Skip to main content
Audit

Audit  Audit of the Massachusetts Sheriffs’ Association

Our office conducted a performance audit of certain activities of the Massachusetts Sheriffs’ Association (MSA) for the period July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2024.

Organization: Office of the State Auditor
Date published: November 26, 2025

Executive Summary

In accordance with Section 12 of Chapter 11 of the Massachusetts General Laws, the Office of the State Auditor has conducted a performance audit of certain activities of the Massachusetts Sheriffs’ Association (MSA) for the period July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2024.

In this performance audit, we examined whether MSA implemented recommendations from our prior audit report (Audit No. 2021-1447-3J) issued on June 28, 2022. Specifically, we determined the following:

  • Did MSA submit complete and timely Occupational Capacity Reports to the Executive Office for Administration and Finance, the Senate and House Committees on Ways and Means, the Joint Committee on the Judiciary, and the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security, in accordance with Section 6A of Chapter 124 of the Massachusetts General Laws?
  • To what extent did MSA standardize and coordinate the programs and services offered by Commonwealth sheriffs’ offices, in accordance with state budget line item 8910-7110—Massachusetts Sheriffs’ Association Main Appropriation?

Below is a summary of our findings, the effects of those findings, and our recommendations, with hyperlinks to each page listed.

  
Finding 1MSA did not facilitate coordination or promote standardization of programs and services across sheriffs’ offices.
EffectThese inconsistencies indicate a lack of standardization across sheriffs’ offices in delivering programs with similar objectives. Without uniform expectations for program delivery, duration, and staff member qualifications, it becomes difficult to assess program effectiveness, ensure equitable access, or make meaningful comparisons across jurisdictions. Inconsistent service levels create inequities in the state services administered by each sheriff’s office, meaning that some inmates may receive more or less, better or worse service based on the county in which they are incarcerated. Inconsistent data also compromises the reliability of the Programs, Services, Interventions, and Reinvestments (PSI) Matrix as a tool for oversight and decision-making.
Recommendations
 
  1. MSA should facilitate conversations among the county sheriffs’ offices to identify and develop best practices for administering programs that are similar in nature. This collaborative approach would help promote consistency, improve program quality, and support the development of a more uniform and reliable PSI Matrix.
  2. MSA should enhance data validation procedures to ensure complete and consistent reporting across all county sheriffs’ offices, with periodic reviews conducted to monitor compliance and effectiveness.
Finding 2MSA did not ensure that data submitted in the PSI Matrix was standardized, complete, and properly formatted.
EffectThese formatting and data entry errors compromise the accuracy and consistency of the PSI Matrix. As the PSI Matrix is intended to provide standardized program information to key stakeholders for review and guidance, such discrepancies hinder effective analysis, contribute to inconsistent reporting across agencies, and reduce the overall reliability of the data. This can, in turn, impair the ability of stakeholders to make informed decisions based on the report.
Recommendations
  1. MSA should strengthen its policies and procedures to ensure that data entered into the PSI Matrix is complete, properly formatted, and standardized across sheriffs’ offices. This should include implementing validation controls within the template itself to restrict improper entries (e.g., preventing text from being entered into numeric fields, requiring that mandatory fields be completed, and using dropdown options where appropriate).
  2. MSA should develop, document, and implement a process for reviewing and verifying submissions before final compilation to ensure accuracy and consistency.
  3. MSA should consider issuing more detailed guidance and offering regular training to sheriff’s office staff members who are responsible for data entry.
Finding 3MSA did not submit complete Operational Capacity Reports (OCRs).
EffectSubmitting OCRS with incomplete data and various data-quality issues undermines the reliability and usefulness of the information provided to stakeholders. Missing or inaccurate data limits stakeholders’ ability to assess facility conditions and allocate resources effectively. Additionally, inconsistently formatted data can complicate analysis and may reduce confidence in the reports.
RecommendationMSA should develop, document, and implement sufficient policies and procedures to ensure that sheriffs’ offices submit complete OCRs. These procedures should establish official review processes to verify the completeness of OCR data before submission and include follow-up procedures with sheriffs’ offices to promptly address and correct any deficiencies. Additionally, MSA should maintain records of all reviews and follow-ups to ensure accountability.

Table of Contents

Downloads

Help Us Improve Mass.gov  with your feedback

Please do not include personal or contact information.
Feedback