Corporate governance in the public sector (7)

.
.
.
.
Management Centre
.
.
.
.
.
Good corporate governance in
the Public sector

ALL CONTENTS COPYRIGHT © 2004-2009 H&H ASSOCIATES 1

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Contents
Financial Management.....................................................................................9

Governance ...............................................................................................9

Corporate governance...............................................................................9

Good Corporate Governance ..................................................................10

Planning and budgeting...........................................................................14

Management accountability: revenue forecasting and expense budgeting .15

Understanding revenue requirements for on-going operations and asset expenditures 15

Using performance budgeting to set government program priorities ......31

Approach to resource allocation ..............................................................35

Budgetary control.....................................................................................39

Devolving budgets and delegating financial management responsibilities39

Distinctive features of financial management in PSM .............................40

Ensuring value for money........................................................................40

Policies and regulations that increase government accountability and transparency 44

Developing performance-based indicators to analyze and measure results 48

Taxation ..........................................................................................................49

Tax systems.............................................................................................49

Taxes in countries....................................................................................64

Current issues..........................................................................................64

Budgetary process...................................................................................66

Tax incidence and efficiency ..........................................................................69

Incidence and partial equilibrium .............................................................69

General equilibrium incidence .................................................................71

Costs of taxation ......................................................................................75


.
.
.
Optimal Taxation......................................................................................75
.
Strategies to Reduce Systemic Corrupt Practices in Government Operations76
.
.
Developing managerial accountability plans at each level of government through the introduction of advanced
.
accountability tools...................................................................................89
.
.
Identifying techniques (Public Sector Management Action Plan) to mitigate corrupt practices? 90

Policies and regulations that increase government accountability and transparency 106

Developing performance-based indicators to analyze and measure results 110

Improving procedures and quality in daily transactions with customer/beneficiaries 111

Involving citizen groups to help fight corruption.....................................114

http://www.scribd.com/doc/18652934/Citizens-Guide-to-Fight-Corruption .................114

Appendix – Definitions & Resources ...........................................................117

Resources..............................................................................................117


Financial Management

Governance

Governance is the activity of governing. It relates to decisions that define expectations, grant
power, or verify performance. It consists either of a separate process or of a specific part of
management or leadership processes. Sometimes people set up a government to administer
these processes and systems.

In the case of a business or of a non-profit organisation, governance relates to consistent
management, cohesive policies, processes and decision-rights for a given area of
responsibility. For example, managing at a corporate level might involve evolving policies on
privacy, on internal investment, and on the use of data.

In terms of distinguishing the term governance from government - "governance" is what a
"government" does. It might be a geo-political government (nation-state), a corporate
government (business entity), a socio-political government (tribe, family, etc.), or any number
of different kinds of government. But governance is the kinetic exercise of management power
and policy, while government is the instrument (usually, collective) that does it. The term
government is also used more abstractly as a synonym for governance, as in the Canadian
motto, "Peace, Order and Good Government".

Corporate governance

Corporate governance consists of the set of processes, customs, policies, laws and institutions
affecting the way people direct, administer or control a corporation. Corporate governance also
includes the relationships among the many players involved (the stakeholders) and the
corporate goals. The principal players include the shareholders, management, and the board
of directors. Other stakeholders include employees, suppliers, customers, banks and other
lenders, regulators, the environment and the community at large.

The first documented use of the word "corporate governance" is by Richard Eells (1960, pg.
108) to denote "the structure and functioning of the corporate polity". The "corporate
government" concept itself is older and was already used in finance textbooks at the beginning
of the 20th century (Becht, Bolton, Röell 2004). These origins support a multiple constituency
(stakeholder) definition of corporate governance.

ALL CONTENTS COPYRIGHT © 2004-2009 H&H ASSOCIATES

Good Corporate Governance

By Ian Ball, IFAC Chief Executive On Behalf of René Ricol, IFAC President

Presented before the Association of Accountancy Bodies in West Africa -April 26, 2004

Distinguished guests, fellow accountants, and colleagues. It is truly a privilege to participate in your
Congress and to speak on this very important topic of good corporate governance. I am making this
presentation on behalf of René Ricol, IFAC’s President, who regrets that an unavoidable conflict
prevents him from being with you today. During his tenure as IFAC President, Mr. Ricol has worked to
raise awareness of the value of strong corporate governance and he applauds your efforts to make this
a focus of your Congress.

I am particularly pleased to be with you for this Congress, as it is the first of your Congresses since the
IFAC Board acknowledged the Association of Accountancy Bodies of West Africa as a regional
grouping, so it is a special pleasure to be able to welcome ABWA to membership of the IFAC ”family”. I
would also like to acknowledge the contribution that two of the IFAC Board members, Ndung’u Gathinji
of Kenya and Ignatius Sehoole of South Africa, have made significant contributions in the process of
acheiving this acknowledgement for ABWA. IFAC sees its regional groupings and regional
organisations as an increasingly important element of the IFAC structure and would encourage the
strengthening and expansion of these networks.

As I turn to my theme of corporate governance, I would note that while my presentation today focuses
on corporate governance in the private sector, the need for sound governance arrangements in the
public sector are also critically important. As the former Vice-President and Controller of the World
Bank, Jules Muis, has observed, an economy can be likened to an aeroplane – both wings must be
sound for it to fly safely. For an economy to grow and develop, its governance structures in both the
public and private sectors must be solid. I should also note that the need for the governance of the
public sector to be sound was recognised by the Eastern Southern and Central African Federation of
Accountants a number of years ago when they urged the Public Sector Committee of IFAC to produce
its document ”insert”.

Sound corporate governance is, of course, critical to capital market development in West Africa, in other
emerging economies and around the globe. Effective corporate governance can create safeguards
against corruption and mismanagement and promote transparency, and therefore efficiency, in
economic affairs. It is at the heart of building confidence in financial systems and that is at the heart of
sustainable economic growth.

At one level it is that simple – if sustainable economic growth is the goal, good corporate governance is
essential.

As professional accountants, we understand that while corporate governance is a concept that is
presently making the headlines, it is also much more than that. Corporate governance is about actions
and behaviours -- actions and behaviours that need to be taken by private and public enterprises, that
need to be reinforced by governments, and that must be supported by professional accountants and all
those involved in the development and disclosure of financial information. Good corporate governance
hinges on a number of elements such as principles, values, laws, rules, regulations, and institutions. I
will touch on some of this today as I seek, first, to provide you with an understanding of good
governance from the perspective of the International Federation of Accountants and, second, describe
the role we can all play in enhancing corporate governance practices.


First, I’d like you to take a look back with me to the not too distant past, to nearly two- and-a-half years
ago when the U.S. energy giant Enron collapsed. Back in 2001, many blamed the Enron failure almost
exclusively on the auditors. Corporate governance was not yet seen as so central to the corporate
failures. Few understood the depth of the problems. In fact, some predicted that Enron was a storm that
would soon blow over. Time has shown that rather than being an isolated event, Enron was the leading
edge of a storm front. In fact, ”Enron” has become global shorthand for corporate greed and failed
corporate governance. WorldCom, Tyco, Adelphia, Ahold, Vivendi and most recently Parmalat have all
followed, each new case tending to reinforce public cynicism towards business in general. Reversing
this trend, restoring and improving public confidence in capital markets, in financial reporting and in the
accounting profession is the end game of the strategy I will present to you today.

There are many of you who, like me, recall financial failures in previous decades. Scandals involving
companies like BCCI, Baring, Sunbeam and Credit Lyonnaise. What has changed? Well, the world has
changed since the 1980s and 1990s. More and more people have a stake in the performance and
conduct of public companies, through stocks, mutual funds and pension plans. Investing in public
companies has in many countries become an activity open to anyone with a computer and a relatively
few dollars. This has greatly increased the political salience of capital market performance.

