Auditee Perceptions of External Evaluations of the Use of Resources by Local Authorities

Haslida Abu Hasan, Jane Frecknall-Hughes, David Heald, Ron Hodges

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

The research reported in this paper takes up Michael Power’s challenge that accounting researchers should pay more attention to the perceptions of auditees and how they respond to audit regimes. The setting of the study is the intense performance assessment regime imposed on local authorities in England from 2002 to 2009, one part of which – the Use of Resources (UoR) assessment – rated the financial management capability and performance of each English local authority. The perceptions of senior local authority finance officers within the Yorkshire and the Humber region are reported, using a written questionnaire and an interview to explore the reasoning behind the chosen responses. The results are more nuanced than suggested by either the official rhetoric justifying the UoR system or by those critics who view such systems as dysfunctional. Respondents portray themselves as intelligent actors, not as passive recipients. Most learned to use the UoR process to drive performance improvement, though there is some ambiguity as to whether the improvements were genuine or solely a product of the scoring system. Though adding to workload, UoR was regarded as one of the external pressures to be managed and its requirements largely represented professional views of best practice. Three of the types of control that characterise ‘regulation inside government’ (Hood et al, 1999) – oversight, competition and contrived randomness – are seen through the perceptions of the auditees. There is some evidence of the fourth style, mutuality – working through professional networks to help local authorities improve their actual and reported performance.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)291-326
Number of pages36
JournalFinancial Accountability & Management
Volume29
Issue number3
Early online date30 Jun 2013
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Aug 2013

Fingerprint

Resources
Local authorities
Evaluation
Scoring
Rhetoric
Management performance
Best practice
Questionnaire
Workload
Performance improvement
Oversight
Management capability
Government
Performance assessment
Finance
Randomness
Audit
Financial management
England
Mutuality

Keywords

  • auditee perceptions
  • inspection
  • local government
  • performance audit
  • public audit
  • regulation inside government

Cite this

Auditee Perceptions of External Evaluations of the Use of Resources by Local Authorities. / Abu Hasan, Haslida; Frecknall-Hughes, Jane; Heald, David; Hodges, Ron.

In: Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 29, No. 3, 08.2013, p. 291-326.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abu Hasan, Haslida ; Frecknall-Hughes, Jane ; Heald, David ; Hodges, Ron. / Auditee Perceptions of External Evaluations of the Use of Resources by Local Authorities. In: Financial Accountability & Management. 2013 ; Vol. 29, No. 3. pp. 291-326.
@article{1051c0114bac456b9c40b53fd0cea6bc,
title = "Auditee Perceptions of External Evaluations of the Use of Resources by Local Authorities",
abstract = "The research reported in this paper takes up Michael Power’s challenge that accounting researchers should pay more attention to the perceptions of auditees and how they respond to audit regimes. The setting of the study is the intense performance assessment regime imposed on local authorities in England from 2002 to 2009, one part of which – the Use of Resources (UoR) assessment – rated the financial management capability and performance of each English local authority. The perceptions of senior local authority finance officers within the Yorkshire and the Humber region are reported, using a written questionnaire and an interview to explore the reasoning behind the chosen responses. The results are more nuanced than suggested by either the official rhetoric justifying the UoR system or by those critics who view such systems as dysfunctional. Respondents portray themselves as intelligent actors, not as passive recipients. Most learned to use the UoR process to drive performance improvement, though there is some ambiguity as to whether the improvements were genuine or solely a product of the scoring system. Though adding to workload, UoR was regarded as one of the external pressures to be managed and its requirements largely represented professional views of best practice. Three of the types of control that characterise ‘regulation inside government’ (Hood et al, 1999) – oversight, competition and contrived randomness – are seen through the perceptions of the auditees. There is some evidence of the fourth style, mutuality – working through professional networks to help local authorities improve their actual and reported performance.",
keywords = "auditee perceptions, inspection , local government, performance audit, public audit, regulation inside government",
author = "{Abu Hasan}, Haslida and Jane Frecknall-Hughes and David Heald and Ron Hodges",
year = "2013",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1111/faam.12015",
language = "English",
volume = "29",
pages = "291--326",
journal = "Financial Accountability & Management",
issn = "0267-4424",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Auditee Perceptions of External Evaluations of the Use of Resources by Local Authorities

AU - Abu Hasan, Haslida

AU - Frecknall-Hughes, Jane

AU - Heald, David

AU - Hodges, Ron

PY - 2013/8

Y1 - 2013/8

N2 - The research reported in this paper takes up Michael Power’s challenge that accounting researchers should pay more attention to the perceptions of auditees and how they respond to audit regimes. The setting of the study is the intense performance assessment regime imposed on local authorities in England from 2002 to 2009, one part of which – the Use of Resources (UoR) assessment – rated the financial management capability and performance of each English local authority. The perceptions of senior local authority finance officers within the Yorkshire and the Humber region are reported, using a written questionnaire and an interview to explore the reasoning behind the chosen responses. The results are more nuanced than suggested by either the official rhetoric justifying the UoR system or by those critics who view such systems as dysfunctional. Respondents portray themselves as intelligent actors, not as passive recipients. Most learned to use the UoR process to drive performance improvement, though there is some ambiguity as to whether the improvements were genuine or solely a product of the scoring system. Though adding to workload, UoR was regarded as one of the external pressures to be managed and its requirements largely represented professional views of best practice. Three of the types of control that characterise ‘regulation inside government’ (Hood et al, 1999) – oversight, competition and contrived randomness – are seen through the perceptions of the auditees. There is some evidence of the fourth style, mutuality – working through professional networks to help local authorities improve their actual and reported performance.

AB - The research reported in this paper takes up Michael Power’s challenge that accounting researchers should pay more attention to the perceptions of auditees and how they respond to audit regimes. The setting of the study is the intense performance assessment regime imposed on local authorities in England from 2002 to 2009, one part of which – the Use of Resources (UoR) assessment – rated the financial management capability and performance of each English local authority. The perceptions of senior local authority finance officers within the Yorkshire and the Humber region are reported, using a written questionnaire and an interview to explore the reasoning behind the chosen responses. The results are more nuanced than suggested by either the official rhetoric justifying the UoR system or by those critics who view such systems as dysfunctional. Respondents portray themselves as intelligent actors, not as passive recipients. Most learned to use the UoR process to drive performance improvement, though there is some ambiguity as to whether the improvements were genuine or solely a product of the scoring system. Though adding to workload, UoR was regarded as one of the external pressures to be managed and its requirements largely represented professional views of best practice. Three of the types of control that characterise ‘regulation inside government’ (Hood et al, 1999) – oversight, competition and contrived randomness – are seen through the perceptions of the auditees. There is some evidence of the fourth style, mutuality – working through professional networks to help local authorities improve their actual and reported performance.

KW - auditee perceptions

KW - inspection

KW - local government

KW - performance audit

KW - public audit

KW - regulation inside government

U2 - 10.1111/faam.12015

DO - 10.1111/faam.12015

M3 - Article

VL - 29

SP - 291

EP - 326

JO - Financial Accountability & Management

JF - Financial Accountability & Management

SN - 0267-4424

IS - 3

ER -