[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6097769,"mediaKeyId","2826482-fc0b6ac9586bd3e2fa2c47ec090653c2","parentId",2826482,"title","Arizona misses federal audit deadline again; state officials say reforms and extra staff have cut delays","audioSeconds",251,"startMs",14291000,"endMs",14542000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2826482-fc0b6ac9586bd3e2fa2c47ec090653c2&start=14291&end=14542","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2826482-fc0b6ac9586bd3e2fa2c47ec090653c2/thumbnail_14291000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6097769/Arizona/Arizona-misses-federal-audit-deadline-again-state-officials-say-reforms-and-extra-staff-have-cut-delays","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6097769-081ecc767e084c19f069183f47b4913b/orig.mp4?Expires=1770489348&Signature=egHqvebMGXkH4d5HEMoz8AlGHdFA-CBCMHwrbS36sG7HyLtySWzKOUxEaubJ3l8OeI1ZUooiVQAJYTMJfkeuyy-Bd4Pt-LU1N4hAO~9GYcLhi4TlW6ZH0kOKuRrD5H16IvDchS2OSq9wMMEj5ayLS3ZEJsWXp-Lp0rMWPDXQ29xAHuirPHgUAFZruDBiaLPURivRlu74TcSxnY7266tWmk3~UHJ7O3GVs8Lwe~i29bqaCWIEgHo6deLEqveb4N3je64Lif8-8Np-zfySpybcE8A0UVcUkRgfpQFtEXu2qLBscT0VRoqqQlDmopuMHUl5NzySJnxVF9kdmTLn-O5-Jw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Arizona Legislature","date","2025-03-28T00:00:00Z","article","The Joint Legislative Audit Committee was updated on March 12, 2025 about continued delays in Arizona’s fiscal‑year financial statements and the federal single audit. Auditors said the state will again miss the federally required March 31 deadline for FY24 audits but reported measurable improvements over the previous year.

The status: why the state is late

Catherine Edwards Decker, financial audit division director at the Auditor General’s office, told the committee that FY24 audits are due Monday, March 31, but the office already knew Arizona would not meet that deadline. She said the Auditor General’s office started FY24 audit work in January 2025 to accelerate the process and had increased resources, including overtime and contracted auditors, to help close gaps.

‘‘We are seeing improvements with ADOA’s timelines,’’ Decker said, noting the draft of the federal schedule of expenditures of federal awards (the CIFA) was provided six months earlier than in the prior year. She warned, however, that continued delays could produce federal actions such as additional cash monitoring, withholding of funds, or other compliance measures that carry financial and operational consequences.

Agency steps and prospects

State comptroller Ashley Racinas told JLAC that the Department of Administration has used ARPA funds to create a Financial Consulting Group to assist agencies with technical guidance and process improvements. She said the state expects the Department of Economic Security (DES) to finalize outstanding adjustments so ADOA can submit a complete CIFA; DES submitted final drafts on March 14 and the state expected to review and return comments by March 31. Racinas said those steps and the extra staffing led to an estimated five‑month improvement in issuance timelines compared with FY23.

ACCESS (Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System), which oversees Medicaid payment flows, said it had completed most fieldwork and was building FY25 documentation while the FY24 drafts were under review. ‘‘We are effectively working on our 25 audit right now, while we wait for the other teams to complete their work,’’ ACCESS staff said.

Risks of continued delays

Auditors told the committee that prolonged audit delays can trigger federal consequences, increase monitoring and potentially lead to withheld federal funds or lower credit ratings for state borrowing. They also said late reporting can hamper agencies’ ability to correct deficiencies promptly, which can increase year‑to‑year audit workloads and findings.

What lawmakers asked and next steps

Committee members sought clarity about who bears responsibility for missed deadlines and whether ADOA can impose internal penalties on agency leaders for late submissions. Auditors said they were not aware of statutory penalties for agency heads and identified ADOA as the central coordinator responsible for compiling and providing audited data. Members asked for further details and a short progress briefing at the next JLAC meeting.

