measures in ethics
organizations varies greatly. The King County Board of Ethics appears to
have adopted the performance reporting model of the federal OGE in that
output measures are linked to specific strategic goals as outlined in Table 6
below.
What should be evident from this abbreviated survey of ethics offices and
the utilization of performance measures is that the majority of the items
included under the guise of performance measures are in fact primarily output
measures (e.g., the number of activities, cases, investigations or training sessions). It is important to track these statistics and there certainly is a case to be
made that these are useful indicators of such things as organization workload,
efficiency and perhaps productivity. Moreover, even descriptive accounts are
useful, as are simple time series analyses that can help identify trends. It
should be noted that these output-based measures are consistent with performance measurement systems used by most government agencies.
However the missing element in these ethics performance measures are
clearly established outcome measures. Such outcomes would allow citizens to
see how ethics activities contribute to improvements in accountability. The
output (numerical) data simply misses answering some important questions

1630

Smith

Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 05:09 19 March 2015

Table 6. King County Board of Ethics Hybrid Performance Measures[22]

Strategic Goal I. To educate county employees on the importance of ethics.
Performance Measures
Training and education activities (presentations, hours, and participant numbers)
Ethics Classes (number and type)
Training evaluations (how instructors are rated)
Tracking informal presentations (number and type)
Specialized training offered (by type, number, hours and subject focus)
Technology use (summary of web-based activity)
Publications frequency (distribution numbers of ethics publications/materials)
Strategic Goal II Systematic review of the code of ethics
Performance Measures
Narrative summary of review process and provisions of code affected
Strategic Goal III To provide timely advice and guidance to employees and elected
officials.
Track the number and type of advisory opinions
Track staff informational responses to employees
Catalog telephone inquiries by numbers and type of request
Strategic Goal IV Conduct an annual review of financial disclosure statements
Employees and elected officials (number of filers, late filers and follow up activity)
Board and Commission members (track compliance rate and numbers of filers)
Consultant Disclosure activity (number)
Strategic Goal V Collaboration with other agencies on ethics issues
Narrative description of type and frequency of activities
(Source: King County Board of Ethics 2001 Annual Report at http://www.metrokc.
gov/ethics/ethicrpt.pdf).

about ethics programs. For example, how effective are the training sessions?
What does it mean when compliance for disclosure goes down from one year
to the next? How do the measures tell us how ethical government really is
this year compared to last? Make no mistake, these are difficult questions with
no easy answers, however, an over-reliance on output measures is a disservice
to the primary mission of ethics commissions, boards and offices
improving the ethical climate of government.
With respect to benchmarks, there is limited use within the ethics community at large. The proposition of this paper is that the establishment of
benchmarks associated with outcome measures, as well as better output
targets, would provide more useful information for ethics administrators. It
would also provide a solid basis of comparison. Data from comparable jurisdictions could be evaluated to better gauge effectiveness of programs and the
overall impact in their own jurisdictions ethical environment. For example,
benchmarking off of the output measures identified in the OGEs report, corrected
for jurisdiction size and program responsibilities, would allow a solid basis of
measurement for a state or local ethics program against the established federal

Benchmarking Performance in Public Sector Ethics Programs

1631

baseline. The measures would still need to be tooled and fitted to the specific jurisdiction, yet the benchmark approach could yield better information
to judge ethics operations than jurisdiction-specific measures. The use of such
benchmarks for internal management purposes would be an underlying
advantage to this approach.

Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 05:09 19 March 2015

WHERE TO TURN? (BENCHMARKING MODELS TO CONSIDER)

The Synthesis Benchmarking Model (S.B. Model)
This model essentially relies upon canvassing existing ethics programs for
both performance output and outcome measures. In fact, synthesizing the bulleted items from the jurisdictions surveyed for this paper would render a useful template or starting point for creating such ethics benchmarks. For
illustrative purposes, the model in Table 7 utilizes measures for one important
mission of ethics organizations and programseducation and training.
In many respects these measures are similar to existing performance indicators, but they are refined with a view toward developing data that can be
used in a comparative analysis between agencies. These measures serve two
external audiencesgovernment users of ethics services, and the public at
large. These measures are developed with effectiveness and efficiency in mind
to guide and improve operations. But, they also address whether goals or missions are being mete.g., whether training meets the needs of employees,
agencies and the public. Achieving positive customer survey responses by
designing programs tailored to address primary ethics concerns is a step closer
to realizing ethics outcomes rather than examining numeric indicators disconnected from the training mission. This synthesis model will take the best performance indicators currently available and will allow citizens to evaluate
how ethical their government may be (beyond counting indictments,
allegations, fines or headlines of corruption).

