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

← all audits

Middlesex Sheriff's Office

December 23, 2011 · Middlesex County Sheriff's Office · Read the full official report (PDF) ↗

Published December 23, 2011 Audit covers July 1, 2010 – January 31, 2011 Under Suzanne M. Bump · 2011–2023

In plain English
The audit found that the Middlesex Sheriff’s Office needed stronger financial and administrative controls, especially around money handling, inventory, staff meals, inmate funds, and unresolved issues from an earlier audit.
source
“As a result of our transition audit of the status of financial activities, accounts, and functions of the MSO, we have identified certain operations of the prior administration that need improvements in the area of fiscal and administrative internal controls.”
Read the plain-English breakdown
What is this?

This is a transition audit of the Middlesex Sheriff’s Office after a new sheriff took office, looking at finances, accounts, operations, and controls as of January 21, 2011.

“In accordance with Chapter 11, Section 12, of the General Laws, and in consideration of the appointment of a new Sheriff, the Office of the State Auditor conducted a transition audit of the status of financial activities, accounts, functions, and the related systems and control environment of the MSO as of the transition date of January 21, 2011, which includes a review of transactions prior to and subsequent to the transition date of January 21, 2011.”
Why was it audited?

The Auditor reviewed the office to brief the new sheriff, help the handoff between administrations, and identify weak controls that needed fixing.

“The purpose of our review was to inform the new Sheriff of the status of fiscal and administrative operations as of the date he assumed office, to enhance the transition from the prior administration to the new administration, and to identify systems and internal accounting and administrative controls needing corrective action and improvement.”
Why it matters

Weak controls can leave public money and property exposed to waste, loss, theft, or misuse.

“Without complete and accurate inventory records, the MSO’s property and equipment is exposed to potential loss, theft, or misuse.”
What's in it for me?

For residents, this matters because the Sheriff’s Office runs jail facilities, public safety functions, inmate programs, and civil process work using public resources.

“The MSO received $59,316,597 in funding from its General Appropriation for fiscal year 2011 for the operation of the Middlesex Jail, the HOC, and any other statutorily authorized facilities and functions.”
The bottom line

The Auditor found multiple problems: old audit issues were still unresolved, staff were getting free meals, bank reconciliations had variances, abandoned inmate money had not been sent to the Treasurer on time, and inventory records were incomplete.

“Our follow-up review indicated that these issues had not been fully resolved, as discussed below.”
What happens next

The report recommends legal clarification, better accounting, updated controls, monthly bank reconciliations, proper handling of abandoned inmate funds, and stronger inventory procedures.

“The recommendations in our report are intended to assist the new administration in implementing its internal control structure and fiscal and administrative operations to ensure that they are adequate and that the MSO is run in an economical, effective, and efficient manner and in compliance with all applicable laws, rules, and regulations.”
Why it's significant

The office was managing a large public operation: hundreds of employees, more inmates than rated capacity, and tens of millions in state funding.

“The MSO has approximately 786 employees.”

10 figure(s) pending source verification - not shown

What the Auditor checked

What the Auditor found

The office lacked legal clarity on where inmate telephone commissions should be deposited.
cash handlinginternal controls

Why it matters: The lack of a uniform policy creates uncertainty about whether telephone commissions belong in the Commonwealth’s General Fund or the MSO’s Canteen Fund.

Standard: Chapter 29, Sections 1 and 2, and Chapter 127, Section 3, of the General Laws; Chapter 61, Section 12(a)-(c), of the Acts of 2009. ( Chapter 29, Section 2, of the General Laws; Chapter 29, Section 1, of the General Laws; Chapter 127, Section 3, of the General Laws; Chapter 61, Section 12(a) - (c), of the Acts of 2009 )

Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "The Middlesex Sheriff’s Office (MSO) will continue to operate in accordance with [General Law] Chapter 127, Section 3 until this issue is further clarified."
The Internal Control Plan was outdated and incomplete.
internal controlsrecordkeeping/documentation

Why it matters: The plan may not adequately safeguard MSO assets against waste, loss, theft, or misuse.

