Integrity Scanner
Civic Accountability Platform
🔍 Civic Accountability Tool — Local Data Only

Institution
Integrity Scanner

A structured framework for analysing institutional health — tracing power flows, financial patterns, governance quality, and real-world impact. No cloud sync. No telemetry. Fully offline-capable.

72
Integrity Score
↑ +4 pts this quarter
61
Transparency Index
↓ −2 pts pending audit
3
Active Alerts
→ unchanged
89%
Budget Utilisation
↑ on target
14
Open Records Requests
↑ +6 vs. last month
4.2
Stakeholder Satisfaction
↑ /5.0
🎯
Module 01
Mission Dashboard
⚠ Partial

Tracks the institution's stated goals against measurable outcomes. Each indicator maps a public commitment to a verifiable metric, surfacing gaps between rhetoric and reality. Analysts should cross-reference with the Financial Flow and Ledger modules.

⚠ Two key performance indicators are below target. Review budget allocation in the Financial module to diagnose root causes.
Mission Objective Progress
Community Outreach88%
Policy Implementation72%
Accountability Reporting54%
Stakeholder Inclusion79%
Financial Disclosure46%
Budget vs. Outcomes (USD M)
50 37 25 0 Q1 Budget: $45M Q2 Budget: $50M Q3 Budget: $40M Q4 Budget: $43M Q1 Outcomes: $35M value Q2 Outcomes: $43M value Q3 Outcomes: $33M value Q4 Outcomes: $39M value Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Budget Outcomes

An interactive network graph of institutional actors, roles, and influence relationships. Nodes sized by authority index. Edge thickness indicates dependency strength. Identified choke points — single actors controlling critical flows — are marked in amber.

ℹ Hover nodes to see role details. Choke points (amber) indicate single-points-of-failure in decision chains. Tip: look for actors with many incoming but few outgoing edges.
Board of Directors — Authority Index: 98. Controls budget approval, CEO appointment, and audit oversight. Choke point: all major decisions route here. Board CEO / Director — Authority Index: 87. Choke point: sole authority over staffing and contract approvals. CEO Legal Counsel — Authority Index: 72. Reviews all external contracts. Dual-reports to Board and CEO. Legal Finance Dept — Authority Index: 60. Processes payments, manages accounts. Finance HR Department — Authority Index: 45. Manages recruitment, performance reviews. HR External Auditor — Authority Index: 55. Annual audit only; limited interim access. Audit Compliance Officer — Authority Index: 50. Reports to Legal. No direct Board access. Comply Whistleblower Channel — Authority Index: 20. Anonymous intake only. Response rate: 43%. WB Procurement — Authority Index: 35. Manages vendor selection under $500k. Procure Communications — Authority Index: 30. Controls external messaging. Comms High authority Choke point Supporting role
ActorChoke Point RiskConcentration IssueMitigation
Board of DirectorsMEDIUMBudget + CEO appointment combinedSeparate audit committee with external majority
CEO / DirectorHIGHSole signatory on all contractsCo-signatory requirement above $50k
Whistleblower ChannelLOWLow response rate (43%) is a concernThird-party anonymous intake + SLA

Traces all major funding sources, internal transfers, and expenditure categories. Flags statistical outliers — transactions that deviate significantly from historical patterns. Cross-reference with the Transparency Ledger for contract-level detail.

⚠ Irregularity detected: Q3 vendor payments exceeded category baseline by 340%. Contract #V-2025-91 warrants review. See Transparency Ledger entry 2025-09-14.
Revenue Streams
Government Grants: 43% Endowment: 26% Private Donations: 18% Service Fees: 13% $178M
Gov. Grants 43%
Endowment 26%
Donations 18%
Fees 13%
Expenditure Breakdown
Programme Delivery$68M
Administration$29M
Vendor Contracts$41M ⚑
Capital Projects$22M
Research & Evaluation$18M
Transaction Anomaly Heatmap (monthly, past 24 months)
Low anomaly
High anomaly

A chronological, append-only log of decisions, contracts, policy changes, and official documents. Stakeholders can verify that published actions match stated mission intent. Use filters to isolate category or date range.

