About the area of activity

Public Audit - logo
The National Audit Office carry out public audits in implementing the tasks entrusted to it.

Public audit is an independent and objective assessment carried out by the Supreme Audit Institution in audited entities.

The National Audit Office carry out three types of public audit:

  • Financial audit – where the National Audit Office assess the data in the audited entity's annual (consolidated) financial statements and budget execution reports and issues an independent auditor‘s opinion.
  • Performance audit – where the activities of the audited entity are assessed in terms of economy, efficiency and effectiveness.
  • Compliance audit – where it assesses the compliance of the audited entity's activities with legal and/or other requirements and may express an independent auditor's opinion.

In order to improve the performance of the audited entity(ies) and to increase the benefits to society, the results of the public audits are used to formulate proposals - recommendations to address problems identified during the audit. Public audits are an important factor in promoting the efficiency, accountability and effectiveness of public sector institutions and improving the lives of citizens.
   

DOCUMENTS PROVIDING GUIDANCE TO PUBLIC AUDITING

Professional standards and guidelines are essential to ensure the reliability, quality and professionalism of public sector audit. The National Audit Office carry out audits in accordance with the INTOSAI Framework of Professional Pronouncements consisting of the INTOSAI Principles (INTOSAI-P), the International Standards of Supreme Audit Institutions (ISSAIs) and Guidelines (GUID). Financial audits are also guided by the International Standards on Auditing (ISAs) issued by the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board of the International Federation of Accountants, which are incorporated into INTOSAI's Standards on Financial Auditing (ISSAIs 2000-2899).

In accordance with the requirements of the ISSAIs, ISAs (in the case of financial audits) and INTOSAI Guidelines, the National Audit Office has developed manuals on Financial, Performance, Compliance and Information Technology audits. The Information Technology Audit Manual also takes into account the Information Systems Audit Standards and Guidelines of the International Information Systems Audit and Control Association (ISACA), as well as other ISACA methodological material. The objective of the audit guidance documents prepared by the National Audit Office is to provide and explain the general and procedural requirements for audits in order to ensure the audit quality.

 
AUDITOR’S RESPONSIBILITY IN PERFORMING FINANCIAL AUDIT

Illustration: Auditor’s responsibility for financial audits

By conducting audits in accordance with International Standards on Auditing and International Standards of Supreme Audit Institutions, we use professional judgement and professional scepticism throughout the audit. We also:

  • Identify and assess the risks of material misstatement of the (consolidated) financial and budget implementation accounts, whether due to fraud or error, design and perform procedures in response to those risks, and obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to provide a basis for our opinion. Detection risk of a material misstatement due to fraud is greater than detection risk of a material misstatement due to error, as fraud may include deception, forgery, intentional omission, misinterpretation, or override of internal controls;
  • assess the internal control of the entities/group of entities involved in an audit to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity's/group of entities' internal control;
  • assess the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of accounting estimates and related management disclosures;
  • assess the overall presentation, structure and content, including disclosures, of the (consolidated) financial statements and the budget implementation reports and whether they present the underlying transactions and events in a manner that is consistent with the concept of fair presentation.

As part of our group audit, we also obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence about the financial information or activities of the entities within the group to enable us to express an opinion on the group's consolidated financial statements and budget implementation reports. We are responsible for directing, supervising and performing the group audit. We are solely responsible for expressing our opinion on the audit.

We communicate to those charged with governance, among other things, the scope and timing of the audit and significant audit observations, including significant deficiencies in internal control that we identify in the course of the audit.

Among the matters that we communicate to those charged with governance, we highlight those that were the most significant in the financial audit for the current period and are considered to be key audit matters. We describe such matters in the report if we are not prohibited by law or regulation from disclosing the matter publicly or if, in very limited circumstances, we determine that the matter should not be disclosed because the adverse consequences of disclosure might reasonably be expected to outweigh the benefits to the public.

PLANNING OF PUBLIC AUDIT

Illustration: Planning of public audit

In order to implement the tasks assigned to it, the National Audit Office determine each year the scope of activities in the Annual Activity Plan.

The Institution is independent in deciding which audits or assessments are carried out, and only the Seimas, by its resolution, may assign the National Audit Office to carry out public audit within the scope of its competence.

