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

OECD Public Governance Reviews Supreme Audit Institutions And Good Governance

70 – 2 – SUPREME AUDIT INSTITUTIONS’ INPUT INTO POLICY FORMULATION

Box 2.4. The SAI Poland – Preparation of government strategic documents for 2014-2020 (continued) Audit criteria Country laws and regulations (including internal government regulations, orders and correspondence between those audited) and other (EU financial framework).

Resources The audit was conducted by seven organisational units of the SAI (co-ordinated by the regional branch in Warsaw), with each unit corresponding to an assigned audited line ministry. The audit activity was carried out between September 2012 and April 2013.

Outcomes and benefits The audit report revealed some weaknesses in the government’s strategic planning model, the main one being a lack of institutional strength and a lack of co-ordination among the entities involved in planning, which was assumed in governmental documents. NIK found that the Ministry of Regional Development had taken the lead on strategic planning, but was not equipped with the tools necessary for effective co-ordination. As a result, NIK recommended establishing a separate strategic planning centre dedicated and equipped to leading this work. This unit would help to tackle the discrepancy between strategic planning, the Long-term Budgetary Perspectives and the Performance Budget, which became pronounced during the audit. NIK considers bridging gaps between these three spheres as critical, underlining that this gap has created a great vulnerability in the public administration system as a whole.

Good practices used The performance audit required a broad approach and a careful assessment of the crosscutting activities of various entities involved in the strategic planning system. NIK relied on internal expertise and demonstrated its value-added to the debates around strategic planning. It participated in relevant parliamentary committees. This process contributed to its internal understanding of the issues and emphasised the need to continue strictly monitoring and analysing the government’s progress in strategy fulfilment.

Lessons learned As NIK did not use external experts to solidify its own opinion, it did encounter some difficulties in identifying competent staff to participate in the complex and cross-cutting audit on the thematic issues.

Further reading www.nik.gov.pl/kontrole/P/12/181/ www.nik.gov.pl/kontrole/P/12/039/ Sources: 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