Countywide Travel Audit: Analysis of Travel Practices and Policy Improvement Opportunities
June 25, 2026
REPORT HIGHLIGHTS
Opportunity to Clarify County Policy 1019 Guidance on Airfare Class and Upgrades
County Policy 1019 does not define an expected standard for airfare class or establish documentation requirements when a non-standard fare or upgrade is selected. Our review of 136 County travel packets found that 123 of 136 (90%) airfare purchases were booked in standard economy. However, three of 136 (2%) instances involved higher-cost fares or First Class, and in two of those three, documentation was not available to determine whether the employee or the County paid the cost difference. An additional seven of 136 (5%) instances involved main cabin airfare. We also identified three instances (2%) where the County reimbursed a baggage fee that had already been waived due to the traveler’s fare class. Without clear policy guidance, the County has limited ability to verify that airfare expenditures are appropriate and consistently documented.
Opportunity to Clarify the Pre- Purchase Travel Authorization Process and Forms
County Policy 1019 required travel forms to be completed and approved before airfare was purchased, yet certain fields could only be completed after quotes were obtained, contributing to inconsistent practices. Of 136 travel packets reviewed, 67 (49%) had the Request for Travel Allowance Form signed before airfare was purchased; of those, 55 (82%) had a reconciliation gap where the final airfare amount was missing or did not match the final billing statement. In one additional instance, airfare costs increased after the form was signed with no subsequent approval obtained. Without a reconciliation requirement, the form cannot serve as a complete and accurate record of travel expenditures.
Opportunity to Clarify Approval Controls on Travel Forms
County Policy 1019 establishes signature requirements for travel forms but does not provide guidance for organizations that do not have a Division Director position, leaving travel coordinators without clear direction on who is authorized to sign in each approval role. Our review found that seven of eight (88%) organizations had a recurring pattern of missing required authorization signatures on travel forms, with rates ranging from 7% to 39% across organizations. In several instances, a single individual signed multiple approval fields on the same form, undermining the independent review the signature requirement is designed to provide. The remaining organization (12%) consistently included two independent approval signatures on all travel forms reviewed. Without clearly defined approval authority for each organization’s structure, the County has limited assurance that travel expenditures are subject to consistent and independent oversight.