The Audit Benchmarking Model (A.B. Model)

One area where some guidance on establishing ethics benchmarks is available
is the audit community. Over the past 20 years auditors have moved into the
arena of both public and private ethics auditing with products or systems
under the guise of either assurance or forensic services, or social responsibility audits. The focus in the private sector stems from guidelines promulgated
by the United States Sentencing Commission[23] and under the Foreign
Corrupt Practices Act,[24] which essentially address ethics lapses, fraud and
corruption in private business dealings in the United States and abroad. Moreover, the past decade or more has seen a resurgence of internal control

1632

Smith

Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 05:09 19 March 2015

Table 7. S.B. Model

Strategic Goal: Provide effective and efficient training services that meet employees/
public officials ethics needs and expectations.
Possible performance measures and related benchmarks:
Quarterly ethics training targets with customer/agency evaluations of training and
suggestions for future training. Possible Benchmark: [X sessions, serving Y
clients, achieving Z satisfaction for period ABC]
Canvass agencies, on a rotating basis, and conduct a needs assessment for training
and ethics. Conduct follow up interviews to determine if needs were met. Possible
Benchmark: [X needs assessments, completed in Y period, with baseline Z
percentage of agency expectations satisfied or needs addressed]
Develop a one-stop ethics information center (web-based or other format) and
monitor usage. Compare to agency ethics sites or external sites. Possible Benchmark: [X usage rate (web site hits or calls or inquiries), for a certain time frame Y,
as a percentage of agency or other web site usage Z].
Implement an annual review of all training experiences. Compare training
between agencies and analyze evaluations that identify the best training. Possible
Benchmark: [X number of training reviews, conducted during period Y, achieving Z satisfaction rating, identifying ABC best training approaches]
Develop and administer annual ethics surveys to all customers or clients of individual agencies and identify trends, strengths and weaknesses. Create an agency
by agency ethics profile for internal and external use to measure ethics climate in
each agency (e.g., Are most agency personnel aware of the ethical implications of
their actions? How often do you witness unethical behavior in the workplace?
What are the best means for achieving an ethical awareness in your bureau or
office?) Possible Benchmark: [Agency by agency satisfaction rating expressed as
X percentage, with ratings/ranges for Y weaknesses, strengths or trends, for time
period Z, with comparative rankings (or index factor) from most perceived ethics
to least].
Aggregated training data including the number of sessions, audience profile, rating of training, numbers attending, most effective session, popular topics/issues
as gauged by questions, involvement by top managers, etc. Possible Benchmark:
[X training data by agency (according to size, risk factors, visibility, or funding),
expressed as Y percentage of total employees (by grade, position), identifying
effective session as Z percentage, with ABC satisfaction index].

systems, the internal audit process and control self-assessment techniques,

which naturally facilitate an effort in enhancing ethical systems in corporations.
Ethics audits can take the form of a compliance audit (consistency with laws,
rules or regulations), cultural audits (measuring ethical attitudes and beliefs) or
systems audits (which attempt to assess the existence of an ethical climate and
attitude throughout the organization).[25] While there is a large body of information that discusses the nuances and mechanics of auditing and internal control
processes, this paper will only focus on the extent such literature is useful for constructing benchmarks that might be applicable to government ethics agencies.

Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 05:09 19 March 2015

Benchmarking Performance in Public Sector Ethics Programs

1633

With the exception of Lewiss[26] ethics audit tool, there is little guidance
to develop standards for government auditing except for evaluation models
utilized by the OGE for program reviews, or proprietary systems utilized by
major consulting firms or consultant devised audits/assessment that examine
the ethics function in organizations. These approaches can be useful for identifying some individual measures that auditors look for in organizations that
can be extrapolated into broader standards agencies should strive for.
Arthur Andersen (ironically, the embattled ENRON auditor) employs the
IntraSight Assessment that attempts to assess employee perception of ethical
behavior and compliance (with government rules or company policy) in corporate culture. Table 8 identifies the seven elements, which are part of their
survey instrument (employee perceptions):
In what is one of the more definitive academic and professional
treatments of ethics management and ethics audits, Kaptein[31] identifies a
seven-stage process for auditing organizational ethics based upon the Ethical
Qualities Model (a KPMG, now BearingPoint, Inc. product) (see Table 9).
The models assess the organization based upon the following elements:

Table 8. IntraSight Elements[27]

Observed unethical conduct of co-workers

Awareness of organization ethics and values
Willingness to seek advice
Likelihood to deliver bad news
Likelihood to report violations
Employee Commitment to the organization
Use of ethics and values in business decision making

