Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada
Symbol of the Government of Canada

Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada

international.gc.ca

Archived Document

Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to Government of Canada Web Standards; as per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats by contacting us.

Assurance Services Follow-up Audit

(March 2006)

Executive Summary

The Audit Division (ZIV) carried out a follow-up audit (FUA) in accordance with the division's 2005-07 Audit Plan approved by the Department's Audit and Evaluation Committee.

The scope of the FUA consisted of 67 recommendations(1) contained in six previously issued ZIV financial audit reports(2). The objective of the FUA was to determine whether stakeholders have made satisfactory progress in implementing these recommendations. It did not include an assessment of the effectiveness of implementation.

The results of the FUA are depicted in the following table:

Recommendation - Implementation Status RatingNumber of Recommendations
Level 1: No implementation or insignificant progress10 (16%)
Level 2: Substantial implementation10 (16%)
Level 3: Full implementation44 (68%)
Total64(1) (100%)

Of the 20 recommendations that have not been fully implemented, 14 (70%) relate to the Capital Assets Audit which is, of all six engagements included in the audit scope, the most recently completed (i.e. November 2004). This result is understandable as stakeholders have had a considerable shorter period of time to implement the recommendations in comparison to those contained in the five other audit reports included in the scope of the FUA.

In light of the above, the Audit Team is of the view that stakeholders have made satisfactory progress in implementing the recommendations forming the scope of the FUA. They have submitted to ZIV a sound action plan that details the steps they intend to take in order to address the 20 recommendations that have not yet been fully implemented. Target completion dates for the planned action have also been specified.

1.0 Background

1.1 The FUA was conducted in accordance with ZIV's 2005-07 Audit Plan approved by the Department's Audit and Evaluation Committee.


2.0 Audit Scope, Objective, Approach and Timing

2.1 Audit Scope

2.1.1 The scope of the FUA consisted of 67 recommendations contained in six ZIV financial audit reports as detailed below:

Audit ReportReport Issuance Date# of Recommendations
Operation of the Cashier's OfficeMarch 20038
Accountable AdvancesMarch 20035
Specified Purpose AccountsMarch 20037
Prepaid ExpensesOctober 20033
Management of Accounts ReceivableJanuary 200422
Capital AssetsNovember 200422
Total67

2.2 Audit Objective

2.2.1 The objective of the FUA was to determine whether stakeholders(3) have made satisfactory progress in implementing the 67 recommendations forming the audit's scope. It did not include an assessment of the effectiveness of the implementation. The FUA was not, therefore, a "re-audit" exercise but rather one focussing strictly on assessing the level of progress achieved by stakeholders in implementing the 67 audit recommendations.

2.3 Audit Approach and Timing

2.3.1 The audit approach consisted of conducting interviews with stakeholders, reviewing documentation and carrying out tailored audit procedures. The information gathered was analyzed as the basis of applying the following rating scale to assess the level of stakeholder progress achieved in implementing the selected recommendations:

ZIV Follow-Up Audit (FUA) - Rating Scale

Rating LevelDefinition
N/A: Not ApplicableRecommendation is no longer relevant due to a change in operational/environmental conditions.
Level 1: No Implementation or Insignificant ProgressStakeholder has not implemented, or has made insignificant progress in implementing, the action(s) described in its response to the recommendation.
Level 2: Substantial ImplementationStakeholder has completed most of the planned tasks associated with the implementation of the action(s) described in its response to the recommendation.
Level 3: Full ImplementationStakeholder has fully implemented the action(s) described in its response to the recommendation.

2.3.2 The FUA took place during the period of September to November 2005.


3.0 Follow-Up Audit Results

3.1 The following table summarizes the results of the FUA at the bureau level based on the rating scale described above.

ZIV Follow-Up Audit (FUA) - Corporate Results
BureauTotal # of Recs.# of N/A Recs.Revised total # of Recs.Recommendation - Implementation Status
Level 1Level 2Level 3
#%(4)#%(3)#%(3)
SMD56353713%611%4076%
SRD303133%00%267%
SXD303133%267%00%
SPD10100%1100%00%
ISD30300%133%267%
CFSI1011100%00%00%
Total673641016%1016%4468%

3.2 The results of the FUA indicate that:

  1. 44 or 68% of the 64 recommendations(5) have been fully implemented (i.e. level 3);
  2. 10 or 16% of the 64 recommendations are substantially implemented (i.e. level 2)(6); and,
  3. 10 or 16% of the 64 recommendations have either not been implemented or have achieved insignificant progress (i.e. level 1)(5).

3.3 Conclusions

The Audit Team concludes that the stakeholders have made satisfactory progress in implementing the 64 recommendations because 54 or 84% are either substantially or fully implemented. For those recommendations that were assigned a level 1 or 2 rating, stakeholders have submitted to ZIV a sound action plan that details the steps they intend to take in order to fully implement the recommendation. Target dates for the completion of the defined action steps have also been specified as detailed in Appendix A.

Appendix A - Updated Target Completion Dates

ZIV Follow-Up Audit
Stakeholder Updated Target Completion Dates
BureauAudit ReportRec. #Current Implementation StatusUpdated Target Completion Date
Level 1Level 2
SMDCashiers Operations3.7.6x September 2006
Accountable Advances3.1.7 xJanuary 2006
Specified Purpose Accounts3.2.5 xSeptember 2006
Accounts Receivable3.7.3 xDecember 2005
3.12.3 xMarch 2006
Capital Assets3.2.5x March 2006
3.2.6x March 2006
3.2.7x March 2006
3.2.8x June 2006
3.4.5 xFebruary 2006
3.4.6 xMarch 2006
3.9.3x March 2007
3.8.12x December 2006
SRDCapital Assets3.8.9x March 2006
SXDCapital Assets3.7.5x July 2006
3.7.6 xJuly 2006
3.7.9 xJuly 2006
SPDCapital Assets3.6.4 xFebruary 2006
ISDCapital Assets3.5.5 xMarch 2006
CFSIAccounts Receivable3.4.3x November 2006
Total1010 

 


1 Three of the 67 recommendations were found to be no longer relevant due to a change in operational/environmental conditions. Accordingly, ZIV assessed the level of implementation of the remaining 64 recommendations.

2 See paragraph 2.1.1 for listing of audit reports.

3 Stakeholders represent the division/bureau to which a recommendation was addressed and that provided the Management "Action and Time Frame" (i.e. response) to ZIV.

4 Percentage based on the revised total number of recommendations.

5 Three of the 67 recommendations were found to be no longer relevant due to a change in operational/environmental conditions. Accordingly, ZIV assessed the level of implementation of the remaining 64 recommendations.

6 Of the 20 recommendations (i.e. 10 level 2 and 10 level 1) that have not been fully implemented, 14 or 70% relate to the Capital Assets Audit which is, of all six engagements included in the audit scope, the most recently completed (i.e. November 2004). This result is understandable as stakeholders have had a considerable shorter period of time to implement the recommendations in comparison to those contained in the five other audit reports included in the scope of the FUA.

Office of the Inspector General

Footer

Date Modified:
2012-09-25