As well, the globalization of business and communications, increasing technology and increasingly
complex financial transactions, mean that a business failure anywhere touches people everywhere. A
failure in London impacts the markets in Lagos. This is why a recent survey of business leaders by the
Economist Intelligence Unit found that the attention being paid to corporate governance is increasing
worldwide and will continue to do so into the future.

Some of those behind the scandals of the past two years were accountants. However, they were not
the only ones to blame. In fact, thousands of accountants like those of you sitting in this room today are
dedicated to providing quality work and to putting your integrity ahead of short-term commercial
interests. Nonetheless, the scandals created a ripple effect for our profession -- accountants who fail in
London negatively affect the trust and reputation of accountants in Lagos, and vice versa.

To be sure, some of the criticism concerning auditors and their role in these failures has been fair. Some
of it was not. Part of our job, as trained professionals, has been to see what we could learn from the
events. I want now to talk about some elements of IFAC’s response to these events, focusing on those
related to corporate governance.

IFAC took the approach of addressing this challenge on two levels: focusing on improving the role of
accountants in the governance and financial reporting chain, and developing a plan of action to improve
corporate governance as a whole. We recognized that enhancing public trust through our commitment
to the highest standards of quality and integrity required real action as well as the ability to effectively
communicate that action to all of our stakeholders, including the public.

While these corporate failures have placed the accounting profession under unparalleled scrutiny, they
have also provided us with unparalled opportunity to effect reform and change. Obstacles to enhancing
professional standards of quality, integrity and independence have melted away. In a sense, Enron and
its cousins compelled us to take a hard look at our core values. What we have relearned is that our
profession is built on public trust. It’s all we have. But it’s an awful lot. It’s what keeps the markets
working. In order for the public to have confidence in the quality and integrity of our work, we need to
earn their trust every day.

With 158 member organizations in 118 countries, representing 2.5 million accountants worldwide, IFAC
is ideally placed to effect change, and we have seized the opportunity. Accountants play a key role in
the value creation chain, in which one link is good corporate governance. Our analysis illustrates very
clearly the connection between business failure and reporting failure. The two go hand in hand.


Even before Enron collapsed, IFAC had issued a robust new principles-based standard on
independence for public accountants as part of the Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants. This
framework is the most rigorous international guidance ever issued, and its principles and guidance are
being adopted by a growing number of national accounting and auditing standard-setting bodies.

At the same time, we welcome oversight of the profession. For most of our national organizations, this
means the acceptance of some external oversight mechanism or process. Internationally, IFAC
undertook a wide-ranging consultative process that resulted in a series of reforms, unanimously
supported by international regulators and approved by IFAC’s Council last November. This initiative also
received the endorsement of the Financial Stability Forum.These reforms, currently being implemented,
include the establishment of a Public Interest Oversight Board to oversee IFAC’s standard-setting and
compliance regimes, as well as increased transparency and public participation in governance and
standard-setting activities.

The end result of these reforms is that IFAC has moved from a self-regulatory framework to a mixed or
shared regulatory structure.

We have also focused on developing a more transparent standard-setting process for the International
Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB) as well as for the Education Committee and the
Ethics Committee. The IAASB meetings are open to the public, and its papers are posted on the IFAC
website. We have increased technical support to the IAASB in order to channel energies in areas that
most seriously touch on the public interest. In the past few months, the IAASB has released two new
quality control standards. One establishes a firm’s responsibilities to set up and maintain a system of
quality contrl for all audits and assurance engagements. The second establishes standards for the
specific responsibilities of firm personnel for an individual audit engagement.

Now to the broad scope of corporate governance. As many of you know, IFAC has taken a leadership
role in responding to the crisis in corporate governance. We regard this as a long-term challenge, one
that will require long-term solutions, not quick fixes. And we are far from alone in addressing these
issues. Just last month, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development – OECD –
approved a revised version of its Principles of Corporate Governance to address issues that have
undermined the confidence of investors in company management. The revised principles include new
recommendations for good practice in corporate behaviour. IFAC contributed to the process through
which the OECD undertook the revision and supports both the principles and the encouragement for
international convergence of corporate governance practices that are based on these principles. I
would encourage you all to go to the OECD website to view and understand these principles.

The issuance of these new principles further reinforces IFAC’s position that to rebuild and maintain
public trust in companies and stock markets, action must be taken at all points along the information
supply chain. This involves management and boards of directors, auditors, standard setters as well as
lawyers, investment bankers, credit rating agencies and the media. At each point, individuals must take
responsibility for their actions. Everyone in this room shares this responsibility. We must succeed,
because the stakes are too high to do otherwise. All of us must be committed to high ethical standards
and be vigilant in discharging the responsibility we have for ensuring public confidence in the markets.
This must be our shared vision because, again, the stakes are so high.

In 2002, IFAC established an independent, international Task Force that produced a report, Rebuilding
Public Confidence in Financial Reporting, released in July of last year. This report provides a number of
important recommendations addressing a range of corporate governance issues. The report lists and
explains principles of best practices that call for specific action at all points in the information supply
chain.


Specific recommendations include the following:

• Effective corporate ethics codes need to be in place and actively monitored; such codes should be
supported by training.

• Codes of conduct need to be put in place for other participants in the financial reporting process - such
as investment analysts and lawyers - and their compliance should be monitored.

• Incentives to misstate financial information need to be reduced, and companies must refrain from
forecasting profits with an unrealistic level of precision.

• Audit effectiveness needs to be raised, primarily through greater attention to audit quality control
processes.

Complementing this report is a document released just this past February by IFAC’s Professional
Accountants in Business Committee, the PAIB Committee. This report, entitled Enterprise Governance:
Getting the Balance Right, analyzes a number of prominent recent case studies to develop
recommendations covering the range of enterprise governance. For those of you unfamiliar with the
term, enterprise governance includes both corporate governance and corporate performance. The
committee found that four key elements underpin an organization’s success: culture and tone at the top;
the chief executive; the board of directors; and internal controls. The report notes that governance and
performance need to be in harmony and performing well in order to enhance the chances of
organizational success. Our focus is on good governance, but as the PAIB discovered, good
governance on its own cannot make a company successful. Companies need to balance conformance
with performance. Bad governance can ruin a company, but cannot, on its own, ensure its success.

These reports have not been issued in isolation. Instead, they are one part of a strategy that includes
IFAC reviewing and monitoring corporate governance standards worldwide. IFAC member bodies have
agreed to encourage key stakeholders in their home countries to adopt the recommendations from
these two reports. It is a global campaign that is gaining momentum.

In undertaking the Credibility and Enterprise Governance reports, three new realities became apparent.
I call them realities because they mark a fundamental shift from the pre-Enron world in which we all
worked, and because they are bringing fundamental change in how we will do business for years to
come. Some elements were emerging or under development prior to Enron, but the corporate scandals
of recent years have given them visibility and significance as never before.

The first new reality is that improving standards of corporate governance is not only a national issue that
each country must address, but it is also an international issue.

At the national level, many countries are taking steps to improve governance through tougher legislation
and regulation, new codes of ethics, and the establishment of oversight bodies. Our stakeholders
recognize the role that accountants and auditors play in value creation as well as in contributing to good
corporate governance. As an example, the EU has already indicated its plans to adopt international
accounting standards and international standards on auditing by 2005. This is a very important
development, though Europe is not alone in taking this course.

