Audit of the Massachusetts District Attorney Association
April 24, 2018 · Massachusetts District Attorney Association · Read the full official report on mass.gov ↗
Published April 24, 2018 Audit covers July 1, 2014 – June 30, 2017 Under Suzanne M. Bump · 2011–2023
source
“MDAA did not ensure that all the funding that was appropriated to improve the retention rates of certain ADAs was used for this purpose.”
Read the plain-English breakdown
This is a state performance audit of the Massachusetts District Attorney Association, covering July 1, 2014 through June 30, 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 Massachusetts District Attorney Association (MDAA) for the period July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2017.”
The audit checked whether special state funding for prosecutor pay was spent as intended and whether it helped keep experienced prosecutors from leaving.
“In this performance audit, we examined MDAA’s administration of funding that was appropriated to the association to improve the retention rate of Assistant District Attorneys (ADAs) with three or more years of experience and to increase the minimum starting salaries of entry-level ADAs statewide.”
If experienced prosecutors leave, remaining staff may have heavier workloads and investigations may take longer.
“The loss of ADAs also results in increased workloads for the remaining ADAs, which can affect how quickly investigations can be completed.”
For ordinary residents, this matters because prosecutor staffing can affect how efficiently criminal cases and investigations move through the justice system.
“Not ensuring that ADAs’ compensation is competitive can result in excessive turnover, causing logistical problems in terms of prosecuting cases and a potential reduction in the quality of services.”
The salary funding seemed to help with retention overall, but the audit found weak oversight and some money was diverted to cover budget cuts instead of prosecutor retention.
“While this funding appears to have had a positive impact in addressing the retention problem, we identified a number of factors that may cause any positive impact from this strategy for reducing ADA turnover to be temporary.”
If lawmakers keep providing this type of funding, MDAA should track it more closely and get spending reports from each District Attorney’s Office.
“MDAA should obtain reports from all of the District Attorney’s Offices on a mutually agreed-upon schedule to monitor how these funds are being used.”
The audit connects pay levels to staff retention and says turnover among experienced prosecutors dropped after retention funding began, though the approach may not be a lasting fix.
“After the ADA Retention Fund initiative began in fiscal year 2012, the average turnover rate among experienced ADAs declined to 8.1%, and by the end of fiscal year 2017, this average rate had decreased to 5.4%.”
MDAA is the statewide association that supports the 11 district attorney offices; ADAs are Assistant District Attorneys, the prosecutors this report focuses on.
“The Massachusetts District Attorney Association (MDAA) was established under Section 20D of Chapter 12 of the Massachusetts General Laws to provide administrative and technology support services to each of the 11 District Attorney’s Offices in the Commonwealth.”
1 figure(s) pending source verification - not shown
What the Auditor checked
- Partially Was the funding that was provided in line item 0340-2117 in the General Appropriation Acts for fiscal years 2015, 2016, and 2017 (Chapter 165 of the Acts of 2014, Chapter 46 of the Acts of 2015, and Chapter 133 of the Acts of 2016, respectively) spent for its specific purpose?
- Complied Did the use of the funds that were provided in line item 0340-2117 improve the retention rate of full-time Assistant District Attorneys (ADAs) with more than three years of experience?
- Complied Did the funding that was provided in line item 0340-6653 in the General Appropriation Acts for fiscal years 2016 and 2017 (Chapter 46 of the Acts of 2015 and Chapter 133 of the Acts of 2016, respectively) result in the minimum annual salary exceeding $45,000 for a full-time ADA?
- Complied Were the funds that were provided in line item 0340-6653 spent for their specific purpose?
What the Auditor found
Why it matters: The lack of monitoring put the fund at risk of undetected misuse and may have hurt retention of experienced Assistant District Attorneys.
Standard: Section 6.03(6) of Title 815 of the Code of Massachusetts Regulations; Section 8 of the ISA Form; General Appropriation Acts for fiscal years 2015, 2016, and 2017 ( Section 6.03(6) of Title 815 of the Code of Massachusetts Regulations; Section 8 of the ISA Form; General Appropriation Acts for fiscal years 2015, 2016, and 2017 )
2 recommendations
- If the state Legislature continues to provide funding for retaining ADAs with more than three years of experience, MDAA should develop policies and procedures to monitor these funds to ensure that they are used only for their intended purpose.agency: partially agreed
- MDAA should obtain reports from all of the District Attorney’s Offices on a mutually agreed-upon schedule to monitor how these funds are being used.agency: partially agreed
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "Despite the auditors’ misunderstanding of the relationship between the District Attorneys and the MDAA, the District Attorneys have agreed to voluntarily send the MDAA an interdepartmental service agreement (ISA) compliance certificate for each of the shared funds distributed by MDAA."
Auditor: "Finally, while we believe it is a prudent decision for each District Attorney’s Office to provide MDAA with compliance certificates regarding the funds in question, we believe it would create more transparency if MDAA requested that each District Attorney’s Office provide it with a detailed accounting of all expenditures related to these funds."