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.

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 Sheriff’s Department (SCSD) for the period July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2024.

We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards,⁴ except for Paragraph 8.90 of Chapter 8, which pertains to obtaining sufficient, appropriate evidence to meet audit objectives. During the audit, we encountered instances where sufficient, appropriate evidence was not provided for the full audit period.

Consistent with generally accepted government auditing standards, we have noted this inability to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence as part of the “Scope Limitations” section below. We believe that, except for areas detailed in the “Scope Limitations” section, the evidence we 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
Did SCSD annually review the needs of its sentenced inmates to ensure that its social service programs met its sentenced inmates’ needs in accordance with Section V of SCSD’s Social Services Policy S470 and Section 936.03(2) of Title 103 of the Code of Massachusetts Regulations (CMR)?	No; see Finding 1
Did SCSD ensure that those who administered and supervised its social service programs had at least a bachelor’s degree in social or behavioral sciences or a related field in accordance with 103 CMR 936.03(4)?	Yes
Did SCSD ensure that all sentenced inmates received an orientation within 72 hours of admission, and within seven days of transfer, in accordance with Section IX of SCSD’s Social Services Policy S470 and 103 CMR 936.03(5)?	No; see Finding 2
Did SCSD ensure that all sentenced inmates and pretrial detainees were assigned a counselor or caseworker in accordance with Section XI of SCSD’s Social Services Policy S470 and 103 CMR 936.03(6) and (7)?	Yes
Did SCSD ensure that all sentenced inmates and pretrial detainees had access to crisis intervention in accordance with Section XII of SCSD’s Social Services Policy S470 and 103 CMR 936.03(7)?	Yes
Did SCSD have written policies and procedures to provide sentenced inmates access to vocational training programs for skills relevant to the demands of the local job market in accordance with 103 CMR 936.02(2)?	Yes
Did SCSD ensure that all academic and vocational instructors employed by SCSD met or were working toward the certification requirements stipulated by the Commonwealth’s Department of Elementary and Secondary Education in accordance with 103 CMR 936.02(3)?	No; see Finding 3
Did SCSD ensure that its educational programs allowed sentenced inmates to start academic or vocational programs and proceed through these programs and ensure that sentenced inmates were placed in academic and vocational courses based on counseling provided to them in accordance with 103 CMR 936.02(4) and (5)?	No; see Findings 4 and 7
Did SCSD provide counseling and substance use disorder treatment to sentenced inmates participating in the Medication Assisted Treatment (MAT) Program, as outlined in SCSD’s “Medication Assisted Treatment Program Handbook,” SCSD’s Correctional Psychiatric Services Policy, and 103 CMR 936.03(3)?	No; see Finding 5
How and to what extent has SCSD established and implemented policies and procedures over the monitoring of its sick call process to ensure that its healthcare vendor complies with all the requirements of SCSD’s healthcare policies?	To an insufficient extent; see Finding 6
Did sentenced inmates and pretrial detainees at SCSD receive medical care after submission of Health Service Request Forms (HSRFs) in accordance with Section VII of SCSD’s Inmate Care and Treatment Policy S604 and 103 CMR 932.09?	No; see Finding 6

To accomplish our audit objectives, we gained an understanding of the SCSD internal control environment relevant to our objectives by reviewing SCSD’s internal control plan, reviewing applicable policies and procedures, and conducting site visits and interviews with SCSD management. We evaluated the design and implementation of internal controls related to the hiring of administrators and supervisors of social service programs. We also tested the operating effectiveness of internal controls related to the hiring of administrators and supervisors of social service programs. In addition, to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to address our audit objectives, we performed the procedures described below.

Scope Limitations

SCSD could not provide the data that would have allowed us to perform certain aspects of our audit testing as outlined below.

For Objective 5, we requested the timesheets for all qualified healthcare professionals (QHPs) on duty for both the Suffolk County Jail and the Suffolk County House of Correction (HOC) for each date within our sample of 50 dates. After we made our request, we were informed that the healthcare vendor responsible for maintaining the timesheets reported to SCSD no longer had access to timesheets before November 2022. Due to these limitations, we selected an additional 9 dates from the period November 1, 2022 through June 30, 2024 and performed substantive testing on the 50 dates in our sample within this timeframe. See the “Crisis Intervention” section of this report for more information. Although we did not find any issues regarding the 50 dates reviewed between November 1, 2022 through June 30, 2024, this period does not cover the entire audit period. If we had been provided with all 50 dates from our initial sample selection, then our audit conclusion for this objective may have been different.