Governments and regulators increasingly understand that international standards, already established
or being developed by bodies like IFAC, are the soundest method of ensuring the reliable functioning of
the global capital markets. To this end, on the international front, IFAC seeks to work closely with
organizations like the Financial Stability Forum, which aims to achieve stability in capital markets
through dialogue amongst national governments and financial institutions. These activities help to


achieve IFAC’s goal of convergence to international standards – a goal that is vital to achieving
comparability of financial information around the globe and ultimately, financial stability.

IFAC also actively supports the International Accounting Standards Board’s program of global
International Financial Reporting Standards, and we endorse countries around the world that implement
regulations consistent with IOSCO’s Principles of Securities Regulation.

The second of the three new realities I referred to is that enhanced corporate governance is a team
effort. It takes the committed effort of accountants, executive management, the board of directors, audit
committees and regulators. Each of these groups must recognize its unique public interest
responsibility. There’s a dichotomy at work here: no one profession or group can ensure an
organization’s good corporate governance, but the failure of one group can put good governance at risk
– thus compromising the protection offered to stakeholders.

Finally, the third, and perhaps most important reality, is that good corporate governance cannot be
established if organizations are not committed to high standards of individual and institutional integrity.
As we’ve seen over the past two-and-a-half years, failures in integrity were perhaps the lead factor in
these corporate scandals. In order to prevent them from occurring in the future, a culture of integrity
must take hold. While sanctions are necessary for those who do not comply with legal and regulatory
requirements, what is far more effective is building a culture of good governance that prevents those
sanctions from ever having to be implemented. In IFAC’s recent Enterprise Governance report, the
writers describe the ideal environment as comprising a virtuous circle of integrity and ethics, based on
the conscious decision by all parties to take good governance seriously.

I meet regularly with the international leaders of accountancy bodies and the leaders of the accounting
firms, as well as regulators and standard setters. What I have learned is that we are increasingly viewed
as a global profession with the ability to effect change that is in the public interest. This brings with it
tremendous opportunity, as well as challenge. We can all take a leadership role in enhancing public
trust not only in our profession, but through the whole governance chain. Everyone in this room has an
equal role to play; we are all partners. Every day, we must bear in mind we have deliberately set the bar
high because we demand no less of ourselves and because the public demands no less of us.

I urge you to pursue activities to promote good corporate governance and to continue to explore, at a
regional level, the exchange and coordination of ideas. It is through exchanges such as this that the
accountancy profession can become the impetus for strengthening corporate governance policies, and
in doing so, rebuild trust not only in the profession but in the markets in which we operate.

I will end by repeating what I said earlier - at one level is very simple – if sustainable economic growth is
the goal, good corporate governance is essential.

Planning and budgeting

Public Sector Budgeting & Forecasting

Approaches to business planning in the Public Sector are different from those in the
private sector, even if the idea behind the behind the approach is the same. You need to
focus on maximizing funds that are constantly under pressure to deliver value for money
and well as ensure that there is tight monitoring on those funds, enabling effective decision
making. Effective planning is about establishing the vision, goals, strategies, procedures
with performance measures and monitoring for a high performance organisation.


http://www.scribd.com/doc/17656748/Budgeting-in-a-Public-Sector-Power-Point

Management accountability: revenue forecasting and expense
budgeting

Understanding revenue requirements for on-going operations and asset
expenditures


Using performance budgeting to set government program priorities

Performance-Based Budgeting (PBB)

This whole framework points us to a newer way of budgeting, the so-called Performance-
Based Budgeting.

As explained by Carter [5] (as quoted in )[6] “Performance budgets use statements of
missions, goals and objectives to explain why the money is being spent. It is a way to
allocate resources to achieve specific objectives based on program goals and measured
results.” The key to understanding performance-based budgeting lies beneath the word
“result”. In this method, the entire planning and budgeting framework is result oriented.
There are objectives and activities to achieve these objectives and these form the
foundation of the overall evaluation.

According to the more comprehensive definition of Segal and Summers [7], performance
budgeting comprises three elements:

the result (final outcome)

the strategy (different ways to achieve the final outcome)

activity/outputs (what is actually done to achieve the final outcome)


Segal and Summers point out that within this framework, a connection exists between the
rationales for specific activities and the end results and the result is not excluded, while
individual activities or outputs are. With this information, it is possible to understand which
activities are cost-effective in terms of achieving the desired result.

As can be seen from some of the definitions used here, Performance-Based Budgeting is
a way to allocate resources for achieving certain objectives [8],

Harrison [9] elabourates: “PBB sets a goal, or a set of goals, to which monies are
“connected” (i.e. allocated). From these goals, specific objectives are delineated and funds
are then subdivided among them.”

Achieving PBB

For this type of advanced budgeting, which requires the definition of Key Performance
Indicators (KPIs) at the outset, linking these performance indicators to resources becomes
the vital part of the entire setup. This is similar to the Corporate Performance Management
(CPM) framework, which is “where strategy and planning meet execution and
measurement”, according to John Hagerty from AMR Research.

This is a sort of a Balanced Scorecard approach in which KPIs are defined and linkages
are built between causes and effects in a tree-model on top of a budgeting system which
should be integrated with the transactional system, in which financial, procurement, sales
and similar types of .transactions are tracked. Moreover, linking resources with results
provides information on how much it costs to provide a given level of outcome. Many
public bodies fail to figure out how much it costs to deliver an output, primarily due to
problems with indirect cost allocation. This puts the Activity-Based Costing framework into
the picture..

Both the concepts of scorecards, as first introduced by Kaplan and Norton, and activity-
based costing are today well-known concepts in the private sector, but much less so for
the public-sector bodies…until the advent of Performance-Based Budgeting! Another
conceptual framework that has gained ground is the relatively recently introduced CPM,
again more popular in the private sector. The point is that the CPM framework has not
much touched on the topic of Performance-Based Budgeting, although the similarities in
policies offered by these frameworks are worth a deeper look. The technical foundation
that the CPM framework puts on the table may well be a perfect means to rationalize the
somewhat tougher budgeting approach, not only for the public sector but also for
commercial companies.

The way to CPM and PBB

Leading companies are integrating various business intelligence applications and
processes in order to achieve Corporate Performance Management. The first step is for
senior management to formulate the organization’s strategy and to articulate specific
strategic objectives supported by key financial and non-financial metrics.

These metrics and targets feed the next step in the process, Planning and Budgeting, and
are eventually communicated to the front-line employees that will carry out the day-to-day
activities. Targets and thresholds are loaded from the planning systems into a Business
Activity Monitoring engine that will automatically notify responsible persons of potential
problems in real time. The status of the business is reviewed regularly and re-forecast
and, if necessary, budget changes are made. If the business performance is significantly
off plan, executives may need to re-evaluate the strategy as some of the original


assumptions may have changed. Optionally, activity-based costing efforts can enhance
the strategic planning process – deciding to outsource key activities, for example. ABC
can also facilitate improved budgeting and controls through Activity-Based Budgeting
which helps coordinate operational and financial planning.

The ability to establish CPM to enhance control on budget depends first upon achieving a
better understanding of the business through unified, consistent data to provide the basis
for a 360-degree view of the organization. The unified data model allows you to establish a
single repository of information where users can quickly access consistent information
related to both financial and management reporting, easily move between reporting the
past and projecting the future, and drill to detailed information.

By then, you are ready to plug in - on the unified data - the applications that support
consolidations, reporting, analysis, budgeting, planning, forecasting, activity-based costing,
and profitability measurement. The applications are then integrated with the single
repository of information and are delivered with a set of tools that allow users to follow the
assessment path from strategy, to plans and budgets and to the supporting transactional
data.

CPM and the adoption of more public-sector oriented PBB are not easy to tackle, but in
the ever-changing business and political climate they are definitely worth a closer look.

