In This Issue
    • UPDATE:
      Agreed Upon Procedures = Agreeable Savings
      An Initiative Launched by Auditor of State Mary Taylor Earlier this Year

  • emailSign Up for Best Practices Join the growing numbers of Best Practices readers. E-mail to subscribe or unsubscribe to the online version of Best Practices.

OAS Mary Taylor, CPA Best PracticesOhio Auditor of State's website
OAS Mary Taylor, CPA Best PracticesSearch Best Practices

Spotlight: $41 Million in Total Findings for Recovery

Issued by Auditor of State Mary Taylor

SIMPLE miscalculation
to ELABORATE schemes:

    • Unallowable Expenditure:
      Village of Alexandria, Licking County
      In FY 2007, the administrator of the village of Alexandria was reimbursed for three kegs of beer she had purchased for a community event. Because alcoholic beverages are not considered a proper public purpose for the expenditure of public funds, a finding for recovery for public money illegally expended was issued. The $195 finding was repaid.

    • False Claims:
      Ministerial Day Care Association,
      Cuyahoga County
      The Ministerial Day Care Association improperly received funding from Ohio’s Head Start program between August 1, 1998 and July 31, 2001 by submitting claims for more children then were actually enrolled. Overall, the Auditor of State’s Office issued a finding for recovery for $7,506,365 for public money illegally expended for 1,747 children that the provider could not document as enrolled and in attendance.

MORE: Findings for recovery examples from simple miscalculation to elaborate schemes (pdf)Sign Up for Best Practices

By Julia Debes - Public Affairs Staff Writer

41 Million in Total Findings for RecoveryAuditor of State Mary Taylor has issued $41,454,006.11 (updated 11/09/10) in findings for recovery since she took office on January 8, 2007. By definition, a finding for recovery is a determination by an auditor that money should be repaid because it was improperly spent, unaccounted for, uncollected or misappropriated.

“The theft or misuse of more than $41 million from Ohio’s taxpayers is a serious issue,” Taylor said. “I’m very proud of all the work our auditors do to make sure that each taxpayer dollar is spent according to its intended purpose.”

Findings for recovery can vary greatly. Some findings for recovery are not complicated – like a simple miscalculation or money collected but not deposited – while others involve elaborate schemes, such as complex collusion including falsification of records, forgery and outright theft.

Findings for recovery can be an indication of fraud – like when public property is converted for personal use. But, they can also be the result of a lack of documentation, bookkeeping mistakes or a change in the law that an entity has failed to institute.

In most cases, findings for recovery are identified during a routine financial audit. In others, a special audit is conducted specifically to investigate an allegation that theft or fraud has occurred.

No matter the size, complexity or intent of the finding for recovery,
it should be repaid.

When a finding for recovery is issued in an audit report, it is up to the individual or the entity to make restitution.

Many times, findings for recovery are repaid during the course of the audit. However, it is important to note that a finding for recovery does not automatically result in the restoration of funds to their proper place. The Ohio Auditor of State issues the report, but legally has no recourse to pursue the findings once the audit is complete. If findings are not repaid, the funds can be pursued by the local prosecutor or the Ohio Attorney General’s Office.