Letter from the Auditor
Fellow Portlanders:
My office exists to ensure open and accountable government for all of us. We do this by providing independent and impartial reviews, access to public information, and services to City government and the public. Last year I introduced a new kind of independent and impartial review to keep you informed about your City government: the Audit Impact Report.
City Charter makes the Auditor responsible for auditing the performance of City government. Performance audits review the efficiency, effectiveness, and equity of a program or service. My Audit Services Division’s commitment to improving City services is reflected in the quality of our audit recommendations, which are intended to increase equity in contracting, grow public trust in policing, and address Portland’s housing crisis, among other things.
Implementing audit recommendations makes government work better for those who rely on its services. My office, like other leading audit organizations, uses the recommendation implementation rate to measure the impact our audits are having on the City.
A defining characteristic of the auditing profession is our independence from those charged to act on recommendations. That separation gives us freedom from bias in carrying out our work and confidence to provide objective information about what needs to be improved. The responsibility to act on our recommendations falls on the shoulders of City leadership: Portland City Council who is accountable to Portlanders, and City management who is accountable to City Council. We hold City leadership accountable by issuing and monitoring the status of audit recommendations.
Reporting on the status of recommendations presents a shared opportunity for my office and City leadership to evaluate our collective performance, consistent with best practices in the auditing profession. Both the response rate to our requests for updates and the implementation rate of our audit recommendations increased over last year.
Portland voters made history in November 2022 by adopting a new election system and form of government. While our audit mandate remains unchanged, the new form of government has required us to form new relationships with City leadership. As of January 2025, the City Administrator — rather than a member of City Council — is responsible for responding to recommendations from our audits and updating recommendation status by responding to the Audit Impact Report follow-up requests.
In Portland’s new form of government, Council sets policy and approves the City budget and may direct the City Administrator to take corrective actions related to our audit recommendations. For example, Council highlighted our April 2025 audit of Asset Management passing a resolution requiring the City Administrator to develop a strategy aligned with the recommendations from our audit. I encourage Council to use our audit work in their legislation to help hold City leadership accountable.
Monitoring the status of recommendations not only helps us meet auditing standards, but it also provides us with insights into how the City is performing after our audit work is done. Since I took office in January 2023, I have made some changes to how we conduct this work:
- I replaced individual one- and two-year audit follow-up reports with this comprehensive Citywide report that I am committed to publishing each year.
- I extended the period we monitor recommendations from two years to five years after an audit is published, since it can take time to implement recommendations that address systemic issues.
- Lastly, I asked my team to enhance this yearly update by offering our perspective on what pressing matters demand the attention of City leadership as they embrace their new roles and responsibilities.
We present this information to highlight the progress and work of the City, and what more the City could achieve by implementing outstanding recommendations from our audits.
We invite current and future City leadership, as well as the broader Portland community, to use this information when calling for change in City government. Together, we can make Portland a better place for all who live, work, or play here.
In service to you,
auditor.rede@portlandoregon.gov
503-823-4078
Results
City has implemented just under half of our recommendations
We use recommendation implementation rate to measure our audits’ impact on City programs and operations. An “implemented” status means the City has taken full action to respond to the recommendation from the original audit and completed the work. As of 2025, the City implemented 49% of our recommendations. These come from 33 audits and 204 recommendations from the last five years.
Figure 1. Nearly half of our recommendations to the City have been implemented
Our office provides recommendations – actions for management to take based on our audit findings – to help mitigate risk and make City programs more efficient, effective and equitable. Leadership has generally agreed with our recommendations from the last five years. We begin tracking the audit recommendations one year after the report is published. This look-back process is one way we are holding the City accountable to the public.
Our recommendations are based on months of audit work: interviewing those directly involved in the processes and those directly impacted by the services; comparing City processes with best practices; observing and documenting City employees in action; and analyzing data. The recommendations are backed by evidence and there are real implications for not implementing them in terms of who is burdened by inaction. For instance, three of our audits leaving the five-year look-back period (with recommendations not fully implemented) - Short-Term Rental Regulation, the Portland Housing Bond, and the Cannabis Tax – all have equity components related to some of the City’s most vulnerable and underserved groups like Black Portlanders, veterans, and people experiencing houselessness.