GPRA & Performance-Based Budgeting

The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) has always envisioned
the complete integration of the Annual Performance Plan with the Budget – what is known
as “Performance-Based Budgeting” or simply "Performance Budgeting." This integration is
perhaps the single most powerful tool for implementing comprehensive Performance
Management within government agencies. In fact, it was a particular example of a
sophisticated and very effective use of this form of budgeting that directly inspired the
origination of GPRA.

In his June 2001 testimony before the House Subcommittee on Government Efficiency,
John Mercer described Performance Budgeting and its relationship to GPRA. He
explained some of its uses in resources allocation, program management, and
accountability. Much of his understanding of the value of this type of budgeting was based
on his experience in the model performance budgeting system that inspired GPRA.

CASCADE™ Performance Based Budgeting Software
The newly available CASCADE™ Performance Based Budgeting Software is a uniquely
effective solution for addressing the strategic planning and performance budgeting needs
of Federal departments and other government agencies. CASCADE™ presents a truly


innovative approach to instilling operational planning transparency and accountability in
organizations of from 50 to over 10,000 managers.

Designed by John Mercer, the President of Strategisys LLC of Alexandria, VA. He is often
called “the Father of GPRA” (Government Performance and Results Act) and is
internationally recognized as a “foremost expert in performance-based budgeting.”

Developed by Integrated Digital Systems of Manassas, VA. As a manufacturer of software
solutions for government, IDS is a Microsoft Gold Certified Partner and a Veteran-Owned
Small Business with a GSA Federal Supply Schedule contract.

CASCADE™ begins at the beginning – the place where your organization is first
developing a new long-term strategic plan. Through a cascading hierarchy of goals and
strategies that directly involves every manager at every level; day-to-day activities are
clearly linked to each strategic goal of your organization. Detailed guidance and examples
are provided every step of the way, ensuring that managers develop meaningful and
measurable goals, and that they define specific strategies for accomplishing them.

CASCADE™ applies this same approach to developing your organization’s annual
performance budget. Each manager’s own budget includes measurable results, with
relevant unit costs, and is explicitly linked to organizational goals. The Goal Chart shows
every manager’s goals, as they are developed, linked to higher-level goals. This provides
an easy means to clarify both organizational and individual accountability for program
performance.

CASCADE™ Performance Based Budgeting Software is the first and only integrated
strategic planning and performance budgeting software solution that has been designed
specifically to meet the unique needs of government agencies, with in-depth “how-to”
guidance. It is not a product that was originally designed for commercial businesses. For
more information contact John Mercer of Strategisys LLC at 703-924-2820.

Volatile implementation

Incomplete devolution of powers marked by frequent reversals (from federal government
to state and from state to local)

Important decisions still taken at the centre and then formally endorsed locally

Inequitable distribution of resources between centre, states, and localities

Strong grip on power and resources from the centre

Lack of financial autonomy of decentralized structures

Frequent changes of policies: “policy has changed even before the public became
acquainted with the policy and its accompanying legislation”

High turnover of policymakers and decision makers

Multiplicity of experiments of local government forms without prior thorough evaluation of
past experiences

Lack of accountability at all levels


Lack of stakeholder participation in policymaking

Absence of democratic life (free and fair elections); lack of democratic processes that
make decision makers answerable to the public

Decision makers are chosen by appointment. They are accountable to the president or to
the governors, not to the people

Lack of accountability is also a cause for corruption and diversion of whatever resources
are available. The underlying causes of this state of affairs were mainly identified as lack
of political will, reluctance or even active resistance to sharing power and resources by the
federal administration, and a divergence of visions and expectations between government
and the people about the ultimate goals of decentralization.

Table 2. Views regarding the causes of policy volatility and lack of accountability Lack of
political will for an effective share of power and resources

The system is ridden with nepotism and favouritism (clientelism)

Leadership does not trust people’s ability to govern them and administer their affairs

Lack of democracy

Important constraints to regionalization included resistance from central administrations
and staff (alliance) and limited financial resources transfers

People equated decentralization with “returning the land to its owners”

Weak administrative capacities of the states and local governments and high dependency
on federal resources.

Weak institutional capacities (staff, planning, and policymaking) and states’ inability to
develop their sources of revenue feed off each other

Financial autonomy is weak; resources hardly pay for staff salaries, no budget for
development services.

Poor infrastructure in support of policy implementation

Executive officers during the colonial period were well trained. The appointment of
incompetent officials has caused people to withdraw respect from them, which has
reduced their authority

Lack of resources (human, technical, financial) hinders proper monitoring of compliance
and diligent implementation of policies

Approach to resource allocation

Resource allocation decisions involve choices among competing alternatives as to the
optimum use of resources in terms of satisfying organisational objectives. Resource
allocation is especially important in public services where the objectives are to maintain
aggregate fiscal discipline (i.e. to prevent overspending), to allocate resources in
accordance with government priorities (allocative efficiency), and to promote efficiency in


the use of budgetary resources (technical efficiency: OECD, 1999). The notion of resource
allocations in order to achieve goals is particularly problematic in public services because
goals are more ambiguous than the private sector’s almost single-minded profit, cash flow
(or shareholder value) motives, and outcomes, let alone outputs, may be difficult to
assess. Resource allocation decisions are influenced significantly by uncertainties of
demand and external factors (including treasury budget allocations to public services) over
which service deliverers may have little influence.

Four approaches to public sector resource allocations can be identified from the literature:
rational methods, non-rational methods, expectations, and heuristics. Each is described in
turn.

Rational methods

Rational methods of making resource allocation decisions predominate in private sector
studies where economic methods can identify cost-benefit optimality. However they also
exist in public services, from budgets (Covaleski & Dirsmith, 1986) and simple cost-benefit
analysis (Gordon, 1989) to formulae for resource allocations in hospitals (Nahapiet, 1988),
planning, programming and budgeting systems in the US military (Chwastiak, 2001),
through contractualisation and competitive tendering in health services (Kurunmäki, 1999).
Data envelopment analysis (DEA) and stochastic frontier analysis (SFA) have been used
in public sector studies e.g. in fire services (Athanassopolous, 1998) and policing
(Thanassoulis, 1995).

Many rational methods emphasise technical efficiency. DEA and SFA for example focus
on the efficient frontier. However, resource allocation decisions can be problematic in
terms of measurable benefits. Mehrez & Gafni (1990) compared the risk of death from a
catastrophic event with risk of death from chronic events like disease or traffic accidents.
They defined the decision problem as how to best allocate resources in order to lower the
risk of death to individuals from exposure to different types of events. From a societal
perspective this involves concentrating on both efficiency (the use of limited resources in a
manner that will provide maximum output) and equity dimensions. However, society treats
the two events differently, devoting more attention and perhaps more resources to
possible catastrophic events, because the larger the group of people who die, the worse
the accident is perceived to be. In health service delivery, benefits have been assessed in
terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)or health-related quality of life (HRQoL: Dolan,
2000) which take into account the effect of medical procedures on both the measurable
quantity and quality of life that results from a medical procedure. However, concerns have
been raised about the use of these measures in resource allocation decisions (e.g. Gerard
& Mooney, 2006).

Multi-criteria approaches to resource allocation problems that apply weights to each
criterion are increasingly commonplace and become institutionalised as algorithms.
Frameworks have been developed for hospitals taking into account complexity,
uncertainty, variability and limited resources

(e.g. Harper, 2002) although the resulting models have been used as planning tools
rather than for decision making. Studies of resource allocations in policing have been
concerned with the use of socio-economic and demographic factors to allocate resources
across different geographic areas (Ashby & Longley, 2005).

