County · County government · 10 municipalities · 11 jurisdictions in total

Gloucester County

11 jurisdictions in Gloucester County receive opioid settlement funds. They are the county government and 10 municipalities. Complete ledgers have been produced for 5 of them. 6 jurisdictions are graded F for certifying spending that does not exist in the books.

Complete ledgers · 5 of 11Records refused · 0Graded F · 6

Grade board · 11 jurisdictionsGloucester County · provisional

Deptford Township East Greenwich Township · provisional Franklin Township · provisional Glassboro Harrison Township Mantua Township Monroe Township · provisional Washington Township West Deptford Township Woolwich Township

A
B
C
D
F
Not yet graded
Records refused

County wide · county government and 10 municipalities · 5 of 11 with complete ledgers

Received$12,397,819.61Cumulative, as each jurisdiction last certified to the State

Spent, verified$3,357,701.78Summed from the ledger rows published here

Non-conforming$1,289,543.25Classified against the Exhibit E gates

Misreported to the State$487,735.74Certified figures the books do not support

Every figure is summed over the county government and 10 municipalities, from the published rows, in whole cents. A jurisdiction with no ledger adds nothing to spent.

The county government

Gloucester County is a recipient in its own right. Its reports and its books are compared here the same way a municipality's are.

Received$9,797,199.21Cumulative, as last certified to the State

Paid$1,975,933.14Summed from the county ledger

Misreported to the State$81,314.15Certified figures the county books do not support

Grade B · provisional · rubric v5Grade B · provisional

Reporting integrity · weight 50: 88.03 / 100
Spending conformity · weight 40: 75.02 / 100
Transparency · weight 10: 60 / 100
Weighted score: 80.02 · B

How grades work

10 municipalities

Graded jurisdictions first, sorted by dollars misreported to the State. The full column set lives in the statewide rankings.

Graded municipalities in Gloucester County, sorted by dollars misreported to the State, largest first
Grade	Municipality and patterns	Spent, verified	Misreported to State
FGrade F	Washington Township Funding-source substitution · Phantom programs · Zero certification · Police vehicles and gear · Surveillance technology	267,924.50	Certified against books conflict170,446.70
FGrade F	Monroe Township Funding-source substitution · Phantom programs	138,020.38	Certified against books conflict120,343.00
FGrade F	West Deptford Township Funding-source substitution · Phantom programs · Fake encumbrances · Surveillance technology	146,859.68	Certified against books conflict65,600.49
FGrade F	Mantua Township Funding-source substitution · Year-end salary reclass · Zero certification	154,189.95	Certified against books conflict37,158.15
FGrade F	East Greenwich Township Zero certification	37,194.55	Certified against books conflict12,030.50
DGrade D	Franklin Township Funding-source substitution · Police vehicles and gear	131,666.17	Certified against books conflict842.65
FGrade F	Glassboro Funding-source substitution · Year-end salary reclass · Fake encumbrances	395,894.26	Certified against books conflict0.10
AGrade A	Deptford Township Funding-source substitution · Phantom programs	110,019.15	No figure published

Not yet graded · 2

Harrison Township No spending reported · Woolwich Township No spending reported

What recurs here

Each family below groups the jurisdictions in this county carrying a finding of the same shape. Counts are sized by how far the family reaches.

Funding-source substitution

Work previously paid from another fund moved onto the opioid account.

FADF+4Findings

Phantom programs

A program certified to the State with no matching payment in the books.

FAFFFindings

Year-end salary reclass

Salary moved onto the opioid account by journal entry at fiscal year end.

FFBFindings

Zero certification

A report year certified at zero expended while the books show payments.

FFFFindings

Fake encumbrances

An encumbrance certified to the State with no open commitment in the books.

FFFindings

Police vehicles and gear

Vehicles, upfits, body armor and equipment paid from opioid funds.

FDFindings

Surveillance technology

License plate readers, cameras and related subscriptions paid from opioid funds.

