GlobalVoice_2022_Olacefs_RegionalPaper-1.pdf

Documento de Trabajo

19th Sep 2022

INCOSAI 2022

INTOSAI Global Voice
OLACEFS Regional Paper

August, 2022

INTOSAI Global Voice
OLACEFS Regional Paper
Contents

Acknowledgements ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………. 3
Survey Overview ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …………… 4
The Context of SAI Leadership ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. .. 4
Contemporary public sector audit and accountability arrangements ………………………….. …… 5
The Audit Space Model ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …………. 6
Method ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …… 8
Executive Summary – Ov erall survey results ………………………….. ………………………….. .. 11
Organizational context ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………… 11
Capacities ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. 11
“Audit” Scope ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………….. 13
OLACEFS ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………….. 14
Summary of Research Results for OLACEFS ………………………….. ………………………….. ………… 15
Analysis of Findings for OLACEFS ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………. 17
Organization mandate ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……… 17
Capacities ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………. 20
Audit scope, products and reporting ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………… 26

3

Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the following individuals for their contributions to
this paper:
• Laurence Ferry, Professor, Durham University, UK, and Senior
Distinguished Visiting Fellow, Rutgers University, USA;
• Jonathan Gordon, Research Manager, CIPFA, UK;
• Khalid Hamid, International Director, CIPFA, UK;
• Paula Hebling Dutra, Head of the Department of International
Relations , Tribunal de Contas da União (TCU), Brazil;
• Luciano do Santos Danni, Advisor for Minister Walton Alencar
Rodrigues, Tribunal de Contas da União (TCU), Brazil;
• Macleuler Costa Lima, Head of the Division of Regional
Cooperation, Tribunal de Contas da União (TCU), Brazil; and
• Anahi Maranhão, Head of the Division of International Cooperation,
Trib unal de Contas da União (TCU), Brazil.

4

Survey Overview
The Context of SAI Leadership
The International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions (INTOSAI)
was founded in 1953 as an autonomous, independent and non -political
organization. Along with the Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs) of
countries around the globe, its focus has been the exchange of ideas and
experience in the field of government audit.
In its almost 70 -year history, INTOSAI has paid witness too many external
factors that were polit ical, economical, environmental, social and
technological in nature. Recent examples of such phenomena include:
the COVID -19 pandemic; the release of the United Nations (UN)
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) specifically addressing UN SDG
16 ‘Peace, Jus tice and Strong Institutions’; and, in an ever -changing
environment, the need to remain true to their professional practices.
More specifically, the organization’s response to the pandemic is a
perfect illustration of SAIs rapidly adapting its way of work ing in order to
quickly provid e information on emergency procurement. In addition, SAIs
have had a pivotal role in supporting the aspirations of “accountable,
inclusive and transparent institutions at all levels of government»
referenced within the princip les of SDG 16.6.
Furthermore, the drive to professionalize the SAIs and their auditors to
improve audit practices to meet ever -increasing expectations and
demands of a broader stakeholder base, including the need to speak
truth to power and provide assura nce on issues of strategic importance,
are expectations of the emerging civil societies in many jurisdictions.
In all of this, INTOSAI is uniquely placed to expand its global influence
through consistent and informed messaging on key issues such as SAI
In dependence, the need for strong and capable SAIs in all INTOSAI
regions, global challenges such as climate change, implementation of the
SDGs, pandemics, global economic risks, social safety nets and related
programs, and reforms to financial markets, amon g others.

5

By looking at successful experiences in the national, regional and global
levels, the discussion can point strategies and actions to leverage
INTOSAI’s role and the benefits it brings to the SAI community. Such
experiences cover the relationship built with stakeholders, communication
strategies, and cooperation projects.
Contemporary public sector audit and
accountability arrangements
Currently , for SAIs, there is a gap in knowledge of contemporary public
sector audit and accountability arrangeme nts, particularly at regional and
international levels. This is although where a great deal of the voice(s) of
accountability (regarding public expenditure and service delivery) are
situated, both in normal times and during the current stream of crises.
Th e purpose of this paper is to develop an international comparison of the
audit and accountability regulatory space for SAIs. This is achieved by
employing a theorisation of regulatory space, extended by new audit
spaces of public audit, to address similari ties and differences in the
voice(s) of accountability (Ferry and Ahrens 1, 2022; Ferry et al., 2022a 2;
Ferry et al., 2022b 3; Ferry et al., 2023 4).
During 2021/22, research was commissioned including: a documentation
review; workshops with steering panel; and an online survey with the
purpose of establishing themes relating to the voice(s) of accountability.
The review of academic and practitioner doc umentation included:
1 Ferry, Laurence & Ahrens, Thomas (2022). The future of the regulatory space in local
government aud it: A comparative study of the four countries of the United Kingdom.
Financial Accountability and Management 38(3): 376 -393.
2 Ferry, Laurence & Ruggiero, Pasquale (2022a). Auditing Practices in Local
Governments: An International Comparison. Emerald Studies in Public Service
Accounting and Accountability. Emerald.
3Ferry, Laurence, Hamid, Khalid & Hebling Dutra, Paula (2022b). An International
Comparative Study of the Regulatory Space of Supreme Audit Institutions. The
International Centre of Public Accountability (ICOPA), Durham University, UK,
Presentation on 6th June 2022.
4 Ferry, Laurence, Midgley, Henry & Ruggiero, Pasquale (2023). Regulatory space in
local government audit: An international comparative study of twenty countries. Public
Money and Management.

