#
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Catalyst for Improving the Environment
Review Report
Review of the School of Audit
and Inspections Course:
Introductory Auditor Training
Report No. 2006-P-00030
August 18, 2006

-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTONt D,C- 20480
August IS, 2006
OFFiCE op
INgPiC'Ofl Gr.Nfe.Wl,
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT; Final Report ofSAJCRB Review of 1G Institute: School of Audit and
Inspection Course (SAI); Introductory Auditor Training
Report Number 2006-P-Q003G
This memorandum transmits the SAI Curriculum Review Board's (SA1CRB) final report
on this subject. Wc have considered the comments on the draft report and have included
SATs response on page 11 of this report.
SAI agreed with the majority of the recommendations, but disagreed with our
recommendation to use an actual audit report end working papers. Given the variability
in operations among ihe Offices of Inspector General, SAI prefers to use generic
materials as teaching aids. SAI also disagreed with other recommendations to expand the
discussion of certain topics. SAI maintains that such matters are better suited for
discussion in its Intermediate Auditing course,
We accept SAl's comments and will be sharing recommendations 6c through 6g and 6i
with the SAICRB subgroup reviewing the Intermediate Auditing course for their
consideration.
] appreciate die cooperation and courtesy extended to the review team. Should you have
any questions concerning this report, please contact John T. Walsh on 202-566-0822 or
Anita Mooney on 202-566-2566.
FROM
TO;
Danny L. Athanasaw, Director
IG Institute School of Audi: and Inspections

-------
Introductory Auditor Training
COURSE TITLE
Introductory Auditor Training
SCHOOL OF AUDIT AND INSPECTIONS CURRICULUM REVIEW BOARD
(SAICRB) REVIEW COMPLETED
In June 2006, Inspector General staff from the Environmental Protection Agency, Social Security
Administration, and the Department of Defense completed a review of the School of Audit and
Inspections (SAI) Introductory Auditor Training course.
BACKGROUND
The objective of this review was to determine whether the SAI (formerly the Inspectors General
Auditor Training Institute (IGATI)) course, Introductory Auditor Training, is useful to Federal
auditors.
According to the overview provided in the FY 2006 IGATI Course Catalog:
"This course introduces you to the basic concepts you will need as an entry-level auditor
to perform effective audits within the Federal audit community. The course gives you a
chronological overview of the entire audit process by introducing a variety of subjects
and activities that occur during various audit phases. The course stresses a team concept
in performing audits based upon Government Auditing Standards (Yellow Book).
Students will participate in team activities and exercises, lectures, role-playing,
videotaping, class discussions and individual exercises. The 2-week session culminates
with your 'team' performing a simulated audit and presenting your findings at a
videotaped exit conference. This 2-day simulation makes practical use of the skills and
lessons learned throughout the course."
"Upon completion of the course, a participant will be able to:
	Understand the importance of internal controls,
	Understand the purpose and major steps of conducting interviews,
	Apply Government Auditing Standards in performing audits,
	Understand the concept of audit planning and auditing-by-objective,
	Identify different types of evidence and understand importance of assessing data
reliability,
	Prepare audit documentation that meet applicable auditing standards,
	Develop audit findings using condition, cause, criteria, effect, and recommendations,
	Understand the different audit phases and related activities, and
	Understand the importance of ethical behavior and professional conduct."
According to the FY 2006 IGATI Course Catalog, this course is recommended for GS-5 through
GS-9 auditors with less than 6 months experience in a Federal audit organization. However,
1

