Audit of the Massachusetts Sheriffs’ Association Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

An overview of the purpose and process of auditing the Massachusetts Sheriffs’ Association.

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 Massachusetts Sheriffs’ Association (MSA) for the period of July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2024.

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 MSA submit complete and timely Occupational Capacity Reports to the Executive Office for Administration and Finance, the Senate and House Committees on Ways and Means, the Joint Committee on the Judiciary, and the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security, in accordance with Section 6A of Chapter 124 of the General Laws?	No; see Finding 3
To what extent did MSA standardize and coordinate the programs and services offered by Commonwealth sheriffs’ offices, in accordance with state budget line item 8910-7110—Massachusetts Sheriffs’ Association Main Appropriation?	To an insufficient extent; see Findings 1 and 2

To accomplish our audit objectives, we gained an understanding of the MSA internal control environment relevant to our objectives by reviewing applicable policies and procedures and by conducting interviews and process walkthroughs with key MSA personnel members and superintendents from five sheriffs’ offices. In addition, to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to address our audit objectives, we performed the procedures described below.

Operational Capacity Reports

To determine whether MSA submitted complete and timely Occupational Capacity Reports (OCRs) to the Executive Office for Administration and Finance, the Senate and House Committees on Ways and Means, the Joint Committee on the Judiciary, and the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security, in accordance with Section 6A of Chapter 124 of the General Laws, we took the following actions:

• We obtained all 56 OCRs that the sheriffs’ offices submitted to MSA during the audit period. We noted that the Nantucket County Sheriff’s Office submitted only 1 OCR in 2022 and 0 thereafter, as it does not house inmates. The Suffolk County Sheriff’s Office submitted 3 OCRs in fiscal year 2023 and 4 in fiscal year 2024, reporting separately for the Suffolk County Jail and the Suffolk County House of Correction.² See the Appendix for a breakdown of the OCRs submitted by sheriffs’ offices.
• We reviewed each OCR for completeness, determining whether all nine statutorily required attributes were reported by the sheriffs’ offices.
• To determine whether the OCRs were submitted in a timely manner, we reviewed email correspondence between MSA and legislative recipients. We examined the submission dates to determine whether reports were transmitted within 30 days of the close of each reporting period, as required. We also reviewed the distribution lists to ensure that all required recipients were included, including the Executive Office for Administration and Finance, the Senate and House Committees on Ways and Means, the Joint Committee on the Judiciary, and the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security.

For this objective, we found certain issues during our testing. See Finding 3 for more information.

Coordination and Standardization of Services and Programs

To determine to what extent MSA standardized and coordinated the programs and services offered by Commonwealth sheriffs’ offices, in accordance with state budget line item 8910-7110—Massachusetts Sheriffs’ Association Main Appropriation, we took the following actions:

• We inquired whether MSA had any documented internal policies and procedures pertaining to the coordination and standardization of services and programs offered. We were informed that MSA did not have any such documentation during the audit period.
• We conducted interviews with MSA’s executive director, deputy director, and director of data analytics and research, all of whom are knowledgeable about the Programs, Services, Interventions, and Reinvestments (PSI) Matrix, to gain an understanding of MSA’s role in preparation of the PSI Matrix Report submitted to stakeholders. We obtained MSA’s legal interpretation of line item 8910-7110. According to the general counsel, MSA’s responsibility under this line item is limited to compiling and reporting data related to services and programs. MSA stated that it does not have the authority to mandate how individual sheriffs’ offices administer their programs and services.
• We reviewed agendas and meeting minutes from 16 monthly meetings held during the audit period involving sheriffs, superintendents, and members of MSA’s Data Governance Council³ to identify any discussions concerning the coordination or standardization of services and programs across sheriffs’ offices.
• We obtained two PSI Matrix Report workbooks that covered the period January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2024 (they are prepared on a calendar-year basis). Each report contained worksheets for 13 of the 14 sheriffs’ offices. We analyzed the data for inconsistencies or formatting issues. The Nantucket Sheriff’s Office does not report PSI Matrix data as it does not house inmates and, therefore, does not provide the programs and services that would show up on the PSI Matrix.
• Additionally, we selected a random, nonstatistical sample and analyzed programs with similar intended outcomes across the Commonwealth to compare elements such as program intensity, duration, and the licensing or certification requirements of staff members who deliver these programs to determine whether variations in implementation exist.
• We also determined whether programs were categorized correctly within the PSI Matrix Report workbooks to ensure accurate classification and reporting.

For this objective, we found certain issues during our testing. See Finding 1 and Finding 2 for more information.