The institution’s Annual Activity Plan is drawn up in such a way to cover the most important areas of public sector activities and to carryout all public audits and assessments assigned to the National Audit Office by laws and other legal acts. The Annual Activity Plan is approved by the Auditor General after it has been presented to the Seimas Committee on Audit.

 
PUBLIC AUDIT RECOMMENDATIONS

Illustration: Public audit recommendations

In order to maximise the impact of public audits and positive developments in the public sector, public audit recommendations are provided during each audit. Taking into account the extent of changes for the implementation of goals of state policy, public governance and society, they are marked as high, medium and low importance. Recommendations are the possibility of the National Audit Office as the supreme audit institution to initiate processes of improvement of the activities of public sector institutions, increase the value of the public sector to society and benefit to the State.

For the implementation of the recommendations and for monitoring their implementation, each time a plan of implementation of recommendations is being prepared and coordinated with the audited entity, which is part of the public audit report. The plan specifies the changes sought by the implementation of the recommendations, their evaluation indicators and values, the deadlines for the implementation of the recommendations and the measures proposed by the audited entity implementing the recommendations, and other important information. The audited entity informs the National Audit Office of the results of the implementation of the recommendations within the deadlines agreed in the plan of implementation of recommendations.

In order to strengthen the impact of the audit on public finance management and control systems and on the improvement of public administration in audited areas, the National Audit Office carries out regular monitoring of the implementation of recommendations. The results of this monitoring: the status of implementation of the recommendations, the responsible entities and the changes that have taken place following the implementation of the recommendations can be followed in Lithuanian in continuously updated open data on the institution’s website. Twice a year, before the spring and autumn sessions of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, the National Audit Office submits reports on the monitoring of the implementation of the recommendations to the Seimas Committee on Audit. The reports review the status of implementation of the audit recommendations of high importance for the past half-year, draw attention to the problems observed when implementing the recommendations, identify a list of laws necessary to implement the recommendations and achieve the impact of the audit. These reports are available on the website of the National Audit Office.

 
COOPERATION

Cooperation icon

When implementing its functions, the National Audit Office cooperates with many institutions, including the Office of the President, Seimas, Government, the Association of Municipal Controllers as well as directly with public sector institutions as present or former audited entities. Cooperation of the National Audit Office with the Seimas is very important in making a positive and effective impact of public audit on public finance and asset management and control system. When exercising parliamentary scrutiny of the executive, the Seimas uses the results of the public audit as one of the parts of the system of parliamentary scrutiny and seek that the entities in which the National Audit Office has carried out public audit implement public audit recommendations. The National Audit Office cooperates most intensively with the Seimas Committee on Audit, which regularly considers public audit reports. Depending on the area audited, audit reports (as well as other products produced in implementing other functions of the institution) are submitted for consideration to other committees and commissions of the Seimas.

To implement advanced methods of budgetary governance and internal control in the public sector close cooperation is maintained with the Ministry of Finance, the Association of Internal Auditors, the Association of Municipal Controllers, municipal control and audit services, the Lithuanian Chamber of Auditors in improving the audit and accounting legislation, public sector audit methodologies, and sharing experience.

The National Audit Office has concluded cooperation agreements with the Bank of Lithuania, the Chief Official Ethics Commission, the Prosecutor General’s Office, the Public Procurement Office, the Special Investigation Service, the Financial Crime Investigation Service, the State Tax Inspectorate, the Competition Council, the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Social Security and Labour, the Faculty of Economics and Business Administration of Vilnius University, Vytautas Magnus University, Mykolas Romeris University, Lithuanian Chamber of Auditors, the Association of Municipal Controllers, the Association of Internal Auditors.

The National Audit Office also co-operates with various institutions when submitting conclusions, comments and proposals concerning drafts of laws and other legal acts, considers and prepares conclusions regarding draft decisions of the Government.

The National Audit Office maintains collegiate relations with the academic community: representatives of the institution are regularly invited to give lectures to students of higher education institutions, students of general education schools come to get acquainted with the activities of the institution.

The Institution also invites the general public to cooperate; when annually drawing up a public audit programme and deciding which audit topics to choose, the National Audit Office addresses the public by proposing to contribute to the development of the public audit programme in a specially designed tool for this purpose on the website where it is possible to indicate noticeable public sector failures that the National Audit Office could assess during the audit. Proposals of citizens are evaluated and taken into account when choosing directions and topics of public audit.

