AUDIT FOLLOW-UP PROCESS
As required by the IIA’s Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal
Auditing (Standard #440) "Internal Auditors should determine that corrective
action was taken and it is achieving the desired results..." USC has an
ongoing tracking report that is updated prior to each meeting of the Fiscal
Policy Committee of the Board of Trustees.
Each audit report is numbered sequentially as the report is completed. The
first two digits are the calendar year and the last two digits are the next
sequential number. The findings in the body of the report are also numbered
After each audit is completed, the in-charge auditor prepares a tracking sheet
on each specific finding which is used to update the ongoing tracking report
prepared by the department secretary. The information for each finding includes:
- Finding number;
- Brief comment;
- Implementation status;
- Expected implementation date;
- A rating value;
- Person responsible in the department;
- Auditor in charge.
Implementation status is explained as follows:
If the recommendation has been implemented and verified, the status code will
If the auditee agrees to implement the recommendation the status code will
be "P" for partially implemented until it is implemented and verified.
If the auditee does not agree to the recommendation, the status is "N"
for not implemented. An alternative solution must be negotiated or a directive
from the Board or Executive management will be required to resolve the situation.
If circumstances cause the recommendation to no longer be valid, the recommendation
should be withdrawn and coded "W".
The rating prioritizes recommendations as follows:
- Seriously effects several areas within the University. Exposes the
University to unacceptable risks or liability if not corrected.
- Involves complex issues requiring the participation of executive management
(President or Vice President).
- Required to comply with Federal, State, or other laws and could result
in serious consequences if not implemented.
- Unacceptable weakness in the internal and accounting controls of a
major component of the University.
- Substantial savings can be realized by correcting.
- Seriously effects a department or area within the University.
- Involves a difficult issue requiring the attention of upper management
(department head or Assistant Vice President/Provost).
- Required to comply with Federal, State or other law and could result
in minor consequences if not implemented.
- Savings can be realized by correcting.
- Can effect a department or may be common to several areas.
- Involves basic issues that require the attention of middle management.
- Could result in improved internal and accounting control.
- Can be corrected relatively easy.
- Could result in improved efficiency or effectiveness of operations.
The brief comment should be two short summary lines that note the finding
All stale recommendations that have not been implemented within six months
will be noted with an asterisk and a footnote.
Approximately one month prior to scheduled Fiscal Policy Committee meetings,
the secretary will issue the auditor-in-charge a recommendation progress report
for each recommendation that has not been fully implemented. The auditor will
perform a follow-up review and have the secretary update the database. No recommendation
will be considered implemented until verified by an auditor.
All new internal audits are entered into the database approximately two weeks
prior to scheduled meetings of the Fiscal Policy Committee.
The secretary will prepare the tracking report and send copies to the Secretary
of the Board for mailing to the Fiscal Policy Committee at least seven days
prior to the scheduled meeting.
Questions about the report should be directed to the head of the Internal Audit
Department. Any changes to the above policy should be issued by the Director
[Back to Table of Contents]