You are here

Methodology

Transparency International (TI) Ireland’s National Integrity Index on Local Authorities is composed of a set of 30 indicators, measuring the systems and practices of Ireland’s 31 local authorities to promote and ensure transparency, accountability and ethics. Each local authority is assessed against each indicator, receiving one point where fulfilling the indicator, and zero points when not fulfilling the indicator. The sum of points received is then converted to a percentage (points out of 30), rounded to the nearest whole number, and then used as the respective local authority’s score, and to allocate its ranking in the index.

The Indicator Reference Sheet (provided on the Indicators page), explains the importance and justification for including each indicator, as well as the marking scheme, and the source of the information (e.g. council websites, emails to councils, phone calls to councils, and freedom of information requests.)

Development of the methodology

TI Ireland developed the project based on similar indices and similar methodologies carried out by TI National Chapters in other European countries (in particular Austria, Portugal, Slovakia and Ukraine). In adapting the indicators to the local context and to ensure they covered the issues relevant to local government in Ireland, TI Ireland consulted with the Standards in Public Office Commission (SIPO), the Local Government Audit Service (LGAS), the Office of the Information Commissioner, two academic institutions, a former Director of Services in a local authority and a former County Manager in a local authority. This was to ensure a necessary balance of perspectives, namely academia, central government, local government, as well as rural experience and urban experience.

TI Ireland consulted on the methodology with individuals formerly, but not currently, associated with local authorities, to avoid giving any local authority an advantage over its counterparts. If shared with all local authorities, it would not have been possible to obtain an accurate, unbiased snapshot of current practices. Furthermore, an aim of the study was to capture and understand the experience of typical citizens in consulting their local government, which would not have been possible had the methodology and marking scheme been shared ahead of time. TI Ireland informed local authorities that it was undertaking research when gathering information by phone and email. However, little information was provided to authorities on the methodology, to avoid any possible bias in their responses.

Structure of the methodology

TI Ireland understands the complexity in ranking local authorities based on various performance indicators, especially given the varying environments, sizes and contexts across the 31 authorities. As such, this methodology is based on a simple binary system of yes-or-no questions, all of which TI Ireland expects local authorities should and can fulfil, regardless of budget, location or number of staff.

A number of possible indicators were considered when developing the methodology, with multiple indicators removed that were considered too demanding for smaller authorities. When analysing the final data, there was no statistical relationship between the size of a local authority (whether budget or number of staff) and its performance in the index.

The National Oversight and Audit Commission’s (NOAC) performance indicators for local government were considered. Some loosely relate to accountability but given that they are intended to measure management rather than transparency, accountability and ethics, they are not directly relevant to this research. Much of the data published by NOAC is not appropriate for comparative purposes. Some of this data was instead used for regression analysis with the study’s final data. For example, some interesting insights were obtained when regressing the annual budget deficit indicator on the local authorities’ performances in the ranking (see ‘Findings’ section in the report).

It was not feasible to address every corruption and ethics-related risk in the list of indicators. Where additional risks arise, they could be included in future editions of the index.

Data collection

TI Ireland took every reasonable step to obtain the data for each respective indicator. However, if there were obstacles to obtaining data or a local authority was not forthcoming with information, no points were awarded to those authorities. For example, while nearly all local authorities have easily accessible information online on planning applications, one local authority's page required advanced IT skills to access the information on the page. No points are merited in such cases. Likewise, an authority may maintain that certain information is published on its website. If TI Ireland’s team of researchers cannot find this information after an exhaustive search, then a typical citizen is unlikely to find this information, and hence no points can be awarded.

Similarly, when calling and emailing local authorities, TI Ireland called and/or emailed each local authority initially and, if not reaching them on the first attempt, provided at least two follow-up calls and/or emails. Voicemails or messages were left with the officials’ colleagues when calling, and follow-up emails were sent when no voicemail response was received. Delivery receipts were always used, to ensure emails were delivered. If there was no response from the authority after the third attempt, questions were not pursued further and no points were given. A citizen should not have to call or email his or her local authority four times in order to obtain public information.