Recommendations for continual improvement are not generally made, or are not generally acted on or followed up]]>
Recommendations for continual improvement are only sometimes made, and are not always comprehensive, acted on or followed up]]>
High quality recommendations for continual improvement are usually or always made, and acted on or followed up]]>
Breaches or misbehaviour are not routinely investigated, and/or sanctions or other remedial actions are rarely or never applied]]>
Breaches or misbehaviour are sometimes investigated and sanctioned or remedied, and systems examined, but efforts could be strengthened]]>
Breaches or misbehaviour are usually or always investigated and sanctioned or remedied, and supported by strong measures to improve systems compliance]]>
Auditing of public expenditures is lacking or limited, and/or shows diminishing quality of compliance]]>
Auditing of public expenditures often or usually occurs, but could be strengthened and/or does not show continual improvement in compliance]]>
Auditing of public expenditures always occurs, is fully reported and shows continual improvement in compliance]]>
There is limited accessibility, and no or limited powers, resources, mechanisms or efforts to inform and engage]]>
There is some accessibility, and some powers, resources, mechanisms and/or efforts to inform and engage]]>
There is high accessibility, and considerable powers, resources, mechanisms and efforts to inform and engage]]>
There is little or no regular information exchange, cooperation or coordination of activity]]>
Some information exchange, cooperation and coordination is attempted and/or occurs]]>
The audit institution has good processes for information exchange, cooperation and coordination, which work well]]>
Jurisdiction is incomplete and/or cross-jurisdictional powers or duties are lacking ]]>
Jurisdiction is sufficient and/or some cross-jurisdictional powers or duties exist, but could be strengthened]]>
Jurisdiction involves no exemptions or gaps, and financial accountability bodies have good cross-jurisdictional powers and duties]]>
There are limited requirements for public reporting and access to information, and/or they do not work well in practice]]>
At least some requirements for public reporting and access to information are in place and working, but some need to be strengthened]]>
Comprehensive requirements for public reporting and access to information are in place, and work well in practice]]>
Such rules and mechanisms are not in place and/or integrity issues mostly go unaddressed in practice]]>
At least some of these rules and mechanisms are in place, but not all, and/or some integrity issues go unaddressed in practice]]>
All such integrity rules and mechanisms are in place, and work well in practice]]>
Such mechanisms are not in place and/or usually do not work in practice]]>
At least some of these mechanisms are in place, but not all and/or some do not work well in practice]]>
All such mechanisms are in place, and work well in practice]]>
Insufficient independence is a major problem in law and/or practice]]>
There is comprehensive independence in law and in practice in the operations of the audit institutions. ]]>
No adequate audit authorities exist, or their financial and human resources are quite insufficient for them to fulfil their duties ]]>
Audit authorities have some resources, but significant resource gaps limit their ability to carry out their duties.]]>
Audit institutions have full financial and human resources for carrying out all their duties.]]>
Powers and discretion are limited or lacking]]>
At least some powers are available, but are incomplete and/or subject to restrictions]]>
Comprehensive powers with appropriate discretion and without unwarranted restrictions]]>
(e.g. no performance audit requirements or capacity, or general powers of review over programs & policies)]]>
(e.g. some performance audit & review requirements and capacities)]]>
(e.g. extensive, independent performance audit & review requirements, capacities and powers)]]>
(e.g. many government-funded bodies and programs not subject to verified audits and/or no mechanisms for independent special audits or investigations)]]>
(e.g. most bodies and programs subject to verified audits and some mechanisms for independent special audits or investigations) ]]>
(e.g. all public bodies and funding subject to verified audits and to mechanisms for independent special audits or investigations)
]]>
No Supreme Audit Institution and/or no comprehensive financial accountability framework ]]>
Supreme Audit Institution with a significant mandate and a financial accountability framework applying to many/most public bodies]]>
Supreme Audit Institution with strong mandate and financial accountability framework applying to all public bodies & expenditure]]>
Is there an Auditor-General or similar Supreme Audit Institution, or equivalent body or bodies, to lead these processes? Are financial accountability processes generally well-embedded in government and government-funded bodies?
