ISA 520 · Government & Public Sector

Analytical Review Tool for Government

Pre-configured for public sector entities with budget-versus-actual as the primary analytical, programme expenditure monitoring, and grant compliance analysis.

Configuration

Trial Balance Data

Tip: paste tab-separated data from Excel
Account NameCategoryCY BalancePY Balance

The Auditor's Guide to Analytical Procedures Under ISA 520

Complete guide: ISA 520 requirements quick reference, decision flowchart for when to use analytical procedures vs. tests of details, industry-specific ratio checklists for 12 sectors, threshold-setting guide by risk level, sample completed working paper, common quality-review findings, and documentation checklist.

Free PDF guide. Unsubscribe anytime. No spam — we're auditors, not marketers.

ISA 520 Analytical Review for Government and Public Sector Entities

Public sector audit requires a fundamentally different analytical review approach: the primary comparison is budget versus actual, not prior year versus current year. Government entities operate within approved budgets that represent the legislature's authorisation of spending. Under ISA 520, the auditor's expectation should be derived from the approved budget, adjusted for known in-year changes such as supplementary estimates, virements (budget transfers between programmes), and emergency funding allocations. Budget variances require investigation — underspending may indicate programme delivery failures, while overspending raises questions about authorisation and financial control. The auditor should compare actual expenditure to budget at the programme, department, and line-item level, focusing investigation on material variances.

Programme Expenditure and Accountability

Public sector expenditure accountability demands that funds are spent for the purposes authorised by the legislature. Programme expenditure should be analysed against agreed delivery metrics and output targets. Employee costs typically represent the single largest expenditure category (50-70% for service-delivery organisations) and should be reconciled against headcount data, pay scale movements, and vacancy management. Transfer payments — grants and subsidies paid to other entities — should be analysed against programme budgets and compliance with disbursement conditions. Capital expenditure should be compared to the approved capital programme, with timing variances explained by project progress reports. Infrastructure asset valuations involve significant estimation and should be analysed for consistency with capital maintenance and replacement programmes.

Revenue Analysis and Intergovernmental Transfers

Tax revenue should be analysed against economic indicators (GDP growth, employment data, property values) and tax policy changes (rate changes, new taxes, changed thresholds). Grant income from higher-level governments should reconcile to approved allocations and meet any performance conditions attached. The auditor should assess whether the basis for revenue recognition is consistent between periods and whether any revenue has been recognised prematurely. Public sector borrowing should be analysed against the approved borrowing programme and debt management strategy. Interest costs should correlate with the average debt balance and applicable rates. Pension obligations — often the most significant liability for public sector entities — require actuarial assessment and should be analysed for consistency with demographic assumptions (mortality, salary growth, discount rates) and membership data.

Key Ratios to Monitor for Government & Public Sector

  • Budget utilisation rate
  • Employee costs as % of total
  • Grant expenditure vs. conditions
  • Capital vs. revenue expenditure ratio
  • Programme delivery efficiency

What Drives Account Fluctuations

Budget allocation changes between fiscal years

Policy decisions affecting programme scope and funding

Employee cost changes from pay awards and headcount

Capital programme timing and delivery delays

Inter-governmental transfer and grant flows

Seasonal Considerations

Government spending often accelerates toward fiscal year-end as departments seek to utilise budget allocations. Tax revenue collection follows statutory deadlines and may be seasonal (quarterly VAT, annual income tax). Capital programmes have multi-year horizons with phased spending profiles.

Recommended Investigation Thresholds for Government & Public Sector

Account Category Threshold %
Revenue5%
Cost of Goods Sold10%
Operating Expenses10%
Current Assets15%
Equity10%

Regulatory note: Government entities are subject to specific audit mandates (Comptroller and Auditor General, local audit bodies). IPSAS or local public sector accounting standards may apply instead of IFRS. Value-for-money considerations extend beyond financial statement audit.

Worked Example: Government & Public Sector Analytical Review

A municipal government with a €120M annual budget. Overall materiality €2,400,000, performance materiality €1,560,000.

Overall materiality: €2,400,000 | Performance materiality: €1,560,000 | Threshold: 10%

Account PY CY Change %
Tax Revenue €68,000,000 €72,000,000 €4,000,000 +5.9%
Central Government Grants €48,000,000 €45,000,000 €-3,000,000 -6.3%
Employee Costs €49,000,000 €52,000,000 €3,000,000 +6.1%
Programme Expenditure €35,000,000 €38,000,000 €3,000,000 +8.6%
Transfer Payments €17,500,000 €18,000,000 €500,000 +2.9%
Capital Expenditure FLAG €22,000,000 €15,000,000 €-7,000,000 -31.8%
Borrowings FLAG €58,000,000 €65,000,000 €7,000,000 +12.1%
Flagged Item Explanations:
Central Government Grants: Decrease of €3M (6.3%) — flagged. Reflects changes to the equalisation formula that reduced this municipality's allocation. Verified against published allocation schedules and treasury correspondence.
Capital Expenditure: Decrease of €7M (31.8%) — flagged. Infrastructure projects delayed due to planning permission issues and contractor availability. Approved capital programme was €20M; actual spending of €15M represents 75% budget utilisation. Verified against project progress reports and capital programme monitoring.

Frequently Asked Questions — Government & Public Sector

Why is budget-vs-actual the primary analytical for government entities?
Government entities operate within legislatively approved budgets that represent authorised spending limits. The budget-to-actual comparison assesses whether the entity has spent within its authority. Prior year comparison is secondary because budgets change annually based on policy decisions, making PY vs CY less meaningful for assessing compliance.
How should I set materiality for a public sector audit?
Total expenditure at 0.5-1% is the most common benchmark. For entities with significant public interest (health authorities, large municipalities), use the lower end. Consider qualitative materiality for politically sensitive items (councillor expenses, grants to specific organisations) even if they are below quantitative materiality.
What are common budget variance explanations?
Timing differences (projects delayed, not cancelled), policy changes (mid-year budget adjustments), demand-driven expenditure (social services responding to need), and vacancy savings (unfilled positions reducing employee costs). The auditor should assess whether management's explanations are supported by evidence.
How should pension liabilities be analysed?
Compare the actuarial assumptions (discount rate, salary growth, mortality) to prior year and sector benchmarks. Assess the sensitivity disclosure — small changes in assumptions can move the liability by millions. Verify the membership data used in the valuation against HR records. Benchmark the entity's funding level against peer organisations.
What going concern indicators apply to government entities?
Budget deficits, declining reserves, inability to set a balanced budget, reliance on one-off asset sales to fund recurring expenditure, and increasing borrowing. While government entities rarely fail in the traditional sense, financial sustainability concerns should be reported.