Evaluation of Public Administration Organization: MCG Company

Description of the Company 

The MCG Company is a global hub for research, collaboration, and innovation in the productivity of the government, coupled with analysis of the performance of governmental agencies. Since its inception in 1990, the company has strived to draw its deep expertise and network across the public, the private, and the social sectors in the provision of insights, new approaches and connections to the government leaders to help them improve the quality of services to the people ( Beeri et al., 2013) . The organization helps the government when faced with pressing administrative questions such as raising the productivity by boosting outcomes at no extra cost. As a public administration organization, MCG is funded by the government, where it is expected to report its annual expenditures including those for research, innovation, and wages to the Federal Auditors ( Giriūnas & Mackevičius, 2014) . The annual budget for the company in 2017 was $10.2 billion, where the company spent most of its expenditure went to assisting the three-grant making units of law enforcement agencies in the development of the workforce-planning model and training of the management systems within the public-finance sector. 

Main Services it provides to the Public 

MCG prides in supporting more than 500 public sector organization projects. The organization supports wide organizational redesign at the law enforcement agency. It also helps the public finance organization in improving talents in management including the provision of training services, helping the organization to reduce the time of hire and provision of the best working environment for the public sector. It also helps the law enforcement agency in the development of a sound workforce model and in coming up with the best talent strategies that help in the achievement of fact-based resource planning as well as the provision of information on the long-term human capital strategies ( Beeri et al., 2013) . The organization is also tasked with conducting organizational diagnostic by application of their proprietary organizational health index. It is also committed to funding for health solutions to the teams and identification of areas for improvement in the healthcare. 

Significance of Corruption 

Over the past five years, the company has been leveled with high incidences of corruption. In 2013, the CEO of the company was involved in a scandal, where he was reported to have received a bribe of $1 million to favor a healthcare organization that could be contracted to carry out an organizational diagnostic procedure for the teams in the law enforcement agency ( Giriūnas & Mackevičius, 2014) . This implies that the company has had several incidences of improper procurement procedure, where it favors certain companies that are allied to the management boards ( Beeri et al., 2013) . In 2016, the company was reported to have inflated its budget by $2.1 billion, where audits showed that the excess funds were used on the remuneration of higher management teams. Last year, the company was reported to be having fictitious accounts that are holding $3.1 in cash reserves, while the bank accounts are associated with the families of the higher management teams. 

Length of Corruption 

Since its inception in 1999, the company has had several cases of corruption, which implies that the problem has been experienced for the past 18 years. The level of corruption has been growing, where the amount that has been embezzled from the public cougher has grown larger over the past decades. From 2000-2005, the personnel in the organization especially the management teams were reported to be participating in minor forms of corruptions such as bribes during procurement processes ( Giriūnas & Mackevičius, 2014) . However, as the budgetary allocation for the organization ballooned, major incidences of corruption have been experienced. The current forms of corruption include making huge sums of deposits in fictitious bank accounts and misrepresentation of the annual budget for the benefit of the management boards ( Beeri et al., 2013) . This implies that the expansion of the services of the organization with the increase in funding has prompted the management to steal more funds from the organization over the past decades. 

Performance Evaluation 

The performance evaluation will be carried out over a period of five months. The five-month-period is essential as it will help in carrying out a comprehensive employee appraisal, while it will be made up of different methods of performance evaluation. Multiple evaluation methods will be viable in getting the broader picture of how the company has been conducting its activities including the expenditures and the role of the employees in its performance. 

Assessments in the Evaluation 

The evaluation will assess the factors responsible for corruption in the public organization basing on the nature of the duties of the management teams and the specific characteristics of the corruption ( Beeri et al., 2013) . The first assessment will be the nature of the establishment and management of the anti-corruption systems. The other area of assessment will be the determination of the leaders to fight corruption. The next area will look at the comprehensive measures that have been put in place for institutional improvement. The next area will be to assess the compliance with the code of conduct as stipulated in the code of law ( Giriūnas & Mackevičius, 2014) . The last area will be an assessment of the anti-corruption training and activities that have been put in place since the inception of the organization. 

Outcomes 

The first outcome of the evaluation will be introduction and dissemination of the best practices of responding to the problem of corruption in the organization. The other outcome will be the implementation of the recommendations that are made by the ACRC, while there will be a system of voluntary efforts for institutional improvement ( Beeri et al., 2013) . It is also expected that after the evaluation, there will be high levels of willingness to implement institutional improvement whenever incidences of corruption occur. The other outcome will be high levels of proclivity among employees, including whistleblowing and the introduction of the best practices of the code of conduct as set by the law. 

References 

Beeri, I., Dayan, R., Vigoda-Gadot, E., & Werner, S. B. (2013). Advancing ethics in public organizations: The impact of an ethics program on employees’ perceptions and behaviors in a regional council.  Journal of business ethics ,  112 (1), 59-78. 

Giriūnas, L., & Mackevičius, J. (2014). Evaluation of frauds in public sector.  Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues , 143-150.