The Question

This question is posted by ACE on behalf of PN member Rushdi Nackerdien.

I am researching the conduct of performance audits of election authorities. I am interested in finding out more about the methodology associated with conducting a performance audit. 

Most EMBs conduct post-election reviews where they tackle lessons learnt from the last elections. Some depend on lessons for elections observation missions (both international and domestic), along with other stakeholder inputs including EMB staff. Performance audits, however, differ from these post-election reviews, though there are overlaps. Just like financial audits, it is associated with tracking aspects of accountability associated with performance of the electoral institution. Performance audits like those done by the Botswana Election Commission appear rare. 

Does anybody know of more examples of such performance audits, and particularly of the methodology employed to conduct them? I am very interested in how these performance audits are conducted in terms of the structure and composition of the audit team, the duration of the audit, their main objectives and working parameters such as indicators, as well as their reporting outputs. Any accessible examples of such studies would be very useful.

Summary of Responses

Practitioners' Network members shared their experiences working on a range of audits, and suggested several considerations and approaches.

A PN member from Kenya shared that the Kenyan EMB (IEBC) requested IFES to conduct an audit of the BVR system in the aftermath of the 2013 election. The consultant relied on internal testing of the BVR technology to conduct the audit. These tests consisted of standard SQL queries, which assessed the general state of the BVR system, the voters' register and other tables. This member found this type of audit to be more objective than surveys. He also suggested looking at the Independent Review Commission of Kenya's final report, which contained an audit of the now defunct Electoral Commission of Kenya.

Another PN member shared her experience of audits in Iraq, which were done outside of the country and were therefore used by the EMB to "reward loyalists with a holiday and a shopping trip."

One PN member who led an audit team in Botswana several years ago said that a post-election audit should include all aspects of the electoral cycle. He suggested that the methodology include observation of the conduct of some of the processes and/or extensive interviews with election officers, supervisors and EMB members. In addition, he suggested that the methodology include attendance at post-election review workshops. The audit team should be made up of an odd number of experts, including legal and social experts as well as political scientists. There should also be a financial expert and an election administrator. The entire process could take up to 8 weeks.

Another PN member with experience in Nigeria described a two-phased approach, including an internal review process and an independent post-election audit conducted by an independent committee of election experts. The independent committee used focus group discussions. This PN member said that such a committee was useful because it allowed stakeholders to provide feedback outside of the election commission and the Nigerian experts on the committee gave it substantial credibility.  

Finally, a PN member suggested the importance of looking at quantifiable, measurable aspects of the electoral process, including voter registration, training, assistance, etc. It is also, however, important to examine overall transparency, rates of participation and the quality of the process. If possible, surveys may help to measure these aspects.

Contributing Members:

• Abdiwahidi Hussein
• Jacky Sutton
• Carl Dundas
• Olufunto Akinduro
• Francisco Barrera

Kenya has conducted one aspect of performance Audit as part of the Post Election Evaluation that seems to fit your research objectives. This was an audit of the Biometric Voter Register where the EMB requested the IFES to conduct an Independent Audit of the BVR system to identify its status,integrity,deficiencies,inefficiencies and so on with a view to get a way forward for future Voter Registration and Voter Education interventions. An international consultant was subsequently hired
to conduct the audit.

The audit took place between November 4 and November 22, 2013 in Nairobi in the Information Technology and Communication (ICT) department of the IEBC. The
consultant was assisted by the ICT Database Administrator who provided access to all data and relevant information.

Methodology was mainly Internal Testing. The tests consist of executing standard SQL (Structured Query Language) queries to assess the general state of the BVR (administrative entities, voter register and other supporting tables) under the supervision of an IEBC database administrator
Also Comparative analysis of the 2009 census and the BVR registration figures was done to determine underrepresented groups, geographical balance among others.

Indicators were within the standard SQL while others were based on census data (2009) and Voting Age Population among others.

If you wish to pursue more details, you may liaise with the IEBC through IEBC Chairperson for more details as am not competent to give other details pertinent your research.