-------
other newly hired employees needing a detailed knowledge of the audit process also may benefit
from this course. The course level is listed as basic. Each participant earns 78 Continuing
Professional Education credits by attending 10 days of class training, and the tuition is $1,650.00
per student.
SAI held 20 Introductory Auditor Training classes from October 2003 to November 2005.
SAICRB COURSE ASSESSMENT
COURSE MATERIALS
We reviewed the Instructor's Presentation Manual and the Training Binder materials to gain an
understanding of the course content and determine whether the course materials were current,
relevant to the course objectives, substantive, complete to address the objectives, and useful as a
reference resource "back at the office." We concluded that the materials discussed topics
essential to enhancing the skills of entry-level auditors. The materials were current, relevant to
the course objectives, and substantive. The exercises and activities were relevant and reinforced
materials covered in the modules. The handouts were relevant and useful as reference resources.
At the end of this report, we offer recommendations for additions to the course content that we
believe will provide for a greater learning experience.
INSTRUCTION
To evaluate the instruction for this course, we reviewed student evaluations, interviewed former
class participants and their current supervisors, and observed the course. Details are provided
below.
Student Evaluations
To gain an understanding of prior students' reactions immediately upon completing the course,
we obtained and reviewed the student evaluations for the classes held from October 2003 to
December 2005. The evaluations document student assessments of course materials and
instructors, using twelve standard ranking questions and four open-ended questions. We
recomputed composite scores, analyzed for trends, and reviewed narrative responses to the four
open-ended questions.
In recomputing the composite scores for the 40 evaluation packets, we found 14 composite
scores that did not agree with the scores calculated by SAI. The differences were negligible and
usually involved the assigning of scores, by SAI, to blank evaluations. Five evaluation packets
we reviewed contained student evaluations that were left blank. SAI counted the blank
evaluation questions as if students had responded to the questions with "Strongly Agree" or
"Agree."
Overall, the students gave the course high marks. Composite scores we computed, factoring out
the blank evaluations, ranged from 4.36 to 4.82 on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree (negative)) to 5
(strongly agree (positive)). We did not identify any trends in the composite scores. Both the
highest and the lowest composite scores occurred in 2004. Of the highest 10 composite scores, 1
2

-------
occurred in 2003, 6 in 2004, and 5 in 2005. Of the lowest 10 composite scores, 2 occurred in
2003, 7 in 2004, and 5 in 2005. Appendix A shows average composite scores.
Student narrative comments indicated that the course materials were well organized but dry. The
students enjoyed the exercises and group activities, and found the Audit Connection exercise (a
simulated audit exercise) to be very beneficial, even though some felt that not enough instruction
was provided or enough time allotted to complete the exercise. Students found the videotaping
and critiques of interviews to be beneficial. Students indicated that too many slides were used
during instruction and found it hard to pay attention when the slides were just read to them
without elaborating on the material. Students wanted more in-depth lectures, more activities,
more real world examples, and more opportunities for interaction with the instructors. Many
students indicated they could not hear one of the instructors and suggested this instructor use a
microphone.
Interviews of Former Class Participants and Current Supervisors
We interviewed five former students and their current supervisors to determine: (1) if
expectations were met, (2) class strengths and weaknesses, (3) suggestions for improvements,
and (4) usefulness of the course material and the ability to use learned skills in the workplace.
The former students, employed by different Federal agencies, were selected from classes held in
February 2006, December 2005, October 2005, August 2005, and June 2005. The interviews
were conducted via telephone. A standard set of seven questions was asked of each student and
eight questions of each supervisor (see Appendices B and C).
The expectations of the four students who expected to gain knowledge of the audit process were
met. The expectations of the one student who expected to learn more ideas and tools to become
a more effective auditor were not met. Students indicated the course's strong points were the
segments about evidence and audit documentation, mock interviewing, and group work. Two
students indicated the course had no weak points. Of the other three students, one felt the course
could be reduced to one week, one felt the material was presented too quickly, and the other felt
class was rushed and needed an additional week. Two students provided recommendations for
improvement; one would change the order of the information presented and break up some
sections to allow for better absorption of the material, and one would extend the course to cover
the material better. Four of the five students told us they had applied some of the knowledge and
skills gained from the course on the job. The student who had not applied knowledge and skills
from the course told us most of his knowledge and skills were obtained from job training onsite.
Four of the five students interviewed liked the course. Three liked it because it gave them
knowledge of the audit process and one liked it because of the group interaction. One student
did not like the course because it did not help with his skills and was not effective in making him
a better auditor.
We interviewed the supervisors of the five former students. The supervisors sent the employees
to the course to get an understanding of auditing. Three supervisors stated the employee
acquired expected skills and knowledge. One supervisor stated he did not have a way to assess
the employee's skills before and after the course. One supervisor stated that there had not been
sufficient time to know whether expected skills and knowledge were acquired, but the course
was beneficial. Four supervisors stated that their employees gave positive feedback on the class,
3

