6 minute read
References
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)
Advertisement
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.
SUPREME AUDIT INSTITUTIONS AND GOOD GOVERNANCE: OVERSIGHT, INSIGHT AND FORESIGHT © OECD 2016
3 – SUPREME AUDIT INSTITUTIONS’ INPUT INTO POLICY IMPLEMENTATION – 115
Notes
1 The Year End audits are available online at: http://portal2.tcu.gov.br/portal/page /portal/TCU/comunidades/contas/contas_governo/. 2 The key principles have informal status and apply, according the scope of the publication, to non-state operators, but can apply similarly to other actors including state-owned enterprises, NGOs and private individuals. They are the following: evidence-based enforcement, selectivity, risk focus and proportionality, responsive regulation, long-term vision, co-ordination and consolidation, transparent governance, information integration, clear and fair process, compliance promotion and professionalism. More information can be found OECD (2014), Regulatory Enforcement and Inspections, OECD Best Practice Principles for Regulatory Policy, OECD Publishing, Paris. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264208117-en 3 The GAO makes its High-Risk List available online at: www.gao.gov/highrisk /overview.
SUPREME AUDIT INSTITUTIONS AND GOOD GOVERNANCE: OVERSIGHT, INSIGHT AND FORESIGHT © OECD 2016
116 – 3 – SUPREME AUDIT INSTITUTIONS’ INPUT INTO POLICY IMPLEMENTATION
References
ANAO (2014), “Successful Implementation of policy Initiatives”, Better Practice Guides,
Australian National Audit Office, Canberra, www.anao.gov.au/search/site/media%20
Better%20Practice%20Guides%20ANAO%20Policy%20Implementation. ANAO (2009), Better Practice Guide: Innovation in the Public Sector: Enabling better performance, driving new directions, Australian National Audit Office, Canberra www.anao.gov.au/search/site/Better%20Practice%20Guides%20Innovation%20the%2 0Public%20Sector. ASF (2012a) Compliance and Financial Audit: Secretariat of Finance and Public Credit,
Public Expenditure, Auditoría Superior de la Federación, Mexico City, www.asf.gob. mx/Trans/Informes/IR2012i/Documentos/Auditorias/2012_1170_a.pdf. ASF (2012b) Compliance and Financial Audit: Secretariat of Finance and Public Credit,
Federal Government and Financial Operation, Auditoría Superior de la Federación,
Mexico City, www.asf.gob.mx/Trans/Informes/IR2012i/Documentos/Auditorias/2012 _1171_a.pdf. BAI (2014), Comprehensive Audit; Audit on Budget Planning and Execution of Major
Projects by Local Government, Board of Audit and Inspection of Korea, www.bai.go. kr/bai/cop/bbs/detailBoardArticle.do?bbsId=BBSMSTR_100000000009&nttId=1573 &mdex=bai20&searchCnd=all_NTT_SJ_CN&searchWrd=%EC%98%88%EC%82%
B0&searchBgnDe=&searchEndDe=&searchYear=&pageIndex=1&recordCountPerPa ge=10 (Korean only). BAI (2013), Audit on Planning and Execution of Major Projects Expenditure in
Construction and Environment Field (2013), BAI, Seoul, www.bai.go.kr/bai/cop/bbs/ detailBoardArticle.do?bbsId=BBSMSTR_100000000009&nttId=1551&mdex=bai20 &searchCnd=all_NTT_SJ_CN&searchWrd=%EC%98%88%EC%82%B0&searchBgn
De=&searchEndDe=&searchYear=&pageIndex=1&recordCountPerPage=10. BAI (2012), Comprehensive Audit: Financial management of Major Projects, BAI, Seoul, www.bai.go.kr/bai/cop/bbs/detailBoardArticle.do?bbsId=BBSMSTR_100000000009 &nttId=1426&mdex=bai20&searchCnd=all_NTT_SJ_CN&searchWrd=%EC%98%8 8%EC%82%B0&searchBgnDe=&searchEndDe=&searchYear=&pageIndex=1&recor dCountPerPage=10. BAI (2009), Management Audit: National Pension Service, BAI, Seoul, http://english.bai.go.kr/cmm/fdm/FileDown.do;jsessionid=cwF5Dosr9eaKdqwtSuaWh
VPu.node01?atchFileId=20110321152506218&fileSn=1&siteId=bai_eng&bbsId=BB
SMSTR_200000000004.CGR (2010), Internal Control Systems of Local
Governments, Contraloría General de la
República de Chile, www.contraloria.cl/SicaProd/SICAv3-BIFAPortalCGR/faces /detalleInforme?docIdcm=df011efb343e9285aa046402df0cef6a&_adf.ctrl-state=1c 83smhl80_3.
