Facts and stories

When auditees read the first draft of an audit a common response is that we did not talk about anything good that they have done. Our response is usually that our job is to identify problems, analyze why they occurred and how the situation could be improved. We are constrained by standards that require us to be fact-based. Establishing facts takes time. To include in the report an analysis of things that were going right would require the same standards be met. Since audit work is expensive, because of the time it takes to establish facts, it would not be cost effective to also analyze the successful parts of a service or program. However, we do try to add context so that there is an appreciation of the work that is being done to provide the service.

But from the perspective of a journalist trying to find a story that includes protagonist, antagonist, and facts that will capture a reader's interest, our reports are not hard hitting enough. When I have campaigned as an auditor, the common response was always that people had no idea there were auditors doing the kind of work we do. Auditors face a quandary, work for change or work to create an audit report that will capture a journalist's eye so that it will be reported and the public will see that there is accountability. Many of our audits fall under the radar because management has agreed with our findings and our recommendations. Or the audit area is just not interesting or big dollar enough. The choice is usually to work for change and not necessarily news coverage, so many stories never get told.