Central Division of the Boston Municipal Court Probation Department's Indigency Determination Process for State-Sponsored Legal Services
December 19, 2011 · Central Division of the Boston Municipal Court Probation Department · Read the full official report (PDF) ↗
Published December 19, 2011 Audit covers July 1, 2009 – June 30, 2011 Under Suzanne M. Bump · 2011–2023
source
“As a result of these conditions, there is inadequate assurance that all of the state-sponsored legal counsel services that the BMC provided to 5,592 defendants during fiscal year 2010 were appropriate.”
Read the plain-English breakdown
This is a state audit of how one Boston court probation department checked whether defendants were poor enough to qualify for state-paid legal help.
“The BMC was one of the 27 district courts selected for our review.”
This matters because thousands of defendants at this court received state-paid lawyers, and the audit questioned whether eligibility was properly checked.
“During this same period, the BMC provided legal counsel services to 5,592 of these individuals determined to be indigent by the BMC Probation Department.”
For taxpayers and residents, the issue is whether public money for legal defense was going only to people who truly qualified.
“As a result of these conditions, there is inadequate assurance that the funding provided to the CPCS to retain public counsel for the 5,592 individuals deemed indigent by the BMC in fiscal year 2010 was appropriately spent.”
The court probation department lacked written procedures, did not routinely verify defendants’ financial information, and did not keep required records.
“Our audit found that the Probation Department of the Central Division of the Boston Municipal Court (BMC) has not established any formal, written policies and procedures relative to ensuring that only eligible individuals are provided with state-sponsored legal counsel services.”
The auditor recommended that the department immediately follow the law and create written procedures and controls, including for record retention.
“In order to address our concerns relative to this matter, we recommend that the BMC Probation Department take measures to immediately comply with all the requirements of Chapter 211D of the General Laws.”
The audit found missing forms and missing follow-up reviews in all or most sampled files, meaning the court could not show it had done required eligibility checks.
“Accordingly, there was inadequate assurance that the BMC Probation Department performed the required verification of the information provided by clients who applied for and received state-sponsored legal services.”
“Indigent” means a person who meets legal poverty or custody-related standards and may qualify for state-paid legal representation.
“Rule 3:10, Section 1, of the Supreme Judicial Court defines an indigent person as an individual who is:”
What the Auditor checked
- Did not comply Determine the extent to which probation staff were complying with their mandated responsibility to ensure that a defendant claiming to be indigent meets the definition of indigence.
What the Auditor found
Why it matters: There was inadequate assurance that state-sponsored legal counsel services were provided only to eligible defendants.
Standard: Chapter 211D, Section 2½ of the Massachusetts General Laws; Supreme Judicial Court Rule 3:10, Section 1; Administrative Office of the Trial Court record retention guidelines. ( Chapter 211D, Section 2½, of the General Laws; Rule 3:10, Section 1, of the Supreme Judicial Court; Administrative Office of the Trial Court record retention schedule )
1 recommendation
- The BMC Probation Department should immediately comply with Chapter 211D and, with the Office of the Commissioner of Probation, develop formal written policies, procedures, and internal controls, including record retention controls.
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "That data documents significant deficiencies in our indigency verification process, which we take very seriously."