Performance audits are a form of weak financial oversight intended to curb inefficient spending and help alleviate financial problems. This study examines the effect of these performance audits on school district finances in Ohio, where performance audits are used on their own and within the context of the state’s fiscal stress labeling system—a strong financial oversight system. Using a difference-in-differences analysis, we find school districts do reduce expenditures as a result of these performance audits. These changes in financial behavior are found even for performance audits in nonfiscal stress districts, suggesting that weak oversight programs may be an effective means toward changing fiscal behavior. Despite the financial changes in nonfiscal stress districts that receive audits, there appears to be little impact on school district proficiency rates. These results suggest that audits may provide a useful mechanism for changing financial behavior of school districts without much associated efficiency losses.
BlumeLorenzVoigtStefan. 2011. “Does Organizational Design of Supreme Audit Institutions Matter? A Cross-country Assessment.” European Journal of Political Economy27:215–29.
2.
BrownRichard E.CraftRalph. 1980. “Auditing and Public Administration: The Unrealized Partnership.” Public Administration Review40:259–65.
3.
CoeCharles K.2007. “Preventing Local Government Fiscal Crises: The North Carolina Approach.” Public Budgeting & Finance27:39–49.
4.
CrosbyAndrew W. 2016. “Intergovernmental Financial Monitoring and Intervention: Does It Make the Grade?” Doctoral diss.
5.
De Lancer JulnesPatria. 2006. “Performance Measurement: An Effective Tool for Government Accountability? The Debate Goes On.” Evaluation12:219–35.
6.
EtverkJane. 2002. “Measuring Performance Audit Effectiveness: The Case of Estonia.” Master of Arts Degree thesis submitted to the Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia.
7.
GerrishEdSpreenThomas Luke. 2017. “Does Benchmarking Encourage Improvement or Convergence? Evaluating North Carolina’s Fiscal Benchmarking Tool.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory27:596–614.
8.
GuoChuanyi. 2019. “The Impact of State Intervention on School District Fiscal Performance: Evidence from a Regression Discontinuity Design.” Available at SSRN. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3120224.
JohnstonWilliam P.Jr. 1988. “Increasing Evaluation Use: Some Observations Based on the Results at the US GAO.” New Directions for Evaluation39:75–84.
11.
KellsStuart. 2011. “The Seven Deadly Sins of Performance Auditing: Implications for Monitoring Public Audit Institutions.” Australian Accounting Review21:383–96.
12.
KoganVladimirLavertuStéphanePeskowitzZachary. 2017. “Direct Democracy and Administrative Disruption.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory27:381–99.
13.
LapsleyIrvinePongC. K. M.. 2000. “Modernization versus Problematization: Value-for-money Audit in Public Services.” European Accounting Review9:541–67.
14.
LeeuwFrans L.2011. “On the Effects and Perverse Effects of Performance Audits.” In Performance Auditing: Contributing to Accountability in Democratic Government, edited by P. WilkinsLonsdaleLingT., 231–47. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
15.
MorinDanielle. 2001. “Influence of Value for Money Audit on Public Administrations: Looking beyond Appearances.” Financial Accountability & Management17:99–117.
16.
MorinDanielle. 2014. “Auditors General’s Impact on Administrations: A Pan-Canadian Study (2001-2011).” Managerial Auditing Journal29:395–426.
17.
MoynihanDonald P.IngrahamPatricia W.. 2001. “When Does Performance Information Contribute to Performance Information Use? Putting the Factors in Place.” Campbell Public Affairs Institute Working Paper. New York: Syracuse University.
18.
RaudlaRingaTaroKülliAguCherlinDouglasJames W.. 2016. “The Impact of Performance Audit on Public Sector Organizations: The Case of Estonia.” Public Organization Review16:217–33.
19.
Reichborn-KjennerudKristin. 2013. “Political Accountability and Performance Audit: The Case of the Auditor General in Norway.” Public Administration91:680–95.
20.
Reichborn-KjennerudKristin. 2015. “Resistance to Control—Norwegian Ministries’ and Agencies’ Reactions to Performance Audit.” Public Organization Review15:17–32.
21.
RivenbarkWilliam C.RoenigkDale J.. 2011. “Implementation of Financial Condition Analysis in Local Government.” Public Administration Quarterly35:241–67.
22.
SchelkerMark. 2008. Public Auditors: Empirical Evidence from the US States. Basel, Switzerland: Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
23.
SpreenThomas LukeCheekCaitlin M.. 2016. “Does Monitoring Local Government Fiscal Conditions Affect Outcomes? Evidence from Michigan.” Public Finance Review44:722–45.
24.
ThompsonPaul N.2016. “School District and Housing Price Responses to Fiscal Stress Labels: Evidence from Ohio.” Journal of Urban Economics94:54–72.
25.
ThompsonPaul N.2017. “Effects of Fiscal Stress Labels on Municipal Government Finances, Housing Prices, and the Quality of Public Services: Evidence from Ohio.” Regional Science and Urban Economics64:98–116.
26.
Van der MeerFrans-Bauke. 1999. “Evaluation and the Social Construction of Impacts.” Evaluation5:387–406.
27.
Van LoockeEddyPutVital. 2011. “The Impact of Performance Audits: A Review of the Existing Evidence.” In Performance Auditing: Contributing to Accountability in Democratic Government, edited by LonsdaleJ.WilkinsP.LingT., 175–208. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
