Which is it?

In an earlier post I talk about how auditors are interested in procedures and how it is important to have procedures. But in the most recent post I talk about auditors who can't see the forest for the trees and get hung up on details. Which is it? There is a balance between too much and too little. If there is too little disclosure and structure then a government lacks transparency and cannot be accountable. If there is too much structure, detailed procedures, and adherence to procedures is strictly enforced, then the government can get bogged down. Again, why I like performance auditing is because you focus on results. In either case you would see poor results. And, the cause would be, in part, procedures. In the first case it would be a lack of procedures to the point that the government is indiscernible. In the latter example, it would be too much attention to detailed procedures so that the service provided becomes inefficient and is probably not as effective as it could be.

Forest and Trees

It's interesting to see how people's personalities and experiences shape how they approach their job. Prior to being an auditor I was a probation & parole officer for many years. There was a diachotomy within this profession similar to what you see with police and many other professions. Some probation/parole officers were distrustful and punitive. Their expectations of offenders was very high and they had little sympathy for those who didn't meet those expectations. Other officers were not necessarily sympathetic but they recognized the humanity in offenders and tried to work on improving the skills that were needed to survive free of new arrest.

There is some of this in the auditing profession. Some auditors are very focused on detail and ensuring that everything is procedurally correct. The smallest detail, if not followed, deserves to be exposed in an audit report and is as important as any other finding. In effect, they lose sight of the forest for the trees.

One reason I like performance auditing is because you look at the detail but you also consider the totality. Over the years I have found that most employees, probably 99%, are trying to do a good job. They may know how they could do the job better and may be prevented from doing so because management doesn't hear their concerns or there isn't the time and resources.

As a performance auditor you look at what is trying to be accomplished. You examine how the program is trying to achieve it and what is in their way. Sure they may not be following their procedures exactly but there may be a legitimate reason why.

An auditor by the nature of their work has the time to contemplate the alternative. In government, managers and employees have little time to reflect on or redesign services. The craft of the auditor is to observe, study, analyze, and reflect back. I believe that to be effective, an auditor must be able to communicate what we see and how it could be changed. Our job is not to be punitive and shame employees. Our job is to get government to improve.

A Pattern

On a personal note, it's been quite a 24 hours for me. When we were out to dinner last night with my son and his girlfriend, they announced they were engaged. Now that's a pattern as you watch your children go through the life stages that you have passed through. My daughter is off to college this fall and now the engagement. Then this morning I took my husband to the airport to head out to Beijing. That's an outlier.

Tone at the Top

Regarding the audit by the Government Accountability Office I mentioned in an earlier post, it is disappointing to note that lawmakers are only criticizing the DOD audit agency for not following standards. Of course they should have. Audit management made many mistakes, including not assigning adequately trained staff, not providing supervision, and placing too much emphasis on meeting timelines. But what is not being discussed is the climate that exists that allows this kind of pressure to be put on auditors. When an auditor is not fully independent from the agency it audits, relationships develop and subtle, or not so subtle, pressures can occur to be "part of the team." Unfortunately, an auditor can't be part of the team. The auditor is part of the bigger team, the one that works for good government.

Patterns

Auditors can come from all types of disciplines. What you bring from one organizational experience can help you understand another organization or service. One of my most "ah-ha" moments was when I was being interviewed for my first auditor position. I was given a chart that showed information about a parking structure. It illustrated parking patterns of long term versus short term parkers. I was asked what kind of questions I would ask if I was going to study the usage. I looked at the pattern of the data and realized it was the same kind of pattern and dilemma that I had studied from my current organizational experience. I was working as an analyst for a public safety coordinating body. A question the criminal justice system always faces is how to manage jail population effectively when some offenders come in for short periods and others stay for months. I don't know if that is why I was hired, but my first response in that interview was "This is just like jails!"

Procedures

Auditors are interested in process and procedures. Not that every action must be extremely detailed in writing. But that the process used was thoughtful and careful. Government should be held to a higher standard. After all, the resources we use belong to the citizens who trust us to use them wisely.

When I first started auditing I heard a lot about "pass-through" dollars. This was funding that was received from the state or federal government and was contracted out to non-profit services. There seemed to be little understanding that even though these were not dollars derived locally, they were public dollars, and that there was still a responsibility to manage their use well.

Negotiating and signing a contract for services is not all that must be done. Steps must be taken to ensure that the money was well spent. In a recent audit my office completed, we found that the scope of services was described very well and that the competitive process was strong. But the program neglected to plan for how to ensure that the agency received what was paid for.

It seems that when government responds to a crisis or takes on large projects, process breaks down. Here is a audit by Louisiana State Auditors of the emergency response to Katrina. The audit found that Louisiana could have saved millions of dollars if it had directly contracted with staff needed to monitor debris removal and manage grants from FEMA. Instead a consultant was hired who then subcontracted out these services at a 100% mark-up. Granted this was an extraordinary event and there was probably little experience or planning for something of this magnitude. But if the recommendations are followed, it will improve the reponse in the future.

Auditors speak out.

If the auditors won't say it who will. Sometimes everyone knows what the problem is but no one can say it and it is only the auditor who can bring things to light. This recent audit by the Government Accountability Office shows how auditors may be the only ones able to call out when there is a suppression of facts. GAO auditors found that Department of Defense auditors were prevented from acting independently in a review of contracts. Independence is the cornerstone of auditing. Only bad things can happen when independent review is constricted.