Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ABSTRACT
This research empirically examines how the work of government internal audits lead to
improvements in government financial performance. Periodic economic downturn and dwin-
dling state aid to local governments have left many public managers looking for ways to im-
prove financial oversight and operational efficiency. Although internal audit is one area with
the expertise to assess efficient utilization of financial resources and help improve oversight
and financial performance, public administration research has paid little attention to the role
of internal audit in the financial management process. A survey was sent to local government
Chief Auditors to learn of audits examination of government operations and financial man-
agement. Financial performance data were obtained from the Comprehensive Annual Finan-
cial Reports (CAFRs) of survey respondents local governments and analyzed with the survey
responses. Results show that in general, local government auditors perform more audits in
operational areas that deal with fiscal receipts and outlays. Additionally, auditors work sig-
nificantly influences local government financial performance both directly and indirectly
through improvements in internal controls and efficiency of operations.
Key Words: internal audit, financial management, financial performance, control adequacy,
control effectiveness, documented policies, procedural guidelines, government
1. INTRODUCTION
The financial challenges facing state and local governments across the
United States in recent years have resulted in the inability of resources to keep
up with citizens increasing need for government services. The property tax
accounted for 58.5% of tax revenue and 36.8% of own source revenue of all
American municipal governments (including townships) in 1992. These prop-
erty tax shares had fallen to 53.3 and 33.6%, respectively by 2007 (U.S. Cen-
sus Bureau 2009). In a recent study of city government chief finance officers
conducted by the National League of Cities (NLC), nearly 90% of respondents
reported their cities are less able to meet fiscal needs in 2010 than in previous
year, and 61% reported decreased state aid to cities as a leading factor affect-
ing their budgets (Hoene & Pagano 2010). According to the NLC survey re-
sults, city sales taxes declined in 2009 over previous year receipts by 6.6% in
constant dollars, and city finance officers projected further decline in 2010 by
4.9%. When asked about the most common responses to prospective shortfalls
in the 2010 fiscal year, by a wider margin the most common responses were
instituting some kind of personnel related cut (79%) and delaying or cancel-
ling capital infrastructure (69%). Two in five (44%) said their city is making
cuts in services other than public safety and human-social services that are in
higher demand during economic downturn.
The above stated situation has left many public administrators looking for
ways to improve financial oversight and operational efficiency within prevail-
ing budgetary constraints while providing reasonable levels of services to their
constituents. For this to happen, concrete measures should be put in place to
improve financial efficiency and performance. The internal audit function is
the key governmental unit with the expertise for assessing the effectiveness of
utilizing financial resources by identifying waste, inefficiencies and fraud in
budget items like the ones that the above referenced NLC survey respondents
like to cut or retain, and for making recommendations to enhance efficiency of
operations and improve financial performance. For this reason, understanding
audits role in the financial management process is essential.
tivities, provide enough guidance and direction for acceptable practices and
the performance of task to ensure that the entitys goals are achieved. Internal
control effectiveness means the implemented controls are operating as intend-
ed by management. Financial performance in this instance refers to the per-
centage change in government-wide net assets, which is a reflection of the
change in the governments operating surplus or deficit.
3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The five components of the COSO (1994) internal control framework are
control environment, risk assessment, control activities, information and
communication and monitoring. Control activities refer to the practices in re-
gard to policies and procedural compliance that assure management that objec-
tives are achieved, and risk mitigation strategies are carried out effectively.
COSO suggests that control activities relate to the policies and procedures per-
taining to the segregation of duties, information processing, physical control
and performance reviews (Arens et al., 2006). A typical government finance
department seeking to properly manage its financial operations should have
documented policy and procedural guidelines that spell out acceptable practic-
es and steps for budgeting, receivables, expenditures, accounting and financial
reporting, investments and cash management. Properly documented policies
and procedural guidelines in these areas help to determine not only how the
control activities are to be carried out but also provide thorough information
for auditors assessment of the overall adequacy of control design over finan-
cial management practices. If auditors review and recommend improvements
in the existing policies and procedural guidelines to mitigate risks to the or-
ganization, management is likely to respond in the affirmative. Therefore, I
posit that there is a positive relationship between auditors recommendations
to improve documented financial polices and procedural guidelines and the
adequacy of financial management control.
