Objectives of reviews

Objectives of reviews

Objectives of reviews

We prepare reviews to describe and analyse areas of EU policy or management, mostly using information which is already publicly available.
Review
Concept
Ref: 82.100

Principles

ECA reviews are descriptive and informative analyses of areas of EU policy or management. We prepare reviews to present stakeholders with facts on a particular topic for which an audit is not required or appropriate, or on a subject for which we have an interest in providing our stakeholders with information and analysis, such as on significant financial management, governance, transparency and accountability issues. Reviews have different objectives to audits. Unlike audits, in our reviews we do not:
  • seek to address and conclude on evaluative questions;
  • provide assurance; or
  • make new recommendations.
While there are a large number of similarities with performance audit, notably in terms of the process and the application of the‘no surprises approach’, there are also some important differences.

Comparison of performance audits and reviews

Performance audit Review
Objective To make an objective assessment of how well an organisation, policy or project has been managed, and/or the outputs delivered, and results achieved. To describe and analyse areas of EU policy or management, using information which is mostly already publicly available.
Issue analysis Process to follow during planning to facilitate the development of an appropriate hierarchy of audit questions by applying rigorous structured approach. Process analogous to that applied for performance audits to follow during planning to decide the review scope and approach.
Planning document Performance audit task plan. Review task plan .
Scope Defines the boundary of the audit, in relation to the audit questions (which are evaluative). Defines the boundary of the review in relation to the review objectives, which do not include evaluative questions.
Approach Gathering and evaluating sufficient, relevant and reliable evidence collected using audit methods and techniques in line with professional auditing standards. The evidence is used to address and conclude on evaluative questions by assessing against criteria and using the auditor’s judgment. Compiling and analysing existing or new material from reliable publicly available sources, including the identification of risk, challenges of opportunities. Non-publicly available material, interviews and surveys can be used to gain understanding, provide additional insight or to complete an analysis.
Fact checking Check facts with auditees during fieldwork. Check facts with reviewees during fieldwork.
Clearing process Clearing through the draft report. Clearing through the draft report.
Drawing conclusions Process to follow when fieldwork is complete or nearly complete to formulate main messages, conclusions and recommendations, and to set a structure for presenting the findings in the body of the report. Process to follow when fieldwork is complete or nearly complete, to discuss risks, challenges, opportunities and closing remarks, and set a structure for the draft report. Analogous to that applied for performance audits.
Report drafting Uses a standard structure for special reports, and follows the guidance on drafting, including the 10 000-word limit. Uses a specific structure similar to that for performance audits, and follows the same guidance on drafting, including the 10 000-word limit. There is often scope for greater flexibility in the presentation of review reports in order to present the material in the clearest and most relevant way.
Body of the report Observations based on audit work, with the findings structured around the audit questions. Description and informative analysis of the area or issue under review, structured in the most suitable way to ensure clarity. Can refer to recommendations from previously published special reports.
Conclusions and recommendations/closing remarks The conclusions and recommendations flow from the findings in the report, providing answers to the audit questions. The closing remarks bring together key points from the review in an objective and neutral way and may indicate areas of high risk in need of scrutiny, or key risks, challenges and opportunities. There are no evaluative statements or conclusions, and no new recommendations.
Quality management arrangements Supervision and review by the chambers and independent quality review by the AQCC. Supervision and review by the chambers and independent quality review by the AQCC.
Adversarial procedure / final consultation The draft report is subject to an adversarial meeting procedure with auditee(s). Unless reviewee(s) agree otherwise, the draft review report is subject to a ‘final consultation’ process.
Replies/responses Auditee replies are published in a separate document accompanying the special report. To ensure that all points of view are reflected, reviewee comments are included in the review report directly.
The preparation of a review involves significant time and resources, which could otherwise be devoted to undertaking an additional audit or completing an ongoing audit more quickly. The ECA is not the only provider of descriptive and analytical information on EU matters. Other sources available to the reader include the European Parliament Research Service, Commission DGs, research institutes and think tanks. We consider the existence of such material when establishing the value which will be added by the proposed ECA review. We carry out reviews on our own initiative or following a request or suggestion from another institution or stakeholder. We avoid turning an audit already underway but experiencing problems in collecting evidence or reaching meaningful conclusions, into a review. Practice shows that this can cause considerable confusion, both within the team and with the auditee. A decision to convert an audit task into a review task is approved by the chamber on a basis of a revised task plan, justifying the change and explaining how the various risks associated with the change are to be addressed (including communicating with the reviewee/auditee). We base our reviews on previous ECA work, and can repeat opinions, conclusions and recommendations from published ECA reports. We can also use reliable publicly available information and collect new material from documents, interviews and surveys to gain understanding, but not to form the basis for judgements.

Related documents

Last Modified: 13/07/2023 17:29   Tags: