Audit of the Berkshire County District Attorney’s Office Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

An overview of the purpose and process of auditing the Berkshire County District Attorney’s Office.

Overview

In accordance with Section 12 of Chapter 11 of the Massachusetts General Laws, the Office of the State Auditor (OSA) has conducted a performance audit of certain activities of the Berkshire County District Attorney’s Office (BCDA) for the period July 1, 2016 through March 31, 2018.

We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Below is a list of our audit objectives, indicating each question we intended our audit to answer; the conclusion we reached regarding each objective; and, if applicable, where each objective is discussed in the audit findings.

Objective	Conclusion
Does BCDA’s Victim Witness Assistance Program (VWAP) provide assistance throughout the court process to victims and witnesses of crimes as required by Section 5 of Chapter 258B of the General Laws?	Yes
Does BCDA have an updated internal control plan (ICP) that was developed in accordance with the Comptroller of the Commonwealth’s (CTR’s) Internal Control Guide?	No; see Finding 1
Does BCDA comply with Chapter 647 of the Acts of 1989 by reporting all instances of unaccounted-for variances, losses, shortages, or thefts of funds or property to OSA?	Yes
Does BCDA have proper budgeting practices in place to ensure that its annual funding is sufficient to meet its operational needs through the end of the fiscal year?	Yes
Does BCDA ensure that its financial activities, such as expenditures and Commonwealth credit card use, are allowable and in accordance with its policies and procedures?	Yes
Does BCDA manage forfeited funds in accordance with its established policies and procedures?	No; see Finding 2
Is BCDA’s information technology (IT) inventory accurately accounted for?	Yes

 

To achieve our objectives, we gained an understanding of BCDA’s internal controls that we deemed significant to our audit objectives by reviewing applicable laws, regulations, and agency policies and procedures, as well as conducting interviews with BCDA’s staff and management.

Additionally, we performed the procedures described below.

VWAP

We obtained from the District Attorney Management Information Office Network (DAMION) system² a list of all 4,238 court cases that were opened from July 1, 2016 through March 31, 2018 and involved a victim and/or witness. Using a statistical sampling method, with a confidence level of 95% and tolerable error rate of 5%, we selected a random sample of 60 court cases. We obtained the case file, including case notes and documents related to program requirements, for each selected case. We confirmed the types of services requested by victims/witnesses, reviewed supporting documents for all services provided, and determined whether BCDA complied with Section 5 of Chapter 258B of the General Laws.

ICP

We obtained BCDA’s most recent ICP from agency officials. We also obtained CTR’s Internal Control Guide, reviewed the ICP checklist therein, and compared the checklist to BCDA’s ICP to determine compliance.

Chapter 647

To assess whether BCDA complied with Chapter 647 of the Acts of 1989, which requires BCDA to report any “unaccounted for variances, losses, shortages or thefts of funds or property” to OSA, we interviewed key BCDA personnel to obtain an understanding of how these types of losses are reported. We then obtained copies of all Chapter 647 reports filed by BCDA during the audit period and compared them to all police reports of thefts or shortages of funds or property filed by BCDA during this period to ensure that all thefts that were reported to the police were also reported to OSA.

To further assess whether BCDA had identified any variances, losses, shortages, or thefts of funds or property during the audit period, we reviewed the monthly reconciled bank statements for the bank account used to deposit forfeited funds and the annual physical inventory reports generated during the audit period for both IT and non-IT inventory.

Budgeting

To determine whether BCDA had proper budgeting practices in place to ensure that its annual funding was sufficient to meet its operational needs through the end of fiscal year 2018, we obtained BCDA expenditure data for fiscal years 2017 and 2018 from the Massachusetts Management Accounting and Reporting System (MMARS). We also obtained and reviewed spending plans submitted by BCDA to the state Legislature for fiscal years 2017 and 2018 and interviewed key BCDA personnel involved in budgeting. We used the spending plans developed by BCDA to determine whether the budgeted amounts were sufficient for actual spending for fiscal year 2017. We used BCDA’s fiscal year 2018 spending plan to create spending estimates through the end of fiscal year 2018 and compared the estimates to actual expenditures to identify areas of deficiency.

Expenditures

To assess whether BCDA properly administered expenses, we obtained BCDA’s expenditure data for the audit period from MMARS. Using these data, we analyzed non-payroll expenditures, Commonwealth credit card purchases, and State Police overtime reimbursements.

• To test non-payroll expenditures, we selected a random nonstatistical sample of 45 expenditures (totaling $104,509) from the total population of 822 expenditures (totaling $833,961) recorded in MMARS during the audit period. For these expenditures, we requested the supporting documentation (financial request forms, invoices, and/or receipts) to determine whether BCDA’s procurement policies were followed.
• To test Commonwealth credit card purchases, we selected a random nonstatistical sample of 35 Commonwealth credit card transactions (totaling $3,956) from the total population of 464 transactions (totaling $73,278) recorded on monthly credit card billing statements during the audit period. We requested the supporting documentation (invoices and/or receipts) for these purchases to determine whether they were reasonable and allowable according to CTR’s Commonwealth Procurement Card Program Policy and Procedure.
• To test State Police overtime reimbursements, we selected a judgmental sample of 7 months of reimbursements (totaling $195,471) from a population of 20 months of reimbursements (totaling $398,608) made during the audit period from the MMARS data. For each month selected, we requested and reviewed the Overtime Hours Accumulated report submitted by the State Police to BCDA for payment to determine whether the amount submitted was approved by the District Attorney.

We used nonstatistical sampling methods for testing and therefore did not project the results of our testing to the population.

Forfeited Funds

Section 47 of Chapter 94C of the General Laws identifies property that is subject to forfeiture by the Commonwealth and the procedure used by District Attorneys to obtain this property. All funds used to purchase, and all proceeds from the illegal sale of, a controlled substance are subject to seizure, as detailed in Section 47(a)(5) of Chapter 94C of the General Laws. BCDA is responsible for collecting and distributing³ forfeited funds. During our audit period, BCDA received $266,631 in forfeited funds.

To determine whether BCDA maintained proper controls for monitoring and handling forfeited funds, we obtained and reviewed the list of funds received during the audit period as well as agency policies and procedures. Using the list, we selected a random nonstatistical sample of 20 forfeitures (totaling $90,664) from a population of 76 forfeitures (totaling $266,631) received during the audit period. From the forfeitures in our sample, we identified those that took more than 30 days to be collected by reviewing the dates the funds were deemed forfeited by the court and the dates they were deposited by BCDA.

We used nonstatistical sampling methods for testing and therefore did not project the results of our testing to the population.

Inventory

To determine whether BCDA properly accounted for its IT inventory, we requested and reviewed the IT inventory list for the audit period. We used MMARS expenditure data to create a list of IT purchases that were required to be inventoried under BCDA policies. Using this list, we selected a random nonstatistical sample of 20 purchases (totaling $35,498) from a population of 56 purchases made during the audit period (totaling $61,421). We determined whether items purchased had been added to the agency’s IT inventory list.

We used nonstatistical sampling methods for testing and therefore did not project the results of our testing to the population.

Data Reliability

From DAMION, we obtained data related to our testing of the VWAP. To determine the reliability of data from DAMION, we tested the controls BCDA had implemented over access to DAMION, as well as user roles and responsibilities. In addition, we traced a sample of cases to and from hardcopy court records for agreement.

For Commonwealth credit cards, BCDA personnel gave us an electronic transaction history downloaded from Bank of America and hard copies of all monthly Commonwealth credit card statements that BCDA received from Bank of America during the audit period. To ensure the reliability of the electronic data, we traced a sample of purchases to and from the hardcopy monthly statements. To further verify the data, we traced monthly Commonwealth credit card statement totals to monthly payments made through MMARS.

BCDA personnel gave us a list of forfeited funds on a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, as well as the corresponding hardcopy files through which the spreadsheet was populated. They also gave us the hardcopy monthly bank statements for the bank account in which the funds were deposited. To ensure the accuracy and completeness of the spreadsheet, we traced a sample of forfeitures to and from the hardcopy forfeiture files. In addition, we traced the amounts deposited for each forfeiture file to the bank statements to ensure that the amounts deposited matched the amounts received.

BCDA currently uses Microsoft Excel to track its inventory. To ensure the accuracy, completeness, and reliability of the Excel inventory lists we received, we traced items on the lists to their physical locations and traced items from their physical locations to the lists. Based on the results of these data reliability assessment procedures, we determined that the information obtained for the audit period was sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our audit work.

In 2018, OSA performed a data reliability assessment of MMARS that focused on testing selected system controls (access controls, application controls, configuration management, contingency planning, and segregation of duties) for the period April 1, 2017 through March 31, 2018. Further, as part of our current audit, we traced the MMARS data to and from source documentation of purchases made during the audit period.

 

2.    DAMION is BCDA’s case-management system. BCDA uses it to track court dates for each case.

3.    Proceeds from forfeitures are usually split between a District Attorney’s Office and the law enforcement department handling the criminal activity.

Date published:	January 14, 2019