Old Colony Elder Services, Inc.
September 30, 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 state performance audit of Old Colony Elder Services for July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014.
“This report details the audit objectives, scope, methodology, and conclusion for the audit period, July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014.”
The audit looked at whether the organization’s board was set up properly and carried out key oversight duties under applicable rules and contract requirements.
“The purpose of this audit was to assess whether OCES’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.”
The group receives significant public funding, so the state checked whether oversight of that money and leadership was being handled properly.
“OCES’s total revenue for fiscal year 2014 was $34,232,943, of which $19,815,946 was from state contracts, primarily with the Executive Office of Elder Affairs.”
If you are an older adult, a person with disabilities, a caregiver, or a taxpayer, this audit gives some assurance that the reviewed governance controls at this service provider did not show major issues.
“Old Colony Elder Services, Inc. (OCES) is a not-for-profit corporation that provides care and social services to the elderly and people with disabilities.”
For the specific areas the auditor reviewed, no significant deficiencies were found.
“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 list corrective actions; it says the auditor discussed the report with the organization and considered its comments before issuing it.
“My audit staff discussed the contents of this report with management of the organization, whose comments we considered in drafting this report.”
This matters beyond one organization because Massachusetts spends billions on services from private human-service organizations governed by boards.
“Each fiscal year, state agencies purchase more than $2.5 billion in services from private human-service organizations that are governed by boards of directors.”
In plain terms, the audit checked board independence, executive review and pay approval, and whether extra compensation followed state rules.
“Below is a list of our audit objectives, indicating each question we intended our audit to answer and the conclusion we reached regarding each objective.”
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 organization’s top executive by conducting an annual performance review and setting that person’s compensation by formal vote?
- Complied If certain fringe benefits or bonuses were awarded, did the board comply with Operational Services Division (OSD) provisions found in the UFR Auditor’s Compliance Supplement that is issued pursuant to 808 Code of Massachusetts Regulations (CMR) 1.00?