Non-rational approaches


Non-rational approaches to decision making are different to the traditional paradigm of
rationality, but non-rational approaches are not irrational approaches. They merely reject –
or at least modify - the positivist, goal-oriented, cause-effect logic implied by the economic
roots of rationality. Non-rational approaches are evident in different styles of managerial
decision making over resource allocations. The “search and satisficing” approach provides
“good enough” decisions with reasonable costs of computation (Simon, 1979). “Muddling
through” is a process of making successive limited comparisons rather than a more
comprehensive method (Lindblom, 1959). The “garbage can” model of decision-making is
the confluence of the mix of choices available at any one time, the mix of problems that
have access to the organization, the mix of solutions looking for problems, and the outside
demands on the decision makers (Cohen et al., 1972).

Non-rational approaches may also be political choices. Resource allocation in the public
sector has been explained as a largely political process between “advocates of the cause”
(the programme champions) and “guardians of the treasury” (Wildavsky, 1975) and the
use of budgets has been described as a ceremonial device by which governments
exercise authority (Boland & Pondy, 1983). Collier (2006) for example revealed the
political aspects of calculating the cost of police investigations in the UK which resulted in
resource allocations which had unintended consequences.

Cultural norms and values can play a role in resource allocation decisions. Birnberg et al.
(1983) contrasted the highly analysable and often measurable and verifiable data in
private sector firms with public sector resource allocation decisions where there is both low
analysability and low measurability and verifiability of data. While Birnberg et al. argued
that this could lead to strategies including biasing, filtering and gaming, it was also
recognised that values play an important role in resource allocation decisions in the public
sector.

Expectations analysis

Norms and values may not be shared equally and different perceptions exist between
service providers, recipients and government about objectives and processes for
achieving those objectives, however those objectives may be defined. Machin (1979: 4)
used ‘expectations analysis’ to focus on the existence and interpretation of expectations in
an organizational setting. Resources are never available to meet the expectations held of
managers, who have to decide which they will attempt to satisfy: “The process of choosing
is complex because there are many, frequently conflicting, criteria which may be used to
assess the relative importance, relevance, usefulness, or difficulty of an expectation, or the
differing degrees of personal satisfaction which would be derived from successfully
meeting different expectations”. Managers therefore make decisions based on their
judgements about what is expected of them, and their intrinsic motivation to satisfy what
may be competing expectations.

For Machin (1979: 5) ‘expectation’ was seen as the basic unit of information which
enabled a system to operate effectively at the whole organization level as well as at the
level of individual managers: “The survival and development of an organization depends
on its ability to anticipate, and/or adapt to, changes in the content and pattern of
expectations held by the substantive environment (or stakeholders) and changes in the
relative importance of different expectations and expectation-holders”.

This paper proposes a link between non-rational approaches and expectations analysis.
Expectations may be a reflection of, and reflect on, norms and values as well as political
factors. They may also be informed by, and in turn inform, whatever rational tools are
available. Satisficing, muddling through, or garbage can approaches may therefore be


incorporated in how managers are influenced by competing expectations and the values
and norms held by public service deliverers. Expectations may therefore be a useful lens
through which to see the coming together of non-rational approaches and how they may fit
with rational approaches.

Heuristics

Using the distinction between judgements which are beliefs about outcomes, and values,
which are preferences between outcomes (Thompson, 1967), heuristics based on values
have been argued to be the main method by which public servants make resource
allocation decisions (Fisher, 1998). These heuristics are “mental rules of thumb, or tricks of
the trade, which people learn from various sources, which function by reducing the
complexity of the decision to be made ... Heuristics function as part of a person’s way of
looking at the world. They are a set of values, which are used to edit competing demands
upon attention rather than tools for fine forensic dissection of policy dilemmas” (Fisher,
1998: 26).

Research by Fisher (1998) identified six different heuristics involved in resource allocation
decisions: deservingness, individual need, fairness, utility, ecology, and personal gain.
Deservingness is a moral judgment about whether individuals or groups deserve (or do
not deserve) resources. Individual needs are a result of professional judgements. Fairness
is concerned with equal access to services, either through queuing or by some
standardised rules for the rationing of resources (e.g. a hospital triage system). Utility is
concerned with output maximisation and the common good rather than individual need.
Ecology considers the competing demands of interest groups and the degree to which
those needs are met rather than with any objective. Personal gain is seen in terms of
power, job satisfaction, etc.

Combined approaches

This review of the literature on public sector resource allocation decisions suggests four
ways in which such decisions can be made. Based on rational techniques; using non-
rational approaches including satisficing (Simon, 1979), muddling through (Lindblom,
1959), and garbage can decision making (Cohen et al., 1972); based on expectations
(Machin, 1979); or based on heuristic devices (Fisher, 1998). We have suggested a
combination of non-rational approaches with expectations analysis because satisficing,
muddling through, or garbage can approaches may be incorporated in how managers are
influenced by competing expectations.

These approaches are not mutually exclusive and combinations can occur. One method
that has elements of both rationality and heuristics is programme budgeting and marginal
analysis (PBMA, Mitton & Donaldson, 2004; Mitton et al., 2003), a process that has been
used by health economists opposed to measurements like QALYs. The PBMA technique
provides information to support priority setting and resource allocation decisions at the
margins of resource allocations by facilitating health professionals making informed
judgements about opportunity costs, i.e. the alternative use of resources. We suggest that
other combinations of approaches (rational, non-rational, expectations, and heuristics) are
also possible.

Given these different approaches to resource allocation decisions at the micro or
operational level in public sector settings, we sought to understand how managers in
public service organisations faced with finite resources and uncertain demand actually
make resource allocation decisions and which of the approaches (or combinations of
approaches) described above were used.


The setting for the research was a police force in which resource allocation decisions for
the investigation of serious and organised crime need to be made.

Budgetary control

Budgeting is used by businesses as a method of financial planning for the future. Budgets
are prepared for main areas of the business – purchases, sales, production, labour,
debtors, creditors, cash – and provide detailed plans of the business for the next three, six
or twelve months.

The difference between what is budgeted to happen and what actually happens is termed
a variance. A favourable variance is one that enables a business to increase its profits - for
example if sales revenue is higher than budgeted. An adverse variance will reduce profits
e.g. if costs are higher than budgeted. By spotting adverse variances managers are able
to take control actions - e.g. by cutting out waste to reduce costs, or increasing
advertising/promotion when sales are less than expected.

Control is the process through which managers are able to keep their business on track.
Managers create various financial and budgetary planning tools, which they then monitor
at regular intervals. When variances are spotted appropriate management actions are
required to put the business back on plan.

Read more: http://www.thetimes100.co.uk/theory/theory--financial-budgetary-control--
120.php#ixzz13NvSbuEi

Devolving budgets and delegating financial management responsibilities

Advantages

Making local authorities responsible for the cost could make them more frugal

They are not thwarted by political whim

They are closer to issues and can direct the use of the money better

May encourage competition

Disadvantages

More pots of money to track so admin costs are more

Could drive down standards

Salford City Council is committed to involving local people in decisions about the city. One example of
this is the devolved budgets which are allocated to local communities. Every year, approximately £3.00
per person is allocated to each community committee to make decisions on how the budget should be
spent.

Each community committee elects a sub group from among its members. They assess applications and
make recommendations about how the funding should be spent. Budget sub groups include local
residents and local councillors. They discuss ways in which the funding could best be used to deliver


priorities in the community action plans. Recommendations are then taken to community committee for
approval or further discussion.

