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

← all audits

House of Possibilities

October 16, 2015 · Read the full official report (PDF) ↗

Published October 16, 2015 Audit covers July 1, 2013 – June 30, 2014 Under Suzanne M. Bump · 2011–2023

In plain English
The State Auditor reviewed House of Possibilities and did not find any major problems in the areas it checked.
source
“Our audit revealed no significant instances of noncompliance that must be reported under generally accepted government auditing standards.”
Read the plain-English breakdown
What is this?

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.”
Why was it audited?

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.”
Why it matters

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.”
What's in it for me?

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.”
The bottom line

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.”
What happens next

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.”
Why it's significant

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.”
Jargon, unpacked

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