State Oversight

The state oversight process involves elected representatives from relevant legislatures, and constitutionally appointed auditors, rigorously overseeing the performance of the executive and public service managers during the planning and implementation phases of the PRM cycle, and reviewing their performance at the end of the cycle. It involves taking appropriate steps to improve oversight performance in holding the executive and public service managers to account.

a) State oversight actors effectively scrutinise the rigour of needs assessments, the prioritisation of needs, and the inclusion of proposed activities and programmes within strategic plans. They recommend – and seek to ensure - appropriate evidence-based improvements to strategic plans before authorising them.

b) State oversight actors rigorously assess revenue collection plans and proposed resource allocations (budgets) and recommend – and seek to ensure - appropriate evidence-based improvements to revenue collection plans and budgets before formally authorising them.

c) State oversight actors hold the executive and public resource managers to account for their performance in managing revenue collection and expenditure management during the implementation of plans and recommend – and seek to ensure - appropriate evidence-based improvements.

d) State oversight actors hold the executive and public resource managers to account for their performance in managing the implementation of planned activities, production of outputs and realisation of outcomes, and where necessary amend planned activities, outputs and outcomes, during the implementation of plans and recommend – and seek to ensure - appropriate evidence-based improvements.

e) State oversight actors hold the executive and public resource managers to account for their performance in implementing preventative and corrective actions intended to limit instances of the ineffective use/abuse of public resources during implementation of plans and recommend – and seek to ensure - appropriate evidence-based improvements.

f) Independent external auditors undertake rigorous external audits (including financial audits, performance audits and forensic audits) at the end of the implementation cycle and provide rigorous briefings to oversight actors on their findings and recommendations; oversight actors use audit findings to hold managers and the executive to account and seek to ensure the implementation of key audit recommendations.

g) Civil society groups obtain copies of independent audit reports, review and track audit findings and recommendations, and participate in legislative oversight meetings in order to assess state oversight performance across the PRM cycle

State oversight actors explain and justify their performance in overseeing the management of public resources and the implementation of public services to meet priority social needs across the PRM cycle (needs assessment, strategic planning, resource mobilisation planning, budgeting, revenue collection, expenditure management, performance management, and preventive and corrective action) and engage with civil society groups, who assess these explanations and justifications and the quality of oversight performance and call for corrective action (where necessary); state oversight actors take corrective action in response to evidence of poor oversight performance.

© Colm Allan. All rights reserved.