The National Audit Office also liaise with its peers in foreign countries – other supreme audit institutions. One of the most important expressions of this cooperation is the cooperative international audit. National Audit Office is an active member of the International Organisation of Supreme Audit Institutions INTOSAI and the European Organisation of Supreme Audit Institutions EUROSAI, participates in the work of committees and working groups of these international organisations. Read more about this cooperation in the section Internationality.

Read more

News

Image for article National Audit Office: Child’s access to educational support should not depend on their place of residence

The state’s commitment to ensuring inclusive education and educational support for every child must not depend on geographical location. Although overall funding for educational support in the country is growing rapidly, the independent contribution per pupil by local authorities varies by a factor of hundreds. However, the audit “Educational Support in Schools” carried out by the National Audit Office shows that funding is only one of the factors – the actual situation regarding the availability of educational support in schools is considerably more complex.

In recent years, the total funding allocated to educational support in the country has increased noticeably: in 2025, EUR 287.4 million was spent on educational support in schools (compared with EUR 233.4 million in 2024). Of this amount, EUR 199.5 million came from the state budget, while local authorities contributed EUR 87.9 million from their own budgets.

“State-guaranteed support should not become a lottery depending on the municipality in which a child lives. Differences in funding create unequal starting points. However, we must look at the full picture – the availability of support is strongly influenced by other systemic and practical factors that cannot be resolved by money alone,” says State Auditor Irena Segalovičienė.

Despite the rising figures, municipal financial commitment remains extremely uneven: in 2025, municipal expenditure per pupil ranged from as little as EUR 1 to EUR 648, with an average of EUR 190. Only 30 percent of municipalities allocated more than the average. Furthermore, 93 percent of municipalities allocated less of their own funds to educational support than the state did. With municipalities contributing little or nothing, schools are forced to make do with the state funding allocated for teaching.

However, the audit shows that increased funding does not in itself guarantee better access to educational support. Although additional funds provide more opportunities to create posts or strengthen the support system, the final outcome also depends on whether it is possible to attract specialists, provide them with suitable working conditions and organise their work eff9ciently.

In 2025, employers were seeking 1,157 educational support specialists, while the number of jobseekers was almost three times lower. There were seven times more vacancies for speech and language therapists than there were applicants. Consequently, even schools with greater funding or municipalities in major cities are not always able to fill vacant posts – there are simply not enough specialists on the labour market across Lithuania.

During the audit, schools also pointed out that the availability of support is also determined by challenges relating to infrastructure and the organisation of work. Some schools lack premises adapted for specialists, while some specialists have to work across several school branches located in different areas. As the number of children with special educational needs in such branches is small, a full-time post is often not filled there, and specialists refuse to travel. In such cases, a great deal of time is lost not on direct work with the children, but on travelling between distant workplaces or resolving issues relating to the organisation of work.

Furthermore, the audit revealed that some schools were unable to admit all pupils with special educational needs precisely because of a lack of infrastructure, premises or specialists.


The audit showed that current funding is often sufficient only for pupils with mild special educational needs. An assessment of specific cases of support provision found that, on average, approximately twice as much funding as is currently allocated would be required to ensure support for pupils with severe or very severe special educational needs.

According to the audit’s calculations, approximately 1.6 times more funding would be required to support pupils with moderate special educational needs, approximately 2.1 times more for those with severe needs, and approximately 2.6 times more for those with very severe needs. This indicates that the current funding model does not ensure equal opportunities for all children to receive support that meets their needs.


Comments:     
Gretė Maziliauskaitė, 
External Communications Specialist, Department of Communications and International Relations 
mobile: +370 627 21 287, [email protected] 

  • Lithuania fails to ensure a consistent innovation pathway from research to market – the largest share of funding goes to product development and exports (EUR 1.83 billion), while significantly less is allocated to research and prototyping (EUR 206.7 million and EUR 491 million respectively).
  • Funding measures operate as a set of separate instruments, making it more difficult for businesses to move seamlessly through all stages of innovation development, from research to commercialisation.
  • Even once a product has been developed, its value often remains unprotected – of the 30 projects assessed by the auditors, only one result was patented, although in 27 cases products were developed or commercialised.
  • The National Audit Office recommends establishing a coherent innovation funding chain and ensuring consistent support throughout the entire patenting process.

