This is the accessible text file for the International Journal of 
Government Auditing, July 2008 edition. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

INTOSAI	International Journal Of Government Auditing: 
					
July 2008: 
Vol. 35, No. 3: 

Board of Editors: 
Josef Moser, President, Rechnungshof, Austria: 
Sheila Fraser, Auditor General, Canada: 
Faiza Kefi, First President, Cour des Comptes, Tunisia: 
Gene Dodaro, Acting Comptroller General, United States of America: 
Clodosbaldo Russian Uzcategui, Comptroller General, Venezuela: 

President: Helen H. Hsing (U.S.A.): 

Editor: Donald R. Drach (U.S.A.): 

Assistant Editors: 
Linda J. Sellevaag (U.S.A.): 
Christopher Lyons (U.S.A.): 

Associate Editors: 
Office of the Auditor General (Canada): 
Sudha Krishnan (ASOSAI-India): 
Luseane Sikalu (PASAI-Tonga): 
CAROSAI Secretariat (St. Lucia): 
EUROSAI General Secretariat (Spain): 
Khemais Hosni (Tunisia): 
Yadira Espinoza Moreno (Venezuela): 
INTOSAI General Secretariat (Austria): 
U.S. Government Accountability Office (U.S.A.): 

Administration: 
Sebrina Chase (U.S.A.): 
Paul Miller (U.S.A.): 

Members of the Governing Board of INTOSAI: 
Juan M. Portal-Martinez, Auditor General Auditoria Superior de la 
Federation, Mexico, Chairman: 
Terence Nombembe, Auditor-General Office of the Auditor-General South 
Africa, First Vice-Chairman: 
Osama Jaffer Facieeh, President, General Auditing Bureau, Saudi 
Arabia, Second Vice-Chairman: 
Josef Moser, President; Rechnungshof; Austria, Secretary General: 
Liu Jiayi, Auditor General National Audit Office, People's Republic of 
China: 
Paul R.S. Allsworth, Director of Audit, Cook Islands Audit Office: 
Ziriyo Bogui, President, Chambre des Comptes, Cote d'Ivoire: 
Pal Csapodi, Acting President; Allami Sztimvevoszik, Hungary: 
Vinod Rai, Comptroller and Auditor General, India: 
Hwang Sik Kim, Chairman, Board of Audit and Inspection, Korea: 
Ali Al-Hesnawi, Auditor General, General People's Committee of 
Institution for Auditing and Technical Supervision, Libyan Arab 
Jamahiriya: 
Luis A. Montenegro Espinoza, President, Consejo Superior de la 
Contraloria General Nicaragua: 
Jurgen Kosmo, Auditor General, Riksrevisjonen, Norway: 
Sergey Vadimovich Stepashin, Chairman, Accounts Chamber, Russian 
Federation: 
Wesley Galloway, Acting Director of Audit, National Audit Office, St. 
Kitts and Nevis: 
Amyas Morse, Comptroller and Auditor, General National Audit Office, 
United Kingdom: 
Gene Dodaro, Acting Comptroller General, Government Accountability 
Office, United States of America: 
Clodosbaldo Russian Uzcategui, Comptroller General Venezuela: 

The International Journal of Government Auditing is published 
quarterly (January, April, July, October) in Arabic, English, French, 
German, and Spanish on behalf of INTOSAI (International Organization 
of Supreme Audit Institutions). The Journal, which is the official 
organ of INTOSAI, is dedicated to the advancement of government 
auditing procedures and techniques. Opinions and beliefs expressed are 
those of editors or individual contributors and do not necessarily 
reflect the views or policies of the organization. 

The editors invite submissions of articles, special reports, and news 
items, which should be sent to the editorial offices at: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
Room 7814, 441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 
U.S.A. 
(phone: 202-512-4707; fax: 202-512-4021; 
e-mail: intosaijournal@gao.gov) 

Given the Journal's use as a teaching tool, articles most likely to be 
accepted are those that deal with pragmatic aspects of public sector 
auditing. These include case studies, ideas on new audit 
methodologies, or details on audit training programs. Articles that 
deal primarily with theory would not be appropriate. 

The Journal is distributed to INTOSAI members and other interested 
parties at no cost. It is also available electronically at 
http://www.intosaijournal.org or http://wwwintosa.org and by 
contacting the Journal at spel@gao.gov. 

Articles in the Journal are indexed in the Accountants' Index 
published by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants
and included in Management Contents. Selected articles are included in 
abstracts published by Anbar Management Services, Wembley, England, 
and University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A. 

Contents: 

Editorial: 

News in Brief: 

Auditing Efforts to Combat Money Laundering and Terrorism
Financing: 

Auditing Programs for Integrating People with Disabilities into the 
Workforce: 

VII EUROSAI Congress in Poland: 

Spotlight on the Strategic Plan: 

Inside INTOSAI: 

IDI Update: 

INTOSAI Calendar: 

[End of section] 

Editorial: 

Thoughts About the Present and the Future of INTOSAI: 

Arturo González de Aragón: 
Auditor General of Mexico and Chairman of the INTOSAI Governing Board: 

[Photograph: Arturo González de Aragón] 

I wish to thank this Journal for the opportunity to share some 
thoughts about the present and the future of our great organization 
and our common endeavors. 

The evolution of the contemporary world presents unprecedented 
challenges to supreme audit institutions (SAI)—the dynamics that 
globalization introduces into international relations; phenomena that 
recognize no borders, such as climate change, oil prices, and the food 
crisis; the communications revolution and information technology; 
ongoing democratic processes; and the struggle for international 
markets. All of these issues demand that we change the paradigms of 
the past to face the immense challenges of the present and future. 

There is an important lesson in all of this: if we want to influence 
events, instead of merely reacting to them, we must keep up with the 
pace of change. History waits for no one. 

The future not only presents complex problems but also provides new 
tools to address them. In facing these situations, we must never be 
complacent; rather, we must find solutions that will last beyond our 
time and take into account the consequences of our acts. The future 
belongs to the new generations, to whom we bear a great 
responsibility. What we do today will profoundly affect the new world 
that we create. 

In this chain of cause and effect, the auditing of public resources 
has a key role in establishing free, democratic, and prosperous 
nations. We must accomplish the mission that society has entrusted to 
us with enthusiasm and a sense of responsibility. To achieve this 
objective, we can count on the talent and will of both our own 
citizenry and peers from around the world, who seek to attain 
excellence through their efforts to improve the societies in which 
they live and serve. 

INTOSAI is an organization of equals, in which each of our members has 
a vote, regardless of the degree of socioeconomic development of our 
country, the language we speak, or the mandate granted by the society 
in which we have the privilege of serving. This equality was evident 
for those who attended the 2007 INCOSAI in Mexico. Knowing that 
responsible and generous people from around the world were ready to 
share their experience and knowledge and learn from others was one of 
the greatest rewards of this event. Important actions have been taken 
to implement the guidelines set forth in the INTOSAI strategic plan 
for 2005–2010 and to make this worldwide effort successful. Regional 
groups, working groups, committees, subcommittees, and task forces 
have continued to work in their corresponding areas. It is indeed 
encouraging to take an active part in these efforts to bring the 
world’s top specialists together for the issues we seek to address. 

INTOSAI can achieve its goal of becoming a model international 
organization as long as SAIs intensify their international exchanges, 
become acquainted with best practices, and share new methodologies to 
facilitate efficient auditing of each society’s resources. The synergy 
created by incorporating these efforts within the framework of our 
strategic plan has allowed us to attain real outcomes. As we proceed 
along this path, we count on the commitment and efforts of the entire 
INTOSAI community to continue to make progress. 

Among INTOSAI members, solidarity and a willingness to assist SAIs 
that require support are the hallmarks of interaction. Today, 
professionalism, technical ability, and quality of service are the 
essential elements in achieving effective, efficient, and economical 
performance. Consequently, SAI exchange programs are relevant because 
they allow experience to become a shared resource. Through these 
contacts, the more developed SAIs are honoring their commitment to 
their peers. We must continue to promote the development of common 
products, advances in the design of new methodologies, the 
incorporation of information technologies, and the dissemination of 
best practices among our community to the greatest extent possible. 

