State Watchdog Slams “Opaque and Chaotic” Sheriff Budgets
Plymouth County Sheriff Facing $16.8M Deficit
BOSTON — February 27, 2026 — A preliminary investigation by the Massachusetts Inspector General has pulled back the curtain on a “fundamentally broken” budgeting process for the state’s 14 sheriffs, revealing a decades-long culture of unauthorized deficit spending. The report highlights a staggering $110 million combined shortfall across the Commonwealth, with the Plymouth County office emerging as one of the hardest-hit, overspending its initial allotment by 23% to end the 2025 fiscal year with a $16.8 million deficit.
The Full Story
The preliminary report, authored by Inspector General Jeffrey S. Shapiro, describes a fiscal environment that is “opaque, chaotic, and deeply flawed.” According to the OIG, the Commonwealth has spent years underfunding sheriffs in the initial General Appropriations Act (GAA) with the “tacit approval” of the Legislature and the Executive Office of Administration and Finance (A&F). This “unwritten understanding” assumes that sheriffs will spend whatever they deem necessary and be “made whole” via supplemental budgets months after the money is already gone.
“The role of the sheriffs’ offices may not be as narrow as some legislative leaders expect, nor as expansive as some sheriffs believe... The Legislature has an opportunity to clarify such roles and responsibilities while also reforming a fundamentally broken budget process.” — Jeffrey S. Shapiro, Inspector General
In Plymouth County, the data reveals a significant disconnect between state funding and actual operations. For Fiscal Year 2025, the Plymouth County Sheriff’s Office requested a budget of approximately $94.8 million but was only granted $72.1 million in the initial state budget—just 76% of what was requested. By the end of the year, the office had spent $92.4 million.
While the OIG admits that some of these costs are driven by state mandates—such as no-cost phone calls for inmates and Medication-Assisted Treatment (MAT)—the report notes that Plymouth County is among a trio of offices (including Hampden and Suffolk) that “regularly overspent their allotment between 9% and 28%, regardless of reserve funding.”
Furthermore, the OIG flagged “unauthorized payments” made to 10 of the 14 sheriffs. In Plymouth County, the report identified $16.4K in payments for Fiscal Year 2025—including longevity pay and “education differential adjustments”—that were not authorized by the state statute which dictates a sheriff’s salary as “full compensation.”
Why It Matters
For Plymouth County residents, this “budgeting by deficit” creates a lack of transparency regarding how millions of tax dollars are actually spent. When sheriffs overspend on discretionary items—like specialized law enforcement units or community programs—the bill is eventually passed to the state legislature to be covered by the general public. This practice has become so normalized that the State Comptroller recently took the “rare step” of using 2026 funds to pay off 2025 debts, effectively starting the current year in a hole and setting the stage for a “fiscal crisis.”
Official Minutes & Data
Key Preliminary Findings
The Massachusetts Office of the Inspector General (OIG) outlined 17 specific recommendations in its preliminary report to reform the “opaque, chaotic, and deeply flawed” budgeting process for the state’s 14 sheriffs’ offices.
Legislative & Structural Reforms
Define the Role of Sheriffs: The Legislature, in consultation with public safety stakeholders (EOPSS, MSP, POST Commission, etc.), should explicitly enumerate which activities sheriffs may and may not conduct.
Standardize Programs: Sheriffs should work with the Massachusetts Sheriffs’ Association (MSA) and state agencies to adopt best practices and ensure predictability in costs and outcomes across all offices.
Consolidate Procurements: Sheriffs should combine procurement processes to gain better pricing through volume, such as using collective bargaining power for food services.
Update Outdated Statutes: The Legislature should update Chapters 37 and 126 of the General Laws to reflect the modern nature of sheriffs’ work and remove obsolete references.
Pause Authority Changes: The OIG suggests the Legislature refrain from pending bills that change sheriff authority until a definitive role in law enforcement is determined.
Adopt Zero-Based Budgeting: The Legislature and Governor’s Office should consider establishing budgets based on actual needs (zero-based) rather than simple percentage increases from the prior year.
Spending & Compliance Mandates
Enforce Budget Ceilings: Sheriffs must stay within their established General Appropriations Act (GAA) and are prohibited from overspending their budgets.
Prioritize Supplemental Requests: If a future supplemental budget is needed, sheriffs must request the funding before the money is spent, in accordance with state finance law.
Improve Communication: Sheriffs, A&F, and the Legislature must maintain better contact throughout the year regarding expenditures and remaining funds.
Direct Appropriations for Mandates: The state should provide funds for mandatory expenses (like no-cost calls and MAT) through direct appropriations rather than uncertain reimbursements.
Create Specific Line Items: The Legislature should create dedicated line items for mandated costs for each office to prevent funds from being transferred or used for other purposes.
Fully Fund Reserve Accounts: If reserve accounts continue to be used, they must be fully funded at the start of the year based on reasonable projections and distributed regularly.
Track Spending Visibility: Establishing specific line items in each budget will allow the Legislature and A&F to easily track exactly how public money is spent.
Revenue & Compensation Oversight
Centralize Revenue: All revenue received by sheriffs should be deposited with the State Treasurer and recorded in the state’s central accounting system rather than in private bank accounts.
Codify Civil Process Fees: The Legislature should expressly codify the amount retained by sheriffs for civil process work to replace inconsistent formulas across counties.
Clarify Additional Compensation: The Legislature must determine if sheriffs are entitled to pay beyond their base salary and, if so, enact legislation clearly authorizing those specific payments.
Review Elected Terms: The Legislature should consider whether sheriffs’ terms should be reduced from six years to four years to be coterminous with other constitutional officers.
Plymouth County Financial Snapshot (FY2025)
Initial Budget (GAA): $72,199,442
Actual Spending: $92,442,504
Total Deficit: ($20,243,062)
Deficit After Reserve Transfers: ($16,846,654)
Percent Overspent: 23%
What’s Next
Final Report: A final, more comprehensive report from the OIG is due by May 31, 2026.
Source: Office of the Inspector General: A Preliminary Review of Sheriffs’ Budgets and Expenditures