In past monitoring reports under the Commission form of government, we organized recommendations by bureau or commissioner in charge. We began reporting a Citywide implementation rate in 2024 to mirror a more unified accountability structure. In the new form of government, the mayor and city administrator are responsible for working together to lead the City’s day-to-day operations.
Also, with the new form of government, the party responsible for some recommendations has changed. For example, in our 2019 audit on Council’s commitment to accountability measures in tax and bond measures put to voters, one recommendation will now be addressed by the City Administrator rather than Council. The City administrator has overall responsibility for responding to our audit recommendations in the new form of government.
Portland still has room to improve compared to other cities. The Association of Local Government Auditors, our professional association, issues benchmarking reports every two years based on survey responses from audit organizations. The 2024 report shows a 64% implementation rate among the cities that responded to the biannual survey, up from 58% in 2022.
Figure 2. Portland's recommendation implementation rate has room to improve compared to other cities’
Portland’s implementation rate of 49% was lower than in 2022 (51%). Generally, we see more recommendations implemented from audits exiting than those entering our five-year monitoring period, as the City has had more time to implement recommendations from older audits compared to more recent ones.
City leadership’s participation in our recommendation monitoring process is critical for complete and timely reporting. Each year, we invite City leaders to provide updated information on recommendations issued in the last five years that are not yet implemented. We use this information, including supporting evidence, to determine the status of a recommendation.
The response rate from the City was 88% this year, compared to 77% last year. Our results reflect information provided to us between February 2025 through July 2025. We appreciate the increased level of engagement by the City and hope to see this continue in the future. A 100% response rate would ensure that our reporting to Portlanders accurately reflects the City’s actions taken or not taken each year.
Figure 3. We received responses from auditees for most audits in the look-back period
Portlanders need bold leadership in key areas with a focus on prioritization
Implementing recommendations can be difficult, and we see some management obstacles amplified during this time of unprecedented change to City government. As part of our monitoring process, we reviewed the barriers to implementing recommendations that were described to us by City leadership and summarized them for ease of use. We offer six areas requiring attention to better position the City for success: Authority, Coordination, Decisions, Outcomes, Prioritization, and Reporting. This year, we included an Other category where respondents could specify unique conditions related to implementing the recommendations. In responses labeled Other, management reported struggles in navigating program roles and responsibilities in the new government structure under current budget constraints. These responses contained a combination of elements related to coordination and prioritization. We also include illustrative examples from audits with recommendations not yet implemented. Portlanders need bold leadership in these areas if the City is to improve service delivery and equitable outcomes.
Prioritization: Direction that reflects realistic commitments given available resources.
Environmental Services has unaddressed recommendations from our 2018 audits of Private Stormwater Management as well as Restoration Projects and Green Streets. The Bureau previously reported it underwent substantial organizational changes in 2020 and, as a result, has prioritized more urgent financial, operational and capital challenges that no longer align with the focus of our 2018 audits. Environmental Services did not provide a formal response in 2025 but did reiterate that they had identified their greatest risks to be related to wastewater treatment and pumping stations so were prioritizing investments there.
Procurement is another area where the City has not implemented recommendations due to other priorities. Our September 2020 audit of Equity in Construction Contracting focused on the initiatives the City adopted to try and correct for race and gender disparities in contracts the City awarded for construction projects. Procurement chose not to implement two recommendations as described in the audit, prioritizing current methods. They have, however, reported making progress on an agreement with Prosper Portland and other stakeholders to identify performance goals and a plan to track and measure them.
Coordination: Active management of internal dependencies most susceptible to delay or inconsistency.