6

INTOSAI’s website; pronouncements and principles; and regional
websites. With ‘initial’ themes derived concerning audit regulatory space,
the themes were presented and critically discussed by a panel comprising
of:
• INTOSAI Secretary G eneral;
• Tribunal de Contas da União (TCU), i.e., the Federal Court os
Accounts of Brazil , and incoming Chair of INTOSAI;
• Academia (Durham University, UK);
• Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA);
• European Court of Auditors (ECA);
• Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH
(GiZ);
• International Monetary Fund (IMF);
• Organization for Economic Co -operation and Development (OECD);
and
• The World Bank.
This ensured coverage by world leading experts in the fields of po licy,
practice and academia concerning audit and accountability arrangements
of SAIs. It also ensured representation from core international institutions
that could provide authoritative voices from different perspectives. A
number of iterations were trial led until ‘final’ themes where agreed as
representative. Then the detailed questions were determined, and a
survey constructed capable of meeting the project objectives.
The Audit Space Model
The framework depicted in ‘Figure 1. THE AUDIT SPACE MODEL ’ was
developed by academics and practitioners working together. The model
brings into focus many familiar issues INTOSAI has discussed over time,
in a systematic manner.

7

FIGURE 1. THE AUDIT SPACE MODEL

The issue of regulatory space is crucial to understand the prominence
and uniqueness afforded to the SAIs. They exist due to a fundamental
piece of often -primary legislation that provides their mandates, powers,
and fu nctions. They are not simply borne out of orders or regulations that
can be easily altered. The powers afforded to SAIs also allow them to
undertake their work without fear or favour and in the public interest.
In addition, the positional power of a SAI n eeds to be matched by the
personal authority of the Auditor General or Head of SAI as reflected in
the competence and ethical conduct of their staff. This is the area of
skills, competencies and recognized qualifications that provide the
credibility needed to perform the functions of the SAI.
Furthermore, the audit work undertaken by the SAI staff, in turn must be
credible, consistent and subject to independent quality review to provide
the trust needed by the users of the reports.
Finally, once all these ingredients or inputs into the work of a SAI are
effective, the most crucial issue is to provide relevant, impactful, and
trusted insights to enable a voice to support the public interest.

8

This is in the context of improving public finance at all levels of
government and all the way to global institutions. It is therefore in keeping
with the principles written in SDG16.6, where SAIs have a pivotal role to
support the aspiration of “accountable, inclusive and transparent
institutions at all levels of gover nment.”
As can be seen in Figure 1, INTOSAI provides a global voice for SAIs that
interacts with a country’s regulatory space and the SAI’s organization,
capacity and audit scope.
Here ‘Organization’ concerns the mandate of h ow a system is accredited
and imbued with institutional capital, which gives certain powers and
determines organizations and stakeholders whom a SAI interacts.
‘Capacity’ addresses inputs and concerns issues such as independence
of auditors and resources. ‘Audit scope’ covers portfolio of activities and
output encompassing products and reporting including beyond audit in
terms of what you do and how it is presented.
Method
A survey based on the organization, capacity and audit scope of SAIs
was constructed online and translated into seven languages, specifically:
Arabic, English, French, German, Portuguese, Russian and Spanish. The
survey was distributed to all INTOSAI’s full members and remained
accessible for the first 4 months of 2022.
As can be seen, th e total response rate was 64% (125 of 196 members),
which is relatively high for this form of survey and statistically valid at the
95% confidence level with an overall error rate of ±5.3%. Table 1 shows
the regional response rates.