Ending

Officials said improvements are real but fragility persists: several agencies must meet immediate data deadlines and provide clean, final information to ADOA so auditors can issue consolidated FY24 reports and begin on-time FY25 work. The Auditor General and ADOA pledged to provide additional updates to JLAC about progress and possible federal responses.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","03/28/2025 - Joint Legislative Audit Committee","oneSentenceSummary","The Auditor General and state finance officials told JLAC March 12 that Arizona will miss the March 31 federal deadline for FY24 audits but that process reforms and extra staffing have shortened the delay compared with the prior year.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature Arizona, Arizona","taxId",78572,"location","Arizona","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6097773,"State audit finds nursing-home complaint investigations often late or incomplete; ADHS says improvements underway",1296,10296000,11592000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2826482-fc0b6ac9586bd3e2fa2c47ec090653c2&start=10296&end=11592","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2826482-fc0b6ac9586bd3e2fa2c47ec090653c2/thumbnail_10296000.jpg","/articles/6097773/Arizona/State-audit-finds-nursing-home-complaint-investigations-often-late-or-incomplete-ADHS-says-improvements-underway","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6097773-de91c57435477b74045fe18f0edeb1ef/orig.mp4?Expires=1770489348&Signature=MRqjmDDVFw9d1xqMXKxTOicOem-azAfnh5Bhmzw9usfrGK36OXI0GxsnkAOB62OjHa04~DuhPQ7dCiW4tXtprEBnYYccC4PY2Tr8facS0ZA44SBWzJzvJWmUg2nVn805TtC5E~xJnI5fbQuk4mV~L9~rt0mm9cLpz7ygH4gl68L-vgf1zo8-SQ0BWyqfBLU1B174KXVN1OqvQD8sqdrmr333SIIS-lwy2oafV5XL-iii0kH~cS8CEtu7OssVgVCStVmWMRpnSAAOn-o3KB4KBR7FJTXW8T8YuLKo09B7QFtIGR8EmMPjUefg65uXu2S86kDFEOqNEgVRIBViypRocQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A long-term chain of Auditor General reviews and follow-ups on Arizona Department of Health Services’ (ADHS) handling of nursing-home complaints concluded March 12 with auditors reporting progress on some fronts and persistent, serious gaps on others.

Auditor General findings

Jeff Gove of the Auditor General’s office summarized a series of audits dating to 2019 that found the department failed to investigate many complaints alleging abuse, neglect and hazardous conditions. The 2019 audit identified 70 complaints and self-reports in a sample; auditors said 50 of those files had no evidence of a completed investigation. ‘‘Of the 70 complaints and self reports we reviewed, we found that 50 were not investigated and did not contain any evidence that the department had completed an investigation,’’ Gove said.

Auditors said ADHS often misclassified complaints, assigning a large percentage as medium priority even when allegations met federal criteria for higher priorities that require faster on-site responses. The committee heard examples in which complaints involving serious injury or likely harm were prioritized too low; auditors’ contractor found 28 incidents in a random sample that should have been classified as immediate jeopardy and 23 that should have been high priority.

Why the review stalled and what’s needed

Gove said auditors could not complete a full assessment of investigation timeliness because ADHS had not provided unredacted records tied to federal CMS files. The Auditor General reported it had worked with CMS and that the federal agency had approved a data-use approach, but ADHS had not yet returned a signed data‑use agreement for the Auditor General to sign. ‘‘At the end of the week of March 10, CMS approved us to enter into the agreement with the department… However, as of today, we are still waiting for the department to sign and send us the agreement for Auditor General signature,’’ Gove told the committee.

ADHS response and improvements

Tom Salo, assistant director for licensing at ADHS, said the department has focused on hiring and retaining qualified compliance officers who hold the Surveyor Minimum Qualifications Test (SMQT) required to prioritize and investigate complaints independently. ‘‘We have not had anyone in that bureau leave in the past 6 months,’’ Salo said, and the department reported it has raised the percentage of complaints prioritized as high (A/B) from single digits in earlier years to more than 40% in its most recent reporting period.

ADHS reported a larger workload: more than 6,700 complaint intakes in state FY24, roughly 560 per month, and said it is increasing investigations and improving quality-control checks, including monthly spot-sampling of intakes. Salo said the department has completed hundreds more investigations in the current year compared with earlier years and that some capacity increases are producing results.