4. METHODOLOGY
report of the initial results was generated using responses from 89 respondents
and shared with ALGA members. Additional follow-ups increased total partic-
ipation to 178, representing 46% response rate, which is typical for survey in
general and quite good for an online survey.
Among those who participated in the study, 89% were audit directors and
managers and the rest had other titles. Fifty percent had staffing level of up to
5 auditors, 32% had from 6 to 10 auditors and 18% had more than 10 auditors.
Of the returned surveys, 75% were from municipalities, 23% from counties
and 2% from other local governments. Jurisdictions of all sizes were repre-
sented, with 50% of the cities having population of less than 100,000 and 80%
of the counties having population of more than 500,000. Eighty percent of re-
spondents indicated their departments conduct performance and programmatic
audits, and 78% perform financial audits. Thirty percent of the responses came
from the north-ease census region, 20% from the south, 27% from the mid-
west and 23% from the west. Therefore, it can be argued that the survey re-
spondents were a good representation of the target population, jurisdictions
audited and types of audits performed.
The survey was conducted from early June 2008 through late October
2008. Once the online survey questionnaires were completed, financial per-
formance data for five fiscal years, 2005 through 2009, were obtained from the
CAFRs of survey respondents local governments and used in the analysis to
determine the impact of internal audit examinations on local government fi-
nancial performance.
cluded in the measure because they help to shed light on whether areas that
involve fiscal outlays and cash inflows were audited more frequently than
non-financial areas.
This study measured three dependent variables of interests. The first two
dependent variables are Adequacy of Internal Control and Effectiveness of
Internal Control. In determining the adequacy of internal control over finan-
cial management, respondents were asked to consider a number of factors, in-
cluding: their experience auditing the specific areas being rated, the extent of
documented policies and procedures, and the guidelines provided in the pro-
cedures for the performance of control activities. In addition to these, respond-
ents were asked to consider their audit findings, from evaluation of how well
control objectives were being achieved, in deciding the extent of effectiveness
of controls over financial transactions. Based on these considerations, adequa-
cy of control design was measured by asking respondents to indicate the level
PFM 11/4 316
The third and the key dependent variable of interest is local government
financial performance. This variable was operationalized by the average per-
centage change in net assets of survey respondents local government calculat-
ed over the five year period, from fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year 2009.
The financial performance data obtained from the CAFRs for this purpose
were the government-wide total net assets and change in total net assets fig-
ures for each of the above fiscal years. These were taken from the statements
of changes net assets in the management discussion and analysis (MD&A)
section of the CAFRs. The figures were chosen from this section of the
CAFRs because the section provides financial overview of the government, is
compiled from the independently audited financial statements in the CAFRs,
and is based on the GASB 34 required accrual basis of accounting, which
makes it useful for evaluating overall fiscal performance of government. In
addition to the requirement that state and local governments report govern-
ment-wide statement of net assets and statement of activities using full accrual
basis of accounting, GASB Statement No. 34 also requires management dis-
cussion and analysis of financial condition. Thus, MD&A is particularly useful
for highlighting important financial information and providing insight for fur-
ther analysis of the information in the financial report (Jung 2008).
Another reason for using government-wide net assets and changes in net
assets to calculate the dependent variable is that most of the survey respond-
ents indicated their audits cover both governmental and business-type activi-
ties. Assets are the valuable resources owned by an organization and include
current assets such as cash and accounts receivables, as well as noncurrent as-
sets such as buildings and equipment. Liabilities are what an organization
owes to others and include current liabilities such as accounts payable and
wages payable, as well as noncurrent liabilities such as long-term debt
(Wang2006). Net assets are the difference between assets and liabilities; posi-
tive net assets are often in the form of investment in an asset reserve. An asset
317 Aikins
5. RESEARCH FINDINGS
An analysis of bivariate correlations among the independent variables re-
vealed a few fairly high correlations (>0.30) among some independent varia-
bles. Since common diagnostic measures are not available in ordinal regres-
sion, the Wilk-Shapiro statistic and variance inflation factors for each model
were estimated using Ordinary Least Square. Results did not reveal problems
with non-normality of residuals or collinearity.
