Evaluation and Auditing

When I explain to people what a performance audit is, I usually refer to evaluation practice. Most people understand what an evaluation is while when they hear the word “audit” they immediately think about the IRS. I just finished reading the results of an evaluation of an area that I had wanted to audit. The evaluation was successful in determining the “condition” and the “effect.” In describing the “condition”, it also was able to allude to the “cause.” The recommendations are also on point; however, without addressing the “cause” head on, I wonder how easily they will be to implement.

Performance audits, to be successful, need to get to root causes. In this evaluation, the root cause is the organization. The evaluation looked at similar programs across departments and made recommendations to improve at the program level. However, without effective organization, clear lines of authority and responsibility, the road to improvement will be slow and possibly difficult. In this case, there should be a recommendation to consolidate leadership of programs.

I also was reminded of another difference between evaluation and auditing – the report. In this evaluation, the report language was very academic. Prior to getting to the findings, you had to wade through the methodology of the evaluation and the analysis. Usually the first draft of an audit will also contain writing about the methodology and the analysis, but by the time we get to a draft for our audiences (program, Council, public) that information is removed. We try to describe in simple and concise terms what we found and what it caused.