|
Audit Criteria in Performance Audit: How Do They Impact on Design and Results Found?
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Kristin Reichborn-Kjennerud, Work Research Institute, rekr@afi-wri.no
|
| Abstract:
Several authors have described the development towards an audit society. This development is seen as a consequence of New Public Management. Increased delegation has led to increased use of audit and control mechanisms.
Performance audit is a specific form of audit that resembles evaluation. A performance audit is a normative study conducted by national, municipal and private audit institutions, normative because the auditors assessments always are based on audit/evaluation criterias. A given context influence the design of an audit/evaluation and thereby the findings and the results. Audit/evaluation criteria that are too limited might prevent the auditor from grasping results that are important for the stakeholders.
This paper investigates this context and how the design and the setting of criterias impacted on three studies in the public healthcare-and social security sector. In the end I discuss in what way the practice is in line with standards of the performance audit profession.
|
|
Application of New National Evaluation Rules, Regulations and Policies to International Development Programs: Challenges and Opportunities
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Satianan Debidin, Canadian International Development Agency, satianan.debidin@acdi-cida.gc.ca
|
| Abstract:
Over the past few years the Government of Canada (GoC) has taken several reform steps regarding program planning and implementation to support reporting to parliament. A few of the most obvious instruments introduced are the Result Management Accountability Framework, the Accountability Act and other new rules and regulations, all created with the view to improve efficiency, effectiveness, transparency and achieving of and reporting on results across all federal departments and agencies, and therefore, CIDA, an active member of the donor community, has complied.
|
|
Missing the Strategic Wood for the Tactical Trees: The Mistakes Made in Evaluating Oversight Institutions and How to Correct Them
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Terence Beney, Feedback Research & Analytics, tbeney@feedbackra.co.za
|
| Abstract:
The logic of the democratic system holds that the executive is held accountable by the legislatures. Legislatures in turn rely on the oversight institutions tasked with evaluation (e.g. Government Accountability Office) for the information with which to assess and address the actions of the executive. In this hypothetical context it is sufficient to evaluate the evaluators by scrutinizing their credibility (independence, productivity, quality of evaluation outputs) and the utility of their evaluations (relevance, dissemination, usefulness of recommendations). Where the evaluators have been evaluated this output-focused approach has become the convention. In a real world context however the burden of oversight cannot be abdicated to imperfectly functioning legislatures. Evaluation offices share that burden, explicitly or implicitly, and should be evaluated accordingly. The evaluation of South Africa's Public Service Commission is used to illustrate the introduction of two assessment dimensions in addition to the evaluation of output against credibility and utility criteria: 1) the evaluation of outcomes derived from the operationalization of their mandate and 2) the evaluation of their strategic advocacy efforts.
|
|
Enhancing Democracy Assistance Through Better Evaluation: Measuring the Impact of United States Agency for International Development's (USAID) Political Party Assistance
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Altin Ilirjani, United States Agency for International Development, ailirjani@gmail.com
|
| Abstract:
This paper will discuss recent efforts to evaluate the impact that external aid of US Agency for International Development (USAID) has had on development of democratic political parties. Although political party assistance programs have shown some degree of diversity and variation from country to country, a major focus of party assistance programs has been technical assistance in party-building efforts, often with a focus on party-building through elections. Much of the work of USAID has focused on training party activists and leaderships, strengthening the organizational capacities of parties and improving their abilities to contest elections. Quantitative analysis for this paper are based on results of a new survey of USAID's democracy and governance advisors and activity managers, that aims to identify factors affecting USAID's political party program decisions and design; as well as special challenges to working with political parties as compared to other democracy promotion programs.
|
| | | |