Rating of Audit Findings
The University of Scranton
Office of Internal Audit
Rating System for Audit
Findings
Updated: April 15, 2005
| Rating
|
Seriousness of
Finding* |
Management Level
Resolution |
Communication to
Board |
|
| Major |
Highest
|
Deans, Vice Presidents,
and the President should be personally involved. |
Communicated to the Board
in a timely manner given the nature of the finding.
If a conflict of interest in reporting exists, the internal auditor may
directly report to the Board. |
|
| Significant
|
High |
Deans, Vice Presidents,
and the President may be personally involved. |
Communicated in the
internal auditor's regular reports to the Board. |
|
| Notable
|
Average
|
Department or director
level should resolve. |
Communicated in the
internal auditor's regular reports to the Board. |
|
| Nominal
|
Low |
Department level staff
should address. |
Not communicated to the
Board. |
*Some Factors Considered in Judging "Seriousness
of Finding":
Level of financial impact.
Extent of violation of external laws, regulations and
restrictions.
Lack of a University policy or noncompliance with a
policy in an important matter.
Lack of internal controls or ineffective controls and
procedures.
Fraud, theft, inappropriate conflicts of interest or
serious waste of University resources.
Significant opportunity exists for real gains in
processing efficiency.
Poor cost controls or potential for significant
savings and/or revenue generation.
Condition places the University's reputation at risk.
Ineffective reporting and/or communication structure
results in financial risks and/or inefficient operations.
Post audit implementation review reveals little or no
effort to implement an action plan in response to a previous audit finding.
NOTE: The rating system for audit findings ranks
the seriousness of the finding and indicates the level of management who should
be personally involved in the problem resolution.
|
