| Priority level | Definition | |
|---|---|---|
| Good | The framework of governance, assurance, transparency, and fraud risk management is adequate and effective. Adherence to policy requirements is high. The level of fraud, irregularity, and non-compliance is low. | |
| Moderate | There is evidence of a framework of governance, assurance, transparency, fraud risk management, and adherence to policy requirements, although some improvements are required. The level of fraud, irregularity, and non-compliance is limited. | |
| Limited | There are significant weaknesses in the framework of governance, assurance, transparency, and fraud risk management. There is limited adherence to policy requirements. The level of fraud, irregularity, and noncompliance is substantial. | |
| Unsatisfactory | There are fundamental weaknesses in the framework of governance, assurance, transparency, and fraud risk management. There is inadequate adherence to policy requirements. The level of fraud, irregularity, and noncompliance is unsatisfactory. | |
Recommendations
| Priority | Definition | Action required |
|---|---|---|
| High | Significant weaknesses, risk management and control that if unresolved exposes an unacceptable level of residual fraud risk. | Remedial action must be taken urgently and within an agreed timescale. |
| Medium | Weaknesses, risk management and control that if unresolved exposes a high level of fraud risk. | Remedial action should be taken at the earliest opportunity and within an agreed timescale. |
| Low | Scope for improvement in fraud risk management and control. | Remedial action should be prioritised and undertaken within an agreed timescale. |