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 Plymouth County District Attorney’s Office (PCDA) for the period July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2021.
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 |
|
Yes |
|
No; see Finding 1 |
|
No; see Finding 2 |
To achieve our audit objectives, we gained an understanding of PCDA’s internal control environment related to the objectives by reviewing applicable policies and procedures and interviewing PCDA officials. We evaluated the design and tested the operating effectiveness of internal controls related to the approval of forfeiture trust fund expenditures, the verification of amounts of seized assets received from police departments, and the approval of forfeited asset distribution calculations.
To obtain sufficient, appropriate audit evidence to address our audit objectives, we performed the following procedures.
Forfeiture Trust Fund Expenditures
To determine whether PCDA made forfeiture trust fund expenditures in compliance with Section 47(d) of Chapter 94C of the General Laws, we performed the following procedures.
PCDA provided us with a list of 277 forfeiture trust fund expenditures (totaling $287,763) that were made during the audit period. We then separated these expenditures into two groups. The first group comprised expenditures that were greater than or equal to $10,000, and the second group comprised expenditures that were less than $10,000. We selected all 4 expenditures (totaling $104,135) with amounts greater than $10,000. We then selected a random, nonstatistical sample of 35 expenditures (totaling $26,613) from the remaining population of expenditures that were less than $10,000 (totaling $183,628). This gave us a total sample size of 39 expenditures.
We reviewed supporting documentation (invoices, purchase orders, requests for expense reimbursement, check requests, emails, canceled checks, and bank statements) for our sample of 39 expenditures to determine whether each expenditure was supported by documentation and was allowable under Section 47(d) of Chapter 94C of the General Laws.
We used nonstatistical sampling methods for testing and therefore did not project the results of our testing to any population.
We noted no exceptions in our testing; therefore, we conclude that PCDA made the forfeiture trust fund expenditures that we sampled in accordance with Section 47(d) of Chapter 94C of the General Laws.
Forfeited Assets from Closed Cases
To determine whether PCDA ensured that forfeited assets from closed cases were collected, deposited, and distributed in compliance with Section 47(d) of Chapter 94C of the General Laws, we performed the following procedures.
PCDA provided us with a list of all 236 forfeited assets (totaling $569,911) that it received during the audit period. We then separated these forfeited assets into two groups. The first group comprised forfeited assets that were greater than or equal to $20,000, and the second group comprised forfeited assets that were less than $20,000. We selected all 5 forfeited assets (totaling $230,106) that were greater than $20,000 for testing. We then selected a random, nonstatistical sample of 20 forfeited assets (totaling $22,716) from the remaining population of forfeited assets that were less than $20,000 for testing. This gave us a total sample size of 25 forfeited assets.
We reviewed relevant case documentation for each forfeited asset tested (such as any seized fund receipts, forfeiture orders from court, forfeiture split calculations, police reports, checks, deposit slips, bank statements, or emails) to determine whether PCDA (1) collected and deposited the correct amount of forfeited assets and (2) distributed the correct amount of forfeited assets to the police department(s) involved in the seizure.
We used nonstatistical sampling methods for testing and therefore did not project the results of our testing to any population.
See Finding 1 for an issue we identified with PCDA’s forfeited asset distribution.
Cybersecurity Awareness Training
To determine whether PCDA employees completed cybersecurity awareness training in accordance with Information Security Risk Management Standard IS.010 issued by the Executive Office of Technology Services and Security, we interviewed PCDA’s chief financial officer, information technology director, and human resources generalist to discuss whether PCDA had established a cybersecurity awareness training program for its employees.
See Finding 2 for an issue we identified regarding PCDA’s cybersecurity awareness training.
Data Reliability Assessment
Forfeiture Trust Fund Expenditures
To determine the reliability of the list of forfeiture trust fund expenditures, we checked the list for invalid and duplicate records. We also checked the list for dates outside of our audit period. To test for accuracy, we randomly selected a sample of 20 expenditures from this list and compared expenditure dates and amounts to copies of checks, invoices, and payment requests. To test for completeness, we selected a judgmental sample of 20 invoices / payment requests from PCDA’s files and compared expenditure information on each invoice and/or payment request to the corresponding expenditures recorded on the list, including dates of expenditures, expense classifications, and expenditure amounts.
Forfeited Assets from Closed Cases
All forfeited assets from closed cases result from initial seizures of those assets. Given this, we reviewed a list of seizures provided by PCDA to determine the completeness and accuracy of the list of forfeited assets.
To determine the reliability of the list of seizures, we checked the list for invalid and duplicate records. We also checked the list for dates outside of our audit period. To test for accuracy, we randomly selected a sample of 20 seizures from the list. We compared the date and amount of the seizure, receipt number, and the police department involved in the seizure to copies of seized fund receipts and police reports. To test for completeness, we selected a judgmental sample of 20 seized fund receipts from PCDA’s files. We compared seizure information on the receipts to the information recorded on the list of seizures, including dates, monetary amounts of seizures, and police department(s) involved in the seizures.
To determine the reliability of the list of forfeited assets, we checked the list for invalid and duplicate records. We also checked the list for dates outside of our audit period. To test for accuracy, we randomly selected a sample of 20 forfeitures from the list and compared the date and amount of the forfeitures to information recorded in the court orders. To test for completeness, we selected a judgmental sample of 20 court orders from PCDA’s files. We compared information in the court orders to the information recorded on the list of forfeited assets, including dates and amounts of forfeited assets, the monetary amounts distributed to police departments, and the police departments involved in the cases.
Based on the data reliability procedures described above, we determined that the data obtained for our audit period were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our audit.
| Date published: | November 16, 2023 |
|---|