Capital Programmes
Capital Budget vs Actual Spend
Compare capital expenditure against the approved budget, attributed to the accountable directorate.
Why capital budget versus actual matters
Capital expenditure performance is a headline MFMA metric, with material under-spending signalling weak delivery and over-spending signalling control failure or unauthorised expenditure. Breaking spend down by directorate locates accountability rather than leaving variance as an institutional aggregate. AuditPro Core reconciles commitments and actuals against the approved capital budget so variances are explained at source, by the directorate responsible.
The Numbers
AuditPro Core renders this view from your tenant's live, tamper-evident records. The figures below are illustrative sample data.
Capital Budget
R 1.84bn
Actual Spend
R 1.31bn
71% spent
Under-spend
R 530m
29% unspent
Committed
R 240m
13% in commitments
Budget vs Actual by Directorate (R m)
Spend Detail by Directorate
| Directorate | Budget (R m) | Actual (R m) | Spend % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Water & Sanitation | 540 | 408 | 76% |
| Roads & Transport | 480 | 312 | 65% |
| Electricity | 360 | 298 | 83% |
| Human Settlements | 280 | 176 | 63% |
| Community Facilities | 180 | 116 | 64% |
Figures shown are illustrative sample data for demonstration. AuditPro Core renders these views from your own tenant's live, tamper-evident records.
Budget, commitment and actual
Approved budget is the authority to spend, commitments are contractual obligations entered into, and actuals are amounts paid. Reading only actuals understates true budget consumption because commitments are already locked in.
Material under-spending
Under-spending on capital is rarely a saving; it usually means infrastructure was not built and services were not extended. It also jeopardises conditional grants that must be spent within the financial year.
Unauthorised expenditure
Spending beyond the approved budget without authority constitutes unauthorised expenditure under the MFMA, requiring disclosure and council action. Directorate-level visibility prevents breaches before they occur.
Directorate accountability
Attributing variance to a directorate converts a system-wide number into a managed conversation with an accountable head. Aggregate variance hides which function is failing to deliver.
How AuditPro Core Bridges the Gap
- Three-way view: budget, commitments and actuals are presented together so true consumption is visible.
- Variance reconciliation: each directorate's spend reconciles to the approved capital budget with explained differences.
- Overspend alerts: projected breaches of approved budget are flagged before they become unauthorised expenditure.
- Audit-ready export: variances export with supporting commitments and payment references for the audit file.
Key Takeaways
- Include commitments, not just actuals, to read true budget consumption.
- Capital under-spending usually means undelivered infrastructure and grant risk.
- Spending beyond approved budget is unauthorised expenditure requiring disclosure.
- Attribute variance to directorates to make accountability actionable.
See This on Your Own Data
AuditPro Core renders this dashboard from your tenant's live, tamper-evident records — every figure traceable to source.