-------
and these supervisors did not have any suggestions to improve the course. One supervisor stated
that some of the class was applicable to his employee, but a lot was not, since his office focuses
on financial auditing. This supervisor would like to see more emphasis on financial auditing.
All five supervisors were complimentary of their employees, indicating that the skills and
knowledge obtained from the course had been applied on the job. All five supervisors felt the
course was a benefit to their staff member's professional development, and would continue to
send employees to this course as needed.
Course Observations
Two observers attended the May 8-19, 2006, class to gain an understanding of the course
curriculum and effectiveness of the course instruction. The observers found the instructors to be
very good. The instructors were organized and prepared. They demonstrated knowledge of the
subject and communicated the subject matter effectively. For the most part, instructors displayed
enthusiasm for the topics and did their best to arouse interest in the topic. The instructors
encouraged course participation and interaction through class exercises, activities, sharing real
world examples, and posing questions. The instructors were considerate of, and responsive to,
participant needs and used class time effectively. We noted that one instructor had a quiet voice
that some participants found difficult to hear. The use of a microphone by this instructor would
be beneficial.
We obtained and reviewed the student evaluations for the May 2006 class. The student
evaluations agreed with our observer evaluations. Overall, students gave the course high marks.
The composite score for the first week was 4.66, and 4.85 for the second week. The student
narrative comments for the first week of the course indicated students found the course material
good and useful. The students enjoyed the exercises and group activities, and found the
interviewing module and the instructor's real life experiences to be beneficial. Several students
indicated they could not hear one of the instructors. The student narrative comments for the
second week indicated students enjoyed the exercises and group activities and found the Audit
Connection exercise to be very beneficial. A few students commented on the need for better
acoustics.
CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, and SAI RESPONSE
The Introductory Auditor Training course is providing training that is useful to the Federal audit
community. To increase effectiveness, we recommend SAI:
1.	Continue to offer the current Introductory Auditor Training course as a basic course.
SAI Response: Agree
SAI agrees that the Introductory Auditor Training course is valuable to the Office of
Inspector General (OIG) community.
2.	Include only evaluations completed by students when computing course composite
scores.
SAI Response: Agree
4

-------
SAI agrees that only completed evaluations will be used in computing course composite
scores.
3.	Avoid reading slides to students without elaborating on the material.
SAI Response: Agree
SAI will advise each instructor that they should avoid reading slides without further
clarification and detail on the topic under discussion.
4.	Have microphones available for instructors.
SAI Response: Agree
SAI is aware of the speaking situation of one instructor and has purchased a sound
system. Beginning in October 2006, this instructor will no longer be part of the school.
5.	Use official agency audit report and related work papers to demonstrate the audit steps
required to create the final product. Note: As each audit step is discussed during the
class, the instructor could show these actual references. For example, Government
Auditing Standards require an auditor to gather background information during the
planning phase. Providing an example of a work paper that shows the gathering of
background information, and where this information appears in the audit report, would be
beneficial for students.
SAI Response: Disagree
SAI always tries to avoid using material (reports, audit guides, and work papers) from
any one OIG because they do not want to give students the impression that the particular
OIG material represents the only correct way of doing things.
6.	Revise instructor guides and participant handouts to include a discussion of the
following:
a)	Collaboration between the Office of Audit and the Inspector General's Office of
Counsel, given the legal issues that may be encountered during an audit.
SAI Response: Disagree
SAI believes that during the 2-week course, the need of expert advice, including
legal advice is brought into discussion in many areas. SAI added that actual
communication with legal counsel is usually done by senior auditors, not new
auditors.
b)	Preliminary discussions with the auditee (staffing of results) prior to issuing
findings to maintain relations with the auditee and develop recommendations.
SAI Response: Agree
SAI is currently encouraging auditors to meet with the auditee prior to issuing the
draft report.
5

