Audit of the Juvenile Court Department Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

An overview of the purpose and process of auditing the Juvenile Court Department

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 Juvenile Court Department (JCD) for the period November 5, 2018 through March 15, 2020.

We performed this audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards, except Section 8.90 of Chapter 8 of the United States Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards, which pertains to obtaining sufficient, appropriate evidence to meet audit objectives. See “Scope Impairments” below for details on the lack of audit evidence that prevented us from addressing the objectives and developing findings and conclusions.

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 where each objective is discussed in this report.

Objective	Conclusion
Does JCD provide offenders with a pretrial diversion model (as required by Section 54A of Chapter 119 of the General Laws) that is aimed at preventing recidivism among program participants?	See Scope Impairments
Does JCD comply with Section 86(b) of Chapter 119 of the General Laws, which prohibits the use of restraints (unless there is good reason to use them) during court proceedings?	See Scope Impairments

 

To gain an understanding of the internal control environment we determined to be relevant to our audit objectives, we reviewed agency policies and procedures and conducted inquiries with the staff and management. We could not evaluate the design and operating effectiveness of internal controls regarding pretrial diversion and restraint use on juveniles because of a lack of evidence.

We conducted interviews with key individuals, such as justices and a clerk magistrate, and made a site visit to the Worcester Juvenile Court, to gain an understanding of any diversion programs that are used. However, we could not conduct substantive testing to address the audit objective related to diversion because of a scope impairment related to data.

To gain an understanding of the use of restraints during court proceedings, we conducted interviews with key individuals, such as justices and court officers. We observed the holding chamber in the Worcester Juvenile Court, where juveniles wait until their cases are heard. However, we could not conduct substantive testing to address the audit objective related to the use of restraints because of a scope impairment related to recordkeeping.

Section 9.12 of the United States Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards states, “Auditors should . . . report any significant constraints imposed on the audit approach by information limitations or scope impairments.” During our audit of JCD, there were significant constraints on our ability to obtain the information necessary to achieve our audit objectives, as follows.

Diversion Programs

We could not perform audit procedures to determine whether JCD provided offenders with a pretrial diversion model (as required by Section 54A of Chapter 119 of the General Laws) that was aimed at preventing recidivism among program participants, because JCD does not maintain records related to the juveniles who have completed its diversion programs. JCD officials told us that since the primary purpose of a diversion program is to make sure that juveniles who complete the program do not have criminal records, JCD expunges¹ their records when they complete a program. OSA confirmed this through inspection at the Worcester Juvenile Court.

Juvenile Restraints

We could not perform audit procedures to determine whether JCD complied with Section 86(b) of Chapter 119 of the General Laws, which restricts the use of restraints during court proceedings, because JCD does not maintain a log of the use of restraints. JCD management told us the use of restraints was rare and that JCD did not log the use of restraints during court proceedings. Additionally, during interviews, we learned that the court officers within the Massachusetts Trial Court Security Department are responsible for applying restraints and seeking the judge’s permission to use restraints in the courtroom by completing and submitting written forms to the judge requesting the use of restraints. Because JCD does not log the use of restraints, it was not possible to identify the population of juveniles who were restrained during court proceedings during the audit period, which we could have used to select a sample to address our audit objective.

Scope Impairments

JCD lacked data that would have allowed us to perform our audit testing. Through our interviews, OSA learned that the court locations in at least one Massachusetts county use a document called the Delinquency Diversion Data Form to track diversions. This document contains certain information about a juvenile who has entered a diversion program as a result of a court case, such as the docket number; the charge/s; the date/s of offense/s; the party that requested the diversion; whether the diversion was successful; and information about the juvenile such as gender, age, ethnicity, and race. However, this document is not used by all of the counties in Massachusetts. We recommend that JCD require all its court locations to use a de-identified² version of the Delinquency Diversion Data Form and document the use of restraints during court proceedings in a master log to address these issues.

During fiscal year 2018, the state Legislature enacted Chapter 69 of the Acts of 2018. One purpose of this legislation was to amend Section 54 of Chapter 119 of the General Laws to state,

A juvenile court shall have jurisdiction to divert from further court processing a child who is subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court as the result of an application for complaint brought pursuant to section 54.

Although we acknowledge that Section 54A(f)(4) of Chapter 119 of the General Laws requires a juvenile’s record to be expunged upon completion of a diversion program, OSA believes that JCD should maintain certain de-identified information about its diversion program participants to demonstrate that all of its diversion programs are operated without biases toward or against certain groups. We believe that JCD should require all its court locations to collect and retain information similar to that collected on the Delinquency Diversion Data Form, in a de-identified manner, about each juvenile who is offered diversion. In OSA’s opinion, this would protect the identity and privacy of the juveniles who had completed a program and would document that JCD’s juvenile diversion programs operate without biases toward or against certain groups. JCD could also use this information to assess the effectiveness of its programs at reducing recidivism.

Finally, OSA believes that JCD should develop policies and procedures to centrally monitor or track juveniles who are restrained during court proceedings by maintaining a master log of this information. This log would allow JCD to determine where and how often restraints are used; it could also facilitate effective examination, either by the court or by independent auditors, of JCD’s compliance with Section 86(b) of Chapter 119 of the General Laws.

Auditee’s Response

In response to the recommendation for all Juvenile Court locations to use a de-identified version of the Delinquency Diversion Data form currently used by Middlesex County Juvenile Court, the Administrative Office of the Juvenile Court acknowledges the need to capture when judicial diversion is ordered in the Juvenile Court and the gender, age, ethnicity, and race of the juveniles participating in diversion. To address this need, the Administrative Office of the Juvenile Court plans to issue instructions to all Juvenile Court locations regarding the entry of docket codes specific to judicial diversion ordered pursuant to [Section 54 of Chapter 119 of the General Laws]. The use of these codes will allow the Juvenile Court to generate reports regarding judicial diversion, including the gender, age, ethnicity, and race of the juvenile. These reports will provide the same information as the Delinquency Diversion Data form but in a statewide, uniform format.

In response to the recommendation for the Juvenile Court Department to develop policies and procedures to monitor or track juveniles who are restrained during court proceedings, as you are aware there is a Trial Court policy as well as [Section 86 of Chapter 119 of the General Laws], addressing the use of restraints on juveniles in all court proceedings. The Administrative Office of the Juvenile Court accepts your recommendation of monitoring and tracking the use of restraints and will create a new docket code to be used whenever the court orders that a juvenile be restrained during court proceedings.

The creation and use of this docket code will allow the Juvenile Court to generate reports regarding the use of restraints and will act similar to a master log. In addition to the creation of the docket code, the Administrative Office of the Juvenile Court will instruct all Juvenile Court judges and staff regarding [Section 86 of Chapter 119 of the General Laws] and the creation of the new docket code.

Auditor’s Reply

Based on its response, JCD is taking measures to address the concerns raised in this report.

1.    When a judge dismisses the charge against the juvenile after completing a diversion program, the court enters an order for the expungement, or the destruction of, all physical or electronic records of the charge against the juvenile.

2.    A de-identified document protects the privacy of an individual by not including their personal information.

Date published:	July 21, 2022