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

← all audits

Audit of the Plymouth County District Attorney’s Office

October 11, 2018 · Plymouth County District Attorney's Office · Read the full official report on mass.gov ↗

Published October 11, 2018 Audit covers January 1, 2017 – December 31, 2017 Under Suzanne M. Bump · 2011–2023

In plain English
The auditor found that the Plymouth County District Attorney’s Office ran its diversion program but did not have a process to judge whether the program was actually working.
source
“PCDA has not established a process to measure the success of its Diversion Program.”
Read the plain-English breakdown
What is this?

This is a state performance audit of the Plymouth County District Attorney’s Office covering January 1, 2017 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 Plymouth County District Attorney’s Office (PCDA) for the period January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017.”
Why was it audited?

The audit looked at how the office handled its Diversion Program and Victim Assistance Program.

“In this performance audit, we examined PCDA’s activities related to the administration of its Diversion Program and Victim Assistance Program.”
Why it matters

Without reviewing its own diversion data, the office cannot tell the public whether the program is giving the community real value.

“Consequently, PCDA cannot determine whether this program effectively and efficiently provides a tangible benefit to the community it serves.”
What's in it for me?

For ordinary residents, the key issue is whether a program meant to give some first-time offenders a chance to avoid arraignment is being checked for results and improvements.

“When participants have successfully completed the program requirements, the charges against them are dismissed before arraignment.”
The bottom line

The auditor recommended that the office use the diversion data it already collects to spot needed improvements and support funding requests.

“PCDA should consider ways to evaluate the Diversion Program data it currently collects to help identify areas where program improvements may be needed and to support requests to the Legislature for program-specific funding.”
What happens next

The office said it was adding intake forms, quarterly reviews, and yearly database checks to improve how it tracks and reviews diversion cases.

“At the end of each year, a DAMION database search will also be performed by the Program to help identify any repeat offenders, and also to confirm all data is being collected correctly by the diversion officers.”
Why it's significant

The report’s main significance is that the auditor found no performance-measurement process for the diversion program, even though the office already had data it could use.

“However, PCDA is not evaluating these data; it is only using the data as a record of participation and completion of the program-specific requirements.”
Jargon, unpacked

The Diversion Program means some eligible first-time offenders accused of certain nonviolent crimes may complete requirements instead of immediately going through arraignment.

“The Diversion Program, which encompasses both juveniles (under 17 years old) and young adults (17–23 years old), is available at the discretion of Assistant District Attorneys to first-time offenders who are charged with certain nonviolent crimes, such as possession of alcohol, purchasing or attempting to purchase alcohol, possession of an open container of alcohol, disturbing the peace, disorderly conduct, and shoplifting.”

What the Auditor checked

What the Auditor found

The office did not measure whether its Diversion Program was successful.
recordkeeping/documentationinternal controlsreporting timeliness

Why it matters: PCDA cannot determine whether the program effectively and efficiently benefits the community or use the data to support program improvements and funding requests.

Standard: Models for Change Juvenile Diversion Guidebook; Section 4.1.2 of ICF’s Massachusetts Juvenile Diversion Assessment Study; Justice Policy Institute’s report Improving Approaches to Serving Young Adults in the Justice System ( Section 4.1.2 of ICF’s Massachusetts Juvenile Diversion Assessment Study; Chapter 119, Section 60A of the General Laws; Chapter 6, Section 167 of the General Laws )

1 recommendation
  • PCDA should evaluate the Diversion Program data it collects to identify possible program improvements and support funding requests to the Legislature.agency: agreed
Agency response & Auditor reply
Auditor: "Based on its response, PCDA is taking measures to address our concerns in this area."

Verified dollar findings

Other identified $85,878 not in headline

Identified dollar findings that do not fall in a named band.

$85,878 - annual program cost

More audits of this entity

Other Office of the State Auditor reports on Plymouth County District Attorney's Office .

See this entity's page with all 4 audits →