From Audit Recommendations to Corrective Action: Policy Implementation by a Regional Inspectorate in West Kutai, Indonesia

Abstract

Follow-up on audit recommendations is a crucial step in ensuring that oversight efforts do not end with the identification of findings but lead to corrective actions and improvements in governance. However, the effectiveness of follow-up is often influenced by organizational capacity, the commitment of those responsible for implementation, communication, and bureaucratic mechanisms. This study aims to analyze the implementation of the role of the West Kutai Regency Regional Inspectorate in following up on audit recommendations and to identify supporting and hindering factors. The study employs a qualitative descriptive approach with 24 informants selected through purposive sampling, consisting of the Inspectorate’s leadership, auditors, functional oversight officials, the monitoring team, and local government officials. Data were collected through semi-structured in-depth interviews, observations, and documentation, then analyzed based on Creswell’s stages of qualitative analysis using Edwards III’s four dimensions of policy implementation: communication, resources, disposition, and bureaucratic structure. The results indicate that the implementation of follow-up actions on audit recommendations has proceeded reasonably well but is not yet fully optimal. Communication takes place through formal and consultative mechanisms; the commitment of the Inspectorate’s staff is relatively strong; and the bureaucratic structure is supported by standard operating procedures (SOPs), division of labor, and verification mechanisms. However, limitations in the number of auditors, workload, budget, transportation, technological infrastructure, and the quality of documentation pose the main challenges. The study concludes that the follow-up on audit recommendations should be understood as a policy implementation process that links recommendations to corrective actions. Strengthening organizational capacity, monitoring systems, documentation, and leadership commitment is necessary to improve accountability and governance in local government.