Standard: Chapter 647 of the Acts of 1989; Office of the State Comptroller Internal Control Guide; COSO Enterprise Risk Management framework. ( Chapter 647 of the Act of 1989, An Act Relative to Improving the Internal Controls within State Agencies; The OSC’s Internal Control Guide, dated September 13, 2007 )

1 recommendation
  • The MSO should update its Internal Control Plan and review it at least annually, including CPD and all financial activities.agency: already implemented
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "The MSO has begun reviewing the current Internal Control Plan (ICP) and is working to comply with all components of Chapter 647 of the Acts of 1989 as well as Office of the State Comptroller guidelines."
Staff were offered meals at no cost despite state law requiring meals not be served below cost.
internal controlspayroll/time

Why it matters: The office incurred unnecessary costs that could otherwise be used for other institutional expenses.

Standard: Chapter 7, Section 3B, of the General Laws. ( Chapter 7, Section 3B, of the General Laws; Chapter 34B, Section 14(a), of the General Laws )

2 recommendations
  • The MSO should review its meal policy, state laws, and costs and consider charging a nominal amount for meals during collective bargaining.
  • The MSO should discuss the issue with the special commission reviewing Sheriff’s Offices.
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "The MSO will continue to operate in accordance with [General Law] Chapter 34B and honor its current collective bargaining agreements until this issue is further clarified."
Civil Process Division bank accounts had persistent reconciliation variances.
cash handlinginternal controlsrecordkeeping/documentation

Why it matters: Unreconciled bank variances weaken safeguards against loss or unauthorized activity that could reduce agency funds.

Standard: Chapter 647 of the Acts of 1989 and prudent monthly bank reconciliation practices. ( Chapter 647 of the Acts of 1989 )

1 recommendation
  • The MSO should strengthen internal controls and establish written procedures requiring monthly bank reconciliations without exception.agency: already implemented
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "The CPD has incorporated into its monthly bank reconciliation a review of voided checks."
The office did not timely forward abandoned inmate funds to the State Treasurer.
cash handlinginternal controlsrecordkeeping/documentation

Why it matters: Funds that should have been transferred to the State Treasurer remained held by the MSO beyond the statutory timeframe.

Standard: Chapter 127, Section 96A, of the General Laws. ( Chapter 127, Section 96A, of the General Laws )

1 recommendation
  • The MSO should dispose of abandoned inmate funds in compliance with Chapter 127, Section 96A.agency: already implemented
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "The MSO has disposed of all inactive abandoned inmate funds in our possession through June 30, 2009 and we are now in complete compliance with Chapter 127, Section 96A."
Inventory records were incomplete and many items were identified as misplaced.
asset/inventory controlinternal controlsrecordkeeping/documentation

Why it matters: Incomplete and inaccurate inventory records exposed MSO property and equipment to potential loss, theft, or misuse.

Standard: Office of the State Comptroller and Operational Services Division regulations for non-GAAP fixed assets. ( Fixed Assets - Acquisition Policy, issued jointly by the OSC and OSD )

2 recommendations
  • The MSO should consolidate inventory listings where possible, maintain one primary central inventory, reconcile misplaced and surplus items, and develop controls to safeguard inventory.agency: already implemented
  • Inventory policies and procedures should be referenced in the MSO’s Internal Control Plan.agency: already implemented
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "The MSO has taken the following steps to strengthen inventory procedures: a) A Master/Comprehensive list of all MSO inventory lists is being compiled and the purchase date, price and date of acquisition on all newly acquired equipment will be part of that list; b) Our current policy and procedure, ‘Inventory Control and Central Supply’ policy will be updated to reflect recommendations made by the Auditor’s Office; c) The disposition of "misplaced" equipment has been reconciled and the disposition of items going forward will be conducted on a timelier basis; and d)."

Prior findings revisited

Still a problem
"Our follow-up review indicated that these issues had not been fully resolved, as discussed below."

More audits of this entity

Other Office of the State Auditor reports on Middlesex County Sheriff's Office , including the prior audits referenced above.

See this entity's page with all 3 audits →