Skip to content

Engaging Citizens in Performance Auditing

Archived article - originally published on January 25, 2023

Why should we do it? 

Engaging citizens in PAs can improve our audit impact.

It aligns with important aspects of accountability, transparency and integrity that support why audit offices exist. 

Citizen engagement is advantageous to audit offices and to the public for strategic and operational reasons, including: 

Strategic 

  1. Maximising overall impact – direct involvement can make sure that audit work is focused on what’s important to the citizenry (e.g. the issues people care about the most). 
  1. Influencing decision makers – elected representatives and other decision makers will see what is important to their constituents, providing greater impetus for improvements where needed (e.g. recommendations get implemented).  
  1. Broad support for mandate – community involvement can provide broad support for auditors in challenging times (e.g. on sensitive or topical audits). 

Operational 

  1. Focusing effort – citizen involvement can help refine audit scope and target effort to specific risk areas (e.g. the aspect of a government program that concerns people the most). 
  1. Collecting evidence – it may broaden the ability to collect information and evidence (e.g. through expanded access to citizen networks).  
  1. Improved reporting – citizen input in reporting may mean that reports are more approachable and therefore reach a broader audience (e.g. use of simple graphics and images).   

 

How audit offices are engaging citizens

There are various ways audit offices involve citizens in their performance audits: 

  • some offices do this when selecting audits for their forward work plans  
  • some seek citizen involvement when planning individual audits  
  • some in crafting their audit reports.  

[These are not mutually exclusive; some audit offices combine all three approaches]. 

In the aftermath of COVID-19, the World Bank said that involvement of citizens (and civil society organisations) in audits will help better ensure collective action.

INTOSAI produced a civil society engagement framework in 2021. It provides guidance for SAIs on engaging with the public.

The World Bank has also developed an eLearning course about how SAIs can engage citizens in the audit process.

Some of the guidance material includes maturity models, which are referenced at the end of this article. 

This article describes five ways that audit offices are engaging citizens, with examples. It concludes by describing some challenges for audit offices to consider when involving citizens in their work.  

1. Forward work plans – consulting broadly for focus areas 

Many offices invite members of the public to suggest what topics or areas they should audit. They generally do this through their website, rather than via any broader advertising (e.g. through media advertising). However, it is possible to use a more focused approach to gathering public input on your forward work plan. 

The New Zealand Office of the Controller and Auditor-General took a direct approach to community consultation in developing its 2022 Annual Plan. After developing its draft work programme, the office surveyed New Zealanders to get their feedback on it. Respondents were asked to consider ‘performance areas’ the Auditor-General should prioritize. Feedback from the community led to the auditors adding a new PA topic to the work program (the Government’s progress to reducing child poverty).  

In Canada, the Auditor General of Alberta invites members of the public to provide input into potential audit topics by asking the broad question: 

"Given your personal experience with government programs and services or what is most important to Albertans, what should we focus on and why?"

Members of the public are also encouraged to comment on potential audits.

2. Refining the broad focus areas for specific citizen concerns 

As part of their strategic planning, some audit offices develop areas of focus or broad themes they intend to evaluate over the coming period. Some offices maintain a ‘watching brief’ on specific areas that helps inform their priorities.  

For example, the New York City Comptroller maintains an ‘agency watch list’ that spotlights city agencies that raise concerns due to rapidly increased spending and ‘meagre measurable results’. An agency that was on that watchlist was New York’s City Housing Authority. 

The Comptroller’s performance audit of the City’s Housing Authority took a ‘resident powered’ approach that included a survey of residents, visits to housing developments, listening sessions, participation in family days and ongoing engagement with residents. The aim of this engagement was to help focus the audits on the issues that matter most to residents. The survey used to identify residents’ priorities was made available online in the top languages spoken by Housing Authority residents and canvassed resident’s ideas for specific audits of the Housing Authority’s operations. The auditors will follow up with residents to ‘make sure recommendations are implemented and real change is made.’  

3. Audit planning – citizen input on audit scope 

Input from members of the public and representative organisations is an approach many audit offices take during the planning phase for their audits. This can involve a mixture of techniques to gather information in support of the audit. 

