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

← all audits

Audit of the Worcester County Sheriff’s Office

March 11, 2019 · Worcester County Sheriff’s Office · Read the full official report on mass.gov ↗

Published March 11, 2019 Audit covers July 1, 2016 – June 30, 2018 Under Suzanne M. Bump · 2011–2023

In plain English
The auditor checked key spending, contracting, and overtime controls at the Worcester County Sheriff’s Office and found no major reportable problems.
source
“Our audit revealed no significant instances of noncompliance by WCSO that must be reported under generally accepted government auditing standards.”
Read the plain-English breakdown
What is this?

This is a state performance audit of the Worcester County Sheriff’s Office covering July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2018.

“I am pleased to provide this performance audit of the Worcester County Sheriff’s Office.”
Why was it audited?

Auditors looked at whether non-payroll spending made sense, whether contracts followed rules, and whether overtime was properly overseen.

“In this performance audit, we examined WCSO’s activities related to the appropriateness of its non-payroll expenses, its process for contracting for goods and services, and its oversight of staff overtime.”
Why it matters

The office runs the county jail and house of correction, so its spending and oversight affect a major public safety institution.

“WCSO is responsible for operating the Worcester County Jail and House of Correction in West Boylston.”
What's in it for me?

If you live in Massachusetts, this matters because public money funds the office, and the audit checked whether sampled spending and overtime were supported.

“For its operations, WCSO stated that it expended $50,426,658 in fiscal year 2017 and $51,170,969 in fiscal year 2018 from its state maintenance appropriation.”
The bottom line

The audit answered yes to all three main questions: expenses were mission-related, overtime was documented and approved, and contracts followed office policy.

“Did WCSO administer its contracting process for goods and services in accordance with its policies?”
What happens next

The report does not list required corrective actions; it says the audit did not find significant reportable noncompliance.

“Our audit revealed no significant instances of noncompliance by WCSO that must be reported under generally accepted government auditing standards.”
Why it's significant

This is a clean audit result for the areas reviewed, but it is limited to the stated audit period and objectives.

“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.”

What the Auditor checked

More audits of this entity

Other Office of the State Auditor reports on Worcester County Sheriff’s Office .

See this entity's page with all 2 audits →