9

TABLE 1. REGIONAL RESPONSE RATES
Region Number of
Countries
in Region
Number of
Respondents
Response
Rate
AFROSAI 47 22 47%
ARABOSAI 18 13 72%
ASOSAI 26 20 77%
CAROSAI 13 4 31%
EUROSAI, including ECA 50 40 80%
OLACEFS 22 18 82%
PASAI 15 5 33%
Total region members of INTOSAI 191 122 64%
Non -region members of INTOSAI 5 3 60%
Total members of INTOSAI 196 125 64%

Figure 2 shows the likely error rate. As a sample survey, with a known
population (196 members) and a set number of respondents (125) we
can measure the level of error within our findings. Given the relatively
small population, a reasonably high level of response i s required to
ensure an equitable level of error. This level of error is at its peak when
the result is at or close to a 50 / 50 split or a 50% proportion.
So, by way of example to illustrate the impact of survey error, using the
question “Is the SAI head ed by an auditor general or is there a board or
collegiate structure?”, where the overall answer was 70% (auditor
general) and 30% (a board or collegiate structure) we can see that the
difference between the result is 40%, which is far greater than the err or
rate of 5.3%. Consequently, only where such differences exceed the
5.3% error can we be sure that the result is meaningful.

10

FIGURE 2. SURVEY ERROR RATE

Figure 3 shows the officially recognised languages within INTOSAI used
to complete the survey. English was the most frequently selected
language used across AFROSAI, ASOSAI, CAROSAI, EUROSAI and
PASAI. Whilst Arabic was the most popular in ARABOSAI and Spanish in
OLACEFS.
FIGURE 3. CHOSEN SURVEY LANGUAGE

2,3%
3,2%
3,8%
4,2%
4,6% 4,8% 5,0% 5,2% 5,3% 5,3%
0,0%
1,0%
2,0%
3,0%
4,0%
5,0%
6,0%
5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
Proportion
61% 14% 9% 5% 5% 4% 2%
English Spanish Arabic French Russian Portuguese German

11

Please note that, throughout this paper, percentages are rounded to
whole figures when presented in both tables and figures. Consequently,
the sum total may not always add up to 100%.
Executive Summary – Overall survey
results
Organizational context
The or ganizational context considers the mandate, legal framework,
structure and bodies involved that gives a SAI structure and powers. The
survey findings show that, in terms of structure, four factors were highly
common across the 125 respondents.
These facto rs were: Is an independent body (83%); Reports annually on
the financial statements of government entities (78%); Reports to
parliament / the legislature (75%); and Is independent of the legislative
and executive branches (72%). Also from a structural pers pective, some
70% are headed by an auditor general. Whilst in the other 30% of cases
there is a board or collegiate structure.
In respect of reporting lines, the vast majority report to parliament (91%),
with a minority of 9% doing so within executive gove rnment. As an aside,
we note that across both PASAI and CAROSAI some 40% and 25%
respectively were within executive government. The survey also revealed
that close to 9 in 10 of all SAIs (89%) had ‘one auditor general /
comptroller / president’, whilst in 61% of cases the high -level structure
consisted of ‘one or more deputy or vice auditor / general / comptroller /
president’.
Capacities
Strategically we found that 95% of all SAIs had a plan and in 92% of
cases that strategic plan was being implemented. Fr om a human
resources (HR) perspective, we evaluated the extent to which staff were:

12

subject to the terms and conditions of the country’s public / civil service;
had salaries benchmarked to equivalent entities / professions; and had
undertaken a skills audi t of staff competencies. Typically, we found that:
• Around two -thirds of SAIs (64%) have staff subject to the same
terms and conditions of the country’s public / civil service;
• Staff have had their salaries benchmarked to equivalent entities /
professions ( Yes [44%]; Partially [33%]); and
• The SAI had undertaken a skills audit of staff competencies (Fully
[33%]; Partially [37%]).
Continuing on the HR theme, staff were most likely to be either auditors,
accountants, IT experts or lawyers. Some 73% were likely to be qualified
to at least graduate level. Furthermore, around 41% held a professional
qualification and 30% held a post -graduate qualifi cation.
The survey enquired about the status of the SAIs in relation to
determination of budgets, whether it periodically undertakes independent
assessment of its own performance, and regarding access to data.
Reassuringly some 85% of all SAIs stated ‘yes’ in response to the
question ‘Is the SAI able to determine how its own budget will be spent?’.
This level of determination was typically the same across all SAIs with the
sole exception of CAROSAI, where it was at 75%.
In response to the challenge ‘Does t he SAI periodically undertake
independent assessment of its own performance through, for example,
SAI -PMF, peer reviews etc.’ our survey found that some three -quarters
(75%) did so. Interestingly, in two regions the opposite was the case, i.e.
CAROSAI 75% ‘no’ and PASAI 60% ‘no’.
From an ICT perspective, the picture was quite varied. Typically, some
68% were able to access all necessary data centrally onsite, whereas the
ability to do the same from any satellite office dropped to just 41%.
Although some 46 % were able to access all necessary data remotely
anywhere.

