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

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

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 Northwestern District Attorney’s Office (NWDA) for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2023.

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
To what extent is NDWA administering the Veteran Diversion Program in accordance with Section 34 of Chapter 12 of the General Laws as it pertains to the benefits and services afforded to veterans and as reported on NWDA’s website?	To a partial extent; see Finding 1
Is NWDA’s Conviction Integrity Program reviewing past convictions equitably, and is it completing reviews in a timely manner and in accordance with internal protocol procedures and Rule 3.8 of the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct?	Partially; see Finding 2
To what extent does NWDA’s Juvenile Diversion Program (JDP) provide juvenile offenders with a reasonable pretrial diversion model that discourages and helps prevent recidivism among program participants, as recommended in our prior audit?	To a partial extent; see Finding 3

To accomplish our audit objectives, we gained an understanding of NWDA’s internal control environment relevant to our objectives by reviewing applicable policies and procedures and interviewing NWDA officials. We evaluated the design and tested the operating effectiveness of internal controls related to the JDP. Specifically, we tested the controls over NWDA’s monitoring of juveniles’ progress in the program and verified that key documentation such as intake reports, waivers of rights to a speedy trial in order to participate in the juvenile diversion program, and the juveniles’ voluntary acceptance into the juvenile diversion program was included in case files.

To obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to address our audit objectives, we performed the following procedures.

Veteran Diversion Program

To determine to what extent NWDA administered the Veteran Diversion Program in accordance with Section 34 of Chapter 12 of the General Laws as it pertains to the benefits and services afforded to veterans and as reported on NWDA’s website, we reviewed the criminal cases of the entire population of 16 veterans who were identified through collaboration with the Veterans Justice Outreach (VJO) Program as being candidates for diversion via the BRAVE Act during the audit period. We requested and reviewed the physical folders of the criminal cases and identified and verified the existence of supporting documentation of the following for each veteran: criminal background records, such as arrest reports and narrative police reports; evidence of the evaluation of the case and the determination to divert the veteran; the assessment and recommended treatment plan for the veteran; and the final outcomes of the diversion program, i.e., whether the veteran completed the requirements of the program.

Similarly, to determine how NWDA administered the cases of veterans referred to the Western Massachusetts Veterans Treatment Court (WMVTC), we reviewed the entire population of 49 veteran criminal cases, involving 29 veterans⁵ who were referred to the WMVTC during the audit period. We requested and reviewed the physical folders of the criminal cases and identified and verified the existence of supporting documentation of the following: criminal background records, such as arrest reports and narrative police reports; evidence of the evaluation of the case and the determination to refer the veteran to the WMVTC; veteran’s assessment and recommended treatment plan; and final outcome of the program, i.e., whether the veteran completed the treatment.

See Finding 1 for issues we identified with the administration of the Veteran Diversion Program.

Conviction Integrity Program

To determine whether NWDA’s Conviction Integrity Program reviewed past convictions equitably and completed submissions in a timely manner and in accordance with internal procedures and Rule 3.8 of the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct, we took the following actions:

• We interviewed NWDA employees with knowledge about Conviction Integrity Committee (CIC) roles and responsibilities.
• We reviewed information and documentation found on NWDA’s website about CIC activities, such as how a convicted defendant’s defense attorney can submit a case for post-conviction review,⁶ NWDA’s open file discovery policy,⁷ and the “Application for Review of a Criminal Conviction” that convicted defendants must complete to start a post-conviction review.
• We reviewed information about CIC on the 2021–2023 NWDA annual reports published on NWDA’s website.
• We requested and reviewed documentation regarding the six cases related to claims of innocence raised by convicted defendants during the audit period. Documentation that we reviewed included emails and correspondence between CIC members and the defendants’ attorneys, information that we received from CIC about the cases, Applications for Review of a Criminal Conviction submitted by defendants’ attorneys, and legal documentation, such as motions submitted in court under Chapter 278A of the General Laws.

See Finding 2 for issues we identified with the administration of the Conviction Integrity Program.

JDP

To determine whether NWDA’s JDP provided a reasonable pretrial diversion model that discourages and prevents recidivism among program participants, we requested and reviewed the data collected and statistics generated of the JDP. We interviewed staff members knowledgeable about JDP procedures, and inquired about how program data was collected, as well as what actions were taken to make improvements to the program based on the statistical results.

To evaluate how NWDA administered the JDP, we obtained a list of 125 juvenile diversion cases and selected a random sample of 35 cases. We requested and reviewed the physical folders of juvenile diversion cases and identified and verified the existence of supporting documentation of the following: a completed intake report;⁸ a completed agreement called “Voluntary Request for Acceptance into the Northwestern District Attorney’s Juvenile Diversion Program”; a completed Waiver of Counsel or a speedy trial; evidence of communications with a juvenile’s parent or attorney or evidence that community timesheets were completed and submitted, which demonstrated that NWDA monitored the juvenile’s progress while completing the diversion program; and evidence of the final outcome of the diversion program. Additionally, we evaluated whether post-completion surveys were available in the files.

See Finding 3 for issues we identified with NWDA’s administration of the JDP.

We used nonstatistical sampling methods for testing, and therefore did not project the results of our testing to the population.

Data Reliability Assessment

NWDA provided us with three sets of data obtained from the District Attorney Management Information Office Network (DAMION) case management system. This data related to veterans diverted to the VJO, veterans referred to WMVTC, and juveniles diverted to the JDP. To determine the reliability of this data, we interviewed NWDA management who were knowledgeable about the data and reviewed system documentation, such as the DAMION Prosecutor Reference Guide.

In addition, we performed the following procedures to determine the reliability of the data obtained from DAMION:

• Regarding the data of the 16 cases involving 16 veterans who were referred to programs handled by the VJO, we inspected the data for hidden rows and columns, missing data, and duplicate records. We also performed tests to assess completeness and accuracy of the data by tracing the 16 cases to the physical case files to review the accuracy and completeness of key data, such as case numbers, defendants’ names, and docket numbers.
• Regarding the data of the 49 criminal cases involving 29 veterans who were referred to the WMVTC, we inspected the data for hidden rows and columns, missing data, and duplicate records. We performed tests to assess completeness and accuracy of the data by tracing a sample of 10 veterans’ names to the physical case files and tracing a sample of 10 veterans’ names from case files to review the accuracy and completeness of key data, such as case numbers, defendants’ names, and docket numbers.
• Regarding the data of the 125 cases involving 108 juveniles who were referred to the JDP, we inspected the data for hidden rows and columns, missing data, and duplicate records. We performed tests to assess completeness and accuracy of the data by tracing a sample of 20 juveniles’ names to the physical files and tracing a sample of 19 juveniles’ names from the physical files to review the accuracy and completeness of key data, such as case numbers.

We also reviewed selected systems controls related to access controls, configuration management, contingency planning, segregation of duties, and security management.

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

5.    Some of the 29 veterans had multiple criminal cases, which led to the 49 criminal cases.

6.    Post-conviction review is a review performed by CIC of a convicted defendant’s case based on new forensic evidence or analysis that may lead to the overturn of the conviction.

7.    The “NWDAO Post-Conviction Open File Discovery Policy” defines open file discovery as providing defendants with access to evidence for the purposes of determining whether a legal claim has sufficient evidence to proceed to judgement.

8.    The intake report is used to gather general information about a juvenile, such as contact information, employment, and whether a juvenile had court involvement and counseling before. The intake report is used to assess a juvenile’s case and determine eligibility for the JDP and to develop and manage a juvenile’s diversion plan.

Date published:	December 30, 2024