-------
Development of findings and recommendations. The material provides the
elements of a finding but does not elaborate on how to develop findings that lead
to recommendations.
SAI Response: Disagree
SAI stated they spend a considerable amount of time discussing the elements of a
finding and believe the information provided to the students provides them with
the understanding to go back to their assignment ready to prepare report findings
using what they learned in the course as a guide. Developing audit findings is
discussed in SAI's Intermediate Auditing course.
Performing follow-up audits, which require special consideration of previous
findings and methodologies.
SAI Response: Agree
SAI stated they currently discuss the need to review prior audits in planning the
audit. SAI believes that follow-up reviews are not typically assigned to entry-
level auditors and suggests that follow-up audits be discussed in the Intermediate
Auditor course.
Information on conducting surveys and using data collection instruments (such as
structured questionnaires, mailings, etc.).
SAI Response: Agree in Principle
SAI does not believe it is appropriate to get into details of how to develop good
questionnaires or other data collection instruments, and suggests that it would be
better to discuss data collection methods in the Intermediate Auditor course.
Elaboration on types of risk (inherent risk, control risk, and detection risk),
especially the distinctions between them and special considerations given for each
type.
SAI Response: Disagree
SAI stated these topics are discussed in detail in their Intermediate Auditor
course.
Questioned Costs or Funds Put To Better Use because a discussion of Section
106(d) of the Inspector General Act (Definitions) will assist students in
determining what costs can be claimed as savings to the Government.
SAI Response: Disagree
SAI stated these areas are discussed in detail in their Intermediate Auditor course.
The Inspector General's mission and reporting requirements to Congress as a
possible introduction of the course, and discussions of semiannual reporting and
the overall charge given to Inspectors General. Addressing these issues will
provide students with a broader picture of the Inspector General community and

-------
our goals/missions. In addition, a brief history of important milestones/findings
in the Inspector General community may be appropriate.
SAI Response: Agree
SAI stated that while discussing the history of the Inspector General and the
various reports generated by the OIG, they could include additional comments on
the Inspector General Act.
i) The process of independent referencing, to include responsibilities and resolution
of concerns.
SAI Response: Agree in principle
SAI indicated they removed the module on independent referencing from the
Introductory Auditor course in response to a 2003 recommendation made by a
group reviewing the course. SAI noted the school provides a course on peer
reviews.
7.	Include copies of actual start notices, entrance and exit conference notifications, etc., in
the class materials.
SAI Response: Agree
SAI will obtain copies and use as examples start notices, entrance and exit conference
notifications, and any other type of documentation deemed appropriate to show the audit
process.
8.	Modify the Government Auditing Standards materials to include references back to the
actual sections in the Yellow Book.
SAI Response: Agree
SAI will modify the module on the Government Auditing Standards to include references
to the actual sections in the manual.
SAICRB COMMENTS
SAI agreed with the majority of the recommendations, but disagreed with our recommendation
to use an actual audit report and working papers. Given the variability in operations among the
Offices of Inspector General, SAI prefers to use generic materials as teaching aids. SAI also
disagreed with other recommendations to expand the discussion of certain topics. SAI maintains
that such matters are better suited for discussion in its Intermediate Auditing course.
We accept SAI's comments and will be sharing recommendations 6c through 6g and 6i with the
SAICRB subgroup reviewing the Intermediate Auditing course for their consideration.
7

