Compliance Monitoring
Legislative Compliance Index
A single composite score turns a sprawling statutory landscape into a number an accounting officer and audit committee can govern by.
Why a Compliance Index Matters
An accounting officer carries a personal, non-delegable duty under section 62 of the MFMA (and section 38 of the PFMA in national and provincial entities) to maintain effective systems of financial and risk management and internal control. Tracking that duty across dozens of obligations is impossible by inspection alone, which is why a weighted compliance index matters: it converts adherence to the MFMA, PFMA and supporting regulations into one defensible, trend-able score. AuditPro Core derives this index from underlying control tests so the headline number always traces back to evidence rather than self-assessment.
The Numbers
AuditPro Core renders this view from your tenant's live, tamper-evident records. The figures below are illustrative sample data.
Composite index
78%
▲ 5 pts vs prior year
Acts monitored
14
Failing controls
62
across all entities
Entities below 60%
9
intervention required
Compliance index by quarter
Index by legislative domain
| Domain | Score % | Controls | Failing |
|---|---|---|---|
| Financial management | 82 | 48 | 9 |
| Supply chain | 69 | 36 | 14 |
| HR & payroll | 80 | 28 | 6 |
| IT governance | 74 | 31 | 12 |
| Records & POPIA | 77 | 22 | 8 |
Figures shown are illustrative sample data for demonstration. AuditPro Core renders these views from your own tenant's live, tamper-evident records.
Composite scoring
A compliance index aggregates many discrete obligations into a single weighted percentage. Weighting matters because a missed budget tabling deadline is not equivalent to a minor register omission, so high-impact controls should move the score more than housekeeping items.
Inherent versus residual compliance
The index should reflect residual position after controls operate, not merely whether a policy exists on paper. A control that is documented but not operating effectively is a compliance gap, and the score must distinguish design from operating effectiveness.
Trend over point-in-time
A single reading tells you little; the trajectory tells you whether management is closing gaps or drifting. Oversight bodies and the AGSA give far more weight to a sustained upward trend than to a favourable snapshot taken at year-end.
How AuditPro Core Bridges the Gap
- Control-test traceability: every point in the score links back to the underlying compliance test and its evidence, so the index is auditable rather than asserted.
- Weighted scoring model: high-impact MFMA and PFMA obligations are weighted above administrative items, keeping the headline number aligned with real risk.
- Continuous monitoring: the index recalculates as control results change, replacing the annual compliance certificate scramble with a live position.
- Audit-ready export: the score and its supporting register export as evidence for the audit committee pack and the AGSA compliance audit.
Key Takeaways
- The index is only as credible as the control tests beneath it; protect traceability to source.
- Weight obligations by impact so the number reflects risk, not item count.
- Watch the trend, not the snapshot — sustained improvement is what oversight rewards.
- Use the index to direct remediation effort to the controls dragging the score down.
See This on Your Own Data
AuditPro Core renders this dashboard from your tenant's live, tamper-evident records — every figure traceable to source.