Audit of the Massachusetts Parole Board Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

An overview of the purpose and process of auditing the Massachusetts Parole Board.

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 Massachusetts Parole Board (MPB) for the period July 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019.

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 MPB comply with the risk and needs assessment required by Section 130 of Chapter 127 of the General Laws and MPB Policy 120 PAR 112, “Risk/Needs Assessment”?	No; see Finding 1
Did MPB comply with all the requirements of the fiscal year 2017 Smart Supervision Program?	Yes
Did MPB adhere to its policy regarding tracking the progress of parolees who require services as part of their parole conditions?	No; see Finding 2

 

To achieve our objectives, we gained an understanding of the internal control environment we determined to be relevant to our audit objectives by reviewing agency policies and procedures, as well as conducting inquiries with the staff and management. We evaluated the operating effectiveness of internal controls regarding expenditures related to the fiscal year 2017 Smart Supervision Program. We performed the following procedures to obtain sufficient, appropriate audit evidence to address the audit objectives.

Risk and Needs Assessment in the Level of Service Case Management Inventory

We obtained from MPB a population of 5,494 parolees released during our audit period. To determine whether risk and needs assessments were conducted in the Level of Service Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI), we used a random statistical sampling method with a 95% confidence level² and a 0% expected error rate for our test. We tested 60 of the 5,494 parolee records for key fields used in the assessment and reassessment processes per MPB Policy 120 PAR 112, “Risk/Needs Assessment.” The key fields we tested are as follows:

• eligibility for parole hearing
• date initial risk and needs assessment was conducted using LS/CMI
• completeness of risk and needs assessment in LS/CMI
• date of 6-month reassessment after release, for parolees who were on supervision periods of 12 months or more
• dates of reassessments for parolees who had received a life sentence or who were sex offenders
• dates of annual reassessments for parolees who had completed 6-month reassessments
• date of MPB hearing
• whether the risk and needs assessment was conducted using LS/CMI before each parolee’s hearing
• whether there were records of MPB’s decision to approve parole
• whether MPB decisions about parole were made available to the public.

We inspected parolees’ profiles, risk and needs assessments in LS/CMI, case documentation, case notes, and summaries from the State Parole Integrated Records and Information Tracking (SPIRIT) II system.

Fiscal Year 2017 Smart Supervision Grant

We requested and obtained documentation from MPB to determine whether the fiscal year 2017 Smart Supervision Program’s funds were disbursed in accordance with the grant’s requirements during our audit period. We conducted a test to verify the following attributes:

• the creation, and submission to the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), of a program narrative to explain what MPB will do with the grant funds
• the effectiveness of the internal controls over the use of the grant funding
• submission dates of quarterly financial reports
• dates of semiannual progress reports
• date when data were provided to DOJ with results from the program.

In addition, we conducted a test of the grant’s expenditures to determine whether the disbursements were allowable according to the fiscal year 2017 Smart Supervision Program. We requested and examined all invoices from approved service providers who received disbursements from this grant. We also obtained a list of overtime payments from MPB and selected a random nonstatistical sample of 35 out of a population of 156 overtime payments made during the audit period. To perform this testing, we requested documentation and examined invoice contents, dates, amounts, and descriptions. We examined records for approval of disbursements, such as signatures, to determine whether disbursements were allowable expenditures.

Reentry Forms and Tracking of Parolees’ Progress

MPB gave us a list of all parolees released to supervision during our audit period. To determine whether reentry forms were provided to parolees, we selected a random statistical sample of 60 parolees out of a population of 5,494, with a 95% confidence level and a 0% expected error rate. We reviewed parolees’ profiles, dates of MPB-approved parole, supervision levels, parole conditions, case notes, and summaries from SPIRIT II. We obtained documentation such as parolees’ reentry forms from MPB and checked for proper signatures and approvals.

In addition to determining whether parole officers tracked parolees’ parole statuses, we conducted inquiries with MPB personnel and reviewed policies and documentation related to the supervision of MPB’s parole officers in regard to their case audits. To determine whether MPB management reviewed parole officers’ assignments to track parolees’ parole statuses and conditions, we selected a random statistical sample of 60 parolees out of a population of 5,494, with a 95% confidence level and a 0% expected error rate. We reviewed parolees’ case audit dates, case notes, and summaries from SPIRIT II. We obtained documentation, such as hardcopy case notes for parolees, from MPB.

Data Reliability Assessment

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 personal security.

In our current audit, to determine the reliability of the data we received from MPB, we traced source documents to SPIRIT II and traced items from SPIRIT II to source documents to ensure accuracy and completeness of the data for a population of 5,494 parolees. We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable to conduct audit testing for the purpose of our audit objectives. We reviewed general information controls, including automated control testing, access controls, security training, and personnel screening, over SPIRIT II and MMARS to determine the reliability of the data therein. We also performed data integrity tests by searching for blank fields in parolees’ records and checking for duplicate parolee records in SPIRIT II. We tested for completeness and appropriateness of the SPIRIT II data and MMARS expense data.

We used a combination of nonstatistical and statistical sampling methods for our audit objectives and did not project the sample results to any of the population.

2.     The confidence level is the measure of how confident we can be that our results reflect what we would have obtained if the entire population had been tested. The expected error rate is the anticipated rate of occurrence of improper risk/needs assessments.

Date published:	March 24, 2021