13

“Audit” Scope
SAIs are predominantly in a position of being able to decide which
standards to apply when undertaking work, with some 78% reporting that
they ‘decide for themselves’. In practically all other cases the choice of
standards is ‘written into law’, except in ASOSAI where one SAI stated
that ‘another body decides’.
In terms of the audits being carried out three types occur in almost all
SAIs. These are Financial audits (98%); Compliance audits (94%); and
Performance audits (94%). There are other types of audit that SAIs
undertake. However, as can be seen below, the occurrence of these is
not so high:
• Responding to public / other requests (public interest reports), 39%;
• Specialized audit r esponsibilities e.g. environmental mandate, 39%;
• Non -audit (other), 35%;
• Preparing specific reports not related to underlying audits, 34%; and
• Investigation powers, 30%.
The extent to which SAIs are mandated to carry out these audits also
varies quite exte nsively, with Table 2. Legal Mandate to Audit Table 2
below illustrating this point.
TABLE 2. LEGAL MANDATE TO AUDIT
Entity / institution Yes No
Federal or national level 99% 1%
Other public sector agencies 97% 3%
Public companies / parastatals or state -owned enterprise 96% 4%
Regional level, state, provincial, territory 85% 15%
Local or municipal level 84% 16%
Central bank 75% 25%

There is just one SAI within PASAI who is not mandated to audit at the
federal or national level, in all other cases there is a 100% ability to do so.

14

However, as previously stated, the mandate for each entity / institution
varies from region to region.
The remainder of this paper sets out the results of the survey completed
by each region. In the categories assessed in the survey, our focus was
on the organization, capacity and audit scope. A number of observations
will provide insights that could be exp anded through further narrative to
be provided by the SAIs that will enhance the regional paper and provide
options that could be considered for further work within the region. Finally,
it should be noted that some SAIs are not members of any particular
re gion and are consequently excluded.
OLACEFS
Amongst the 18 responses from OLACEFS we find that 16 (89%) were in
Spanish with the remaining 2 (11%) responses in English.
FIGURE 4. CHOSEN SURVEY LANGUAGE

89% 11% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Spanish English Arabic German French Portuguese Russian

15

Summary of Research Results for OLACEFS
Research results show that SAIs within OLACEFS have legal
independence, undertake many functions beyond auditing and cover
most areas of the public sector. Their mandate provides the powers to
undertake work in the accountability space, and in dependent assessment
of their performance is taken on a periodic basis for 72% of the SAIs in
the region.
Besides having budget autonomy, although there are different institutional
arrangements, in 89% of the cases, leadership is exercised by one
person an d there is a strategic plan being implemented.
Most of OLACEFS members are able to access all necessary data both
centrally onsite and remotely anywhere. Also, most of their professional
staff is qualified to at least graduate level. Most of them holds
pro fessional qualifications and, on average, one third also holds post –
graduate qualifications.
This suggests that not only SAIs have access to information but also the
ability to process it.
Although being subject to the government salary structures can be
challenging in terms of recruiting and retaining professional qualified staff
in some situations, the research results in terms of SAI staff qualifications
suggest that, on average, SAIs in the region are coping well with the
constraints imposed by salaries . In 67% of OLACEFS members, salaries
were benchmarked to equivalent entities or professions, but only in 53%
the SAI has undertaken a skills audit of staff competencies.
In general, the SAI can decide upon their standards or have them
entrenched in legisl ation. Although their mandates to audit, in terms of
coverage and scope, are quite varied, at both a federal or national level
and for other public sector agencies this mandate is at 100%.
Almost all of them perform the work anticipated by ISSAI P100 (financial,
compliance and performance audits) and, for the three main types of
audit, the vast majority of the work is publicly available.

