1. Portfolio Committee of Police PFMA outcomes 2010/11
11 October 2011

2. Movements in audit outcomes of completed audits

3. Audits conducted by the AGSA
PFMA audit outcomes
Audit outcomes
Audits conducted by the AGSA
Departments*
Public entities **
Financially unqualified with no findings on predetermined objectives or compliance with laws and regulations
Financially unqualified with findings on predetermined objectives and/or compliance with laws and regulations 2 1
Financially unqualified financial statements
100% 0%
Qualified opinion
Adverse opinion
Disclaimer of opinion
Financially qualified financial statements
Total number of audits reported on
Number of audit reports not issued by 31 August 2011
Total number of audits
Total number of auditees in which findings arose from the AGSA's other legal reporting responsibilities:
Predetermined objectives findings only
Compliance with laws and regulations findings only
Findings on both predetermined objectives and compliance with laws and regulations
Outcomes reported on:
Departments:
Department of Police
Independent Complaints Directorate
Public Entity:
Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority (PS

4. Movement in audit outcomes from 2009-10 to 2010-11 Departments and Public Entities
Movement in audit outcome over
Audit opinion
Improvement
Unchanged
Regressed
New departments
Total reported on
Prior year opinion on audits outstanding
Financially unqualified with no findings
Financially unqualified with findings 2 3
Qualified
Disclaimer / Adverse
Total 1 1 2
Audit outcomes
Improvement/ Regression/ Unchanged
Findings on predetermined objectives
Findings on compliance with laws and regulations
DEPARTMENT
Department of Police
Financially unqualified with findings on predetermined objectives or compliance with laws and regulations
Unchanged
Independent Complaints Directorate
PUBLIC ENTITIES
Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority
Qualified
Improved

5. Corrections of material misstatements identified by auditors
ICD disclosure note on contingent liabilities was incorrectly calculated.
Police did make corrections, most of these corrections was within a note – not affecting the balance of the line items. (minor assets – correction between additions and disposals, S&T re-allocation between foreign and local, Inclusion of irregular expenditure that was reported in the financial year )
PSIRA (reclassification of assets, leases, disclosure corrections on numerous GRAP, unknown deposits allocations, bad debts corrections)

6. Predetermined objectives (PDO) findings Departments and public entities
Non-Compliance
: 66%
: 100%
Not useful
: 33%
: 33%
Not reliable
: 66%
: 66%
Presentation
: 33%
: 0%

7. Existence of performance information
SAPS: Predetermined objectives (PDO) findings
Existence of performance information
Consistency of performance information between:
Strategic/annual performance plan, quarterly reports and annual performance report
Presentation in annual report
Reliability of reported performance information
STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT
ANNUAL REPORT
DIVISIONS
COMBINE INFORMATION, SUBMIT
PROVINCIAL
VERIFY, COMBINE, SUBMIT
CLUSTER LEVEL
VERIFY, COMBINE, SUBMIT
Audit and compare reported performance information to relevant source documentation and conduct procedures to ensure validity, accuracy and completeness of reported performance information
Non compliance is referring to lack of internal controls over predetermined objectives – also include, if a strategic plan is in place and implemented.
Presentation refers to major variances not explained.
Reported information not useful –refer to if it is consistent (with strategic plan) relevant and measurable
Reported information not reliable refers to predetermined objectives being accurate, valid and complete.
Police Main findings was on reported information not reliable – this is mainly due to the fact that the capturing of these reported information is at station level (completeness – could not verify on systems used and compared to source documentation – not complete (refer to slide above)
ICD Cases was sign off as complete without the case investigation report
PSIRA Due to new management appointed in Sept 2010 they’ve have seen that the strategic plan are not inline with objectives of PSIRA, they revised the strategic plan in Feb this resulted in predetermined objectives findings – performance plans not linked to the annual budget, no annual plan etc
STATIONS/UNITS
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

8. Supporting documentation at stations/units is not available
SAPS: Predetermined objectives (PDO) findings
Supporting documentation at stations/units is not available
Systems for collating information are not updated
Information to be sent through is not accurate
System used does not agree to supporting documentation
Reliability of PI
Validity
Accuracy
Completeness

9. Areas of findings on non-compliance with laws and regulations

10. Summary of findings on supply chain management
Police Annual financial statements – material misstatements corrected on the AFS
Strategic planning – did not ensure an effective and efficient system of internal control with predetermined objectives
Procurement and contract management – R70 million irregular expenditurethat had to be declared as irregular (was properly disclosed), also, that contract management are not effective within DoP, and rotation of suppliers are lacking.
ICD Annual financial statements – material misstatement corrected on the AFS
Expenditure management – payments not done within 30 days
PSIRA Annual financial statements – material misstatements corrected on the AFS
Budgets – did not submit monthly reports to executive authority or anticipated revenue report
Expenditure management – effective cash management policy, irregular and fruitless and wasteful expenditure was disclosed
Revenue management – di not take effective steps to collect all money due to them
Procurement – sufficient audit evidence for transaction above R could not be obtained.

11. Unfair or uncompetitive procurement
Through processes in SAPS (BAC) – disclosed & condoned
(total of
R70 million).
3 Quotations not obtained
Suppliers did not declare interest
Approval without all required information
Police day – poor planning

12. Unfair or uncompetitive procurement
Resulted in non-compliance findings
Inadequate monitoring of contract performance
Price quotations not on rotation basis

13. Findings on HR management focus areas Departments

14. Findings on HR management focus areas Public entities
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%

15. Findings on IT control focus areas
* IT audit was not conducted at public entity