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

← all audits

Audit of the Operational Services Division

December 19, 2018 · Operational Services Division · Read the full official report on mass.gov ↗

Published December 19, 2018 Audit covers July 1, 2011 – December 31, 2017 Under Suzanne M. Bump · 2011–2023

In plain English
The auditor found that OSD’s process for checking required financial reports from human-service vendors may not have been strong enough, and recommended more complete reviews and written procedures.
source
“OSD’s UFR review process may be inadequate.”
Read the plain-English breakdown
What is this?

This is a Massachusetts State Auditor performance audit of the Operational Services Division, covering July 1, 2011 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 Operational Services Division (OSD), an agency within the Executive Office for Administration and Finance, for the period July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2017.”
Why was it audited?

The audit looked at whether OSD properly reviewed financial reports from human-service vendors that provide services for the state.

“Has OSD adequately reviewed the Uniform Financial Statements and Independent Auditor’s Reports (UFRs) submitted by human-service vendors providing services to the Commonwealth?”
Why it matters

If these reports are not reviewed well enough, the state may miss problems with vendor spending and may lose money it could recover.

“Further, insufficient monitoring can result in revenue lost to the Commonwealth.”
The bottom line

The auditor concluded that OSD had not adequately reviewed the vendor financial reports covered by the audit.

“No; see Finding 1”
What happens next

The auditor recommended that OSD do enough reviews to check compliance and create clear rules for how those reviews should happen.

“OSD should implement policies and procedures for conducting UFR desk reviews, which should include such things as frequency of reviews, criteria for review selection, and what is to be reviewed.”
Why it's significant

The report says OSD’s detailed reviews dropped sharply, including no desk reviews in 2015, 2016, or 2017, which reduced assurance that vendors followed fiscal rules.

“Substantially reduced prescreening6 reviews, combined with a shift away from detailed desk reviews,7 provide less assurance that financial statements are prepared in accordance with OSD’s fiscal policies and that any instances of noncompliance with applicable regulations and policies are effectively detected.”
Jargon, unpacked

A UFR is a required financial report submitted by certain providers; a desk review is a more detailed check of that report and related audit documents.

“A desk review is a more detailed review of a vendor’s UFR and related documents to ensure that the vendor’s independent auditor’s reports on financial statements, internal control, compliance, and required provider information are uniform and that they conform to generally accepted government auditing standards.”

4 figure(s) pending source verification - not shown

What the Auditor checked

What the Auditor found

OSD's review process for Uniform Financial Statements and Independent Auditor's Reports may be inadequate.
internal controlsrecordkeeping/documentationvendor oversight

Why it matters: The reduced reviews provide less assurance that financial statements comply with fiscal policies and may allow revenue owed to the Commonwealth to go unrecovered.

Standard: Section 22N of Chapter 7 of the Massachusetts General Laws; 808 CMR 1.03(7); 808 CMR 1.05 ( Section 12 of Chapter 11 of the Massachusetts General Laws; Section 1.03(7) of Title 808 of the Code of Massachusetts Regulations; 808 CMR 1.05; Section 22N of Chapter 7 of the Massachusetts General Laws )

2 recommendations
  • OSD should take the measures necessary to perform sufficient reviews of UFR filings to ensure compliance with its fiscal policies.
  • OSD should implement policies and procedures for conducting UFR desk reviews, which should include such things as frequency of reviews, criteria for review selection, and what is to be reviewed.
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "Therefore, OSD respectfully disagrees with the draft audit finding that OSD’s UFR review process may be inadequate."
Auditor: "However, we do not agree that OSD’s decision to use more prescreenings in lieu of desk reviews and on-site audits of certain providers is a more effective way of ensuring compliance with these requirements."

More audits of this entity

Other Office of the State Auditor reports on Operational Services Division .

See this entity's page with all 2 audits →