This article examines the relationships of the National Audit Office (NAO) — the state audit institution (SAI) of the United Kingdom — with a range of third parties that shape the performance audit work the NAO undertakes. In particular, it considers from a practitioner perspective how the NAO has sought to balance its independence with the desire to be responsive to the expectations of others. It concludes that, while independence remains crucial to the credibility of the value for money auditor, examining the connections made by the NAO in its value for money work also helps to explain the hybrid discipline that performance auditing has become in recent years.
Behn, R. (2001) Rethinking Democratic Accountability. Washington, DC: Brookings.
2.
Bemelmans-Videc, M.-L. , J. Lonsdale and B. Perrin (2007) Making Accountability Work: Dilemmas for Evaluation and for Audit. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
3.
Berk, R. and P. Rossi (1990) Thinking about Program Evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
4.
Bevan, G. and C. Hood (2005) Whats Measured is What Matters: Targets and Gaming in the English Public Health Care System , Public Administration84: 517-18.
5.
Brazier, A. and V. Ram (2006) The Fiscal Maze: Parliament, Government and Public Money. London: Hansard Society .
6.
Cabinet Office (2000) Wiring it Up: Whitehalls Management of Cross-Cutting Policies and Services. London: Performance and Innovation Unit.
7.
Chelimsky, E. (1985) Comparing and Contrasting Auditing and Evaluation: Some Notes on their Relationship , Evaluation Review9(4): 483-503.
8.
Clarke, A. (1999) Evaluation Research: An Introduction to Principles, Methods and Practice. London: SAGE .
9.
Committee of Public Accounts (1986) Redundancy Compensation Payments to University Staff. London: House of Commons (41st Report 1985-86).
10.
Committee of Public Accounts (2000) Government Resources and Accounts Bill. London: House of Commons (9th Report 1999-2000).
11.
Committee of Public Accounts (2005) NHS Local Improvement Trusts. London: House of Commons (47th Report 2005-06).
12.
Committee of Public Accounts (2006) Website, URL (consulted 7 October 2007): www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/committee_of_public_accounts.cfm
13.
Computer Weekly (2006) NAO Report: A Journey from Criticism to Praise, URL (consulted 7 October 2007): http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2006/08/29/218034/nao-report-a-journey-from-criticism-to-praise.htm
14.
Flegmann, V. (1980) Called to Account: The Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons 1965-66-1977-78. Farnborough: Gower.
15.
Gray, A. and B. Jenkins (2007) Checking Out? Accountability and Evaluation in the British Regulatory State, in M.-L. Bemelmans-Videc , J. Lonsdale and B. Perrin (eds) Making Accountability Work: Dilemmas for Evaluation and for Audit, pp. 143-62. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
16.
Hansard (2006) www.parliament.uk, 26 January.
17.
Hennessy, P. (1989) Whitehall (2nd edn). London: Fontana Press.
18.
Hood, C. (1991) A Public Management for All Seasons? , Public Administration69(1): 3-19.
19.
Hood, C. , O. James , B. Guy Peters and C. Scott (2004) Controlling Modern Government: Variety, Commonality and Change. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar .
20.
Hood, C. , C. Scott , O. James , G. Jones and T. Travers (1999) Regulation Inside Government: Waste Watchers, Quality Police and Sleaze-Busters. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
21.
Johnson, C. and C. Talbot (2007) The UK Parliament and Performance: Challenging or Challenged? , International Review of Administrative Sciences73(1): 113-31.
22.
Keen, J. (1998) From Checking to Observing: Reflections on Study Design. Cheltenham: National Audit Office.
23.
Keen, J. (1999) On the Nature of Audit Judgements: The Case of Value for Money Studies , Public Administration77(3): 509-25.
24.
Lapsley, I. and C. Pong (2000) Modernization versus Problematization: Value-for-Money Audit in Public Services , European Accounting Review9(4): 541-67.
25.
Leeuw, F. (1996) Auditing and Evaluation: Bridging a Gap, Worlds to Meet? , in C. Wisler (ed.) Evaluation and Auditing: Prospects for Convergence . New Directions for Evaluation71. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
26.
Lehtonen, M. (2005) Accounting (f)or Learning? , Evaluation11(2): 169-88.
27.
Ling, T. (2007) New Wine in Old Bottles? When Audit, Accountability and Evaluation Meet, in M.-L. Bemelmans-Videc , J. Lonsdale and B. Perrin (eds) Making Accountability Work: Dilemmas for Evaluation and for Audit, pp. 127-42. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
28.
Lonsdale, J. (2000) Advancing beyond Regularity: Developments in VFM Methods at the National Audit Office 1984-1999, unpublished PhD thesis, Brunel University .
29.
Lonsdale, J. (2001) Auditing in a Changing World: Developments in the Work of the National Audit Office 1997-2001 , paper presented to the seminar on Advances in the Public Management of Information and Control, European Institute of Public Administration , Maastricht, October.
30.
Lonsdale, J. (2007) Walking a Tightrope? The Changing Role of State Audit in Accountability Regimes in Europe, in M.-L. Bemelmans-Videc , J. Lonsdale and B. Perrin (eds) Making Accountability Work: Dilemmas for Evaluation and for Audit, pp. 85-104. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
31.
Lonsdale, J. and J. Mayne (2005)"Neat and Tidy ...and 100% Correct": Assuring the Quality of Supreme Audit Institution Performance Audit Work, in J. Mayne and R. Schwartz (eds) Quality Matters: Seeking Confidence in Evaluating, Auditing and Performance Reporting, pp. 173-98. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
32.