With the City’s new form of government came a change in government structure – City bureaus and offices have been grouped into service areas directed by the Executive branch (Mayor, City Administrator and Deputies). This has created opportunities to implement recommendations from our audits requiring coordinated efforts. Our September 2021 audit of Sewer Maintenance looked at the decades-old partnership between two large City bureaus – Environmental Services and Transportation – that has had mixed results and comes with inefficiencies that cost ratepayers. We reported in June 2023 that the Bureaus had taken initial steps but were waiting to re-evaluate the advantages and benefits of their agreement because of the transition to a unified Public Works service area. In March of 2025, management stated they are pursuing opportunities created by the new form of government and the formation of the Public Works service area to evaluate service delivery.
One example of a coordinated effort that is helping make City services more effective is in Short-Term Rental Regulation. Our 2018 audit pointed out that the City’s enforcement is lax. In July 2024, the City streamlined permitting services under Portland Permitting & Development. Management stated that Code revisions in October 2024 improved their ability to investigate illegal operations and issue citations. They are now cross-referencing their host data with monthly data provided by Revenue to proactively investigate commercial operations that may be operating illegally, negatively impacting livability in residential neighborhoods.
Outcomes: Strategies that align activities with results for Portlanders.
Our March 2022 audit found the Portland Clean Energy Fund needed to take additional steps to implement the voter-approved program, including establishing how it measures, tracks, and reports performance as required by the legislation. We reported in July 2023 that the Fund adopted a plan that connects its investment strategies to the City’s climate action goals. The Fund now has an online dashboard that displays information about investments and outcomes. Management will release the investment plan’s first annual report in November of 2025.
Housing, however, has been unable to measure effectiveness for all groups they aimed to serve with the Portland Housing Bond. Our June 2019 audit looked at the voter approved bond, which authorized the City to borrow $258 million to invest in affordable housing. While Housing established clear criteria for project selection, we found that some priority communities listed in the ballot language, such as veterans, were left out. Housing has reported on income level, race and ethnicity, number of children, number of seniors, and number of adults with disabilities for most of their projects, but still some priority communities were not fully included. This means Housing does not have the information to assess their effectiveness in reaching all priority communities.
Authority: Clear ownership for change, especially when working with Council, across the City, with other jurisdictions or community partners.
Since our audit of Technology Purchasing was released in October 2024, Technology Services used their authority to move on recommendations by partnering with Procurement to ensure the City will approach technology purchases with a coordinated strategy. The audit looked at seven technology purchases and found that Technology Services was reactive with purchasing. This resulted in inefficiencies and delays. As of February 2025, Technology Services also report partnering with the Office of Equity and Human Rights to provide guidance to the City for accessibility guidelines in technology purchases and for public-facing web applications.
Reporting: Transparent and human-centered information for Portlanders.
Our April 2022 audit of Police Intelligence Gathering and Surveillance looked at police surveillance practices to see if safeguards were in place to protect First Amendment rights. This audit was instigated by the aftermath of the murder of George Floyd and the concerns the public had about police surveillance actions. While Portland Police have taken many steps to address public concern about the practice and means of intelligence gathering, they have yet to publish reports documenting their use of surveillance technology as we recommended.
Decisions: Actions informed by best available information, particularly reliable data.
Our May 2019 audit of Portland Parks & Recreation’s Golf program was initiated because Council had to bail out the program in 2017. We had recommended presenting alternative forecasts to Council for direction. This never occurred under the old system of government; however, the golf fund benefitted from increased activity during the pandemic building a reserve to weather future downturns. In the FY2025-2026 budget, the Council reduced that fund to help the broader parks system. If the alternate forecasts had been presented, Parks and City Council would be better able to determine how much of the reserve could be used and what it would take to replace the funds.
Other: Respondents used this category to specify complex challenges.
This year we allowed respondents to specify other if the six areas did not resonate with them. It became apparent that many were variations of budgetary issues that management felt were beyond their control. For example, in our 2021 audit of Emergency Management we found that the pandemic highlighted the City’s longstanding neglect of people with disabilities. We recommended they hire, or designate, staff to cultivate Americans with Disabilities Act expertise and compliance and to ensure they have the authority and resources needed. As of this update, management reported that the continued budget cuts and lack of resources has been a barrier and that no definitive plan for this position exists. They plan to seek external opportunities and partnerships as they become available.