Table 2 shows the audited areas as well as the mean scores (and standard
deviations) measured on 7 point scale for Years Between Audits, Internal Con-
trol Adequacy and Internal Control Effectiveness. A closer review of Table 2
reveals that with the exception of investments and budgeting, the Years Be-
tween Audit mean scores of ten areas that engage in routine financial transac-
tions as well as fiscal outlays and inflows fall between 3.00 and 4.00 (mean
score for procurement = 3.29; expenditures = 3.27; cash and cash equivalent
=3.53; cash management = 3.56; revenue collection = 3.71; accounts receiva-
ble = 3.92; inventory = 3.97; accounts payable = 3.98; payroll =3.99, and gov-
ernmental fund = 3.98), suggesting audit cycles between every three years and
four years. Table 2 also shows that the Years Between Audit mean scores for
nine of the remaining 18 areas examined fall between 4.00 and 5.0, and the
mean scores of the other nine areas fall between 5.0 and 7.0, suggesting that
on the average, these areas are audited somewhere between every four and
five years, and at least every five years respectively. With the years between
audits being between three and four years for the areas that deal more with fis-
cal receipts and expenditures compared with the more years between audits for
the other areas, we can conclude from the analysis that our survey respondents
perform frequent audits in operational areas that deal more with fiscal receipts
and expenditures.
Table 2 also indicates that the Control Adequacy mean scores for all the
areas audited fall between 4.00 and 5.00, with the majority falling below 4.50.
These suggest our respondents rate the controls for these areas as between
Somewhat Adequate and Adequate. However, a closer look reveals the
mean scores are above 4.50 for those areas that are either involved with direct
financial transactions or with forecasting and recording receipt and outlays.
(e.g. mean scores for investments = 4.93; payroll = 4.88; budgeting = 4.87;
cash and cash equivalent = 4.82; cash management = 4.81; governmental
funds = 4.80; accounts payable = 4.70; expenditures =4.67). The findings ap-
pear to suggest that based on their experience auditing these areas, the local
government auditors believe the design of internal controls over areas that deal
with finances are relatively more adequate than other areas. A similar pattern
is noted for the Control Effectiveness mean scores which show 4.97 for budg-
eting; 4.93 for investment; 4.74 for cash management; 4.72 for both revenue
PFM 11/4 320
collection and cash and cash equivalent; and 4.64 for expenditures, suggesting
a relatively more effective internal control over areas involved in financial re-
ceipts and outlays.
Control
Years Between Audits Control Adequacy Effectiveness
Audited Areas Std.