Special attention must be paid to the upcoming renewal of INTOSAI’s 
strategic plan. The plan for 2011–2015 must take into account not only 
the undeniable successes achieved under the current plan but also 
recent developments in the world. It must effectively steer our 
organization toward the future so that we can keep up with the pace of 
change and be prepared for any challenges we may face. 

The scope of supreme auditing goes well beyond figures and reports. 
Society has entrusted us with a great charge—to continuously monitor 
the use of public resources. This mission requires us to deepen our 
commitment to performing our task more efficiently and effectively. We 
are not alone in this mission. Rather, we are supported by INTOSAI—a 
great international community and organization that multiplies our 
efforts and enables us to address new challenges. INTOSAI’s strength 
is gathered from the strength of its members. Let us continue together 
to advance our efforts to promote a real culture of accountability. 

The SAI’s role in promoting transparency and accountability is a 
universal principle that must prevail without exception. Society 
trusts us; therefore, we cannot disappoint it. 

If you would like to share your point of view regarding INTOSAI or 
this editorial, I would be delighted to receive your comments at 
bfuentes@asf.gob.mx. 

[End of section] 

News in Brief: 

Canada: 

New Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development: 

In May 2008, Scott Vaughan was appointed to the post of Commissioner 
of the Environment and Sustainable Development in the Office of the 
Auditor General of Canada (OAG). The Commissioner is responsible for 
monitoring sustainable development strategies, overseeing the 
environmental petitions process on behalf of the Auditor General, and 
auditing the Canadian government’s management of environmental and 
sustainable development activities. 

Mr. Vaughan has worked in the field of environmental economics for 
more than 20 years. He came to the OAG from the Organization of 
American States, where he had served as Director of the Department of 
Sustainable Development since 2003. Previously, he was a visiting 
scholar with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in 
Washington, D.C; head of the Environment, Economy, and Trade program 
at the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation in 
Montréal; and a counselor on environmental issues at the World Trade 
Organization. He also held a variety of positions with the United 
Nations Environment Program. 

Mr. Vaughan holds a master’s degree in economics from the London 
School of Economics and Political Science. He is also a graduate of 
the University of Edinburgh, Dalhousie University, and Mount Allison 
University. 

Mr. Vaughan replaced Ron Thompson, who retired from the OAG after 31 
years of service. In addition to serving as Interim Commissioner of 
the Environment and Sustainable Development from January 2007 to May 
2008, Mr. Thompson had been an Assistant Auditor General since 1985. 
In 1999, he assumed responsibility for international relations and 
guided the OAG’s involvement with INTOSAI. Among other activities, he 
made a significant contribution to the Accounting Standards Committee 
and helped develop INTOSAI’s strategic plan. 

Mr. Thompson hosted foreign delegations on behalf of the OAG and was 
responsible for institutional SAI capacity-building projects that were 
funded by the Canadian International Development Agency. He was also a 
strong supporter of the OAG’s annual fellowship program for auditors 
from SAIs in developing nations. 

For additional information, please contact the OAG: 

E-mail: communications@oag-bvg-gc.ca. 
Web site: www.oag-bvg.gc.ca. 

Kuwait: 

Bilateral Cooperation Agreement with Kazakhstan: 

In May 2008, the State Audit Bureau of Kuwait hosted an official visit 
from the Chairman of the Accounts Committee for Control over Execution 
of the Republican Budget of Kazakhstan. During the visit, the Chairman 
and his accompanying delegation were briefed on the State of Kuwait’s 
experience in the control field and its relationship with the 
legislative authority. The two SAIs discussed cooperation and signed a 
joint bilateral cooperation agreement. 

For additional information, contact the State Audit Bureau of Kuwait:
E-mail: training@sabq8.org. 
Web site: www.audit.kuwait.net. 

New Zealand: 

Recent Auditor-General Reports Presented in Parliament: 

Three recent reports that the Office of the Controller and Auditor-
General presented in Parliament may be of special interest to other 
SAIs. Each is available on the office’s Web site. 

A guide entitled Public Sector Purchases, Grants, and Gifts: Managing 
Funding Arrangements with External Parties sets out the basic 
principles for different types of funding arrangements and the choices 
public entities need to make when they plan for, and enter into, such 
arrangements with external parties. The report is available at 
www.oag.govt.nz/2008/funding-arrangements/. 

The Auditor-General also updated and replaced the 2001 good practice 
guide on procurement entitled Procurement Guidance for Public 
Entities. This report is available at www.oag.govt.nz/2008/procurement-
guide/. 

A third report, Managing Funding to Non-Government Organisations—From 
Principles to Practice, describes how one public entity has applied 
the principles for funding nongovernmental organizations. It is 
available at www.oag.govt.nz/2008/ngos-practice/. 

For additional information, contact the Office of the Controller and 
Auditor-General: 

E-mail: enquiry@oag.govt.nz. 
Web site: www.oag.govt.nz and www.auditnz.govt.nz. 

People’s Republic of China: 

New Auditor General Appointed: 

In March 2008, Mr. Liu Jiayi was appointed Auditor General of the 
National Audit Office of China (CNAO) at the first plenary session of 
the 11th National People’s Congress. Mr. Liu had been the Deputy 
Auditor General since September 1996. From 1980 through 1992, he held 
various positions in a provincial audit office in Sichuan and later 
served as Deputy Director General at the CNAO’s Chengdu Resident 
Office. From 1992 to 1996, Mr. Liu was Deputy Director General and 
later Director General of the CNAO’s Commerce and Trade Audit 
Department. 

[Photograph: Liu Jiayi] 

Mr. Liu has overseen the drafting and development of many audit laws, 
regulations, techniques, and manuals in China. He has directed major 
research projects on bank credit management, performance audits of 
public expenditures, and data collection and processing for IT audits. 
He has written several books, including Macro Control and Public 
Finance Policy, Cost Auditing, and Basic Methods of Performance 
Auditing. Many of his articles and papers have been published in 
leading Chinese journals and newspapers. 

Mr. Liu has a Ph.D. in economics and is an honorary professor at 
several Chinese universities. He is currently a member of the United 
Nations Board of External Auditors, the Chairman of ASOSAI, and the 
Chairman of the ASOSAI Working Group on Environmental Audit. 

For additional information, contact the NAO: 

E-mail: cnao@audit.gov.cn. 
Web site: www.audit.gov.cn. 

United States: 

Clean Opinions on GAO’s Performance and Financial Audit Peer Reviews
The U.S. Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) system of quality 
assurance got two votes of approval in June 2008. An international 
team of government auditors reviewed GAO’s performance audit work, and 
the accounting firm KPMG LLP reviewed GAO’s financial audit work. 

Generally accepted governmental auditing standards issued by the U.S. 
Comptroller General require organizations conducting audits of federal 
government programs to undergo an independent external assessment, or 
peer review, of their quality assurance every 3 years. This is the 
second time GAO’s performance audit work has undergone a peer review; 
its financial audit and accounting work has undergone a peer review 
five times since 1995. 

Both reviews found that the systems of quality assurance in effect for 
the year ending December 31, 2007, were suitably designed and 
operating effectively to provide GAO with reasonable assurance that it 
conformed with applicable professional standards. 

The Office of the Auditor General of Canada headed the international 
team that conducted the peer review of GAO performance audits 
completed in 2007. Over the course of 7 months, the team visited GAO 
several times, reviewing documented policies and procedures related to 
applicable professional standards and documentation for a 
representative sample of 2007 audits. The team also interviewed 
professional and administrative staff and relied on the work of GAO’s 
own inspection team. 

In its report, the team noted several best practices that other 
national audit offices may wish to consider. The team was particularly 
impressed that one of GAO’s units used its accumulated knowledge about 
Department of Defense weapon systems to develop a model to inform 
decisions about moving from planning to designing and acquiring 
systems. The peer review team also commended GAO’s use of structured 
approaches to collecting and synthesizing interview data. Several 
human capital practices were singled out, including the use of 
statements of independence; GAO’s college-level recruiting program; 
and the adjunct faculty program, which trains and certifies GAO 
instructors for GAO’s internal Learning Center. 

