Country Office Performance Audits

Data Owner

Narayanan Chettiar (narayanan.chettiar@undp.org), OAI

Availability in Data Warehouse

Available

Data Refresh Rate

Daily

Accountability Weighted Scoring

30%

Introduction

Country Office Audits are audits performed by OAI (Office of Audit and Investigations). They measure compliance with corporate rules and regulations. The Performance App takes data from 2018 onwards for all the Country Office audits captured in CARDS and published on the Audit Public Disclosure website. We showcase the rating from the latest country office audit, as some country offices may have had multiple audits during that period.

There are four main possible audit ratings:

  • Fully Satisfactory

  • Minor Improvements

  • Major Improvements

  • Unsatisfactory

The underlying data has more categories, but we have mapped it as follows:

Old CategoriesNew Categories

Fully Satisfactory

Fully Satisfactory

Good

Fully Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Fully Satisfactory

Partially Satisfactory/SI

Satisfactory/Some Improvement Needed

Partially Satisfactory

Satisfactory/Some Improvement Needed

Satisfactory/Some Improvement Needed

Satisfactory/Some Improvement Needed

Marginally Deficient

Partially Satisfactory/Major Improvement Needed

Partially Satisfactory/Major Improvement Needed

Partially Satisfactory/Major Improvement Needed

Partially Satisfactory/MI

Partially Satisfactory/Major Improvement Needed

Seriously Deficient

Unsatisfactory

Unsatisfactory

Unsatisfactory

Deficient

Unsatisfactory

An audit will result in a set of recommendations that are tracked in a system called CARDS, managed by OAI. The Country Office is responsible for implementing these recommendations and providing status updates via CARDS within specific timeframes. Once the updates are provided, OAI evaluates them to confirm whether the recommendations have been implemented.

The recommendations are flagged according to the following traffic-light methodology based on OAI's assessment of the implementation status:

Time FrameStatusIndicator Color

0-12 months

Great

Green

12-18 months

Acceptable

Yellow

18+ months

Unacceptable

Red

Organisational Objective

The organisational objective is the best audit performance possible, with no unsatisfactory audits and maximising entirely satisfactory audits. Additionally, the fastest and comprehensive implementation of the audit recommendations.

Data

Check that we are not missing the field here for the actual main result of the audit

FieldDescription

as_of_date

Date of data extraction or last update.

audit_categ

Category or type of audit (e.g., OAI - Office of Audit and Investigations).

audited_bureau

Bureau or regional office audited (e.g., RBAS - Regional Bureau for Arab States).

audited_org_id_c

Unique identifier for the audited organization.

audited_cty_code

ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 country code (e.g., MAR - Morocco).

audited_unit_desc

Description of the audited unit.

action_bureau

Bureau responsible for audit action.

action_org_id_c

Identifier for the action organization.

action_cty_code

Country code for the action location.

action_unit_desc

Description of the action unit.

action_responsible_person

Name or title of the responsible person.

audit_id

Unique audit identifier.

audit_title

Title of the audit.

audit_period_start

Start date of the audit period.

audit_period_end

End date of the audit period.

audit_issue_date

Date when the audit report was issued.

audit_type

Type of audit conducted (e.g., COA - Country Office Audit).

reco_no

Number of the recommendation.

recom_id

Unique recommendation identifier.

reco_title

Title or summary of the recommendation.

reco_descr

Detailed recommendation description.

reco_planned_imnpl_d

Planned implementation date for the recommendation.

reco_priority

Priority level (e.g., High, Medium, Low).

reco_oai_status

Status of the recommendation (e.g., Implemented, In Progress, Not Implemented, Withdrawn).

reco_open

Binary indicator of recommendation status (0 = closed, 1 = open).

sub_domain

Specific organizational domain (e.g., SRF - Strategic Results Framework).

Data Export

Requires definition

Calculation of Scoring

We score only using each country's latest CO audit reports. Previous historical audit ratings are shown in the indicator drill down but are not considered in the scoring methodology.

For each audit result, we assign the following scores:

Audit ResultScore

Fully Satisfactory

100

Satisfactory / Some Improvement Needed

80

Partially Satisfactory / Major Improvement Needed

60

Unsatisfactory

0

Unsatisfactory is rated as zero. We want to significantly reduce the aggregate scores if even a small number of country offices in a region have Unsatisfactory audit ratings because these are so important to the organisation.

For Regional Bureau aggregation, we take an average of all the scoring, and the global average is calculated as an average of all country scores, not as an average of the Regional Bureau aggregation. This is to avoid skewed results, as different Regional Bureaus have different numbers of country offices. No weight is attached to country population size, amount of programming, or office size/budget.

Traffic Light System

Traffic LightScore

Green

85+

Yellow

70+

Red

<70

Limitations & Future Improvements

  • Not incorporating country size, budget, programming amount, and other key details into weightings could fail to account for larger country offices' naturally higher complexity and risk exposure. Weightings may better reflect performance. An office with many projects and budgets receiving an Unsatisfactory audit rating is far more important to the organization than a smaller office receiving an Unsatisfactory audit rating — but this is currently not reflected in the methodology.

  • Looking only at the latest audit per country loses historical context. Incorporating a rolling 3-5-year average could smooth out anomalies and show improvement/regression over time.

  • No qualitative context is provided on why audits scored the way they did or what actions are being taken. Incorporating audit insights could make the data more meaningful.

  • We do not take into account the management responses in the scoring methodology, but we do show it in the drill-down

Resources

Last updated