16

Across OLACEFS a variety of regulatory bodies requirem ents are used
depending on the type of activity. So, for example, for financial work
INTOSAI standards and national standards compliant with INTOSAI are
equally used (28% each). On the other hand, 38% of the cases for
performance audits and 33% for complia nce audits use national
standards compliant rather than INTOSAI standards, which reach 28% of
the cases for both types of audit.
Whilst around 33% of all SAIs undertake quality assurance over the audit
we find that across OLACEFS this occurs in 24% of case s
The detailing of the research results, as presented in the next sections of
this work, allows us to identify the stage OLACEFS members are in terms
of the objective of professionalizing the SAIs and their auditors. One of
the most important strengths of the region is the broad use of coordinated
audits on topics of high relevance, such as biodiversity and protected
areas, renewable energy, gender equality and financial aid oversight
during the COVID 19 pandemic, for example, to enhance the
professionaliza tion process. Also, the region has conducted a series of
capacity building diagnosis which were used to develop three Training
Plans along the last 6 years to strengthen the capabilities of SAIs and its
auditors.
The data to be presented confirm that the s olid foundations necessary for
the construction of a global community of SAIs have been built over
decades, at the regional level, either through the mandates and powers
assigned by national legislation, or by the collective construction of
values, princip les, professional practices and skills, by the international
community of SAIs.
They also suggest, together with the SAI Mission Statement Word Cloud,
that there are adequate bases for the aggregation, comparison and
synthesis of audit results or other wor ks carried out by OLACEFS
members, especially if these are coordinated in advance, considering
techniques to be used and the scope for the analysis.

17

Bearing in mind the existence of this common basis of powers, abilities
and areas of activity, it is possib le to extract coherent messages about
themes of regional and global interest from the set of works produced by
the SAIs in the region.
Given the result synthesized above, it is important to note that the
potential reach of these messages can be amplified i f applied the
appropriate communication strategies and discussed in the adequate
forums.
Furthermore, recent experience has shown that, in situations in which it is
possible to coordinate and synchronize efforts by SAIs at a regional or
global level to add ress issues of mutual interest, the individual results of
each SAI have been enriched by the opportunity to contextualize them.
The dialog with multilateral organizations has increased the interest in the
work produced by the SAIs and the opportunity to cr eate communication
channels for its dissemination.
Furthermore, the collaboration with these institutions has shown that
there is great potential to be explored in terms of exchanging information,
techniques and knowledge that can contribute to making the work
developed by SAIs more robust and effective.
Overview of Findings for OLACEFS
The findings that follow are analysed against the three themes of:
organization (mandate), capacity (inputs), and audit scope (output and
portfolio).
Organization mandate
The organizational context considers the mandate, legal framework,
structure and bodies involved that gives a SAI structure and powers. The
survey findings show that, in terms of structure, five factors were highly
common across the 1 8 respondents within OLACEFS. These factors
were: Is an independent body (94%); Reports to parliament / the
legislature (83%); Reports annually on the financial statements of

18

government entities (83%); Serves no judicial function but, when
warranted, its findings may be passed to legal authorities for further
action (83%); and Has administrative authority (83%). From a structural
perspective, two -thirds (67%) are headed by an auditor general. In the
other third (33%) of cases there is a board or collegiate structure.
In respect of reporting lines, the vast majority report to parliament (93%),
with just one SAI, namely the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, doing so
within executive government. The survey also revealed that 89% had
‘one auditor general / comp troller / president’, whilst in 67% of cases the
high -level structure consisted of ‘one or more deputy or vice auditor /
general / comptroller / president’.

Figure 5 highlights the common characteristics across OLACEFS
members. The most common factor that is highly common includes: is an
independent body. Other, common traits include: reports annually on the
financial statements of government entities, r eports to parliament / the
legislature, serves no judicial function but, when warranted, its findings
may be passed to legal authorities for further action and has
administrative authority .
Figure 5. With reference to the current s tructure of your SAI, please tick
the characteristics that describe the structure of your SAI

94% 83% 83% 83% 83% 67% 61% 6%

19

SAIs can be headed either by an auditor general, or there may be a
board / collegiate structure. In the case of OLACEFS two -thirds (67%) are
headed by an audito r general and a third (33%) have a board or
collegiate structure. These results are broadly in line with that for all SAIs,
where 70% are led by an auditor general and 30% have a board or
collegiate structure .
FIGURE 6. IS THE SAI HEADED BY AN AUDITOR GENERAL, OR IS THERE A
BOARD OR COLLEGIATE STRUCTURE?

Audit offices may either report to parliament or be within executive
government. What is abundantly clear, in Figure 7 below, is that across
OLACEFS respondents are f ar more likely to report to parliament .
FIGURE 7. DOES THE AUDIT OFFICE REPORT TO PARLIAMENT, OR IS THE
AUDIT OFFICE WITHIN EXECUTIVE GOVERNMENT?

