• This page, Audit of the Essex County District Attorney's Office Objectives, Scope, and Methodology, is   offered by
  • Office of the State Auditor

Audit of the Essex County District Attorney's Office Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

An overview of the purpose and process of auditing the Essex County District Attorney's Office.

Table of Contents

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 Essex County District Attorney’s Office (EDAO) for the period January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2020.

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

  1. Does EDAO ensure that all Youthful Diversion Program (YDP) participants fulfill the requirements of their YDP contracts and EDAO’s Juvenile/Youthful Diversion Guidelines?

Yes

  1. Do victims and witnesses involved in cases that are disposed of in the Superior Court receive assistance throughout the court process from EDAO, as required by Section 5 of Chapter 258B of the General Laws?

Yes

 

To achieve our objectives, we gained an understanding of EDAO’s internal control environment related to the objectives by reviewing applicable office policies and procedures, as well as conducting inquires with EDAO’s management and staff members.

To obtain sufficient, appropriate audit evidence to address our audit objectives, we conducted further audit testing as follows.

YDP

To determine whether EDAO ensured that all YDP participants fulfilled the requirements of their diversion program contracts and EDAO’s Juvenile/Youthful Diversion Guidelines, we obtained a list of all 317 YDP cases for which the closing dates were during the audit period from EDAO’s Juvenile Justice Diversion Tracking System. EDAO uses this system to track and monitor the progress of all YDP cases.

From the list of cases we obtained, we selected a judgmental, nonstatistical sample of 47 for testing. For each case selected, we inspected a redacted version of the hardcopy EDAO YDP case file to verify that it contained a signed YDP contract and other documents that evidenced completion of the contract requirements. The documents inspected depended on the participant’s contract and included documents like proof of counseling, proof of community service, essays related to offenses committed, certificates for education classes or training, apology letters, and certificates of program completion. We also inspected the case files for evidence of intake forms and the inclusion of counseling assessments in contracts in accordance with EDAO’s Juvenile/Youthful Diversion Guidelines. When sampling, we used a nonstatistical sampling method, the results of which we could not project to the entire population.

Victim Witness Assistance Program

To determine whether EDAO’s Victim Witness Assistance Program provided assistance throughout the court process to victims and witnesses of crimes, as required by Section 5 of Chapter 258B of the General Laws, we obtained a list of all 201 closed Superior Court cases that had arraignment1 dates during our audit period and involved a victim and/or witness. We obtained this list from EDAO’s District Attorney Management Information Office Network (DAMION) case management system, which EDAO uses to monitor the progress of all the cases the office processes.

From the list of cases obtained, we selected a judgmental, nonstatistical sample of 36 for testing. We conducted our testing by reviewing redacted versions of each case file. Each case file included court appearance notifications and victim witness advocate (VWA) case notes. Case files could also include documentation regarding any of the following that was requested: victim compensation and restitution; witness fees; escorts and other transportation related to the investigation or prosecution of a case; employer intercession; protection; family support, including childcare and other dependent care; waiting facilities; and social service referrals. We used the documents and case notes in the case files to determine whether VWAs provided services requested by victims or witnesses. When sampling, we used a nonstatistical sampling method, the results of which we could not project to the entire population.

Data Reliability Assessment

We assessed the reliability of the data obtained from EDAO’s Juvenile Justice Diversion Tracking System and DAMION by conducting interviews with EDAO officials with knowledge about the data, examining system documentation, and testing the data for duplicate records and dates outside our audit period.

To confirm the completeness and accuracy of the list of YDP cases, we traced a judgmental sample of 30 cases from the list to the hardcopy case files and selected a judgmental sample of 24 hardcopy case files to trace back to the list. We also conducted tests to identify any hidden columns or rows within the data to determine the data’s integrity.

To confirm the completeness and accuracy of the list of Superior Court cases that had been disposed of and had involved victims and/or witnesses, we traced a judgmental sample of 20 cases from the list to the hardcopy case files and traced a judgmental sample of 20 hardcopy case files to the list. We also conducted tests to identify any hidden columns or rows within the data to determine the data’s integrity.

We have determined that the lists are sufficiently reliable for our audit purposes.

Conclusion

Our audit revealed no significant instances of noncompliance that must be reported under generally accepted government auditing standards.

1.   All arraignments for Superior Court cases are processed through the Essex County Superior Court in Salem.

Date published: February 11, 2022

Help Us Improve Mass.gov  with your feedback

Please do not include personal or contact information.
Feedback