In the Philippines, the Commission on Audit has a dedicated focus on Citizen Participatory Audits.  

Civil society organisations (CSOs) may also work with the auditors in conducting audits. Citizens and CSOs are invited to get involved in the audit design and to formally join the engagement team. They then work with the auditors to develop the audit plan, assign responsibilities, and conduct the audit through fieldwork, reporting and implementation of recommendations.  

The participatory audits are described as ‘a strategy to uphold the people’s right to a transparent government…built on the premise of that public accountability prospers with a vigilant and involved citizenry.’  

The City Auditor of Austin (Texas) has taken a community engagement approach to its performance audit of the city’s delivery of animal services. It has developed an online survey for members of the public to provide input to the audit on matters such as the most important areas the audit should review, what skills an SME on animal practices should have and other suggested aspects for review.  

Some audit offices engage the cohort most impacted by the public service being audited. Audit Scotland’s PA on improving outcomes for young people through school education took this approach. Auditors worked with a panel of the country’s young advisors to help shape the scope of the audit and design questions for surveys and focus groups. Young advisors also assisted in facilitating some of the focus groups. 

4. Audit execution – seeking agency staff views during fieldwork 

Sometimes auditors survey the audited agency staff as part of their evidence gathering techniques. They do this to get first-hand perceptions about the organisation or the services it delivers.  

One example of this is the (U.S.) District of Columbia Auditor’s survey of police as part of audit of sworn police officer staffing needs.

Another example is the Washington State (U.S.) Auditor’s assessment of workplace culture at its department of Fish and Wildlife. The survey was sent to all departmental staff, with a 45% response rate.  

Sometimes the audit office will survey several key individuals or agencies within a specific sector as part of gathering evidence. The Queensland (Australia) Audit Office’s report on managing public sector workforce agility took this approach. Evidence gathering included the development, issue, and analysis of all twenty government departments in the state. Survey results were then incorporated into the public report. 

5. Reporting – tailoring reports for citizens and civil society organisations 

An uncomplicated way to engage citizens. Produce reports that citizens can consume easily.  

This includes: 

Audit report infographics

An example of this is the one page ‘Report Highlights’ that accompanies the “Healthy Eating in Schools” report produced by the Office of the Auditor General in Nova Scotia (Canada). 

Audit report summaries

The Pacific Association of Supreme Audit Institutions (PASAI) suggests producing citizen-friendly audit report summaries and/or delivering presentations on audit findings.

It has also developed a good practice toolkit to help its members summarise an audit report into a single page for engagement with civil society organisations. 

Alternate media summaries

Examples include: 

 

Getting citizen engagement right – things to consider 

As described above, there are obvious ways to engage citizens in your performance audits. But there are some things you need to consider so that your approach is successful. There needs to be clarity on: 

  • The role of performance auditing. 
  • The importance of objectivity and balancing competing views. 
  • The scope of performance auditing. 

Clarity for citizens on the role of PA 

It is vital that citizens understand the scope and limitations of your performance audit function.

For example, many audit offices’ performance audits cannot query the merits of government policy.

This is an important limitation but can be difficult to navigate and apply in practice (even for auditors!).

So, make sure limitations like this are clearly communicated to members of the public. 

Clarity for citizens on objectivity, independence, and balancing views 

Citizens involved in a PA are one of the often several voices that auditors need to listen to.

It is important that they understand this and the need for auditors to maintain objectivity, with no perception of these views being given greater weight than other (sometimes competing) views.

Auditors also need to explain that their reports need to be balanced to promote fairness and to mitigate any perception that calls into question the auditors’ independence.

Regular, open and consistent communication with citizens and other stakeholders helps provide this clarity.  

Clarity for citizens on the scope of the PA 

Regardless of the importance or potential impact of a particular PA, it can never be the complete solution to service delivery or program risks.

Typically, it can't address individual citizen complaints or concerns about a service (it may address systemic issues).

The extended time required to undertake a PA (months, maybe more than a year) needs to be communicated to citizens.

It may also take time for recommendations to be implemented and to see visible improvements arising from the audit.

These citizen engagement risks need to be managed and expectations should be clear from the outset. 

 

Resources and references