67%
33%
Auditor General Board or Collegiate Structure
93%
7%
Report to Parliament Within Executive Government

20

Across OLACEFS, we find that some 89% of jurisdictions have one
auditor general / comptroller / president. Two -thirds (67%) also have one
or more deputy or vice auditor / general / comptroller / president.
FIGURE 8. REGARDING YOUR HIGH -LEVEL ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE, DO
YOU HAVE?

Capacities
Strategically we found that 94% of OLACEFS members had a plan and in
94% of cases that strategic plan was being implemented. From a human
resources (HR) perspective, we evaluated the extent to which staff were:
subject to the terms and conditions of the co untry’s public / civil service;
had salaries benchmarked to equivalent entities / professions; and had
undertaken a skills audit of staff competencies. Typically, we found that:
• Around two -thirds of SAIs (61%) have staff subject to the same
terms and condi tions of the country’s public / civil service;
• Staff have had their salaries benchmarked to equivalent entities /
professions (Yes [39%]; Partially [28%]); and
• Only the SAI in Mexico had fully undertaken a skills audit of staff
competencies, with a furthe r 8 (47%) having done so partially.
Continuing on the HR theme, staff were most likely to be either
accountants or lawyers. Some 68% were likely to be qualified to at least
89% 67% 28% 17% 6%
one auditor
general /
comptroller /
president
one or more
vice (deputy /
vice) auditor /
general /
comptroller /
president
members board /
council
public
prosecutors
judges two or more
auditors
general /
comptrollers /
presidents

21

graduate level. Furthermore, around 54% held a professional qualification
(more tha n any other region) and 30% held a post -graduate qualification.
The survey enquired about the status of the SAIs in relation to
determination of budgets, whether it periodically undertakes independent
assessment of its own performance, and regarding acces s to data.
Reassuringly some 89% of all SAIs stated ‘yes’ in response to the
question ‘Is the SAI able to determine how its own budget will be spent?’.
Only Belize and Cuba responded no.
In response to the challenge ‘Does the SAI periodically undertake
in dependent assessment of its own performance through, for example,
SAI -PMF, peer reviews etc’ our survey found that close to three -quarters
(72%) did so.
From an ICT perspective, the picture was quite varied. Typically, some
88% were able to access all nec essary data centrally onsite, whereas the
ability to do the same from any satellite office was at 63% and some 67%
were able to access all necessary data remotely anywhere. This suggests
OLACEFS are the most advanced region from an ICT perspective.
Overall , our survey found that 95% of all SAIs have a strategic plan with
92% implementing them. By comparison and somewhat similarly, across
OLACEFS, 94% have a strategic plan and 94% are implementing them .
FIGURE 9. STRATEGY

The orga nizational mandate provides the powers to undertake work in the
accountability space. However, the critical ingredient to fulfil the mandate
effectively is having the relevant resources. To assess this the capacity
94%
94%
6%
6%
Does the SAI have a strategic plan?
Is the strategic plan being implemented?
Yes No

22

section included consideration around fun ding arrangement and the type
of opportunity for having the right staff and skills for the work needed.
Furthermore, to demonstrate that SAIs are working effectively the quality
of the SAI work needs to be independently validated.
The key challenge in many jurisdictions is that although the SAIs have
legal independence they are still subject to the government salary
structures. In many jurisdictions, t his can create a challenge to recruit and
retain professional qualified staff at salaries that may not be appropriate.
Figure 10 to Figure 16 overleaf and following, illustrate the position across
the region for a range of pertinen t factors.
FIGURE 10 . ARE YOUR STAFF SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF
THE COUNTRY’S PUBLIC / CIVIL SERVICE?

FIGURE 11 . HAVE YOU HAD YOUR SALARIES BENCHMARKED TO EQUIVALENT
ENTITIES / PROFESSIONS?

61%
33%
6%
Fully
Partially
Not at all
39%
28%
33% Yes
Partially
No

23

FIGURE 12 . HAS THE SAI UNDERTAKEN A SKILLS AUDIT OF STAFF
COMPETENCIES?

FIGURE 13 . WHAT ARE THE MAIN CATEGORIES OF PROFESSION EMPLOYED IN
THE SAI?