The team offered a number of suggestions to continue to improve GAO’s 
performance audit work. Specifically, the team suggested that GAO 
provide more explicit criteria in its reviews, mandate the use of a 
data reliability tool, improve the organization and accessibility of 
audit documentation, and clarify its policy for obtaining and 
disclosing third-party comments on its audits. GAO will develop an 
action plan to address the report’s suggestions. 

The peer review reports have been posted on the Internet at
www.gao.gov/about/review.html. 

For additional information, contact GAO: 

E-mail: spel@gao.gov.
Web site: www.gao.gov. 

Using Geographic Information Systems to Audit Efforts to Combat Money 
Laundering and Terrorism Financing: 

by Egbert Jongsma and Frederique de Graaf, Netherlands Court of Audit: 

In June 2008, the Netherlands Court of Audit (NCA) published a report 
on its audit of the Dutch government’s efforts to combat money 
laundering and terrorist financing. During its audit, the NCA used a 
geographical information system (GIS) to analyze and present its 
findings. As reported in this Journal in October 2006, GISs have been 
used successfully for a variety of auditing purposes. At the XIX 
INCOSAI in Mexico in November 2007, the INTOSAI Task Force on the 
Accountability for and Audit of Disaster-Related Aid affirmed the 
usefulness of geographic information in audits of disaster-related 
aid. In this article, we describe some features of a GIS, give an 
overview of how a GIS was used in the recent NCA audit, and introduce 
the NCA’s new knowledge center on the use of GIS in auditing. 

Geographical Information Systems and Auditing: 

Geographical or spatial information can be linked to specific 
locations (for example, zip codes or longitude and latitude 
coordinates). A GIS can be described as a computerized system that 
facilitates data entry, storage, analysis, and presentation especially 
for spatial (geo-referenced) data. In the example shown in figure 1, 
data layers on land usage, elevation, parcels, streets, and customers 
can be combined and analyzed in their geographical context to ask 
questions such as where do customers live (geographical setting) and 
how can they be reached? SAIs can ask and answer similar questions 
about targeted groups of government policies. 

Figure 1: Example of Layers That Can Be Combined and Analyzed in a GIS: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Customers; 
Streets; 
Parcels; 
Elevation; 
Land usage; 
Real world. 

Source: University of Western Ontario, http://ssnds.uwo.ca. 

[End of figure] 

A GIS enables users to: (1) produce high quality maps on any scale, 
(2) store and maintain a large quantity of geographically related 
information, (3) visualize and simplify complex data, and (4) create 
new data from existing data. 

The most powerful feature of a GIS is its ability to allow users to 
perform complex analyses by linking data layers and overlaying 
different data sets to get a spatial perspective. 

For more explanation regarding GISs, please see the Web site of the 
INTOSAI Task Force on the Accountability for and Audit of Disaster-
Related Aid (www.intosai-tsunami.org). The task force believes 
strongly in the added value of GISs and remote sensing (RS) technology 
(such as satellite and aerial images, which provide data that can be 
used as a layer in a GIS) for auditing in general and specifically for 
auditing disaster-related aid. A GIS and remote sensing data can be of 
value for the subsequent stages of an audit: 

* assessing relevant risks,
* designing the audit, 
* conducting the audit,
* analyzing audit findings, and, 
* communicating audit results. 

Assessing Relevant Risks: 

Audits start with performing risk analyses and assessments to indicate 
where the audit will provide the greatest added value. A GIS and 
remote sensing data (GIS/RS) can assist in analyzing and assessing 
risks. A GIS makes it possible to analyze various data attributes or 
layers in a geographical context, which would be more difficult or 
complicated using only spreadsheets. Such data attributes or layers 
could include the geographical spread of projects behind schedule, the 
use of certain contractors in various regions, the geographical spread 
of allocated funds, or demographic information. 

Designing the Audit: 

With available information on risks, a GIS/RS can assist auditors in 
designing the audit by helping to decide on its focus and scope. For 
example, data from a GIS and remote sensing technology can establish 
the number and geographical spread of projects on or behind schedule. 
To determine whether houses are unfinished, it would be easier and 
quicker to display all field data and combine it with satellite 
imagery than to use a table with numbers. This insight, in turn, would 
make it easier for the auditor to decide whether to focus on (1) 
projects behind schedule so that risks related to contract management 
can be audited or (2) projects on schedule so that performance (such 
as the quality and occupancy rate of houses) can be audited. 

Furthermore, a GIS/RS can also be used to plan field visits and 
routing and to establish an optimal mix of field visits and remote 
sensing data: to which locations should a team be sent and for which 
can we rely on remote sensing data? 

Conducting the Audit: 

During the implementation phase of the audit, the audit team can use 
GPS devices and satellite-based maps to link audit field data with 
geographical data. This makes it possible to analyze the field data 
directly when the coordinates are uploaded to GPS software and 
combined with maps—field data are directly visibly mapped in a 
geographical context—not only at a later stage in the audit. For 
example, if an auditor wanted to determine whether houses or 
infrastructure were being constructed in the right places in Indonesia 
following the tsunami, this information would be directly visible when 
the data are uploaded. 

Analyzing Audit Findings: 

As stated earlier, a GIS makes it possible to analyze different layers 
of related geographical information (such as audit findings combined 
with global positioning system (GPS) coordinates). For example, for an 
audit on settlements affected by the 2004 tsunami, these data may 
include the number of school buildings lost and rebuilt, the number of 
surviving children, and location-specific data (land elevations and 
proximity to rivers or roads). With the type of analysis a GIS makes 
possible, performance can be measured: have schools been built in 
areas where children need them? 

Visualizing results with a GIS can also provide insight on 
geographical differences in the performance of public organizations. 
In the case of the tsunami, the performance of local governments could 
be benchmarked. In disaster situations, it may also be interesting to 
benchmark the performance of the government with nongovernmental 
organizations (NGO), since these are some of the few situations in 
which the government does not have a monopoly on implementing 
activities. (NGO performance is used only as a reference in this 
regard because most SAIs do not have a mandate to audit them.) 

Communicating Audit Results: 

With a GIS/RS, audit findings and other data can be mapped and made 
visible, supporting the main conclusions and recommendations of an 
audit and also facilitating an accessible way to communicate audit 
results to final beneficiaries. 

We will further detail the value of a GIS for the subsequent stages of 
our audit of Dutch efforts to combat money laundering and terrorism 
financing. 

Audit of Dutch Efforts to Combat Money Laundering and Terrorism 
Financing: 

The NCA decided to use a GIS in an audit of government efforts to 
combat money laundering and terrorism financing. Money laundering is 
the process of turning money from illegal activities into legitimate 
wealth in such a way that its illegal origins cannot be traced. 
Terrorism financing often involves the use of legal funds to finance 
the illegal activities of terrorists. Both money laundering and 
terrorism financing represent a risk to the integrity of financial 
systems and to public confidence in the operation of financial markets. 

In its audit, the NCA investigated the policy in place to combat money 
laundering and terrorism financing. It considered how the Minister of 
the Interior and Kingdom Relations, the Minister of Finance, and the 
Minister of Justice manage their enforcement chains. It also looked at 
how organizations prevent, detect, investigate, prosecute, and 
sanction money laundering and terrorism financing. It did not consider 
the enforcement of sanctions. 

To gain insight into the performance of investigation services and the 
Public Prosecution Service, the NCA developed performance indicators 
for the probability that money laundering and terrorism financing 
would be detected (detection rate) and punished (punishment rate). To 
relate this performance to the volume of money laundering and 
terrorism financing, the NCA used the number of suspicious 
transactions per geographical unit. The geographical boundaries of the 
local police force were chosen as the geographical unit. In the Excel 
spreadsheet shown in figure 2, this is represented by the unique 
police district code linked to geographical boundaries (SHAPE-Length 
and SHAPE-Area). By doing this, the NCA was able to combine three 
different data sets: suspicious transactions, results of the 
investigation units of local police, and punishments carried out by 
the Public Prosecution Service and the criminal courts. 

Figure 2: Unique Police District Codes Linked to Geographical 
Boundaries in the NCA Audit: 

[Refer to PDF for image: web page example] 

Source: NCA. 

[End of figure] 

The NCA was also able to visualize and analyze the performance 
geographically with GIS software, as shown in figure 3. 

