This article uses a case study to analyse two main dilemmas that performance auditors face when auditing complex interventions in governance. The first dilemma, concerning the performance auditors’ roles as improvement agents and independent controllers, is that the improvement agenda often implies interacting closely with the auditees whereas controlling requires independence. The second dilemma pertains to the auditors’ choice of pre-planned audit criteria which limit what evidence the auditors can document. This choice affects the auditors’ role of holding a government to account. It also affects the type of information divulged to stakeholders concerning the social intervention that is evaluated.
Andersson R. and Musterd S. ( 2005) Area-based policies: a critical appraisal. Journal of Economic and Social Geography96(4): 377-89.
3.
Azuma N. ( 2008) The framework of INTOSAI government auditing standards: in the stream of international convergence. Government Auditing Review15: 77-97.
4.
Baklien B. ( 1993) Evalueringsforskning i Norge. Tidsskrift for samfunnsforskning34(3): 261-74.
5.
Barnekov T. and Hart D. ( 1993) The changing nature of US urban policy evaluation: the case of the urban development action grant. Urban Studies30(9): 1469-83.
6.
Barzelay M. ( 1997) Central audit institutions and performance auditing: a comparative analysis of organizational strategies in the OECD. Governance10(3): 235-60.
7.
Blanc M. and Beaumont J. ( 2005) Local democracy within European urban development programmes . Journal of Economic and Social Geography96(4): 409-20.
8.
Blume L. and Voigt S. ( 2007) Supreme audit institutions: supremely superfluous?A cross country assessment, ICER Working Paper No. 3/2007. Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=965434
9.
Bobrow DB and Dryzek JS ( 1987) Policy Analysis by Design. London: University of Pittsburgh Press.
10.
Centra JA ( 1987) Formative and summative evaluation: parody or paradox ? New Directions for Teaching and Learning31: 47-55.
11.
Chelimsky E. ( 2006) The purposes of evaluation in a democratic society . In: Shaw IF, Greene JC and Mark MM (eds) The Sage Handbook of Evaluation. London: SAGE, 33-55.
12.
Davis DF ( 1990) Do you want a performance audit or a program evaluation . Public Administration Review50(1): 35-41.
13.
Dehar MA, Casswell S. and Duignan P. ( 1993) Formative and process evaluation of health promotion and disease prevention programs. Evaluation Review17(2): 204-20.
14.
Dobbs L. and Moore C. ( 2002) Engaging communities in area-based regeneration: the role of participatory evaluation. Policy Studies23(3/4): 157-71.
15.
Donaldson SI and Lipsey MW ( 2006) Roles for theory in contemporary evaluation practice: developing practical knowledge. In: Shaw IF, Greene JC and Mark MM (eds) The Sage Handbook of Evaluation . London: SAGE, 56-75.
16.
Elliott J. ( 2002) The impact of intensive ‘value for money’ performance auditing in educational systems. Educational Action Research10(3): 499-506.
17.
Eriksen FA, Rogndokken OK and Songstad SO ( 2000) Veileder forvaltningsrevisjon. Oslo : Norges Kommunerevisorforbund.
18.
Guba EG and Lincoln YS ( 1989) Fourth Generation Evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
19.
Haveri A. ( 2008) Evaluation of change in local governance: the rhetorical wall and the politics of images. Evaluation14(2): 141-55.
20.
Hood C. ( 1991) A public management for all seasons? Public Administration69(1): 3-19.
21.
IIA (2001) The Professional Practices Framework. Altamonte Springs, FL: Institute of Internal Auditors.
22.
Jacquier C. ( 2005) On relationships between integrated policies for sustainable urban development and urban governance. Journal of Economic and Social Geography96(4): 363-76.
23.
Jobin D. ( 2008) A transaction cost-based approach to partnership performance evaluation. Evaluation14(4): 437-65.
24.
Johnsen Å. ( 2003) Forvaltningsrevisjonen i politikken: kommunerevisjonens roller i det norske demokratiske systemet. Norsk Statsvitenskapelig Tidsskrift19(4): 412-41.
25.
Johnsen Å., Meklin P., Oulasvirta L. and Vakkuri J. ( 2001) Performance auditing in local government: an exploratory study of perceived efficiency of municipal value for money auditing in Finland and Norway. The European Accounting Review10(3): 583-99.
26.
Keen J. ( 1999) On the nature of audit judgements: the case of value for money studies. Public Administration77(3): 509-25.
27.
Khakee A. ( 2003) The emerging gap between evaluation research and practice . Evaluation9(3): 340-52.
28.
Khalifa R., Sharma N., Humphrey C. and Robson K. ( 2007) Discourse and audit change: transformations in methodology in the professional audit field. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal20(6): 825-54.
29.
Koenig G.(2009) Realistic evaluation and case studies: stretching the potential . Evaluation15(1): 9-30.
30.
Leeuw FL ( 1996) Performance auditing, new public management and performance improvement: questions and answers. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal9(2): 92-102.