6%
47%
47%
Fully
Partially
Not at all
94% 89% 72% 67% 61% 56% 39% 39% 33% 22% 22% 17% 17% 11% 50%

24

FIGURE 14 . FOR THE PROFESSIONAL STAFF EMPLOYED BY THE SAI: PLEASE
INDICATE THE PROPORTION OF STAFF WHO ARE QUALIFIED TO AT LEAST
GRADUATE LEVEL

FIGURE 15 . FOR THE PROFESSIONAL STAFF EMPLOYED BY THE SAI: P LEASE
INDICATE THE PROPORTION OF STAFF WHO HOLD PROFESSIONAL
QUALIFICATIONS

FIGURE 16 . FOR THE PROFESSIONAL STAFF EMPLOYED BY THE SAI: PLEASE
INDICATE THE PROPORTION OF STAFF WHO HOLD POST -GRADUATE
QUALIFICATIONS (OTHER THAN PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS)

12
50
68
80
90
100
Minimum
Percentile 25
Mean
Median
Percentile 75
Maximum
43
54
58
80
90
Minimum
Percentile 25
Mean
Median
Percentile 75
Maximum
10
30
31
44
75
Minimum
Percentile 25
Mean
Median
Percentile 75
Maximum

25

In respect of budget autonomy, results for members of OLACEFS are
broadly in line with that of all SAIs, i.e. 89% are able to determine how the
budget will be spent for OLACEFs compared with 85% for all SAIs .
FIGURE 17 . IS THE SAI ABLE TO DETERMINE HOW ITS OWN BUDGET WILL BE
SPENT?

From an information communication technology (ICT) perspective,
OLACEFS members are generally able to access all necessary data from
a variety of venues / sites. Certainly, in comparison with the other regions,
jurisdictions within OLACEFS score highly in this respect .
FIGURE 18 . FROM WHERE CAN YOU ACCESS DATA ELECTRONICALLY?

89%
11%
Yes No
88%
63%
67%
13%
22%
38%
11%
Centrally onsite at SAI
From any SAI satellite offices
Remotely anywhere
(i) Able to access all necessary data (ii) Able to access a limited amount of data
(iii) Not applicable

26

Typically, some 75% of all SAIs periodically undertake independent
assessment of their own performance. By comparison, some 72% of
OLACEFS members do so, i.e. at a similar level .
FIGURE 19 . DOES THE SAI PERIODICALLY UNDERTAKE INDEP ENDENT
ASSESSMENT OF ITS OWN PERFORMANCE THROUGH, FOR EXAMPLE, SAI –
PMF, PEER REVIEWS, ICBF?

Audit scope, products and reporting
OLACEFS members are predominantly in a position of being able to
decide which standards to apply when undertaking work, with s ome 72%
reporting that they ‘decide for themselves’. In all other cases, the choice
of standards is ‘written into law’.
In terms of the audits being carried out three types occur in almost all
SAIs across OLACEFS. These are: Financial audits (94%); Perfor mance
audits (94%); and Compliance audits (89%). Although there are other
types of audit undertaken, including:
• Responding to public / other requests (public interest reports) , 61%;
• Investigation powers , 56%;
• Non -audit (other), 44%;
• Regulatory responsibili ties, 44%;
72%
28%
Yes No

27

• Preparing specific reports not related to underlying audits , 39%;
• Specialized audit responsibilities e.g. environmental mandate , 39%;
and
• Anti -corruption, 33%.
Furthermore, the extent to which SAIs are mandated to carry out these
audits also var ies quite extensively, with table 8 below illustrating this
point.
TABLE 3. LEGAL MANDATE TO AUDIT
Entity / institution Yes No
Federal or national level 100% 0%
Other public sector agencies 100% 0%
Public companies / parastatals or state -owned enterprise 94% 6%
Local or municipal level 89% 11%
Regional level, state, provincial, territory 88% 13%
Central bank 75% 25%

We asked OLACEFS members to provide copies of their mission
statements. The size of the word reflects the frequency of use within the
statements. Please note that the majority of responses were provided in
Spanish, these have been translated into English .

28

FIGURE 20 . OLACEFS MISSION STATEMENT WORD CLOUD

Across OLACEFS, we find that there is a 72% chance of jurisdictions
being able to decide independently which standards to apply. By
comparison, some 78% of all SAIs are able to do s o. This suggests that,
for OLACEFS, their ability to decide for themselves which standards to
apply is slightly more limited .
FIGURE 21 . IS YOUR SAI ABLE TO DECIDE INDEPENDENTLY WHICH
STANDARDS (SUCH AS ISSAIS OR ISAS) TO APPLY WH EN UNDERTAKING YOUR
WORK, OR DOES ANOTHER BODY DECIDE WHICH STANDARDS YOU WILL USE,
OR IS IT WRITTEN INTO LAW WHICH STANDARDS WILL BE USED?

