OIG Issues Final Report on Sheriffs’ Budgets

The Office of the Inspector General today released its Final Report of Sheriffs’ Budgets and Expenditures, as mandated by Section 164 of Chapter 73 of the Acts of 2025.

As stated in its preliminary report, the OIG found that the sheriffs’ budget process is chaotic with chronic underfunding and illegal overspending. Poor fiscal practices, increased mandated costs coupled with lost commission revenues, and an inconsistent understanding of the role of the sheriff (what is mandated and what is discretionary) have all contributed to the chaos. These issues have intensified over time and culminated in the sheriffs closing Fiscal Year 2025 with a historic combined deficit of $110 million, which prompted the Legislature to mandate this report.

“How we got to this point no longer matters. Sheriffs’ offices have been Commonwealth agencies for more than 25 years. It is time for the chaos to stop,” Inspector General Jeffrey S. Shapiro said. “The lack of a common understanding among sheriffs, lawmakers, and the Executive Office of Administration & Finance (A&F) on such foundational ideas as the role of the sheriff, what the state covers for mandated programs, how funds derived from civil process are to be handled, along with the common understanding that the sheriffs’ General Appropriation is not sufficient and supplemental funding is all but guaranteed has resulted in uncontrolled spending with little to no oversight. To put it in sheriffs’ terms, it’s a bit like the wild west.”

The OIG identified a number of practices that range from poor fiscal management and oversight to violations of state finance laws. For example, the OIG identified over 120 private bank accounts that the sheriffs operate outside the oversight and knowledge of the Commonwealth’s Treasurer and Comptroller. Together, these accounts registered over $42 million in expenditures during FY25 and held balances of over $36 million at the close of FY25. The OIG was unable to verify whether sheriffs remitted accrued interest to the General Fund as required by law.

Additionally, the sheriffs regularly transfer funds out of payroll accounts to cover other expenses which makes it impossible to determine the true drivers of their deficits. Recent executive mandates requiring sheriffs to provide medication-assisted treatment (MAT) to inmates with opioid use disorder and no cost calls have placed additional financial demands on sheriffs’ budgets and have removed a source of revenue. Yet neither of these programs alone are the cause of the skyrocketing deficit. The Legislature currently funds these programs through reserve accounts from which sheriffs are reimbursed for some expenses, but usually not all of them. The OIG found that the A&F does not release sheriffs’ reserve funding in a timely manner, often after the close of the fiscal year, causing additional financial pressure. Further, each sheriff and A&F do not have a common understanding of expenditures that are reimbursable through reserve accounts.

Finally, the OIG found that, despite recommendations by the State Auditor in 2010 and a Special Commission in 2013 that sheriffs bring civil process within the organization of the office and that sheriffs record civil process fees and expenditures in the state accounting system, there remains disparate programs that operate outside of state fiscal controls and oversight. The laws governing civil process are grossly out of date and needlessly complex. Most concerning is that many sheriffs’ departments – either directly or indirectly – do not believe the funds derived from civil process are “taxpayer money” and therefore typical controls do not apply to these funds. The OIG strongly objects to this idea. The Legislature has authorized the sheriffs to collect these funds, therefore they are public funds subject to the same level of fiscal accountability as all the public’s money.

“While it is true that the funds are not ‘taxpayer money’ in that they are not taxes, they are most definitely public funds,” IG Shapiro said. “Any funds collected by a public entity, whether they be taxes, fares, fines, or fees, are public and accordingly should be treated as such.”

IG Shapiro expressed optimism about the way forward based on the response to the OIG’s preliminary report. “I believe all stakeholders agree that past improper and illegal practices cannot continue. That said, solving the budget issues and eliminating deficit spending is a multi-year effort and will require compromise from all stakeholders,” IG Shapiro said.

“I also want to be clear that while Section 164 directed the OIG to look at ‘sheriffs’ offices’’ budgets and spending, we recognize that the Commonwealth has 14 separate offices that have behaved very differently under the same set of circumstances,” IG Shapiro said. “It is important to appreciate the difference between receiving a partial reimbursement for a mandatory program late in the fiscal year as compared to purchasing unnecessary equipment to perform a strictly discretionary activity. Both cause a deficit, but they are not the same scenario. We have done our best to make those distinctions and not always paint these 14 offices and the Sheriffs that lead them with one broad brush.”

The OIG appreciates the cooperation it received from all the sheriffs’ offices, including the Sheriffs personally and members of their organizations, across the board, A&F, the leadership of the House and Senate Ways and Means Committees, and the numerous other state agencies and stakeholders who responded to documents and interview requests by OIG investigators.

###