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

← all audits

Massachusetts Sheriffs Association

December 7, 2016 · Read the full official report (PDF) ↗

Published December 7, 2016 Audit covers July 1, 2013 – December 31, 2015 Under Suzanne M. Bump · 2011–2023

In plain English
The audit found that MSA was not consistently publishing required inmate data or sending required reports on time, though its sampled non-payroll spending passed review.
source
“The Massachusetts Sheriffs’ Association (MSA) did not post required inmate population information on its website and did not promptly submit required reports regarding inmate and financial information, or in some cases did not submit them at all, to the state House and Senate Committees on Ways and Means and to various state agencies.”
Read the plain-English breakdown
What is this?

This is a state performance audit of the Massachusetts Sheriffs’ Association covering July 1, 2013 through December 31, 2015.

“This report details the audit objectives, scope, methodology, findings, and recommendations for the audit period, July 1, 2013 through December 31, 2015.”
Why was it audited?

The Auditor checked whether MSA handled certain spending properly and whether it submitted and posted required reports and data.

“In accordance with Section 12 of Chapter 11 of the Massachusetts General Laws, the Office of the State Auditor (OSA) has conducted a performance audit of certain activities of the Massachusetts Sheriffs’ Association (MSA) for the period July 1, 2013 through December 31, 2015.”
Why it matters

When required reports are late or missing, the public, lawmakers, and state agencies have less information for oversight and budgeting.

“Thus MSA did not provide the public with sufficient transparency about inmate populations in various counties, and the Legislature and other state agencies had to expend time and resources to obtain information.”
What's in it for me?

As a citizen, this affects your ability to see basic public information about county inmate populations and how sheriff-related data is reported to state decision-makers.

“Thus MSA is not providing sufficient transparency regarding inmate populations and trends in those populations, information about which could be used by lawmakers to inform budgetary and policymaking decisions.”
The bottom line

MSA met the audit’s tested requirements for non-payroll spending, but failed several reporting and public-posting requirements.

“MSA did not post monthly Inmate Populations by County reports to its website.”
What happens next

The audit recommended that MSA fix its technology access and create clear procedures with sheriffs’ departments so required data gets collected and reported on time.

“MSA, in conjunction with each sheriff’s department, should develop a formal process and uniform policies and procedures as well as monitoring controls to ensure that it receives the necessary data to compile and submit information on recidivism, federal inmate populations, and grant awards to the appropriate legislative bodies and government agencies within the required timeframes.”
Why it's significant

Late or missing inmate data could affect how state leaders judge funding needs and respond to overcrowding concerns.

“The absence of timely information concerning the federal inmate population in county facilities could have a negative effect on the Legislature’s ability to determine appropriate funding levels for sheriffs’ departments and to make timely, informed decisions about how to handle any potential inmate overcrowding issues.”
Jargon, unpacked

MSA means the Massachusetts Sheriffs’ Association, which coordinates information from the state’s 14 county sheriffs’ departments.

“The Massachusetts Sheriffs’ Association (MSA) was established by Chapter 26 of the Acts of 2003 (the Commonwealth’s fiscal year 2004 appropriation/budget act) to coordinate the information reported by the Commonwealth’s 14 independent county sheriffs’ departments.”

1 figure(s) pending source verification - not shown

What the Auditor checked

What the Auditor found

MSA did not post required monthly inmate population reports on its website.
reporting timelinessrecordkeeping/documentation

Why it matters: The public and lawmakers lacked sufficient transparency about inmate populations and trends that could inform budgetary and policymaking decisions.

Standard: The state budget/appropriation language for MSA for fiscal years 2015 and 2016 required MSA to post monthly inmate population by county data on its website by the first of each month starting August 1. ( The state’s budget/appropriation language for MSA for fiscal years 2015 and 2016 )

1 recommendation
  • MSA should acquire, or obtain access to, a server to ensure that it can properly disclose the required inmate information on its website.agency: agreed
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "In response to the audit recommendations, the MSA acknowledges the deficiency in its internal controls related to its reporting responsibilities."
Auditor: "According to its response, MSA is taking measures to address our concerns on these matters."
MSA did not ensure that EOPSS received all required recidivism data.
reporting timelinessinternal controls

Why it matters: EOPSS may not have had all information needed to monitor recidivism trends, assess existing programs, and develop new services and programs.

Standard: The fiscal year 2016 budget required each sheriff’s office, in conjunction with MSA, to provide recidivism data to EOPSS quarterly, no later than 30 days after the last day of each quarter. ( Fiscal year 2016 budget )

1 recommendation
  • MSA, in conjunction with each sheriff’s department, should develop a formal process and uniform policies and procedures as well as monitoring controls to ensure that it receives the necessary data to compile and submit information on recidivism, federal inmate populations, and grant awards to the appropriate legislative bodies and government agencies within the required timeframes.agency: agreed
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "In response to the audit recommendations, the MSA acknowledges the deficiency in its internal controls related to its reporting responsibilities."
Auditor: "According to its response, MSA is taking measures to address our concerns on these matters."
MSA did not submit fiscal year 2014 grant amount lists by the required deadline.
grants managementreporting timelinessinternal controls

Why it matters: Legislative committees may not have received grant funding information in time to make proper budgetary decisions.

Standard: The fiscal year 2015 budget/appropriation language required MSA’s executive director to report all grants awarded to each sheriff in fiscal year 2014 to the House and Senate Committees on Ways and Means by February 2, 2015. ( The state’s budget/appropriation language for MSA for fiscal year 2015 )

1 recommendation
  • MSA, in conjunction with each sheriff’s department, should develop a formal process and uniform policies and procedures as well as monitoring controls to ensure that it receives the necessary data to compile and submit information on recidivism, federal inmate populations, and grant awards to the appropriate legislative bodies and government agencies within the required timeframes.agency: agreed
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "In response to the audit recommendations, the MSA acknowledges the deficiency in its internal controls related to its reporting responsibilities."
Auditor: "According to its response, MSA is taking measures to address our concerns on these matters."

More audits of this entity

Other Office of the State Auditor reports on Massachusetts Sheriffs Association .

See this entity's page with all 3 audits →