Figure 3: Detection and Punishment Rates of Money Laundering and 
Terrorism Financing by Geographical Unit: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated map] 

Source: NCA. 

[End of figure] 

The NCA used money laundering density—the number of suspicious 
transactions per geographical unit—as a base layer. The NCA visualized 
the results of the local police investigation units in the detection 
rate layer and those of the Public Prosecution Service and the 
criminal courts in the punishment rate layer. 

In its audit report, the NCA noted that despite the many measures that 
the Ministers of the Interior, Finance, and Justice had taken to 
combat money laundering and terrorism financing, the results were 
disappointing. The audit found that money laundering and terrorism 
financing were still inadequately prevented, that the probability of 
money laundering and terrorism financing being detected and punished 
was low, and that the investigation services and the Public 
Prosecution Service made little use of their powers to seize the 
assets of criminals. Because of the ambitions declared by the previous 
five governments and the priority placed on combating money laundering 
and terrorism financing in the past 10 years, these findings were 
unexpected. 

By visualizing the money laundering density and the results of local 
police investigation units, the Public Prosecution Service, and the 
criminal courts, the NCA was able to give the Parliament, ministries, 
and executing agencies insight into geographical differences that were 
not available before its audit. This insight has already raised 
questions about the extent to which geographical differences are 
acceptable and why money laundering density varies so greatly by 
geographical unit. In their reaction to the NCA audit, the responsible 
ministers stated that they will use the outcomes of the audit to 
improve insight into the volume of money laundering and the results of 
combating money laundering and terrorist financing. 

With these overviews of results (performance) and the volume of the 
problem that public entities tackle, it is possible to not only 
analyze and communicate the results of an audit but also facilitate 
the selection of samples for the audit field work. In this particular 
case, if data had been available at an earlier stage of the audit, we 
could have selected the investigation units of the police and the 
units of the Public Prosecution Service as samples based on their 
results. 

Knowledge Center on the Use of GISs in Auditing: 

The NCA has decided to establish a knowledge center on the use of GISs 
in auditing. This center will focus on the national activities of the 
NCA and also be part of the NCA’s portfolio as vice chair of the 
Working Group on Accountability for and Audit of Disaster-Related Aid, 
which is chaired by the European Court of Auditors. The center will 
focus on 

* monitoring relevant developments on GISs and remote sensing, 

* developing guidance on how to use geographical information in 
auditing, 

* developing training materials for SAIs, 

* assisting SAIs with audits in which a GIS is used, and, 

* establishing a network of external experts on GISs and remote 
sensing. 

The following audit topics are potentially very interesting for using 
GISs: 

* auditing disaster-related aid, 

* environmental auditing, and, 

* auditing the fight against criminal activities, fraud, and 
corruption. 

The NCA invites all SAIs to assist it in further developing the use of 
GISs in auditing by sharing audit results, ideas, and information. It 
also invites SAIs that want to start using GISs as an audit tool to 
contact the NCA. 

For additional information, contact Egbert Jongsma (project manager of 
the GIS knowledge center) at e.jongsma@rekenkamer.nl. 

[End of section] 

Auditing Programs for Integrating People with Disabilities into the 
Workforce by Staff from the United Kingdom National Audit Office: 

Within the European Union and the Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development (OECD), approximately one in seven people is 
categorized as disabled, and in many countries the number claiming 
financial support due to disability is increasing. Most governments 
recognize the many benefits of integrating people with disabilities 
into the workforce and have programs to address this need. The level 
of government spending, the social importance of the programs, and the 
risks inherent in such programs (for example, the difficulty of 
establishing eligibility for support) make this an important area for 
scrutiny by SAIs. 

A recent survey on programs that integrate people with disabilities 
into the workforce was completed by 26 European SAIs in preparation 
for a discussion on this topic at the VII EUROSAI Congress in Krakow, 
Poland, in June 2008 (see the report on p.18). The National Audit 
Office of the United Kingdom led the theme with support from the SAIs 
of Estonia, Iceland, Sweden, and Switzerland. This article summarizes 
the results of the survey as well as the conclusions and 
recommendations reached at the conference. 
 
Promoting the Professional Integration of People with Disabilities: 

The OECD has classified programs to support working-age people with 
disabilities as integration based (helping people to find and keep 
jobs) or compensation based (providing financial assistance as an 
alternative to work).[Footnote 1] According to the results of the 
survey completed by 26 European SAIs, job search assistance and 
training accounted for the highest number of participants in 
government programs, and training accounted for the highest government 
expenditures. The discussion paper reported that most governments have 
a strong commitment to integrating people with disabilities into the 
workforce, citing as the primary motivating factors the right to work 
of people with disabilities and the additional social benefits to 
individuals and the community. Other reasons given include 
constitutional mandates prohibiting discrimination against people with 
disabilities (Germany), demographic developments in labor law and the 
employment market (Austria), and the desire to provide an improved 
quality of life for people with disabilities (Malta). Improving the 
economy and reducing benefit expenditures were considered less 
important. As a reflection of their desire to provide support, many 
governments have adopted targets for integrating people with 
disabilities into the workforce. About 60 percent of the 26 SAIs that 
responded to the EUROSAI survey reported specific quantitative targets 
in their countries. All of the SAIs reported that the rate of 
employment among the people with disabilities is lower than the rate 
of employment in the population as a whole—for example, 30 percent 
lower in Switzerland, 40 percent lower in Ireland and the Netherlands, 
and 65 percent lower in Poland. 

SAI Audits of Programs to Integrate People with Disabilities into the 
Workforce: 

Across the EUROSAI region, SAIs have undertaken a wide range of work 
to audit programs to support people with disabilities. There are some 
clear differences in the audit work of different SAIs. The situation 
in different countries appears to vary depending on the legal 
definitions of disability, the role of central and local governments 
in delivering support to unemployed people with disabilities, the 
objectives of the SAI and its audit mandate, and the priority attached 
to these programs. 

Of the 26 SAIs that responded to the EUROSAI survey, 23 had done some 
audit work directly or indirectly linked to disability. Of these, 20 
had done financial audits of the accounts of entities providing state 
support to people with disabilities, and 13 SAIs had done performance 
audits. The focus of these audits included the overall set of programs 
and schemes provided by government, the role of sheltered workshops, 
subsidies for employers, job assistance support, and the role of 
training in helping people with disabilities develop skills. The most 
important factor driving SAIs to carry out these audits is the amount 
of resources expended. 

Audits have enabled SAIs to determine whether funds are being spent as 
intended. For example, in Poland, the SAI’s audit of programs 
providing tax relief for employers of people with disabilities found 
that only a small part of the funds were spent on statutory objectives 
related to rehabilitation. Instead, the money had been spent on such 
things as electricity charges and investments. In Germany, the SAI 
reported that government and social insurance bodies had provided 
funding for facilities and projects designed to assist people with 
disabilities into work for which there was no demand or which 
operators of the facilities could have funded themselves. 

Audits can highlight significant weaknesses in program performance. 
For example, in the United Kingdom, the SAI’s work showed that Remploy 
factories, which provide sheltered employment, were struggling to be 
productive, with funding per head in some businesses being 
disproportionate to the average salary paid. In Norway, the SAI 
reported a steady decrease in the number of new recipients of 
disability pensions who had tried vocational rehabilitation before 
being granted their pensions (only 1 in 7 applicants in 2000) and 
recommended that the ministry be more ambitious in raising performance. 

SAIs can highlight shortcomings in relevant legislation and the way it 
is implemented. In the Ukraine, the SAI’s compliance audit work drew 
attention to the legal uncertainty and lack of a clear program for 
supporting people with disabilities into work. The fund providing 
social protection for persons with disabilities had not ensured the 
proper implementation of the budget program, which led to an 
inefficient use of funds. About one third of loans to other 
organizations over the last 10 years appeared to be high risk, 
jeopardizing returns to the government. 

The work of SAIs has also shown the impact of administrative 
procedures on vulnerable people. In Germany, the SAI reported an 
excessive delay from the time a person with a disability applied for 
assistance until suitable integration measures were initiated. The 
Icelandic SAI identified a lack of fully qualified employees to care 
for people with disabilities and stated that the service provided did 
not always follow relevant laws and regulations. The SAIs of Sweden 
and the United Kingdom both identified insufficient quality in the 
individual action plans prepared for people with disabilities going 
through assistance programs, jeopardizing the value of the support 
provided. 

