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

An overview of the purpose and process of auditing the Bristol 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 Bristol County District Attorney’s Office (BCDA) for the period July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2022.

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
1. Did BCDA make forfeiture trust fund expenditures in accordance with Section 47(d) of Chapter 94C of the General Laws?	Yes
2. Did BCDA ensure that forfeited assets from closed cases were collected, deposited, and distributed in accordance with Section 47(d) of Chapter 94C of the General Laws?	Yes
3. Did BCDA ensure that its employees completed cybersecurity awareness training in accordance with Sections 6.2.3 and 6.2.4 of the Executive Office of Technology Services and Security’s (EOTSS’s) Information Security Risk Management Standard IS.010?	No; see Finding 1

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 and procedures and by interviewing BCDA officials. We evaluated the design and tested the operating effectiveness of internal controls related to the approval of forfeited fund expenditures, the review of supporting documents for forfeited fund expenditures, the verification of amounts of seized assets received from law enforcement agencies, and the approval of forfeited asset distribution calculations.

To obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to address our audit objectives, we performed the procedures described below.

Forfeiture Trust Fund Expenditures

To determine whether BCDA made forfeiture trust fund expenditures in accordance with Section 47(d) of Chapter 94C of the General Laws, we took the actions described below.

BCDA provided us with a list of all 555 forfeiture trust fund expenditures (totaling $874,151) that BCDA made during the audit period. We organized these expenditures into two separate groups, according to BCDA’s two classifications. The first group comprised community grant expenditures (47 expenditures, totaling $324,136) and the second group comprised law enforcement expenditures (508 expenditures, totaling $550,015). We then divided these 508 law enforcement expenditures (totaling $550,015), as follows:

Law Enforcement Expenditure Description	Number of Expenses	Total
Individual expenditures with values of $10,000 or more	8	$114,557
Individual expenditures with values of less than $10,000	500	$435,458

For the community grant expenditures, we selected a random, nonstatistical sample of 10 community grant expenditures (totaling $92,775) from the population of 47. For the law enforcement expenditures, we first selected all 8 law enforcement expenditures with values of $10,000 or more (totaling $114,557). We then selected a random, nonstatistical sample of 30 law enforcement expenditures with values of less than $10,000 (totaling $33,480) from the remaining population of 500. Finally, we selected an additional, judgmental² sample of 42 law enforcement expenditures with values of less than $10,000 (totaling $85,542) from the remaining population of 470. Combined, our total sample comprised 90 expenditures (or 16% of all 555 forfeiture trust fund expenditures), totaling $326,354 (or 37% of the total amount of $874,151).

For each of the expenditures in our sample of 90, we reviewed supporting documentation (i.e., invoices, purchase orders, requests for expense reimbursement, check requests, applications, email correspondence, canceled checks, and bank statements) to determine whether each expenditure was supported by adequate documentation and was allowable under Section 47(d) of Chapter 94C of the General Laws. Whenever the law enforcement purpose of an expenditure was not self-evident, we asked BCDA management how the expenditure related to a law enforcement purpose. According to Section 47(d) of Chapter 94C of the General Laws:

All such monies and proceeds received by any prosecuting district attorney or attorney general shall be deposited in such a trust fund and shall then be expended without further appropriation to defray the costs of protracted investigations, to provide additional technical equipment or expertise, to provide matching funds to obtain federal grants, or such other law enforcement purposes as the district attorney or attorney general deems appropriate.

Therefore, District Attorneys have broad discretion, as they deem appropriate, to define expenditures as valid “other law enforcement purposes.” BCDA was able to provide sufficient documentation that the District Attorney had done so for the expenditures in our sample.

We noted no exceptions in our testing sample. That being, all expenditures were supported by adequate documentation, and fit within an allowable category by statute, including those for “other law enforcement purposes” deemed appropriate by the District Attorney. Therefore, we concluded that, during the audit period, the forfeiture trust fund expenditures in our sample were made in accordance with Section 47(d) of Chapter 94C of the General Laws.

Forfeited Assets from Closed Cases

To determine whether BCDA ensured that forfeited assets from closed cases were collected, deposited, and distributed in accordance with Section 47(d) of Chapter 94C of the General Laws, we took the actions described below.