Distinctive features of financial management in PSM

Ensuring value for money

Introduction

1. Value for Money (VfM) is the term used to assess whether or not an organisation has
obtained the maximum benefit from the goods and services it acquires and/ or provides,
within the resources available to it. It not only measures the cost of goods and services,
but also takes account of the mix of quality, cost, resource use, fitness for purpose,
timeliness and convenience to judge whether or not, when taken together, they constitute
good value. Achieving VfM may be described in terms of the 'three Es' - economy,
efficiency and effectiveness:

2. For VfM to be achieved, the College needs to be as effective as it can in its use of public
and other money.

Policy

3. Imperial College is committed to delivering value for money as an integral part of its
corporate and academic strategy. While it has a specific responsibility to achieve VfM
from its use of public funds, this principle extends to all sources of funding. Similarly, the
responsibility for pursuing VfM lies with all staff, and not just those with financial duties.

4. To meet its commitment to achieving VfM the College has set itself the following aims:

a. To integrate VfM principles within the College's existing management, planning, review
and decision-making processes, particularly in regard to projects or activities with
significant financial implications.

b. To adopt recognised good practice where appropriate.


c. To undertake or commission VfM studies into areas of activity identified as worthy of
review.

d. To benchmark the College's activities against other similar activities and organisations
where this is considered useful.

e. To respond to opportunities to enhance the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of
the College's activities.

f. To demonstrate actively to both internal and external observers that the achievement of
VfM is sought in all activities undertaken.

g. To ensure that all staff recognise their continuing obligation to seek VfM as part of their
routine activities.

Roles and Responsibilities

5. The Council. Under the Financial Memorandum between the Higher Education
Funding Council for England (HEFCE) and the College, the Council, which is "the
governing and executive body of the College" (1) holds overall responsibility for obtaining
VfM. This responsibility is confirmed annually through the 'members' responsibility'
statement in the College's annual financial statements. In practice, however, responsibility
for obtaining VfM is largely (and properly) delegated to the Rector and the Management
Board.

6. The Audit Committee. The Audit Committee has particular defined duties with regard to
VfM. The HEFCE Audit Code of Practice requires the Committee to state formally in its
annual report to the Council whether or not it is satisfied with the arrangements in place
within the College to promote VfM. In order for the Audit Committee to give this assurance
to the Council, each year the Management Board will provide it with a formal report
describing how the VfM Policy has been implemented. This Report, and the Internal Audit
annual Report, should be made available in time to inform the preparation of the Audit
Committee's annual Report, and to inform the Council's approval of the annual financial
statements which contain the 'members' responsibility' statement.

7. The Rector. The Council has delegated responsibility for obtaining VfM to the Rector,
whose role is to:


a. Implement the VfM Policy.

b. Ensure that VfM is embedded within the every day management of the College.

c. Report annually to the Audit Committee on the implementation of the VfM Policy during
the year.

8. Management Board. The Management Board supports the Rector in implementing the
VfM Policy. The Management Board (together with the Clerk of the Council and the
Secretary of the Audit Committee) also have a responsibility to keep the Council and Audit
Committee advised of VfM issues (for example, the publication of relevant advice or
reports). To this end the Management Board will institute and regularly review suitable
procedures to meet the objectives and reporting requirements of the Policy.

9. Value for Money Steering Group. The Value for Money Steering Group advises the
Management Board on the College's VfM statements, and submits an annual report to the
Management Board and to the College's Audit Committee. To this end the VfM Steering
Group will institute and review suitable procedures to meet the objectives and reporting
requirements of the Policy.

Implementation.

10. In order to confirm that satisfactory arrangements are in place to promote economy,
efficiency and effectivenesss across the College, the VfM Steering Group will consider the
evidence provided by a wide range of existing activities which form part of the College's
routine management practices and which can provide a broad appreciation of the
College's effectiveness. These activities are likely to include the strategic planning,
financial strategy and budget setting processes, key performance indicator (KPI) systems,
costing and pricing policies (TRAC and full economic costing), procurement activity, capital
projects and course costing and portfolio reviews.

Annual Review of Effectiveness

11. The Council, advised by the Audit Committee, must be satisfied that the College has
fulfilled its obligation to achieve VfM from its use of public funds so that the appropriate
statement can be made in the College's Financial Statements each year. In order to meet
this deadline, the VfM Steering Group will schedule its review of VfM in good time to
provide its annual report to the Management Board during the autumn term. The Steering


Group's Report will then be passed to the Audit Committee so that a statement on VfM
can be included in the Committee's Annual Report to the Council.

VFM Studies

12. In addition to the consideration of evidence provided by existing activities, the Steering
Group may also commission separate VfM studies to assess whether the objectives of a
particular programme, project or activity could be carried out in a more economic, efficient
or effective manner. Priority will be given to areas of significant expenditure which cut
across the responsibilities of Faculties, Divisions and Departments.

13. Conducting a VfM study does n ot, in itself, demonstrate VfM; this will be dependent
on the results of the study and on any action taken in response to its findings. A VfM study
will normally result in an action plan, agreed with the management of the area being
reviewed, including recommendations on how greater VfM could be achieved, an
assessment of the risks involved in not taking action, a date by which agreed actions are
to be implemented, and the name of the officer responsible for implementation.

14. VfM studies will normally be conducted by the College's internal auditors. However, an
important principle underlying the Steering Group's work is that any stand alone VfM
studies commissioned by the Group should themselves add value to the College's
operations. Such reviews will therefore only be instigated when there is good reason to
believe that any savings and / or additional income arising as a result of the review will be
greater than the cost of undertaking the review in the first place.

VFM Studies by HEFCE and the National Audit Office

15. The VfM Steering Group will also consider the results of VfM studies conducted by
HEFCE and/ or the National Audit Office (NAO) and monitor any follow up action required.
HEFCE carries out sector-wide VfM studies. The NAO also investigates subjects relating
to higher education. The Steering Group will receive such reports, in addition to the
Faculty, Department or Division concerned, and will approve the College's response to
them, if appropriate. It will also seek to benchmark the College's performance against
these reports, where necessary.

Procurement


16. A major element of the College's commitment to achieving VfM is the drive to obtain
goods and services that provide the best quality at the best price. This is primarily the
responsibility of the College's Purchasing Department, whose Mission is "to fully support
the College mission and corporate strategies by delivering continuous improvement in
value for money, based on whole life cost and quality, and to enhance the competitiveness
of all our key suppliers through the development of world class professional procurement
systems and practices".

Dissemination of Good Practice

17. Faculties, Departments and Divisions may not always be aware of opportunities to
achieve greater VfM or of the full extent of the potential benefits. The Steering Group will
take the lead in promoting the sharing of good practice throughout the College, where this
has implications for VfM. To this end, the Central Secretariat will maintain a Value for
Money site on the College's web site, which will include a copy of this Policy, copies of
VfM strategy, copies of the annual reports and any other published VfM reports or
guidance.

Policies and regulations that increase government accountability and
transparency

Organisations Face Multiple FCPA Challenges

The U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 prohibits U.S. companies, their subsidiaries, as well as,
their officers, directors, employees and agents from making corrupt payments or favourable treatment to
“foreign officials” for the purpose of obtaining or keeping business. The U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission and U.S. Dept of Justice are working together on FCPA related investigations and have
increased their efforts on aggressive prosecutions. FCPA presents many challenges Global
corporations nearly always start addressing FCPA by creating corporate policy. However, having an
anti-corruption and anti-bribery corporate policy does not guarantee an organisation is not at risk of non-
compliance with the FCPA regulation. Due to some of the factors discussed below, the FCPA presents
many challenges for organisations to ensure they are compliant.

WIDESPREAD CORRUPTION VARIES BY COUNTRY

A large number of countries and companies have been identified with widespread corruption. Doing
business in these countries can increase the likelihood and risk of FCPA violations. Watch groups such
as Transparency International www.transparency.org which is a global coalition originated to fight
corruption, tracks and ranks countries and companies known as corrupt. Transparency International is
established in over 90 countries, tracking and reporting on corruption and policies. They provide an
annual ranking of 180 countries with their perceived levels of corruption, as well as their annual Bribe
Payers Index.