-------
Appendix A
Average Composite Scores
Course

Organized


Aroused
Encouraged

Used


Course materials
Course will improve
was
Total

and

Effectively
interest/
participation/
Considerate/
class time
Achieved
Content
relevant and
current or future job
valuable
Composite
Dates of Class Week
prepared
Knowledgeable
communicated
enthusiasm
interaction
Responsive
effectively
Objectives
Organized
useful
performance
experience
Score
October 20-24, 2003 1
4.79
4.74
4.28
4.21
4.37
4.53
4.32
4.42
4.42
4.21
4.26
4.26
4.40
October 27-31, 2003 2
4.67
4.67
4.38
4.33
4.55
4.62
4.33
4.38
4.52
4.24
4.38
4.29
4.45
December 9-12, 2003 1
4.61
4.74
4.47
4.50
4.70
4.68
4.65
4.59
4.66
4.72
4.63
4.53
4.62
December 15-19, 2003 2
4.74
4.85
4.59
4.50
4.76
4.68
4.53
4.68
4.74
4.59
4.71
4.68
4.67
Jan 26-30, 2004 1
4.76
4.68
4.60
4.48
4.56
4.60
4.20
4.48
4.52
4.36
4.44
4.40
4.51
February 2-6, 2004 2
4.58
4.50
4.46
4.50
4.38
4.62
4.16
4.50
4.50
4.46
4.38
4.46
4.46
March 8-12, 2004 1
4.94
4.94
4.67
4.63
4.88
4.81
4.81
4.69
4.88
4.75
4.81
4.94
4.81
March 15-19, 2004 2
4.88
5.00
4.82
4.71
4.65
4.82
4.76
4.82
4.94
4.82
4.76
4.82
4.82
April 12-19, 2004 1
4.78
4.83
4.78
4.44
4.72
4.78
4.78
4.78
4.72
4.67
4.83
4.94
4.75
April 19-23, 2004 2
4.80
4.80
4.60
4.60
4.67
4.73
4.80
4.60
4.67
4.67
4.73
4.80
4.71
June 7-11, 2004 1
4.81
4.85
4.78
4.44
4.74
4.85
4.89
4.67
4.70
4.63
4.78
4.74
4.74
June 14-18, 2004 2
4.71
4.75
4.57
4.57
4.50
4.82
4.68
4.71
4.75
4.68
4.71
4.71
4.68
July 12-16, 2004 1
4.73
4.87
4.57
4.47
4.60
4.80
4.63
4.47
4.60
4.50
4.53
4.53
4.61
July 19-23, 2004 2
4.73
4.80
4.69
4.40
4.73
4.87
4.57
4.53
4.60
4.57
4.60
4.53
4.64
Aug 9-13, 2004 1
4.84
4.84
4.48
4.42
4.65
4.65
4.48
4.55
4.65
4.61
4.55
4.48
4.60
Aug 16-20, 2004 2
4.70
4.67
4.58
4.39
4.55
4.61
4.18
4.48
4.52
4.33
4.48
4.42
4.49
Sep 13-17, 2004 1
4.83
4.77
4.63
4.51
4.69
4.62
4.31
4.60
4.60
4.57
4.51
4.40
4.59
Sep 20-24, 2004 2
4.60
4.71
4.63
4.29
4.49
