Standard for Good Governance

This page will explain how we arrived at the United States Government Accountability Office's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government.

You are here: Good Governance-- Standard for Good.

• After learning about the Standard for Good, Good Governance: --GAO's Green Book provides more details about the standard.

Governance

ACV found it difficult to critisize Arizona county governance without a clear standard for governance. We searched for a standard.

Definition of Governance

Per Merriam-Webster:

governance (noun) : the act or process of governing or overseeing the control and direction of something (such as a country or an organization)

Government vs. Governance

Government is the formal institution that exercises authority, while governance is the broader process of decision-making and implementation involving multiple actors.

Wikipedia Definition

For such a simple definition, Wikipedia has a lot say about governance. As of September 8, 2026, Wikipedia - Governance begins with, "Governance is the overall complex system or framework of processes, functions, structures, rules, laws and norms born out of the relationships, interactions, power dynamics and communication within an organized group of individuals."

Good Governance

What is Good Governance?

Within Wikipedia's discussion of Governance, the following is said about Good Governance:

"Good governance is an indeterminate term used in international development literature to describe various normative accounts of how public institutions ought to conduct public affairs and manage public resources. These normative accounts are often justified on the grounds that they are thought to be conducive to economic ends, such as the eradication of poverty and successful economic development. Different organisations have defined governance and good governance differently."

Emphasis on indeterminate was added by us. We felt like we had been victims of bad governance, but what does good look like. Your vision of good may not look like mine or the next guy's vision. Good governance is subjective and influenced by the observer.

The lack of a clear definition of "good governance" left ACV in a bind. How could we characterize bad governance if there wasn't a clear definition for good governance.

Multiple Definitions; Lack of a Single Definition

Internet searches for good governance will likely resulting consulting companies advertising themselves as being able improve governance.

Some organizations defined good governance, but again their definition aligned with the goal of the organization. These definitions were as biased as the corporate definitions.

Searches for government definitions of good governance were also elusive.

Consistent with Wikipedia's use of the term indeterminate, no one agreed upon definition of good governance could be found.

United States Government Accountability Office (GAO)

We never found a definition for good governance. However, we did find the standard for good "internal controls," which aligned with our vision of governance.

The source was the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO).

The standard was the Standards for Internal Control in Federal Government

GAO Purpose

GAO, often called the "congressional watchdog,” is an independent, non-partisan agency that works for Congress. GAO examines how taxpayer dollars are spent and provides Congress and federal agencies with objective, non-partisan, fact-based information to help the government save money and work more efficiently.

GAO History

The Budget and Accounting Act created GAO in 1921 when Congress realized the need to control growing government expenditures and debt after World War I. Until the end of World War II, GAO primarily checked the legality and adequacy of government expenditures.

After World War II, as government responsibilities and programs grew, so did GAO. The focus of our work shifted toward helping Congress monitor executive branch agencies’ programs and spending.

In 1974, Congress broadened GAO's evaluation role and gave us greater responsibility in the budget process. This was when we started to recruit scientists, actuaries, and experts in fields such as health care, public policy, and computers.

In 1986, we assembled a team of professional investigators, many with law enforcement backgrounds, to look into allegations of possible criminal and civil misconduct.

During the last 20 years, we’ve strived to improve accountability by alerting policymakers and the public to emerging problems throughout government.

In 2004, GAO's legal name changed from the General Accounting Office to the Government Accountability Office. The change reflected the agency’s expanding role in a growing federal government. Moving beyond financial audits, GAO began conducting performance audits—examining how government programs were performing and whether they were meeting their objectives.

In 2021, GAO celebrated a century of service as a source of objective, non-partisan information on government operations. Today, our agency that once checked millions of government vouchers has become a multidisciplinary organization equipped to handle Congress’s toughest audit and evaluation assignments.

We have looked at contemporary issues like opioid addiction, the gig economy, affordable housing, and food safety. The agency has also established a science and technology team to meet Congress’ growing need for information on cutting edge issues like artificial intelligence and infectious disease modeling. GAO also evaluated the largest response to a national emergency in U.S. history, the $2.6 trillion COVID-19 response legislation, and made recommendations about how to improve its effectiveness in dealing with public health issues and the economy.

US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government

The US GAO created the Standards for Internal Control in Federal Government (a.k.a. Green Book) as a result of the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act of 1982 (FMFIA). The FMFIA of 1982 amended the Accounting and Auditing Act of 1950 to strengthen internal controls across federal agencies. It mandates continuous evaluation and annual reporting on the effectiveness of internal accounting and administrative systems. Provides standards for establishing, maintaining, and evaluating internal control systems in government entities.

More details are available on the Good Governance: --GAO's Green Book. For now, you should know the Standards for Internal Control in Federal Government is a comprehensive document, consisting of 17 Principles and 196 attributes. ACV has a navigational page to these Green Book Principles and Attributes.

Applicability of the Standard

The GAO's standard is not applicable to any Arizona or Arizona County. The Standards for Internal Control in Federal Government states:

Section 3512 (c) and (d) of Title 31 of the United States Code, commonly known as the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act of 1982 (FMFIA), requires the Comptroller General to issue standards for internal control in the federal government. FMFIA requires federal executive branch entities to establish internal control in accordance with these standards. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government (known as the Green Book) provides the overall framework for establishing and maintaining an effective internal control system. The term internal control in this document covers all aspects of an entity’s objectives (operations, reporting, and compliance).

While not a requirement for Arizona or Arizona counties, the GAO standard includes the following statement acknowledging the standard may be adopted for local governments:

The Green Book may also be adopted by federal entities outside the executive branch and by nonfederal entities, such as state, local, and quasi-governmental entities and nonprofit organizations, as a framework for an internal control system. Management of an entity determines, based on applicable laws and regulations, how to appropriately adapt the standards presented in the Green Book as a framework for the entity.

ACV found the US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in Federal Government to be a fair standard to apply

Conclusion

ACV used the US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in Federal Government as a standard to judge county performance for the following reasons:

• The document was authored by a Federal Government agency in accordance with Federal laws. It's an authoritative source.
• While not required at the State and County level, the document specifically says it may be adopted by local governments.
• The document had the fidelity of 17 Principles, 196 Attributes and more from which specific county practices may be judged.

The title of the document does not include the word governance. The earlier Wikipedia definition of good governance included the phase, "describe various normative accounts of how public institutions ought to conduct public affairs and manage public resources."

In that regard, the Wikipedia phrase aligns with the US GAO's definition of internal controls, which is as follows:

OV1.01 Internal control is a process effected by an entity’s oversight body, management, and other personnel, designed to provide reasonable assurance that the objectives of an entity will be achieved. These objectives and related risks can be broadly classified into one or more of the following three categories: 
• Operations - Effectiveness and efficiency of operations 
• Reporting - Reliability of reporting for internal and external use 
• Compliance - Compliance with applicable laws and regulations 

ACV believes the GAO's Standards for Internal Control in Federal Government may be used for trending purpose. Our comparisons of county practices and behaviors to the Federal Standard are merely to collect data. We sought an objective standard to judge county performance and we believe the Federal Standard will serve that function.

Note: Additional information about the Federal Standard is available at Good Governance: --GAO's Green Book.