Picture for Innovation policy and funding do not ensure a path from research to marketIn Lithuania, 174 funding instruments have been established to promote business innovation, but they do not form a coherent chain stretching from research to a market-ready product protected by intellectual property rights. An audit carried out by the National Audit Office, entitled “Business Innovation Promotion System”, revealed that significantly less funding is allocated to the early stages of innovation development than to product development and export, and even products that have been developed or commercialised are rarely protected by intellectual property rights.
  
As a result, the innovation process can be disrupted at two points – when promising ideas move from one development stage to the next, and when seeking to protect results that have already been created and turn them into a long-term competitive advantage.
 
“Innovation policy cannot end with the allocation of funding. The state’s objective is to create the conditions for as many ideas as possible to go the whole way from research to the market and become solutions protected by intellectual property rights. Isolated measures are not enough for this – a coherent system is needed to transform public investment into long-term benefits for the country’s economy,” says Auditor General Irena Segalovičienė.
  
Funding measures do not ensure a coherent innovation chain
  
In the first half of 2022–2025, 174 funding measures were implemented in Lithuania to promote business innovation, with a total budget of over EUR3 billion.
  
The largest share of funding was allocated to the development and export of products – EUR 1.83 billion. EUR 491 million was earmarked for prototype development, and EUR 206.7 million for research. This indicates that the innovation funding system is more focused on the middle and late stages of the innovation cycle, while less attention is paid to the early stages of innovation development.
  
The audit revealed that the funding measures operate as a set of separate instruments rather than a coherent system. Due to insufficient coordination between them, it is more difficult for businesses to progress consistently through all stages of innovation development, from research to bringing a product to market; as a result, some projects never reach the market. This is also confirmed by the audit findings – not a single project was identified that had received funding at at least two consecutive stages of the innovation development chain.
  
The value created is not always protected
  
The audit revealed that even after a product has been developed or commercialised, its intellectual property often remains unprotected. Of the 30 projects assessed, products were developed or commercialised in 27 cases, but only one was patented. This indicates that products created with state investment are not always protected by intellectual property rights.
  
The insufficient attention paid to intellectual property protection is also reflected in the country’s overall patenting indicators. Between 2022 and 2025, an average of 26 national patents per million inhabitants were granted in Lithuania each year. It is worth noting that the number of patent applications in Lithuania is more than three times lower than the European Union average – in 2024, 45 patent applications were filed per million inhabitants in Lithuania, while the EU average stood at 152.
  
This is due to systemic factors. It takes an average of 2–5 years for a patent to be granted, but measures to compensate for patenting costs are only valid for 1–24 months, meaning that companies may not have time to take advantage of them. Businesses also lack information about the options for protecting intellectual property.
  
From isolated measures to a coherent innovation system
  
The National Audit Office recommends moving from isolated funding measures to a coherent innovation promotion system that would ensure consistent project funding at all stages – from research to bringing the product to market. It is also proposed to establish consistent financial and expert support throughout the entire patenting process – from the generation of R&D results to ensuring the long-term validity of the patent.
  
The aim of implementing these recommendations is to increase the proportion of projects receiving funding at least at two consecutive stages of the innovation chain from 0 to 30 percent, and the proportion of R&D project results that are patented or protected by other intellectual property measures from 3 percent to 20 percent.

Picture for Education support specialists are drowning in bureaucracy – methodological chaos and burnout hinder inclusive educationMore than half of Lithuanian general education schools still lack educational support specialists. Although the state and local authorities are increasing funding, implementing measures to attract specialists and encouraging people to choose these professions, the shortage of specialists persists. An audit carried out by the National Audit Office, “Educational Support in Schools”, revealed that, as a result, the specialists currently working in this field face heavy workloads, and a significant proportion of their working time is spent on administrative tasks rather than providing direct support to children.
  
“If we want inclusive education to be more than just a slogan on paper, we must urgently turn our attention to those who work with children on a daily basis. Educational support specialists and teaching assistants cannot perform their duties to a high standard when, on the one hand, they are trying to manage several complex cases of behavioural difficulties across different classes, while, on the other, they are forced to fill in endless, constantly changing reports. The audit results clearly show that reducing the administrative burden and filling vacant posts would not only improve the availability of services for pupils but would also fundamentally change the well-being of the specialists themselves, which is currently bordering on professional burnout. We must eliminate methodological chaos and provide schools with practical tools and competitive remuneration in order to attract the necessary skills,” emphasises Auditor General Irena Segalovičienė.
  
