Court of accounts auditing in higher education institutions: Review of direct procurement findings

Due to the global economic crises, many countries have embarked on a process of reforming their financial management systems. International standards have been prepared by INTOSAI (International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions), and audit institutions, such as the Court of Accounts, in member countries have striven to comply with these standards. Following global developments, the need for innovation in this area has become unavoidable in Turkey. Public Financial Management and Control Law No. 5018 was enacted in 2003, followed by Court of Accounts Law No. 6085 in 2010. According to the law, the audit conducted by the Court of Accounts is carried out on behalf of the Turkish Grand National Assembly (TBMM) regarding the use of public resources in accordance with legislation and the budget. Universities, as public institutions with special budgets, are audited by the Court of Accounts in accordance with Law No. 5018. Court of Accounts reports have been shared with the public since 2012. Public Procurement Law No. 4734, which regulates the procedures and principles regarding tenders to be conducted in public and private institutions, entered into force in 2003. Article 18 of the law clearly defines tender procedures, and Article 22 clearly defines expenditure methods. The purpose of this study is to analyze the Court of Accounts reports of public universities published between 2020 and 2023 based on the variables we identified within the scope of the "direct procurement" method article in Law No. 4734. For this purpose, four years of reports were accessed from the Court of Accounts' homepage. Using the NVIVO program, only direct procurement findings were identified in the Court of Accounts reports and these universities were included in the study. The variables of the study were the region where the universities were located, the year they were established, the presence of a medical school, whether they had an internal control unit, and whether the report was published during or after the pandemic. The analysis results revealed that violations related to the direct procurement method varied across years and variables. While the number of reports during the pandemic period was lower, the number of direct procurement violations detected during this period was higher than in the post-pandemic period. Furthermore, despite the high number of universities with internal control units during the pandemic, their presence did not reduce the number of violations. This raises questions about the functionality of internal control units and suggests that these units are not functioning effectively.