Audit of the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office (SCDA)
January 11, 2021 · Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office · Read the full official report on mass.gov ↗
Published January 11, 2021 Audit covers July 1, 2017 – June 30, 2019 Under Suzanne M. Bump · 2011–2023
source
“Our audit revealed no significant instances of noncompliance by SCDAO that must be reported under generally accepted government auditing standards.”
Read the plain-English breakdown
This is a performance audit of the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office covering July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2019.
“I am pleased to provide this performance audit of the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office.”
Auditors checked whether the office followed victim and witness assistance requirements and whether it ran its juvenile diversion program according to its own policies.
“In this performance audit, we examined SCDAO’s compliance with Section 5 of Chapter 258B of the General Laws for the Victim Witness Assistance Program, as well as its administration of the Juvenile Alternative Resolution (JAR) Program.”
The audit matters because the office handles criminal cases and provides services meant to support victims, witnesses, and some young people outside the usual prosecution process.
“SCDAO operates many programs to serve its communities; our audit reviewed the Juvenile Alternative Resolution (JAR) Program and the Victim Witness Assistance Program (VWAP).”
If you are a victim or witness in Suffolk County, the office’s program is supposed to help you understand the court process, your rights, and available services.
“VWAP provides information to victims and witnesses of crime about the court process and their rights.”
The auditors answered yes to both main questions: the juvenile program met its reviewed policies, and the victim witness program provided required assistance.
“Below is a list of our audit objectives, indicating each question we intended our audit to answer and the conclusion we reached regarding each objective.”
The report does not list corrective actions, because the audit did not find significant reportable noncompliance.
“Our audit revealed no significant instances of noncompliance that must be reported under generally accepted government auditing standards.”
For ordinary citizens, the most important point is that the auditor did not report major compliance problems in the two programs reviewed.
“Our audit revealed no significant instances of noncompliance by SCDAO that must be reported under generally accepted government auditing standards.”
What the Auditor checked
- Complied Does SCDAO’s Juvenile Alternative Resolution (JAR) Program assess the needs of, provide professional services to, and actively monitor juvenile offenders to ensure that program requirements are fulfilled, documented for juveniles who have completed the program, and compliant with program policies and procedures?
- Complied Does SCDAO’s Victim Witness Assistance Program (VWAP) provide assistance throughout the court process to victims and witnesses of crimes as required by Section 5 of Chapter 258B of the General Laws?