FFFindings

Findings in Gloucester County

The Township has never reported spending a dollar of its opioid settlement money, and it has produced no record of any payment from the fund. Account G-02-10-721-303 took in 98,769.44 across 22 deposits between 10/26/2022 and 05/06/2026. The FY2023, FY2024, FY2025 and FY2026 reports each certify zero expended and zero spent on administration. The FY2023 report answers the question about goals and priorities with Program not in Place. The FY2024 and FY2026 reports answer No to funding any program and the FY2025 report answers No to funding any new program. All three answer To be determined on how the money would be used. The FY2026 report, for 07/01/2025 to 06/30/2026, certifies all 98,769.44 received as unspent and uncommitted on hand (pages 1 and 2). Four reports in a row state that the Township has no strategic plan, has completed no risk assessment and has not engaged the public. The only account record the Township produced is a revenue audit trail, which records receipts and carries no disbursement.

5 documents · 09/11/2026

The Township paid its employee assistance program contracts from the Employee Wellness general fund line 01-20-101-290 every year from August 2020 through August 2024. From 2022 on the vendor history shows a recurring pair, 2,532.60 for the police contract and 5,600.00 for the non-police departmental contract. In 2020 and in 2021 it shows a single 2,532.60 payment. The last Employee Wellness payment is check 69170 on 08/06/2024. The first payment from the National Opioids Settlement account is check 71640 on 07/08/2025. The 2025 and 2026 renewals are the same product at the same prices, charged to the opioid account. One purchase order caption repeats the general fund years word for word, ANNUAL CONTRACT/EAP SERVICES. 5,600.00 on 07/08/2025 plus 2,532.60 on 10/07/2025 plus 2,532.60 on 04/07/2026 equals 10,665.20. A payment falls in every calendar year from 2020 through 2026. The scope did not change, only the fund that pays. That is substitution of settlement funds for an existing source of funding for the same expense, which N.J.S.A. 26:2G-39(f) bars. The vendor payment histories show 40,128.20 of these contracts bought since 2020, of which 29,463.00 was paid from the general fund before the opioid account took over. The FY2026 report, published 10/01/2026, certifies the three payments, 10,665.20 to the cent, as an Employee Assistance Program, and gives 01/01/2020 as the date the program was funded and launched (pages 8 and 9). By the Township's own report, the program predates the settlement money that now pays for it.

4 documents · 09/11/2026

On 04/16/2026 the Township opened one purchase order to a power and camera vendor for outdoor pan tilt zoom cameras. Line 1 was 103,609.83 on the 2024 National Opioid Settlement account. Line 2 was 2,977.92 on the 2025 National Opioid Grant account. On 08/03/2026 it reduced line 1 by 9,087.88 and added 1,200.08 of shipping to line 2, leaving 94,521.95 and 4,178.00 open. The 9,087.88 released that day was followed on 08/19/2026 by 5,031.00 of fast food catering and 420.08 of groceries paid from the same account. On 07/13/2026 the Township opened a further 24,200.00 to a fence contractor for poles for security cameras. Those three open figures sum to 122,899.95, which is the entire Encumber YTD balance printed for these accounts at 08/19/2026. The camera package is every dollar this Township had committed on opioid money at that date. None of it has been paid. The FY2026 report certifies 106,587.75 encumbered at 06/30/2026 (page 2). That is the two camera lines as they stood that day, 103,609.83 and 2,977.92, to the cent. The report's one program block does not mention cameras. No purchase order packet, resolution, contract or quote states what the cameras are for, and no overdose or prevention program that uses them is documented. Fixed surveillance cameras and the poles that carry them are not among the uses Exhibit E lists.

3 documents · 09/11/2026

The County pays one vendor monthly for transportation and it moved that bill onto settlement money. The County's own vendor payment history, produced 09/04/2026, carries the whole relationship on one report. Monthly transportation ran on county account G-02-22-330-332-20217, a Professional Services line, from the October 2023 service month through the March 2025 service month, ending with purchase order 25-02586 for March 2025 at 8,478.75 paid on check 438864 dated 04/17/2025. The next service month, April 2025, is purchase order 25-03685 at 7,671.25 paid on check 439441 dated 05/29/2025, and it is charged to settlement account G-02-22-331-382-20302. From that month forward the settlement account carries thirteen monthly invoices, 92,458.75 in total, through the June 2026 service month. Same vendor, same monthly cadence, same invoice format, same dollar band, and no gap between the last invoice on the old account and the first invoice on the settlement account. The change in funding source is on the face of a county record. The County can answer it by showing that the rides bought on settlement funds serve a different population than the rides it bought before. The FY2026 report, published 10/01/2026, lists the service as a program named Holcomb Transportation, bus rides for elementary school students to an after school club, under Primary Prevention, Education, and Training (pages 12 to 15). It gives the program's funding date as 09/20/2023, the start of the contract the County paid from its own account until the March 2025 service month. It certifies 71,463.75 spent in the year, which equals the ten invoices paid in the window to the cent. The County produced this line twice and the two do not agree. The account report prints 84,787.50 expended to date against the 92,458.75 the vendor payment history shows charged to the same account. The difference is exactly the April 2025 invoice. The activity on this line before 05/01/2026 has not been produced in full.

