Differences between Audit and Evaluation
Contents
Audit vs. evaluation
Auditing and evaluation are distinct disciplines used to assess organizational performance, though they frequently share data sources and oversight goals. An audit is a systematic and independent examination of data, statements, records, operations, and performances of an enterprise for a stated purpose.[1] The primary objective of an audit is to verify compliance with established criteria, such as laws, regulations, or accounting standards.
Evaluation is the systematic and objective assessment of an ongoing or completed project, program, or policy, including its design, implementation, and results.[2] While auditing focuses on "doing things right" by checking for adherence to rules, evaluation focuses on "doing the right things" by examining the relevance, effectiveness, and impact of an intervention.
Comparison table
| Category | Audit | Evaluation |
|---|---|---|
| Primary focus | Compliance, accuracy, and regularity. | Relevance, effectiveness, and impact. |
| Standard reference | Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards (GAGAS) or ISO 9001. | Program evaluation standards (e.g., AEA or UNEG). |
| Timeframe | Primarily retrospective (past actions). | Retrospective, concurrent, or prospective. |
| Benchmarks | Fixed legal or financial criteria. | Flexible objectives and logic models. |
| Methodology | Quantitative sampling and record verification. | Mixed methods (interviews, surveys, and case studies). |
| Reporting | Formal opinions (pass/fail or qualified). | Recommendations for program improvement. |
| Frequency | Regular or statutory (often annual). | Episodic or based on program cycles. |
Methodological differences
Auditors typically utilize a "top-down" approach, comparing evidence against a pre-defined set of rules. In financial audits, this involves verifying transactions against accounting principles. Performance audits, a subset of the field, examine economy and efficiency, yet they remain grounded in specific benchmarks set by management or legislature.[3]
Evaluators employ social science research methods to determine why a program succeeded or failed. This process often involves a "theory of change," which maps how specific activities lead to intended outcomes. Unlike an audit, which seeks to identify deviations from a standard, an evaluation may question the validity of the standard itself or the logic behind the program's existence.[4]
Standards and governance
The International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions (INTOSAI) provides the international framework for public sector auditing. These standards emphasize the independence of the auditor from the entity being audited to ensure objectivity. In the private sector, the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) sets global standards for internal audit activities.
Evaluation standards are often set by professional associations such as the American Evaluation Association (AEA) or the European Evaluation Society (EES). These guidelines prioritize utility, feasibility, propriety, and accuracy. In international development, the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) defines the widely used criteria for evaluating development assistance, which include sustainability and coherence.[5]
References
- ↑ International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions (INTOSAI). "Fundamental Principles of Public-Sector Auditing." ISSAI 100.
- ↑ United Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG). "Norms and Standards for Evaluation." 2016.
- ↑ U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). "Government Auditing Standards" (The Yellow Book). 2018 Revision.
- ↑ Scriven, Michael. "Evaluation Thesaurus." Sage Publications, 1991.
- ↑ OECD DAC. "Better Criteria for Better Evaluation." 2019.