4.54
3.94
4.43
4.54
4.51
4.37
4.43
4.46
Nov 29-Dec 3, 2004 1
4.86
4.77
4.50
4.23
4.32
4.55
4.59
4.55
4.77
4.55
4.45
4.41
4.55
Dec 6-10, 2004 2
4.63
4.71
4.25
4.21
4.33
4.50
4.38
4.39
4.50
4.26
4.42
4.38
4.41
Dec 6-10, 2004 1
4.59
4.62
4.17
4.07
4.34
4.38
4.14
4.38
4.38
4.41
4.48
4.41
4.36
Dec 13-17, 2004 2
4.47
4.63
4.43
4.33
4.53
4.57
4.10
4.43
4.43
4.30
4.30
4.30
4.40
Feb 7-11,2005 1
4.76
4.85
4.68
4.56
4.68
4.65
4.62
4.53
4.65
4.53
4.44
4.59
4.63
Feb 14-18, 2005 2
4.68
4.68
4.53
4.44
4.62
4.62
4.56
4.44
4.53
4.48
4.56
4.50
4.55
March 28 - April 1, 2005 1
4.77
4.77
4.30
4.23
4.52
4.61
4.45
4.45
4.61
4.48
4.48
4.52
4.52
April 4-8, 2005 2
4.67
4.70
4.45
4.42
4.48
4.52
4.55
4.55
4.61
4.48
4.61
4.61
4.55
May 9-13, 2005 1
4.70
4.73
4.58
4.45
4.76
4.70
4.70
4.67
4.67
4.67
4.61
4.61
4.65
May 16-20, 2005 2
4.57
4.60
4.49
4.29
4.40
4.43
4.34
4.40
4.54
4.43
4.49
4.46
4.45
June 13-17, 2005 1
4.62
4.76
4.62
4.34
4.59
4.66
4.45
4.45
4.55
4.34
4.41
4.59
4.53
June 20-24, 2005 2
4.47
4.52
4.43
4.43
4.47
4.53
4.27
4.40
4.40
4.33
4.37
4.47
4.42
Aug 15-19, 2005 1
4.75
4.88
4.50
4.34
4.66
4.81
4.66
4.59
4.69
4.66
4.72
4.72
4.67
Aug 21-26, 2005 2
4.71
4.74
4.58
4.44
4.62
4.71
4.65
4.59
4.53
4.56
4.74
4.71
4.63
Sept 12-16, 2005 1
4.71
4.77
4.47
4.40
4.55
4.71
4.50
4.58
4.61
4.52
4.50
4.50
4.57
Sept 19-23, 2005 2
4.59
4.65
4.49
4.27
4.51
4.57
4.54
4.54
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.62
4.55
Oct 17-21, 2005 1
4.59
4.62
4.35
4.26
4.47
4.44
4.55
4.53
4.53
4.44
4.24
4.38
4.45
Oct 24-28, 2005 2
4.66
4.63
4.49
4.31
4.31
4.40
4.38
4.57
4.57
4.31
4.26
4.23
4.43
Oct 31 - Nov 4, 2005 1
4.86
5.00
4.61
4.61
4.86
4.79
4.68
4.68
4.68
4.43
4.50
4.54
4.69
Nov 7-11, 2005 2
4.83
4.87
4.73
4.60
4.70
4.77
4.83
4.77
4.83
4.60
4.60
4.70
4.74
Dec 5-9, 2005 1
4.85
4.88
4.53
4.09
4.44
4.79
4.56
4.65
4.73
4.71
4.65
4.59
4.62
Dec 12-16, 2005 2
4.85
4.82
4.65
4.53
4.71
4.82
4.68
4.79
4.82
4.74
4.71
4.68
4.73
8

