Massachusetts sheriffs’ – A new 190-page report from Massachusetts’ Office of the Inspector General says the state’s 14 county sheriff’s offices closed Fiscal Year 2025 with a historic $110 million combined deficit and that poor financial practices—described as “like the wild west”—inc
By the end of Fiscal Year 2025, Massachusetts’ 14 county sheriff’s offices were staring at a historic combined deficit of $110 million.
It’s the kind of number that draws scrutiny fast—and it’s exactly where the state’s watchdog focused. In a 190-page report released Monday. the Office of the Inspector General laid out how the offices’ budgets and expenditures spiraled amid what it described as underfunding. overspending. and a lack of oversight.
The report. issued by the Office of the Inspector General. examined budgets and expenditures across the Commonwealth’s 14 county sheriff’s offices. and it pointed to a long-running pattern: mismanaged finances. insufficient oversight. increased costs. lost revenues. and what the OIG called an “inconsistent understanding” of the sheriff’s role.
Inspector General Jeffrey Shapiro said the situation felt less like a government operation and more like something removed from rules and accounting discipline. “To put it in sheriffs’ terms, it’s a bit like the wild west,” Shapiro said in the OIG’s release.
In the investigation, the OIG said some of the practices it uncovered escalated to blatant violations of state finance laws. One of the most striking findings involved the use of private bank accounts.
The OIG identified more than 120 private bank accounts operated by sheriffs “outside the oversight and knowledge of the Commonwealth’s Treasurer and Comptroller.” In FY25 alone. more than $42 million was paid out from those accounts. By the end of the year, those accounts held balances of more than $36 million. The OIG said it could not determine whether sheriffs running those accounts followed through with their legal requirement to remit the accrued interest.
The report also described a blurred line between how money is supposed to be tracked and how it was actually used. Sheriffs were found to be regularly taking funds from payroll accounts to cover other expenses, a practice the OIG said made it impossible to identify the true cause of the deficits.
The OIG acknowledged that recent executive mandates have resulted in “additional financial demands,” but it said those factors still didn’t explain the offices’ large deficits.
Another set of problems. the OIG said. involved how civil process programs were handled and whether the financial recordkeeping matched what the Commonwealth requires. The agency found that sheriffs’ offices neglected recommendations to operate civil process programs under Commonwealth oversight and to record all fees and expenditures in the state accounting system.
The OIG described the civil process laws as “grossly out of date and needlessly complex.”
Even so. the watchdog said some departments told it they didn’t believe typical controls applied to civil process funds because they were “not taxpayer money.” Shapiro pushed back in plain terms in the OIG’s press release. “While it is true that the funds are not ‘taxpayer money’ in that they are not taxes. they are most definitely public funds. ” 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.”.
Shapiro also cautioned that not every concern applied to every sheriff’s office in Massachusetts. But he argued the breadth of the problems was wide enough to require action beyond individual offices.
In the report. Shapiro described the need to distinguish between different kinds of causes of deficits: “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.” He said the OIG made efforts “to not always paint these 14 offices and the sheriffs that lead them with one broad brush.”.
The response expected next is practical rather than purely rhetorical. The OIG issued short-term, medium-term, and long-term recommendations intended to ensure that sheriffs’ offices statewide have a “common understanding” of their “mandatory and discretionary functions.”
The Massachusetts Sheriffs’ Association said it will move toward standardizing practices across departments. Carrie Hill. the organization’s executive director. told The Boston Globe that the Sheriffs will evaluate the report’s findings and recommendations and study them as part of continued efforts to strengthen operations. enhance accountability. and ensure responsible use of public resources across the Commonwealth.
Massachusetts sheriffs Office of the Inspector General Jeffrey Shapiro finances deficits bank accounts Treasurer and Comptroller civil process funds state watchdog
Wild West money… so basically no one checked anything?
Wait, sheriffs had private bank accounts?? I’m shocked but also not, like how is that even legal. $110 million deficit sounds like wasted tax money.
Private accounts doesn’t mean they stole it though… maybe it was for payroll or something? The article kinda makes it sound like every sheriff just freehanded it. Also “inconsistent understanding of the sheriff’s role” like what does that even mean, are they doing the wrong job or the right job but budgeting wrong.
120 private accounts is insane, and then they say the OIG couldn’t determine if they followed the rules like hello, that’s the whole point. If they’re underfunded then why are the costs going up? Feels like they were just overspending and nobody in MA wants to admit it, and then it hits a huge deficit number and everyone pretends they’re surprised.