Auditor General gives Maricopa County clean financial opinion but flags IT controls, inventory and grant‑reporting problems

The Arizona Auditor General presented Maricopa County’s fiscal year 2024 audit results to the Board of Supervisors on June 9, saying the county’s financial statements received an unmodified (clean) opinion while auditors reported four internal‑control findings and one federal single‑audit finding.

Melanie Chesney, deputy auditor general for the Arizona Auditor General’s Office, told the board the office provides “impartial information and specific recommendations to improve the operations and programs of state and local governments,” and that the presentation was made under “Arizona revised statutes 11 6 61 d,” which directs the county board to receive audit results in a regular meeting within 90 days of audit completion.

The audit’s key overall finance finding was positive: T. J. Wilhelm, the deputy manager assigned to Maricopa County audits, said, “For fiscal year 20 24, we reported an unmodified or clean opinion,” meaning the auditors found the county’s financial statements to be reliable for the year ended June 30, 2024. Wilhelm noted the financial‑statement report and the federal single‑audit report were completed on the agreed dates (financials issued 12/19/2024; single audit 03/31/2025) and that the Auditor General provided two‑page highlights summarizing revenues, expenses and key findings.

Why it matters

Although auditors issued a clean opinion on the financial statements, the office reported deficiencies it said the county must address. Those findings affect internal controls, federal grant reporting and program reporting to the Arizona Department of Education and could lead to follow‑up actions or repayments if federal reviewers require them.

What auditors found and county responses

- IT policies and data classification. The audit noted county administration and Enterprise Technology had developed new IT policies and procedures during fiscal 2024 but had not completed board approval and full implementation during that fiscal year. County management told the board the data classification policy was approved in December 2024 and the county has procured Varonis software to identify and classify data. Shay McGrew, chief technology officer for Enterprise Technology and Innovation, said the county has deployed Varonis, trained data stewards and is rolling out training to end users to classify and tag documents.

- Inventory misstatement at the sheriff’s office. Auditors reported a $6.6 million inventory overstatement in the detention operations fund tied to the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO). Michelle Walters, audit manager, said the error related to MCSO recording “over 600,000 inmates sack lunches” in inventory counts, and that supervisory review failed to detect the miscount. Jim Prindiville, chief financial officer for MCSO, described the cause as “total human error” and said finance staff will add review controls to prevent recurrence. The county corrected the misstatement before the financial statements were issued on Dec. 19, 2024, and officials expect to implement recommended controls by June 30, 2025.

- Juvenile detention education reporting. Auditors found the County School Superintendent’s Office reported juvenile detention education program operations to the Arizona Department of Education as separated from the accommodation school beginning in fiscal 2020, but that the program had not been fully separated in practice. The superintendent’s office received $4.5 million from ADE for fiscal years 2020–2024 related to those operations. Superintendent Boggs told the board the issue had been corrected prior to the current superintendent’s tenure and the office is working with county managers to maintain the correction.

- Federal subaward reporting (FFATA). The single‑audit report found the human services department failed to report required information on the federal FFATA reporting site for roughly $950,000 in subawards in fiscal 2024 (4 of 9 subawards tested lacked required details such as subrecipient names, amounts and terms). Tamara Bridwell, director of human services, said the omission was an oversight that was corrected in February 2025 and that office procedures have been tightened.

- Emergency Rental Assistance follow‑up. A prior federal single‑audit finding involving the emergency rental assistance program remains partially corrected while county staff await a determination from the U.S. Department of the Treasury on whether any costs must be repaid. County staff reported a potential repayment amount of about $60,001.09 is under review.

Board questions and follow‑up

Supervisors asked for clarification on terms and timelines. Supervisor Lesko pressed auditors and county staff on why IT policies remained incomplete during the audit period; county management and Enterprise Technology responded that board approval was obtained after the audit period and that data classification and identity‑and‑access programs are being implemented. Supervisors also asked about training and phishing resilience; McGrew said the county uses annual security awareness training, phishing tests, a “report phish” button in Outlook and targeted training for staff who repeatedly fail simulated phishing exercises.

Auditors noted prior‑year work. Michelle Walters said the county reported four of eight prior‑year audit findings as fully corrected (including one that had identified nearly $47.1 million in capital‑asset misstatements in a prior year), while other prior items were partially corrected and will be evaluated in the fiscal 2025 audit.

Formal actions

No board votes on the audit presentation were recorded. After the public presentation concluded, Supervisor Lesko moved to convene an executive session; the motion passed unanimously by the supervisors present and the board recessed the public portion of the meeting.

What happens next

Auditors recommended the county implement or complete policies, strengthen supervisory review and inventory procedures, report subawards promptly on the federal reporting site, and work with grantors to resolve any questioned costs. County officials provided implementation dates or said they had already taken corrective steps for several findings; the board and county staff indicated they will monitor implementation and that some items will be re‑evaluated in the fiscal 2025 audits.

Ending

The Auditor General’s presentation concluded after questions from supervisors; county staff described steps already taken to address several findings and said they expect to complete implementation of other recommendations in the coming fiscal year.