Remaining gaps and next steps

Auditors said ADHS still needs to improve consistent prioritization, ensure comprehensive initial information gathering and document unsuccessful attempts to obtain prioritization details from reporters. Until the Auditor General obtains the unredacted CMS material and can perform investigation-timeliness analyses, two recommendations about investigation timeframes remain unassessed.

The committee pressed ADHS to expedite the data‑use agreement process; chair Mark Finchem asked for an update by the committee’s next meeting. Lawmakers emphasized urgency, noting the findings relate to health, safety and potential criminal investigations involving facility care.

Ending

ADHS said it will continue hiring, increase training, and work with CMS and the Auditor General to provide the required data for a full audit. Auditors said they will begin the investigation-timeliness review as soon as the signed data-use agreement is in place.","The Auditor General told JLAC that Arizona Department of Health Services failed to investigate or timely investigate many long-term care complaints, but ADHS said staffing, new quality controls and improved prioritization are narrowing the gap; auditors await an unredacted CMS data agreement to complete investigation-timeliness testing.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6097779,"Auditors flag conflict-of-interest gaps at PSPRS; trustees defend new disclosure process",1002,6437000,7439000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2826482-fc0b6ac9586bd3e2fa2c47ec090653c2&start=6437&end=7439","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2826482-fc0b6ac9586bd3e2fa2c47ec090653c2/thumbnail_6437000.jpg","/articles/6097779/Arizona/Auditors-flag-conflict-of-interest-gaps-at-PSPRS-trustees-defend-new-disclosure-process","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6097779-994fa3c6a1b54aa9332c809d0dcc4d8a/orig.mp4?Expires=1770489348&Signature=mcBSBwclODfgYH6NbBtFsdx~aPbfEwdeUUL5KpBb~zea-csfZ7xLe7~JjrXBm7UxQzpa8VfW6zzydAY4iHg4uPMfDhMZ62Zbpssj4CBeMP8O02oquaekE5Om6AcG6n0MhiucoJyIzqRpOrdMuJyX6m7YwPxZpVFbdMzD6pay6VSnzkpNsHoZ0TPc03Tkt~Mhosh7xvOToecKsd-JITa2YjAIEQ2xwPU3rHm96v3fUlrsI1XTPF0GDAUJa3u9aHN-o9v6h-yNvFZuREUUyX4yF2AoCL26xH1B8iYzoRcCA4Iy175atFkLnMNvcxfzyygOofXQfP~nmDibTgnf0~vQig__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A follow-up briefing on the Public Safety Personnel Retirement System (PSPRS) on March 12, 2025 exposed continuing questions about the retirement system’s conflict-of-interest policies and recordkeeping even as trustees said they have tightened disclosure procedures and engaged outside counsel.

The Auditor General reported that the system’s 2023 review found a former administrator had undeclared business relationships with two former board members and that the three ‘‘failed to disclose these relationships either in a conflict of interest disclosure form or at a public meeting,’’ the auditor said. Auditors recommended the system develop and document conflict-of-interest policies and keep all substantial-interest disclosures in a special file for public inspection.

Auditors’ findings and examples

Patrick Jannett from the Auditor General’s office told the committee his staff found multiple disclosures in 2023 and 2024 that had not been documented in a public special file and that the system did not consistently document its review or remediation of potential substantial interests. He described specific examples, including a board member and an executive employee who disclosed a business relationship in which the employee received compensation from the board member; a senior portfolio manager who disclosed ownership of an investment-related business; and board members who disclosed personal investments held in the system’s portfolio.

The Auditor General said the office had not concluded whether the disclosed matters constituted “substantial interests” under statute because the system did not provide contemporaneous documentation of legal review and remediation. ‘‘Absent procedures for assessing these reported conflicts...we lacked evidence to review that would allow us to determine if we agree with the system's conclusions,’’ Jannett said.