Std. Devia- Std. Devia- Devia-
Range Mean tion Mean tion Mean tion
Governmental funds 1-7 3.98 2.644 4.80 .944 4.70 .897
Budgeting 1-7 4.56 2.254 4.87 1.130 4.97 .982
Revenue Collection 1-7 3.71 2.520 4.65 1.024 4.72 .988
Cash and Cash Equivalent 1-7 3.53 2.467 4.82 1.093 4.72 1.087
Cash Management 1-7 3.56 2.471 4.81 1.167 4.74 1.028
Investments 1-7 4.54 2.074 4.93 1.204 4.93 1.095
Accounts Receivable 1-7 3.92 2.323 4.44 1.138 4.28 1.097
Inventory 1-7 3.97 2.530 4.25 1.161 4.30 1.142
Fixed Assets 1-7 4.30 2.336 4.26 1.248 4.21 1.210
Procurement 1-7 3.29 2.043 4.51 1.207 4.44 1.261
Expenditures 1-7 3.27 2.380 4.67 .997 4.64 .980
Accounts Payable 1-7 3.98 2.325 4.70 .922 4.61 .973
Long-Term Debt 1-7 5.89 1.896 4.71 .944 4.67 .974
Public Safety 1-7 4.89 2.142 4.64 .932 4.66 .916
Fire Safety 1-7 5.69 1.780 4.65 .906 4.49 .943
Transportation 1-7 5.36 2.052 4.26 .972 4.31 .777
Public Works 1-7 4.71 2.070 4.34 1.033 4.38 .898
Parks and Recreation 1-7 4.75 2.016 4.13 1.208 4.21 1.050
Health & Human Services 1-7 5.38 2.133 4.30 .970 4.30 .922
Human Resources 1-7 4.88 1.857 4.34 1.167 4.38 .971
Payroll 1-7 3.99 2.278 4.88 1.020 4.63 1.112
Employee Benefits 1-7 5.15 2.007 4.51 1.078 4.53 1.001
Economic Development 1-7 5.83 1.765 4.20 .907 4.37 .897
Social Services 1-7 5.67 2.026 4.18 .873 4.18 .820
Medicaid 1-7 6.71 1.002 4.10 .692 4.08 .801
IT Operations 1-7 4.57 2.357 4.31 1.040 4.46 1.108
Information Security 1-7 4.76 2.417 4.28 1.055 4.46 1.108
E-Government 1-7 6.13 1.626 4.15 .983 4.22 1.042
With the above analysis revealing relatively high frequent audits in areas
that are involved in fiscal outlays and receipts, and auditors relatively high
rating of these areas for control adequacy and effectiveness, the researcher
sought to determine whether there are statistically significant relationships be-
tween Years Between Audits and a) Internal Control Adequacy, as well as b)
Internal Control Effectiveness. Tables 3 and 4 show cross tabulations between
Years Between Audits and Internal Control Adequacy, as well as between
Years Between Audits and Internal Control Effectiveness respectively. Ac-
cording to both Tables 3 and 4, the highest number of respondents (52) indi-
cated audits are averagely performed in 4 year cycles. As illustrated Table 3,
64% or 114 [24 +52 +38 = 114] of 178 respondents indicated on the average,
audits are performed every 3 to 5 years. Based on audits performed within the
same 3 to 5 year audit cycles, 63% or 112 of the respondents rated the internal
controls of the areas audited as between Somewhat Adequate and Very Ade-
quate. With the Pearson Chi-Square showing a significance value of 0.001, we
321 Aikins
Years
Be- Completely Very Somewhat Very Completely
Inadequate Adequate
tween Inadequate Inadequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Total
Audits
1
Year
0 0 2 2 0 0 0 4
2
Years 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 6
3
Years 0 0 2 6 14 2 0 24
4
Years 0 0 0 20 28 4 0 52
5
Years 0 0 0 28 8 2 0 38
6
Years 0 0 0 28 8 6 0 42
Not
Au- 0
dited 0 0 8 4 0 0 12
Total
0 0 4 94 64 16 0 178
Pearson Chi Square Value, 37.133 ; df, 15; Assymp. Sig. (2 Sided) = 0.001
Table 4. Relationship Between Years Between Audits and Internal Control Effectiveness
1
Year 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2
2
Years 0 0 2 2 0 2 2 8
3
Years 0 0 2 10 8 2 0 22
4
Years 0 0 0 16 32 4 0 52
5
Years 0 0 2 24 8 4 0 38
6
Years 0 0 0 28 10 4 0 42
Not
Au- 0
dited 0 0 10 4 0 0 14
Total
0 0 6 92 62 16 2 178
Pearson Chi Square Value, 56.677; df, 20; Assymp. Sig. (2 Sided) = 0.000
Coefficient Wald-
Estimate Standard Error Statistics P Value*
Threshold 5.295 1.149 21.245 0.000
Budget Policy Manual
0.968 1.491 0.421 0.516
Accounting Policy Manual 3.257 1.423 5.239 0.022
Pseudo R-Square:
based on the log-likelihood kernels for the intercept-only model and the full
estimated model.
