Audit of the Dukes County Sheriff’s Office Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

An overview of the purpose and process of auditing the Dukes County Sheriff’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 Dukes County Sheriff’s Office (DCSO) for the period July 1, 2016 through December 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 and the conclusion we reached regarding each objective.

Objective	Conclusion
Were non-payroll administrative expenditures made in accordance with DCSO’s policies and procedures, and did they directly support DCSO’s mission?	Yes
Did DCSO administer its contracting process for goods and services in accordance with its policies and procedures and any contractual agreements?	Yes
Did DCSO administer the use of overtime in accordance with its policies and procedures?	Yes

 

To achieve our objectives, we gained an understanding of the internal controls related to our audit objectives by reviewing applicable laws and agency policies and procedures, as well as conducting interviews with DCSO management. Further, we evaluated the design and tested the operating effectiveness of controls over non-payroll administrative expenses, contractual procurement of goods and services, and administration of DCSO employee overtime.

Data Reliability

In 2018, OSA conducted a data reliability assessment of the Massachusetts Management Accounting and Reporting System (MMARS) for the period April 1, 2017 through March 31, 2018. This assessment focused on reviewing selected system controls, including access, security awareness, auditing and accountability, configuration management, identification, authentication, and personnel security. Further, as part of our current audit, we selected a random sample of 40 invoices from DCSO files and traced the information on the invoices to data in MMARS. We also judgmentally selected 40 transactions from MMARS and determined whether the information from MMARS matched the physical documentation (i.e., invoices). To assess the reliability of inventory data, we selected 15 items in the DCSO facilities and determined whether they were on the inventory list DCSO provided and whether the tag numbers affixed to them matched those on the inventory list. We then selected five entries from MMARS that represented physical items and determined whether the items were appropriately accounted for on the inventory list. Finally, to assess the population of contracts, we examined 24 randomly selected invoices from MMARS to determine whether they represented single payments or were associated with contractual obligations.

Based on the results of these data reliability assessment procedures, we determined that the information obtained for our audit period was sufficiently reliable and complete for the purposes of our audit work.

We used a combination of nonstatistical and statistical sampling approaches for all our testing and did not project our results to the entire population.

Non-Payroll Administrative Expenses

We obtained all DCSO expenditure data from MMARS for our audit period and selected a random statistical sample of 24 non-payroll expenditures (totaling $127,135) from a population of 1,019 (totaling $2,050,704), using a 90% confidence level and tolerable error rate of 10%. We reviewed the documentation DCSO maintained for each expenditure and determined whether expenditures were related to DCSO activities, were properly calculated, and were supported by sufficient documentation. We also determined whether invoice amounts matched expenditure amounts in MMARS, whether purchase requests were made and approved, whether invoices were approved before payment, whether invoices were date stamped, and whether orders were placed through established vendors in MMARS. To assess whether procured assets were properly inventoried, we judgmentally selected 27 out of 338 assets from DCSO’s inventory list, located them, and determined whether they had inventory tags affixed and were accurately represented on DCSO’s inventory list.

Contract Administration

We obtained a list of contracts for goods and services that were awarded during our audit period and selected a nonstatistical random sample of 10 contracts (totaling $264,780) out of 84. We reviewed our sampled contract files to determine whether each contract was awarded in accordance with DCSO policies and procedures. We inspected the files for evidence that applicable procurement requirements were followed, such as obtaining three quotes for purchases below $50,000, using sole sources (only one vendor for an item or service), and using requests for response (bid solicitations) for purchases above $50,000. We verified that the standard state contract form was in each file and signed by the vendor and the Sheriff and that the scope of services was attached and signed by the vendor. We also determined whether there were any emergency contracts or amendments and, if so, whether they were approved by the Sheriff. We compared the maximum obligation of each contract to the amount paid according to MMARS to ensure that the various MMARS payments throughout the contract period did not exceed the maximum obligations. We also determined whether the procurement and award process was properly documented, whether the contracts were signed and dated, and whether each of the 10 contracts directly supported the mission of DCSO.

Overtime

To determine whether overtime for DCSO correction officers was properly managed and approved, we obtained a list from MMARS of all overtime worked by DCSO’s correction officers during the audit period. Using a random statistical sample with a 90% confidence level and a tolerable error rate of 10%, we selected 24 overtime transactions (totaling $14,512) out of a population of 1,650 transactions (totaling $542,352) in which overtime was paid to a DCSO employee. We then reviewed the applicable time and attendance sheets, payroll and overtime approval forms, and payroll approval face sheets¹ to determine why employees were required to work overtime and whether overtime time and attendance sheets had the required supervisory approval. Further, we determined whether the amounts paid were accurate by comparing DCSO’s payroll data to data in the Commonwealth’s payroll system.

1.    Payroll approval face sheets are forms that are attached to weekly time and attendance sheets and have summaries of employee work and benefit hours.

Date published:	September 17, 2019