Bristol County District Attorney's Office

This is a Massachusetts State Auditor report on selected financial and program activities at the Bristol County District Attorney’s Office for July 1, 2010 through September 30, 2011.

“This audit, which covered the period July 1, 2010 through September 30, 2011, was initiated to review the internal controls established by BCDA over certain aspects of its operations.”

The audit looked at whether the office had proper controls over money coming in and going out, financial records, inventory, certain programs, and whether it had fixed issues found in an earlier audit.

“Specifically, we reviewed the internal controls established by BCDA in the following areas: revenue collection, expenditures, financial reporting, and inventory of assets.”

The findings matter because public offices must track public money and property clearly, especially money seized in criminal cases or forfeited by court order.

“However, this does not mitigate a District Attorney’s responsibility to properly account for these funds by establishing adequate internal controls over this process to ensure its integrity and transparency.”

For an ordinary resident, this report is about whether a public prosecutor’s office can show that money, grants, bank accounts, and equipment are handled openly and according to rules.

“Without a strong system of internal controls over the use of forfeited funds as they relate to community-based programs, there is inadequate assurance that these funds were used for law enforcement purposes and were distributed fairly and equitably.”

The office generally had adequate controls in the areas tested, except for the specific problems the report lists.

“Except for the issues addressed in the Audit Findings section of this report, for the period July 1, 2010 through September 30, 2011, BCDA maintained adequate internal controls over its financial operations and program activities for the areas tested.”

The auditor recommended that the office strengthen written procedures, get guidance from the state comptroller, correct accounting treatment for certain funds, and update inventory records.

“BCDA should develop and implement formal written internal control policies and procedures for the periodic reconciliation of all records relative to seized funds, including monthly comparisons to prevent seized funds being recorded in both safe deposit and bank records, bank accounts, recognition of revenue, and forfeiture receipts and disbursements, as part of its implementation of its internal control plan.”

The report is significant because it flags money and asset tracking problems, including grant money put into the wrong type of account and incomplete records for many fixed assets.

“BCDA deposited $125,734 of state grant funds, received through cost reimbursement under the Senator Charles E. Shannon Jr. Community Safety Initiative Grant Program, in its forfeited fund revenue account, resulting in the overstatement of the forfeited fund revenue.”

MMARS is the state’s official computerized accounting system, so money outside MMARS is harder to see in normal state financial records.

“The $19,450 has not been deposited with the State Treasurer or recorded by BCDA on the Massachusetts Management Accounting and Reporting System (MMARS), the computerized electronic accounting system that has been established as the official record of the Commonwealth’s accounting activities.”