Personally, I found the findings very objective as the BVR performance audit was quantitative as opposed to the normal "Surveys" that are mostly used by EMBs ( qualitative). Its findings answered accountability aspects such as the integrity of not only the final register but the entire technical and administrative spectrum in the BVR system.

Justice (Retired) Kriegler also led the Independent Review Commission (IREC report or popularly Kriegler Report) to make an Independent Audit of the now defunct ECK-Electoral Commission of Kenya- in 2008, after the bungled 2007 General Elections. They had a clear TOR,Methodology and a good reporting format(just google the report, you will get it online)


Thank you

The Iraqi election commission used to organise "lessons learned" workshops after each electoral event. These were funded by the UN but were not as effective as they could have been because they were organised abroad - usually in Turkey - and therefore became opportunities for senior staff to reward "loyalists" with a holiday and a shopping trip. It was a constant dilemma because while many technical staff worked hard to carry out evaluation processes to feed into a document for submission to the LL event, the final result did not reflect that hard work. While many useful skills were learned, it is not clear whether the cost of the foreign travel justified the overall outcome.

Hi Rushdi,

An election performance audit is done under different labels by a number of EMBs - there may be independent post-election review committees, like one conducted by INEC of Nigeria after the 2011 general elections. An election audit can be done with respect to any or all the election preparatory processes , for example, voters' registration, electoral districts/constituency delimitation, election contestants' registration and election logistics management. With respect to an election audit of performance of the entire electoral processes of a general election, the audit should embrace all aspects of the election preparation throughout the election cycle, including the legal design of the electoral legislative scheme, structure and performance of the EMB, members and employees, conduct of preparatory processes, contributions of stakeholders -CSOs, media, social media platforms, voter education programmes etc.

The work programme may include observation of the conduct of some of the processes, (where it is possible for the audit team to be assembled before the elections). Where that is not possible, extensive interviews with election officers, supervisors, and EMB'S members. Attendance at post-election review workshops and views of voters and other stakeholders can help the auditors.

The team composition would vary in size and nature of multi-discipline of its members,but an uneven number of 3 or 5, including election expert, legal, social or political scientist, and election financial expert or an experienced election administrator.

The duration should be three to four weeks information gathering and three to four weeks report writing.   

(I led the audit team to audit Botswana elections some years ago.)

Dear Rushdi, 

taking off from Carl's response, i'll like to add that the post-election review process for the 2011 nigerian elections comprised of two components - an internal review process and an independent post-election audit conducted by an independent committee of election experts. the independent audit committee conducted focus group discussions that enabled them to receive inputs from electoral stakeholders. the added value of such an independent audit is the openness  and the opportunity provided for stakeholders to give feedback on the electoral process through a process independent of the electoral commission. another added value is the fact that this was conducted by a team of Nigerian experts who fully understand the context and have long standing involvement in elections, this gave the audit process a good level of credibility and acceptance.  the report also informed electoral reform proposals. You can find the report of audit committee at http://www.inecnigeria.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/RERC-REPORT.pdf 

El tema de la auditoria electoral,  tiende siempre a parecerse a una auditoria normal, de cuentas o de tecnología, aunque siempre también son parte del proceso de auditar la gestión, pero indudablemente se tiene que planear en dos fases principales (antes y después de elecciones) y en todos los procesos que cubren las elecciones, ejemplo la normatividad existente cubre las acciones y de la manera como esta normado?, lo planeado se cumplió o en que porcentajes se desfaso, los cronogramas y planes de acción electoral, fueron bien concebidos y se cumplieron, las actividades cuantificables si están bien planeadas y son fáciles de medir?, caso de los registros de votantes, los jurados de mesa, su asistencia, su capacitación etc.

Finalmente se debe tener en cuenta la transparencia, la participación, la calidad del proceso en su totalidad, y si es factible tener encuestas la satisfacción por parte de alguno de los actores del proceso y la oportunidad de los resultados electorales.

Hay temas alternativos de evaluación, como las seguridades físicas y lógicas, la documentación y planeación en la ejecución de cada proceso, la documentación y capacitación de los funcionarios que realizan las labores, algo bien interesante que es el acceso a la información por parte de los actores del proceso.