Audit of the Hampshire Sheriff's Department

This is a state performance audit of the Hampshire Sheriff's Department covering July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017, with one review extended to July 21, 2017.

“This report details the audit objectives, scope, and methodology for the audit period, July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017.”

The newly elected sheriff asked for the audit after the previous sheriff retired, so the new administration could understand the department's finances and any problems needing attention.

“HSD’s newly elected Sheriff, who was sworn in on January 4, 2017, requested this transition audit after the retirement of the prior Sheriff, who had served as the Hampshire Sheriff since 1984.”

The department runs a jail and house of correction, provides inmate programs, serves legal documents, and spent more than $14 million in operating funds in fiscal year 2017.

“HSD expended $14,446,516 for operational costs for fiscal year 2017 from its maintenance appropriation.”

For residents, the main takeaway is that the audit did not find major control problems in the reviewed areas, but it did flag a funding practice that could affect inmate services required by regulation.

“However, because IBF revenue is variable and not guaranteed, sufficient funding may not always be available to pay for required goods and services.”

The department passed the audit objectives, but the auditor said it should consider asking the Legislature for enough budget funding to cover required goods and services instead of relying on uncertain inmate benefit revenue.

“Therefore, in our opinion, HSD should consider submitting annual budget requests to the Legislature that include funding for all anticipated required goods and services to ensure that adequate funding is available.”

The report does not order enforcement action; it points the department toward changing future budget requests so required services have more reliable funding.

“HSD should consider submitting annual budget requests to the Legislature that include funding for all anticipated required goods and services to ensure that adequate funding is available.”

The biggest issue is not fraud or a failed control, but financial risk: more than half of the inmate benefit spending reviewed went to items required by state regulations, even though that fund's revenue is not guaranteed.

“Using fiscal year 2017 expenditure data for the IBF provided by HSD officials, we determined that $156,616, or 58%, was spent on items required by state regulations.”

An Inmate Benefit Fund is money from sources like telephone and commissary commissions that is supposed to be used for things benefiting inmates.

“In its 2017 Fiscal Accounts Policy, HSD describes IBF as follows: “All moneys received as private donations to the institution, interest money earned minus services charges from the minimum and medium security accounts, telephone and canteen commissions are deposited into this fund.”