Suffolk County District Attorney's Office

This is a state audit of the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office covering July 1, 2010 through March 31, 2012.

“In accordance with Chapter 11, Section 12, of the Massachusetts General Laws, we have conducted an audit of certain activities of the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office (SCDA) for the period July 1, 2010 through March 31, 2012.”

The auditor reviewed whether the office had proper safeguards over money, spending, property records, and several programs.

“This audit, which covered the period July 1, 2010 through March 31, 2012, was initiated to review the internal controls established by SCDA over certain aspects of its operations.”

This office handles criminal cases, supports investigations, helps victims and witnesses, and provides community outreach, so its operations affect public safety and public services.

“DA offices also represent the Commonwealth before grand juries and assist with the investigation of a variety of criminal activities as well as victim-witness assistance services.”

For residents, the report says the office serving Suffolk County’s communities had adequate controls in the tested areas and had improved its internal control plan.

“Suffolk County encompasses four cities in eastern Massachusetts, representing approximately 730,932 citizens.”

The main finding was positive: the prior problem was resolved, and the office updated and implemented its internal control plan.

“Although our prior audit report noted that improvements were needed in key areas of SCDA’s internal control plan (ICP), our current audit found that SCDA had updated its ICP and properly implemented our prior audit report’s recommendations.”

The report does not list new problems to fix; it says the office already took corrective action on the earlier issue.

“Our current audit indicated that SCDA has taken corrective action by updating its ICP, effective July 1, 2011, to comply with the OSC guidelines issued on September 13, 2007, and has included the information and communication systems in place and the monitoring activities for identified risks in the new ICP.”

The audit matters because it reviewed a public law-enforcement office that received millions in state funding and serves a large county population.

“For fiscal year ended June 30, 2011, and for the period July 1, 2011 through March 31, 2012, SCDA received state maintenance appropriations to fund its administrative operations totaling $15,281,820 and $11,238,466, respectively.”

“Internal controls” means the office’s rules and checks for handling money, records, assets, and programs properly; “ICP” means internal control plan.

“The objectives of our audit were to (1) review SCDA’s internal control plan (ICP) and its internal controls over various financial and program activities, including revenue collection, expenditures, financial reporting, and the inventory of assets; (2) determine whether SCDA’s financial records are accurate and being maintained in accordance with established criteria; (3) review certain agency expenditures, including payroll, program, and administrative costs, to determine whether they are appropriate and reasonable; (4) review advanced expenses to determine whether they are processed properly with supporting documentation; and (5) review the operation of SCDA’s community-based juvenile justice program to determine whether it is being operated in accordance with Chapter 12, Section 32, of the General Laws.”