There may be multiple types of barriers to implementing an individual recommendation, such as a recommendation needing attention on both Outcomes and Reporting. To draw clearer conclusions for City leadership, we sorted outstanding recommendations by the primary obstacle affecting their implementation.
In 2024, among the recommendations yet to be implemented, Prioritization – direction that reflects realistic commitments given available resources – was the most prevalent obstacle facing City leadership. This focus area presents a challenge in that it requires collaboration between both City Administration and City Council, given the current budget constraints.
Figure 4. Prioritization by City leaders is most needed to implement outstanding recommendations
Our audits highlight ways to achieve equity in City government
In our profession, equity is among the ways we assess whether government best serves the collective interests of the public. The U.S. Government Accountability Office considers a public program or activity “equitable” when it consistently serves members of the public, distributes public services, and implements public policy in a manner that promotes fairness, justice, and equality. Equality is the measure of the actions we take. In contrast, equity is when all parties experience the same outcomes.
Figure 5. Equality is when everyone gets the same while equity is when everyone gets what they need
The City has made a variety of equity commitments over the past decade. The City describes equitable outcomes as conditions of well-being for Portlanders. These conditions include the elimination or reduction of disparities in services, resources, or access. We use these commitments as criteria in our audits to determine whether the City is improving the lives of Portlanders as intended.
We are also committed to advancing equity in our audit work. We demonstrate our commitment by:
- Selecting audit topics that are relevant to Portlanders;
- Planning audits that assess disproportionate impacts; and
- Publishing reports that include the perspectives of the people most impacted by City services.
We continue to cultivate the knowledge, skills, and abilities we need to effectively empower systemically excluded communities about the overall audit process or on specific audit projects. For example, as part of our annual audit schedule, we have hosted focus groups with community members and leaders of community-based organizations to obtain feedback on potential audit topics. We also engaged with consultants to deepen our collective understanding of racial equity and its intersections with performance auditing. At a project-level, we partnered with Street Roots to interview people experiencing homelessness during our audit of the Joint Office of Homeless Services. Audit Services’ staff also shared equity-focused findings from our audit on Technology Purchasing in a presentation at our professional association’s national conference in May of 2025.
Consistent with this commitment, our audits highlight how the City can improve the lives of the most vulnerable Portlanders. Our professional association identified a research-based framework for how to measure equity in an audit. That framework identifies four types of inequities – access, fairness, quality, and results – each with a related question prompt. Our findings and recommendations provide illustrative examples of the inequities we uncover when applying that framework during our audit work.
Access: Is there equal opportunity to use and benefit from a service?
Our December 2021 audit found that the City was not prepared to meet the needs of people with disabilities during the COVID-19 pandemic. This year, we learned Emergency Management is still working on these recommendations to ensure people with disabilities have access to the same opportunities and benefits available to people without disabilities. As we noted in our original audit, the City put lives at risk and exposed itself to lawsuits by not being adequately prepared for emergencies.
Technology Services, on the other hand, is working on incorporating language access into technology purchases made by the City. Our October 2024 audit on Technology Purchasing recommended that the City incorporate language access into technology purchases to ensure it conforms with applicable laws such as the Civil Rights Act and City policies. Management report they are in the planning stages of implementing this recommendation. Technology Services, in partnership with the Office of Equity and Human Rights, is also working on Citywide guidance on language access in technologies used through the City.
Fairness: Are the procedures fair for everyone?
Our February 2022 audit found the City’s decentralized way of collecting taxes, fines, and fees may cause harm, especially to Portlanders who experience institutional language barriers. Our April 2023 audit update showed no action was taken by the Office of Management and Finance to address our recommendations. As of February 2025, Revenue stated that improving the City’s collections standards remains a priority and they hope to develop a plan of action but noted the new and uncertain expectations of the Mayor and Council in the new form of government as a challenge. In the absence of any change, the City’s patchwork approach to collections will continue to put some Portlanders at increased risk of burdensome debt.