(Source: Presentation by Paul Mackellar of Arthur

Anderson at the 10th International Anti-Corruption
Conference, 2001).
Table 9. Ethical Qualities (KPMG/Bearing Point)[28]
Clarity (How employees handle corporate assets)
Consistency (How managers and employees view assets and responsibility for
them)
Sanctionability (Whether a system of rewards and punishments for ethical and
unethical behavior respectively are in place)
Supportability (How much attention and resources are devoted to protecting
corporate assets and promoting ethical behavior)
Visibility (Are all corporate actions transparent)
Discussability (Degree to which employees can offer criticism and discuss ethical
dilemmas in the organization)
Kaptein (1998), pp. 68117

Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 05:09 19 March 2015

1634

Smith

In many respects the utility of ethics audits in government continues to

receive serious attention and was the focus of a major panel discussion entitled Public Sector Ethics: Can Ethics Be Audited? at the 10th International
Anti-Corruption Conference session. The panel concluded that corruption can
be audited through a variety of means such as measurement of implementation
of codes of ethics, organizational self assessments (control environment perspective), employee and citizen surveys, risk profiles, corruption vulnerability
reviews and analyses of grievances and complaints. The international attention on the subject is demonstrated by the creation of a Commission in Auditing Ethics as part of the Public Sector Employment Act of 1998 in the
Commonwealth of Australia.[29]
This audit-based model can provide detailed guidance in the establishment of benchmarks for government ethics programs. Benchmarks based
upon the audit model are presented in Table 10.
Benchmarks can be developed around these data elements. These
measures can then be used by an ethics organization to conduct comparative
reviews between government agencies once top performers have been
identified.

The ISO Benchmark Model: Business Conduct Management System

Standard (ISO Model)
The Ethics Officer Association (EOA) has recently recognized and taken
active steps to design and implement a Business Conduct Management
System Standard through the International Organization for Standardization
(ISO). The ISO promulgates international voluntary standards that are used by
business to systematize industrial and business processes and formalize

Table 10. A.B. Model

Survey to determine the instances of observed co-worker unethical behavior

Number of employees aware of ethics programs
Number of officials seeking ethics advice
Willingness to report ethics violations
Percentage of time ethical considerations are used in policy decisions
Actual or perceived times the public code of ethics is violated
Survey to measure the values gap between managers and employees in Agency
Track of employee rewards for ethical behavior/actions
Personnel and appropriations devoted to the ethics function in government
(expressed as a percentage of overall jurisdictions budget and total employment)
Survey to determine transparency of agency transactions (number or percentage)
Survey to identify levels of employee willingness to discuss ethics issues in the
agency

Benchmarking Performance in Public Sector Ethics Programs

1635

Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 05:09 19 March 2015

Table 11. Business Conduct Management System Standard[30]

Compliance standards based in part on Federal Sentencing Commission
Guidelines and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act provisions
Oversight by top management
Diligence in delegating substantial discretionary authority
Establishment of communication procedures throughout the organization
Proactive system for corrective actions including monitoring, auditing and
whistleblower protections
Consistent enforcement and clear disciplinary mechanisms
A process to institute preventive measures when infractions are detected
(Source: Ethics Officer Association, http://www.eoa.org/bcms_cont.html).

management approaches in a variety of industry-specific areas. The process is

facilitated through the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) which
establishes standards for corporate social responsibility that could be applied
globally.
The importance of having the ISO set standards in the area internal business conduct and corporate social responsibility is that definitive standards
will be promulgated against which ethics programs can be benchmarked.
Although the ISO standards have not been completely finalized, Table 11
identifies the essential elements of the Business Conduct Management System
Standard that could be adopted for use by government ethics entities:
To the extent these ISO standards address corporate social responsibility,
the standards would also incorporate the business communitys responsibility
to customers, employees, business partners, the environment, communities,
and investors.
Development of these standards for business management conduct would
be consistent with efforts such as the global Sullivan Principles, SA 8000
(social accountability), the United Nations Global Compact, as well as ISO
9000 (quality standard) and ISO 140000 (environmental management
standards).[31] Moreover, international organizations like the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OCEDs) anti-corruption and antibribery projects and Transparency Internationals (TIs) efforts to combat
corruption have added fuel to efforts to establish meaningful measures across
nations.
The efforts to establish benchmarks for business ethics applications hold
great utility for government ethics organizations seeking to establish a benchmarking system. Such internationally-generated benchmarks are presented in
Table 12.
As with each benchmark model introduced, they are not meant to be an
exhaustive list of benchmarks. However, the models establish promote thinking about the types of measures that make sense when linked to the mission

