OECD Public Governance Reviews Supreme Audit Institutions And Good Governance by Perpustakaan_Integriti

OECD Public Governance Reviews Supreme Audit Institutions And Good Governance

3 – SUPREME AUDIT INSTITUTIONS’ INPUT INTO POLICY IMPLEMENTATION – 111

Box 3.2. The SAI of Poland – the annual state budget execution audit (continued) Criteria Country laws, KNIS, entity objectives, foreign laws (EU regulations), international principles (INTOSAI, EUROSAI and IFAC standards).

Resources The budgetary audit was carried out between January and May 2015, mainly by SAI auditors with experience of financial and performance audits. Auditors also needed a good knowledge in the area of management control systems in order to analyse financial statements and their individual elements. Audit activity was supported by the Computer Analysis Assisted Tool, the SAI’s own software solution for statistical sampling and databases analysis. The help of external experts and specialists was not needed.

Outcomes Audit results, presented both in the form of aggregated analysis and reports corresponding to approximately 80 budgetary elements, are discussed with relevant parliamentary committees. The analysis constitutes the basis on which Parliament issues the resolution granting discharge to the government for the financial year. Some audit results are subject to media attention.

Good practices used The budgetary audits influence the improvement of financial management in the public sector. As a result of the last budgetary audit, Poland’s SAI, NIK, recommended changes including: the implementation of performance budgeting, broadening and strengthening the internal control system, the application of international accounting standards, and IT techniques development. When taking a multi-year perspective, the soundness of financial management has been significantly enhanced.

Lessons learned The SAI has changed its approach to budgetary audits in an attempt to apply more risk analysis and to concentrate on areas where the usage of auditing resources is the most effective. The SAI has also become more accustomed to IT advances, especially in statistical sampling processes. General utility of the budgetary audit is connected to stakeholders’ interests. It is therefore necessary to link typical financial (compliance) audits with performance audits, as these results are more interesting for stakeholders.

Further reading www.nik.gov.pl/plik/id,6907.pdf. www.nik.gov.pl/analiza-budzetu-panstwa/archiwum/. Source: OECD Survey of Peer Supreme Audit Institutions; further reading links above.

OECD Public Governance Reviews Supreme Audit Institutions And Good Governance

Articles inside

References

Notes

in EU agencies

4.7. The SAI of Brazil – audit for national development policy

4.6. The SAI of South Africa – auditing for accountability and inclusivity

4.5. The SAI of the Netherlands – auditing for accountability and inclusivity

4.4. The SAI of Korea – auditing for accountability and inclusivity

4.3. The SAI of Canada – auditing for accountability and inclusivity

systems (iSA-Gov

4.3. SAI activities in assessing policy evaluation and oversight

Taking stock: SAI activities in supporting policy evaluation and oversight

4.1. Key elements of evaluating for results and performance improvement

Notes

References

Chapter 4 Supreme Audit Institutions’ input into policy evaluation and oversight

Government

3.3. The SAI of the Netherlands – assessing financial risk exposure of government

3.2. The SAI of Poland – the annual state budget execution audit

3.1. Level of SAI activity in assessing key elements of policy implementation, by country

3.5. SAI activities in assessing policy implementation

3.4. Key elements in the exercise of internal control and risk management

Taking stock: SAI activities in supporting implementation

Key Function 8: Exercise of internal control and risk management

3.1. Key elements of co-ordinating and communicating

Chapter 3 Supreme Audit Institutions’ input into policy implementation

References

Notes

2.10.The SAI of Portugal – strengthening controls in state owned enterprises

workforce sustainability and population ageing

2.8. The SAI of South Africa – budget and strategic plan review

regulatory reform in Korea

Congress and the Executive

2.5. The SAI of the Netherlands – linking evidence-based decisions with efficiency gains

2.6. Types of assessment of key functions of policy formulation, by 10 surveyed SAIs

2.5. SAI activities in assessing policy formulation

Taking Stock: SAI activities in supporting policy formulation

2.3. Key elements of establishing regulatory policy

Key Function 3: Establishing regulatory policy

Key Function 4: Exercise of internal control and risk management

2.3. Spending reviews: Australia, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom

2.4. Key elements of setting internal control policy and managing risk

2.2. Innovative and joint approaches to policy-making: Peru’s “Edu-Lab”

2.1. The Government of Finland’s OHRA “Steering System Reform Effort”

2.1. Key elements of strategic whole-of-government steering and planning

References

Chapter 2 Supreme Audit Institutions’ input into policy formulation

Notes

Key messages to SAIs: Being aware and prepared

Key Function 1: Strategic whole-of-government steering and planning

The outcome: Considerations for all governance actors

1.2. Select SAI activities across the policy cycle

Chapter 1 Supreme Audit Institutions’ input into the policy cycle

Why is the OECD undertaking this work? Integrating evidence into the policy cycle

Executive summary

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acronyms and Abbreviations

1.1. Key functions of the policy cycle in a strategic and open state

The report’s main findings: SAIs are active in assessing functions of the entire policy cycle

TABLE OF CONTENTS