Although the lead time for the review was short, we arrived in Milwaukee with some of the groundwork done. The Milwaukee County staff had completed and sent to us the self-assessment questionnaire that is the heart of the ALGA peer review document. The review team studied this in advance, along with their policies and procedures manual to which the questionnaire made frequent reference. So we had at least tentatively identified the areas where we had questions. We also had requested and received a list of the reports issued by Milwaukee County during the review period, along with the name of the supervisor and the hours spent on each audit. This allowed us to select the audits that we would review.

Hindsight tells me that time permitting, some additional "advance work" might have been helpful. We could have requested and read the selected audit reports ahead of time. We weren't able to interview as many of the Milwaukee County staff as we would have liked, especially below the management level. A questionnaire sent to staff in advance might have compensated for the lack of time for in-person interviews, while giving us a better sense of how policies and procedures are communicated to and perceived by staff.

Just because we're all auditors doesn't mean we won't react like anyone else when we're the ones being scrutinized. While this seems obvious now, I hadn't given it much thought before going to Milwaukee. But it became clear as the week went on that there was the normal amount of apprehension among the Milwaukee County staff about having three people, whom most of them had never met, walk in and judge their operation in a single week. I know that when our office has its peer review, we'll feel the same way. I'm not sure there's much a reviewer can do about this, except to remember how you'll feel when the situation is reversed. And don't be surprised if the auditors being audited start to act and sound remarkably like other auditees.

In other respects, however, the normal auditor-auditee relationship isn't necessarily a good guide for a peer reviewer. After all, the "reviewees" are auditors too, they're your professional colleagues, maybe people you've known and worked with (as well as socialized with) before. And one of the best parts about conducting a peer review is having a chance to get to know auditors in other organizations and how they do things. The Milwaukee County staff was thoughtful and gracious in arranging opportunities for this exchange, while still respecting the demands of our schedule and our need for remaining objective.

We all know what it's like to look over the table at a nervous auditee. Normally we try to put the auditee at ease with one-liners and assorted pleasantries, but somehow it never seems to work as well as we would like. Now imagine a little role-reversal as the auditors become the auditees.

Well, in the case of our department, the answer was nothing that a truckload of Valium couldn't correct.

The first anxiety attack actually occurred in 1988, when Government Auditing Standards required organizations conducting government audits to have an external quality control review at least once every three years. For Milwaukee County's Department of Audit, 1990 was to be the first year of the "peer review".

The second anxiety attack occurred when we discovered we would be the first audit organization to have its peer review conducted using both ALGA's peer review guidelines and networking process. Remember, using the networking process, ALGA organizations both conduct and receive reciprocal peer reviews within the membership. Would it work? For us, the peer review team consisted of staff from the City Auditor's Office, Kansas City, Missouri; Internal Audit Division, Cincinnati, Ohio; and Council Auditor's Office, Jacksonville, Florida. Next came the question, how good are the management level auditors coming from these organizations and do they know what they're doing? Anxieties were definitely growing!

The first step in the process was for the Milwaukee County Department of Audit to complete the peer review questionnaire. The questionnaire acted as a self-assessment guide for sharing with the peer reviewers the controls used by our department to ensure GAS standards are being met. After answering a number of questions with only the word "Supervision" or "Professional Judgment," another wave of anxiety occurred. Was there something else we might do to ensure standards are followed? In many cases the answer was no, but for some...? We once again were critically reviewing our controls in relation to specific standards. In other words, we were again taking the time to see the trees in the forest. But would the peer reviewers see the same trees and how would they address them? Sound familiar?

Our department had received a peer review conducted not only by extremely professional auditors, but by extremely professional government auditors. Reviewers who understood not only GAS standards, but also understood the types of audits and environment in which standards were being applied. We also believe that having three separate governmental organizations conduct the review provided for a more balanced perspective on the degree of controls necessary to ensure standards are met.

Other originally anticipated benefits were also derived through the networking process, reduced costs certainly being one. Total out-of-pocket expenditures for our peer review were under $2,500. But the greater benefit had to be the professional sharing of ideas. Time was taken during the peer review, in addition to lunches and after work get-togethers, to exchange government auditing concepts. And, as we predicted, the feeling among the reviewers was that they benefitted even more than we from ALGA's networking approach to peer review. But then, they weren't the ones taking Valium for the past six weeks.