]]>Is there legislation requiring regular financial audits of all government and government-funded bodies? Are there requirements and processes for forensic and other special audits when needed, including self-initiated investigations by independent audit authorities?
]]>Do the relevant bodies have power to review all government programs and projects to ensure financial propriety and value for money? Can they review and comment on government policy? Is there legislation requiring or permitting performance audits of publicly funded programs and projects? Can these be initiated and conducted by independent audit authorities, without restrictions?
]]>Are there powers to obtain all relevant information from any person in an audit or investigation, and make such findings as the authority sees fit? Can public hearings be held and/or public findings and reports made, in public interest cases, at the authority's discretion?
]]>Are the budgets of financial accountability bodies (especially the supreme audit institution) sufficient to perform their duties? Is there stability in financial resources, e.g. routine increases? Are human resources, including experience, training and development opportunities, adequate and stable?
]]>Are the lead audit institutions established with constitutional and/or statutory independence? Is their budget determined directly by the legislature rather than executive government, and do they control and manage their own resources? Do senior personnel have security of tenure, and are they recruited and appointed in a way that promotes their independence and neutrality, including restrictions on political or other external activities? Are they subject to external (e.g. executive) direction in their work, or undue pressure or interference in practice?
]]>Are the audit institution(s) subject to requirements for public oversight by the legislature, e.g. through a parliamentary or other independent oversight committee with appropriate powers and resources? Is there an independent inspector to monitor any use of intrusive powers? Are there requirements for independent annual auditing of the institution(s)? Are there mechanisms for affected stakeholders to challenge or appeal adverse results or findings? Do these requirements and mechanisms work in practice?
]]>Are there codes of conduct and/or other rules for ensuring the integrity of the main audit institution(s) and processes? Are there mechanisms for training, professional development, review, complaint investigation and sanctions to ensure implementation of these rules? Do the rules espouse values of impartiality and objectivity, and cover conflicts of interest, gifts and hospitality, post-employment restrictions, and proper use of power? Do these rules and mechanisms work in practice?
]]>Is there comprehensive, public annual reporting by the audit institution(s)? Are they also required to report publicly to the legislature on major activities (audits, opinions on draft laws and state budget etc), including performance against identified indicators? Are these requirements fulfilled in practice? How easy is it for the public to access information on the institution(s) and their activities (reports, findings, internal organisation, methods, finances etc)?
]]>Are all types of matters (e.g. commercial-in-confidence, national security, extra-territorial) covered by financial accountability processes? Are there sufficient legal powers and duties to support information-sharing, case referral and cooperation with other integrity agencies, including nationally and internationally? Do audit institutions have powers and duties to address or refer related issues outside their normal remit or priorities, where not covered by other integrity agencies?
]]>Does the audit institution(s) share information with other integrity bodies, when needed? Is it engaged in any standing or regular meetings with other integrity bodies on shared policy or operational matters? Where shared interests arise, does it seek to coordinate any of its activities (e.g. investigation, education, outreach, prevention, research, policy) with other integrity bodies, or to engage in joint activities or operations?
]]>Does the audit institution(s) have the necessary powers, resources and mechanisms to support appropriate engagement with the general public, media, civil society groups, professional bodies and other stakeholders? Are efforts made to ensure appropriate awareness of the agency's role among the public and stakeholders? Is the agency and its services sufficiently accessible to the public? Are media or public briefings held on issues of public interest? Are relevant stakeholders included in advisory committees or consultative forums of the agency?
]]>Is there evidence that financial audit programs in public and publicly-funded bodies are thorough and well-executed? Is the effectiveness of internal audit within government agencies routinely examined and reviewed? Is reporting on the outcomes of financial audit programs regular, comprehensive, public and up-to-date? Does it show continual improvement in compliance?
]]>Do audits and special investigations by audit authorities result in actions to address financial misbehaviour or breaches, where necessary? Are sanctions or other remedial actions applied, including education, training and programs for improving systems compliance? Is there evidence that triggers and causes of financial accountability failures are being identified and dealt with?
]]>Do performance audits or other financial reviews result in comprehensive assurance regarding the quality of financial decision-making and value-for-money in public expenditure? Are audit recommendations followed up and their implementation reported on? Is there evidence that financial accountability systems are being continually improved and strengthened?
]]>