Lonsdale, J. and M. Whitehouse (2006) Adding Value? Measuring the Impact of Performance Audit Work in the Education and Social Welfare Fields , paper presented at the American Evaluation Association conference, Portland, OR, November.
33.
March, J. and J. Olsen (1996) Institutional Perspectives on Political Institutions , Governance9(3): 248-64.
34.
Mayne, J. (2006) Audit and Evaluation in Public Management: Challenges, Reforms and Different Roles , Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation21(1): 11-45.
35.
Mayne, J. (2007) Evaluation for Accountability: Myth or Reality? , in M.-L. Bemelmans-Videc , J. Lonsdale and B. Perrin (eds) Making Accountability Work: Dilemmas for Evaluation and for Audit. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
36.
Mohan, R. and K. Sullivan (2007) Managing the Politics of Evaluation to Achieve Impact , in Promoting the Use of Government Evaluations in Policymaking . New Directions in Evaluation. 112. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass .
37.
Morin, D. (2001) Influence of Value for Money Audit on Public Administration: Looking beyond Appearances , Financial Accountability and Management17(2): 19-117.
38.
National Audit Office (1997) Annual Report. London: National Audit Office.
39.
National Audit Office (2001) Evaluation and its Use in Value for Money Studies. London : National Audit Office.
40.
National Audit Office (2005a) State Audit in the European Union, 3rd edn. London: National Audit Office.
41.
National Audit Office (2005b) Employers Perspectives on Improving Skills for Employment. London: National Audit Office, URL (consulted 7 October 2007): www.nao.org.uk/publications
42.
National Audit Office (2006a) Delivering Successful IT-Enabled Business Change. London : National Audit Office, URL (consulted 7 October 2007): www.nao.org.uk/publications
43.
National Audit Office (2006b) Quality Matters: A Guide to Ensuring Quality in VFM Work. London: National Audit Office.
44.
National Audit Office (2006c) Progress in Tackling Pensioner Poverty: Encouraging Take-up of Entitlements . London: National Audit Office , URL (consulted 7 October 2007): www.nao.org.uk/publications
45.
National Audit Office (2007) Publications List, URL (consulted 7 October 2007): www.nao.org.uk/publications
46.
Nutley, S. , I. Walter and H. Davies (2007) Using Evidence: How Research can Inform Public Services. Bristol: Policy Press .
47.
Patton, M. (1997) Utilization-Focused Evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
48.
Perrin, B. (1998) Effective Use and Misuse of Performance Measurement , American Journal of Evaluation19(2): 367-89.
49.
Pollitt, C. (1999) Stunted by Stakeholders? Limits to Collaborative Evaluation , Public Policy and Administration14(2): 77-90.
50.
Pollitt, C. and G. Bouckaert (2000) Public Management Reform. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
51.
Pollitt, C. and H. Summa (1997) Evaluation and the Work of Supreme Audit Institutions , in M. C. Kessler , P. Lascoumes , M. Setbon and J.-C. Thoenig (eds) Evaluation des politiques publiques, pp. 63-82. Paris: lHarmattan .
52.
Pollitt, C. , X. Girre , J. Lonsdale , R. Mul , H. Summa and M. Waerness (1999) Performance or Compliance? Performance Audit and Public Management in Five Countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
53.
Power, M. (1997) The Audit Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
54.
Power, M. (2003) Evaluating the Audit Explosion , Law and Policy25(3): 185-202.
55.
Public Accounts Commission (2005) Twelfth Report. London: House of Commons.
56.
Public Accounts Commission (2007) Uncorrected transcript of meeting held on 27 Feb. 2007, URL (consulted 7 October 2007): www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/public_accounts_commission.cfm
57.
Public Audit Forum (2000) What Public Bodies Can Expect from their Auditors , Public Audit Forum, URL (consulted 7 October 2007): www.public-audit-forum.gov.uk/publicat.htm
58.
Put, V. (2007) Norms Used in Performance Audits of Supreme Audit Institutions: Some Strategic Considerations , paper presented at the EGPA 2007 Conference, Madrid, Spain, 19-22 Sept.
59.
Richards, D. and M. Smith (2001) Governance and Public Policy in the UK. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
60.
Rossi, P. , H. Freeman and M. Lipsey (1999) Evaluation: A Systematic Approach. London: SAGE.
61.
Sharkansky, I. (1991) The Auditor as Policymaker, in A. Friedberg , B. Geist , N. Mizrahi and I. Sharkansky (eds) State Audit and Accountability, pp. 74-94. Jerusalem: State of Israel, State Comptrollers Office .
62.
Sharma, N. (2007) Interactions and Interrogations: Negotiating and Performing Value for Money Reports , Financial Accountability and Management23(3): 289-311.
63.
Sharman, Lord (2001) Holding to Account, URL (consulted 7 October 2007): www.hmtreasury.gov.uk
64.
Taut, S. and D. Brauns (2003) Resistance to Evaluation: A Psychological Perspective , Evaluation9: 30-54.
65.
Van der Meer, F.B. (1999) Evaluation and the Social Construction of Impacts , Evaluation5(4): 387-406.
White, F. and K. Hollingsworth (1999) Audit, Accountability and Government. Oxford: Clarendon Press .
68.
Wilkins, P. and J. Lonsdale (2007) Public Sector Auditing for Accountability: New Directions, New Tricks?, in M.-L. Bemelmans-Videc , J. Lonsdale and B. Perrin (eds) Making Accountability Work: Dilemmas for Evaluation and for Audit, pp. 105-26. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
