MENLO PARK, Calif., July 31 /PRNewswire/ -- Amid a global financial crisis and changing marketplace that have affected virtually every business worldwide, organizations must identify and understand new and emerging risks they face. For internal auditors, this means spending a greater portion of their time on risk management responsibilities as well as compliance efforts. Too often in recent years, internal audit departments, which play a key role in helping management and boards with risk management, have focused predominantly on Sarbanes-Oxley compliance.

(Logo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20090115/AQTH541LOGO)

Protiviti Inc., a global business consulting and internal audit firm, delves into this balancing act as well as other issues in the just-released fourth edition of its study: Moving Internal Audit Back Into Balance: A Post-Sarbanes-Oxley Survey. More than 600 respondents - a majority of whom are chief audit executives, audit directors or audit managers - took part in the 2009 survey, answering questions in two categories: "Rebalancing Strategy" and "Internal Audit Organization and Focus."

"Over the past few years, as organizations gained expertise in Sarbanes-Oxley compliance and learned how to streamline their efforts, we've witnessed the role of internal audit evolve," said Bob Hirth, executive vice president of the Global Internal Audit practice at Protiviti. "This year's survey reveals a prevailing mindset: Despite ongoing Sarbanes-Oxley compliance requirements, rebalancing the internal audit department is a top priority. Respondents recognized that a balanced, effective internal audit department can contribute so much more in terms of helping management and the board identify, manage, mitigate and monitor key risks."

Approximately half of participants surveyed reported that the SEC's 2007 guidance on Sarbanes-Oxley Section 404 implementation and the PCAOB's 2007 Auditing Standard No. 5 (AS5) have enabled them to increase rebalancing efforts and reduce hours for external auditors and other resources. This response was noticeably lower compared to Protiviti's 2008 survey results. Hirth offers a number of possible reasons for the decline, including:

• Management's desire to maintain the status quo as long as the organization is already in compliance.
• Ongoing trial and error, with organizations still determining where and how to reduce the scope of controls and activities throughout their organizations.