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

← all audits

Audit of the Massachusetts Department of Correction (December 19, 2025)

December 19, 2025 · Massachusetts Department of Correction · Read the full official report on mass.gov ↗

Published December 19, 2025 Audit covers July 1, 2022 – June 30, 2024 Under Diana DiZoglio · 2023–present

Read the plain-English breakdown
What is this?

This is a state performance audit of selected DOC activities from July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2024, focused on health intake information, consent, interpreter services, and education or program planning for incarcerated people.

“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 certain activities of the Massachusetts Department of Correction (DOC) for the period July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2024.”
Why was it audited?

Auditors checked whether DOC properly explained how incarcerated people can get healthcare, made sure they understood consent before treatment, and provided education counseling and placement for people with disabilities or limited English proficiency.

“The purpose of our audit was to determine the following:”
Why it matters

If DOC cannot prove that people received and understood healthcare information, interpreter help, or education planning, it cannot be sure those people were able to make informed decisions or access appropriate programs.

“DOC cannot ensure that its I/Is understand the healthcare information presented to them so that they can make informed healthcare decisions.”
What's in it for me?

For the public, this matters because prisons are taxpayer-funded and are supposed to protect basic rights, provide required services, and prepare people for safer reentry into the community.

“According to DOC management, DOC emphasizes the positive impact that educational and vocational programming has on lowering the risk of recidivism.”
The bottom line

The audit found four recordkeeping problems: missing proof of healthcare orientation and consent, missing proof of interpreter use for healthcare, missing annual program plans in files, and missing proof of interpreter use during program reviews.

“Below is a summary of our findings, the effects of those findings, and our recommendations, with hyperlinks to each page listed.”
What happens next

DOC said it is reviewing or updating policies, training staff, auditing files, and working toward better electronic records. The Auditor’s office said it plans to follow up in about six months.

“As part of our post-audit review process, we will follow up on this matter in approximately six months.”
Why it's significant

The report points to a broader accountability issue: DOC may be providing some services, but weak documentation makes it hard to prove people understood their rights, received interpreter help, or got appropriate education planning.

“Without a revised and executed MOU between DOC and DESE, there could be misinterpretations, disputes, and a lack of clarity regarding roles and responsibilities for each agency, which could negatively impact the education of I/Is who are eligible for special education services.”
Jargon, unpacked

An incarcerated individual is a person in DOC custody. A personalized program plan is the document used to guide education, vocational, or behavioral programming. A six-part folder is the official file where certain paper records are supposed to be kept.

“According to Section 155.05 of Title 103 of the Code of Massachusetts Regulations, a six-part folder is defined as “an inmate record divided into six categories and the computerized inmate record used by the Department of Correction for the recording and/or filing of documents.””

What the Auditor checked

What the Auditor found

DOC did not always retain completed healthcare orientation and informed consent forms during admission.
recordkeeping/documentationinternal controls

Why it matters: DOC cannot ensure that incarcerated individuals received proper healthcare.

Standard: DOC Medical Services Policy Sections 630.02 and 630.08, DOC Mental Health Services Policy Section 650.03(a), and DOC Inmate Medical Records Policy Section 607.02. ( Section 12 of Chapter 11 of the Massachusetts General Laws; DOC’s Medical Services Policy, Section 630.02 General Policy; DOC’s Medical Services Policy, Section 630.08 Inmate Health Orientation; DOC’s Mental Health Services Policy, Section 650.03(a); DOC’s Inmate Medical Records Policy, Section 607.02 )

3 recommendations
  • DOC management should establish record retention requirements by developing and documenting internal procedures, or modifying existing policies, regarding the processing and retention of informed consent and orientation forms.
  • DOC management should monitor the record retention process by periodically reviewing healthcare records.
  • DOC management should train staff and vendor employees on new record retention requirements.
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "Training in existing and updated policies will support staff and vendor employees in sustaining and extending the high level of compliance identified in the audit report."
Auditor: "Based on its response, DOC is taking measures to address our concerns regarding this matter."
DOC did not always retain evidence that interpreter services were used during initial healthcare orientation and informed consent meetings.
recordkeeping/documentationinternal controlsdata privacy

Why it matters: DOC cannot ensure that incarcerated individuals understood healthcare information needed to make informed healthcare decisions.

Standard: DOC Medical Services Policy Section 630.08, DOC Interpreter Services Policy Section 488.04, and DOC Inmate Medical Records Policy Section 607.02. ( DOC’s Medical Services Policy, Section 630.08; DOC’s Interpreter Services Policy, Section 488.04; DOC’s Inmate Medical Records Policy, Section 607.02 )

3 recommendations
  • DOC management should establish documented record retention procedures for use of qualified bilingual staff members.
  • DOC management should periodically review interpreter service records.
  • DOC management should train employees, contractors, and vendor employees on interpreter service policies and documentation requirements.
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "Training in existing and updated policies will support staff and vendor employees in achieving compliance in this area."
Auditor: "Based on its response, DOC is taking measures to address our concerns regarding this matter."
DOC did not always retain annual hardcopy personalized program plans in incarcerated individuals’ six-part folders.
recordkeeping/documentationinternal controls

Why it matters: DOC cannot ensure that incarcerated individuals received proper educational, vocational, or behavioral program recommendations.

Standard: Section 155.06(3) of Title 103 of the Code of Massachusetts Regulations and Prison Rape Elimination Act Standards Section 115.33(e). ( Section 155.06(3) of Title 103 of the Code of Massachusetts Regulations; 103 CMR 155.06(3)(c); Prison Rape Elimination Act Standards, Section 115.33(e) )

3 recommendations
  • DOC management should establish procedures or modify policies for processing and retaining personalized program plans in six-part folders.
  • DOC management should periodically review six-part folders for compliance with the retention procedure.
  • DOC should train staff on new record retention requirements.agency: already implemented
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "Case Plan training and Classification Chairperson training have been updated to include language regarding the requirement pursuant to 103 CMR 155: Case Records, section 155.06(3)(c), to file an individual’s signed personalized program plan in accordance with their classification reviews."
Auditor: "Based on its response, DOC is taking measures to address our concerns regarding this matter."
DOC did not always retain evidence that interpreter services were used during program review meetings.
recordkeeping/documentationinternal controls

Why it matters: DOC cannot ensure that incarcerated individuals understood information about available educational opportunities.

Standard: DOC Interpreter Services Policy Section 488.04, 103 CMR 420, Prison Rape Elimination Act Standards Section 115.33, and Massachusetts Statewide Records Retention Schedule J07-08. ( DOC’s Interpreter Services Policy, Section 488.04; 103 CMR 420; Prison Rape Elimination Act Standards, Section 115.33(d); Prison Rape Elimination Act Standards, Section 115.33(e); Massachusetts Statewide Records Retention Schedule J07-08(c) )

3 recommendations
  • DOC management should establish documented record retention procedures for interpreter services.
  • DOC management should periodically review interpreter service records.
  • DOC management should train employees on interpreter service policies and documentation requirements.agency: already implemented
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "Classification Chairperson training has been updated to include language regarding the requirement pursuant to 103 CMR 420: Classification, section 420.07(1), “In instances where language barriers exist, the Telephone Interpreter Service shall be used, and its use documented.”"
Auditor: "Based on its response, DOC is taking measures to address our concerns regarding this matter."

More audits of this entity

Other Office of the State Auditor reports on Massachusetts Department of Correction .

See this entity's page with all 2 audits →