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 has conducted a performance audit of certain activities of the Berkshire County District Attorney’s Office (BCDA) for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2023.

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
Did BCDA ensure that forfeited assets were collected, deposited, and distributed in accordance with Section 47(d) of Chapter 94C of the General Laws and BCDA’s internal “Forfeited Property Procedures”?	No; see Finding 1
Did all BCDA employees receive training in accordance with cybersecurity awareness training requirements included in Sections 6.2.3 and 6.2.4 of the Executive Office of Technology Services and Security’s Information Security Risk Standard IS0.010?	No; see Finding 2
Did BCDA update its internal control plan to include all the critical components of enterprise risk management as well as monitoring controls, in response to our previous recommendation from Audit No. 2018-1261-11J?	No; see Finding 3

To accomplish our audit objectives, we gained an understanding of the aspects of BCDA’s internal control environment relevant to our objectives by reviewing applicable policies, procedures, and the internal control plan and by interviewing BCDA officials. We evaluated the design and implementation and tested the operating effectiveness of internal controls related to the verification of the forfeited amount, approvals of receipt of funds and deposit slips related asset forfeitures. In addition, to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to address our audit objectives, we performed the procedures described below.

Asset Forfeiture

To determine whether BCDA ensured that forfeited assets were collected, deposited, and distributed in accordance with Section 47(d) of Chapter 94C of the General Laws and BCDA’s “Forfeited Property Procedures,” we took the following actions. We obtained a list of 17 asset forfeitures processed by BCDA during the audit period. For each listed forfeiture, we reviewed relevant case documentation (including court forfeiture orders, seized fund receipts, forfeiture split calculation memorandums, checks, deposit slips, bank statements, and email communications) to determine the following:

• whether each forfeiture case contained a forfeiture order;
• whether each case had a receipt of funds received on file that was prepared and signed by a BCDA official;
• whether the deposit slips were signed by the chief of appeals as proof that the funds were received and deposited;
• whether BCDA documented whether it retained any portion of the forfeited funds owed to the police department;
• whether a distribution letter was created that documented the distributions between BCDA and any associated police departments;
• whether any of the funds BCDA retained may be owed to the associated police department;
• whether the distributed amounts followed Section 47(d) of Chapter 94C of the General Laws (50% to BCDA, with the remaining 50% going to any associated police departments; and
• whether all forfeiture case funds were deposited within 30 business days (which we reviewed by calculating the number of business days between the court order and the date of the receipt of funds).

See Finding 1 for more information regarding the results of our testing related to whether BCDA ensured that forfeited assets were collected, deposited, and distributed properly.

Cybersecurity Awareness Training

To determine whether BCDA employees received cybersecurity awareness training in accordance with Sections 6.2.3 and 6.2.4 the Executive Office of Technology Services and Security’s Information Security Risk Management Standard IS.010, we interviewed a BCDA official to discuss whether BCDA had established a cybersecurity awareness training program for its employees.

See Finding 2 for more information regarding the results of our testing related to cybersecurity awareness training.

Internal Control Plan

To determine whether BCDA updated its internal control plan to include all the critical components of enterprise risk management as recommended in our previous audit, we interviewed a BCDA official and reviewed the internal control plan in effect during the audit period, which was dated April 1, 2016.

See Finding 3 for more information regarding the results of our testing related to BCDA’s updating its internal control plan as recommended in our previous audit.

Data Reliability Assessment

To determine the reliability of the list of forfeited funds that BCDA received, which was provided to us by BCDA, we tested the list to ensure that there were no duplicates or missing data and that all of the data corresponded to dates from within the audit period. We selected a random sample of five forfeiture cases from the list and matched the docket numbers, deposit date, police department involved, and amount forfeited to the corresponding data on the forfeiture orders and fund receipts. We judgmentally² selected a sample of five forfeiture cases from BCDA’s physical files and matched the docket number, deposit date, and forfeited amount on the forfeiture orders and fund receipts to the information recorded in the list of forfeited funds. Further, we reviewed the monthly bank statements for BCDA’s forfeiture account and reviewed each deposit to determine whether the deposits were for forfeited funds. For all deposits determined to be related to a forfeiture, we ensured that they were on the list of forfeited funds provided by BCDA.

Based on the results of the data reliability assessment procedures described above, we determined that the information we obtained was sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our audit.

2.    Auditors use judgmental sampling to select items for audit testing when a population is very small, the population items are not similar enough, or there are specific items in the population that the auditors want to review. Auditors use their knowledge and judgment to select the most appropriate sample. For example, an auditor might select items from areas of high risk. The results of testing using judgmental sampling cannot be used to make conclusions or projections about entire populations; however, they can be used to identify specific issues, risks, or weaknesses.

Date published:	April 11, 2025