SUPREME AUDIT INSTITUTIONS AND GOOD GOVERNANCE: OVERSIGHT, INSIGHT AND FORESIGHT © OECD 2016
3 – SUPREME AUDIT INSTITUTIONS’ INPUT INTO POLICY IMPLEMENTATION – 117
COSO (2013), An Update of COSO’s Internal Control – Integrated Framework,
Committee of Sponsoring Organisations of the Treadway Commission, www.coso.org/documents/cosoicifoutreachdeck_05%2018%2012.pdf. Cour des Comptes de Belgique (2009), Implementation of the Kyoto protocol by the federal government (Politique climatique federale: Mise en oeuvre de protocole de
Kyoto), www.ccrek.be/docs/2009_12_Kyoto_FR.pdf. Cour des Comptes de Belgique (2004), Services with separate management within the general Directorate for compulsory education of the French Community: Funding,
Organisation and internal control (Les services à gestion séparée de la Direction générale de l’enseignement obligatoire: Financement, organisation et contrôle interne), Cour des Comptes de Belgique, www.ccrek.be/EN/Publications/Fiche.html?i d=61d4f6c4-135c-4239-8d2f-817057447613. GAO (2015), High Risk List, Government Accountability Office, Washington DC, www.gao.gov/highrisk/overview. Health Policy Journal (2009), Framework for assessing governance of the health system in developing countries: Gateway to good governance, Health Policy Journal, 90(1):13 to 25. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2008.08.005, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ 18838188. IFAC (2012), Evaluating and Improving Internal Control in Organizations, International
Federation of Accountants, New York, www.ifac.org/publications-resources /evaluating-and-improving-internal-control-organizations-0. NAO (2015), HM Treasury’s 2014-15 Annual Report and Accounts, NAO, London, www.nao.org.uk/report/hm-treasurys-2014-15-annual-report-and-accounts/. NAO (2014), The Centre of Government, National Audit Office, London, www.nao.org.u k/report/centre-government/. NAO (2001), Modern Policy-Making: Ensuring Policies Deliver Value for Money,
National Audit Office, London, www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2001/11 /0102289.pdf. NCCHPP (2008), Integrated Governance and Healthy Public Policy: Two Canadian
Examples, National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy, www.ncchpp.ca/d ocs/Integrated_governance_AN.pdf. NDARC (2010), The Coordination of Australian Illicit Drug Policy: A Governance
Perspective, National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, https://ndarc.med.unsw.edu. au/sites/default/files/ndarc/resources/18%20The%20coordination%20of%20Australia n%20illicit%20drug%20policy.pdf. NIK (2015), The adequacy and effectiveness of management control system in selected governmental units (Adekwatność i efektywność systemu kontroli zarządczej w wybranych jednostkach administracji rządowej), Najwyższa Izba Kontroli, www.nik.gov.pl/kontrole/P/14/011/. OAG (2015), Report 3 – Tax-based Expenditures, Office of the Auditor General of
Canada, Ottawa, www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_201504_03_e_40349 .html#hd3a.
SUPREME AUDIT INSTITUTIONS AND GOOD GOVERNANCE: OVERSIGHT, INSIGHT AND FORESIGHT © OECD 2016
118 – 3 – SUPREME AUDIT INSTITUTIONS’ INPUT INTO POLICY IMPLEMENTATION
OAG (2013), 2013 Fall Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable
Development, OAG, Ottawa, www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_cesd_201311 _03_e_38673.html. OAG (2011), 2011 Fall Report of the Auditor General of Canada, OAG, www.oagbvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_201111_04_e_35936.html. OAG (2006), 2006 November Report of the Auditor General of Canada, OAG, Ottawa, www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_200611_00_e_14968.html#ch0hd3a. OECD (2015a), Achieving Public Sector Agility at Times of Fiscal Consolidation, OECD
Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789 264206267-en. OECD (2015b), OECD Public Governance Reviews: Estonia and Finland: Fostering
Strategic Capacity across Governments and Digital Services across Borders, OECD
Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789 264229334-en. OECD (2015c), Recommendation of the Council on Good Budgetary Governance, OECD
Publishing, Paris, www.oecd.org/gov/budgeting/Recommendation-of-the-Council-on-
Budgetary-Governance.pdf. OECD (2015d), Building on Basics, Value for Money in Government, OECD Publishing,
Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264235052-en. OECD (2014a), Centre Stage: Driving better policies from the Centre of Government,
OECD Publishing, Paris. www.oecd.org/gov/Centre-Stage-Report.pdf. OECD (2014b), Principles for Public Administration, SIGMA, OECD Publishing, Paris, www.sigmaweb.org/publications/Principles-Public-Administration-Overview-
Nov2014.pdf. OECD (2014c), Regulatory Enforcement and Inspections, OECD Best Practice Principles for Regulatory Policy, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264208 117-en. OECD (2012), Recommendation of the Council on Regulatory Policy and Governance,
C(2012)37, 22 March 2012, OECD, Paris, www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/4999 0817.pdf. OECD (2005), Modernising Government: The Way Forward, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264010505-en. OECD (2002), Best Practices for Budget Transparency, OECD Journal on Budgeting,
Vol. 1/3 (7013), OECD Publishing, Paris http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/budget-v1-art14en. OFMDFMNI (2005), A Practical Guide to Policy Making in Northern Ireland, Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, Government of the United Kingdom, www.executiveoffice-ni.gov.uk/sites/default/files/publications/ofmdfm_dev/practicalguide-policy-making-amend-aug-11_0.pdf. Rigsrevisionen (2014), Report on state planning and coordination of preparedness for major accidents and disasters (Beretning om statens planlægning og koordinering af beredskabet for større ulykker og katastrofer), Rigsrevisionen, Denmark, www.rigsrev isionen.dk/publikationer/2014/162013/, (Danish only).
SUPREME AUDIT INSTITUTIONS AND GOOD GOVERNANCE: OVERSIGHT, INSIGHT AND FORESIGHT © OECD 2016
