Problem

The main reasons that prevent authorized anticorruption units (officers) (hereinafter referred to as “anticorruption officers”) from unlocking their full potential are the lack of the manager’s leadership in establishing anticorruption standards in the operations of the institution, the lack of understanding and rejection by the manager of the benefits of the efforts of the anticorruption officer as an independent professional who ensures the implementation of anticorruption policy at the institution; some degree of legal uncertainty surrounding the establishment of the anticorruption unit (appointment / designation of the anticorruption officer) tasked with prevention and detection of corruption at specific government agencies, business entities in the public sector of the economy, as well as the legal status of such units (officers); the lack of a system of professional development of anticorruption officers and their underdeveloped professional network; the lack of clear priorities in the activities of anticorruption officers; the lack of clear guarantees of autonomy.
The lack of a manager’s leadership in establishing anticorruption standards in the operations of the institution is primarily due to the insufficient understanding by the manager of the institution of the requirements of anticorruption legislation regarding the manager’s leadership mission, the obligation to integrate a system of corruption prevention into the institution’s activities, the scope and lines of corruption prevention efforts, liability for failure to comply with the requirements of the legislation governing its proper organization and the benefits of its effectiveness, as well as inconsistency of the legislation governing the matters of subordination, accountability, and control over anticorruption officers at all levels of public governance.
The legal uncertainty surrounding the establishment of the anticorruption unit (appointment / designation of the anticorruption officer) at some government agencies and public sector business entities is due to insufficient regulation of the matter regarding the possibility of appointment of anticorruption officers at general courts and business entities.
The fact that two different types of anticorruption officers (anticorruption officers at public institutions, whose legal status is defined by Article 131 of the Law of Ukraine On Prevention of Corruption, and anticorruption officers tasked with the implementation of anticorruption programs of legal entities, whose legal status is defined by Articles 62 and 64 of this Law) exist within the legal landscape leads to excessively complicated legal regulation and errors in the application of laws.
Due to the lack of a system of professional development of anticorruption officers as professionals who ensure the implementation of anticorruption policy in the activities of institutions and the fledgling professional network of anticorruption officers, there is a need to create a management model for organizing training that will ensure the training of a pool of human resources for the positions of anticorruption officers as well as specialized training of incumbent anticorruption officers. As a separate element of the system, the occupation of the anticorruption officer needs to be popularized and the value of anticorruption work needs to be increased in the eyes of managers of public and private sector institutions.
The lack of clearly defined priorities in the work of the anticorruption officers is one of the reasons for the widespread practice of improper organization and planning of anticorruption workflows at the institution, the fact that the functional duties of the anticorruption officer are primarily associated with the organization of the declaration campaign, and perception of such areas of work as corruption risk management, review of draft acts for factors fostering corruption, and so forth as being of secondary importance.
The insufficient level of autonomy of the anticorruption officer is primarily due to vague legislative guarantees of their independence, virtually unlimited discretion of the manager of the institution in the matters of changing its structure or staff list, which leads to the transfer or dismissal of employees of the anticorruption unit, non-compliance by managers with the mandatory requirements for the minimum staff headcount of the anticorruption unit, limited guarantees against unlawful dismissal at the initiative of the manager, and the dependence of the paycheck of employees of the anticorruption unit on discretionary decisions of the manager of the institution.
These factors hinder the formation of balanced systems for preventing corruption at government agencies, local self-government bodies, and business entities, and also impair the effectiveness of anticorruption compliance in each of the areas of public policy implementation at the national, regional, and local levels.