1636

Smith

Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 05:09 19 March 2015

Table 12. I.S.O. Model

Numbers of violations against ethics provisions by statute and regulation within a
certain range.
Data on the involvement of top managers in the agencies (number attending
training, ethics directives to staff, etc.)
Data on the time potential transgressions are communicated to the appropriate
offices and personnel within the agency
Average time for corrective actions to be taken after a violation has been
committed
Frequency of ethics audits or other program evaluations by the ethics entity
Number of whistleblower cases in a certain time period
Longitudinal data that examines the trends in sentencing, fines and
admonishments by type of infraction

and goal of the ethics entities. This ISO model equally makes extensive use of
surveys to identify satisfaction and evaluate program operations by looking at
clients, customers and citizens.

THE GOVERNMENT ETHICS BENCHMARK FRAMEWORK

The Figure 1 depicts the three benchmark models presented in this paper as
part of a systematic process which can identify ethics benchmarks as constructed from input of various ethics organizations and relevant professional
associations. Each of these models is not meant to stand alone. They need to
be integrated as part of a comprehensive framework that can capture and identify benchmarks that are appropriate for ethics commissions, boards and
offices. It should be evident that not one size fits all. Benchmarks are useful to
the extent jurisdictions being compared have similar characteristics. However,
setting a target which can be evaluated in comparison with other ethics entities
is a step in the right direction.
The Figure equally represents a roadmap which public sector ethics organizations can follow to synthesize and refine existing measures, build audit
processes around selected measures, and also seek national or international
standards for effective ethics programs. This process will result in the development of a solid inventory of benchmarks for government ethics entities. The
development of such benchmarks will not be easy, but appropriate outcome
measures can be established. Some new measures will need to be constructed
(many based upon survey data). One or more comprehensive databases must
be developed and maintained. A process for rapid exchange of benchmark
information needs to be established. But most important, once benchmarks are
established they need to be utilized by ethics entities to evaluate and compare
their performance.

Benchmarking Performance in Public Sector Ethics Programs

Government Ethics
Benchmark Framework

E
G

1637

B
F

Model Applications

Organization Inputs
COGEL

ISO Model
Comprehensive
Ethics
Benchmarks

EOA
Audit Community
PUMA/OCED

Synthesis Model

Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 05:09 19 March 2015

OGE/Ethics Agencies
Audit Model
Government Ethics
Programs

Government Accountability

Figure 1. Government Ethics Benchmark Framework.

OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

Nothing in this article should be viewed purely as a criticism of government
ethics organizations. The management of government ethics is not easy.
Ethics as a concept is difficult to define and therefore even more difficult to
measure. Many ethics boards and offices have done an admirable job in creating workable indicators that examine output. These indicators can be interpolated to establish effectiveness and productivity of the ethics effort. However,
the use of performance measurement can be more widespread and much more
rigorous with a focus on outcomes and programmatic goals.
Because ethics is different from other more traditional government services, that doesnt mean its not amenable to measurement and analysis and
improvement. This paper presents a challenge to a number of ethics organizations and associations to raise the bar in terms of the application of performance measures in government ethics programs. Moreover, it is imperative
that the field establishes a meaningful set of benchmarks that will serve as the
basis for not only external scrutiny, but internal management improvements as
well. Organizations like the Office of Government Ethics, the Council of
Governmental Ethics Laws, the Ethics Officer Association, state and local
ethics commissions and boards, the International Institute for Public Ethics,
the Public Management Committee of the OECD, and the American Society
for Public Administration must combine resources to develop a comprehensive set of ethics benchmarks which member organizations can utilize to better gauge the effectiveness of their programs.
The use of performance measures and specific benchmarks will likely
complicate the lives of ethics officials. However, if ethics organizations can

Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 05:09 19 March 2015

1638

Smith

demonstrate to the public and policy makers their successes and difference
their programs make in keeping government more ethical-- then it is worth the
effort.
More to the point, openness, participation, transparency of decision making, and enhanced ethics enforcement in a democracy often pose a serious
threat to the political status quo and power structures within government.
Political deal making and government policy making often flirt with unethical
nuances. But, such bargains and decision making form the basis for how democratic government functions at the local, state, and federal levels. In this
environment, sometimes citizen interests are served, but many times they are
not. Does being more ethical somehow threaten the basis of our system of
governance? Will improvements in ethics programs complicate the business
of government and the conduct of politics? The answers to those questions are
beyond the scope of this article.
In contrast, how do fuzzy mission statements and imprecise standards for
government ethics add to the fabric of democracy? They do not. Herein lies
the value of holding ethics entities to higher, or more precise, standards as to
what constitutes effective ethics programs. Utilizing benchmarks to achieve
these standards and help clarify missions will pinpoint for government ethics
officials and citizens the strengths and weaknesses in our institutions of
democracy. Such clarity of purpose will only serve to strengthen accountability of government. Keeping government accountable and ethical should be the
charge of all government employees and elected leaders. Sadly, government
has a poor track record in this regard.
Notwithstanding the argument about the compliance (legal-based) or
window dressing focus of government ethics programs, the responsibility for
keeping government ethical falls to the ethics commissions, boards and
offices across the nation. If these entities have difficulty in articulating what
constitutes an effective ethics program, then it will be impossible to convince
the American public that government is ethical and accountable to its citizens.
A comprehensive system of ethics benchmarks and standards will help them
make that case.

