More About Boxes

I have written before about moving the boxes as it relates to what level of government provides a service. If a service isn’t working at one level of government, move it to another. Decision-makers or critics often look for an organizational solution when there is a problem. Related to this is the tendency to create another management structure by moving the boxes when the current arrangement is not working.

In my previous position there was an elected executive who also had legislative responsibilities. She was the top administrator, that is, responsible for implementing policy, yet also part of the legislative body with other elected officials. This worked great when those who were elected to the positions could maintain positive relationships and were dedicated to good government. There were times when that was not the case. I can remember having conversations with a newspaper editor about wouldn’t it just be better if the executive position was separate and perhaps appointed. I would come back with “It’s the people not the boxes.”

In my current position, the top executive/administrative position is appointed by the elected body. The person in that position made our work easier because management was receptive to our audits. He valued our audit work as another piece of important information. Not once has he been defensive about our findings or interpreted them as a statement about his performance. I am hopeful that a person with similar qualities can be found now that he is leaving because I know from past experience that it’s the people in the boxes, not the box, which makes the difference. I have my fingers crossed.

Audit Title Understatement

I don't know how I happened upon this Inspector General's report (It's from 2007), but I couldn't believe the understated audit title "The Department of Justice's Internal Controls Over Terrorism Reporting." This was an audit of the quality of the statistics reported about terrorism. The audit found that the FBI and Department of Justice both under- and over-reported statistics. Causes were such things as poor queries of the database, inaccurate coding, and lack of documentation to support the incident to be terrorist-related or occurring in the time period reported. They found "that the collection and reporting of terrorism-related statistics within the Department is decentralized and haphazard." A more interesting title might have been appropriate.

Love/hate relationship with numbers

Recently my daughter told me she hated numbers and math. We were talking about being a financial auditor. I had to agree with her. It feels like my head will explode when I sit for very long in front of a spreadsheet ensuring that all the numbers are accurate and add up.

But I love numbers when they can illustrate a story or a concept. And that's why I like performance auditing. In performance auditing, the goal isn't to just opine on the accuracy of numbers (although we do make sure of reliability before we conclude), the numbers tell you how important a finding is or communicate new perspectives.

Here's an example - Don't jump to conclusions about the census.

I love how audits can call out in very matter of fact language irrational decisions. "These criteria demonstrate that issues other than strictly public safety played a role in determining the program locations." (p.22) The City Controller of Los Angeles completed an audit on the photo red light program and its effectiveness in reducing traffic accidents caused by running red lights. Best practices state that it is most effective to place cameras at intersections with high traffic and accident rates. The audit found that that placement was the result in part of the need to garner Council support for the program so cameras were located in each Council district regardless of traffic congestion and accident data.

TSA screeners need better training - Really?

An audit done by the inspector general at the Transportation Security Administration finds that TSA screeners need to be better trained. "One lead TSO indicated that he had not accessed the Online Learning Center since 2005. The TSO also explained that staff had limited time to read printed training materials in lieu of going online." You can understand the urgency of getting the program underway but by now there should have been some kind of assessment by the agency itself.

Arghh...

There comes a time when auditing is not as easy as just doing the work and presenting the results. The dynamics of the organization has to be considered and a strategy developed. As an auditor becomes more knowledgeable about each department in the agency, the strengths and weaknesses start to become more apparent. It's like the relationship with a person. At first you see only the good things, then you begin to see the other side. Whether the relationship will remain healthy or not depends on the ability to not personalize the deficits. You have to keep your eye on the goal and work for improvements. But it is not easy.

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.