When I first started auditing I was put off by the auditing standards because they talked about internal controls and how auditors were to assess their effectiveness. The terminology was alien to me and I had trouble grasping the concept. Coming from a research/evaluation perspective, it just didn't make sense. But after a few years I realized that when an evaluator assesses the processes that a program uses to deliver the service, she is actually looking at the controls.
Government services are designed to resolve a problem or generally improve the quality of life for its citizens. Officials can't just spend money and hope for the best. They are accountable to the citizens who entrusted them with public dollars. Controls could be information, evaluation, feedback - anything that tells a manager or leadership that something is wrong and needs to be corrected. Controls are also the processes that ensure resources and assets are protected, such as software security or limiting access to financial resources.
But auditors deal with an additional type of control. Audits shine a light on a program and provide information. For many managers, that is giving up "control." Over the course of my career, I have encountered many responses to audits from fearless openness to closed obstructionism. Working through that is also part of the auditor's job. You have to keep your eye on the prize - improving government.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
Stay strong you auditors! Somebody has to be the bad guy! (or the the good guy, as hopefully is the case most the time) (or gal, as hopefully is also the case some of the time) I feel like Bob Dylan, or is it Abraham Lincoln?
Post a Comment