For Objective 9, we were unable to determine the population of sentenced inmates who were diagnosed with substance use disorder because we could not query SCSD’s previous healthcare vendor’s electronic medical record management system because of how the healthcare records were stored. Additionally, SCSD did not have the ability to provide a report with the required fields and could not obtain the necessary data from its third-party healthcare vendor. Due to the inability to identify this population, we were unable to test our original objective to determine whether sentenced inmates who were diagnosed with substance use disorder received counseling and program services in accordance with 103 CMR 936.03(3).

As a result, we adjusted Objective 9 to determine whether the smaller, but identifiable, population of sentenced inmates who were designated in SCSD’s inmate information system as having been enrolled in the MAT Program received appropriate counseling and treatment as outlined in SCSD’s “Medication Assisted Treatment Program Handbook,” SCSD’s Correctional Psychiatric Services Policy, and 103 CMR 936.03(3). However, during our testing, we discovered that SCSD’s inmate information system did not have the capability to distinguish whether a sentenced inmate was enrolled in the MAT Program at an SCSD facility before, during, or after the audit period or whether they were previously enrolled in another program in a different county. These limitations created uncertainty in the accuracy of the number of sentenced inmates enrolled in the MAT Program at SCSD facilities during the audit period; therefore, we were unable to determine the true size of the population. We performed substantive testing on the 56 sentenced inmates in our sample who were enrolled in the MAT Program at SCSD during the audit period. See the “Substance Use Disorder Treatment Programs” in the Objectives, Scope, and Methodology section of this report for more information. As outlined in Finding 5, we found certain issues regarding this matter. Had we been able to review the full sample size selected, this may have increased the number of audit findings reported in Finding 5.

Review of Inmate Needs

To determine whether SCSD annually reviewed the needs of its sentenced inmates to ensure that its social service programs met its sentenced inmates’ needs in accordance with Section V of SCSD’s Social Services Policy S470 and 103 CMR 936.03(2), we interviewed SCSD management and requested documentation to support that annual needs assessments were conducted to ensure that the necessary programs and services were available.

For this objective, we found certain issues during our testing; namely, that SCSD was unable to provide evidence that it completed annual reviews of the needs of its sentenced inmates to ensure that its social service programs met the needs of its sentenced inmates, as required by Section V of SCSD’s Social Services Policy S470 and 103 CMR 936.03(2). See Finding 1 for more information.

Review of Social Service Program Administrators’ and Supervisors’ Education Qualifications

To determine whether SCSD ensured that those who administered and supervised its social service programs had at least a bachelor’s degree in social or behavioral sciences or a related field in accordance with 103 CMR 936.03(4), we reviewed the personnel files for all six of the administrators and supervisors. We reviewed these six staff members’ work histories, certifications, education, and inspected copies of their diplomas to determine whether they held at least a bachelor’s degree in social or behavioral sciences or a related field.

For this objective, we found no significant issues during our testing. Therefore, we concluded that, based on our testing, SCSD ensured that those who administered and supervised its social service programs had at least a bachelor’s degree in social or behavioral sciences or a related field in accordance with 103 CMR 936.03(4).

Inmate Orientation

To determine whether SCSD ensured that all sentenced inmates received an orientation within 72 hours of admission, and within seven days of transfer, in accordance with Section IX of SCSD’s Social Services Policy S470 and 103 CMR 936.03(5), we selected a statistical⁵ sample of 60 sentenced inmates out of the population of 1,478 sentenced inmates booked during the audit period, using a 95% confidence level,⁶ a 0% expected error rate,⁷ and a 5% tolerable error rate.⁸ For the 60 sentenced inmates in our sample, we reviewed the data for sentenced inmates from SCSD’s inmate information system to identify each time the sentenced inmate was booked during the audit period. We identified 69 unique bookings⁹ for the 60 sentenced inmates in our sample. For each of the 69 unique bookings we identified, we reviewed the corresponding Inmate Orientation Forms on file for each sentenced inmate in our sample to determine the dates the forms were signed. These dates were then compared to every booking date for those sentenced inmates in our sample to determine whether they received their orientation within 72 hours of admission or 7 days of transfer.

