The analysis might also require comparisons of findings between:
operations that work well and those that work less well – see analysis example below;
one or more operation and an overview of the subject;
An audited area and a similar audit area in another country.
The final stage in the analysis of data involves combining the results from different types of sources. This phase involves weighing up arguments and assertions, consulting experts, and making comparisons and analyses. Tools that can used for data analysis include excel spreadsheets and software packages designed specifically for questionnaire entry such as SNAP and SPS Data Entry, SPSS Statistical Software and file interrogation tools such as IDEA.
Preparation of performance audit report
Experience shows that it is much easier to produce a good audit report if auditors develop a report outline first. The report outline contains the chapter headings and paragraphs headings for the report. The chapter and paragraph headings communicate the key messages effectively if they are expressed as statements summarizing the audit findings. The chapter headings summarize the key messages for each chapter and the paragraph headings summarize the key messages for each paragraph. Bullet points should go under the paragraph headings to indicate the sub-points to be included in each paragraph.
Completing the Report Outline
Once auditors are sure that they have sufficient relevant, reliable evidence which answers the audit questions they can complete the report outline and proceed to the report drafting stage. The report outline is the same format as the audit summary form, but without the audit evidence column. The last column contains bullet points to guide auditors on what to include in the report paragraphs for each chapter. Examples of two completed audit report outlines are demonstrated at the end of this chapter.
Producing the report outline. The completed audit results form can be used as the basic structure for the report outline. The report outline has a pyramid format. The answer to the main question will point auditors to the title for the audit report. The answers to the main question and second level questions point auditors to what should be included in the Executive Summary. The answers to the second level questions also point auditors to statements for the chapter headings. The answers to the third level questions point auditors to statements for the paragraph headings, and the audit evidence points them to the bullet points within each paragraph.
The format for the report outline. There are no strict rules for a report outline but a recommended format is:
Executive Summary – answer to main audit question;
Chapter headings based on answers to sub-questions;
Paragraph headings based on third level questions;
Audit objectives and methodology;
Detailed audit findings;
Developing the report outline. One way to develop the report outline is for the audit team to meet and work together to develop the paragraph headings for each chapter. The team can then agree the chapter heading which best answers the second level audit question and summarizes the contents of the chapter. The main messages for the executive summary can also be developed, and they should represent the main audit finding and the key points from each chapter.
Drafting the Report
Once auditors have developed the report outline, they know the basic structure of the report. Each paragraph heading should summaries the main points auditors want to make in that paragraph. They can then complete the text under each paragraph heading. If the chapter and paragraph headings are in the form of statements, the contents page will become a one-page summary of the report findings.
Audited body - full report;
National Assembly – full report, particularly executive summary;
Media and citizens – press notice where appropriate.
Auditors need to identify the 3 key messages and make sure that they are communicated effectively in the executive summary the body of the report and the press notice where appropriate. It may be necessary to take another look at the paragraph and chapter headings to ensure that they convey the key messages that auditors want their readers to receive.
Drafting Conclusions and Recommendations
It is important that audit conclusions and recommendations are: clearly signposted, meaningful and linked to the appropriate evidence. They should address underlying causes of concern, be useful, realistic and cost-effective.
Recommendations should take into account any financial, legal, or practical constraints or those imposed by Government policy. If there is a clear solution, the auditors should recommend it. If there are a number of possible solutions, auditors can list them, stating the advantages and disadvantages of each.
Auditors need to be sure that the audited body will be able to put their recommendations into practice, so they need to discuss with the audited body how this will be done, what it may cost, and over what time period it can be achieved. If the audited body requires Giúp in implementing audit recommendations, auditors can discuss with it how it should go about getting such help.
Review of the implementation of performance audit recommendations
All auditors should carry out follow-up checks on the implementation of audit recommendation in order to ensure the effectiveness of the audit. Procedures for performance audit are similar to those for financial audit.
The main procedures are as follows:
Review of the audited body’s report on implementation of audit recommendations;
Inspection of audited body’s procedures to establish whether, and to what extent, audit recommendations have been implemented;
Assessment of the effectiveness of the audited body’s implementation of audit recommendations in delivering the outcomes specified by State Audit of Vietnam;
Preparation of an audit report summarizing the results of the review and stating any further action that the audited body should carry out.
The methodologies used to review the implementation of the audit recommendations will depend on the nature of the recommendations. Audit methodologies will include:
Structured interviews with relevant staff from the audited body;
Examination of files and documents;
Review of systems and processes, including observation of work;
Data collection and analysis if appropriate.
If the audited body has failed to implement the audit recommendations effectively, the auditors should:
Conduct a structured interview with the relevant senior officials responsible for implementation
Establish the reasons that implementation was not effective;
Agree corrective actions that the audited body will undertake, including dates when implementation will be completed;
Produce a record of the interview, including corrective action agreed, and obtain the signature of the senior official, certifying that the record is correct;
Include a copy of the record of the interview in the audit report on implementation of the audit recommendations.
Performance audit in other countries
Supreme Audit Institutions in many countries carry out performance audit. Performance audit is generally interpreted as referring to economy, efficiency, and effectiveness, but different countries interpret this in different ways. Some countries focus on the achievement of objectives. Others focus on developments against past performance, rather than benchmarks of good practice.
Differences also appear in the time at which a performance audit can be started. In some countries performance audit work takes place during and after the implementation of a particular program.
Other countries permit an examination of a subject as soon as a decision to start a project is taken, or once a policy decision has been made.
The system-oriented approach of effectiveness auditing.
Public services are complex, and the growing complexity of government programs increases the incidence of conflicting goals and unintentional side effects, caused by overlapping or coinciding functions. Further, most central decisions on public programs must be made without being completely sure that they will attain the stated objectives, at least not at the first attempt.
It is not an easy task to turn political goals into government pro- grams and to design and implement measures that will obtain desired results. It may even prove difficult to find suitable methods to assess the results and the effectiveness of government interventions. There is a growing insight that there often is a large gap between what has been decided politically and what will later be implemented and finally achieved.
It is therefore essential to develop models to Giúp performance auditors in their efforts to analyze and evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of government interventions. One common approach in performance auditing ...