2026-03-05
Anomaly Flag: Vendor contract #V-2025-91 — payment 340% above category baseline. Referred for internal review.
ALERT Flagged by: Automated Analytics · Status: Under Review
2026-03-01
Annual Audit Report 2025 — Independent external audit completed. 4 recommendations issued. 1 material finding.
AUDIT Auditor: Ernst & Partners · Report ID: AUD-2025-F
2026-02-10
Procurement Contract #A1024 — IT infrastructure renewal. Vendor: CloudSafe Ltd. Value: $4.2M. 3-year term.
CONTRACT Approved by: CEO + Board Finance Committee
2026-01-15
Policy Update — Health Initiative 2026: Expanded community health access programme. Budget: $12M. Scope: 3 districts.
POLICY Ratified: Full Board · Public comment period: 21 days
2025-09-14
Vendor Contract #V-2025-91 — Consulting services, strategic advisory. Value: $1.7M. No competitive tender documented.
CONTRACT ⚠ Approved by: CEO only · Tender waiver: uncorroborated
2025-06-30
Mid-Year Compliance Review — 7 of 9 compliance items satisfactory. 2 items deferred to Q4 with approved remediation plan.
AUDIT Reviewer: Internal Compliance · Ref: ICR-2025-H1
2025-04-01
Whistleblower Policy Revised — Anonymous intake extended. Response SLA set at 30 business days. Third-party triage added.
POLICY Ratified: Board HR Committee

Maps the formal governance structure — roles, appointment and removal processes, oversight layers, and committee mandates. Highlights structural gaps (e.g., committees with no independent members, roles with no defined term limits).

Governance Health Scorecard
Board Independence60%
Term Limit Compliance85%
Committee Coverage75%
Conflict of Interest Disclosures50%
Meeting Quorum Rate93%
Leadership Roster
RoleTenureNext ReviewStatus
Board Chair4.2 yrs2027-01OK
CEO7.8 yrsOverdueOVERDUE
CFO2.1 yrs2026-12OK
Audit Committee Chair6.0 yrs2026-06WARN
Compliance Officer1.5 yrs2027-03OK

Maps formal reward and penalty structures to predicted behavioural outcomes. Reveals where incentives are misaligned with the public mission — for example, where bonus criteria reward volume over quality, or where penalties disincentivise accurate reporting.

⚠ Perverse incentive identified: Executive bonuses are tied to budget underspend, which may discourage full programme delivery. Consider outcome-based metrics instead.
Incentive → Behaviour → Outcome Chain
Incentive: Bonus tied to budget underspend
→
Behaviour: Managers defer spending to next period
→
Outcome: Programmes under-resourced → mission shortfall
Incentive: Promotion requires zero incident reports
→
Behaviour: Staff under-report issues
→
Outcome: Problems escalate; transparency gap widens
Incentive: Recognition award for innovation proposals
→
Behaviour: Staff submit reform ideas
→
Outcome: Continuous improvement culture strengthens
Incentive: Whistleblower protections clearly stated
→
Behaviour: Staff report concerns early
→
Outcome: Issues caught before they escalate
Recommended Realignments
Current IncentiveProblemRecommended FixPriority
Bonus = budget underspendDeters deliveryTie bonus to programme outcome scoresHIGH
No-incident promotion ruleSuppresses reportingReward accurate disclosures; separate from promotionHIGH
No peer recognition schemeSiloed cultureAdd cross-team kudos programmeMED

Aggregates qualitative and quantitative feedback from citizens, staff, and clients. Sentiment analysis highlights dominant themes. Service metrics (wait times, access rates) are tracked against equity benchmarks. No individual data is stored or exposed.

Sentiment Distribution (n=842 responses)
😊
Positive — services improved, staff helpful
58%
😐
Neutral — adequate but room to improve
24%
😟
Negative — delays, access barriers, unclear comms
18%
Top Positive Themes
Staff responsiveness Programme quality Accessibility
Top Concern Themes
Wait times Communication gaps Rural access
Service Access Metrics
Average Wait Time8.4 days
Service Coverage (geographic)73%
Equity Access Score61%
First Contact Resolution79%
Appeals Upheld vs. Denied34%

A structured space to model and evaluate governance reforms before implementation. Select a reform type below to see its estimated impact profile across integrity dimensions. Case studies from comparable institutions are embedded for context.

Independent Audit Mandate

Require external auditor rotation every 5 years with board-independent selection.

Executive Term Limits

Cap CEO tenure at 7 years. Mandatory 2-year gap before re-appointment.

Open Procurement Rule

All contracts above $50k require public competitive tender with published results.

Participatory Budgeting

Allocate 15% of discretionary budget via community voting panels.

Whistleblower Legal Shield

Codify protections preventing retaliation with independent ombudsperson intake.

Selected: Independent Audit Mandate

Transparency Improvement+22%
Fraud Risk Reduction−31%
Implementation Cost$280k/yr

Case study: Wellington City Council (2019) achieved 28% reduction in procurement irregularities within 18 months of independent audit mandate adoption.

Adjust levers to model how changes in funding, governance, and staffing affect projected integrity scores over the next 5 years. All projections are illustrative models — not forecasts. Use them to stress-test assumptions and identify vulnerabilities.

0%
12%
3
5
100 75 50 25 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2026: 72 Current trajectory Your scenario

Scenario Projection

Adjust the sliders above to model different futures. Current projection: Integrity score reaches ~84 by 2030 under moderate reform adoption.