BCDA provided us with a list of all 588 forfeited assets from closed cases (totaling $1,285,406) that it received during the audit period. We organized these forfeited assets into two separate groups. The first group comprised forfeited assets with values of $20,000 or more (9 forfeited assets, totaling $446,237). The second group comprised forfeited assets with values less than $20,000, (579 forfeited assets, totaling $839,169).

We selected all 9 of the forfeited assets with values of $20,000 or more (totaling $446,237). We then selected a random, nonstatistical sample of 30 forfeited assets with values less than $20,000 (totaling $60,778) from the remaining population of 579. Combined, our total sample comprised 39 forfeited assets (or 6.6% of all 588 forfeited assets from closed cases), with a value of $507,015 (or 39.4% of the total amount $1,285,406).

For each of the forfeited assets in our sample of 39, we reviewed relevant case documentation (i.e., any corresponding Confiscated Monies Reports,³ forfeiture orders from the courts, forfeited asset distribution calculations, police reports, checks, deposit slips, bank statements, or email correspondence) to determine whether BCDA accurately (1) collected and deposited forfeited assets and (2) distributed the forfeited assets to the police department(s) involved in the corresponding seizures.

We noted no exceptions in our testing. Therefore, we concluded that, during the audit period, BCDA ensured that forfeited assets from closed cases were collected, deposited, and distributed in accordance with Section 47(d) of Chapter 94C of the General Laws.

Cybersecurity Awareness Training

To determine whether BCDA ensured that its employees completed cybersecurity awareness training in accordance with Sections 6.2.3 and 6.2.4 of EOTSS’s Information Security Risk Management Standard IS.010, we interviewed BCDA’s chief financial officer, information technology director, and human resources generalist.

See Finding 1 for an issue we identified regarding BCDA’s cybersecurity awareness training.

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

Data Reliability Assessment

Forfeiture Trust Fund Expenditures

To determine the reliability of the list of forfeiture trust fund expenditures, we checked the list for invalid records, duplicate records, and dates outside of the audit period. To test for accuracy, we randomly selected a sample of 20 expenditures from this list and compared information from this list (i.e., expenditure dates and expenditure amounts) to information on corresponding copies of checks, invoices, and payment requests. To test for completeness, we selected a judgmental sample of 20 invoices and/or payment requests from BCDA’s files and compared information on each invoice and/or payment request (i.e., dates of expenditures, expense classifications, and expenditure amounts) to information recorded for the corresponding expenditures on the list.

Forfeited Assets from Closed Cases

All forfeited assets from closed cases result from initial seizures of those assets. Given this, we reviewed a list of seizures provided by BCDA to determine the completeness and accuracy of the list of forfeited assets from closed cases.

To determine the reliability of the list of seizures, we checked the list for invalid records, duplicate records, and dates outside of the audit period. To test for accuracy, we randomly selected a sample of 20 seizures from the list and compared information from this list (i.e., the date and amount of the seizure, the record number,⁴ and the police department involved in the seizure) to information on corresponding copies of seized asset receipts and police reports. To test for completeness, we selected a judgmental sample of 20 seized asset records from BCDA’s files and compared information on the receipts (i.e., dates, monetary amounts of seizures, and police department(s) involved in the seizures) to information recorded for the corresponding seizures on the list.

To determine the reliability of the list of forfeited assets, we checked the list for invalid records, duplicate records, and dates outside of the audit period. To test for accuracy, we randomly selected a sample of 20 forfeited assets from the list and compared information from this list (i.e., dates and monetary values of the forfeited assets) to information recorded for the corresponding forfeited assets in the court orders. To test for completeness, we selected a judgmental sample of 20 court orders from BCDA’s files and compared information in the court orders (i.e., dates and monetary values of forfeited assets, the police department(s) involved in the cases, and the monetary amounts distributed to the police department(s) involved) to the information recorded for the corresponding forfeited assets on the list.

Based on the results of the data reliability assessment procedures described above, we determined that the information obtained for the audit period 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.

3.   Confiscated Monies Reports are standardized forms that police departments prepare when processing seized assets. These reports accompany the corresponding police reports and are used to account for and administer seized assets. The BCDA chief financial officer reviews and approves Confiscated Monies Reports upon receipt of the seized assets from the arresting police department. The district attorney’s office maintains a copy, which remains with the seized assets.

4.   The record number is an internal tracking number that BCDA’s forfeited asset database automatically assigns to each case entered by a BCDA employee.

Date published:	September 30, 2024