Seal of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Massachusetts Audit Explorer - what the State Auditor found

← all audits

Audit of the Bristol County District Attorney’s Office

October 1, 2018 · Bristol County District Attorney's Office · Read the full official report on mass.gov ↗

Published October 1, 2018 Audit covers January 1, 2017 – December 31, 2017 Under Suzanne M. Bump · 2011–2023

In plain English
The audit found one main problem: the Bristol County District Attorney's Office was running its juvenile diversion program but did not have a formal way to measure whether the program was working.
source
“BCDA has not established a process to measure the success of its Juvenile Diversion Program.”
Read the plain-English breakdown
What is this?

This is a state performance audit of the Bristol County District Attorney's Office, covering January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017.

“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 the Bristol County District Attorney’s Office (BCDA) for the period January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017.”
Why was it audited?

The auditor looked at how the office handled its Juvenile Diversion Program and Victim Witness Assistance Program.

“In this performance audit, we examined BCDA’s activities related to the administration of its Juvenile Diversion and Victim Witness Assistance Programs.”
Why it matters

Without tracking results, the office has limited ability to know whether the juvenile diversion program is succeeding or needs changes.

“As a result, BCDA’s ability to measure the success of the program and determine whether any changes to it are necessary is limited.”
What's in it for me?

For residents, this matters because the program can let eligible young people avoid formal court processing if they complete requirements, but the office was not formally measuring outcomes.

“When participants have successfully completed the program requirements, the charges against them are dismissed before arraignment.”
The bottom line

The auditor recommended that the office collect and review useful data, use it to improve the program, and support funding requests.

“BCDA should identify the relevant data that could be used to assess the success of its Juvenile Diversion Program, establish a formal process to collect and evaluate this information, and use it to make any necessary program enhancements and support requests to the Legislature for program-specific funding.”
What happens next

The report says the District Attorney's Office disagreed with the auditor's view, while the auditor repeated the recommendation to collect and evaluate data.

“We again recommend that BCDA identify the relevant data that could be used to assess the success of its Juvenile Diversion Program, establish a formal process to collect and evaluate this information, and use it to make any necessary program enhancements and support requests to the Legislature for program-specific funding.”
Why it's significant

The audit was limited by delays and restricted access to some records, which affected how much the auditor could verify, especially for the victim witness program.

“These constraints significantly delayed the completion of the audit.”
Jargon, unpacked

DAMION is the office's case-management system, used to track court dates for cases.

“DAMION is BCDA’s case-management system.”

What the Auditor checked

What the Auditor found

BCDA did not have a process to measure whether its Juvenile Diversion Program was successful.
recordkeeping/documentationinternal controls

Why it matters: BCDA had limited ability to measure program success or determine whether changes were needed.

Standard: State and national best-practice publications encourage recordkeeping, data collection, and evaluation for juvenile diversion programs. ( Section 4.1.2 of ICF International’s Massachusetts Juvenile Diversion Assessment Study; Section 12 of Chapter 11 of the Massachusetts General Laws )

1 recommendation
  • BCDA should identify relevant data, establish a formal collection and evaluation process, and use the information for program improvements and funding requests.agency: disagreed
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "The Bristol County District Attorney disagrees with the auditor that the MacArthur Foundation guidebook and ICF report are authoritative guidance."
Auditor: "However, we do not agree with BCDA that there is no rationale for the data collection and evaluation we suggest."

More audits of this entity

Other Office of the State Auditor reports on Bristol County District Attorney's Office .

See this entity's page with all 6 audits →