REFERENCES
1. Osborne, D.; Gaebler, T. Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial
Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector. Addison-Wesley Press: Reading,
MA, 1992.
2. U.S. Public Law 62. 103rd Congress, 1993.
3. Hatry, H. P. Performance Measurement: Getting Results. The Urban Institute Press: Washington, DC, 1999.
4. Ammons, David N. Municipal Benchmarks. Sage Publications: Thousand
Oaks, CA, 2001.

Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 05:09 19 March 2015

Benchmarking Performance in Public Sector Ethics Programs

1639

5. Hazelwood, C. Interview. South Carolina State Ethics Commission, 2001.

6. Carroll, A. A. Commentary and an Overview of Key Questions on Corporate Social Performance Measurement. Business & Society. 2000,
39(4): 466478.
7. Van Allen, D.; Moldow, G.; Cranford, R. Evaluating Ethics Committees.
Hastings Center Report. 1989, 19(5): 2325.
8. See, for example, Anechiarico, F.; Jacobs, J. P. The Pursuit of Absolute
Integrity: How Corruption Control Makes Government Ineffective.
University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 1996; Morgan, P. W.; Reynolds, G.
H. The Appearance of Impropriety in America: How the Ethics Wars Have
Undermined Government, Business, and Society. Free Press: New York,
1997; Mackenzie, G. G.; Hafken, M. Scandal Proof: Do Ethics Laws Make
Government Ethical? Brookings Institution Press: Washington, DC, 2002.
9. Hatry, H. P. Performance Measurement: Getting Results. The Urban
Institute Press: Washington, DC, 1999.
10. Hatry, 1999, 15.
11. Hatry, 1999.
12. Ammons, 1996, 14.
13. Ammons, 1996, 22.
14. Smith, R. W. Enforcement or Ethical Capacity: Considering the Role of
State Ethics Commissions at the Millennium. Public Administration
Review. 2003, 63 (3): 283295.
15. http://www.usoge.gov/pages/about_oge/special_projects_1.html (Accessed
Oct. 2001).
16. Mitchell, J. J. New Challenges for Ethics Committees. Health Progress.
2000, 81 (6): 2225.
17. Mitchell, 2000.
18. United States Office of Government Ethics. Annual Performance Report
FY 1999, March 2000.
19. State of Florida Ethics Commission. Annual Report to the Florida
Legislature for Calendar Year 2000, 2001.
20. State of South Carolina State Ethics Commission. Annual Report
19981999, 2000.
21. City of Seattle Ethics and Election Commission. 2002. http://www.
ci.seattle.wa.us/ ethics/home/strplan.htm (Accessed June 2003).
22. King County Board of Ethics 2001 Annual Report, 2001. http://www.
metrokc.gov/ethics/ethicrpt.pdf (Accessed May 2003).
23. http://www.ussc.gov/ (Accessed June 2003).
24. http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/fraud/fcpa.html) (Accessed June 2003)
25. http://www.ethics.org/articles/ aaudits.html (Accessed July 2003).
26. Lewis, C. W. The Ethics Challenge in Public Service. Jossey-Bass
Publishers: San Francisco, 1991.
27. Presentation by Paul Mackellar of Arthur Andersen at the 10th
International Anti-Corruption Conference, 2001.

1640

Smith

Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 05:09 19 March 2015

28. Kaptein, M. Ethics Management. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Boston,

1998.
29. http://www.10iacc.org/workshops/w02.html (Accessed July 2003).
30. See, for example, Ethics Officer Association. http://www.eoa.org/BCMS/
bcms_ cont.html (accessed May 2003).
31. McInerney, T. F. Issues in the Development of an Anti-Corruption
Management System Standard. Conference Paper. Presented at the 10th
International Anti-Corruption Conference held in Prague, Czech Republic
October 7 11, 2001, 1999.