How is SAI Independence Measured?
The InSAI assessment consists of 10 indicators that are considered the most critical for SAI independence. These indicators are identified through consideration of the relevant ISSAI and the experience with the extended use of previous diagnostics, such as the PEFA framework and the SAI PMF. The indicators are framed as simple yes or no questions on each issue, with a written justification provided for quality assurance purposes. A yes response to an indicator yields a score of 1; a no response yields 0, and a partial response scores 0.5. The aggregate score on a scale of 0 to 10 indicates the assessed level of SAI independence, with 10 being the highest and 0 being the lowest. Detailed methodological guidance (see the appendix) is provided to the assessment teams for the scoring decisions.
The 10 indicators and related questions are as follows:
1. Constitutional and legal framework. Is the establishment of the SAI as well as the term, removal, and independence of the head of SAI (and members in the case of collegiate bodies) enshrined in appropriate constitutional provisions and implemented?
2. Transparency in the process for appointing the SAI head. Is the head of the SAI appointed in a transparent and objective manner consistent with the requirements of the legal framework?
3. Financial autonomy. Do the legal framework and operational practices ensure that the SAI is free to propose its budget requirements to the public body deciding the national budget, and is the SAI able to make use of the allocated budget without any constraints imposed by the ministry of finance or another body (except those that are generally applicable to all the ministries)?
4. Types of audits. Does the SAI in practice conduct financial audits, compliance audits, and performance audits?
5. Operational autonomy. Do the legal framework and operational practices ensure that SAI is operationally independent of the legislature and executive in the performance of its functions and management of offices?
6. Staffing autonomy. Is the SAI free to decide on all the human resources matters required for its effective functioning within the available budget, and does it have the power to engage external experts and pay for their services?
7. Audit mandate. Do the legal framework and operational practices ensure that SAI has the mandate to audit all revenues and expenses in the country’s budget, including all central government activities?
8. Audit scope autonomy. Does the SAI have full and unrestricted authority to decide on the nature, scope, and extent of audit and the selection of entities for audit in a particular time period?
9. Access to records and information. Does the SAI have unrestricted access, established in law and practice, to all information, records, and explanations necessary in the conduct of an audit, supported by appropriate recourse if denied legitimate requests for access?
10. Right and obligation on audit reporting. Does the SAI have the constitutional right and obligation to report to the legislature, at least annually, its findings in an audit report; the content, form, and timing of which is entirely determined by SAI (except to the extent laid down in law)? Does SAI make the audit reports public?
Testing and Implementation
The InSAI assessment was launched Bank-wide following consultations with donors who form part of the INTOSAI Donor Cooperation group. When undertaking the InSAI assessment survey, the Bank’s country governance teams use a dual approach. They rely on available documentation to score the indicators, as well as their professional judgment, particularly where a significant gap exists between the formal (intended) structures and actual practices. Important sources of information for the assessors include the SAI PMF (where available and current), Open Budget country reports, PEFAs, the national constitution, audit law, audit reports, and SAI annual reports.
Assessments are reviewed internally for consistency. The intent is to assess all of the World Bank’s borrowers to make available a comprehensive knowledge base for country management teams and the Governance Global Practice. The InSAI assessment for each country includes a score for each indicator and a written justification on how a country does or does not meet the desirable independence outcome (the scoring guidance is provided in the appendix). Each score is reviewed internally for consistency. The final country assessments and scores are consolidated in a synthesis report. The country reports intended to be a resource for Bank staff for country dialogue and opportunities for governance reforms.
Grading SAI Independence
Each country is assigned an SAI independence grade based on its overall score (see table 3). The purpose of the grade is not to rank countries, but rather to illustrate the global state of SAI independence and identify gaps for improvements. See the table below:
For results and more findings please click here to access the full report.