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

OECD Public Governance Reviews Supreme Audit Institutions And Good Governance

114 – 3 – SUPREME AUDIT INSTITUTIONS’ INPUT INTO POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

Box 3.4. The SAI of Brazil – assessing the maturity of risk management in the Federal Government (continued) Outcomes The institutions participating in the survey were classified into five groups of maturity of risk management. It was found that 67% of organisations were in the bottom two levels of maturity in risk management, and only 9% of the sample had reached the most advanced stage. The average maturity level was 43%: it was higher in the oil (61%) and financial sectors (65%) and lower in transportation (28%) and regulatory agencies (31%) sectors. As this was a survey to gather information no recommendations were made. Each entity received a brief report indicating possible areas for improvement of risk management based on the answers they provided. However, from the 65 organisations surveyed, seven were selected for a risk management audit. The survey revealed the situation of risk management in the consulted organisations based on responses provided by these entities without the requirement to provide evidence. The audits that have followed the survey are investigating more precisely the degree of maturity of risk management in these organisations. The monitoring of these audits will make it possible to verify the impact of the initial study. Informal feedback to TCU suggests that entities have established risk management policies or departments to help better co-ordinate implementation after participating in the TCU survey.

Good practices used This study’s auditing criteria could prove as useful guidance for public entities for their own risk management. Using this criteria to form questions about best practices in risk management demonstrated the importance of risk management for good governance to participating public organisations.

Lessons learned A questionnaire for risk management must be accompanied by a text that explains the audit criteria (i.e. a standard that defines a mature risk management) developed. It is estimated that in some cases, the answers provided did not correspond to reality because of a failure to understand the meaning of questionnaire items.

Further reading http://portal2.tcu.gov.br/portal/page/portal/TCU/comunidades/programas_governo/areas_atua cao/administracao_publica/Relatorio_Levantamento_28062013_final.pdf. www.tcu.gov.br/Consultas/Juris/Docs/judoc/Acord/20130916/AC_2467_35_13_P.doc. 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