DIFFICULT TO CONTROL REMOTE OFFICES, EMPLOYEES AND AGENTS

Many organisations have different policies, procedures and levels of automated systems in place in their
remote offices. Many procedures are manual, which adds to the complexity of monitoring and enforcing
policies of remote employees and agents. Segregation of Duties (SoD) best practices are often
impossible to achieve due to the office location, number of limited employees and the size of the
operation. Organisations that do not have the luxury of having different people performing key financial
transactional processing and approvals, increase their risk significantly for errors, fraud or impropriate
activities.

DIFFICULT TO KNOW WHO YOU ARE DOING BUSINESS WITH

The FCPA specifies guidelines when working with a foreign government official or foreign
representative. Sometimes, it is very difficult to know if the person with whom you are doing business
has an affiliation with a political party or government agency.

DIFFICULT AND EXPENSIVE TO AUDIT REMOTE OFFICES OR OPERATIONS

Remote offices with a lot of manual procedures also provide challenges for internal audit teams. The
costs per control test and for internal audits are generally significantly higher for remote and satellite
offices. Unfortunately, at the same time the risks for a FCPA violation to occur are significantly
increased.

SECTION 2: SOLUTION Creating a Sustainable FCPA Compliance Program HOW CA AND
GREENLIGHT TECHNOLOGIES HELP ORGANISATIONS CREATE A SUSTAINABLE FCPA
PROGRAM

Creating a sustainable FCPA program requires a focused effort including people, processes and
technology. CA works with several risk and compliance consulting companies that have subject matter
expertise to address FCPA programs.

CA and Greenlight Technologies have partnered together to help organisations build and maintain a
sustainable FCPA compliance program by leveraging technology to facilitate, manage, monitor, and
react to FCPA related activities across an organisation.


CA GRC Manager includes a centralized compliance management system which integrates functional
compliance information such as processes, policies, risks and controls. Storing and linking all activities
within a central repository provides greater visibility of risks across all of the organisation, and eliminates
the problem of redundant information stored in corporate silos. This repository provides the foundation
for organisations to continuously optimize processes for identifying risks and controls

MANAGE FCPA POLICIES WITH ELECTRONIC ATTESTATIONS AND AUTOMATED CONTROLS
CA GRC

Manager lifecycle policy management functionality ensures compliance with policies by providing role-
based dashboards that enable real-time monitoring on how the organisation is performing with regards
to those policies, and providing decision support tools for the monitoring and management of the
resources utilized within compliance programs. Policy attestation campaigns provide electronic tracking
and notifications to employees, vendors and customers of policy requirements based on roles.

MANAGE THE RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH NON-COMPLIANCE CA GRC

Manager provides a unified view of all your enterprise risks, providing insight into the state of risk
throughout your organisation, helping to ensure immediate identification and execution of risk mitigation
strategies. CA GRC Manager includes performance dashboards that allow executives to make fact-
based decisions with respect to strategic risk and compliance initiatives. Integrated program
management capabilities help ensures that optimal remediation plans are produced, communication
barriers are eliminated and compliance projects are executed effectively.

AUTOMATED DETECTIVE AND PREVENTATIVE FINANCIAL CONTINIOUS CONTROLS
MONITORING

Greenlight’s Tracking Risk and Compliance (TRAC) financial continuous control monitoring technology
provides the most comprehensive platform for continuously monitoring of transaction controls over
heterogeneous system environments. Continuous database scanning provides up-to-date financial and
operational risk profiles which can check 100% of the financial records. The Greenlight Control Library
provides unprecedented pre-defined controls for the major ERP systems, plus other legacy applications
for true cross-platform GRC performance. Greenlight’s TRAC solution provides an immediate ROI by
reducing the costs of control monitoring and testing. This is accomplished with over 1,500 predefined
Access Control, Process Control and Segregation of Duty rules, as well as, Access Provisioning for
SAP, Peoplesoft, Oracle Financials, and JD Edwards. These rules will help reduce the cost for FCPA,
SOX and other governance best practices relating to financial access and transaction controls. TRAC
has an Adaptor Studio module, which allows customers to connect and extend the TRAC Continuous
Control Monitoring technology to any custom or 3rd party application. This capability adds intelligence to
operational data stores. The robust underlying business engine provides business analysts the ability to
create and maintain sophisticated rules for analysis. These rules can check and compare transactions
or processes, which include multiple transactions to identify fraud, errors, suspicious “red-flags” activities
and suspicious anomalies. For example, Greenlight rules can verify the proper inventory items and
quantities were shipped and/or received compared to the invoice details; transactions can be flagged
where the same employee created a vendor record, purchase order and/or payment. Duplicate
transactions and sales expenses outside of the corporate policy can be flagged. The Greenlight test
results from these rules include relevant information and links back to the specific transaction detail to
enable optimized investigation and remediation processing.

GREENLIGHT TECHNOLOGY TRAC IS CA SMART CERTIFIED


The integration of Greenlight Technologies’ TRAC financial continuous control monitoring technology
with the CA GRC Manager is CA Smart Certified. Summarized test results and metrics from
Greenlight’s financial continuous control monitoring are mapped to the CA GRC Manager Controls and
Control Objectives. The GRC Manager imports the operational test results to drive role-based
dashboards that allow executives to make better decisions based on more timely information. The GRC
Manager dashboards highlight possible violations including identifying which specific policy, control or
regulations are affected, and spawning the appropriate workflows and remediation tasks to mitigate
these violations. This closed loop system helps organisations to increase their compliance effectiveness
and reduce audit and control testing costs. This integration brings together CA’s market leading
governance, risk and compliance management platform and Greenlight’s cross-platform deep
inspection capabilities to deliver a solution that not only addresses FCPA, but provides a
comprehensive and automated system to tackle many compliance initiatives.

INTEGRATED FCPA SOLUTION LEVERAGES INTEGRATION TO AUTOMATE CONTROL
TESTING AND REDUCES FCPA RISKS AND COSTS

Integration between Greenlight TRAC and the CA GRC Manager provides a single repository that can
encompass IT, security and privacy controls, along with business, environmental, engineering and
financial controls. The GRC Manager is optimized for managing controls, including the control
effectiveness and control testing. Controls are mapped to business processes, assets, corporate
policies, regulations and enterprise risks.

SECTION 3: BENEFITS

A Sustainable FCPA Compliance Program reduces Risks and Costs The U.S. Security and Exchange
Commission and U.S. Department of Justice fines have ranged from a couple of million dollars, to
hundreds of millions, with the largest combined fines for one organisation reaching $1.6 billion US
dollars. A sustainable FCPA Compliance Program, with detective and preventative controls will help
demonstrate to the U.S. SEC and DOJ, a good faith and best-practice effort in adhering to FCPA
regulations. Why risk millions of dollars? A solution is available today to help you address violations,
avoiding fines and damage to the corporate reputation and good will. Leveraging the CA GRC Manager
and Greenlight Technologies financial continuous control monitoring system, TRAC, will help streamline
and optimize the management of the policies and controls to mitigate FCPA related activities and the
associated costs.

SECTION 4: THE CA ADVANTAGE CA

is the world’s largest independent software manufacturer and has a heritage of providing best of breed,
enterprise class software solutions. CA has been helping thousands of companies manage their IT and
security infrastructure for over three decades. CA also provides comprehensive and proven solutions to
unify and improve the management of enterprise risk management and compliance programs.