Recommendations from the EUROSAI Congress: 

While auditing programs that promote the professional integration of 
persons with disabilities, SAIs have encountered a range of 
challenges, including poor quality or incomplete data, difficulties in 
auditing an area involving medical judgments about eligibility, 
organizational complexity in the way some programs are delivered, and 
difficulties in assessing the impact of interventions to help people 
find work. 

Participants in the EUROSAI congress identified a number of 
recommendations to address the difficulties inherent in audits of 
programs. These include the following. 

In planning their future audit work, SAIs should take account of the 
particular materiality, risk, and sensitivity inherent in programs to 
promote the professional integration of people with disabilities. 
Because of sensitivities associated with this area, both public 
interest and program risks are often quite high. There is some 
evidence that at the political level, governments may set overly 
ambitious targets that are higher than anything previously achieved 
and are unrealistic or unachievable. There are often increased risks 
to delivering such programs; for example, it is difficult to challenge 
legacy systems.
 
In some circumstances, normal expectations of performance (e.g., in 
sheltered employment) are tempered by a recognition of wider social 
benefits from helping people with disabilities. As a consequence, 
auditors have to use particular skill and judgment in assessing 
performance, particularly if their work could lead to conclusions that 
certain programs constitute poor value for money. In practice, SAI 
audits have confirmed that these difficulties and other factors 
increase the risk that programs will fail to deliver their intended 
benefits. Indeed, some audits have found programs to have significant 
weaknesses and very limited success. 

When planning and carrying out their work, SAIs should consider 
obtaining the views of service users or their representatives. Service 
users or their representatives can provide SAIs with firsthand 
information on how effectively programs are working, the quality of 
the employment opportunity and experience (which is not always 
measured by providers), and proposed developments in policy and 
administration. These views can be obtained through surveys and by 
contacting groups representing people with disabilities. In taking 
such actions, however, auditors need to ensure that they retain their 
objectivity and independence and are able to evaluate particular 
services without becoming advocates for those services in the 
political arena. 

Where SAIs’ statutory remit permits, they should make full use of the 
opportunities for collaboration with other inspectors, but SAIs must 
ensure the accuracy and completeness of data provided by third 
parties. Auditors in some jurisdictions cannot audit work programs on 
their own and need to collaborate with other organizations to 
discharge their duties. In many jurisdictions, work programs are 
delivered by nongovernmental bodies, such as charities or other 
private sector entities. In these circumstances, the role of the SAI 
in the audit of programs can be more difficult. The auditor may need 
to gain a detailed understanding of a system that involves a high 
number of small organizations or a long delivery chain. 

SAIs should encourage governments to adopt good administrative 
practices. Because of the high level of funding used for work programs 
for people with disabilities, SAIs have a responsibility to ensure 
that funds are spent as intended and not directed into other 
activities. Audits by SAIs have often found that administrative
 arrangements put in place by governments are not fully effective. AIs 
should encourage governments to introduce clear legislation and 
regulations, design robust and transparent decision-making 
arrangements for assessing a person’s eligibility for programs, and 
maintain clear and accurate records of support provided to individuals. 
 
SAIs have a role in encouraging governments to improve the information 
they collect on program outcomes (such as the extent to which 
participants find and retain jobs) and ensuring that programs are 
designed in ways that allow for the evaluation of success. Many SAIs 
found data reliability to be a problem. In some cases, the number of 
participants in any given program could not be determined; in other 
cases, data were not available. Where multiple organizations are 
involved in delivering services, different datasets may need to be 
cross referenced or combined to gain an overall understanding of the 
programs. Such work can be time-consuming and difficult. In addition, 
the difficulties in tracking what happens to people after they have 
completed work programs are likely to make assessments of program 
effectiveness very difficult. 
 
SAIs should consider whether they need specialist skills and support 
in assessing programs for people with disabilities. Eligibility for 
programs and support arrangements for people with disabilities often 
center on an assessment of disability, which is usually carried out by 
medically qualified staff. Auditors cannot question the medical 
judgments on which decisions are made about eligibility for disability 
support or admission to a work program. Nevertheless, auditors will 
need to have a good understanding of the relevant medical decisions 
and the classifications of people with disabilities and must find ways 
of assessing whether a strong decision-making process is in place. To 
do this, specialist assistance in carrying out the audit may be needed. 

Because of the difficulty in making judgments about programs to 
support people with disabilities, SAIs should pay particular attention 
to obtaining sources of evidence that can further corroborate findings 
and conclusions. Where making an audit judgment is difficult—for 
example, where it is not feasible to determine how the medical 
profession is applying eligibility criteria—it is important to seek 
other evidence. For example, information showing trends of usage or 
participation can often be an indicator of a problem in applying 
eligibility criteria. Such evidence is often more objectively 
verifiable than other sources.
 
In scoping work in this broad and complex area, SAIs should look for 
indicators from a variety of sources to identify areas to focus on in 
their work. SAIs have found that certain indicators can help to reveal 
trends or problem areas within programs. For example, a high level of 
benefit appeals, repeat enrollments of individuals within training and 
skills programs, or the return of a high number of people to a 
reliance on benefits may indicate areas of risk or unintended or 
unforeseen consequences of program implementation. The audited entity 
may not necessarily have all of the information needed. Other 
entities, such as nongovernmental organizations, will often be a 
valuable source of relevant information on whether programs are 
providing sustained employment for people with disabilities. 

Conclusions: 

SAIs have an important role to play in auditing how governments spend 
money to assist people with disabilities to gain and retain work. 
Overall, European SAIs are assisting governments to make the most of 
their resources by highlighting inefficiencies, the incorrect use of 
funds, and poor performance. SAIs share many common challenges in 
completing this work, including the complexity of the methods for 
delivering these programs, the difficulty in measuring program 
success, and the lack of available data. As a result, opportunities to 
learn from the experience of colleagues and the techniques they have 
used in developing their audit approaches are extremely beneficial. We 
hope that the dialogue begun at the recent EUROSAI congress will help 
to promote additional sharing about work in this important area. 

For additional information, contact the U.K. National Audit Office at 
enquiries@nao.gov.uk. 

Footnote: 

[1] OECD, Transforming Disability into Ability; Policies to promote 
work and income security for disabled people, 2003, page 126. 

[End of section] 

EUROSAI Holds VII Triennial Congress in Poland: 

by Cindy Fagnoni, U.S. Government Accountability Office: 

The VII triennial congress of the European Organization of Supreme 
Audit Institutions (EUROSAI) was held in Krakow, Poland, June 2–6, 
2008. Jacek Jezierski, the President of Poland’s Supreme Chamber of 
Control (NIK), and his staff welcomed 195 delegates representing 48 
SAIs. Observers from INTOSAI regional groups (AFROSAI, ARABOSAI, 
ASOSAI, and OLACEFS) and the INTOSAI Development Initiative also 
attended the conference, along with observers from several 
international organizations and this Journal. 

[Photograph: Participants in the VII EUROSAI congress in Krakow] 

The opening ceremony was held at Jagiellonian University, located in 
Krakow’s Old Town. Dr. Dieter Engels, President of Germany’s Federal 
Court of Audit and outgoing EUROSAI President, officially opened the 
congress with a warm welcome to the delegates. Dr. Engels highlighted 
the successful role EUROSAI has played in fostering international 
cooperation and strengthening SAIs across Europe. He noted that 
EUROSAI now includes 48 members, with the SAI of Israel joining since 
the last congress. He summarized 3 years of successful work by the 
EUROSAI working groups on information technology, environmental audit, 
and coordinated audit tax subsidies; the benchmarking 
costs/performance tax administration study group; and the EUROSAI 
Training Committee. He also noted EUROSAI’s global outreach and 
cooperation with related organizations such as OLACEFS. 

Dr. Engels then turned over the EUROSAI presidency to Mr. Jezierski, 
who praised Dr. Engels’ leadership and pledged to build on EUROSAI’s 
successes. He said he welcomed the challenge of serving as EUROSAI 
president and noted the important role of international cooperation in 
an increasingly integrated Europe and globally interdependent world. 
Mr. Jezierski introduced the three congress themes and thanked all the 
theme chairs for their hard work in preparing for the congress. 