PSPRS response: tighter procedures, outside counsel and oversight

PSPRS Administrator Mike Townsend told JLAC the system has changed policies and created a review process that routes potential disclosures to general counsel and fiduciary counsel and that PSPRS had developed a broader review population to ensure potential issues are identified. He said the system believes its processes are now more rigorous and that remaining documentation issues can be remedied before the next follow-up.

Trustee Harry Papp, PSPRS vice chair and chair of the investment committee, acknowledged past failures and defended current procedures. He described recent disclosure examples and said outside counsel (Gallagher & Kennedy) and internal counsel had reviewed disclosures. Papp told the committee he and trustees have worked to rebuild trust and that many disclosures are immaterial but were being filed out of an abundance of caution: ‘‘Disclosure is like sun — the sunlight cures an awful lot of problems,’’ Papp said.

Historical matters and oversight

The Auditor General recounted past incidents, including a March 2018 home purchase and a subsequent retroactive pay increase, that implicated prior leadership and led to corrective recommendations. The office said it referred aspects of the earlier work to the Attorney General’s office for further review.

What lawmakers pressed for

Committee members asked whether legal counsel’s review was independent and whether the system had attempted to recoup prior inappropriate reimbursements. The Auditor General said it had not found evidence that the system had sought to claw back improper payments and that the office had provided its report to the Attorney General for further action.

Next steps

PSPRS said it will work with the Auditor General to provide the audit trail and documentation the auditors requested. The Auditor General said it will revisit the outstanding recommendations in its next follow-up review.

Ending

Lawmakers and trustees agreed on the need for documented procedures and transparent public records to prevent conflicts and protect trust in a large public pension fund. PSPRS trustees said they will continue implementing documentation and review steps and that outside counsel reviews will be shared with auditors to the extent permissible.

","The Auditor General reported legacy undisclosed relationships and current disclosure-process gaps at the Public Safety Personnel Retirement System; trustees say new procedures and outside counsel reviews now govern disclosures.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6097784,"Auditors find mixed progress at Arizona School for the Deaf and the Blind; JLAC orders forensic and performance audits",1385,383000,1768000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2826482-fc0b6ac9586bd3e2fa2c47ec090653c2&start=383&end=1768","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2826482-fc0b6ac9586bd3e2fa2c47ec090653c2/thumbnail_383000.jpg","/articles/6097784/Arizona/Auditors-find-mixed-progress-at-Arizona-School-for-the-Deaf-and-the-Blind-JLAC-orders-forensic-and-performance-audits","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6097784-cd666f1b7b113b0082a54e1206853b59/orig.mp4?Expires=1770489348&Signature=Iwl3Vk~A-0Ijop8c6MDFwjKVpzfVlM8i1B5NItb4UBljFFHnlSdTA14lUxNjWWfL~FoEwJxwUXBCrAsAT-TMylnOG4Zoa6qTT949Nfj0ql9UxSxaX~0DPC~~N2TSiJv8CdPx6SGvq4LZsqQcQXXi3ekEGUi8KB6A9weptLB3w4O2TZnVsg7Nq6LiPujBnwdhUAx7VFCbl8cPg8DMaA93nOhfp2E8tg2bBSmA6i2juqZA~N8cHpCmO1trk3G~2tikUwp8F44FX4Pnjo7hOoITnaCgMWv5sbaoff5UNlNXmcObPW9J-Y6-iyY2bUJ14rieyepOBR0VX1AcQytS1PM3Kg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A legislative audit presentation on the Arizona State Schools for the Deaf and the Blind (ASDB) on March 12, 2025 showed partial progress implementing prior Auditor General recommendations while raising fresh questions about fees, capital planning and public disclosure of conflict-of-interest filings.

The Auditor General’s office told the Joint Legislative Audit Committee that ASDB had implemented four of 15 recommendations from its 2022 performance audit, had taken steps on nine recommendations and had not implemented two. ‘‘We made 15 recommendations to ASDB. As of our 24 month follow-up, ASDB had implemented 4 of these recommendations,’’ Auditor General presenter Dale Chapman said during the meeting.