For this objective, we found certain issues during our testing; namely, that SCSD did not provide all sentenced inmates with intake orientation within the required timeframes. See Finding 2 for more information.

Counselor/Caseworker

To determine whether SCSD ensured that all sentenced inmates and pretrial detainees were assigned a counselor or caseworker in accordance with Section XI of SCSD’s Social Services Policy S470 and 103 CMR 936.03(6) and (7), we selected a statistical sample of 60 sentenced inmates and pretrial detainees out of the population of 8,033 sentenced inmates and pretrial detainees who were booked during the audit period, using a 95% confidence level, a 0% expected error rate, and a 5% tolerable error rate. For the 60 sentenced inmates and pretrial detainees in our sample, we reviewed the data for sentenced inmates and pretrial detainees from SCSD’s inmate information system to identify each time that they were booked during the audit period. We identified 154 unique bookings for the 60 sentenced inmates and pretrial detainees in our sample. We then performed the following procedures:

• To determine whether a counselor or caseworker was assigned to each sentenced inmate and pretrial detainee in our sample, we inspected the section of SCSD’s inmate information system that contains time-stamped assignments of caseworkers.
• We used the date the counselor or caseworker was assigned to calculate the number of days between when the sentenced inmates were booked and when the counselor or caseworker was assigned to determine whether they were assigned within 72 hours of intake.

Based on the results of our testing, we determined that, during the audit period, SCSD assigned a counselor or caseworker to sentenced inmates and pretrial detainees within the timeframes outlined in Section XI of SCSD’s Social Services Policy S470 and 103 CMR 936.03(6) and (7).

Crisis Intervention

To determine whether SCSD ensured that all sentenced inmates and pretrial detainees had access to crisis intervention in accordance with Section XII of SCSD’s Social Services Policy S470 and 103 CMR 936.03(7), we selected a nonstatistical¹⁰ sample of 50 dates between November 1, 2022 through June 30, 2024 and requested QHP timesheets for each date in our sample. We inspected the available timesheets to determine whether a QHP was onsite at both the Suffolk County Jail and Suffolk County HOC to provide crisis intervention during the entire 24 hours of each date. We were unable to select our sample from the audit period, July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2024, for the reasons mentioned in the “Scope Limitations” section. We noted no exceptions in our testing of the 50 dates within our sample for this shortened timeframe. 

Vocational Program Policies

To determine whether SCSD had written policies and procedures to provide sentenced inmates access to vocational training programs for skills relevant to the demands of the local job market, such as automobile repair or carpentry, in accordance with 103 CMR 936.02(2), we inspected SCSD’s internal policies to determine whether it had written policies and procedures to provide sentenced inmates access to vocational training programs for skills that were in demand in the local job market.

Based on the results of our testing, we determined that SCSD’s internal policies include SCSD’s Academic and Vocational Arts Programs Policy S460, which was in compliance with the requirements of 103 CMR 936.02(2).

Academic and Vocational Staff Member Certification Requirements

To determine whether SCSD ensured that the 10 vocational instructors (whom we could identify) and all 4 academic instructors employed by SCSD met or were working toward the certification requirements stipulated by the Commonwealth’s Department of Elementary and Secondary Education in accordance with 103 CMR 936.02(3), we performed the following procedures:

• For each instructor, we determined the certification requirements for the classes they instructed.
• For each instructor, we reviewed their personnel file to determine whether they had documentation that they had received any required certifications or course progress toward the required certifications.

Based on the results of our testing, we determined that, during the audit period, SCSD did not consistently ensure that vocational instructors had received or were working toward the certification requirements stipulated by the Commonwealth’s Department of Elementary and Secondary Education in accordance with 103 CMR 936.02(3). See Finding 3 for more information.

Academic and Vocational Course Placement

To determine whether SCSD ensured that its educational programs allowed sentenced inmates to start academic or vocational programs and proceed through these programs at their own pace in accordance with 103 CMR 936.02(4), we requested policies and procedures related to the enrollment and structure of SCSD’s educational and vocational programs. Additionally, we interviewed the superintendent who oversees the vocational programs and the director of education about the structure of the academic and vocational programs offered by SCSD. We inquired how sentenced inmates were enrolled in the programs and whether the programs had a start or end date that would prohibit sentenced inmates from starting academic or vocational programs and proceeding through these programs at their own pace. SCSD officials informed us that, with the exception of certain vocational programs that build off of skills learned within the first section of the programs, each of the programs offered is set up to run on an ongoing basis. These ongoing classes do not have a start or end date, and each sentenced inmate enrolled in the program would begin with the coursework that corresponds to their level of education and continue until they completed all remaining coursework.