Quality: Do some groups experience different levels of service quality?
Our March 2021 audit described the City’s building permit review process as frustratingly slow. Customers with resources and connections could navigate the City’s problematic system better than novices. While consolidation and other consequential decisions have occurred since the original audit, we learned during our October 2023 update that the permitting timelines have not been reduced and the City is still working on all of our recommendations. As of February 2025, all of our recommendations are still in process. However, Portland Permitting & Development reported some progress on making improvements to the customer complaint process. Due to the change in the City’s form of government, some of the recommendations from this audit will now be under the City Administrator’s portfolio. The Deputy City Administrator of Community & Economic Development has been delegated responsibility for implementing them.
Results: Are there unintended results for different people?
Our June 2019 audit on the Portland Housing Bond found that the City failed to implement promises made to voters. Priority communities were included in the Housing Bond ballot measure and framework that were not included in the tracking of resident demographics, as of the 2023 Housing Bond Annual Progress report. Information has not been fully reported on priority communities such as households who experienced homelessness, immigrants, or veterans. Housing reported that veteran status is not a field that is collected by the Housing Bureau, or other local housing jurisdictions. Regardless, Housing does not have the information to assess their effectiveness in reaching all priority communities and therefore, don’t have the ability to track if there are different results for different people.
Engage with our Office to hold the City accountable
As auditors, it is our responsibility to make constructive recommendations and track whether the intended results were achieved. Responsibility for improving operations rests with City leadership. Our audits assess City government’s performance, so the resolution to our audit findings, by implementing our recommendations, helps the City achieve desired results. City Code requires City leadership to specify plans for corrective action and a timetable to complete these activities. This response is a critical part of the audit process.
We invite Portlanders to leverage our work as you hold City leaders accountable to best serving you. Our audits provide independent checks on City systems. Likewise, our fraud hotline investigates tips of fraud, waste and abuse related to City employees or programs. Both are strengthened by your input. We are developing skills and partnerships to make our work more timely, accurate, and relevant.
Below are some ways to interact with us and City leadership about what we do:
- Read our audit reports by year and topic
- View details by service area, bureau, and audit in our Recommendation Status Dashboard*
- See the list of topics under review
- Invite us to attend a community event
- Share your ideas, questions or concerns with us
- Suggest an audit topic to us
- Send us a tip about fraud, waste or abuse
- Learn more about City Organization and staffing
- Communicate with City Council
Together, we have the power to shape a better Portland where everyone can thrive.
How we did our work
What data are included?
Recommendation monitoring is an ongoing responsibility. We request information from the City each year. This report includes recommendations from performance audits our office has published from fiscal years 2019-24. We receive responses from the responsible City service area, bureau, or office. Our team then determines whether there is enough evidence to support a status change. We take this opportunity to describe relevant updates even if the status remains the same. Those details can be viewed in our Recommendation Status Dashboard.*
This report does not include recommendations made to Archives & Records Management, a division of our office, because the City Auditor is not independent from implementation decisions. We do include those recommendations in our Recommendation Status Dashboard.*
What are the limitations?
Information about the status of recommendations was provided to us by City leadership between February 2025 through July 2025. We do not always receive responses to our yearly request for updates. We do not require updates on recommendations from audits that are less than a year old, but we did make it optional. This year, given the magnitude of changes the City is going through, we asked for confirmation that previously implemented recommendations still were to ensure our reporting is based on the most accurate information.
How did we select which recommendations to highlight?
We flagged outstanding recommendations that:
- have an elevated risk,
- have direct equity impacts,
- are relevant to the City’s transition to a new form of government, or
- are aging out of our five-year review period.
Then, we summarized what was described to us by City leadership into focus areas representing barriers to implementing our recommendations.
* Please check later for updated information.
Project Team
Tenzin Gonta, Audit Services Deputy Director
Mason Atkin, Senior Performance Auditor
Jessica Lange, Senior Performance Auditor
Bob MacKay, Senior Performance Auditor