Table 6. Ordinal Regression Model - Effects of Control Objectives Evaluation (Dependent Varia-
ble: Effectiveness of Internal Control) (N = 176)
Coefficient Wald-
Estimate Standard Error Statistics P Value*
Threshold
3.334 0.675 24.380 0.000
Regulatory Compliance
3.867 0.554 3.369 0.050
Policy Compliance 5.137 2.760 3.463 0.063
Pseudo R-Square:
Nagelkerke 0.988
McFadden 0.958
Table 7. Ordinal Regression Model -Effects of Years Between Audits and Internal Controls (De-
pendent Variable: Financial Performance [2005-2009] (N = 176)
Coefficient Wald-
Estimate Standard Error Statistics P Value*
Threshold 4.886 1.240 15.524 0.000
Population
4.156 1.151 13.038 0.000
Per Capita Income 2.262 1.068 4.489 0.034
Pseudo R-Square
Note: All variables except unemployment rate have an expected positive sign.
Link Function: Complementary Log-log
* 1 tailed tests.
Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
(Constant) .112 .093 1.198 .240
Population 1.000 .282 .405 3.550 .001
Per Capita Income .272 .261 .139 1.043 .305
Unemployment Rate -.125 .113 -.125 -1.104 .279
Governmental Funds .529 .256 2.797 2.066 .048
Budgeting .032 .013 .692 2.400 .023
Cash Management .049 .019 .531 2.649 .013
Investments -.023 .012 -.437 -1.890 .069
Accounts Receivable .054 .025 .543 2.166 .038
Inventory .023 .011 .566 2.124 .043
Fixed Assets -.053 .029 -.557 -1.808 .081
Procurement .047 .016 .448 2.882 .007
Expenditures .043 .016 .993 2.698 .012
Accounts Payable .006 .021 .065 .298 .768
Long-Term Debt .036 .015 .682 2.459 .020
Public Safety .027 .015 .526 1.844 .076
Fire Safety .002 .020 .013 .086 .932
Transportation -.002 .021 -.014 -.092 .927
Public Works .042 .016 .372 2.530 .017
Parks and Recreation .002 .023 .018 .088 .930
Health & Human Services .058 .025 .501 2.284 .030
Human Resources .007 .019 .055 .348 .731
Payroll .010 .020 .101 .490 .628
Employee Benefits .002 .017 .015 .099 .922
Economic Development .045 .022 .316 2.108 .050
Social Services -.005 .025 -.033 -.191 .850
Medicaid .048 .031 .237 1.531 .137
IT Operations .039 .015 .861 2.524 .018
Revenue Collection .063 .029 .546 2.119 .047
E-Government -.009 .022 -.059 -.398 .693
a. Dependent Variable: Financial Performance
R = 0.871; R Squared = 0.759; Adjusted R Squared = 0.526
6. DISCUSSION
The findings from this study reveal that by their own assessment, local
government internal auditors play significant roles in public financial man-
agement and governmental operations. Further analysis performed using inde-
pendent data from the CAFRs confirms these assessments and also indicate
audits in individual areas contribute significantly to government financial per-
formance. The findings reveal that in general, auditors perform more frequent
audits, as reflected in fewer years between audits, in areas that deal with fiscal
outlays and receipts, and that frequent audits lead to improvements in financial
performance. Given the nature of transactions that take place in these areas,
there are risks pertaining to fraud and misappropriation of funds, of which
PFM 11/4 330
public managers may not be aware until after the fact. The findings suggest
this type of managements bounded rationality is addressed through internal
audits evaluations and recommendations which lead to improved control ef-
fectiveness and hence mitigation of misappropriation risks. In this regard, the
findings confirm the argument of Corain et al. (2007) that through risk evalua-
tions, investigations and reporting of existing control practices to mitigate
fraud, internal auditors add value to the governance process. Improvements in
financial control effectiveness do not only address managements bounded
rationality but are also consistent with the arguments of Szymanski (2007)
and Baltaci & Yilmaz (2006) that controls systems play important role in en-
hancing accountability and transparency in the governance process.
