Dedham District Court
March 18, 2011 · Read the full official report (PDF) ↗
Published March 18, 2011 Audit covers July 1, 2008 – June 30, 2010 Under Suzanne M. Bump · 2011–2023
source
“Based on our review, we determined that, except for the issues noted in the Audit Results section of this report, DDC (1) maintained adequate internal controls over certain fee and bail fund activity; (2) properly assessed, recorded, collected, deposited, and accounted for the fees examined; and (3) complied with applicable laws, rules, and regulations for the areas tested.”
Read the plain-English breakdown
This is a state audit of Dedham District Court covering certain court fees and bail funds from July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2010.
“The purpose of our audit was to review DDC’s internal controls and compliance with state laws and regulations regarding certain fees and bail funds for the period July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2010.”
Court fees are public money, and weak tracking can make it harder to know how much is owed, collected, adjusted, or still outstanding.
“Without an accounts receivable system, courts lack control over a significant source of revenue.”
If you pay court fees, the audit matters because it pushes for clearer, more accurate, and less duplicative handling of payments at the courthouse.
“As a result, there is a certain amount of redundancy as well as an inefficient use of court resources.”
The court passed most of the audit areas tested, but auditors identified three problems: no full accounts receivable system, duplicate cash collection points, and some delayed Victim Witness fee collections.
“Although DDC imposed Victim Witness fee assessments as required, it did not always apply partial payments made by the defendant to the Victim Witness fee assessment as a first priority.”
The Trial Court planned to keep developing and rolling out the MassCourts financial module, which was expected to improve fee tracking and payment handling.
“The AOTC and the AODC should continue developing and testing the financial module for the MassCourts system.”
This was not just a Dedham issue: auditors said every district court had the same weakness in not using a true accounts receivable system, affecting millions in court fees statewide.
“Since this is a weakness at every district court location, the Administrative Office of the Trial Court (AOTC) and the Administrative Office of the District Court Department (AODC) should consider implementing an accounts receivable system to track collections rather than rely on the cash-based system currently in use.”
An accounts receivable system means a formal way to track money people owe, what has been paid, what was reduced, and what still needs follow-up.
“An accounts receivable system would also be an important management tool to help age and analyze outstanding balances for further follow-up action and would provide an extra control feature to minimize risk of misstatement of court assets.”
4 figure(s) pending source verification - not shown
What the Auditor checked
- Partially Determine the extent of controls for measuring, reporting, and monitoring effectiveness and efficiency regarding DDC’s compliance with applicable state laws, rules, regulations, state guidelines, and AOTC and AODC policies and procedures for certain fees and bail funds.
What the Auditor found
Why it matters: Courts lacked control over a significant revenue source and could not readily identify the total amount to be collected.
Standard: Sound business practices advocate using an accounts receivable system with a control account and supporting subsidiary detail accounts.
2 recommendations
- The AOTC and the AODC should continue developing and testing the financial module for the MassCourts system.
- Once the MassCourts financial module works as expected, it should be implemented at district courts.
Why it matters: The duplicate process created redundancy and inefficient use of court resources.
Standard: Chapter 279, Section 1B, of the General Laws allows a single funds collection and disbursement point within a courthouse. ( Chapter 279, Section 1B, of the General Laws )
1 recommendation
- The AODC should continue testing the MassCourts financial module to help streamline receipt and disbursement activity at DDC.agency: agreed
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "As noted, court personnel agree that a streamlined system for receipt and disbursement activity for the Dedham District Court would be advisable."
Why it matters: Collection of Victim Witness fee assessments was delayed.
Standard: Section 8 of Chapter 258B of the General Laws requires Victim Witness assessments to be the defendant’s first obligation. ( Section 8 of Chapter 258B of the General Laws )
1 recommendation
- DDC should continue giving first priority to Victim Witness fee assessments upon collection unless AODC issues additional guidance.
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "The importance of giving first priority to Victim Witness fee assessments upon collection has been reviewed with the staff; they are aware of the statutory priority given these fees and will continue to allocate these fees appropriately."