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

← all audits

Concord Division of the District Court Department - Review of Probation Supervision Fees

February 2, 2016 · Concord Division of the District Court Department · Read the full official report (PDF) ↗

Published February 2, 2016 Audit covers July 1, 2012 – December 31, 2013 Under Suzanne M. Bump · 2011–2023

In plain English
The Concord District Court generally collected probation supervision fees, but auditors found it sometimes skipped required waiver steps, did not track community service well enough, and used the wrong dollar value for community service hours.
source
“The court does not always waive monthly probation supervision fees as required or effectively track community service.”
Read the plain-English breakdown
What is this?

This is a state audit report about how the Concord District Court handled probation supervision fees and community service for people on probation from July 1, 2012 through December 31, 2013.

“This report presents the results of our audit testing at CDC specifically.”
Why was it audited?

The Auditor reviewed whether the Trial Court and selected district courts were properly assessing, recording, and monitoring probation supervision fees.

“Our overall audit of the Trial Court’s administration of PSFs (Report No. 2014-5160-3J) included audit testing at 16 district-court locations, including CDC, to assess the process the Trial Court has established for PSFs, determine whether PSF-related transactions were properly documented in court records, and determine whether probationers were adequately monitored to ensure that they were fulfilling the PSF requirement.”
Why it matters

If fees are waived without proper findings or community service is not tracked, the state may lose money and probationers may not be treated consistently.

“As a result, the Commonwealth may be forgoing PSFs that probationers would have been able to pay.”
What's in it for me?

For an ordinary citizen, this matters because courts should follow the same rules for everyone, keep accurate records, and make sure public money or required community service is handled properly.

“The objective of our work at each court location was limited to determining the extent to which the court was complying with the responsibilities established by Section 87A of Chapter 276 of the General Laws, as well as guidance issued by the Trial Court; the Office of the Commissioner of Probation (OCP); and the court location itself, if it had issued any.”
The bottom line

Auditors found two main problems: fee waivers were not always handled as the law requires, and community service was not tracked or valued correctly.

“The court records the value of community-service hours using the wrong rates.”
What happens next

The court said it would have judges document waiver decisions, require community service when fees are waived, improve reporting, and use the proper community-service rates going forward.

“Community-Service hours will henceforth be calculated at the statutory rate.”
Why it's significant

The audit is significant because Concord transmitted $383,260 in probation supervision fees during the period, but that was only about 55% of estimated potential revenue, and weak tracking made it harder to know what was owed or completed.

“CDC’s actual transmittals were approximately 55% of the estimated potential PSF revenue.”
Jargon, unpacked

A probation supervision fee is a monthly charge that many people on probation must pay; if a judge properly waives it because payment would be too hard, the person must usually do unpaid community service instead.

“A PSF is a monthly fee that judges are statutorily required to assess for a criminal offender placed on probation (a probationer), to be paid for the length of his or her probation term.”

3 figure(s) pending source verification - not shown

What the Auditor checked

What the Auditor found

The court allowed probation officers to choose fees or community service without the required hardship finding.
internal controlsrecordkeeping/documentation

Why it matters: The Commonwealth may forgo probation supervision fees that probationers could have paid.

Standard: Section 87A of Chapter 276 of the Massachusetts General Laws requires imposition of a probation supervision fee unless waived by court order after a finding of fact establishing inability to pay, with community service required instead. ( Section 87A of Chapter 276 of the Massachusetts General Laws )

1 recommendation
  • CDC should comply with the requirements of Section 87A of Chapter 276 of the General Laws for the imposition and waiving of PSFs and the restitution made for nonpayment.agency: agreed
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "I intend forthwith to ask all of the judges assigned to sit in the Concord District Court to document a finding of fact hearing and determination of whether a probationer should pay a monthly probation supervision fee or whether such fee constitutes an undue hardship for probationer or his/her family and should be waived, by diligently using the existing Administrative Office of the District Court form on Assessment or Waiver of Moneys in Criminal Case."
Auditor: "We believe that the actions taken by the First Justice (reiterating to all judges assigned to CDC the Trial Court’s process of holding and documenting findings of fact on PSF waivers) were responsive to our concerns and should help address this matter."
The Probation Office lacked an effective centralized method to track community service hours.
recordkeeping/documentationinternal controls

Why it matters: The Probation Office cannot readily determine community service hours owed, dollar value, or whether offenders will complete court-ordered requirements on schedule.

Standard: Section 87A of Chapter 276 of the Massachusetts General Laws requires adequate monitoring of community service performed by probationers. ( Section 87A of Chapter 276 of the Massachusetts General Laws )

2 recommendations
  • CDC should establish a centralized method of tracking community service performed.agency: disagreed
  • The Probation Office should promptly report all hours of community service performed by each probationer, regularly throughout the probation term, to the Clerk-Magistrate’s Office for recording in MassCourts.agency: partially agreed
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "The Probation Office in the Concord District Court has a centralized method of effectively tracking all hours of community service assigned, performed and owed."
Auditor: "However, the court lacks an efficient means to do this, because in order to compute the probationer’s progress toward fulfilling the community-service obligation, a staff member would have to consult both the logbook and the Probation Office file to find the necessary information."
The court credited community service hours using incorrect rates.
internal controlsrecordkeeping/documentation

Why it matters: Supervised probationers did not perform enough community service, while administrative probationers had to work additional hours to fulfill monthly obligations.

Standard: Section 87A of Chapter 276 of the General Laws and Section 5 of the Trial Court Fiscal Systems Manual establish required community-service conversion rates. ( Section 87A of Chapter 276 of the General Laws; Section 5 of the Trial Court Fiscal Systems Manual )

1 recommendation
  • CDC should credit probationers’ accounts for community service at the rates established by the General Laws and the FSM.agency: agreed
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "Community-Service hours will henceforth be calculated at the statutory rate."
Auditor: "We believe that the actions taken by the First Justice (to have probationers’ community-service hours worked calculated at the statutory rate) were responsive to our concerns and should help address this matter."