Scribd
Upload
7 views

Image

Uploaded by

eko prastiyo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
7 views

Image

Uploaded by

eko prastiyo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Audit institutions can use a range of performance indicators to measure the impact

of
performance audits, including statistics about recommendations and estimates of
savings or additional revenues resulting from the audits.
The common performance indicators used to measure quantitative impact vary in terms
of their usefulness or intrinsic value.
Audit offices can also report on the impact of performance audits by providing
qualitative information such as case studies and examples of the concrete impact of
audits on audited programs.
Considering that legislative audit offices are funded by taxpayers to fulfill their
mandate, it is only fair to expect them to report on their performance just like
any other public sector organization. This expectation is often formalized in
legislation or in administrative policies and is also supported by INTOSAI's
standards, which state that audit institutions have a responsibility to demonstrate
their ongoing relevance to citizens, Parliament, and other stakeholders."
Reporting on performance can imply reporting on outputs, on outcomes, or both.
However, for an audit office to report on the impact of its performance audits
requires more emphasis on outcomes than on outputs. This is because the number of
reports an audit office produces in a year (its output) may influence its impact,
but it does not in itself provide information on what that impact is (the outcome).
As explained in Can Impact Be Measured?, audit institutions tend to report on
intermediate outcomes much more than on ultimate outcomes. This happens because
reporting on ultimate outcomes is often not practical considering the difficulties
involved in separating the contributions made by audit offices to ultimate outcomes
from the contributions made by other stakeholders. In consequence, reporting on
impact by audit institutions tends to focus on the impact of individual audits and
to strongly emphasize recommendation implementation rates. What information exists
on the impact of audit offices can usually be found in their annual report on their
operations or in a report focused on the follow-up of previous recommendations.
This information can be quantitative or qualitative.
This section provides an overview of the performance indicators most often used by
audit offices to report on the impact of their performance audits. It also
discusses the use of qualitative reporting techniques for the same purpose.

You might also like