Self-evaluation exercise for CSOs

We have formulated some key statements established throughout this module that can be useful to include in evaluation methods that CSOs may implement with respect to their involvement in policies and citizen participation carried out by SAIs. Although this case is aimed exclusively at the personal assessment by whoever is taking a self-evaluation test, it should be complemented with other mechanisms for a complete exam regarding the significance and effectiveness of the practice.

Rate from 1 to 10 your level of agreement with the following statement—10 being the highest level of agreement, 1 the highest level of disagreement, and 6 as the ideal minimum level:

1. Is the SAI chairperson committed to the agenda of citizen participation in the audit cycle?

2. Suitable channels have been created to manifest opinions, information, and/or interests of the CSO before the SAI.

3. That input is successfully valued and adequately channeled by the SAI.

4. The SAI keeps the CSO informed about the results of their contributions.

5. The involvement of the organization in said mechanism has resulted in the obtainment of valuable information about public management.

6. A relatively stable channel has been created that allows participants to access said information.

7. The information that has been retrieved is qualitatively significant to enrich and/or strengthen the actions of the organization.

8. The involvement of the CSO in the citizen participation mechanism implemented by the SAI resulted in increased capability to influence other policies and/or public administration programs in general.

9. CSO involvement in citizen participation practices implemented by the SAI has resulted in increased staff awareness regarding the importance of public control and the incorporation of substantial new knowledge with respect to the functioning of oversight mechanisms.

10. Those contributions reached—directly or indirectly—a significant part of the organization.


Any comments? Please notify us here.


TPA Initiative – ACIJ (2013): “Audit Institutions in Latin America. Transparency, Citizen Participation and Accountability Indicators”.

OECD (2013): “How can Supreme Audit Institutions Engage External Stakeholders to Enhance Good Governance?”, Concept Note - OECD with Supreme Audit Institutions of Brazil, Chile, South Africa & IDI.

Johnsøn, J. & Søreide, T. (2013): “Methods for learning what works and why in anti-corruption: An introduction to evaluation methods for practitioners”, U4 Issue N°8, Bergen, U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Centre- Chr. Michelsen Institute.

Gertler, P. J. et al. (2011): “Impact Evaluation in Practice”, Washington, DC: World Bank.

Hevia, F. & Vergara-Lope Samana (2011): “How to measure participation”, CIESAS – INDESOL. “Practical Guide For Evaluating Participatory Processes”; Marc Pares, Leonardo Díaz (IGOP/UAB) & Melissa Pomeroy (OIDP/OLDP)

“Supreme Audit Institutions and Stakeholder Engagement Practices. A Stocktaking Report”, Effective Institutions Platform, September 2014.

“Working with Supreme Audit Institutions", Department for International Development (DFID, 2005).

Open Budget Survey 2012, International Budget Partnership (IBP)