-------
Appendix B
Former Student Interview Questions
Course Title: Introductory Auditor Training
Former Student Participant:		
Name
Agency
Location
Class Attended
(Month/Year)




SAICRB Subgroup Participants:
Name
Agency








Date of Interview Meeting:
Explain the purpose of the SAICRB and the interview. Thank the former students for their
participation.
1.
Did you like the course? Why or why not?
2.
What did you expect to get out of the course?
3.
Were your expectations met?
4.
What do you consider to be the course's strong points?
5.
What do you consider to be the course's weak points?
6.
How have you applied the skills and knowledge gained from the course on the job?
7.
If you could change two or three things with the course, what would they be?
9

-------
Appendix C
Supervisor Interview Questions
Course Title: Introductory Auditor Training
Supervisor Participant:		
Name
Agency
Student Name
Class Attended
(Month/Year)




SAICRB Subgroup Participants:
Name
Agency








Date of Interview Meeting:
Explain the purpose of the SAICRB and this interview. Thank the supervisors for their
participation.
1.
What was your objective for sending our staff member to the course?
2.
What new skills and knowledge did you expect the staff member to acquire from the
training?
3.
Did staff member acquire expected skills and knowledge or meet you other objectives?
4.
How has your staff member applied the new skills and knowledge on the job?
5.
What feedback did the staff member provide you on the strengths and weaknesses of the
course?
6.
Overall, do you feel the course was of benefit to your staff member's professional
development and the needs of your agency? Why?
7.
Do you plan to send other staff to this course? If not, why?
8.
Do you have any suggestions on ways IGATI could improve the course content and
delivery?
10

-------
Appendix D
School of Audit and Inspections Audits
ig Institute ScftooC ofJtudit and Inspections
1735 K Lynn Street  Iff* 
-------
t' M v i ' J,-. " ..in c*d. i .'MKS'J irj j-r\ -Icvl J j< oid i
On the surface this may sound appropriate and well meaning, however, we have always
tried to avoid using materials (reports, audit guides, and workpapers) from any one OIG
because we do not want to give the impression to the students (who are from many
v tit- *r> i'V'.Vw M * ['.'U't! i'ini ' t[*~f >*vcii t 'Vi>- (in* ur'v vor  t . i 1C i K"
R< eiioiiisioii 6: Generally agree with exceptions and comments.
6c: Disagree: Development of findings is discussed, in. our Intermediate Auditing
class. In the Introductory auditor class we do speed a considerable amount of
time discussing the elements of a finding. Also, we provide opportunities for th
students to prepare the elements. While findings are important, we believe that
the information provided to the students provides them with the understanding f
i<, s1'- Is - .f^m- .t rr-. L\i(i r u iv I'.Jurt ;irul r>r	I1"1? >
12

-------
'" V)' ,1 * K'>!! v II 'li M' Ou; '1 ( ,s;	A Jt.'d >> i 0" iov _ n n'
fi i J: ii jilviti-if" h  u * t rit ,'idh Pt ..i'nivnr (Alb-,'-, ' pitu't. .(i >: s"i^; >, at
',.*!> ill11 i'- ""* v"ii H>r\' "Uv'.11t: f <"'.k ^ i tM''<"*! ;tj-* \>h'J iri' 11 i ftli v
up audits is best brought into the Intermediate Auditor course.
Agree in Principle: We currently discuss the survey phase of the audit. We can.
tnciieir <[w it v ,rs f > ' itAm Ht/A'  i\' VK .."kn ,,iV t!r K>f ' Hi
questionnaires or other methods, Probably discussion on data collection methods
is best brought into the Intermediate Auditor course.
61k
Agree in principle. The Introductory Auditor course up until 2(303 had a module
fi 'mA sVifil., :' C u i;	- *   i ,, ,Ui'.'ler r'>,  -	'-^.n < i A u. > if- *\
 '1 ' A A f \lit.Tr,.i vii.111>"- ^ ii'M. iri s>i tiif ru>i tj A < ! il tKit-j. , ft, i-r  iii!t (n
moved in light of new auditors not being involved in independent referencing, A
i f A- As-.iA ' pi^vur- t t , u I .>c , t	y,s
, > 
AI A (" I. p i 't\ i, \,,1 i) [' . i ! I ,'MttP '>. f. 'Hi n!,t. I t i H i 'l| >A t
.cations and any other type of documentation deemed appropriate to show the atic
unite* rstAfA' i.i A "t^rv
13

-------
Appendix E
OIG Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
OIG Contact - Environmental Protection Agency
John T. Walsh, Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Audit, (202) 566-0822
OIG Contacts - Social Security Administration
Gale Stone, Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Audit, (410) 965-9700
Brian Karpe, Audit Manager, (410) 966-1029
Brennan Kraje, Statistician, (410) 966-0332
OIG Contacts - Department of Defense
Keith West, Principal Assistant Inspector General for Auditing, (703) 604-8905
Acknowledgments
In addition to those named above:
Anita Mooney, Auditor, Environmental Protection Agency
Johnetta Colbert, Auditor, Department of Defense
Austin Murphy, Auditor, Social Security Administration
14

-------