72%
28% SAI decides for itself
the choice of standards
is written into law
another body decides

29

As can be seen, in Figure 22 below, OLACEFS members more or less all
perform the work anticipated by ISSAI P100, i.e. financial, performance
and compliance. Furthermore, in comparison with other SAIs we find that
OLACEFS members carry out more of the following: Responding to public
/ other requests (public interest reports); Investigation power; Other non –
audit; Regulatory responsibilities; Preparing specific reports not related to
underlying audits; Specialized audit res ponsibilities e.g. environmental
mandate (please specify); Anti -corruption authority; and disciplinaries .
FIGURE 22 . ALONG WITH PERFORMING AUDIT OF THE ANNUAL BUDGET AND
RELATED EXPENDITURE, WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING RESPONSIBILITIES
DOES THE SAI HAVE?

Survey respondents across OLACEFS indicated that their mandates to
audit, in terms of coverage and scope, are quite varied. At a federal or
national level and for other public sector agencies this mandate is at
100%. Furthermore, this mandate is also quite high in respect of audits of
public companies / parastatals or state -owned enterprises .
94%
94%
89%
61%
56%
44%
44%
39%
39%
33%
28%
6%
Financial
Performance
Compliance
Responding to public / other requests (public
interest reports)
Investigation powers
Other non-audit
Regulatory responsibilities
Preparing specific reports not related to
underlying audits
Specialized audit responsibilities e.g.
environmental mandate (please specify)
Anti-corruption authority
Disciplinary
Judicial judgements
Fiscal Council

30

FIGURE 23 . DOES YOUR SAI HAVE THE LEGAL MANDATE TO CARRY OUT
AUDIT ON THE FOLLOWING ENTITIES/INSTITUTIONS/LEVELS E.G. CEN TRAL,
LOCAL ETC.?

Typically, whilst around 33% of all SAIs undertake quality assurance over
the audit we find that across OLACEFS this occurs in 24% of cases.
Furthermore, in respect of setting of standards a significantly larger
proportion of OLACEFS members carry these out (72%) compared to all
other SAIs (50%). Finally, with regard to the appointment o f private sector
auditors, this only occurs in 12% of all cases across OLACEFS,
compared with 27% for all SAIs .
100%
88%
89%
94%
75%
100%
75%
13%
11%
6%
25%
25%
Federal or national level
Regional level, state, provincial, territory
Local or municipal level
Public companies / parastatals or state-owned
enterprise
Central bank
Other public sector agencies
Any other
Yes No

31

FIGURE 24 . DOES YOUR SAI HAVE OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES OVER OTHER
LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT OR PUBLIC SECTOR ENTITIES AS FOLLO WS?

Across OLACEFS a variety of regulatory bodies requirements are used
depending on the type of activity. So, for example, for financial work
INTOSAI standards and national standards compliant with INTOSAI are
equally used. Whereas for both performance and compliance audits
national standards compliant with INTOSAI are more popular than
INTOSAI standards .
FIGURE 25 . FOR THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF SAI ACTIVITIES PLEASE STATE
THE REGULATORY BODY /REQUIREMENTS USED AS A BASI S OF THE WORK
PERFORMED

88%
28%
76%
12%
72%
24%
Appointment of private sector auditors for specific
bodies
Setting of standards for the undertaking of audit
activities
Quality assurance over the audit undertaken by
other bodies or other processes
Yes No
28%
28%
28%
18%
6%
6%
11%
6%
28%
39%
33%
29%
18%
24%
17%
11%
17%
6%
24%
18%
11%
17%
17%
24%
24%
6%
6%
6%
24%
29%
47%
Financial
Performance
Compliance
Information Systems Auditing
Evaluations
Other attestation engagements
INTOSAI standards Other international standards
National standards compliant with INTOSAI National standards, other
SAI determined practice n/a

32

Somewhat reassuringly, for the three main types of audit, the vast
majority is publicly available (89%) .
FIGURE 26 . FOR THE FOLLOWING AREAS OF WORK, PLEASE INDICATE IF THE
WORK (OR THE RESULTS OF THE WORK) OF YOUR SAI IS PUBLICLY
AVAILABLE (FOR EXAMPLE, BY MAKING A REPORT AVAILABLE ON THE
INTERNET, OR BY REPORTING TO AN OPEN PARLIAMENTARY SESSION)

89%
89%
89%
33%
24%
6%
6%
6%
28%
6%
6%
6%
6%
39%
71%
Financial Audit
Performance Audit
Compliance Audit
Investigations
Judgements
(i) Work is publicly available (ii) Work is not publicly available
(iii) n/a, SAI does not undertake this work

INCOSAI 2022
INTOSAI Global Voice

[email protected]
[email protected]
incosai2022.rio.br