• This page, Audit of the Office of the Commissioner of Probation Objectives, Scope, and Methodology, is   offered by
  • Office of the State Auditor

Audit of the Office of the Commissioner of Probation Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

An overview of the purpose and process of auditing the Office of the Commissioner of Probation.

Table of Contents

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 the Commissioner of Probation (OCP) for the period July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2020.

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 and the conclusion we reached regarding each objective.

Objective

Conclusion

  1. Does OCP ensure that court-ordered parameter information is entered correctly in the global positioning system (GPS) and Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitoring (SCRAM) systems in accordance with Sections B(1)(c) and B(5) of the Massachusetts Probation Service Electronic Monitoring (ELMO) Center’s “GPS Standards Policy No. 02.07.01”?

Yes

  1. Does OCP monitor GPS Tier 1 and Tier 2 alerts in accordance with the ELMO Center’s “GPS Standards Policy No. 02.07.01” and the ELMO Program’s “GPS Protocol”?

Yes

  1. Does OCP monitor SCRAM alerts in accordance with the Trial Court’s Electronic Monitoring SCRAM Remote Breath Program (SCRAM) Procedures?

Yes

  1. Does OCP ensure that it obtains consent from a court justice before allowing police officials to access juvenile records, as required by Section 90 of Chapter 276 of the General Laws?

Yes

 

To achieve our audit objectives, we conducted interviews with OCP’s staff and management and reviewed agency policies and procedures to gain an understanding of internal controls that were relevant to the objectives. In addition, we performed the following procedures to obtain sufficient, appropriate audit evidence to address the objectives.

Enrollment of GPS and SCRAM Participants

To determine whether OCP correctly entered information related to court-ordered parameters for GPS enrollment, we selected a random, statistical sample of 60 of 11,262 GPS participants who were enrolled or reenrolled during our audit period, with a confidence level of 95%, a tolerable error rate of 5%, and an expected error rate of 0%. We compared the most recent information in each participant’s enrollment packet to information in the GPS tracking system, Attenti Event Monitor (EM) Manager. We reviewed the following sections of the various GPS enrollment packet forms: “Enrollee Information,” “Enrollee Employment Information,” “Offense and Supervision Information,” “Victim Information,” “Assigned Monitoring Equipment,” “Victim Notification,” and “Conditions of Supervision.”

To determine whether OCP correctly entered information about court-ordered parameters for SCRAM enrollment, we selected a random, statistical sample of 60 of 4,253 SCRAM participants whose equipment was activated during our audit period, with a confidence level of 95%, a tolerable error rate of 5%, and an expected error rate of 0%. We compared the most recent information in each participant’s enrollment packet to information in the SCRAM tracking system, SCRAMNET. We reviewed the following sections of the various SCRAM enrollment packet forms: “Enrollee Information,” “Enrollee Employment Information,” “Offense and Supervision Information,” “Victim Information,” “Assigned Monitoring Equipment,” “Victim Notification,” and “Alcohol Monitoring Device Weekly Itinerary Form.”

Monitoring of GPS Alerts

To determine whether OCP monitored its GPS Tier 1 and 2 alerts in accordance with the ELMO Center’s “GPS Standards Policy No. 02.07.01” and the ELMO Program’s “GPS Protocol,” we obtained a list of all 958,384 GPS alerts that the ELMO Center handled during our audit period. We grouped the alerts according to the category the ELMO Center had assigned to each one: Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3. The total population of GPS Tier 1 and Tier 2 alerts during our audit period was 392,971.

We selected a random, statistical sample of 60 of these 392,971 alerts, with a confidence level of 95%, a tolerable error rate of 5%, and an expected error rate of 0%, and reviewed each alert to determine whether the ELMO Center followed pertinent and measurable steps specified in the ELMO Center’s “GPS Standards Policy No. 02.07.01” and the ELMO Program’s “GPS Protocol.” To review each alert in our sample, we logged into Attenti EM Manager and reviewed the case notes and GPS alert history for each alert to verify that an ELMO Center employee had followed the required steps. Depending on the type of alert, these steps could include contacting the participant, the participant’s probation officer during business hours, or the Warrant Management Unit after hours and/or clearing the alert if applicable.

