Key Facts

The Arizona Auditor General generally assigns recommendations one of several follow-up statuses:



&#8211; Implemented: The institution completed the recommended action.



&#8211; Implementation in process: Work has begun but is incomplete.



&#8211; Partially implemented: Part of the recommendation was completed.



&#8211; Alternative action taken: The institution used a different approach.



&#8211; Not implemented: Auditors could not verify meaningful completion.



&#8211; No longer applicable: Circumstances changed and the recommendation no longer applies.



“Not implemented” covers several situations: officials may have missed a deadline, lacked documentation, delayed a new system or failed to demonstrate that a policy was operating.



The tracker below therefore reports months since the original report. Converting that into months overdue requires the implementation date promised in each management response.



Definitions for audit findings, questioned costs and other terms used on this page appear in <a href="https://www.tpaction.com/government-fraud-waste-and-corruption-the-plain-english-glossary/">Government fraud, waste and corruption: the plain-English glossary.</a>

What does “not implemented” mean?

Agencies with unfinished recommendations

Original report: April 2022 Latest reviewed follow-up: March 2026 Recommendations: 19 Status: Audit finding



After 42 months, the Auditor General reported:



6 recommendations implemented



1 partially implemented



6 in process



6 not implemented



Unfinished recommendations involved open-meeting requirements, complaint handling and licensing safeguards. Auditors found that required open-meeting training had not been verified and that the board’s internal policy remained incomplete.



Complaint-processing recommendations also remained unfinished. These findings concern compliance and administrative performance rather than a quantified financial loss. The taxpayer exposure comes from repeated staff work, delayed complaints, ineffective systems and the need for additional follow-up.



Responsible institution: The board and its administrative staff.



Corrective status: Final follow-up planned for the remaining recommendations.



Read the <a href="https://www.azauditor.gov/sites/default/files/2026-03/22-102_42mo_Followup.pdf"> 42-month Optometry Board follow-up</a>.

Arizona State Board of Optometry: 42 months

Original report: September 2022 Latest reviewed follow-up: March 2026 Follow-up stage: 36 months Status: Audit finding



The Auditor General found that the State Board of Dental Examiners had not implemented a complete process for monitoring complaint timeliness.



The board created complaint logs, but auditors found missing information and data-entry errors. The logs also failed to track important stages such as opening and investigating complaints. A replacement database had been delayed until the end of 2026.



A related recommendation required regular reporting to the board about open and closed complaints. Auditors found that the information supplied remained inadequate for identifying and correcting delays.



Dollar label: No dollar amount reported in the 36-month follow-up.



Management response: The board continued developing a new database.



Corrective status: Not implemented at 36 months; another follow-up expected.



Read the <a href="https://www.azauditor.gov/sites/default/files/2026-03/22-110_36-Mth_Followup.pdf"> 36-month Dental Examiners follow-up</a>.

Dental Examiners: complaint controls unfinished after 36 months

Original audit: September 2023 Cited follow-up: October 2025 Follow-up stage: 18 months Status: Audit finding



A Department of Child Safety follow-up found that some conflict-of-interest and oversight recommendations remained in process. Of the audit’s 28 recommendations, 5 were implemented, 1 was implemented in a different manner, 20 were in process and 2 were not implemented.



The September 2023 audit found DCS had not fully implemented 42 of 58 recommendations from six special audits issued between March 2016 and September 2021, and it required the department to review them. At the 18-month follow-up, DCS reported that it was implementing 14 of those recommendations, would address 8 others in a different manner through similar 2023 recommendations and would take no further action on the remaining 20.



That status means the underlying problems predated the current follow-up cycle and remained relevant years after their original reports. The exact duration differs for each recommendation and should be calculated from its original audit date.



Dollar label: No dollar amount reported in the 18-month follow-up.



Responsible institution: DCS executive management and the divisions assigned each corrective action.



Corrective status: Implementation in process; the Auditor General plans a 30-month follow-up.



Read the <a href="https://www.azauditor.gov/sites/default/files/2025-10/23-115_18-mo_Followup.pdf"> DCS 18-month follow-up</a>.

DCS agency-wide recommendations: older findings remained open

Original report: July 2024 Initial follow-up: February 2026 Recommendations: 16 Status: Audit finding



The original audit found weaknesses involving extended foster-care planning, contractor monitoring, youth transition plans and program-performance evaluation.



At the February 2026 follow-up:



1 recommendation was implemented.



