Wherever money and power converge, there will be corruption, and offices like mine will be there to investigate. While we fluctuate between fascination and revulsion with Chicago's history of corruption, there is an equally, if not far more, corrosive killer of public confidence in government: waste and inefficiency in the operation and provision of services critical to Chicagoans.

The most significant source of such waste is often calcified operations, the product of a historical “we've always done it this way” ethos. Over time, this attitude leads to program ineffectiveness and a lack of innovation.

That is where independent, objective evaluations of city programs can drive improvement. My office does those in the form of performance audits, following standards set by the U.S. Government Accountability Office. Audits are vital to my office's work of promoting efficiency while guarding against waste, fraud and abuse.

Inspector general audits and investigations differ in methodology and appearance but complement each other in achieving the office's mission. Investigations into individual instances of misconduct may reveal systemic shortcomings that can be pursued as performance audits, while audits may uncover vulnerabilities for fraud and abuse that warrant investigative inquiry.

In the last three years, my office has completed 19 audits of city programs and audit followups, accounting for millions in programmatic recommendations. We frequently encounter a city program that has gaps in basic record-keeping and program management, and which lacks meaningful performance metrics and methodologies. However, we find that auditees, initially chagrined at what we find, are often grateful for our identification of pathways to greater effectiveness.

IT'S NOT ABOUT 'GOTCHA'

Unfortunately, we occasionally encounter uncooperative subjects unaware of their official duties. We recently released an audit of the city's transition from a ward-based garbage collection program to a grid-based system. Regrettably, we were precluded from completing the audit because the city department head walked out of a meeting, refusing to further cooperate with inspector general auditors. Such actions benefit nobody and shortchange the taxpayer. We all deserve, and should demand, better from city leaders. We are hopeful for a better outcome to this audit when we tackle it again in the future.

Performance audits are not an exercise in “gotcha!” governance. They are a prophylactic for waste, mismanagement and potential fraud. Investigations focus on proving who is responsible for intentional wrongdoing; performance audits focus on understanding and evaluating city systems and programs, identifying what the city is getting both right and wrong, and making programmatic recommendations. The most valuable audits have the cooperation of city leaders, and I encourage them to take an active role in our audits.

To help city managers understand our audit goals and for city policymakers to guide our efforts, I have published our 2013 Audit Plan on our website. Chicagoans of every stripe should feel free to review it and send us their thoughts on priorities as we develop our 2014 plan for performance audits of “the city that works.” I hope that publishing this plan, and incorporating input, will help Chicago work even better.