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

OECD Public Governance Reviews Supreme Audit Institutions And Good Governance

1 – SUPREME AUDIT INSTITUTIONS’ INPUT INTO THE POLICY CYCLE – 27

resources allow, using research initiatives to explore areas that may not be within their mandate, but that can further their knowledge base and develop internal skills, capacity and expertise. This is useful as a lack of skills is one of the greatest limitations for SAIs undertaking the activities presented. Examples of research initiatives include that of the Superior Audit Office of Mexico (ASF), which has been drawing together risk mapping to provide guidance for the executive for strengthened internal control; and Korea’s Board of Audit and Inspection, where research is formalised in its research body: the Audit and Inspection Research Institute (AIRI). The SAIs in this report occasionally use follow-up audits to check progress against previous audit recommendations. As good practice, some SAIs publish the responses to findings and recommendations of those audited so that citizens and the legislature can also follow-up and track implementation progress. Annual audit reports often track government progress of previous initiatives. Other longitudinal approaches include reviewing audit subjects over time and tracking accounts or achievements against indicators over time. Figure 1.1 outlines the reasons that SAIs undertook select activities – whether required by mandate, requested, or at the SAI’s discretion.4 Traditional areas of SAI activity are more likely to be mandated or requested than driven by the SAIs own discretion. Figure 1.1. Impetus for SAI assessments of key functions of the policy cycle

Note: Sub-functions related to regulatory policy and internal control were aggregated in the survey. Source: OECD Survey of Peer Supreme Audit Institutions.

Many SAIs assess what is considered “good” budget implementation or accountability of government because they are mandated to do so. The results most often appear in year-end audits and SAIs’ annual reports. Audits can be required by mandate or SUPREME AUDIT INSTITUTIONS AND GOOD GOVERNANCE: OVERSIGHT, INSIGHT AND FORESIGHT © OECD 2016

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