CA GRC Manager delivers a unified, enterprise-wide view of risks and controls. It helps to ensure that
exposures are identified so that you can make informed decisions about risks, costs, remediation,
benefits and action plans. And, it can help you streamline your risk and compliance activities by
automating processes and removing redundancy. www.ca.com/grc

SECTION 5: NEXT STEPS Please visit ca.com/grc, ca-grc.com/greenlight and greenlightcorp.net for
more information on the CA GRC Manager compliance solution and the Greenlight Technologies’
Tracking Risk and Compliance (TRAC), financial continuous control monitoring solution. To learn more,
and see how CA software solutions enable other organisations to unify and simplify IT management for
better business results, visit ca.com


Developing performance-based indicators to analyze and measure results

The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA)

While the origins and implementation of the Clinton administration's National Performance Review
(NPR) were located squarely in the political environment of the White House and enunciated via
executive orders and presidential pleas, the life story of GPRA was much different. The bill that
emerged from the Congress and was signed by President Clinton in August 1993 had its origins in
legislation introduced by Republican Senator William Roth in 1990. That legislation was referred to the
Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, which had hearings over a two-year period, modifying the
original Roth legislation. The House version of the legislation was not introduced until February 1993,
after the 1992 presidential election. With the blessing of the Democratic White House, the legislation
sailed through with overwhelming bipartisan support.(1) While the support for the legislation was broad,
there was very little real debate over its provisions. GPRA was framed in very general and often
abstract terms; neither authorizing nor appropriations committees focused on the consequences of the
process for particular policies or programs.

President Clinton's remarks upon signing the legislation on August 3, 1993 emphasized the importance
of restoring the confidence of the American people in the federal government. He commented: "The law
simply requires that we chart a course for every endeavour that we take the people's money for, see
how well we are progressing, tell the public how we are doing, stop the things that don't work, and never
stop improving the things that we think are worth investing in."

Enveloped in classic good government rhetoric, the legislation had support from almost all quarters. It
was difficult to be against a bill that sought to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of federal
programs by establishing a system to set goals for program performance and to measure program
results. The act required agencies to focus on program results, service quality, and customer
satisfaction by requiring strategic planning and performance measurement. The legislation had several
purposes:

* To improve the confidence of the people in the government by holding agencies accountable for
achieving program results;

* To stimulate reform with a series of pilot projects that could be used as examples for others;

* To promote a focus on results, service quality, and public satisfaction;

* To help managers improve service delivery by requiring them to plan for meeting program objectives
and providing them with information about program results;

* To improve congressional decision making by providing information on achievements


Taxation

Tax systems

To tax (from the Latin taxo; "I estimate") is to impose a financial charge or other levy upon
a taxpayer (an individual or legal entity) by a state or the functional equivalent of a state
such that failure to pay is punishable by law.

Taxes are also imposed by many subnational entities. Taxes consist of direct tax or
indirect tax, and may be paid in money or as its labour equivalent (often but not always
unpaid labour). A tax may be defined as a "pecuniary burden laid upon individuals or
property owners to support the government […] a payment exacted by legislative
authority."[1] A tax "is not a voluntary payment or donation, but an enforced contribution,
exacted pursuant to legislative authority" and is "any contribution imposed by government
[…] whether under the name of toll, tribute, tallage, gabel, impost, duty, custom, excise,
subsidy, aid, supply, or other name.

The legal definition and the economic definition of taxes differ in that economists do not
consider many transfers to governments to be taxes. For example, some transfers to the
public sector are comparable to prices. Examples include tuition at public universities and
fees for utilities provided by local governments. Governments also obtain resources by
creating money (e.g., printing bills and minting coins), through voluntary gifts (e.g.,
contributions to public universities and museums),by imposing penalties (e.g., traffic fines),
by borrowing, and by confiscating wealth. From the view of economists, a tax is a non-
penal, yet compulsory transfer of resources from the private to the public sector levied on
a basis of predetermined criteria and without reference to specific benefit received.

In modern taxation systems, taxes are levied in money, but in-kind and corvée taxation are
characteristic of traditional or pre-capitalist states and their functional equivalents. The
method of taxation and the government expenditure of taxes raised is often highly debated
in politics and economics. Tax collection is performed by a government agency such as
Canada Revenue Agency, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in the United States, or Her
Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC) in the UK. When taxes are not fully paid, civil
penalties (such as fines or forfeiture) or criminal penalties (such as incarceration)[2] may
be imposed on the non-paying entity or individual.

Taxation has four main purposes or effects: Revenue, Redistribution, Repricing, and
Representation.[citation needed]

The main purpose is revenue: taxes raise money to spend on armies, roads, schools and
hospitals, and on more indirect government functions like market regulation or legal
systems.

A second is redistribution. Normally, this means transferring wealth from the richer
sections of society to poorer sections.

A third purpose of taxation is repricing. Taxes are levied to address externalities: tobacco
is taxed, for example, to discourage smoking, and a carbon tax discourages use of
carbon-based fuels.


A fourth, consequential effect of taxation in its historical setting has been representation.
The American revolutionary slogan "no taxation without representation" implied this: rulers
tax citizens, and citizens demand accountability from their rulers as the other part of this
bargain. Studies have shown that direct taxation (such as income taxes) generates the
greatest degree of accountability and better governance, while indirect taxation tends to
have smaller effects.[3][4]

Proportional, progressive, and regressive

An important feature of tax systems is the percentage of the tax burden as it relates to
income or consumption. The terms progressive, regressive, and proportional are used to
describe the way the rate progresses from low to high, from high to low, or proportionally.
The terms describe a distribution effect, which can be applied to any type of tax system
(income or consumption) that meets the definition. A progressive tax is a tax imposed so
that the effective tax rate increases as the amount to which the rate is applied increases.
The opposite of a progressive tax is a regressive tax, where the effective tax rate
decreases as the amount to which the rate is applied increases. In between is a
proportional tax, where the effective tax rate is fixed, while the amount to which the rate is
applied increases. The terms can also be used to apply meaning to the taxation of select
consumption, such as a tax on luxury goods and the exemption of basic necessities may
be described as having progressive effects as it increases a tax burden on high end
consumption and decreases a tax burden on low end consumption.[5][6][7]

Direct and indirect

Main articles: Direct tax and Indirect tax

Taxes are sometimes referred to as direct taxes or indirect taxes. The meaning of these
terms can vary in different contexts, which can sometimes lead to confusion. An economic
definition, by Atkinson, states that "...direct taxes may be adjusted to the individual
characteristics of the taxpayer, whereas indirect taxes are levied on transactions
irrespective of the circumstances of buyer or seller." (A. B. Atkinson, Optimal Taxation and
the Direct Versus Indirect Tax Controversy, 10 Can. J. Econ. 590, 592 (1977)). According
to this definition, for example, income tax is "direct", and sales tax is "indirect". In law, the
terms may have different meanings. In U.S. constitutional law, for instance, direct taxes
refer to poll taxes and property taxes, which are based on simple existence or ownership.
Indirect taxes are imposed on events, rights, privileges, and activities. Thus, a tax on the
sale of property would be considered an indirect tax, whereas the tax on simply owning
the property itself would be a direct tax. The distinction between direct and indirect taxation
can be subtle, but can be important under the law.

Tax incidence

Main article: Tax incidence

Diagram illustrating taxes effect

Law establishes from whom a tax is collected. In many countries, taxes are imposed on
business (such as corporate taxes or portions of payroll taxes). However, who ultimately
pays the tax (the tax "burden") is determined by the marketplace as taxes become


Corporate governance in the public sector (7)

Corporate governance in the public sector (7)

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (20)

Similar a Corporate governance in the public sector (7)

Similar a Corporate governance in the public sector (7) (20)

Último

Último (20)

Corporate governance in the public sector (7)