31.
Leeuw FL and Furubo JE ( 2008) Evaluation systems: what are they and why study them? Evaluation14(2): 157-69.
32.
Ling T. ( 2007) New wine in old bottles? When audit, accountability and evaluation meet. In: Bemelmans-Videc M-L , Lonsdale J and Perrin B (eds) Making Accountability Work. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 127-42.
33.
Lonsdale J. ( 2000) Developments in value-for-money audit methods: impacts and implications. International Journal of Administrative Sciences66(1): 74-89.
34.
Lonsdale J. ( 2008) Balancing independence and responsiveness: a practitioner perspective on the relationships shaping performance audit. Evaluation14(2): 227-48.
35.
McNamara G., O’Hara J., Boyle R. and Sullivan C. ( 2009) Developing a culture of evaluation in the Irish public sector: the case of education. Evaluation15(1): 101-12.
36.
Martin S. and Sanderson I. ( 1999) Evaluating public policy experiments: measuring outcomes, monitoring processes or managing pilots?Evaluation5(3): 245-58.
37.
Morin D. ( 2001) Influence of value for money audit on public administrations: looking beyond appearances. Financial Accountability and Management17(2): 99-117.
38.
Morin D. ( 2004) Measuring the impact of value-for-money audits: a model for surveying audited managers. Canadian Public Administration47(2): 141-64.
39.
Owen J., Cook T. and Jones E. ( 2005) Evaluating the early excellence initiative: the relationship between evaluation, performance management and practitioner participation . Evaluation11(3): 331-49.
40.
Pierre J. and Peters BG ( 2000) Governance, Politics and the State. London: Macmillan Press.
41.
Pollitt C. ( 2003) Performance audit in Western Europe: trends and choices . Critical Perspectives on Accounting14(1/2): 157-70.
42.
Pollitt C. and Bouckaert G. ( 2004) Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis . Oxford: Oxford University Press .
43.
Pollitt C., Girre X., Lonsdale J., Mul R., Summa H. and Waerness M. ( 1999) Performance or Compliance? Performance Audit and Public Management in Five Countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
44.
Power M. ( 1997) The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
45.
Power M. ( 2005) The theory of the audit explosion. In: Ferlie E, Lynn LE and Pollitt C (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Public Management. New York: Oxford University Press, 327-44.
46.
Pressman JL and Wildavsky A. ( 1984) Implementation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
47.
Riksrevisjonen (2005) Retningslinjer for forvaltningsrevisjon. Oslo: Riksrevisjonen.
48.
Rogers PJ ( 2008) Using programme theory to evaluate complicated and complex aspects of interventions. Evaluation14(1): 29-48.
49.
Roth D. ( 1996) Finding the Balance: Achieving a Synthesis between Improved Performance and Enhanced Accountability. Paris : Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development .
50.
Russo M. and Rossi F.(2009) Cooperation networks and innovation: a complex systems perspective to the analysis and evaluation of a regional innovation policy programme. Evaluation15(1): 75-99.
51.
Røiseland A. and Vabo SI ( 2008) Governance in Norway: Governance as empirical and analytical phenomena. Norsk Statsvitenskapelig Tidsskrift24(2): 86-107.
52.
Scriven M. ( 1973) Goal-free evaluation. In: House ER (ed.) School Evaluation: The Politics and Process. Berkeley: McCutchan Publishing Corporation , 319-28.
53.
Sharkey S. and Sharples A. ( 2008) From the beginning: negotiation in community evaluation . Evaluation14(3): 363-80.
54.
Shaw I., Greene JC and Mark MM ( 2006) The evaluation of policies, programs and practices . In: Shaw IF, Greene JC and Mark MM (eds) The Sage Handbook of Evaluation. London: SAGE, 1-30.
55.
Simons H. ( 2004) Utilizing evaluation evidence to enhance professional practice. Evaluation10(4): 410-29.
56.
Skærbæk P.(2009) Public sector auditor identities in making efficiency auditable: the National Audit Office of Denmark as independent auditor and modernizer. Accounting , Organizations and Society34(8): 971-87.
57.
Spicer N. and Smith P. ( 2008) Evaluating complex, area-based initiatives in a context of change: the experience of the children’s fund initiative . Evaluation14(1): 75-90.
58.
Stame N. ( 2008) The European project, federalism and evaluation . Evaluation14(2): 117-40.
59.
Thiel S. and Leeuw FL ( 2002) The performance paradox in the public sector. Public Performance and Management Review25(3): 267-81.
60.
Tosics I. and Dukes T. ( 2005) Urban development programmes in the context of public administration and urban policy. Journal of Economic and Social Geography96(4): 390-408.
61.
Van Der Meer FB and Edelenbos J. ( 2006) Evaluation in multi-actor policy processes: accountability, learning and co-operation. Evaluation12(2): 201-18.
62.
Weiss CH ( 1979) The many meanings of research utilization. Public Administration Review39(5): 426-31.
