CIS - Identify causes

Powered by mxGraph

The Capacity, Integrity and Sustainability (CIS) Framework

Download the CIS Framework pdf

This stage of a Community Based Assessment consists of determining the institutional factors that lead to gaps and shortcomings in service delivery. 

The CIS Framework is a simple tool to help move beyond a focus on personnel skills and equipment, and towards three crucial dimensions of institutional survival. Originally designed to look at the capacity and integrity of an institution to be effective and accountable at the individual and organisation level, the model has since evolved to also look at external oversight aspects, as well as at the sustainability or continuity of not only individual posts and functions (recruitment and retention), but also organisational staffing structures and resourcing.

In analysing an institution, the CIS distinguishes between three levels of an institution:

  1. Individual: an individual’s background, education, experience and aptitude that helps him / her accomplish his / her tasks
  2. Organisational: an organisation’s mandate, resources, structures, policies and procedures
  3. External: its interdependence with other institutions

The three quality dimensions of an institution are:

  1. Capacity: existing resources, structures and procedures
  2. Integrity: respect for basic norms and values when using its capacity
  3. Sustainability: conditions for building a stable and sustainable service

At the end of this phase of analysis, the findings are documented in the data sheet.

For every responsible actor identified in the Stakeholder Analysis phase of the CBA, each of these eight categories should be considered to determine all institutional factors that have led to certain gaps and shortcomings. The following questions correspond to the eight categories of the CIS and help to identify these institutional factors.

An overview of common criminal justice needs, particularly in post-conflict and other fragile contexts, and typical institutional factors leading to gaps and shortcomings in service delivery, can be found in the Resources box.

Sub-activities

1. Individual Capacity

1. Do INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY DEFICITS account for why the actor might contribute towards institutional gaps or shortcoming? Please specify the kinds of internal capacity deficits that apply:

  • 1.1. Lack of security of staff?
  • 1.2. Shortcomings in terms of skills/experience and/or a lack of training? Identify these shortcomings and the related training needs for every job category (see 3.3).
  • 1.3. Do staff have sufficient rest, recuperation, and access to mental and physical care services?

2. Individual Integrity

2. Do INDIVIDUAL INTEGRITY DEFICITS account for why the actor might contribute towards institutional gaps or shortcoming? Please specify the kinds of internal capacity deficits that apply:

  • 2.1. Inadequate incentives in terms of salaries and career prospects? Compare to average living costs.
  • 2.2. Lack of respect for basic norms and values by PJC personnel? Please specify:
    • Inadequate professional conduct?
    • Inadequate knowledge of relevant human rights standards?
    • Involvement in human rights violations in the past (identify allegations)?

3. Individual Sustainability

3. Is the SUSTAINABILITY OF INDIVIDUAL POSTS going to contribute towards institutional gaps and shortcomings?

  • 3.1. Will the knowledge and skills contained in an individual be lost if that individual moves on? Is there a robust recruiting and handover procedure in place so that skills, knowledge and ownership survive beyond the incumbent?
  • 3.2. Is there continuous professional development available (beyond initial training programmes) to the individual so that they are able to keep up with developments in the functioning of their post?
  • 3.3. Is there an adequate performance monitoring procedure to provide feedback to the individual that is fair, objective, and constructive?

4. Organisational Capacity

Organisational capacity refers to the institutional qualities such as mandate, the number of staff, their training, professional experience and competence, other resources (budget, infrastructure, equipment), the organisational structure, infrastructure, procedures and information systems.

4. Do organisational capacity deficits account for why the actor directly causes the need in question or why the actor does not meet the need caused by others? Please specify the kinds of organisational capacity deficits that apply:

4.1.   Shortcomings in the normative framework of the actor? Please specify:

  • Conflicting norms or omissions?
  • Conflict between formal rules and cultural norms?
  • Other?

4.2.   Shortcomings in the mandate of the actor? Please specify:

  • Is the provider responsible for delivering the service at issue?
  • What services could possibly satisfy the need?
  • To what extent, if at all is the actor actually delivering?

4.3.   Shortcomings in terms of human resources? Please specify:

  • Inadequate staffing levels? Examine for every relevant staff category.
  • Inadequate balance of substantive versus administrative support staff?
  • Inadequate staffing pyramid (junior-management-leadership)?
  • Inadequate recruitment procedures? Examine for every relevant staff category.
  • Shortcomings in terms of skills and/or a lack of training? Identify these shortcomings and the related training needs for every job category.
  • Is the problem caused by a lack of commitment or competence of the leadership?
  • Inadequate incentives in terms of salaries and career prospects? Compare to average living costs.

4.4.   Budgetary constraints or shortcomings? Please specify:

  • Annual budget inadequate to cover the operational costs of service delivery?
  • Inadequate budget development process?
  • Budget does not correspond to real expenses?
  • Running costs not covered in the budget or not provided in time?

4.5.   Shortcomings of equipment? List equipment available, provide numbers and indicate where repairs are needed. Please specify kind of shortcomings:

  • Insufficient equipment?
  • Inadequate equipment?
  • Equipment in need of repair?
  • Maintenance problems?

4.6.   Shortcomings of infrastructure? Prepare inventory and indicate where repairs or improvements are needed.

4.7.   Lack of security? Please specify:

  • Lack of security for staff, victims, witnesses, or perpetrators?
  • Insufficient protection of forensic evidence?
  • Are procedures, equipment, infrastructure and human resources managed in ways that ensure security?

4.8.   Procedural shortcomings? Please specify:

  • Overly complicated rules and procedures that slow down the operations or limit access to services?
  • Ineffective or inefficient internal management systems (management structure, information systems, resource management, decision-making processes, performance management, etc.)?
  • Suboptimal distribution of resources and workloads (think of work units, geographic and functional distribution of human resources and equipment)?

