Audit of the Human Resources Division (July 5, 2024)
July 5, 2024 · Human Resources Division · Read the full official report on mass.gov ↗
Published July 5, 2024 Audit covers July 1, 2020 – June 30, 2022 Under Diana DiZoglio · 2023–present
source
“HRD did not ensure that each state agency submitted an affirmative action plan and a diversity plan in a timely manner, nor did it implement any remedial courses of action.”
Read the plain-English breakdown
This is a state performance audit of Massachusetts' Human Resources Division, focusing on whether it properly oversaw state agencies' affirmative action plans, diversity plans, and annual progress reports.
“The purpose of our audit was to determine the following:”
The audit checked whether HRD made sure state agencies filed required plans and reports showing their work toward affirmative action and diversity goals.
“whether HRD ensured that state agencies submitted an annual progress report that detailed actions these state agencies took and progress these state agencies made toward meeting their affirmative action and diversity goals, in accordance with Section 3.2 of HRD’s Guidelines for Implementing Executive Order 592.”
These plans and reports are meant to help state government build a workforce that is fair, inclusive, and reflective of the people it serves.
“Meeting placement goals helps state agencies provide for and protect diversity and equal opportunity in all facets of state employment.”
For an ordinary resident, the issue is whether state hiring and workplace practices are being monitored closely enough to support fair opportunity and representation in government jobs.
“If HRD does not ensure that each state agency submits the required affirmative action plans and diversity plans in a timely manner, then residents of the Commonwealth cannot be sure of the following:”
The Auditor concluded HRD fell short on all three audit questions: timely affirmative action plans, timely diversity plans, and adequate annual progress reports.
“No; see Findings 2 and 3”
The Auditor recommended stronger tracking, clearer procedures, documented follow-up, and better recordkeeping; HRD said it would improve its processes and monitoring.
“We will make further enhancements to our processes and documentation.”
The report is significant because it found problems not just with late paperwork, but with HRD's oversight system: missed follow-ups, missing records, and approval of a report that lacked important information.
“However, HRD reviewed and approved an annual progress report that was missing crucial information.”
An affirmative action plan is a plan to address past discrimination and improve opportunities for under-represented groups; a diversity plan is about valuing differences and building an inclusive workplace.
“A policy or program that seeks to redress past discrimination by increasing opportunities for under-represented groups.”
What the Auditor checked
- Did not comply Did HRD ensure that state agencies submitted an affirmative action plan, in accordance with Section 3.1(A) and bullet points 6 and 10 of Section 7 of HRD’s Guidelines for Implementing Executive Order 592?
- Did not comply Did HRD ensure that state agencies submitted a diversity plan, in accordance with Section 3.1(B) and bullet points 6 and 10 of Section 7 of HRD’s Guidelines for Implementing Executive Order 592?
- Did not comply Did HRD ensure that state agencies submitted an annual progress report that detailed actions these state agencies took and progress these state agencies made toward meeting their affirmative action and diversity goals, in accordance with Section 3.2 of HRD’s Guidelines for Implementing Executive Order 592?
What the Auditor found
Why it matters: Residents cannot be sure whether state agency employees represent Commonwealth demographics or whether agencies are implementing Executive Order 592 requirements for nondiscrimination, diversity, and equal opportunity.
Standard: Bullet point 10 of Section 7 of HRD’s Guidelines for Implementing Executive Order 592 and ODEO’s “Accountability Policy for Affirmative Action Plans for Executive Branch Agencies.” ( Bullet point 10 of Section 7 of HRD’s Guidelines for Implementing Executive Order 592; ODEO’s “Accountability Policy for Affirmative Action Plans for Executive Branch Agencies,” dated March 2021 )
2 recommendations
- HRD should develop, document, and implement monitoring controls to ensure that HRD sends follow-up communications to state agencies within the timeframe established for noncompliant state agencies that have not submitted affirmative action plans and/or diversity plans.agency: agreed
- HRD should develop, document, and implement monitoring controls to ensure that HRD notifies the chief human resources officer with a recommendation for remedial courses of action until a state agency is compliant.agency: agreed
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "We will make further enhancements to our processes and documentation."
Why it matters: HRD cannot determine how well agencies met placement goals, cannot hold agencies accountable for missing files, and may violate records retention requirements.
Standard: Section 3 and Section 3.2 of HRD’s Guidelines for Implementing Executive Order 592 and the Massachusetts Statewide Records Retention Schedule. ( Section 3 of HRD’s Guidelines for Implementing Executive Order 592; Section 3.2 of HRD’s Guidelines for Implementing Executive Order 592; Massachusetts Statewide Records Retention Schedule )
3 recommendations
- HRD should ensure that ODEO updates its “Accountability Policy for Affirmative Action Plans for Executive Branch Agencies” to include procedures for missed deadlines for annual progress reports, how HRD should send follow-up communications for late submissions, and how HRD should retain documentation regarding these follow-up communications.agency: agreed
- HRD should establish the conditions under which HRD takes remedial courses of action against noncompliant state agencies and how HRD should retain documentation regarding these actions.agency: agreed
- HRD should ensure that it retains each state agency’s annual progress report.agency: agreed
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "We will make further enhancements to our processes and documentation. . . ."
Auditor: "As noted in this report, HRD could not locate some affirmative action and diversity plan progress reports."
Why it matters: Residents cannot be sure that state agencies are creating and sustaining a diverse and inclusive workforce that reflects Commonwealth demographics.
Standard: Section 3 and Section 3.2 of HRD’s Guidelines for Implementing Executive Order 592 and Section 3.4 of HRD’s affirmative action plan template. ( Section 3 of HRD’s Guidelines for Implementing Executive Order 592; Section 3.4 of HRD’s affirmative action plan template )
1 recommendation
- HRD should develop, document, and implement monitoring controls related to its annual progress report review.agency: agreed
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "HRD will further enhance monitoring controls related to its annual progress report reviews."
Auditor: "However, HRD reviewed and approved an annual progress report that was missing crucial information."
More audits of this entity
Other Office of the State Auditor reports on Human Resources Division .
- Audit of the Human Resources DivisionOther · February 14, 2019