[Photograph: Dr. Engels of Germany (left) and Mr. Jezierski of Poland 
(right)-—the outgoing and incoming EUROSAI presidents, respectively—-
at one of the plenary sessions during the congress] 

Mr. Jezierski introduced the President of Poland, Lech Kaczynski, who 
welcomed the participants to Krakow and spoke of the important role 
that SAIs play in protecting the public and improving government 
management and performance. President Kaczynski was well qualified to 
discuss the role of the SAIs, having served as NIK President from 1992 
through 1995. He noted how invaluable that experience has been in his 
current role. Following the President’s remarks, representatives from 
Poland’s postal service unveiled a special commemorative stamp with 
the congress logo that had been issued in honor of the congress and 
NIK’s leadership of EUROSAI. Each participant received one of the 
commemorative stamps. 

For the sake of the environment, the congress hosts had decided to 
make this event as paperless as possible. Official congress papers 
were made available via the Internet before the conference on a 
special congress Web site. During the congress, every participant was 
provided with a laptop preloaded with all relevant congress materials. 
At the end of the congress, participants received portable USB drives 
containing all the documents to take home with them. 

[Photograph: Delegates made ample use of the laptops provided to them 
for this first paperless EUROSAI congress] 

Theme Presentations, Conclusions, and Recommendations: 

The congress focused on three key themes: establishing an audit 
quality management system within an SAI, auditing social programs in 
the field of education, and auditing social programs for the 
professional integration of people with disabilities. For each theme, 
the chairs and assisting SAIs prepared a principal paper giving an 
overview of the theory and practice related to the topic and posing 
certain questions. EUROSAI members were invited to respond to or 
comment on the points raised by the papers in written country papers 
based on their national perspectives and experiences. The country 
papers provided an important and wide-ranging source of information 
and experience from which the theme chairs and assisting SAIs prepared 
discussion papers for each theme. 

The first theme focuses on the challenge SAIs face in ensuring that 
their work meets the high quality standards that stakeholders expect. 
The second and third themes deal with key social policy areas where 
SAIs can and do make an impact and, based on a discussion of 
experiences and existing approaches, seek to highlight areas for SAIs 
to consider in their future national work. 

During the congress, EUROSAI members discussed the analyses and key 
observations in the excellent discussion papers, as well as additional 
information, including presentations covering technical audit case 
studies from SAIs and alternative perspectives from external 
stakeholders. On this basis, the congress reached conclusions and 
developed recommendations related to each theme. 

Theme 1: Establishing an Audit Quality Management System within an SAI: 

This theme was led by the SAI of Hungary with support from the SAIs of 
Denmark, Malta, Poland, and the Russian Federation and the European 
Court of Auditors. All participating EUROSAI members expressed their 
concern about audit quality issues and their desire to further 
strengthen audit quality management in their organizations. They 
recognized that leadership is an essential element in an effective 
quality management system and that effective communication at all 
levels is vital to directing the SAI’s mission and goals, improving 
trust across the organization, and promoting professional knowledge. 

Most SAIs have a strategic plan to ensure that they respond to changes 
in the audit environment and meet stakeholders’ expectations. Most 
carry out a comprehensive risk assessment as part of the strategic 
planning process and periodically monitor and review their progress 
through annual audit plans and, in some SAIs, performance indicators. 

SAIs also highlighted effective human resource management as key to 
ensuring audit quality. The majority of SAIs consider comprehensive 
human resource planning and monitoring as essential to ensuring that 
staff are not only used efficiently and effectively, but also more 
satisfied and better trained. SAIs indicated that they either have or 
are developing human resource policies and systems, including specific 
plans and procedures for staff recruitment and hiring, staff 
development, performance assessment, and promotions. They also 
emphasized the importance of the fair application of well-documented 
human resource policies and procedures and the transparent treatment 
of staff. At the audit team level, SAIs consider continuous 
supervision and monitoring by management as key quality control 
measures and have developed audit methodology documents to support 
auditors in carrying out high-quality audits. 

SAIs recognized the importance of key external parties—such as 
parliaments, the audited organizations, the media, the public, and 
professional organizations—to independently gauge audit quality. SAIs 
have various measures in place to monitor the outcomes of their audit 
activities and obtain external feedback. For example, most SAIs track 
the degree to which audit recommendations are implemented. Most SAIs 
seek to continuously develop and improve audit quality management 
systems by carrying out internal or external post-audit quality 
reviews. Some SAIs also carry out self-assessments. 

Based on these conclusions, the congress made the following 
recommendations: 

* SAIs are encouraged to further promote leadership through the 
organization’s mission and vision statements, value framework, code of 
conduct, and strategic and operational plans. SAIs may also wish to 
consider the development of performance indicators. 

* SAIs should consider establishing an objective to assess and 
continuously improve their audit quality management systems. 

* SAIs are encouraged to take further efforts to support their staff 
to achieve high quality standards. 

* SAIs should consider strengthening relations with key stakeholders, 
including the Parliament and its committees, audited organizations, 
the media, the general public, and professional organizations.  

* SAIs may wish to make use of reviews conducted by external experts, 
including peer reviews. SAIs may also consider establishing an 
independent organizational unit dedicated to quality issues. 

The congress also supported the development of a good practices guide 
for audit quality, which is to be drafted in 2009. 

[Photograph: The congress featured wide-ranging discussions of its 
three themes] 

Theme 2: Auditing Social Programs in Education: 

The theme was led by the SAI of Portugal, with support from the SAIs 
of Estonia, France, Poland, Sweden, and the Ukraine. Most of the 109 
education audits carried out by EUROSAI SAIs from 2004 through 2006 
focused on financial procedures and reviews of policy implementation, 
with a focus on higher education. SAI recommendations based on these 
audits were directed towards changing rules and regulations as well as 
disseminating good practices. SAIs plan to continue work on education 
issues, with 93 audits planned for 2007 through 2009. 

The congress recommended that education audits take the relative size 
of public expenditures into consideration in selecting audit topics. 
Based on a survey of SAIs conducted for the congress, several topics 
emerged as important areas of focus: 

* barriers to accessing high-quality kindergarten education, such as 
the location of providers, parents’ ability to pay, and the quality of 
services; 

* the quality and effectiveness of K–12 education in raising 
educational achievement and reducing the dropout rates of students 
aged 15–18; 

* the quality of vocational education programs and the extent to which 
these programs meet labor market needs and higher education demands; 

* education initiatives designed for specific subpopulations, 
especially people with disabilities, the unemployed, and the 
imprisoned; and; 

* the quality of university-level education, including management and 
financial aid. 

The congress also recommended that SAIs consider audits at both the 
regional and national levels and suggested that joint or parallel 
audits involving several SAIs would be beneficial. The congress 
recommendations highlighted risk areas to consider when selecting 
audit topics, possible audit methods, and reporting and post-audit 
monitoring strategies. For example, the audit methods recommendations 
noted that SAIs should develop measurable and comparable performance 
indicators in evaluating effectiveness. The recommendations also noted 
that establishing a systematic post-audit monitoring process should 
lead to the implementation of a greater percentage of recommendations. 

Theme 3: Auditing Social Programs for the Professional Integration of 
People with Disabilities: 

This theme was led by the SAI of the United Kingdom with support from 
the SAIs of Estonia, Iceland, Poland, Sweden, and Switzerland. The 
congress made a series of recommendations for this theme based on 
highly informative papers and presentations. The issues discussed and 
the recommendations are summarized in the article "Auditing Social 
Programs for the Professional Integration of the People with 
Disabilities" on pp. 13–17 of this issue of the Journal. 

EUROSAI Working Groups: 

Representatives from the EUROSAI Training Committee (which is 
cochaired by France and Spain) reported on the committee’s activities 
over the past 3 years and summarized its training strategy. The 
congress approved the reports and adopted a common training strategy 
for 2008 through 2011. 

The congress also approved the reports and resolutions presented by 
the EUROSAI Working Group on Environmental Auditing (chaired by 
Poland), the IT Working Group (chaired by the Netherlands), the 
Working Group on the Coordinated Audit of Tax Subsidies (chaired by 
Germany), and the Study Group on Benchmarking Cost and Performance of 
Tax Administration (chaired by the United Kingdom). 