Heavy workloads – the biggest obstacle to helping children
  
The audit figures clearly illustrate the systemic shortage of specialists. In 2025, 52 percent of general education schools were short of at least one educational support specialist, and each specialist was responsible for between 16 and 337 pupils, depending on the school. Although as many as 76 percent of the selected local authorities implement various measures to attract or retain specialists, there is still a critical shortage of them in the labour market. In 2025, employers across the country were seeking 1,157 educational support specialists, while the number of jobseekers was almost three times lower.
  
A survey of educational support specialists carried out by the National Audit Office confirmed that excessive workloads are the single greatest obstacle preventing the provision of high-quality support to children. Due to a shortage of staff, existing specialists are forced to deal with a significantly excessive number of pupils, leaving critically insufficient time for direct, individual support.
  
Heavy workloads for specialists affect not only the children who need support, but also the teachers. In a survey carried out during the audit, as many as 41 percent of the teachers surveyed stated that they did not receive sufficient support from educational support specialists, as the latter are either fully occupied at school or their posts are simply unfilled.
  
Bureaucratic burden takes time away from children
  
Educational support specialists themselves cite the administrative burden as one of the biggest obstacles to their work. According to the National Audit Office’s survey, as many as 69 percent of educational support specialists stated that administration, preparing for meetings and other indirect activities account for a moderate or significant proportion of their daily work. The specialists also highlighted this issue during the auditors’ visits to schools. According to them, educational support specialists spend a large part of their working day filling in assessment tables, preparing and refining individual education plans, writing minutes and reports, completing constantly changing assessment forms, and carrying out other administrative tasks.
  
In the schools’ view, reducing the administrative burden would allow specialists to devote considerably more time to direct interaction with children, improve the availability of support, and reduce the emotional and professional strain on the staff themselves.
  
The work of educational support specialists is also hampered by a lack of methodological guidance and clear working standards. In the absence of standardised assessment tools and clear methodologies, they are forced to work according to varying practices, adapt to changing requirements and devote additional time to documentation. This increases the administrative burden and reduces the time that could be devoted to the children’s needs.
  
Teaching assistants also face heavy workloads
  
Similar systemic problems also weigh heavily on teaching assistants. In the survey, they indicated that a single assistant is often assigned to support 3–4 pupils in different classes, or to look after as many as 6–8 children with special educational needs in a single class at the same time. This means that a single staff member is often faced with several particularly complex cases of behavioural or emotional difficulties at once.
  
Teaching assistants emphasise that children need support not only during lessons, but also during breaks, in the canteen, after school or during extracurricular activities; however, their working hours are usually scheduled exclusively for lessons. For this reason, they are physically unable to be where help is most needed, meaning that some pupils and teachers are left without any support during lessons.
  
The lack of clarity regarding their duties also causes additional stress – as many as 24 percent of the teaching assistants surveyed stated that they carry out additional tasks that are entirely outside their remit, such as standing in for teachers who are ill or absent, preparing assignments or marking pupils’ work. The teaching assistants themselves emphasise that clearer regulation of their duties and stronger support from teachers and the school administration would allow them to focus on their core mission – providing high-quality support to children in the educational process.
  
To retain specialists, it is not enough simply to attract new ones: the National Audit Office offers its recommendations
  
With a view to preventing staff burnout and ensuring that the support provided genuinely meets children’s needs, the National Audit Office has made specific recommendations to the Ministry of Education, Science and Sport (MESS) and its subordinate institutions. First, in order to create an effective educational environment and systematically address the problem of staff shortages, the Ministry is recommended to introduce open-class models. To this end, it is necessary to update the criteria under which a second teacher or a person providing educational support must be assigned to certain classes in primary and basic education.
  
It is also necessary to ensure continuous monitoring of the provision of educational support so that policy decisions are made on the basis of real data. To achieve this, it is recommended that schools be required to record, in the Pupil Register, the actual extent of support provided by the recommended educational support specialists to each pupil.
  
Finally, in order to eliminate methodological inconsistencies and ensure that specialists from all educational psychology services and schools across the country assess pupils’ needs in a uniform manner, it is recommended that the Lithuanian Centre for Inclusive Education develop and implement a uniform standard for the pedagogical and psychological assessment of children and ensure the procurement or development of the necessary assessment tools.