Why it matters: ASDB provides specialized education statewide, operates two campuses (Phoenix and Tucson) and an itinerant services program that sends teachers into public and tribal schools. The Auditor General said enrollment at the Phoenix campus fell about 37% since 2019 and itinerant program participation also declined, while some ASDB-held program funds grew substantially, prompting concern about whether fees and reimbursements match program costs.

Audit findings and agency response

Auditors said ASDB lacked a comprehensive multiyear capital improvement plan in the 2022 audit but has since developed a 3-year capital-improvement plan and contracted a master facility plan. The Auditor General told the committee ASDB’s FY26 capital plan includes project estimates that together top $100 million, including nearly $71 million for FY26–28 and two high‑priority projects: a Tucson campus consolidation and a new Phoenix birth‑to‑5 center.

ASDB Superintendent Annette Reichman told lawmakers the agency recognizes aging facilities and the shift in service demand. ‘‘We have been in the last couple of years going back to the original statutes for ASDB to determine what it is the statutes are requiring us to do,’’ Reichman said. She said the Tucson campus buildings average about 50 years of age and that a significant renovation or rebuild could require roughly $50 million.

Auditors raised concern about ASDB’s itinerant services fund. The report showed the cooperative services fund balance rose from roughly $4.4 million at the end of FY21 to more than $13 million at the end of FY24, while program revenues exceeded expenses by about $2.4 million in FY24. The Auditor General recommended ASDB analyze program costs and revise fees and voucher reimbursements accordingly; auditors said ASDB had begun analyses but had not yet adjusted fees. Chapman's office noted ASDB plans fee revisions in fiscal year 2026.

Conflict-of-interest and complaint policies

The Auditor General also found ASDB had revised conflict-of-interest procedures (for employees and board members) and increased completion of disclosure forms and training, but it had not yet stored substantial-interest disclosures in a single public file as required by statute. Reichman said ASDB had transitioned to an electronic HR records system and then implemented a separate paper file to ensure availability for public inspection.

Next steps and formal actions

At JLAC’s direction, the Auditor General issued two requests for proposals and contracted separately for a forensic audit and a performance audit of ASDB. The committee directed the office to complete a forensic audit (contracted to Forensic Strategic Solutions) and a performance audit (contracted to Sikich). The Auditor General said both reports and the sunset review are scheduled for completion by October 1, 2026.

The committee’s action aims to examine ASDB’s financial activities, operations and student outcomes more deeply than the prior follow-up could do.

What lawmakers asked and what remains open

Committee members pressed ASDB about whether the two-campus residential model still best serves a state that has seen declining birth rates and shifting educational models. Reichman said many students are already served through itinerant services and local IEP teams determine placement on a case‑by‑case basis. She also said some students still require campus-based or residential services because of the intensity of their needs.

Auditors and members flagged several remaining items that require evidence of implementation: (1) explicit procedures and documentation showing how ASDB will revise itinerant fees and voucher payments; (2) storage of all substantial-interest disclosures in a public file; and (3) formal documentation showing how ASDB will finance major capital projects.

The Auditor General said its forthcoming contract audits will report on outstanding recommendations and on educational outcomes, including comparative work with other states. ‘‘We will report on ASDB's efforts to address the outstanding recommendations as part of that review along with the results from both the performance audit and the forensic audit,’’ Dale Chapman said.

Ending

ASDB leaders pledged cooperation with contracted auditors and asserted the agency is taking steps to address the Auditor General’s recommendations while noting statutory constraints and funding limits. JLAC members said they will follow the contract audits and may consider statutory changes if lawmakers conclude Arizona’s delivery model should be adjusted.

","The Joint Legislative Audit Committee heard that ASDB has implemented some audit recommendations but still lacks full compliance on capital planning, fee policy and conflict-of-interest recordkeeping; JLAC contracted separate forensic and performance audits due Oct. 1, 2026.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Arizona misses federal audit deadline again; state officials say reforms and extra staff have cut delays

State audit finds nursing-home complaint investigations often late or incomplete; ADHS says improvements underway

Auditors flag conflict-of-interest gaps at PSPRS; trustees defend new disclosure process

Auditors find mixed progress at Arizona School for the Deaf and the Blind; JLAC orders forensic and performance audits