An important observation from this study is that on the average, the local
government auditors audit financial areas every 3 to 4 years, and perform
more annual audits in these areas than other operational areas. The findings
also show years between audits and internal control effectiveness have signifi-
cant effect on financial performance. In general, more areas with fewer years
between audits contribute significantly to local government financial perfor-
mance. Based on the research findings, one can argue that frequent audits in
the financial areas, as reflected in the fewer years between audits, enables au-
ditors to provide feedback that helps public managers enhance operational ef-
ficiency and cost economization. This argument is supported by the findings in
Table 6 which show evaluation of control objectives has significant impact on
the effectiveness of controls over efficiency of operations and integrity of fi-
nancial records. Thus, the research results suggest local government internal
audits lead to the identification of potential savings from operational efficien-
cies and reporting of findings to management to enable them allocate re-
sources efficiently to reduce overall operational costs.
through improved controls and financial performance. The results lend some
credence to the views of Sawyer & Vinten (1996, p. 196-9) that reviews of
operational controls over financial transactions determines whether operations
are managed and controlled as senior management and the audit committee
expect them to be.
An important aspect of this research was to determine the role, if any, that
government internal auditors evaluations of managements financial perfor-
mance monitoring activities plays in enhancing the effectiveness of financial
management controls and financial performance. The research findings in Ta-
bles 6 and 7 reveal that auditors evaluation of financial performance monitor-
ing practices has significant effect on control effectiveness and financial per-
formance respectively. Considering the fact that the results in Table 7 also
show a statistically significant positive relationship between control effective-
ness and financial performance, we can safely conclude that in addition to di-
rectly influencing financial performance, auditors evaluation of manage-
ments performance monitoring practices does indirectly influence financial
performance by ensuring that internal controls over financial monitoring are
operating as intended. Therefore, the result is consistent with the arguments of
Arens et al., (2006, p. 283) that monitoring ensures that controls are operating
as intended and that they are modified appropriately to cater for changes in
conditions. For control effectiveness to result from evaluations of financial
performance monitoring activities any identified and reported weaknesses and
inefficiencies ought to have been addressed by management. Therefore, the
findings are consistent with the arguments of Wang (2006, p. 85) that a gov-
ernment financial monitoring system helps to uncover inefficient practices in
operation, and to avoid further deterioration in financial condition. Further-
more, they support a key argument of transaction cost economics theory,
which suggests that by comparing actual against expected activity perfor-
mance, a monitoring mechanism facilitates the adaption of internal organiza-
tion to changing conditions and reduction of cost of activities.
PFM 11/4 332
7. CONCLUSION
The results from this study have empirically demonstrated that government
internal audits make significant contributions to financial performance through
internal control enhancements over the financial management processes. In
general, the local government auditors surveyed perform frequent audits in
areas that deal more with fiscal receipts and outlays. By the auditors own as-
sessments, frequent audits lead to improvements in the adequacy and effec-
tiveness of internal controls, thereby contributing toward public accountabil-
ity. Their work also helps to ensure internal controls are operating as intended
through improvements in operational efficiency and financial performance
monitoring. The evidence from further analysis using independent data from
CAFRs confirm the auditors assessments because it shows that more frequent
audits and the resulting effective internal controls lead to higher financial per-
formance by positively impacting the percentage change in net assets. The ev-
idence suggests this is made possible through auditors identification of poten-
tial savings from operational efficiencies that enable senior management allo-
cate resources efficiently and reduce overall operational costs.
REFERENCES
Arens, A., Elder, R. & Beasley, M. (2006). Auditing and assurance services:
An integrated approach.Uppers Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Asare, T. (2008). Internal auditing in the public sector: Promoting good gov-
ernance and performance Improvement. International Journal of Government
Financial Management. pp. 12-27.
Borooah, V.K. (2002). Logit and probit: Ordered and multinomial models.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Brown, K.W. (1993). The 10 point test of financial condition: Toward an easy
to use assessment tool for smaller cities. Government Finance Review (De-
cember): 21-26.
Carslaw, C., Mason, R. & Mills, J. R. (2007). Audit timeliness of school dis-
trict audits. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Manage-
ment, 19(3): 290-316.
