WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SD 3946

Final Report on Sheriffs’ Budgets and Expenditures

194th Legislature (2025-2026)

Massachusetts must reform sheriff budgets to halt off-system spending, close deficits, and enforce transparent, statutory-aligned funding with phased oversight and controls.

Placed on file
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SD 3946

Overview

  • SD 3946 (Session 194th) from Massachusetts concerns the Final Report on Sheriffs’ Budgets and Expenditures produced by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG).
  • Date: Final report dated June 1, 2026.
  • Purpose: Respond to a legislative directive (Section 164 of Chapter 73 of the Acts of 2025) to investigate sheriffs’ office spending, compliance with state finance law, and to propose reforms to ensure future compliance.

Main purpose and intent

  • Expose and address what the OIG characterizes as a chaotic and underfunded budget process for the 14 sheriff offices.
  • Assess compliance with state finance law (Chapter 29) and identify improper, illegal, or nontransparent spending and budgeting practices.
  • Provide a roadmap with phased recommendations (immediate, short-term, medium-term, long-term) to achieve sustainable, transparent, and compliant funding and operations.

Key provisions and changes analyzed

  • Detailed accounting of expenditures for Fiscal Year 2025, including both:
    • Expenditures recorded in MMARS (the Commonwealth’s central accounting system).
    • Off-MMARS expenditures from bank accounts and other revenue streams outside MMARS.
  • Analysis of compliance with Chapter 29 (state finance law) for FY2025.
  • Review of spending on activities not specifically required by statute, case law, or court order, and how such spending has changed over time.
  • Analysis of compensation levels and changes over the preceding three fiscal years, including comparisons among sheriff offices and to the Department of Correction.
  • Recommendations to ensure compliance with Chapter 29.

Findings highlighted by the report

  • The sheriff budget process is described as chaotic, with chronic underfunding and illegal overspending.
  • A prominent issue: long-standing practice by A&F and the Comptroller allowing sheriffs to transfer payroll funds to other accounts, masking deficits and enabling overspending.
  • Substantial fiscal activity outside the state accounting system (off-MMARS) complicates transparency and control.
  • Mandated expenses (e.g., no-cost inmate calls, medication-assisted treatment MAT) and lost revenue (e.g., no-cost-call revenue previously paid via commissions) strain budgets.
  • Civil-process revenue remittance practices are inconsistent across sheriffs, with some funds not fully flowing to General Fund.
  • Civil process and some law-enforcement activities fall into complex, sometimes ambiguously authorized areas, including special programs and intergovernmental agreements.
  • A large amount of cash-like balances held off-system (over $42 million in FY25 across 120+ bank accounts, with over $36 million in balances at year-end) creating internal-control weaknesses.
  • Unauthorized or questionable compensation in some sheriff offices as identified in the preliminary report, with ongoing debate about whether certain payments constitute unauthorized cash benefits or authorized benefits.

Stakeholder actions and context

  • Since the preliminary report (Feb 27, 2026), legislative bodies (House and Senate Ways and Means) have moved toward more granular sheriff appropriations, including separate line items for operational expenses, MAT, and no-cost calls in proposed FY27 budgets.
  • The Massachusetts Sheriffs’ Association and all 14 sheriffs express commitment to reform and greater transparency; several have already implemented cost-cutting measures (e.g., staff reductions, consolidations, and new budget pilots).
  • Proposals under consideration include a Sheriff Fiscal Oversight Council, enhanced controls by the Executive Office for Administration and Finance (A&F), and potential receivership or withholding of funds for noncompliant offices.

Who and what is affected

  • 14 county sheriff offices (and 1 interim sheriff) across Massachusetts.
  • Commonwealth agencies involved in budgeting and accounting (A&F, Comptroller, Treasurer).
  • Legislators and budget writers (House and Senate Ways and Means Committees) and the Massachusetts Sheriffs’ Association.
  • Inmates and county correctional facilities affected by MAT, no-cost calls, and civil-process operations due to budgeting and program funding changes.

Procedural and timeline aspects

  • Directive: To review FY2025 spending, assess compliance with Chapter 29, analyze non-mandated spending, examine compensation, and propose corrective actions.
  • Preliminary report filed February 27, 2026; final report filed June 1, 2026.
  • Recommendations are organized into timeframes:
    • Immediate recommendations for FY2026
    • Short-term recommendations for FY2027
    • Medium-term recommendations for FY2028
    • Long-term recommendations for FY2029
  • Upcoming budget actions referenced include FY27 budget proposals from the House and Senate with more granular line items and oversight mechanisms.

Notable data points (from the report)

  • FY2025 MMARS funding to sheriffs: $777,825,806 (state-funded, MMARS-tracked).
  • FY2025 expenditures: $887,821,873 (deficit of about $110 million relative to appropriations and transfers).
  • Major payroll share: $642,433,298 (including $74,222,996 in overtime; $84,874,101 in leave buyback and related payments).
  • Inmate medical and MAT costs highlighted: $64,400,949 (medical), including $14,109,971 vendor costs for MAT.
  • No-cost calls fund and reimbursements: longstanding funding and reimbursements via the Communications Access Trust Fund, with quarterly reporting requirements to A&F; reimbursements often lag and do not cover all overhead.

Conclusion

  • The final report presents a authoritative, data-driven call for structural reform of sheriffs’ budgeting and spending practices in Massachusetts.
  • It emphasizes the need for clearer roles and funding ceilings, consolidation of off-system accounts, tighter controls on discretionary spending, and transparent, itemized budgeting aligned with statutory responsibilities.
  • While not advocating for a single solution, the report outlines phased steps and governance measures intended to halt deficits and restore compliance and public accountability.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.