Skip to main content
Policy Authority
Category: Privacy and Security

Integrated Data Privacy Capability Model

Also known as: Integrated Data Privacy
Simply put

The Integrated Data Privacy Capability Model is a set of open-source standards published by OCEG to help organizations design, operate, and assess their approach to protecting personal data. It offers step-by-step guidance that organizations can adapt to their own circumstances rather than a one-size-fits-all rulebook. It is intended to bring privacy activities together with broader governance, management, and assurance efforts.

Formal definition

The Integrated Data Privacy Capability Model is a capability model developed by OCEG that establishes standards from which an organization may customize its approach to data privacy governance, management, and assurance. Distributed as a free, open-source resource, it provides guidance on designing, running, and assessing a data privacy program, and is positioned to integrate privacy with related disciplines including governance, strategy, performance, risk, compliance, ethics, security, and audit. As a capability model, it defines standards and guidance for building and evaluating an organization's privacy program rather than prescribing specific legal requirements; jurisdiction-specific and sector-specific privacy obligations, implementation tooling, and legal advice fall outside its scope. A related credential, the Integrated Data Privacy Professional (IDPP) certification, is offered by OCEG in connection with the Model.

Why it matters

Data privacy programs frequently develop in isolation from an organization's broader governance, risk, and compliance structures, leaving privacy activities disconnected from strategy, security, ethics, and assurance. This fragmentation can create gaps where personal data is not adequately protected and where accountability for privacy outcomes is unclear. The Integrated Data Privacy Capability Model addresses this by offering a set of standards that organizations can adapt to bring privacy into alignment with related disciplines rather than treating it as a standalone compliance exercise.

Because the Model is distributed as a free, open-source resource, it lowers the barrier for organizations of varying sizes and sectors to establish or evaluate a structured approach to privacy governance, management, and assurance. According to OCEG, the Model is designed to help organizations avoid the types of problems that Drizly appears to have had, illustrating the practical intent behind an integrated rather than siloed approach.

It is important to note what the Model does not do. As a capability model, it defines standards and guidance for designing, running, and assessing a privacy program; it does not prescribe specific legal requirements. Jurisdiction-specific and sector-specific privacy obligations, implementation tooling, and legal advice fall outside its scope, so organizations should continue to consult applicable laws and qualified advisors alongside adopting the Model.

Who it's relevant to

Privacy and data protection professionals
Those responsible for designing, operating, or assessing a data privacy program can use the Model as a set of adaptable standards to structure their approach and align privacy activities with broader organizational disciplines.
Governance, risk, and compliance practitioners
GRC professionals seeking to integrate privacy with governance, strategy, performance, risk, compliance, ethics, security, and audit may use the Model to connect privacy efforts to related functions rather than managing them in isolation.
Internal auditors and assurance functions
The Model provides guidance for assessing a data privacy program, which can support assurance activities. Consistent with independence and objectivity principles, assurance professionals should distinguish their evaluative role from the management activities that design and operate the privacy controls being assessed.
Professionals pursuing certification
Individuals interested in demonstrating expertise in integrated data privacy may pursue the Integrated Data Privacy Professional (IDPP) certification, which OCEG offers in connection with the Model.

Inside Integrated Data Privacy Capability Model

Capability Domains
The model is typically organized into thematic domains that group related privacy activities, such as governance and accountability, data lifecycle management, individual rights handling, and third-party or processor oversight. The specific domains vary by implementation and are not standardized across all frameworks.
Maturity Levels
A graduated scale (commonly ranging from ad hoc or initial through to optimized or continuously improving) used to characterize how consistently and effectively privacy capabilities are performed. The number and labeling of levels differ between models.
Governance and Accountability Elements
Components addressing decision rights, roles, and oversight for privacy, including assignment of accountability (for example to a privacy officer or equivalent role where required by jurisdiction) and policy structures. This spans the governance pillar of GRC.
Risk Management Integration
Elements linking privacy activities to the identification, assessment, and treatment of privacy-related risks, such as privacy impact or data protection impact assessments where applicable. This connects the model to the risk management pillar.
Compliance and Control Components
Elements mapping privacy capabilities to applicable legal, regulatory, and internal policy obligations, and to the controls implemented to meet them. Applicability depends on jurisdiction, sector, and organization size.
Assessment and Measurement Criteria
Defined indicators or evidence expectations used to evaluate the presence and maturity of each capability, supporting repeatable and comparable assessments over time.

Common questions

Answers to the questions practitioners most commonly ask about Integrated Data Privacy Capability Model.

