ISA 530 · Non-Profit

Sample Size Calculator for Non-Profit

Pre-configured sampling guidance for non-profit audits. Covers donation income testing, grant expenditure sampling, and restricted fund compliance verification with ISA 530 methodology.

ISA 530 · LIVEv2026.04MUS

Sample size, defended.
Not just computed.

Session
0x6FFA
Fiscal Year
FY 2026
Confidence
95%
inputs.conf
methodology.conf
README.md
01// engagement— ISA 530.4
02entity_name=
03fiscal_year_end=
04currency=
05public_interest=
06first_year=
09// method— ISA 530.A4–A14
10sampling.method=
11method.rationale=
Method rationale · ISA 530.A4 documentation
14// parameters— ISA 530.7–8
15confidence_level=
16population=
17tolerable_misstmt=€ · TM ≤ PM
18expected_misstmt=€ · EM · optional
19confidence.rationale=
20tm.rationale=
21em.rationale=
Parameter rationales · ISA 530.9 documentation
24// finite_population_correction— optional
25population_item_count=items · FPC applied if >10%
30// objective— ISA 530.6 · what you're testing + what counts as error
31assertion_tested=
32misstatement_definition=
Objective · ISA 530.6 what you test + error definition
35// population_completeness— ISA 530.5(f) · population must be complete
36population.definition=
37completeness_test=
38sampling_unit=
Population · definition + completeness test
40// stratification— ISA 530.A8 · optional; reduces variability
No strata defined. Stratification is optional — add strata if population has very different sub-groups (by $ size, risk, or nature).
48stratification.rationale=
Stratification · ISA 530.A8 (optional)
50// selection_method— ISA 530.8 · how items are selected
51selection.method=
52selection.rationale=
Selection method · ISA 530.8
55// evaluation— ISA 530.12–14 · MLE / tainting
56
Evaluation · ISA 530.12–14 MLE / tainting
65// sensitivity— EM ±20% impact on n
Enter population and tolerable misstatement to see sensitivity.
Sensitivity · EM ±20% impact on n
70// method_comparison— MUS vs Classical
Enter inputs to compare methods.
Method comparison · MUS vs Classical
75// risk_flags— 15-rule engine · regulator deficiency patterns
Enter inputs to run risk analysis.
Risk flags · regulator deficiency intelligence
80// conclusion— ISA 530.15 · narrative evaluation
81conclusion.narrative=
82qualitative_factors=
Conclusion · ISA 530.15 narrative + qualitative
awaiting input·3/8 core fieldsEUR·MUS
previewwp-mus-2026.pdf
🔒 LOCKED
Sampling working paper preview
Enter population and tolerable misstatement to see your ISA 530 working paper render in real time.
Sample size
Awaiting input
PRIMARY
Sampling interval
Population ÷ n
Top stratum
Items ≥ interval
Max errors
Before exceeding TM
EXPORT (EMAIL TO UNLOCK)

Email unlocks the free download.

No payment required. Unlock above to download the full working paper.

Format
HTML → PDF
Pages
2–4
Price
FREE
or CtrlE
PREMIUM

Export audit-ready ISA 530 working paper

Professional working paper with full sampling methodology, sensitivity analysis, risk flags, and sign-off fields. Drop it straight into your audit file.

Professional working paper with engagement header and sign-off fields
Full ISA 530 methodology with paragraph citations
Step-by-step sample size calculation workings
TM and EM sensitivity analysis tables
Method comparison (MUS vs Classical) with rationale
Risk intelligence flags with ISA references
Sample evaluation section with Stringer bound (MUS)
Population selection documentation and checklist
One-time purchase
14.99
Get Working Paper — €14.99

Instant PDF download
Works in any PDF reader
ISA 530 compliant

Not satisfied? Full refund.

Sampling Working Paper
ISA 530 (Revised) · ISA 500
1Sampling ParametersISA 530.7–9
2Sample Size CalculationISA 530.A10–A11
3Method RationaleISA 530.A4–A5
4Sensitivity AnalysisTM & EM ±
5Risk IntelligenceISA 530.A2–A8
6Selection MethodISA 530.A12–A14
7Evaluation CriteriaISA 530.14–15
8Documentation ChecklistISA 530.9
Prepared by ________Reviewed by ________Date ________
Powered by ciferi
Visa · Mastercard · PayPal · iDEAL · SEPA

Sampling Considerations for Non-Profit

Non-profit audits involve unique sampling challenges: donation income may be difficult to verify with traditional confirmation techniques, grant-funded programmes require compliance testing against specific conditions, and restricted funds must be tested for proper segregation and usage. The populations are often a mix of many small donations and fewer large grants or bequests.

Sampling focus: Non-Profit

Donation income sampling should be stratified by source type and size — large institutional grants versus small individual donations have fundamentally different audit approaches. For grant expenditure, attribute sampling tests whether spending complies with donor restrictions. Restricted fund testing verifies that funds are used in accordance with donor-imposed conditions.

Key sampling considerations

Donation income from individuals is inherently difficult to verify — for small cash donations, focus on testing internal controls over collection and recording rather than substantive sampling of individual gifts.

Large grants and institutional donations can typically be tested individually — focus sampling efforts on the population of medium-sized donations where neither 100% testing nor pure reliance on controls is practical.

Grant compliance testing should sample expenditure items charged to each restricted fund to verify they meet the grant conditions — non-compliance can trigger repayment obligations.

Volunteer time and in-kind donations, if recognised, require separate sampling to verify the valuation methodology and the basis for the fair value estimate.

Fundraising expenditure ratios are sensitive for non-profits — sample expenditure classifications to verify that programme costs are not misclassified as fundraising or vice versa.

Frequently asked questions

What are the key sampling considerations for non-profit audits?
Donation income from individuals is inherently difficult to verify — for small cash donations, focus on testing internal controls over collection and recording rather than substantive sampling of individual gifts. Large grants and institutional donations can typically be tested individually — focus sampling efforts on the population of medium-sized donations where neither 100% testing nor pure reliance on controls is practical. Grant compliance testing should sample expenditure items charged to each restricted fund to verify they meet the grant conditions — non-compliance can trigger repayment obligations. Volunteer time and in-kind donations, if recognised, require separate sampling to verify the valuation methodology and the basis for the fair value estimate. Fundraising expenditure ratios are sensitive for non-profits — sample expenditure classifications to verify that programme costs are not misclassified as fundraising or vice versa.
What is the sampling focus for non-profit?
Donation income sampling should be stratified by source type and size — large institutional grants versus small individual donations have fundamentally different audit approaches. For grant expenditure, attribute sampling tests whether spending complies with donor restrictions. Restricted fund testing verifies that funds are used in accordance with donor-imposed conditions.
How does the ISA 530 MUS formula work?
The standard MUS formula is: n = (Population x Confidence Factor) / (Tolerable Misstatement - Expected Misstatement x Expansion Factor). The confidence factor reflects the acceptable risk of incorrect acceptance. Expected misstatement increases the required sample size because the auditor must leave headroom above the expected level before reaching the tolerable threshold.

Get practical audit insights, weekly.

No exam theory. Just what makes audits run faster.

290+ guides published20 free toolsBuilt by practicing auditors

No spam. We’re auditors, not marketers.