Government agencies are given power and authority as well as financial resources and therefore government auditors should hold the agencies they audit accountable for their use of that power and authority as well as for their use of financial resources. There are at least four types of equity that can be identified and addressed by performance audits:

Although it is not yet common, audit organizations are addressing equity in three of these four areas: service costs; service delivery; and transparency. For example, the work that GAO has done on the issue of the fiscal condition of the U.S. government confronts directly problems of intergenerational equity in that costs incurred by the current generation are being shifted to future generations. Another example is an audit by the Veterans’ Administration OIG that recently won the Alexander Hamilton Award. The award, which honors the foremost effort of an inspector general to improve efficiency and effectiveness, was given for an audit which examined inequities in benefits received by disabled veterans. Finally, GAO’s attempt in 2002 to gain access to records on the deliberations that led to the administration’s energy policy was an attempt to deal with the issue of transparency.

Audits which address the police power of the government are rare. This is the case despite the fact that citizens are often very concerned about the abuse of such power. One only has to consider the current debate over racial profiling by police or the use of eminent domain to see that this is so. These audits are rare because the government’s use of coercion is seen by auditors as a sensitive area, fraught with risk for the auditor and because auditors do not see themselves as having sufficient expertise or conceptual tools to audit such issues effectively.

But the sensitivity of such audits is all the more reason we should do them. And the audit work involved is actually quite straight forward. Take, for example, the use of force by police. There are supposed to be systems and controls designed and implemented by management to assure that force is used the way management intends. Otherwise, what you would have is not a disciplined police force, but something akin to an armed gang. The audit work then is basic stuff. Are the controls appropriate and effective? Are they designed to achieve equitable, as well as efficient and effective, results? Do they achieve the desired results? Or take, for example, the issue of the taking of property through eminent domain. Recently, Public Management, the magazine published by the International City/County Management Association, had an article about how municipalities should properly design and implement a program directing their use of eminent domain. The audit issues are similar. The audit should be designed to determine whether the jurisdiction’s use of eminent domain is carefully designed as opposed to arbitrary and capricious. Are the controls appropriate and effective? Are they designed to achieve equitable, as well as efficient and effective, results? Do they achieve the desired results? The evidence to support the auditor’s conclusions would be developed using standard audit methods, including file reviews and interviews. The criteria could be developed from the usual sources: relevant laws; professional standards; expert opinions; agency testimony and public statements; and analysis of results.

Government Auditing Standards communicate the core values of auditing. Recognizing equity as a core value of government auditing will increase the relevance of government auditing to the concerns of citizens and will strengthen government auditing.