The congress adopted the Ukrainian SAI’s proposal to set up an 
independent EUROSAI working group, the Subgroup on Audit of Natural, 
Man-Caused Disasters: Consequences and Radioactive Wastes Elimination. 
The proposal was presented by representatives from Spain and the 
Ukraine. 

Other Business: 

The Congress adopted the dates for conferences with their counterpart 
organizations—the VI EUROSAI-OLACEFS conference will take place in 
Venezuela in 2009, and the EUROSAI-ARABOSAI conference will be held in 
France in 2009. 

Representatives from the INTOSAI Development Initiative (IDI), chaired 
by Norway, discussed cooperative activities in the region. In the past 
year, IDI has made a strategic shift from classroom training to a 
broader focus on training for impact. The IDI strategy involves 
strengthening SAIs as institutions as well as enhancing the 
professional development of SAI staff. 

The congress unanimously accepted the offer of Portugal’s SAI to host 
the VIII EUROSAI congress in Lisbon in 2010. The delegates enjoyed a 
video presentation on that beautiful country and, during the closing 
ceremony, were treated to a recital by Polish pianist Joachim Mencel, 
who played pieces by Chopin as well as his own compositions. 

For additional information, see the special congress Web site: 
www.eurosai2008.pl. 

[End of section] 

Spotlight on The Strategic Plan: 

by Kirsten Astrup, INTOSAI Director of Strategic Planning: 

[Photograph: Kirsten Astrup] 

The INTOSAI Governing Board has expressed its satisfaction with 
INTOSAI’s current strategic plan and recommended that it be updated 
for 2011–2016 rather than developing a new strategic plan for that 
period. INTOSAI’s mission, vision, and goals, as stated in the current 
plan, will remain the same. In November 2007, the Finance and 
Administration Committee established a task force chaired by the SAI 
of the United States to update the plan. The task force is relying on 
the chairs of INTOSAI’s four goals to take the lead in updating the 
strategies (activities and programs) under their respective areas. The 
chairs are encouraged to contact their subcommittees for input and to 
work with other relevant bodies. 

Before the updated plan is presented to the 2010 INCOSAI in South 
Africa, a first draft will be circulated to the INTOSAI membership 
early in 2009 for review and comment. This approach is consistent with 
both the streamlined process approved at the 2007 INCOSAI in Mexico 
and the need to include all SAIs in the process. 

Through the combined efforts of many individuals, INTOSAI is now 
positioned to bring the strategic goals in its current plan to 
fruition. Most of the strategies under the three operational goals and 
one organizational goal are being addressed, and progress is being 
made. 

But why does INTOSAI need a strategic plan? This subject has been 
discussed at length since the decision to develop a strategic plan was 
made in 2001. While there are many ways to explain the need for a 
plan, I like to use the image of SAIs as mountain climbers. Each SAI 
wants to reach the top, but we have different paths to climb—some have 
to scale steep rocks, others have to face waterfalls, and still others 
may need to fight snowstorms. Furthermore, SAIs have climbed to 
different heights on the mountain, and those higher up can help those 
below by sharing information about the way ahead and how best to 
tackle obstacles and difficulties along the way. While it does not 
matter that some SAIs are climbing faster than others, we do not want 
anyone to be left behind. We try to harmonize our efforts and meet now 
and then to give advice and receive tips; we might even help to carry 
each others’ burdens. Those who have a lot of provisions for the 
journey might share with others whose provisions are not so abundant. 
And, as often happens when climbing up a hill, those who think that 
they are about to arrive at the top discover that this is an illusion-—
there is always one more hill to climb. 

It is here that the strategic plan comes into play. It maps out the 
needs of individuals and the landscape and describes best practises 
and procedures; in general, the strategic plan helps us to think ahead 
and find solutions through mutual efforts. Thus, we inch forward in a 
synchronized manner and prepare for the next steps, communicating all 
the way. In any organization, making plans to improve performance is a 
never-ending task, and there are always new challenges to tackle. It 
helps us greatly to consult with others facing similar situations. 

Let us not forget that INTOSAI is a worldwide organization, which 
means that from the outset we are very different in many ways. Even 
though INTOSAI has only five official languages, we have much more 
variation in our languages and cultures. Many of us have to work in 
languages other than our mother tongue, and this certainly adds to the 
difficulties of working together. In fact, considering what it takes 
to arrive at consensus on such a broad scale, the extent of 
cooperation under the INTOSAI umbrella is quite amazing, Working 
together as we do in our professional groups—whether a committee, 
working group, or task force under one of the four goals—has proven to 
be a very sound way to achieve great results, harmonize our ways of 
thinking, and share knowledge. 

Another subject I would like to mention is the Task Force on Donor 
Funding, which the Finance and Administration Committee established to 
lay the groundwork for better cooperation between INTOSAI and the 
donor community. This is an exciting and necessary project created to 
achieve many of the objectives under our four strategic goals. The 
task force’s meeting in Bern in June, which included representatives 
of INTOSAI’s four goals, was a first step in facilitating cooperation 
with the donors. (See the report on this meeting in "Inside INTOSAI" 
in this issue.) We are optimistic that this cooperation will provide 
us with the funding we need to develop further, share knowledge, 
improve performance, and help to ensure the accountability of 
governments all around the globe. As part of your commitment to INTOSAI’
s mission and vision, I encourage you to follow this work and look 
into opportunities for improvement that this cooperation can promote 
in your countries and regions. 

In the October issue of this Journal, I will talk about cooperation 
with other standard-setting organizations, in particular the Institute 
of Internal Auditors (IIA). In July 2008, our Secretary General, Dr. 
Josef Moser, will meet with the IIA Executive Committee and give a 
presentation in San Francisco to the IIA Board of Directors. 

Please feel free to contact me at astrup@rechnungshof.gv.at if you 
have any comments or would like to give feedback on issues related to 
the implementation of INTOSAI’s strategic plan. 

[End of section] 

Inside INTOSAI: 

Task Force on Donor Funding Meets with Donor Community: 

The Finance and Administration Committee’s Task Force on Donor Funding 
met with international and bilateral donors in Bern, Switzerland, on 
June 20, 2008, to discuss strategies for enhancing capacity-building 
in SAIs. INTOSAI was represented by the SAIs of Mexico (Chairman of 
the Governing Board); Saudi Arabia (Vice-chairman of the Governing 
Board and Chairman of the Finance and Administration Committee); the 
United States (Chairman of the Task Force on Donor Funding); task 
force members Denmark, Morocco, Norway, India, and the United Kingdom; 
and the INTOSAI Secretary General. The donor community was represented 
by the World Bank; the European Union; the Inter-American Development 
Bank; and the national aid agencies of Belgium, Canada, Ireland, the 
Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. 

[Photograph: Caption: INTOSAI representatives at the Bern meeting 
included Arturo González de Aragón, Mexico; Osama Faquih, Saudi 
Arabia; and Gene Dodaro, the United States] 

An INTOSAI discussion paper-—"Partnering for Progress to Fight 
Corruption, Promote Transparency, Improve Performance, and Ensure 
Accountability: INTOSAI, The World Bank and the Donor Community 
Working Together to Strengthen the Capacity of Supreme Audit 
Institutions"-—served as the basis for the discussions. The auditors 
general of Mexico, Saudi Arabia, and the United States presented the 
INTOSAI position and discussion paper. The presentation underscored 
INTOSAI’s core values of independence and autonomy; its firm 
commitment to promote good governance, enhance accountability and 
transparency, and fight corruption; and its long tradition of SAIs 
helping each other (expressed in its motto, "Mutual Experience 
Benefits All"). 
 
The donors responded favorably to the INTOSAI presentation and 
welcomed the INTOSAI initiative. They noted that it is consistent with 
their policies and programs to fight corruption and improve 
governance, accountability, and transparency. As a next step, the 
donors agreed to prepare a written response to the INTOSAI paper in 
the form of a "road map to a multidonor trust fund." The donor paper 
will articulate the specifics of the proposed INTOSAI/donor 
partnership, including trust fund governance, mechanics, and related 
issues. It will be drafted for INTOSAI’s review by August 2008 and 
will then provide the basis for a follow-up INTOSAI/donor meeting to 
be held in London in October 2008. With this timetable, a formal 
proposal will be available for the INTOSAI Governing Board’s 
deliberation at its November 2008 meeting in Vienna. 

