El Paso internal audit chief outlines three engagement types and timing for work plan
Loading...
Summary
The city’s chief internal auditor briefed the FOAC on the audit office’s engagement types — assurance audits, follow‑ups and advisory services — and explained typical staffing hours and timelines for each type.
Chief Internal Auditor Calderon briefed the Financial Oversight and Audit Committee on the Internal Audit Department’s three types of engagements: assurance audits, follow‑up audits and advisory services.
Calderon described assurance audits as full audits that provide limited or reasonable assurance because of sampling; those are budgeted at roughly 500 hours and the office aims to complete them within about 90 days. Follow‑up audits (assurance engagements that test whether previously recommended corrective actions were implemented) typically require roughly 250 hours. Advisory engagements — labeled “P” projects in audit reports — are consultative and also run about 250 hours.
Calderon emphasized the department’s use of risk‑based planning and documentation. “When we do these types of engagements, our budgeted hours are approximately 500 when we schedule,” he said, noting that staffing realities mean auditors often juggle multiple engagements and that timelines can lengthen for complex work. He also explained the follow‑up process: management provides implementation dates for corrective actions, the audit office tracks those dates in a database, and the office conducts formal follow‑up once departments indicate readiness.
Committee members asked for more transparency and a more efficient follow‑up mechanism. Representative Charles asked whether the audit‑planning decisions are team‑based and Calderon said they are: “It’s based on my entire staff.” A FOAC member suggested pairing follow‑ups with a corrective‑action update process to provide more real‑time status to the committee; Calderon said he would explore options that preserve auditor independence.
Calderon said the office completes about 30 combined engagements per year and that peer reviewers examine the office’s processes. He also said some advisory and follow‑up work is already underway — for example, an in‑progress cybersecurity review at the police department includes body‑worn‑camera systems.
The briefing was informational; no committee action was requested.