Monitoring of SCRAM Alerts

To determine whether OCP monitored SCRAM alerts in accordance with the Trial Court’s Electronic Monitoring SCRAM Remote Breath Program (SCRAM) Procedures, we selected a random, statistical sample of 60 from the total population of 605,425 SCRAM alerts during our audit period that were not coded as “passed” (e.g., the test was not taken or indicated a higher-than-acceptable breath alcohol concentration), with a confidence level of 95%, a tolerable error rate of 5%, and an expected error rate of 0%. To review each alert, we logged on to SCRAMNET and reviewed the case notes and SCRAM device message history for each record to verify that an ELMO Center employee had adhered to the required steps. These steps could include contacting the participant, the participant’s probation officer, or an OCP regional supervisor; requesting that the participant take an on-demand test; and/or clearing the alert.

Review of Juvenile Record Requests

To determine whether OCP ensured that it obtained consent from a court justice before allowing police officials to access participants’ juvenile records as required by Section 90 of Chapter 276 of the General Laws, we selected a random, nonstatistical sample of 60 from the total population of 812 juvenile GPS participants who were monitored during the audit period. We determined whether there was a court justice’s signature on the Order of GPS Supervision Conditions Form for each juvenile GPS participant and whether the relevant information in the “Conditions” paragraph5 had been altered.

When using nonstatistical sampling, we could not project the results to the entire population.

Data Reliability

To determine the reliability of the Attenti reports of the population of GPS participants who were enrolled or reenrolled during the audit period (provided by OCP management), we checked for duplicate records and verified that all enrollment and reenrollment dates were within the audit period. ELMO management demonstrated for us Attenti EM Manager application controls designed to ensure the integrity of data entry by validating certain fields (e.g., ZIP code, county, and address) before allowing an enrollment to continue. Based on these procedures, we determined that the GPS participant population obtained was sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this audit.

To determine the reliability of the list of SCRAM participants who were monitored during the audit period (provided by OCP management), we compared participant totals on the list to a spreadsheet we downloaded from SCRAMNET. We checked the list for duplicate records, hidden rows, and hidden columns and verified that entry dates were within the audit period. ELMO management demonstrated for us SCRAMNET application controls designed to ensure the integrity of data entry by validating certain fields (e.g., remote breath alcohol schedule not completed) before allowing an enrollment to continue. Based on these procedures, we determined that the SCRAM participant population obtained was sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this audit.

To determine the reliability of the alert population in the SCRAM alert resolution reports provided by OCP management, we verified that the reports contained the total number of SCRAM alerts that were resolved during the audit period. Additionally, we selected a sample of 20 SCRAM alerts and verified that the participants associated with them were monitored in SCRAMNET during the audit period. Based on these procedures, we determined that the SCRAM alert population obtained was sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this audit.

From Attenti EM Manager, we downloaded Total Alert Action Reports, which listed all GPS alerts for the audit period. To determine the reliability of these reports, we selected a sample of 20 alerts and verified that the participants associated with them were monitored in Attenti EM Manager during our audit period. Based on the analyses conducted, we determined that the GPS alert population obtained was sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this audit.

We assessed the reliability of the data obtained from Attenti EM Manager and SCRAMNET systems by reviewing policies for security management; interviewing OCP personnel who were knowledgeable about the systems; and testing certain information system general controls, including access controls, security awareness training, and personnel screening, for both Attenti EM Manager and SCRAMNET. Based on our understanding and testing of information system general and application controls, we determined that both Attenti EM Manager and SCRAMNET were reliable for the purposes of this audit. However, we did identify a number of issues, which we address in the “Other Matters” section of this report.

5.     This paragraph states, “Coordinates and other data related to your physical location while on GPS are recorded and may be shared with the court, probation, parole, attorneys and law enforcement. Data generated by GPS equipment assigned to you is not private and confidential.”

Date published: November 8, 2021

Help Us Improve Mass.gov  with your feedback

Please do not include personal or contact information.
Feedback