|
| Sheriff's Office Risk Assessment – January 2012 |
|
|
|
The object of the Risk Assessment was to identify operational functions within the Sheriff's Office and to gain an understanding of the key risks to the Sheriff's Office strategic objectives. We assigned a risk ranking to 30 MCSO key functions; thirteen were rated high risk. A risk assessment is used by auditors to prepare an audit plan that focuses limited audit resources in the areas where they can have the most impact.
|
|
|
|
| Maricopa County Sheriff's Office - Vehicle Usage Review – December 2011 |
|
|
|
This review focused on MCSO's compliance with vehicle-related policies. MCSO needs to strengthen adherence to certain policy provisions relating to vehicle insurance and take home vehicles.
|
|
|
|
| Maricopa County Attorney's Office - Expenditure Review – July 2011 |
|
|
|
We reviewed a sample of MCAO transactions to determine if expenditures were appropriate, adequately documented, and in compliance with County policies and applicable laws, rules, and regulation. We found instances where expenditure controls could be strengthened.
|
|
|
|
| Human Services Department – July 2011 |
|
|
|
In FY 2010, Human Services Department received $53.5 million in federal and state grants, including $9.4 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) economic stimulus grants. Due to the high grant revenues, our review was focused largely on grant reimbursements and related contracts and agreements. We found grant reimbursements are timely; however, contract administration could be improved.
|
|
|
|
| American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) – July 2011 |
|
|
|
The Federal Government has awarded Maricopa County $62.6 million in ARRA funds which have been allocated to 13 County agencies. As of May 31, 2011, these agencies have collectively received $47.7 million. Based upon our review of the County's ARRA activities, it appears Maricopa County has implemented adequate procedures to comply with Federal accountability and transparency requirements.
|
|
|
|
| Non-Departmental – July 2011 |
|
|
|
The Non-Departmental Agency (ND) accounts for $1.2 billion (53%) of the County's FY 2011 budget. The County uses ND to track expenditures that benefit the whole County or multiple County agencies. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) oversees the ND budget and authorizes expenditures. We focused on determining whether OMB adequately monitors ND expenditures.
|
|
|
|
| Department of Transportation – June 2011 |
|
|
|
Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) is responsible for providing transportation infrastructure and related services to people within Maricopa County so they can live, work, conduct business, and travel in a safe and clean environment. MCDOT is currently responsible for 2,048 paved miles and 446 miles of dirt roads. We found that controls over construction project management and information technology need improvement.
|
|
|
|
| Flood Control District (FCD) – June 2011 |
|
|
|
FCD is responsible for providing floodplain management within all unincorporated areas of Maricopa County, as well as incorporated areas, unless the jurisdiction assumes the responsibility. Internal controls over cash receipts, Emergency Action Plans, and the ALERT system need improvement. The ALERT system includes over 700 gauges throughout the County that provide real-time data about weather conditions.
|
|
|
|
| Contracts & Agreements – June 2011 |
|
|
|
Maricopa County spends millions of dollars each year on contracts. We performed these audits due to the high risk of improper disbursements if contracts are not properly monitored. For the contracts reviewed, procurement and contract pricing requirements were mostly followed; however, overbillings and control weaknesses were found.
|
|
|
|
| Arizona Legal Workers Act – June 2011 |
|
|
|
State statute requires government entities to conduct random verifications to ensure that contractors/subcontractors are complying with the Arizona Legal Workers Act. We selected one vendor for review to determine compliance with the Act. No unauthorized employees were identified. Contract, vendor, and employee selections were random.
|
|
|
|
| Performance Measure Certification – June 2011 |
|
|
|
Citizen's desire for government to be more transparent and accountable has grown. Managing for Results represents Maricopa County's commitment to transparency and accountability. We reviewed 40 Managing for Results performance measures for Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 and 2010 from seven County agencies. We found that only 38% of the measures reviewed were certified. The primary reasons measures were not certified was the lack of supporting documentation and inadequate procedures for collecting, measuring, and reporting performance.
|
|
|