House of Possibilities
October 16, 2015 · Read the full official report (PDF) ↗
source
“Our audit revealed no significant instances of noncompliance that must be reported under generally accepted government auditing standards.”
Read the plain-English breakdown
This is a Massachusetts State Auditor performance audit of House of Possibilities, a nonprofit that provides respite support for people with disabilities and their families.
“House of Possibilities, Inc. (HOPI) is a not-for-profit organization that operates a respite facility that supports individuals with disabilities and their families.”
The audit checked whether the nonprofit's board was set up properly and doing key oversight duties required by rules and contracts.
“The purpose of this audit was to assess whether HOPI’s board of directors was constituted, and performed various oversight functions, in a manner consistent with applicable regulations, contractual terms and conditions, and other guidance.”
This matters because private human-service providers receive large amounts of public money, and their boards are responsible for making sure the organizations are run well.
“Each fiscal year, state agencies purchase more than $2 billion in services from private human-service organizations that are governed by boards of directors.”
If you are a taxpayer or someone who relies on disability services, this audit gives some assurance that this provider met the specific board oversight rules the auditor reviewed.
“This audit was conducted as part of OSA’s ongoing efforts to audit human service contract activity by state agencies and to promote accountability, transparency, and cost effectiveness in state contracting.”
For the issues the audit examined, the auditor found no significant deficiencies needing attention.
“For the areas reviewed that were related to our audit objectives, we did not identify any significant deficiencies warranting attention by those responsible for governance and state oversight agencies.”
The report does not call for corrective action; it simply reports that the reviewed areas were satisfactory.
“Specifically, management personnel and their immediate families did not compose more than 30% of the voting members of the organization’s board of directors, and the board reviewed the executive director’s performance and voted to increase his salary during the audit period.”
The finding is significant because the nonprofit received state contract money, and the audit found its board met the specific governance checks reviewed.
“HOPI’s total revenue for fiscal year 2014 was $1,168,523, of which $130,460 was from state contracts, primarily with the Department of Developmental Services.”
A 'performance audit' means the auditor looked at whether certain activities followed rules and worked as expected, not just whether financial statements added up.
“We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.”
What the Auditor checked
- Complied Does the organization comply with the Commonwealth Terms and Conditions for Human and Social Services, which prohibit management personnel and their immediate families from composing more than 30% of the voting members of the board?
- Complied Has the board complied with the Commonwealth Terms and Conditions for Human and Social Services pertaining to the top executive of the organization by conducting an annual performance review and setting that person’s compensation by formal vote?