13 remained in process.



1 was not implemented.



1 was no longer applicable.



DCS had provided some transition-planning training and developed an action plan. Auditors found that quality-assurance and tracking processes still lacked required elements.



Dollar label: No dollar amount reported in the initial follow-up.



Corrective status: Largely unfinished. A 24-month follow-up was scheduled for 2026.



Read the <a href="https://www.azauditor.gov/sites/default/files/2026-02/24-106_Initial_Followup_0.pdf"> DCS Young Adult Program follow-up</a>.

DCS Young Adult Program: 13 recommendations in process

Original report: July 2025 Initial follow-up: April 2026 Elapsed period: Approximately 9 months Status: Audit finding



The district had not adopted a complete information-technology contingency plan. Auditors found that the plan lacked important components required by the Uniform System of Financial Records and recognized industry standards.



District officials reported testing the plan but could not provide documentation of the results. Without a complete and tested plan, the district faces greater risk of data loss and prolonged disruption following a cyberattack, equipment failure or system outage.



The district said it planned to update the document during summer 2026.



Dollar label: No dollar amount reported for the IT contingency plan recommendation.



Corrective status: Not implemented at the initial follow-up; review planned at 18 months.



Read the <a href="https://www.azauditor.gov/sites/default/files/2026-04/Seligman-USD_Initial_Followup.pdf"> Seligman Unified initial follow-up</a>.

Seligman Unified: IT contingency plan not implemented

Original report: April 2025 (Report 25-203) Initial follow-up: February 2026 Elapsed period: Approximately 10 months Status: Audit finding



The district had not developed complete written purchasing procedures or documented recurring staff training. Auditors also found purchasing-card controls still in process.



The district’s sampled purchases had received approval, but the absence of written procedures increased the risk that controls would fail during staff turnover or future transactions. The district had also not completed an analysis identifying unnecessary purchasing cards or users who no longer required access.



Dollar label: Improper payment. The April 2025 audit found the district inappropriately paid administrators $34,500 in bonuses and performance pay (Auditor General Report 25-203, April 2025).



Corrective status: Multiple recommendations not implemented or in process; review planned at 24 months.



Read the <a href="https://www.azauditor.gov/sites/default/files/2026-02/Sierra_Vista_USD_Initial_Followup.pdf"> Sierra Vista Unified initial follow-up</a>.

Sierra Vista Unified: purchasing controls remained incomplete

In its October 2025 follow-up, the Department of Child Safety told the Auditor General it will take no further action on 20 of the 42 older special-audit recommendations. For 15 of them, from a March 2016 audit on differential response, DCS said it addresses the same goals through its SAFE AZ practice model, a safety assessment tool and a redesigned service array; for others, it said it lacks resources to expand university recruiting beyond its tuition assistance program (Auditor General 18-month follow-up of Report 23-115). The Arizona State Board of Dental Examiners agreed with its September 2022 audit findings and, at its January 2025 follow-up, planned to move to a new complaint database by the end of fiscal year 2025; the March 2026 follow-up reports that database delayed until the end of 2026 (Reports 22-110 follow-ups). The Arizona State Board of Optometry agreed with most findings in its April 2022 audit and planned to implement all recommendations (Report 22-102), and Sierra Vista Unified agreed with most findings in its April 2025 audit and planned to implement all recommendations (Report 25-203). Seligman Unified said it plans to update its IT contingency plan during summer 2026 (April 2026 initial follow-up).

The institution’s response

Arizona Revised Statutes §41-1279 gives the Joint Legislative Audit Committee authority to oversee state-agency audits, direct the Auditor General to perform investigations, use legislative subpoenas and require state agencies to comply with committee findings and directions.



JLAC can request testimony, obtain records, order additional reviews and propose legislation responding to audit findings. Sunset reviews also give lawmakers an opportunity to continue, restructure or terminate certain agencies.



School districts follow additional statutory procedures. The Auditor General may review their progress at six-month intervals for up to two years and submit status reports to JLAC.



Read the <a href="https://www.azauditor.gov/about-us/joint-legislative-audit-committee">Joint Legislative Audit Committee overview</a> and <a href="https://www.azleg.gov/ars/41/01279.htm"> Arizona Revised Statutes §41-1279</a>. Arizona’s 2025–26 audit findings and the institutions responsible for fixing them are listed in <a href="https://www.tpaction.com/what-did-arizonas-2025-26-auditor-general-reports-find-and-who-has-to-fix-it/">What did Arizona’s 2025–26 Auditor General reports find, and who has to fix it?</a>

Who can compel compliance?

