Audit of the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

An overview of the purpose and process of auditing the Suffolk County 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 Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office (SCDAO) for the period July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2019.

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
Does SCDAO’s Juvenile Alternative Resolution (JAR) Program assess the needs of, provide professional services to, and actively monitor juvenile offenders to ensure that program requirements are fulfilled, documented for juveniles who have completed the program, and compliant with program policies and procedures?	Yes
Does SCDAO’s Victim Witness Assistance Program (VWAP) provide assistance throughout the court process to victims and witnesses of crimes as required by Section 5 of Chapter 258B of the General Laws?	Yes

 

To achieve our objectives, we gained an understanding of SCDAO’s internal control environment related to our audit objectives by reviewing applicable agency policies and procedures, as well as conducting inquires with SCDAO management.

In addition, we performed the following audit procedures to obtain sufficient audit evidence to address our audit objectives.

JAR Program

For the JAR Program, we selected a random nonstatistical sample of 20 case files out of a population of 89 cases. We reviewed the case files to ensure the following:

• that the Ohio Youth Assessment System’s OYAS Diversion Screen Forms (which enable prosecutors to make initial determination of the appropriate course of action for juveniles at the time of arraignment) were prepared by the JAR Program coordinator and signed by the Assistant District Attorney responsible for coordinating the program
• that juveniles and parents or guardians had signed participation agreements
• that the JAR Program coordinator had evaluated and prepared the Youth Lead of Service / Case Management Interview (YLS/CMI 2.0) Forms and the Communicating Risk Assessment Information Forms (also called Intake Forms), which provide a reliable way to assess recidivism risk by measuring 42 risk or need factors
• that juveniles and parents/guardians signed diversion plans.

We verified evidence of monitoring by reviewing relevant emails; memos on voice calls; messages from juveniles, service providers, and probation officers; and notes on in-person communication with juveniles, service providers, and probation officers. Further, we verified that the JAR Program coordinator reevaluated the successful juveniles on the YLS/CMI 2.0 Form.

VWAP

To determine whether VWAP cases were prepared, and services were provided, in accordance with Section 5 of Chapter 258B of the General Laws, we initially selected a random nonstatistical sample of 60 case files out of a population of 34,428 from the audit period. However, because the data contained cases that did not have victim witness advocates (VWAs) assigned to them and SCDAO could not extract the VWAP cases from the population, we randomly selected an additional 240 cases in increments of 60 (total of 300) and asked SCDAO to identify the ones that had VWAs assigned to reach our needed sample size of 60 cases. To validate that this identification and selection were unbiased, we selected the first 188 cases that SCDAO did not identify as having VWAs assigned and reviewed them for the types of crime being committed to determine whether they might have warranted VWAs.

For the 60 cases that SCDAO identified as VWAP cases, we examined the files to determine the types of crime and whether appropriate types of service were provided throughout the court process to the victims. Further, we determined whether the victims and witnesses were contacted by advocates within a reasonable time after the alleged crimes.

Data Reliability

From SCDAO management, we obtained a list of case files related to the JAR Program and VWAP for fiscal years 2018 and 2019 and obtained a client representation letter³ from SCDAO confirming the population of these case files.

Conclusion

Our audit revealed no significant instances of noncompliance that must be reported under generally accepted government auditing standards.

3.     A client representation letter states that all of the information submitted by an agency is accurate and all material information has been disclosed to the auditors.

Date published:	January 11, 2021