Work Opportunity Center, Inc.

This is a Massachusetts State Auditor performance audit of Work Opportunity Center, Inc. covering July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014.

“This report details the audit objectives, scope, methodology, finding, and recommendation for the audit period, July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014.”

The auditor looked at whether the organization’s board was set up properly and was doing key oversight jobs required by rules and contract terms.

“The purpose of this audit was to assess whether WOC’s board of directors was constituted, and performed various oversight functions, in a manner that was consistent with applicable regulations, contractual terms and conditions, and other guidance.”

This matters because private human-service nonprofits receive large amounts of public money, and their boards are supposed to help make sure those organizations are run properly.

“Each fiscal year, state agencies purchase more than $2 billion in services from private human-service organizations that are governed by boards of directors.”

For an ordinary citizen, the issue is accountability: public money went to this provider, and the auditor checked whether the board had basic controls over top leadership pay and performance.

“This audit was conducted as part of OSA’s ongoing efforts to audit human-service contract activity by state agencies and to promote accountability, transparency, and cost effectiveness in state contracting.”

The organization had one reported finding: the board lacked a documented annual review and formal pay vote for the executive director.

“The board of directors of Work Opportunity Center, Inc. (WOC) did not evaluate the executive director’s performance during the audit period or set his annual compensation with a formal board vote.”

The auditor recommended that the board restart annual executive director reviews and vote formally each year on compensation; the board said it would resume that process in fiscal year 2016.

“The board will resume the process of conducting a formalized annual review of the executive director during fiscal year 2016.”

Because the board did not document the review or vote, the auditor said there was no record proving the executive director’s performance was acceptable or that his pay was appropriate during the audit period.

“As a result, there is no documentation to substantiate that his performance during the audit period was acceptable or that the compensation he received during this period was appropriate.”

A “formal board vote” means the board must officially vote each year on the top executive’s pay after reviewing that person’s performance, instead of handling it informally.

“According to Section 11(a) of the Commonwealth Terms and Conditions for Human and Social Services, the board of directors must “annually review its executive director’s or other more senior manager’s performance and set that person’s compensation by formal vote.””