• This page, Audit of the Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department Objectives, Scope, and Methodology, is   offered by
  • Office of the State Auditor

Audit of the Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

An overview of the purpose and process of auditing the Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department.

Table of Contents

Overview

In accordance with Section 12 of Chapter 11 of the Massachusetts General Laws, the Office of the State Auditor (OSA) has conducted a performance audit of certain activities of the Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department (SCSD) for the period July 1, 2015 through December 31, 2017. For our overtime audit objective, we extended our audit period through April 26, 2018.

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. Were certain administrative expenses executed in accordance with SCSD’s policies and procedures, and did they directly support SCSD’s mission?

Yes

  1. Did SCSD properly administer its revenue and its contracting process for goods and services in accordance with its internal control policies and procedures, the Massachusetts Sheriffs’ Association’s (MSA’s) budgetary requirements, and any contractual agreements?

No; see Finding 2

  1. Did SCSD properly administer overtime for its employees who received the most overtime, in accordance with its policies and procedures?

No; see Finding 1

 

To achieve our objectives, we gained an understanding of the internal controls related to our audit objectives by reviewing applicable laws and agency policies and procedures, as well as conducting interviews with SCSD management. We evaluated the design and tested the operating effectiveness of controls over the following areas: administrative expenses, contractual procurement of goods and services, and administration of SCSD employee overtime.

Based on OSA’s two most recent (2014 and 2018) data-reliability assessments of the Massachusetts Management Accounting and Reporting System (MMARS), which focused on testing selected system controls (access controls, application controls, configuration management, contingency planning, and segregation of duties), and our current comparison of source documentation with MMARS information, we determined that the information obtained from MMARS for our audit period was sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our audit work. Further, to verify our sample population of expenditures, we selected six invoices from SCSD’s files and determined whether the information on the invoices matched the data in MMARS. To assess the reliability of inventory data, we selected 15 items in the SCSD facility and determined whether they were on the inventory list SCSD provided and whether the tag numbers affixed to them matched their tag numbers on the inventory list. Finally, we extracted from MMARS a list of SCSD employees who received overtime payments during our audit period and compared it to information produced by SCSD to determine the accuracy of the records.

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

Administrative Expenses

To determine whether administrative expenses such as credit card expenditures and travel expenses were accurately recorded, properly supported, and approved in accordance with SCSD policies and procedures, as well as whether they directly supported SCSD’s mission, we selected a nonstatistical sample of 20 transactions for SCSD administrative expenses (totaling $12,914) out of a population of 113 transactions (totaling $87,885) that were recorded in MMARS during the audit period. We reviewed the documentation SCSD maintained for each transaction and determined whether expenditures were related to SCSD activities, were properly calculated, and had sufficient documentation. We also determined whether invoice amounts matched expenditure amounts and invoices were properly approved and marked as paid. To assess whether assets were properly inventoried, we judgmentally selected 30 out of 573 items from SCSD’s inventory list, located them, and determined whether they had inventory tags affixed and whether the tags were properly recorded. Additionally, we reviewed purchase orders and invoices to determine whether assets were represented accurately on SCSD’s inventory list.

Contract Administration

To determine whether SCSD properly administered its contracting process for goods and services, we selected a judgmental sample of 4 contracts (totaling $72,741,707) out of 42 contracts (totaling $108,193,775) that SCSD awarded during our audit period. We reviewed the contract files to determine whether each contract was awarded in accordance with SCSD policies and procedures, the procurement and award process was properly documented, completion certificates2 were signed and dated, and the services rendered were appropriate for SCSD’s mission. We reviewed SCSD’s contract with Securas, the company that provides inmate telephone services, and determined whether SCSD commissions3 were used for the benefit of inmates and detainees. Finally, we reviewed SCSD’s contract with US Immigration and Customs Enforcement regarding the housing of detainees and all supporting documentation and determined whether SCSD submitted inmate total cost analysis reports4 to the appropriate agencies.

Overtime

To determine whether overtime was properly managed and approved for SCSD correction officers, we selected one payroll date for each of the 43 correction officers who received the most overtime payments through April 26, 2018. We then reviewed the applicable Time and Attendance Roster Forms5 to determine why employees were required to work overtime and whether overtime had the required supervisory approval. Further, we determined whether the amounts paid were accurate by comparing payroll data in SCSD’s internal payroll system to data in the Commonwealth’s payroll system.

We used a nonstatistical sampling approach for our testing and therefore cannot project our results to the entire population.

The table below summarizes the overtime SCSD paid its correction officers and jailers6 during our audit period.

Fiscal Year

Overtime Expenditures

2016

$9,780,988

2017

$12,991,995

2018 (through December 31, 2017)

$3,688,303

2.    These certificates verify that a job or service was completed in accordance with the terms of its contract.

3.    Under SCSD’s contract with Securas, a percentage of the revenue the company generates from the inmate telephone services it provides is paid to SCSD.

4.    These reports are compiled by each sheriff’s office in conjunction with MSA and detail the total costs for the care and custody of inmates for each facility and department.

5.    These forms are completed daily either on paper or electronically and contain employee time and attendance information.

6.    These amounts were paid to correction officers, who worked at the Suffolk County House of Correction, or jailers, who worked at the Suffolk County Jail. Other SCSD employees, such as administrative personnel, were paid overtime during our audit period, but these amounts are not reflected in the table.

Date published: April 11, 2019

Help Us Improve Mass.gov  with your feedback

Please do not include personal or contact information.
Feedback