COMPARISON

Comparison

Program Evaluation vs Policy Analysis vs Performance Audit

Performance audit

Performance review 'is worried with the review of finances, efficiency and effectiveness

(namely the three Es) and embraces:

audit of the economy of administrative undertakings in accordance with sound administrative principles and practices, and management policies;

audit of the efficiency of utilization of human, financial and other resources; and

audit of the effectiveness of presentation in relative to achievement of the objectiveness of the audited entity, and audit of the actual influence of undertakings compared with the intended influence'.

Types Of Performance Audit

'Entity or program audits, Review of the whole or part of the operations of a department or agency;

Government-wide audits: Focus on government-wide issues or functional areas, such as human resource management;

Sectoral audits, which aim on program areas;

Audit notes, also called other audit observations, are an alternative mechanism for reporting matters of significance that come to our attention during the course of our work on any Office products; and

Follow-up audits, which report on government actions in response to previous recommendations' (OAGC, VFM Manual, 2004).

What is Evaluation?

Evaluation is a careful retrospective assessment of the merit, worth, and value of administration, output, and outcome of government interventions, which is intended to play a role in

future, practical activity positions' (Verdung, 1997, p. 3)

Two roots for evaluation:

1- accountability & command and

2- systematic communal investigation (Alkin, 2004).

Mayne (Mayne, 2006) for instance noted at least three purposes for evaluation:

to increase information about a public principle or program (evaluation for research),

to improve consignment to people (evaluation for managing and learning), and

to justify and reconsider the rationale for the policy or program (evaluation for accountability).

Why learning from auditing?

Auditors are doing fine; The rise of auditing is explained by the lowered level of trust into public institutions (Power, 1997), SAI have well established quality practices and from which Performance audits are seen as reliable and credible, and of quality (Mayne, 2005). Structure of incentives surrounding both practices: Agency theory perspective.

Why learning from Performance auditing?

The Agent also make a commitment to the principal- Evaluation policy, Results for Canadian. This commitment involved agency costs known as the bonding costs. Thereby performance audit is carry out by a third party on behalf of the principal (Monitoring) while evaluation is carry out by the Agent (Commitment). The only purpose of Performance audit is to deal with problem posed by MH and AS. It is institutionally designed as such and methodologies are developed for this single purpose as well. Evaluation is also designed to deal with problem posed by MH and AS, but its institutional arrangement (since it is institutionalised within the agent's responsibility) provided mixed incentives toward quality. Conclusion: Considering the divergence of interest between the P and the A, the incentive toward quality of evaluative information are stronger for performance audit than for evaluation.

Suggested PA practices to improve quality of evaluative information

Risk founded scope vs participatory scope

OAG: performance audit scope are risk based (OPP +advisory services)

Health Canada: Food Safety Assessment Program, by Law must determine the effectiveness of Canadian Food Inspection Agency and thereby use a ...