Eastern District Attorney's Office

This is a state performance audit of the Eastern District Attorney’s Office, covering July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2015.

“I am pleased to provide this performance audit of the Eastern District Attorney’s Office.”

Auditors checked spending, forfeited money, grant money, and money tied to the Hinton drug lab work to see whether rules and controls were being followed.

“This audit was undertaken to review certain aspects of EDA operations related to non-personnel expenditures, administration of forfeited funds, expenditures under an Interdepartmental Service Agreement with the Executive Office for Administration and Finance related to the Dr. William A. Hinton Laboratory, and five grants that EDA participated in during our audit period, in order to determine whether EDA had established adequate internal controls and complied with applicable laws, regulations, policies, procedures, and other guidance in the areas reviewed.”

The office handles criminal cases and public money, so the audit checked whether important financial controls were working.

“The Eastern District Attorney’s Office (EDA) enforces criminal law and handles civil forfeiture and certain civil commitments of persons within the jurisdiction of Essex County, including the Gloucester, Haverhill, Lawrence, Lynn, Newburyport, Peabody, and Salem District Courts.”

If you live in Essex County, this audit concerns the prosecutor’s office that serves your community and manages public funds and programs.

“EDA serves Essex County, which has more than 743,159 residents throughout its 34 cities and towns.”

For the areas the Auditor reviewed, the office passed all three audit questions.

“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.”

The report does not list corrective actions or recommendations, because the audited areas were found to be in compliance.

“Based on our audit, for the period July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2015, we have concluded that EDA had established adequate controls and complied with applicable laws, regulations, policies, procedures, and other guidance for the areas we reviewed that were related to our audit objectives.”

The audit is significant because it found the office’s controls and compliance were adequate in the reviewed areas, including spending, forfeited funds, grants, and Hinton Laboratory-related costs.

“Objective Conclusion 1. Were non-personnel expenses processed properly and with adequate supporting documentation? Yes 2. Did EDA properly administer state forfeited funds and grants? Yes 3. Did EDA expend the appropriation related to the Dr. William A. Hinton Laboratory in compliance with the terms and conditions of the Interdepartmental Service Agreement (ISA) associated with the appropriation? Yes”

“Forfeited funds” means money ordered by a court to be forfeited; the office deposited and spent some of that money through the State Treasurer’s account.

“During our audit period, EDA deposited $587,680 in court-ordered forfeited funds with the Office of the State Treasurer (OST) and disbursed a total of $310,944 from OST’s forfeited-fund account.”