Audit of the Berkshire County District Attorney’s Office
January 14, 2019 · Berkshire County District Attorney’s Office · Read the full official report on mass.gov ↗
Published January 14, 2019 Audit covers July 1, 2016 – March 31, 2018 Under Suzanne M. Bump · 2011–2023
source
“Below is a summary of our findings and recommendations, with links to each page listed.”
Read the plain-English breakdown
This is a Massachusetts State Auditor performance audit of the Berkshire County District Attorney’s Office covering July 1, 2016 through March 31, 2018.
“I am pleased to provide this performance audit of the Berkshire County District Attorney’s Office.”
The new district attorney requested the audit after the prior district attorney retired, so the office could understand its financial position and areas needing improvement.
“BCDA’s newly appointed District Attorney, who was sworn in on March 15, 2018, requested this transition audit after the retirement of the prior District Attorney, who had served since 2004.”
The audit matters because weak internal controls can make it harder for the office to meet its responsibilities, follow rules, and manage public resources properly.
“Without a complete, up-to-date, and adequately documented system of internal controls, BCDA risks not meeting all of its operational objectives economically and efficiently or complying with state laws, regulations, other authoritative guidance, grants, and other contractual agreements.”
For ordinary residents, this audit checks whether the local district attorney’s office is supporting victims and witnesses, spending public money properly, and handling seized funds and equipment responsibly.
“In addition to its legal and investigatory activities, BCDA operates several programs that provide education and other services to the public and to people involved in the criminal justice system.”
The office passed several audit areas, but failed on having an updated internal control plan and on timely handling of some forfeited funds.
“Some forfeited funds were not remitted to BCDA in a timely manner.”
The auditor recommended that the office update its internal control plan, review it every year, remind prosecutors about forfeiture procedures, and track all forfeiture motions in its case system.
“BCDA should modify its policies to require that all motions for forfeiture be recorded in the District Attorney Management Information Office Network to allow for the tracking of all forfeited funds.”
The findings are significant because this was not only a paperwork issue: some money owed to the district attorney’s office and local law enforcement was delayed for as long as 780 days.
“We found that 7 forfeitures (totaling $9,027) that had been ordered by court motions were not remitted to BCDA by local law enforcement agencies until 31 to 780 days after they were ordered by a court.”
An internal control plan is the office’s written map of risks and safeguards; forfeited funds are money connected to illegal drug activity that a court orders turned over; DAMION is the office’s case-tracking system.
“The Forfeited Property Procedures in BCDA’s ICP state,”
1 figure(s) pending source verification - not shown
What the Auditor checked
- Complied Does BCDA’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?
- Did not comply Does BCDA have an updated internal control plan (ICP) that was developed in accordance with the Comptroller of the Commonwealth’s (CTR’s) Internal Control Guide?
- Complied Does BCDA comply with Chapter 647 of the Acts of 1989 by reporting all instances of unaccounted-for variances, losses, shortages, or thefts of funds or property to OSA?
- Complied Does BCDA have proper budgeting practices in place to ensure that its annual funding is sufficient to meet its operational needs through the end of the fiscal year?
- Complied Does BCDA ensure that its financial activities, such as expenditures and Commonwealth credit card use, are allowable and in accordance with its policies and procedures?
- Did not comply Does BCDA manage forfeited funds in accordance with its established policies and procedures?
- Complied Is BCDA’s information technology (IT) inventory accurately accounted for?
What the Auditor found
Why it matters: BCDA risks not meeting operational objectives efficiently or complying with applicable requirements, grants, and contracts.
Standard: The Comptroller of the Commonwealth’s Internal Control Guide requires an internal control plan to include the eight ERM components and be reviewed and updated at least annually. ( Comptroller of the Commonwealth’s Internal Control Guide )
2 recommendations
- BCDA should immediately update its ICP to include all the critical components of ERM.
- BCDA should establish policies and procedures for annually updating its ICP, as well as monitoring controls to ensure that these policies and procedures are adhered to.
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "I would like to further note that the ICP currently in place does contain strong policies, procedures and controls and the delays in updating the plan have not left the Office in any kind of jeopardy."
Auditor: "Although BCDA may have been in the process of updating its ICP during our audit period, it did not do so annually because it does not have any policies and procedures that provide for this update or monitoring controls to ensure that it is performed."
Why it matters: BCDA and local law enforcement agencies lacked funds they were entitled to for an extended period, and delayed recording of cash increased the risk of theft or loss.
Standard: BCDA’s Forfeited Property Procedures require Assistant District Attorneys to provide forfeiture orders to Fiscal Affairs and the Chief of Appeals; forfeited funds are governed by Section 47 of Chapter 94C of the General Laws. ( Section 47 of Chapter 94C of the General Laws; BCDA Forfeited Property Procedures )
2 recommendations
- BCDA should periodically communicate to Assistant District Attorneys that it is their responsibility to notify the chief of Appeals and BCDA’s director of Fiscal Affairs of all forfeitures ordered by court motion in a timely manner.
- BCDA should modify its policies to require that all motions for forfeiture be recorded in DAMION to allow for the tracking of all forfeited funds.
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "We acknowledge that there have been delays from date of order to deposit and have made improvements in procedures to reduce that time since the prior audit."
Prior findings revisited
"Our prior audit of BCDA (No. 2014-1261-3J) found that some forfeited funds were not remitted to BCDA by local law enforcement agencies until up to 232 days after cases were disposed of."
More audits of this entity
Other Office of the State Auditor reports on Berkshire County District Attorney’s Office , including the prior audits referenced above.
- Audit of the Berkshire County District Attorney’s Office (April 11, 2025)District Attorney · April 11, 2025