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

An overview of the purpose and process of auditing the Middlesex 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 Middlesex Sheriff’s Office (MSO) 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; the conclusion we reached regarding each objective; and, if applicable, where each objective is discussed in the audit findings.

Objective	Conclusion
Were non-payroll expenses made in accordance with MSO’s policies and procedures, and did they directly support MSO’s mission?	Yes
Were inventory items (e.g., vehicles, firearms, and office equipment) accurately recorded on the inventory list according to the “Fixed Assets—Acquisition Policy” issued jointly by the Comptroller of the Commonwealth (CTR) and the Operational Services Division (OSD)?	No; see Findings 1 and 2 and Other Matters
Did MSO properly administer its contracting process for goods and services in accordance with its policies and procedures and the Commonwealth’s Standard Contract Form?	Yes
Did MSO maintain documentation for overtime paid to correction officers, showing proper approval, and did the overtime amounts paid agree to the Commonwealth’s Human Resources Compensation Management System (HR/CMS)?	Yes

To achieve our audit 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 MSO management. We evaluated the design and tested the operating effectiveness of controls over the contractual procurement of goods and services.

Data Reliability

In 2018, OSA performed a data reliability assessment of the Commonwealth’s official financial record, the Massachusetts Management Accounting and Reporting System (MMARS), that focused on testing selected system controls (access controls, application controls, configuration management, contingency planning, and segregation of duties) for the period April 1, 2017 through March 31, 2018. As part of the current audit, we compared invoice data obtained from MSO to purchase order data in the MMARS Commonwealth Information Warehouse to verify that the transaction information matched and the list of contracts was complete.  

To determine the completeness and accuracy of the inventory list obtained from MSO, we selected 16 inventory items from the list and traced them to their physical locations. Further, we selected 14 inventory items from physical locations and traced them back to the MSO inventory list.

To determine the accuracy of the list of contracts obtained from MSO, we selected 25 contracts and confirmed their validity using the hardcopy contracts.

To determine the reliability of overtime data obtained from MSO, we selected 15 overtime payments and compared the paid hours and dollar amounts to HR/CMS data.

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

Non-Payroll Administrative Expenses

To determine whether non-payroll administrative expenses were accurately recorded and approved in accordance with MSO policies and procedures, as well as whether they directly supported MSO’s mission, we selected a nonstatistical judgmental sample of 80 MSO administrative expense transactions (totaling $169,449) from a total population of 38,258 (totaling $37,023,520) that were recorded in MMARS during the audit period. We reviewed the documentation (purchase orders) that MSO maintained for each transaction and determined whether expenditures were related to MSO activities and had sufficient documentation (purchase orders). We also determined whether invoice amounts matched expenditure amounts and whether invoices were approved and marked as paid.

We used a nonstatistical sampling method for our audit objectives and did not project the sample results to the entire population.

Inventory

To assess whether assets were properly inventoried, we judgmentally selected 60 out of 4,349 inventory items (20 out of 266 weapons and ammunition stocks, 20 out of 183 vehicles, and 20 out of 3,900 other assets) from MSO’s inventory list, located them, and determined whether they had inventory tags affixed and whether the tags were properly recorded and maintained in accordance with the “Fixed Assets—Acquisition Policy” issued jointly by CTR and OSD. Additionally, we reviewed purchase orders and invoices to determine whether assets were represented accurately on MSO’s inventory list.

Further, based on our assessment of the inventory, we noted that MSO maintained a fleet of 183 vehicles. We reviewed policies and procedures related to vehicle fleet management and use at MSO. For our audit period, we obtained the data related to the cost of maintaining those vehicles and compared it to those of other sheriffs in the Commonwealth.

Procurement

To determine whether MSO administered its contracting process for goods and services according to its policies and procedures, we selected a judgmental sample of 25 of 255 contracts that MSO awarded during our audit period. We reviewed the contract files to determine whether each contract was awarded in accordance with MSO policies and procedures, whether each contract had the assigned procurement number (assigned contract identification number), whether each vendor was registered with the Commonwealth, whether each contract was approved, and whether the services rendered under each contract were appropriate for MSO’s mission.

Overtime

To determine whether MSO maintained documentation for overtime paid to correction officers, showing proper approval, and whether the overtime amounts paid agreed to HR/CMS, we judgmentally selected 66 out of 880 overtime payments from our audit period. For the sample of overtime payments selected for our testing, we examined hardcopy payroll extraction reports and overtime vouchers to determine whether overtime was approved, whether overtime had supporting documentation (payroll extraction, daily shift rosters, and overtime vouchers) on file, and whether the overtime hours worked and amounts paid agreed to HR/CMS.

We used a nonstatistical sampling approach for our testing and therefore cannot project our results to the entire population.

The table below summarizes the overtime MSO paid its correction officers during our audit period.

Fiscal Year	Overtime Expenditures
2017	$2,110,829
2018	$2,436,890
2019 (through December 31, 2018)	$1,288,184

Date published:	February 21, 2020