Is it wrong for an auditor to recognize good work by an agency? I know the economic argument: that the cost of producing a report makes it difficult to justify when it has no recommendations that add value. I know the risk argument: that saying something good can discredit the auditor if something bad is found at a later date. And I know, embedded in an auditor’s nature, the resistance to a compliment, unless it is a dried morsel of praise followed by “however” and the heap of findings.
I wasn’t overly generous in my career, yet I found a few circumstances where a positive audit was warranted. I weighed the potential benefits of an audit that recognized good work. We usually produced these audits at the end of scoping so we avoided costly fieldwork, and the reports were always shorter than a full audit. We clearly specified what we examined and always used careful language such as “we found nothing to indicate…” Our compliment showed other agencies that we could be objective and that they too might earn that honor if they performed well.
The first such audit covered Multnomah County’s maintenance of bridges crossing the Willamette River. Portland depends upon these bridges to carry thousands of vehicles daily between its east and west sides, but the county had statutory responsibility for them. Many of these bridges were nearing one hundred years old. Each had a distinct design and required considerable maintenance.
We examined the county’s maintenance schedules and activities, their contracting methods and other practices, but found nothing to fault. We could see the wear and aging on the structures and learned the estimated costs for renovation or replacement, which the county could not afford. Our audit was entitled “Willamette River Bridges: Continue Diligent Efforts.” We had a recommendation about bridgetender staffing but none to improve bridge maintenance. The report brought attention to the bridges, the maintenance crew was beyond pleased, and none of the bridges have collapsed in the years since. In fact, several have been renovated or replaced.
When we audited the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB), we found good work on the fundamentals of protecting and restoring the state’s rivers and streams. They received a portion of lottery funds, but not enough to perform all the monitoring and restoration efforts needed. Because many of these waters ran through private property in rural areas, they put their efforts into organizing local residents to become advocates and caretakers, whether they were ranchers, loggers, or town-dwellers of the area. These volunteers were committing to salmon recovery as a goal, since the fish are an indicator species for a healthy environment.
Our extensive interviews of stakeholders around the state produced no ideas for audits. OWEB acknowledged that data on stream conditions and water quality was difficult to obtain, which we saw as an impediment to a better needs analysis. We also noted that organized volunteers used science-based solutions, but they did not always contribute the most strategic fixes to watershed problems, partly due to resource limitations and partly due to their geography of interest, which might be upriver of barriers for salmon passage.
We complimented the agency on the statewide scale of watershed groups it had successfully nurtured and supported. We suggested that their next steps were more comprehensive monitoring of river conditions and the impact of their efforts, then developing a river basin approach to project priorities. Their work continues and their website has a map showing all their projects to restore salmon access to more miles of inland watersheds each year.
We proceeded with a scheduled audit of the state’s Department of Veteran Affairs (ODVA), despite a change in leadership. This can be good timing for an audit, since the new director is often less defensive of past practices and can also benefit from an outside review of frontline services. We found that the director had assembled a new leadership team which proposed changes in many of the programs. He expressed some reservations on the value of an audit before he had enacted any of the changes but offered support and cooperation.
All the veteran issues and needs we identified in our scoping interviews, readings, and analysis were addressed by one or more components of the proposed changes. We made some suggestions to the agency for extending efforts further as an additional phase but only after completing its plan elements. We conducted this during our scoping phase and only a few more hours were needed to prepare the report. Most significantly, we noted that we would be returning to conduct a follow-up review to determine the agency’s progress in implementing the plan.
ODVA’s new management had begun a strategic planning process, having developed a strategic framework that outlined broad goals such as improvements to its veteran services, partnerships and core services. Management was working with staff to develop strategies to support these goals, as well as legislative requests to assist with some of those strategies.
As ODVA was undergoing changes in many key program areas, we decided to limit our work to a general review rather than conduct a full audit in compliance with government auditing standards. Where we saw the possibility of further improvement, we suggest additional considerations as the department is developing and implementing its strategic plan.
The new director was pleased to be able to report to the legislature that his plans would address the key issues of Oregon’s veterans and that he had an audit reinforcing the importance of those plans, and that he would welcome us back to report on his progress. We had also gained a fan of performance auditing who shared his positive experience with other department heads.
I adjusted this thinking about positive audits as a result of feedback from a department head in the county. In the past, we just issued a memo to an agency stating that we were terminating our work because we identified no issues warranting an audit. I was stung when the department head said that we would not recognize good work, only problems and that didn’t seem fair. Good work deserves recognition. And seeing it, other managers may work to earn it.
