Georgia auditors outline financial and performance audit work, flag recurring control weaknesses and upcoming reviews

Department of Audits and Accounts officials told the House appropriations committee on Wednesday that their office conducts both financial (including single) audits and one‑time performance audits to support legislative oversight of state and local spending.

The Department’s leaders said their financial audits aim to provide reasonable assurance that agencies’ financial statements “fairly present the position, the performance, and the cash flows” and that single‑audit work tests federal program compliance under the Uniform Guidance. Christina Turner, deputy state auditor, told the committee the office audited roughly 31 state agencies and 13 colleges in fiscal 2024 and tested about 72 percent of the state’s federal expenditures as part of the statewide single audit.

Why it matters: The department’s findings feed legislative and executive decisions, affect the state’s bond rating and flag areas where state agencies risk losing federal funds or running afoul of grant rules. Committee members asked about local school audits, COVID‑era federal funds and whether the audit office enforces compliance or refers potential criminal matters to law enforcement.

The auditors described common, recurring financial weaknesses. Turner said the most frequent financial findings fall into three areas: broad accounting control deficiencies, weaknesses in information‑technology access and change controls, and asset/liability reporting errors. “A lot of times we go into an organization and they say, ‘well, we do it; we just don’t document it,’ ” Turner said, urging formal policies, timely reconciliations and documentation to support controls.

Matt Taylor, deputy director of the performance audit division, explained how performance audits differ: they are topic‑specific, can examine efficiency and effectiveness over multiple years and often result in recommendations rather than audit opinions. Taylor summarized recent performance audits requested by the General Assembly, including a December review of local victims assistance programs, a recent review of the Georgia Public Defender Council and work on the State Health Benefit Plan and the University System of Georgia (USG).

Examples and findings discussed to the committee included: - Local victims assistance program: auditors found the State Victim Services Commission (created by law in 2004) had never been assembled, limiting statewide oversight and producing inconsistent local distribution methods for victim services funding. - Georgia Public Defender Council: auditors found regular year‑end transfers between programs with limited documentation, irregular monthly spending above allotments, and absence of a documented salary schedule required by law; the council plans to spend ARPA funds for conflict cases and repeatedly requests midyear appropriations, the report said. - State Health Benefit Plan / USG: auditors estimated that moving University System of Georgia employees into the State Health Benefit Plan would increase costs substantially (the audit estimated roughly $177 million per year under several assumptions) and noted that prescription and specialty drugs and higher enrollment rates drive much of recent cost growth. - State purchasing / competitive bidding: a review of six agencies found most procurement complied with competitive bidding rules, but data and aggregation issues made detecting instances of unbundled purchases difficult; the committee was told the $25,000 bidding threshold has not changed since 2015 and that competitive bidding imposes staff/time costs as well as potential savings. - Georgia Composite Medical Board: auditors found incomplete criminal background checks, inconsistent documentation of investigations and variable sanctions; the department recommended stronger documentation and broader board composition.

On federal grants and the single audit: Turner reiterated that programs exceeding the single‑audit threshold ($750,000 in federal expenditures) are subject to federal program testing; Medicaid is audited annually because of its size, and the department continues to test COVID‑related spending into future single audits because related programs run through 2025. The auditors said unresolved prior‑year findings often reflect resource constraints, unclear ownership, or resistance to change rather than audit error.

On enforcement and criminal referrals: Turner said the department is primarily a reporting body, not an enforcer; when auditors identify potential criminal activity they typically provide information to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation or local law enforcement, which then take over investigative work.

The auditors also described modernizing tools: Turner and Taylor said the department increasingly uses data analytics and AI tools to target anomalous records and improve efficiency — for example, narrowing hundreds of records to a small set of exceptions for follow‑up. Taylor noted the department staff has grown to roughly 35 and previewed upcoming releases, including reports on health‑care facility regulation, retired teachers returning to work, Family Connections, the rural hospital tax credit (an annual required review), state parks and workforce development.

Committee members asked several operational questions: how often local school systems are audited (the department generally issues financial and single‑audit reports for districts that expend federal funds), whether DOE program reviews feed state audit work (they do), and how audits are distributed to legislators and the public (audit reports and summaries are published on the department website and emailed to legislators and media).

The department’s presentation emphasized that audits inform legislative decisions rather than enforce penalties and that many findings persist because agencies lack resources or clear accountability for remediation. The committee adjourned after questions.