Pass the IIA CIA IIA-CIA-Part2 Questions and answers with CertsForce

by a grantee that received a charitable contribution, the most effective method is to visit the grantee and directly assess whether the project execution aligns with the scope defined in the grant. This method provides firsthand evidence of the grantee’s activities and ensures that the charitable contributions are used as intended.

IIA Standard 2310 – Identifying Information:

This standard requires that internal auditors gather sufficient, reliable, relevant, and useful information to achieve the engagement objectives. Visiting the grantee allows auditors to observe and verify the actual execution of the project, which provides the most direct and reliable evidence.

Field Visits:

Conducting a site visit enables auditors to see the project in action, interview relevant personnel, and compare actual activities to what was promised in the grant proposal. This method helps ensure that the grantee is fulfilling its obligations and that the organization’s charitable funds are being used effectively.

Direct Evidence:

Direct observation of the grantee’s activities provides the highest level of assurance regarding the validity of the reported activities. This aligns with IIA’s emphasis on obtaining the best available evidence to support audit findings.

Option B (Verifying final report vs. initial budget): This only compares reports, which might not accurately reflect the actual activities conducted by the grantee.

Option C (Reconciling general ledger accounts): This focuses on financial records, which may not provide sufficient detail about the actual activities conducted.

Option D (Interviewing corporate affairs employees): While informative, this method only provides secondhand information and does not directly verify the grantee’s activities.

Detailed Explanation:Why Not Other Options?Conclusion: Option A is correct because visiting the grantee provides the most reliable and direct evidence that the activities are in line with the grant’s defined scope, ensuring the validity of the grantee’s reported activities.

When assigning tasks to audit team members, the auditor in charge primarily considers factors that directly affect the quality and efficiency of the audit, such as the auditors' experience and availability, as well as the need for outside resources. While the sufficiency of budgeted hours is important for overall audit planning, it is not a direct factor in the assignment of specific tasks to team members. The assignment is more focused on ensuring that the right skills are matched to the tasks and that resources are properly coordinated with client availability. References:

IIA Standards - 1200: Proficiency and Due Professional Care

IIA Practice Guide - Coordination and Reliance: Developing an Assurance Map

The primary reasons for outsourcing internal audit activities typically include accessing a wider range of skills and competencies, complementing existing expertise for specific engagements, and strengthening core audit functions. Contingency planning, while beneficial, is not a primary reason for outsourcing internal audit activities as it pertains more to risk management strategies rather than the core objectives of outsourcing. References: = IIA’s Practice Advisory 1210.A1-1: Obtaining External Service Providers to Support or Complement the Internal Audit Activity.

Analytical review procedures involve the analysis of financial and operational data to identify trends, anomalies, or patterns that may indicate areas of concern or opportunities for improvement. In this scenario, where an organization is facing rising healthcare insurance costs, the most appropriate analytical review procedure is to compare the rate of increase in healthcare costs with an external benchmark, such as the government index of healthcare costs.

IIA Standard 2320 – Analysis and Evaluation:

The standard emphasizes the need for internal auditors to apply appropriate analytical procedures to understand the nature of data and assess the reasonableness of the information under review. Comparing the organization's cost increases to a government index provides an objective benchmark.

Benchmarking:

By comparing the organization’s rate of increase in healthcare costs with the government index, the internal auditor can determine whether the organization’s costs are in line with industry trends. This comparison helps assess whether the 10 percent annual increase is reasonable or if it deviates significantly from the norm.

Relevance of External Data:

The government index reflects the broader economic environment and industry standards, making it a relevant comparison point. If the organization’s increase significantly exceeds the index, it may indicate inefficiencies or issues that require further investigation.

Option A (Comparison with similar organizations): While useful, this approach may not provide the same level of objectivity as a government index, as organizations may have different healthcare plans, demographics, and other factors affecting costs.

Option C (Obtaining a bid): This relates more to evaluating the cost-effectiveness of services, not the reasonableness of past cost increases.

Option D (Reviewing claims for overpayments): This is a detailed transactional audit, which is important but does not provide a broad analytical view of cost trends.

Detailed Explanation:Why Not Other Options?Conclusion: Option B is correct as it directly compares the organization’s cost increase to an objective external benchmark, which aligns with IIA’s emphasis on analytical review procedures for evaluating the reasonableness of financial data.

According to IIA guidance, internal auditors should use relevant information obtained during a consulting engagement to inform and enhance their evaluation of internal controls during related audit engagements. This is because the knowledge gained from consulting activities can provide valuable insights into the functioning of controls and processes, which can be applied when assessing their effectiveness in a subsequent audit.

IIA References:

IIA Standard 1220: Due Professional Care indicates that internal auditors should consider all relevant information available to them when making judgments and recommendations. This includes information obtained from consulting engagements.

The IIA’s Practice Guide on Consulting Engagements advises that while internal auditors must maintain objectivity, they can and should use knowledge gained from consulting engagements to enhance the value and accuracy of their assurance work.

According to IIA guidance, the auditor in charge should consider the number, experience, and availability of audit staff as well as the nature, complexity, and time constraints of the engagement when determining resource requirements. These factors ensure that the engagement is staffed appropriately and that the audit team has the necessary skills and time to perform the audit effectively.

The efficiency of an audit is greatly influenced by the adequacy of preliminary survey information. Thorough preliminary surveys help auditors understand the audit scope, identify potential issues early, and plan their work efficiently, thereby increasing overall audit efficiency. References: = IIA Practice Guide: “Engagement Planning: Establishing Objectives and Scope” and IIA Standard 2201 - Planning Considerations.

The chief audit executive (CAE) typically performs several activities following an audit engagement, including reporting follow-up activities to senior management, implementing follow-up procedures to evaluate residual risk, and evaluating the extent of improvements. These activities are crucial to ensure that audit recommendations are properly addressed and that any residual risks are managed effectively. However, determining the costs of implementing the recommendations is not typically a responsibility of the CAE. This task is usually handled by the management of the area being audited, as they have the detailed operational knowledge necessary to accurately estimate these costs. References:

The IIA’s International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (Standards), specifically Standard 2500 - Monitoring Progress.

The IIA’s Practice Guide on Follow-up Processes.

The observation provided in the final engagement communication includes the criteria (competitive bidding requirements), condition (three of the 10 contracts reviewed did not meet these requirements), and cause (senior management deemed these purchases critical and awarded them as sole-source). However, it lacks the effect, which would explain the potential consequences or impact of not meeting the competitive bidding requirements, such as increased costs, lack of transparency, or potential for favoritism. References:

The IIA’s International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (Standards), Standard 2410 - Criteria for Communicating.

The IIA’s Practice Guide on Communicating Results.

Probability-proportional-to-size (PPS) sampling, also known as monetary unit sampling, is most appropriate for measuring the total misstatement in an accounts payable ledger. This method is used to determine the likelihood of individual items being selected based on their size, with larger items having a higher probability of being selected. This is particularly useful in identifying overstatements and misstatements in financial records, such as accounts payable, where the monetary value of transactions is a critical factor.References:

Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), Practice Guide – Auditing Sampling.