E-guide On Participatory Audit

What Success Looks Like and How to Measure Impact

  1. Module 04
  2. Self-evaluation exercise for SAIs

Self-evaluation exercise for SAIs

We have formulated some key statements established throughout this module that can be useful to include in evaluation methods that SAIs implement to assess their policies and citizen participation practices. Although in this case, it is exclusively oriented as a subjective assessment by an SAI’s official, the following form must be complemented with other mechanisms for a comprehensive evaluation.

Rate from 1 to 10 your level of agreement with the following statement—10 being the highest level of agreement, 1 the highest level of disagreement, and 6 as an ideal minimum level:

1. All citizens or organizations that should know the existence of this participatory mechanism know of its existence.

2. All necessary efforts have been made to inform the targeted public about the existence of this mechanism and the possibility to participate in it.

3. The potential participants rely on comprehensive information regarding the aspects of the implemented citizen participation mechanism.

4. In planning the mechanism, the institution has proposed involving all those citizens and civil society organizations whose involvement is relevant.

5. The level of effective participation of those who could be interested in this mechanism is ideal.

6. The participants—active and potential—exhibit a high degree of general satisfaction with respect to the participatory mechanism implemented.

7. The institution is receptive and tolerant of contributions made by the general public.

8. The SAI employees are aware of the value of contributions stemming from citizen participation instances and are committed to considering them as applicable input to their work.

9. The implementation of this practice has created concrete and relevant change in the functioning of the institution.

10. A significant number of audit processes have been enriched by the contributions made by citizens and/or the CSOs.

11. The participants believe that their contributions translate into substantial improvements in public financial management, especially regarding the transparency and efficiency in the administration of resources, the detection of irregularities, and the prevention of corruption.

12. The participants believe that their contributions translate into substantial improvements to the public service delivery system.

13. The agents involved in these citizen participation instances received adequate feedback in relation to their contributions. They generated change or effective advancement in the institution.

14. The citizen participation and/or social accountability mechanism implemented is highly institutionalized within the SAI, which helps to show its stability over time and consolidation possibilities.

15. The implemented citizen participation and/or social accountability mechanism has been formalized as a standard.

16. The planned mechanism standard has benefited from practical experience.

17. An important amount of audit reports are influenced—directly or indirectly—by the input that results from the implemented citizen participation mechanism.

18. The quality of the audit reports has improved since the implementation of the citizen participation mechanism.

19. The levels of compliance from recommendations that the auditing institution formulates have improved with the implementation of this citizen participation mechanism.

20. The intensity of media coverage of audit findings has increased since the implementation of citizen participation and/or social accountability mechanisms.

21. The quality of press articles that refer to processes generated by the institution has improved since the implementation of citizen participation and/or social accountability mechanisms.

22. The relevance and hierarchy that the media assigns to their press articles that refer to audits and their results has increased since the implementation of citizen participation and/or social accountability mechanisms.

Results

Any comments? Please notify us here.

Go to previous

Bibliography

TPA Initiative – ACIJ (2013): “Audit Institutions in Latin America. Transparency, Citizen Participation and Accountability Indicators”.

OECD (2013): “How can Supreme Audit Institutions Engage External Stakeholders to Enhance Good Governance?”, Concept Note - OECD with Supreme Audit Institutions of Brazil, Chile, South Africa & IDI.

Johnsøn, J. & Søreide, T. (2013): “Methods for learning what works and why in anti-corruption: An introduction to evaluation methods for practitioners”, U4 Issue N°8, Bergen, U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Centre- Chr. Michelsen Institute.

Gertler, P. J. et al. (2011): “Impact Evaluation in Practice”, Washington, DC: World Bank.

Hevia, F. & Vergara-Lope Samana (2011): “How to measure participation”, CIESAS – INDESOL. “Practical Guide For Evaluating Participatory Processes”; Marc Pares, Leonardo Díaz (IGOP/UAB) & Melissa Pomeroy (OIDP/OLDP)

“Supreme Audit Institutions and Stakeholder Engagement Practices. A Stocktaking Report”, Effective Institutions Platform, September 2014.

“Working with Supreme Audit Institutions", Department for International Development (DFID, 2005).

Open Budget Survey 2012, International Budget Partnership (IBP)