Data Reliability Assessment

OCRs

To determine the reliability of the OCR workbook data, we interviewed MSA management, as well as personnel members from 5 randomly selected sheriffs’ offices (out of the 14 sheriffs’ offices) who were responsible for the source data to gain an understanding of the reports and their compilation process.

We obtained and reviewed all four semi-annual OCRs compiled and submitted by MSA for fiscal years 2023 and 2024. We reviewed the data to ensure that it did not contain certain dataset issues (i.e., embedded data, hidden objects such as rows or columns, duplicate records, missing values in necessary data fields, and data corresponding to dates outside the audit period).

Additionally, we obtained all 56 OCR completed templates submitted by the 14⁴ sheriffs’ offices, which were used to compile MSA’s OCRs. We selected a random sample of 10 OCR worksheets containing data provided by individual sheriffs’ offices and traced key information (e.g., building inventory, inmate counts, cell and bed counts, and average time out of cell) back to the original OCR templates. We also selected a random sample of 10 OCR templates submitted to MSA at random and compared the information to what was reported on the OCRs for accuracy. Specifically, we reviewed the nine categories that comprise the OCR, according to Section 6A of Chapter 124 of the General Laws, which are the following:

1. whether a building housed inmates in the timeframe in question;
2. whether the purpose of a building that housed inmates changed during the timeframe in question;
3. the designed capacity of a building that houses inmates;
4. the number of rooms in the building and the number of beds in each room;
5. the custody level of the building (which indicates certain information about the housed inmates, such as the level of security the inmates need, or whether they are women or men);
6. the average time, in hours, that inmates spend outside of their room;
7. the average inmate count for the timeframe in question;
8. an inventory of all buildings at a correctional facility, including a description of each that contains information on whether it is occupied, potentially available, uninhabitable, or no longer habitable; and
9. the last date the building housed inmates, if ever.

For this aspect of our data reliability assessment, we found certain issues during our testing; namely, we noted some inconsistencies with the OCR data. Nevertheless, we used this data in our testing, as it was the only source of information available to answer our audit objective. See Finding 3 for more information.

PSI Matrix Report Data

We obtained and reviewed the two PSI Matrix Reports for calendar years 2023 and 2024. We reviewed the data to ensure that it did not contain certain dataset issues (i.e., embedded data, hidden objects such as rows or columns, duplicate records, missing values in necessary data fields, and data corresponding to dates outside the audit period) and obtained descriptions for data fields requiring clarification.

Additionally, we obtained and reviewed 26 associated PSI Matrix templates submitted by 13⁵ out of the 14 sheriffs’ offices that were used to compile MSA’s final PSI Matrix Reports.

To determine the reliability of the PSI Matrix Reports, provided in the form of Excel workbooks, we interviewed­­—from the same five sheriff offices we interviewed regarding the OCRs—MSA management and personnel members responsible for preparing the source data for the PSI Matrix, in order to gain an understanding of the reports and their compilation process.

We selected a random sample of five worksheets from calendar year 2023 and 2024 PSI Matrix workbooks, each representing individual sheriffs’ offices, and traced the program counts to the original PSI Matrix Reports submitted by the respective sheriffs’ offices. We also selected a random sample of five PSI Matrix templates submitted by sheriffs’ offices and vouched⁶ the reported information back to the corresponding entries in MSA’s compiled PSI Matrix workbooks.

For this aspect of our data reliability assessment, we found certain issues during our testing; namely, we noted some inconsistencies with the PSI Matrix data. Nevertheless, we used this data in our testing, as it was the only source of information available to answer our audit objective. See Finding 2 for more information.

Based on the results of the data reliability assessment procedures described above, we determined that the information we obtained during the course of our audit was sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our audit.

2.    According to the Suffolk County Sheriff’s Office website, “the Suffolk County Jail houses pretrial male detainees. Males are housed there before their trials. The House of Correction (HOC) confines both pretrial and sentenced females and males who have been found guilty of a crime.”

3.    MSA’s Data Governance Council enables the Massachusetts sheriffs’ offices to have trust, transparency, and clarity in data-related decisions to provide the highest-quality data for criminal justice reform data collection, reporting, and analysis.

4.    The Nantucket County Sheriff’s Office submitted one OCR the first year that OCRs were required to be submitted, even though it did not have any housed inmates.

5.    The Nantucket Sheriff’s Office does not operate a correctional facility, and therefore, does not offer services and programs related to inmates.

6.    Vouching is the inspection of supporting documentation to corroborate data.

Date published:	November 26, 2025