Performance Information Audits
Predetermined objectives attract findings year after year, and the cause is nearly always the same: the number reported cannot be traced back to evidence anybody kept. Performance information is audited on usefulness and reliability, both of which are decided long before year end, in how indicators were defined and whether anyone collected proof as the work happened.
1
Indicators
Are they even measurable
2
Evidence
What was actually kept
3
Trace
Report back to source
4
Assess
Useful and reliable
5
Remediate
Fix before year end
How We Test
01
Indicator Definition Review
An indicator that cannot be measured consistently will produce a finding no matter how diligently it is reported. We assess each indicator against the usefulness criteria before looking at any number.
- Indicators assessed as well defined and verifiable
- Alignment to the strategic plan and budget
- Baselines and targets specific and time bound
- Calculation method documented and consistently applied
02
Portfolio of Evidence Review
Reported achievement has to be supported by evidence collected at the time. Reconstructing a portfolio after year end is visible to auditors and rarely survives testing.
- Evidence requirements defined per indicator
- Assessment of what is actually being collected
- Timeliness, whether evidence is contemporaneous
- Storage, retrieval and retention arrangements
03
Substantive Testing
We test reported figures the way the external auditors will, tracing from the report back to source and, in the other direction, from source records to the report to test completeness.
- Sample testing from report back to source evidence
- Completeness testing from source to report
- Recalculation of reported achievement
- Verification against the approved indicator definition
04
Usefulness and Reliability Assessment
Findings are categorised the way they will be raised externally, so management is dealing with the same language and the same criteria rather than a private methodology.
- Findings categorised as usefulness or reliability
- Materiality applied consistently
- Misstatements quantified per programme
- Assessment against the reporting framework in force
05
Early Remediation
The point of doing this internally is time. Where an indicator is unmeasurable, it can be redefined for the following cycle. Where evidence is missing, collection can start now rather than being reconstructed later.
- Findings issued early enough to act on
- Indicator redefinition recommendations
- Evidence collection processes established
- Retesting before the external audit begins
What You Receive
- Indicator by indicator usefulness assessment
- Portfolio of evidence gap analysis
- Substantive testing results with misstatements quantified
- Findings categorised as external audit would raise them
- Indicator redefinition recommendations for the next cycle
- Retest results ahead of the external audit
Indicative Timeline
Testing normally runs three to five weeks depending on the number of indicators and programmes. Timing matters more than duration: mid year is materially more useful than after year end.
- Indicator and framework review: one week
- Evidence and portfolio assessment: one to two weeks
- Substantive testing: one to two weeks
- Reporting and remediation planning: one week
What We Assess Against
Performance information is audited against a defined framework, and testing mirrors it exactly.
Usefulness
Whether indicators are relevant, well defined, verifiable and measurable, and whether targets are specific and time bound.
Reliability
Whether reported achievement is valid, accurate and complete when traced to supporting evidence.
Strategic Alignment
Whether reported indicators actually derive from the strategic plan, IDP or annual performance plan.
MFMA and PFMA
Statutory requirements for planning, reporting and the annual performance report.
Treasury Framework
The framework for managing programme performance information that governs definitions and reporting.
Prior Findings
Whether last year findings were remediated at cause or merely responded to in an action plan.
Frequently Asked Questions
When should this be done?
Mid year, or at latest well before year end. Testing after the reporting period closes tells you what the external auditors will find without leaving time to do anything about it, which halves the value.
Why do we get the same findings every year?
Usually because the indicator itself is not verifiable, and no amount of diligent reporting fixes that. If an indicator cannot be measured consistently it will keep producing findings until it is redefined.
What counts as acceptable evidence?
Contemporaneous records generated as the work happened: attendance registers, completion certificates, system extracts, signed reports. Summaries compiled afterwards from memory do not survive testing and are visibly reconstructed.
Can indicators be changed mid year?
Generally only through the prescribed process, and usually via the adjustment budget. What can be fixed immediately is the evidence collection, and that is often where the greater part of the risk sits.
Does this replace the external audit?
No. It anticipates it. We test using the same criteria so you find and fix what they would raise, which reduces findings rather than removing the audit.
Who should own performance reporting?
Programme managers own the achievement and the evidence; a central function owns consolidation and quality review. Where the central function merely collects submissions without challenge, findings follow reliably.
Related Services
This sits inside our Internal Audit practice. Related work: Audit and Assurance where performance information forms part of the external audit, and Risk Based Audit Planning for scheduling coverage across the cycle.
