Overview
The Massachusetts Sheriffs’ Association (MSA) submitted Operational Capacity Reports (OCRs) that were incomplete. Specifically, we found that 7 (13%) out of the 56 OCR worksheets reviewed did not indicate whether a facility housed inmates, which is one of the nine required elements. Therefore, we determined that MSA did not review in detail all required fields completed in the OCRs before submitting these reports to the Executive Office for Administration and Finance, the Senate and House Committees on Ways and Means, the Joint Committee on the Judiciary, and the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security.
We also identified several data quality issues within the OCRs that undermined the consistency and reliability of the data. These issues included numeric fields that contained text values and the absence of controls that prevent formatting and structural inconsistencies (and the subsequent analytic problems that arise due to this issue) across the different sheriffs’ offices. In addition, required fields were left blank without any explanation, making it unclear whether the data was unavailable, not applicable, or intentionally omitted.
Submitting OCRS with incomplete data and various data-quality issues undermines the reliability and usefulness of the information provided to stakeholders. Missing or inaccurate data limits stakeholders’ ability to assess facility conditions and allocate resources effectively. Additionally, inconsistently formatted data can complicate analysis and may reduce confidence in the reports.
Authoritative Guidance
Section 6A of Chapter 124 of the Massachusetts General Laws states,
The department of correction, in collaboration with the Massachusetts Sheriffs Association, Inc., shall report on the use of all facilities of the department and of each sheriff’s office during the periods of January 1 to June 30, inclusive, and July 1 to December 31, inclusive, of each year. The reports shall be due not later than 30 days after the close of each period. Each report shall include, but not be limited to: (i) an inventory of all buildings that are used or have been used to house inmates since January 1, 2018; (ii) a catalog of changes in use or purpose for all housing units and buildings during the preceding period; (iii) all housing units in each building and the original design capacity of each; (iv) all cells or rooms in each housing unit and the number of beds in each cell or room; (v) a brief description of the housing unit including, but not limited to, the custody level and function of the unit; (vi) the average daily amount of time offered out of cell for recreation, programs, education or employment to inmates in each housing unit during the preceding period; (vii) the average inmate count in each housing unit for the preceding period; (viii) an inventory of all buildings in all correctional facilities, regardless of whether the building has ever been occupied by inmates, with a brief description of each building and a statement as to whether the building is used for housing; provided, however, that if the building is used for housing, the report shall include whether it is occupied, unoccupied but available for future habitation or no longer considered habitable; and (ix) the last date on which an inmate was housed in a housing unit or building that does not currently house inmates; provided, however, that if multiple housing units in the same facility are categorized in the same way as to the features outlined in clauses (v) and (vi), the housing units may be aggregated for the purpose of inmate count reporting under clause (vii) and the number of housing units aggregated shall be reported; and provided further, that for reporting under other clauses above in which buildings or housing units are referred to individually, their official names need not be used.
Reasons for Issue
MSA did not have sufficient policies and procedures to ensure that sheriffs’ offices submitted complete OCRs. MSA officials stated that they review OCR worksheets submitted by sheriffs’ offices to ensure completeness. However, during the audit period, we found no documented evidence to support that such reviews were consistently performed or effective.
Recommendation
MSA should develop, document, and implement sufficient policies and procedures to ensure that sheriffs’ offices submit complete OCRs. These procedures should establish official review processes to verify the completeness of OCR data before submission and include follow-up procedures with sheriffs’ offices to promptly address and correct any deficiencies. Additionally, MSA should maintain records of all reviews and follow-ups to ensure accountability.
Auditee’s Response
The MSA thanks the Auditing staff for their detailed review of the Operational Capacity Reports (OCR) and the recommendations for its improvement. The OCR is a complex report, new in its development and opened to continued enhancement. The MSA will implement formal comprehensive policies and procedures that define the expectations for OCR submissions. These policies will include the current standardized templates as well as submission guidelines to ensure uniformity across all Sheriffs’ Offices. Additionally, the MSA will establish an official review process to verify the completeness and accuracy of OCR data, prior to final submission. This process will involve designated staff conducting structured reviews, using a checklist of required fields and data standards.
To further strengthen accountability, the MSA will implement follow-up procedures with Sheriffs’ Offices to promptly address and correct any deficiencies identified during the review. These follow-ups will be documented and tracked to ensure timely resolution and continuous improvement. The MSA will also maintain detailed records of all reviews and follow-up actions, including dates, findings, and corrective measures taken. These records will serve as a basis for ongoing monitoring and will support periodic audits to assess compliance and effectiveness.
Through these measures, the MSA aims to improve the completeness and reliability of OCR data, enhance transparency, and ensure that the PSI Matrix reflects accurate and standardized information across jurisdictions.
Auditor’s Reply
Based on its response, MSA is taking measures to address our concerns regarding this matter. As part of our post-audit review process, we will follow up on this matter in approximately six months.
| Date published: | November 26, 2025 |
|---|