14 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The ten participating SAIs are active in assessing the functions required for the formulation, implementation and evaluation of public policies and programmes. The SAIs surveyed tend to be more active in assessing the achievement of good practice principles in traditional areas, including budgetary planning and execution and internal control. They are less likely to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of processes required for strategic whole-ofgovernment steering or for communication and co-ordination across government.
SAIs in the study are employing a range of approaches and methodologies to provide insight and foresight. SAIs conduct financial, compliance and performance audits, as well as assessments that integrate value-for-money criteria. Moreover, SAIs are relying on more than traditional audit reports to communicate results, and are developing guidance, manuals, information seminars with audited entities and testimonials to relevant legislative committees.
SAIs’ adoption of insight and foresight activities is largely ad hoc. Some SAIs in the study have strategically and systematically expanded their audit portfolio to include insight and foresight activities. However, these activities are often being undertaken in an ad hoc manner, whether at the request of the legislature or in response to high profile or sensitive cases.
The SAIs surveyed face internal challenges and limitations that can limit their assessments of certain policy functions. Internal challenges include a lack of resources and skills. However, SAIs also reported that external challenges, such as a lack of leadership in the executive branch, have also affected their ability to effectively assess key policy functions.
SAIs should consider their broad governance role and prepare for strategic trade-offs that may be necessary to remain relevant and responsive to complex policy challenges. The experiences of the ten participating SAIs are used to provide key considerations for SAIs regarding the relevance of their existing, and any new, activities. Considerations centre around the strategic tradeoffs that may be required internally (on skills and between activities), the need to ensure the quality and timeliness of audit work, the contributions of SAIs’ work on the broader governance architecture and the roles of other public institutions.
The ten participating SAIs come from different SAI models and domestic environments. Nonetheless, their experiences present options and insights for all forwardlooking SAIs on how to strengthen the link between their valuable work and the needs of the legislature, executive and citizens, while retaining their independence.
SUPREME AUDIT INSTITUTIONS AND GOOD GOVERNANCE: OVERSIGHT, INSIGHT AND FORESIGHT © OECD 2016
