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 Office of Jury Commissioner (OJC) for the period July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2022.
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 |
|---|---|
| 1. Did OJC collect feedback from jurors to provide for the reasonable comfort and convenience of jurors to comply with Section 45 of Chapter 234A of the General Laws? | Yes |
| 2. Did OJC provide juror demographic data in its annual reports issued as required by Section 79 of Chapter 234A of the General Laws? | Yes |
To accomplish our audit objectives, we gained an understanding of the aspects of OJC’s internal control environment relevant to our objectives by reviewing applicable agency policies and procedures and by interviewing OJC staff members and management. We evaluated the design of controls over the collection of feedback from prospective and/or selected jurors, the accommodation of deaf and hard of hearing prospective and/or selected jurors, and the inclusion of juror demographic data in annual reports.
To obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to address our audit objectives, we performed the procedures described below.
Juror Comfort and Convenience
To determine whether OJC collected feedback from jurors to provide for the reasonable comfort and convenience of jurors to comply with Section 45 of Chapter 234A of the General Laws, we took the actions described below.
Juror Feedback Survey
We requested, and OJC provided us with, juror feedback survey data. OJC uses an electronic data repository to store this data. We reviewed this data and found that, during the audit period, there were 13,275 prospective and/or selected juror responses that included completed responses to all close-ended questions (e.g., questions restricted to yes/no or drop-down options) in the juror feedback survey. We also noted that, of these 13,275 responses, 6,599 also included open-ended comments regarding the respondents’ overall juror service experience. We completed no further analysis of those open-ended comments.
Deaf and Hard of Hearing Prospective and/or Selected Jurors
We requested, and OJC provided us with, a list of prospective jurors who, during the audit period, notified OJC that they will serve but that they require accommodations protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act to do so. We reviewed this list and identified prospective jurors who specifically requested accommodations that are typical for people who are deaf or hard of hearing. We then compared this list to juror service check-in documentation that OJC provided to us to determine whether OJC fulfilled their requests. We noted that all deaf or hard of hearing prospective jurors from this list requested frequency modulation systems. Of these requests, all but one prospective juror had their juror service canceled by OJC the day before their service was to take place (because all prospective jurors were not necessary on that date of service). The one remaining prospective juror received a frequency modulation system on their appointed juror service date.
We noted no exceptions in our testing; therefore, we concluded that, during the audit period, OJC collected feedback from jurors to provide for the reasonable comfort and convenience of jurors.
Juror Demographic Data
To determine whether OJC provided juror demographic data in its annual reports issued as required by Section 79 of Chapter 234A of the General Laws, we reviewed each of the Executive Office of the Trial Court’s Annual Diversity Reports that covered the audit period. Due to time constraints, we did not perform an analysis on the US Census Bureau data that OJC compares to its prospective juror’s self-reported demographic data or the data disclosed in OJC’s annual reports.
We noted no exceptions in our testing; therefore, we concluded that, during the audit period, OJC provided juror demographic data in its annual reports.
Data Reliability Assessment
To determine the reliability of the juror feedback survey data, we tested the data to ensure that it did not contain any duplicate records, missing data fields, or data that was outside of the audit period.
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.
Conclusion
Our audit revealed no significant issues that must be reported under generally accepted government auditing standards. We noted no exceptions in our testing; therefore, we concluded that, during the audit period, OJC collected feedback from jurors to provide for the reasonable comfort and convenience of jurors and provided juror demographic data in its annual reports.
| Date published: | September 20, 2024 |
|---|