5. Organisational Integrity

5. Do ORGANISATIONAL INTEGRITY DEFICITS account for why the actor might contribute towards institutional gaps or shortcoming? Please specify the kinds of internal integrity deficits that apply:

5.1. Inadequate rules and procedures to ensure that basic human rights, norms and values are respected? Please specify:

  • Are recruitment and appointment procedures transparent and fair, and based on criteria such as
  • Do codes of conduct provide clear and specific norms and values?
  • Are the disciplinary and complaint procedures fair? Do they provide protection against arbitrary
  • Do vetting processes exist, are they effective and do they meet basic due process standards?
  • Do rules and procedures ensure sufficient transparency? Focus on: public access to trials, public

5.2. Lack of adequate representation of one or several communities or groups? Please specify:

  • Gender
  • Ethnicity
  • Religion
  • Regions, etc.

5.3. Lack of appropriate structures and mechanisms to protect the rights of minorities and vulnerable groups (e.g. child-friendly policies)?

5.4. Political or other interference in the criminal justice chain? Please categorize the type and source of interference, and for every category, try to assess the frequency and the consequences of these interferences:

  • Hierarchy
  • Peers
  • Other actors of the criminal justice chain competence, integrity and merit? decisions and include appeal mechanisms? reports on misconduct, public reports on budgets and expenditures, accessibility of procedures (fees, rights and obligations), etc.

6. Organisational Sustainability

6. Do ORGANISATIONAL SUSTAINABILITY DEFICITS account for why the actor might contribute towards institutional gaps or shortcoming?

6.1. Does the survival of the organisation depend heavily on a key leader within the organisation, or patronage outside the organisation?

6.2. Budgetary constraints or shortcomings? Please specify:

  • Annual budget inadequate to cover the operational costs of service delivery?
  • Inadequate budget development process?
  • Budget does not correspond to real expenses?
  • Running costs not covered in the budget or not provided in time?

6.3. Can equipment and infrastructure be serviced and maintained within the skills and budget available within the organisation?

6.4. Does the organisation have a robust enough self evaluation mechanism to manage development, change, organisational shock, and risks or threats?


7. External Capacity

External capacity refers to cooperation and interactions of the actor with other actors (e.g. within the criminal justice chain), and also to national strategies, guidance, management and other support provided to the actor by ministries and other institutions.

7. Do external capacity deficits account for why the actor directly causes the need in question or why the actor does not meet the need caused by others?

The nature of the cooperation arrangements between the different actors of the criminal justice chain impact significantly on the performance of its actors. Weaknesses, gaps or bottlenecks in the chain can undermine the ability of the entire system to deliver criminal justice services and can become a source of inefficiency or abuse. The UNODC chart of decision points can be used to identify the formal relationships between actors in the criminal justice chain, as well as with actors outside the chain (see below).

Click on the image above to enlarge and open in a new window.

Please specify the kinds of external capacity deficits that apply:

7.1.   Inadequate cooperation procedures between the actor and other actors of the criminal chain? Please specify:

  • Lack of clarity in their respective responsibilities?
  • Overlap of responsibilities or gaps that create legal create legal uncertainty (e.g. conflicting decisions, or an absence of hierarchy of norms)?
  • Overly complicated cooperation procedures and undue legal delays?
  • Cumbersome case tracking systems and record-keeping systems?

7.2.   Lack of actual collaboration between the actor and other actors of the criminal justice chain? Please specify and pay particular attention to:

  • Collaboration between police and prosecution service in the course of criminal investigations: Who is leading? Have priorities clearly been defined and agreed to and are investigators and other police actors aware of these?
  • Collaboration between police, prosecution service, corrections system and courts to avoid prolonged pre-trial detention: Is there a shared system to track individual suspects as they move through the criminal justice chain? If so it adequate? Is it respected?
  • Collaboration between police, prosecution service, courts and the corrections system to enforce court decision, e.g. to ensure detention, to avoid escapes and to enforce indemnity rulings?
  • Collaboration on cases concerning human rights violations involving criminal justice or other government officials?

7.3.   Ineffective or inefficient external guidance, management or other support provided by relevant government actors? Please pay particular attention to:

  • Information systems
  • Decision processes
  • External resources management such as budgetary or recruitment processes

8. External Integrity

External integrity relates to various means of formal and informal external oversight (parliamentary, political, independent, media…) to monitor the institution’s respect for basic norms and values, as well as to safeguards to prevent political interference and ensure independence.

8. Do external integrity deficits account for why the actor directly causes the need in question or why the actor does not meet the need caused by others? Please specify the kinds of external integrity deficits that apply:

8.1.     Ineffective or inefficient external accountability and oversight procedures (parliamentary, political, independent, informal)? Please specify and pay particular attention to:

  • Budgetary accountability
  • Formal procedures to independently investigate instances of alleged misconduct
  • Procedures to hold actors politically accountable
  • Possibilities for citizens to initiate an investigation into alleged misconduct or an alleged miscarriage of justice
  • Independent oversight mechanisms such independent oversight boards, judicial commissions, independent human rights commissions, ombudsperson offices, etc.
  • External vetting processes
  • Oversight by media and civil society organisations

8.2.     Lack of capacity and/or integrity on the part of external oversight bodies? What are the roots of these deficits of the oversight bodies?

8.3.     External interference in the functioning of actors or directly in proceedings in the criminal justice chain? Please identify and categorize the source of interference, and describe the type (bribery, threats, political benefits, etc.), frequency and consequences of interference:

  • Political actors
  • Security forces
  • Social/religious/ethnic groups