Worcester County District Attorney's Office (Middle District)

This is a State Auditor performance audit of the Worcester County District Attorney's Office for July 1, 2010 through September 30, 2011.

“In accordance with Chapter 11, Section 12, of the Massachusetts General Laws, we have conducted an audit of certain activities of the Worcester County District Attorney’s Office – Middle District (WCDA) for the period July 1, 2010 through September 30, 2011.”

Auditors reviewed whether the office had proper controls over money, spending, reporting, assets, programs, and whether it fixed issues from a prior audit.

“The objective of this audit, which covered the period July 1, 2010 through September 30, 2011, was to review the internal controls established by WCDA over certain aspects of its operations.”

The office serves about 798,000 people in central Massachusetts and handles criminal law work, investigations, education programs, and victim-witness services.

“WCDA encompasses four cities and 56 towns in central Massachusetts, representing approximately 798,000 citizens.”

For an ordinary resident, this audit is about whether public money, seized funds, equipment, and employee benefits were being tracked and reported properly by a law enforcement office that serves the community.

“District Attorney’s 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.”

The office was mostly compliant in the areas tested, but the auditor found several management problems that needed correction, especially around forfeited funds, inventory, and fringe benefits.

“During our audit, we reviewed the internal controls WCDA had established over the receipt, expenditure, and reporting of the forfeited funds and found that improvements were needed in several areas, as discussed in sections (a) through (c), below.”

The auditor recommended that the office write or improve policies, reconcile forfeited funds, document spending better, update inventory records, and properly report employee fringe benefits.

“WCDA should establish or improve written policies and procedures detailing processes used for its existing programs and fiscal activities.”

The most significant concern was transparency and accountability: some forfeited money was not reconciled well, some spending lacked enough support, reports were not made monthly, inventory records were incomplete, and some taxable benefits were not handled correctly.

“By not reporting monthly, the appropriation information on MMARS does not accurately or timely report all forfeited fund expenditures during the fiscal year, WCDA’s advance funds expenditure process lacks transparency, and there is no assurance that these funds are expended for their intended purposes.”

“Forfeited funds” means money connected to illegal drug activity that a court allows the government to keep and use for law enforcement-related purposes.

“All funds used to purchase, or all proceeds from the illegal sale of, a controlled substance, are subject to seizure, as detailed in Section 47(a)(5):”