The DOGE Method: Lots of Documents, Limited Testing, Very Big Numbers
This is the fifth in a series taking a deeper dive into the Hillsborough County DOGE Report.
The Hillsborough County DOGE committee says it found possible waste worth hundreds of millions of dollars. That is a serious claim, and serious claims require serious methods.
A real audit begins with a defined scope, written standards, full access to records, testing of transactions, interviews with responsible staff, comparison against policy and law, and a chance for management to answer the findings. Auditors document what they reviewed, how they selected samples, what evidence supported each conclusion, and what limits affected their work.
Appendix A is a 200-page document index, and it shows the committee had access to a large volume of material: contracts, amendments, invoices, payment files, budgets, payroll records, performance reports, procurement files, emails, grant files, health-care agreements, and more. The health-care material alone includes years of provider contracts and amendments for Tampa General, St. Joseph’s, Suncoast, Tampa Family Health Centers, AdventHealth, Moffitt, and others.
What Appendix A still does not prove is:
- how many of those records committee members actually read;
- which records supported each finding;
- whether they tested samples of claims or payments;
- whether they traced invoices to services;
- whether they checked prices against market rates;
- whether they interviewed providers or program users;
- whether they independently verified the county’s data.
A large document collection is not the same as a deep review.
However, the DOGE committee did something else. It met (somewhat) monthly as an advisory group, reviewed selected county spending, asked questions, received presentations and documents, and issued recommendations. In county terms, it functioned as an advisory body rather than an audit office. Its members were unpaid appointees serving on an advisory committee, not an audit team conducting work under government auditing standards.1
The report also does not provide transaction samples, sampling methods, or a finding-by-finding account of which records and staff discussions support each recommendation.
That does not make their work worthless. Citizens can spot weak controls, odd contracts, unused licenses, and programs that deserve a closer look. But it also means the report should be judged for what it is: a list of concerns and proposed cuts, not proof that hundreds of millions of dollars were wasted.
The committee’s own language often gives the game away. It calls for further review, states that spending “appears” duplicative, questions whether programs remain necessary, and acknowledges insufficient information to fully assess some areas. These are starting points for inquiry, not definitive findings.
The health care plan is a good example. The committee suggested that federal coverage may have made the county program obsolete, but also acknowledged that limited transparency in health care contracting prevented a full assessment of the program’s efficiency, effectiveness, and value. That should lead to a deeper review, not treating the entire program budget as established savings while the evidence remains incomplete.
Instead, the report attached an enormous potential savings figure to phasing out the program.
In other areas, the committee combined whole program budgets, contract and purchase-order amounts, unutilized balances, annual expenditures, and possible future reductions into one potential-savings total. Those figures do not all represent money spent, recoverable funds, or recurring savings.
A contract authorizing up to $10 million is not proof that $10 million was spent. An unspent reserve is not automatically waste. Ending an entire program is not an efficiency gain. A possible annual saving is not the same as a one-time balance.
Add enough unlike numbers together, and the result will be large. It will not necessarily be meaningful.
Committee chair Jake Hoffman described the work as a line-by-line review. However, reading a budget line and questioning its purpose is not equivalent to verifying whether funds were properly spent.2
Did the committee examine invoices? How many? Did it sample purchases? Trace payments to deliverables? Compare prices with competing vendors? Review utilization records? Interview program users? Test eligibility files? Measure outcomes? Calculate the cost of eliminating services?
The report lacks sufficient detail to demonstrate that this level of review occurred. Without this information, the evidence supporting the reported figure remains unclear.
In contrast, official county audits from Hillsborough’s audit offices are structured around objectives, evidence, testing, findings, management responses, and follow-up.3 These reports may be less exciting.
They also tend not to discover a few hundred million dollars before lunch.
The DOGE report may still be valuable. Its questions regarding software, fleets, procurement, contracting, and grants can help guide professional auditors and county staff to areas that merit further examination. This is the appropriate next step, as the report provides leads rather than conclusive evidence.
Each claim should be clearly defined, relevant records gathered, transactions tested, and results measured. Departments should have the opportunity to respond. Recurring savings must be distinguished from one-time funds, and reduced costs from eliminated services. Then publish only what the evidence supports. If waste is confirmed, address it. If weak controls are found, correct them.
If it reveals a political disagreement about what government should do, debate that honestly. What the county should not do is treat a large total as self-proving merely because it arrived in a report bearing the word “accountability.”
The DOGE method involved asking broad questions, conducting limited testing, making significant assumptions, and announcing a large figure.
That may create a headline. It does not create an audit.