Is an Integrated Data Privacy Capability Model the same as a compliance checklist for data protection laws?
No. A capability model describes and assesses the maturity of an organization's privacy-related capabilities, such as governance structures, risk processes, and control activities, rather than enumerating specific legal obligations. Compliance with laws such as the EU GDPR or other jurisdictional regimes is a distinct activity concerned with adherence to enforceable requirements. A capability model may help an organization structure the capabilities that support compliance, but demonstrating maturity against a model does not by itself evidence compliance with any particular law. The two should not be conflated, and applicable legal requirements vary by jurisdiction, sector, and organization.
Does a high maturity rating under a privacy capability model mean an organization's data is secure and its privacy risk is eliminated?
No. A maturity rating typically reflects how consistently and systematically privacy capabilities are established and operated; it is not a guarantee of any outcome. Residual risk commonly remains even where capabilities are assessed as mature, and a favorable assessment does not eliminate the possibility of a breach, a control failure, or a regulatory finding. Maturity assessments also address privacy capabilities broadly and are not a substitute for information security controls, which pursue related but distinct objectives. Ratings should be read as indicators of capability, not assurances of protection.
Which functions typically own the assessment against a privacy capability model, and how does that relate to assurance independence?
In many organizations the capabilities themselves are owned and operated by management functions, often described as the first line, with a privacy or risk function in a second-line advisory and oversight role. A self-assessment against the model is generally a management activity. Where independent assurance over the assessment is sought, that work is commonly performed by internal audit or an external party operating with independence and objectivity, consistent with the three lines model articulated by the IIA. It is important to keep the assessment of capabilities distinct from independent assurance over that assessment.
How can an organization decide which capability domains to prioritize?
Prioritization is typically informed by the organization's risk assessment, its risk appetite and tolerance, applicable legal and regulatory context, and the criticality of the processing activities involved. Capabilities supporting areas of higher inherent privacy risk, or where current maturity is furthest from the desired target state, are commonly addressed first. Prioritization decisions may differ across jurisdictions, sectors, and organization sizes, so a uniform ordering should not be assumed. This entry does not prescribe a specific sequence or provide legal advice on obligations.
How does a capability model relate to established frameworks an organization may already use?
Capability models are often positioned to complement, rather than replace, broader governance and risk frameworks. Organizations may map capability domains to structures such as the COSO ERM framework, the risk management principles of ISO 31000, or compliance management approaches such as ISO 37301, and to sector or jurisdiction-specific requirements. The precise mapping depends on which frameworks an organization has adopted and its context. This entry does not cover the detailed clauses of any specific framework.
What outputs commonly result from an assessment, and how are they typically used?
An assessment commonly produces a current-state maturity view across capability domains, an identification of gaps against a defined target state, and a basis for improvement planning. These outputs are often used to inform prioritized remediation activities and to support reporting to governance bodies. The results are generally indicative and depend on the scope, evidence, and rigor of the assessment. This entry does not address specific tooling, scoring scales, or implementation methods, which vary by organization and by the model adopted.

Common misconceptions

A capability maturity model measures legal compliance, so reaching a high maturity level means the organization is compliant with privacy law.
Maturity reflects how consistently and effectively capabilities are performed, not whether specific legal obligations are met. Compliance depends on applicable laws in each jurisdiction and on the adequacy of controls; a high maturity rating does not by itself demonstrate or guarantee compliance.
The model is a management control, and assessing it can be treated the same as auditing the controls it describes.
Applying the model to guide and operate privacy capabilities is a management activity, whereas independent evaluation of those capabilities is an assurance activity. Keeping the two distinct preserves the independence and objectivity expected of assurance functions.
There is one universal, standardized set of domains and maturity levels that applies to every organization.
Domains, level definitions, and applicable requirements commonly vary by framework, jurisdiction, industry, and organization size. The model should be interpreted and tailored to context rather than treated as a fixed universal standard.

Best practices

Tailor the domains and maturity criteria to your organization's jurisdiction, sector, and size rather than adopting a generic scale unchanged.
Explicitly map capabilities to applicable legal and regulatory obligations and to internal policies, distinguishing what is required from what is discretionary good practice.
Clearly separate management use of the model from independent assurance over it, preserving the objectivity of any reviewing function.
Link privacy capabilities to your risk management process so assessment results inform risk identification, assessment, and treatment decisions.
Define evidence expectations for each capability so maturity assessments are repeatable, comparable, and defensible over time.
Treat maturity ratings as an indicator of process consistency, not as a statement of compliance, and validate compliance separately against applicable requirements.
Promotional banner for the Penetration Report Template Kit