Natick District Court
May 23, 2011 · Read the full official report (PDF) ↗
Published May 23, 2011 Audit covers July 1, 2008 – March 31, 2010 Under Suzanne M. Bump · 2011–2023
source
“Based on our review, we determined that, except for the issues noted in the Audit Results section of this report, NDC (1) maintained adequate internal controls over certain fee and bail fund activity; (2) properly assessed, recorded, collected, deposited, and accounted for the fees examined; and (3) complied with applicable laws, rules, and regulations for the areas tested.”
Read the plain-English breakdown
This is a state audit of Natick District Court, covering selected court fees and bail funds from July 1, 2008 through March 31, 2010.
“The scope of our audit included an examination of NDC’s controls over administrative and operational activities, including certain fees and bail funds for the period July 1, 2008 through March 31, 2010.”
Court fees and bail money are public funds, and weak tracking can delay money going where it belongs or leave people unaware that bail can be returned.
“As a result, the Commonwealth has been denied timely access and use of these funds and defendants or sureties that posted bail may not know it is available to be released.”
If you paid bail, owed court fees, or rely on courts being accountable with public money, this audit shows where recordkeeping and follow-up needed improvement.
“Without an accounts receivable system, courts lack control over a significant source of revenue.”
The court needed to improve four main areas: tracking money owed, handling old or forfeited bail, updating internal controls after relocation, and charging the correct administrative probation fee.
“NDC did not consistently charge the higher Administrative Probation Fee, which became effective July 1, 2009.”
The report recommends that court officials improve systems and procedures, including financial tracking, bail reviews, risk assessments, and probation-fee updates.
“NDC should perform periodic reviews of bail records to ensure future compliance with the state law and AOTC regulations governing bail.”
The issue was not just local paperwork: the report says tens of millions of dollars across district courts could have been tracked through a better receivables system.
“Of the total revenues of approximately $78 million collected by all district courts during fiscal year 2009, over $35 million in fees collected for all 62 district court locations in that year could have been processed through an accounts receivable system if the courts had one.”
An accounts receivable system is a way to track money people owe, not just money already collected. The audit says the courts were using a cash-based system instead.
“The accounting system used by Massachusetts courts is a cash-based system.”
11 figure(s) pending source verification - not shown
What the Auditor checked
- Partially Assess the adequacy of NDC’s internal controls over the assessment, collection, accounting, waiver, and community service in lieu of payment of certain fees and NDC’s internal controls over bail funds.
- Partially Determine the extent of controls for measuring, reporting, and monitoring effectiveness and efficiency regarding NDC’s compliance with applicable state laws, rules, and regulations; other state guidelines; and AOTC and AODC policies and procedures with respect to certain fees and bail funds.
What the Auditor found
Why it matters: Courts lacked control over a significant source of revenue and could not readily identify the total amount to be collected.
Standard: Sound business practices advocate the use of an accounts receivable system with a control account and supporting subsidiary detail accounts to control revenues.
1 recommendation
- The AOTC and the AODC should continue developing and testing the financial module for the MassCourts system, and implement it at district courts once it is determined to work as expected.agency: no response
Why it matters: The Commonwealth was denied timely access and use of funds, and defendants or sureties may not have known that bail was available for release.
Standard: AOTC Fiscal Systems Manual, Sections 9.2 and 9.6; Chapter 200A, Section 6 and Chapter 276, Section 80 of the Massachusetts General Laws. ( Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 200A, Section 6; Chapter 276, Section 80, of the Massachusetts General Laws )
1 recommendation
- NDC should perform periodic reviews of bail records to ensure future compliance with state law and AOTC regulations governing bail.agency: no response
Why it matters: The integrity of court records and assets was diminished, and financial and case information in the suspended payments list did not agree with official court records.
Standard: Chapter 647 of the Acts of 1989; Commonwealth Internal Control Guide; AOTC Internal Control Guidelines for the Trial Court. ( Chapter 647 of the Acts of 1989 )
2 recommendations
- NDC should identify risks from consolidation and work with Framingham District Court and AODC to update its internal control plan and mitigate risks.agency: no response
- NDC should prioritize accurate data entry, institute procedures to ensure the suspended payments list reflects case activity, and correct erroneous prior entries.agency: no response
Why it matters: The Trial Court and the Commonwealth did not receive all funds to which they were entitled.
Standard: Fiscal Year 2010 Appropriations Act amendment to Section 87A of Chapter 276 of the Massachusetts General Laws; July 3, 2009 Office of the Commissioner of Probation memorandum. ( Section 87A of Chapter 276 of the Massachusetts General Laws; G. L. 276 § 87A )
1 recommendation
- NDC should promptly adjust its accounting system for monthly fee changes, review current accounts for probationers paying the lower amount, make appropriate changes, and periodically compare case records between the Probation Office and Clerk-Magistrate’s Office.agency: no response
Verified dollar findings
Estimated or sample-projected amounts - shown separately because they are not a hard-identified dollar figure.