Arizona Auditor General follow-ups show audit recommendations left unfinished across contractor oversight, youth transition planning, conflict-of-interest procedures and program evaluation, including recommendations originating in audits issued between 2016 and 2021. Status: audit finding. DCS and the two licensing boards are executive agencies under the Democratic-led administration since January 2023 and are responsible for implementing the recommendations. Seligman Unified and Sierra Vista Unified are school districts governed by nonpartisan boards.



This page documents Arizona institutions with recommendations classified as not implemented, partially implemented or in process, and their latest follow-up statuses. The broader Arizona record appears in <a href="https://www.tpaction.com/do-arizona-records-support-claims-of-corruption-under-democratic-led-state-government/"> Do Arizona records support claims of corruption under Democratic-led state government?</a>

What this shows about Democratic governance

Last reviewed: September 15, 2026



The following follow-up reviews are scheduled:



&#8211; Department of Child Safety, 30-month follow-up of the September 2023 sunset review (Report 23-115)



&#8211; Arizona State Board of Optometry, final follow-up of the April 2022 audit (Report 22-102)



&#8211; Arizona State Board of Dental Examiners, next follow-up of the September 2022 audit (Report 22-110), with the replacement complaint database due by the end of 2026

What is still open 

Frequently Asked Questions

Arizona follow-up reports document unfinished recommendations lasting from several months to more than three years. The oldest reviewed example involved the Optometry Board, where 12 of 19 recommendations remained either in process or unimplemented after 42 months.



The responsible institutions must complete the corrective work, while the Auditor General verifies implementation. JLAC can demand records, testimony and compliance when state agencies allow documented weaknesses to continue.

The bottom line

Arizona residents can strengthen accountability by comparing original audit recommendations with six, 18, 24 and later follow-up reports, checking whether institutions supplied evidence of implementation and monitoring JLAC hearings. They can also confirm their eligibility and <a href="https://tpaction.com/Vote"> Register to Vote</a>, review each institution’s corrective record and <a href="https://www.tpaction.com/plan"> make a plan to vote</a> using verified public information.



Residents who want to help prevent known weaknesses from continuing can request implementation records, attend public meetings and track whether agencies meet their promised deadlines. They can also <a href="https://www.tpaction.com/getinvolved"> get involved</a> in voter education by helping other Arizonans distinguish recommendations that were completed, remain in process, were rejected or still lack evidence of meaningful corrective action.

Review the follow-ups and participate

Track Arizona agencies with audit recommendations still unimplemented or in process, including the finding, financial category and follow-up period.

Which Arizona agencies have ignored audit recommendations, and for how long?

Key Facts

What does “not implemented” mean?

Agencies with unfinished recommendations

Arizona State Board of Optometry: 42 months

Dental Examiners: complaint controls unfinished after 36 months

DCS agency-wide recommendations: older findings remained open

DCS Young Adult Program: 13 recommendations in process

Seligman Unified: IT contingency plan not implemented

Sierra Vista Unified: purchasing controls remained incomplete

The institution’s response

Who can compel compliance?

What this shows about Democratic governance

What is still open

Frequently Asked Questions

Is this an example of Democratic corruption?

Which Arizona agency has gone longest without implementing audit recommendations?

What does “not implemented” mean in an Arizona audit follow-up?

Who can force an Arizona agency to act on audit recommendations?

The bottom line

Review the follow-ups and participate

RioSlum Studio

Which Arizona agencies have ignored audit recommendations, and for how long?

Key Facts

What does “not implemented” mean?

Agencies with unfinished recommendations

Arizona State Board of Optometry: 42 months

Dental Examiners: complaint controls unfinished after 36 months

DCS agency-wide recommendations: older findings remained open

DCS Young Adult Program: 13 recommendations in process

Seligman Unified: IT contingency plan not implemented

Sierra Vista Unified: purchasing controls remained incomplete

The institution’s response

Who can compel compliance?

What this shows about Democratic governance

What is still open

Frequently Asked Questions

Is this an example of Democratic corruption?

Which Arizona agency has gone longest without implementing audit recommendations?

What does “not implemented” mean in an Arizona audit follow-up?

Who can force an Arizona agency to act on audit recommendations?

The bottom line

Review the follow-ups and participate