We noted that the policy states that SCSD would allow sentenced inmates to start academic or vocational programs and proceed through these programs at their own pace; however, the policy does not provide instructions to SCSD employees on how to accomplish this task in the event of agency turnover. For example, inmates who test at different grade levels can be placed in the same class but receive individualized teaching from the instructor at their grade level. However, there is no SCSD policy outlining the specifics on the structure of educational classes or how sentenced inmates are to be enrolled in SCSD’s educational programs so that they may proceed through these programs at their own pace. We determined that SCSD did not have documented procedures in place to ensure that its educational programs allowed sentenced inmates to start academic or vocational programs and proceed through these programs at their own pace in accordance with 103 CMR 936.02(4). See Finding 7 for more information.

To determine whether SCSD ensured that sentenced inmates were placed in academic and vocational courses based on counseling provided to them in accordance with 103 CMR 936.02(5), we selected a statistical sample of 60 sentenced inmates out of the population of 1,478 sentenced inmates who were booked the during audit period, using a 95% confidence level, a 0% expected error rate, and a 5% tolerable error rate. For the 60 sentenced inmates in our sample, we reviewed data for the sentenced inmates from SCSD’s inmate information system to identify each time the sentenced inmate was booked during the audit period. We identified 69 unique bookings for the 60 sentenced inmates in our sample. For each of the 69 unique bookings identified, we performed the following procedures:

• We verified that each sentenced inmate in our sample received an educational assessment, which was used to determine their educational needs and abilities.
• For each sentenced inmate in our sample, we inspected the section of SCSD’s inmate information system that contains time-stamped evidence of counseling on program recommendations based on the results of their educational assessments. For each sentenced inmate in our sample who did not have a high school diploma or equivalency and who received an educational assessment test result below an eighth-grade reading level, we determined the following:
  • whether they were assigned to participate in a functional literacy program for at least 90 days, in accordance with SCSD’s Academic and Vocational Arts Programs Policy S460;
  • whether they attended the assigned programs; or
  • whether they had a signed participation refusal form on file, if they did not attend the assigned programs.

For this objective, we found certain issues during our testing; namely, that SCSD did not provide educational assessments to all inmates and could not provide evidence that it obtained signed participation refusal forms for sentenced inmates who chose to not attend recommended programs. See Finding 4 for more information.

Substance Use Disorder Treatment Programs

To determine whether SCSD provided counseling and substance use disorder treatment to sentenced inmates participating in the MAT Program, as outlined in SCSD’s “Medication Assisted Treatment Program Handbook,” SCSD’s Correctional Psychiatric Services Policy, and 103 CMR 936.03(3), we selected a nonstatistical sample of 60 sentenced inmates from the population of 545 sentenced inmates designated as participating in the MAT Program. Due to the issues mentioned in the “Scope Limitations” section of this report, we were only able to test 56 of the 60 sentenced inmates in our sample. For these 56 sentenced inmates, we performed the following procedures:

• We reviewed the MAT Program participation form on file for each sentenced inmate in our sample to determine whether they were counseled about the program requirements.
• We inspected the section of SCSD’s inmate information system that contains time-stamped evidence for each sentenced inmate in our sample to determine whether:
  • they were orally counseled on the program requirements;
  • they had received a health assessment before initiating MAT; and
  • they received medication prescribed as part of their treatment plan.

For this objective, we found certain issues during our testing; namely, that SCSD did not receive consent to participate forms for all sentenced inmates enrolled in the MAT Program. See Finding 5 for more information.

Implementation of Policies and Procedures Over the Monitoring of Sick Calls

To determine how and to what extent SCSD has established and implemented policies and procedures over the monitoring of its sick call process to ensure that its healthcare vendor complied with all the requirements of SCSD’s healthcare policies, as recommended in our prior audit (Audit No. 2022-1449-3J), we inquired with SCSD management regarding any current policies in place.

Based on our discussions with management, we determined that SCSD did not establish and implement policies and procedures over the monitoring of its sick call process to ensure that its healthcare vendor complied with all the requirements of SCSD’s healthcare policies, as recommended in our prior audit. See Finding 6 for more information.