Corain, P.J.; Ferguson, C. & Moroney, R.A. (2007). Internal audit, alternative
internal audit structures, and the level of misappropriation of assets fraud.
Retrieved, March 4, 2010 from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1021611
Cox, D.R. & Snell, E.J. (1989). The analysis of binary data. London, UK:
Chapman and Hall.
Deis, D.R. & Giroux, G.A. (1992). Determinants of audit quality in the public
sector. The Accounting Review, 67(3): 462-479.
Deller, S.C., Hinds, G.D. & Hinman, D.L. (2001). Local public services in
Wisconsin: Alternatives for municipalities with a focus on privatization. De-
partment of Agricultural and Applied Economics Staff Paper Series No. 441,
University of Wisconsin-Madison/Extension.
Deller, S.C. & Stallmann, J.J. (2007). Tax expenditure limitations and eco-
nomic growth. Marquette Law Review, 90(3): 497-554.
Fadzil, F., Haron, H. & Jantan, M. (2005). Internal auditing practices and in-
ternal control system. Managerial Auditing Journal, 20(8): 844-866.
Giroux, G., Jones, R. & Pendlebury, M. (2002). Accounting and auditing for
local governments in the U.S. and the U.K. Journal of Budgeting, Accounting
and Financial Management, 14(1): 1-26.
Friedberg, A. & Lutrin, C. (2001). The internal audit in U.S. local govern-
ments in the 1990s: A status report and challenges. Journal of Public Budget-
ing, Accounting and Financial Management, 13(3): 326-344.
Hoene, C.W. & Pagano, M.A. (2010). City fiscal conditions in 2010, Research
brief on Americas cities,Washington, DC: The National League of Cities.
Hendrick, R. (2004). Assessing and measuring the fiscal health of local gov-
ernments: Focus on Chicago Suburban municipalities. Urban Affairs Review,
40 (1):78-114.
Honadle, B.W., Costa, C. & Cigler, B. (2004). Fiscal health of local govern-
ments. Boston: Elsevier Academic Press.
Institute of Internal Auditors (UK) (1988). Standards and guidelines for the
professional practice of Internal auditing. Institute of Internal Auditors, Lon-
don.
Johnson, N., Oliff, P. & Williams, E. (2009). An update on state budget cuts.
Center on budget and policy priorities. Retrieved, January 6, 2011 from
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1214
Kloha, P., Weissert, C.S. & Kleine, R. (2005). Developing and testing a com-
posite model to predict local fiscal stress. Public Administration Review,
65(3):313-323.
PFM 11/4 336
Kornhauser, M.E. (2002). Legitimacy and the right of revolution: The role of
tax protests and anti-Tax rhetoric in America. Buffalo Law Review, 50 (Fall).
Maher, C. & Deller, S. (2004). The fiscal health of Wisconsin cities and vil-
lages and policy responses. Retrieved March 9, 2009 from
http://www.aae.wisc.edu/pubs/misc/docs/deller.misc.extension.2004.pdf
McCullagh, P. & Neider, J.A. (1989). Generalized linear models (2nd ed.).
New York: Chapman and Hall.
Mikesell, J.L. (2007). Fiscal administration: Analysis and applications for the
public sector. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Mullins, D.R. and Wallin, B.A. (2004). Tax and expenditure limitations: In-
troduction and overview. Public Budgeting and Finance, Winter, pp. 2-15.
SPSS. (2003). SPSS for Windows (Release 12.0.0). Chicago, IL: Author.
337 Aikins
The Institute of Internal Auditors (2006). The role of auditing in public sector
governance. Retrieved January 6, 2011 from, www.theiia.org
Van Gansberghe, C.N. (2005). Internal audit: Finding its place in public fi-
nancial management, public expenditure and fiscal accountability program.
Washington, DC: World Bank.
Wheat, E.M. (1991). Activist auditor: A new players in state and local politics.
Public Administration Review, 51(5): 285-392.
Williamson, O.E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies. New York, NY: Free
Press.