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

← all audits

Southeastern Massachusetts Educational Collaborative

August 31, 2011 · Read the full official report (PDF) ↗

Published August 31, 2011 Audit covers July 1, 2008 – October 31, 2010 Under Suzanne M. Bump · 2011–2023

In plain English
Auditors found that SMEC was mostly funded by adult human-service work, did not file required financial reports, kept accounting records in ways that did not meet required standards, and received $53,063 in improper contract payments.
source
“Our audit identified that SMEC was using the majority of its funding to provide various human services to adults rather than children in SMEC’s member districts, which may not be consistent with the purposes of an educational collaborative.”
Read the plain-English breakdown
What is this?

This is a Massachusetts State Auditor review of Southeastern Massachusetts Educational Collaborative, a public educational collaborative based in New Bedford, covering July 1, 2008 through October 31, 2010.

“In accordance with Chapter 11, Section 12, of the General Laws, the Office of the State Auditor (OSA) has conducted an audit of certain activities of SMEC for the period July 1, 2008 through October 31, 2010.”
Why was it audited?

The audit looked at whether SMEC had proper controls and followed laws, rules, contracts, and grant requirements in areas like accounting, budgeting, contracts, staff credentials, evaluations, and credit-card spending.

“Our audit objectives consisted of a review and assessment of the system of internal controls over certain activities, including accounting, budgeting, financial reporting, contract administration, professional licensure, staff evaluations, and credit card expenses, and an evaluation of SMEC’s management practices and its compliance with relevant laws, rules, regulations, policies, and grant and contract requirements.”
Why it matters

SMEC used more than half of its revenue for adult services, which auditors said may not match the legal purpose of an educational collaborative and could add costs to the state pension system.

“SMEC receives over 50% of its revenue from contracts with state human service agencies to provide various human services, including employment support and residential and adult day health services, to adults over the age of 21 years.”
What's in it for me?

For taxpayers and local school communities, the issue is transparency: without required financial reports, oversight agencies and school districts could not properly judge SMEC’s activities or performance.

“Because SMEC did not file these reports, state funding and oversight agencies and other interested parties, such as the school districts for which SMEC provides services, did not have the ability to adequately assess SMEC’s activities and its performance in providing services.”
The bottom line

The auditor said SMEC had major compliance and accounting problems, including improper payments under state contracts totaling $53,063.

“Also, contrary to state regulations, SMEC had not filed annual audited financial statements with the Commonwealth; was not maintaining its accounting records in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; and received unnecessary and, in some instances, not properly authorized payments totaling $53,063 under its state contracts.”
What happens next

The report recommends that DESE clarify whether educational collaboratives may provide adult human services, that SMEC file required annual financial reports and keep GAAP-compliant records, and that DDS recover the $53,063.

“DDS should recover from SMEC the $53,063 in funding provided to SMEC under LUSA contracts during fiscal years 2009 and 2010.”
Why it's significant

The report raises a broader policy question: whether a public education collaborative should mainly provide adult human services, especially when doing so may increase public pension obligations.

“SMEC’s provision of these services may not only be inconsistent with the purposes of an educational collaborative, but may also be allowing employees to accrue pension benefits and unnecessarily increase the state’s pension liability.”
Jargon, unpacked

A UFR is the annual financial report human-service contractors must file with the state; GAAP means standard accounting rules; LUSA contracts are meant for short-term, as-needed services, not retroactive payment for extra services already provided under other contracts.

“According to state regulations, agencies such as SMEC that provide human services under contracts with state agencies must file an annual financial report, the Uniform Financial Statements and Independent Auditor’s Report (UFR), with the Commonwealth.”

1 figure(s) pending source verification - not shown

What the Auditor checked

What the Auditor found

SMEC primarily provided adult human services that may not fit the purpose of an educational collaborative.
internal controls

Why it matters: The services may be inconsistent with statutory purposes and may unnecessarily increase the state pension liability.

Standard: Chapter 40, Section 4E, of the Massachusetts General Laws ( Chapter 40, Section 4E, of the Massachusetts General Laws )

1 recommendation
  • DESE should determine whether and to what extent educational collaboratives may provide adult human services under state contracts, communicate that determination, and consider legislative clarification.agency: disagreed
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "Despite the auditors’ statement that the purpose of the audit was not to “assess the quality and appropriateness of all program services provided by SMEC,” the auditor has chosen to call into question whether an educational collaborative should be providing services to persons over the age of 22."
SMEC did not file required annual audited financial statements with the Commonwealth.
reporting timelinessrecordkeeping/documentationinternal controls

Why it matters: Oversight agencies and school districts lacked information needed to assess SMEC’s activities and performance.

Standard: 808 Code of Massachusetts Regulations 1.04(2) ( 808 Code of Massachusetts Regulations 1.04(2) )

1 recommendation
  • SMEC should annually file a UFR in compliance with state regulations.agency: partially agreed
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "The collaborative is not in a financial position, nor would it be an appropriate use of public funds to begin legal action on this finding at this time, therefore, although we object, we intend to comply with the recommendation that we file an annual UFR and have in fact done so as requested for FY10."
Auditor: "We believe this decision is appropriate and will serve to provide the transparency necessary for DESE and OSD to effect proper oversight of its activities."
SMEC did not maintain accounting records in accordance with GAAP.
recordkeeping/documentationinternal controlsprocurement/contracts

Why it matters: SMEC could not document whether state contract funding was based on actual program costs or whether tuition rates were set consistent with applicable guidance.

Standard: 808 Code of Massachusetts Regulations 1.04(1), GAAP, and guidance from DLS and OAG on service fees ( 808 Code of Massachusetts Regulations 1.04(1); GAAP )

1 recommendation
  • SMEC should maintain records in accordance with GAAP and use that information to establish contract budgets and tuition rates consistent with DLS and OAG guidance.agency: partially agreed
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "SMEC will change the presentation of the collaborative budget(s) and general ledger to comply with GAAP, however we strongly take exception to the statements that we do not track individual program costs, accurately account for administrative and occupancy expenses or set reasonable and appropriate tuitions based on program costs."
Auditor: "As stated in our report, our concern is not that SMEC did not account for all of its expenses, but rather that SMEC did not account for its expenses in accordance with GAAP as required by state regulations."
SMEC received unnecessary and inappropriate LUSA contract payments totaling $53,063.
procurement/contractsinternal controlsrecordkeeping/documentation

Why it matters: The Commonwealth paid for services that were not properly authorized or used for the intended LUSA purpose.

Standard: DDS Purchase of Service Manual and Authorization for Services requirements for LUSA contracts ( DDS Purchase of Service Manual; Authorization for Services form requirement )

1 recommendation
  • DDS should recover $53,063 from SMEC and SMEC and DDS should ensure LUSA funds are used only for intended purposes.agency: disagreed
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "To this end, SMEC will work with DDS to ensure that proper contracting and invoicing methods are followed with regard to all services provided by our agency, however we strongly oppose the recommendation that DDS seek reimbursement of these funds as the services were provided and properly documented by SMEC and approved by DDS officials therefore the collaborative should not be penalized for using the invoicing format directed by the state purchasing agency."
Auditor: "Consequently, we believe that these additional payments to SMEC were unnecessary, unallowable, and inappropriate."

Verified dollar findings

Other identified $725,832 not in headline

Identified dollar findings that do not fall in a named band.

$324,461 - misallocated administrative expenses
$326,587 - misallocated administrative expenses
$53,063 - inappropriate LUSA funding
$21,721 - not properly authorized services