Sick Calls

To determine whether sentenced inmates and pretrial detainees at SCSD received medical care after submission of HSRFs in accordance with Section VII of SCSD’s Inmate Care and Treatment Policy S604 and 103 CMR 932.09, we selected a statistical sample of 83 sick call requests from the 20,320 healthcare records associated with sick call requests (records that contained the keywords “sick slip,” “sick call,” or “s/s,” along with records that quoted the statement on the sick call request form) using a 90% confidence level, a 50% expected error rate, and a 19% tolerable error rate.

Further, we selected a nonstatistical sample of 60 healthcare records from the population of 14,377 healthcare records that did not contain the key identifiers of “sick slip,” “sick call,” or “s/s,” and records that did not quote the statement on the sick call request form, to determine whether these healthcare records were related to sick calls but were not labeled as such in SCSD’s electronic medical record management system. Specifically, we reviewed the medical records for the sentenced inmates and pretrial detainees associated with the healthcare records in our sample for any sick call request forms that were scanned into their medical files but were not labeled as sick call requests. We identified 18 healthcare records out of our sample of 60 that included a scanned sick call request form but were not labeled with the key identifiers. We added these 18 healthcare records to our sample of 83 and determined whether the following steps were performed:

1. the sick call was reviewed and logged into the Medical Record Management System within 24 hours after it was received by the medical staff members;
2. the sick call form was reviewed for the immediacy of need and required intervention;
3. a face-to-face encounter occurred within 48 hours during weekdays or 72 hours during weekends when a sick call form described clinical symptoms; and
4. the sick call was reviewed and treatment was provided or referred to the appropriate provider if the medical issue was beyond the expertise of the QHP.

Based on the results of our testing, we determined that, during the audit period, SCSD did not consistently ensure that sentenced inmates and pretrial detainees received medical care after submission of HSRFs in accordance with Section VII of SCSD’s Inmate Care and Treatment Policy S604 and 103 CMR 932.09. See Finding 6 for more information.

We used a combination of statistical and nonstatistical sampling methods for testing. We could not identify the number of unique bookings for sentenced inmates or pretrial detainees because of the way SCSD’s inmate information system records transferred sentenced inmates and pretrial detainees between SCSD facilities. Because of this, we examined every booking for those sentenced inmates in our samples for Objectives 3, 4, and 8. However, we did not project the results of our testing to the corresponding populations.

Data Reliability Assessment

Social Service Administrators/Supervisors

To assess the reliability of the list of seven social service program administrators and supervisors employed during the audit period provided by SCSD superintendents, we queried the Commonwealth Information Warehouse (CIW)¹¹ to obtain a list of all SCSD employees during the audit period and determined whether any employees had identical job titles. We also compared the list of social service program administrators and supervisors to the CIW list for agreement of employee names to ensure that they held the position during the audit period and to determine their job titles within the CIW. We identified two additional social service supervisors from the provided list of social service program administrators and supervisors through the CIW list review. In addition, we found that one employee provided by SCSD as a social service supervisor was not promoted to a supervisor position until after the audit period.

Inmate Information System

To assess the reliability of the data that we obtained from SCSD’s inmate information system related to sentenced inmates and pretrial detainees, we interviewed the information technology employees who were knowledgeable about the system.

We tested information system general controls, including security management, access controls, segregation of duties, and contingency planning. We selected a sample of 20 sentenced inmates and pretrial detainees from the list of sentenced inmates and pretrial detainees in SCSD’s inmate information system and compared for agreement the sentenced inmates’ and pretrial detainees’ information (i.e., first name, last name, birth date, booking date, and race) from the list to the information in the original source document (i.e., the mittimuses or booking records). We also selected a sample of 20 hardcopy mittimuses or booking records and compared the sentenced inmates’ and pretrial detainees’ information (i.e., first name, last name, birth date, booking date, and race) from that documentation to the information on the list of sentenced inmates and pretrial detainees from SCSD’s inmate information system for agreement.

In addition, we analyzed all 20,138 lines of data for sentenced inmate and pretrial detainee data to ensure that it did not contain certain dataset issues (i.e., duplicate records, missing values in necessary data fields, and data corresponding to dates outside the audit period).

For this aspect of our data reliability assessment, we found certain issues during our testing related to general information system controls for SCSD’s inmate information system. See Other Matters for details regarding record retention issues.