4 documents · 09/11/2026

The Township paid 58,197.65 from the dedicated opioid account to replace the illuminated sign at the municipal building. 53,410.00 to a sign contractor on purchase order 24-02382 across checks 144004 and 144623, 3,200.00 and 725.00 to an electrical contractor on purchase orders 25-00308 and 25-00620 for wiring run from the building basement to the sign, and 862.65 in permit fees on purchase order 25-01415. The contract covers two digital message boards and a new double sided illuminated cabinet reusing the existing pole, with removal of the old sign. The governing body resolution adopted 10/08/2024 states the purpose in its own words, to replace the administrative and police department illuminated sign that borders the highway, funded from the National Opioids Settlement Fund. The Township also told the State what it wanted the sign to do. The FY2024 report says the new digital sign will run revolving displays and that every other display will be narcotics prevention related. The FY2025 report says the board advertises the straight to treatment program, narcotics anonymous meeting dates, locations and times, and a purple flag remembrance. The FY2025 report then books the sign package under the Steered Straight school drug awareness assembly program, which it is not. The resolution replaces a sign the building already had. No record documents an evidence-based prevention campaign that the board carries. Permanent signage at a municipal building is not among the uses Exhibit E lists, whatever is displayed on it. An open encumbrance of 450.00 dated 07/30/2026 for electronic sign repair carries the same sign onto the account again. Page 4 of the sign contractor's own proposal names that vendor as the service and warranty department for this sign. The FY2026 report, published 10/01/2026, counts the 862.65 permit fee a second time, as 862.50 under the Steered Straight heading.

11 documents · 09/11/2026

The FY2024 report certifies 0.00 expended in the period, 0.00 encumbered and 0.00 spent on administration, and it certifies no funded programs. The same report states cumulative receipts of 68,123.29 since the distribution commenced in 2022 and unspent funds on hand of 82,324.53. The unspent figure exceeds everything the Township reported receiving by 14,201.24. With 0.00 expended in the period and 0.00 encumbered, the balance on hand cannot be larger than the total received. One of the two certified figures is wrong. The report does not say which. The earlier FY2023 report answers the expenditure question with NA rather than with a figure. The Township's revenue prints show where the 82,324.53 comes from. It equals the thirteen receipts through 04/30/2024, 67,685.79, plus the four receipts dated 07/31/2024, 14,638.74, a month after the period closed. It leaves out the 06/17/2024 receipt of 6,516.59.

5 documents · 09/11/2026

Documents

vendor history9 filesOpen

ledger23 filesOpen

resolution3 filesOpen

purchase order24 filesOpen

contract17 filesOpen

dhs report4 filesOpen

Municipal records10 municipalitiesOpen

Correction from Gloucester County jurisdictions

No correction received from this jurisdiction. If a figure on this page is wrong, send the record that shows it. The response is published here word for word.

Correct the record

Frequently asked questions

Why does Gloucester County appear twice, as a county and as its municipalities?

The county government and each municipality receive their own allocations and file their own reports. The county's grade covers its own books. The municipalities are graded separately and rolled up on this page.The rubric

Did the county pass any of its money down to the towns?

Where a county made subawards to municipalities, the payment appears in the county ledger as a transfer out and on the receiving town's page as money received. Both sides are shown from the documents.How we trace a transfer

Which Gloucester County jurisdictions have not produced their records?

None has refused. Jurisdictions marked pending have a request inside the statutory window, and no letter grade is issued until the ledger is complete.Every town

Share this county on social media

Facebook X Bluesky Reddit Threads Email