A donor working group consisting of the World Bank, the Canadian 
International Development Agency, and the United Kingdom’s Department 
for International Development will take the lead to draft the donor 
paper and will consult with the chairmen of INTOSAI’s Finance and 
Administration Committee and Task Force on Donor Funding. 

For more information, contact the task force at drachd@gao.gov. 

Working Group on the Fight against Money Laundering and Corruption 

In November 2007, INTOSAI converted the Task Force on the Fight 
against International Money Laundering to a permanent working group 
and broadened its scope to include anticorruption activities. In early 
March 2008, the working group held its first meeting in Lima, Peru—the 
home of its chairman, Dr. Genaro Matute—and developed a proposed plan 
to guide its work from 2008 to 2011. The plan has the following four 
objectives: 

Promote cooperation and support among member SAIs to help them prevent 
and detect money laundering and corruption, to facilitate information 
exchanges, and to develop typologies and guidelines for SAIs to use. 
Activities include creating a virtual forum to exchange points of view 
and ideas and to post questions and answers. 

Promote cooperation between INTOSAI and international organizations 
involved in the fight against corruption and money laundering. 
Activities include identifying and developing communication and 
cooperation channels with key international partners for the working 
group. 

Identify country regulations, policies, strategies, and programs that 
SAIs can use to detect and prevent corruption and money laundering. 
Activities include (1) administering a questionnaire about activities, 
programs, strategies, and policies of SAIs to combat money laundering 
and corruption and (2) collecting regulations and legal background in 
these areas from SAIs. 

Identify relevant training programs on money laundering and 
corruption. Activities include completing and posting on the working 
group’s Web site a list of training programs and certifications in 
detecting and fighting money laundering and corruption. 

The working group’s next meeting is scheduled for late July 2008 in 
Cairo, Egypt. 

For additional information, see the working group’s Web site: 

www.contraloria.gob.pe/task_force/index.htm. 

[End of section] 

IDI Update: 

IDI Update keeps you informed of developments in the work and programs 
of the INTOSAI Development Initiative. To find out more about IDI and 
to keep up to date between editions of the Journal, look at the IDI 
website: www.idi.no. 

IDI/AFROSAI-E Development of Model Audit Files: 

In 2007, IDI and AFROSAI-E (the regional working group for English-
speaking African SAIs) developed a handbook on conducting regional and 
SAI quality assurance reviews for both regularity and performance 
audits. At the beginning of April 2008, a team comprising five 
regional regularity audit experts, an external expert, and IDI staff 
met in South Africa for a 1-week workshop to develop two model audit 
files in regularity auditing. These files were developed according to 
the latest audit standards and will be released to all SAIs in the 
region to help them improve the quality of their regularity audits. 

IDI/ARABOSAI Needs Assessment Program: 

IDI and ARABOSAI are running a needs assessment program for 18 
regional SAIs to assess their capacity-building needs, develop their 
needs assessment abilities, and identify future cooperation programs. 
Because there is strong interest in this program, the participating 
SAIs have been divided into two groups. 

Teams from the first group of SAIs attended the 2-week Workshop on 
Needs Assessment in Morocco in February 2008, where they were trained 
in conducting needs assessments using the global needs assessment 
framework and toolkit developed by the IDI and adapted to the ARABOSAI 
environment. At the end of June and beginning of July 2008, the teams 
met for 1 week in Libya to review the needs assessments they had 
carried out following the February workshop. The second group of SAIs 
attended the Workshop on Needs Assessment in Tunisia in April 2008 and 
is currently working on needs assessments that they will present at 
their review meeting later this year. 

Workshop to Develop Global Strategic Planning Handbook: 

A team of resource persons from IDI, AFROSAI-E, CAROSAI, OLACEFS, and 
ARABOSAI met in Oslo for a week in May 2008 to write a strategic 
planning handbook that provides guidance to both individual SAIs and 
INTOSAI regions. This handbook is based on the model that IDI has used 
and the experiences it has gained through the strategic planning 
programs delivered to 10 countries of AFROSAI-E and CAROSAI in recent 
years. IDI will review the materials developed and will distribute 
copies to INTOSAI regions. 

IDI/AFROSAI-E Calibration Workshop: 

AFROSAI-E has used an Institutional Strengthening Framework to assess 
both the needs and the level of development of regional SAIs. After 
the needs assessment model and tools were pilot tested in the region, 
there was a felt need to revisit the framework and to modify the model 
and tools in light of lessons learned. To meet this need, a team 
consisting of five regional experts, two persons from the AFROSAI-E 
secretariat, representatives from institutional partners, and IDI 
staff met for a 7 days in Oslo in May 2008. The result of this meeting 
was a modified, outcome-oriented model that IDI and AFROSAI-E will use 
for all subsequent interventions in the region. 

IDI/OLACEFS Needs Assessment Program: 

This year, IDI and OLACEFS will conduct a needs assessment program to 
identify capacity-building needs in OLACEFS and develop regional 
capacity to carry out needs assessments by training a pool of SAI 
staff on needs assessment methodology and techniques. At a 3-day 
meeting in Oslo in April 2008 to plan for the upcoming program, 
representatives from the secretariat of the Regional Training 
Committee (Peru) and IDI staff gathered to agree on the way forward. 
In June, a 2-week design meeting was held in Lima, Peru, to adapt IDI’
s tools and framework to the circumstances of OLACEFS and design a 2-
week Workshop on Needs Assessment that will be delivered later this 
year to teams from selected SAIs. 

IDI/ASOSAI Blended Learning Program to Train Trainers: 
 
In response to ASOSAI’s urgent request for a new group of IDI-
certified training specialists, IDI is piloting a blended e-learning 
and face-to-face training for the third delivery of this program in 
ASOSAI. All participants will go through a Web-based preparatory phase 
before attending the Course Design and Development Workshop later this 
year. To select participants from the targeted SAIs for this program, 
a Web-based selection process took place in June 2008. 

IDI´s Liaison with the INTOSAI Community: 

In its ongoing effort to collaborate with partners in the INTOSAI 
community, IDI representatives recently attended and reported at the 
following meetings: the SPASAI Congress (Cook Islands), the Caribbean 
Regional Public Financial Management Conference (St. Lucia), the 
Financial Stakeholders Meeting in AFROSAI (Tunisia), the Steering 
Committee Meeting of the INTOSAI Working Group on Environmental 
Auditing (Estonia), the meeting of the INTOSAI Working Group on IT 
Audit (Japan), the Performance Audit Subcommittee meeting (Brazil), 
the VII EUROSAI Congress (Poland), and the meeting of INTOSAI and 
other donor institutions on external funding of development activities 
(Switzerland). 

Contacting IDI: 

To discuss any of the issues raised in this edition of the IDI Update, 
please contact IDI: 

E-mail: idi@idi.no. 
Web site: www.idi.no. 
 
[End of section] 

INTOSAI 2008-2009 Events: 

July 1-2: 
Meeting of the Working Group on Accountability for and Audit of 
Disaster-related Aid, Luxembourg. 

July 7-9: 
20th Commonwealth Auditors-General Conference, Bermuda. 

October 21-23: 
Professional Standards Committee Steering Committee meeting, Beijing, 
China. 

October 29: 
Capacity Building Committee Steering Committee meeting, Rabat, Morocco. 

October TBD: 
11th AFROSAI General Assembly, South Africa. 

November 11: 
UN/INTOSAI Platform meeting, Vienna, Austria. 

November 12: 
INTOSAI Communications Strategy Task Force meeting, Vienna, Austria. 

November 13-14: 
58th INTOSAI Governing Board meeting, Vienna, Austria. 

January 25-29: 
12th meeting of Working Group on Environmental Auditing, Doha, Qatar. 

February 11-13: 
20th UN/INTOSAI Symposium, Vienna, Austria. 

March: 17-19: 
Meeting of the Working Group on Privatization, Economic Regulation, 
and Public-Private Partnerships, Moscow, Russian Federation. 

[End of July 2008 Journal]