Academic and Vocational Instructors

To assess the reliability of the list of academic and vocational instructors we obtained from SCSD officials, we queried CIW to obtain a list of all SCSD employees during the audit period. We compared the list of academic and vocational instructors to the CIW list for agreement of employee names to ensure that they held the positions during the audit period and to determine their job titles within the CIW list. Further, we reviewed the CIW list to determine whether any employees had identical job titles to individuals on the list of academic and vocational instructors. For individuals we identified as having the same job title as the academic instructors, we determined whether they taught academic programs during the audit period. For individuals we identified as having the same job title as vocational instructors, but who were not identified as vocational instructors by SCSD, we were unable to determine whether they were actually vocational instructors.

Further, SCSD did not have the ability to provide a chronology of vocational instructors who were employed during the audit period. Because of this, we could not validate that the available population of vocational instructors was complete.

The list of vocational instructors that we obtained from SCSD officials was the only source of data available to answer our audit objective.

Electronic Medical Record Management System

To assess the reliability of the list of sick call requests that originated from SCSD’s electronic medical record management system, we interviewed the assistant superintendent of SCSD’s Medical Department. During the completion of our audit work, SCSD had read-only access to the electronic medical record management system because it changed healthcare providers. This limited our ability to test information system general controls, such as security management, access controls, configuration management, segregation of duties, and contingency planning.

We observed one of SCSD’s employees extract data for the 34,784 healthcare records from the audit period from SCSD’s electronic medical record management system using specific parameters under treatment and service type (medical and mental health sick calls). We removed duplicate records and mock data¹² records from this population and identified 34,697 unique records and identified that the provided data included healthcare records that were not related to sick call visits. Through discussions with SCSD officials, we determined that the healthcare records related to sick call requests contained the keywords “sick slip,” “sick call,” or “s/s” or quoted the statement on the sick call request form. Using these key identifiers, we identified 20,320 healthcare records associated with sick call requests.

In addition, we selected a sample of 20 sick calls from the list of sick calls in the electronic medical record management system and compared the information (i.e., first name, last name, birth date, date of sick call request, and date of entry of sick call into the electronic medical record management system) from this list to the information in the original HSRFs for agreement. We also selected a sample of 50 copies of submitted HSRFs and compared the information (i.e., first name, last name, birth date, date of sick call request, and date of entry of sick call into the electronic medical record management system) on the HSRFs to the information on the list of sick calls in the system.

In addition, we tested the list to ensure that it did not contain certain dataset issues (i.e., duplicate records and data corresponding to dates outside the audit period). The sick call request data that originated from the medical record management system was the only source available to answer our audit objective.

Based on the results of the data reliability assessment procedures described above, we determined that the information we obtained during the course of our audit was sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our audit.

4.    Government Auditing Standards, issued by the US Government Accountability Office, provide a framework for conducting high-quality audit work with competence, integrity, objectivity, and independence. These standards state that “such performance provides accountability and helps improve government operations and services. These standards, commonly referred to as generally accepted government auditing standards (GAGAS), provide the foundation for government auditors to lead by example in the areas of independence, transparency, accountability, and quality through the audit process.”

5.    Auditors use statistical sampling to select items for audit testing when a population is large (usually over 1,000) and contains similar items. Auditors generally use a statistics software program to choose a sample when statistical sampling is used. The results of testing using statistical sampling, unlike those from judgmental sampling, can usually be used to make conclusions or projections about entire populations.

6.    Confidence level is a mathematically based measure of the auditor’s assurance that the sample results (statistic) are representative of the population (parameter), expressed as a percentage.

7.    Expected error rate is the number of errors that are expected in the population, expressed as a percentage. It is based on the auditor’s knowledge of factors such as prior year results, the understanding of controls gained in planning, or a probe sample.

8.    Tolerable error rate is the maximum error in the population that auditors would be willing to accept and still conclude that the result from the sample has achieved the audit objective.

9.    Some sentenced inmates were booked and/or released multiple times during the audit period.

10.    Auditors use nonstatistical sampling to select items for audit testing when a population is very small, the population items are not similar enough, or there are specific items in the population that the auditors determine warrant review.

11.    The CIW contains budget, human resource, and payroll information as well as financial transaction data from the Massachusetts Management Accounting and Reporting System.

12.    Mock data is used to stand in for real data. This allows data users to simulate scenarios without the risks associated with testing live data.

Date published:	December 24, 2025