Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 3K views

    Dec. 19 Audit Report of The Hampden County Sheriff's Department

    Uploaded by

    Patrick Johnson
    The audit reviewed Hampden Sheriff's Department's internal controls, budgeting practices, and compliance with reporting requirements. The audit found that SDH has established adequate controls in the areas reviewed, including internal control plan, budgeting to ensure sufficient funding, and expenditures of state funds. Facilities were also adequately secured to prevent prisoner escapes.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Dec. 19 Audit Report of The Hampden County Sheriff's Department

    Uploaded by

    Patrick Johnson
    3K views9 pages
    The audit reviewed Hampden Sheriff's Department's internal controls, budgeting practices, and compliance with reporting requirements. The audit found that SDH has established adequate controls in the areas reviewed, including internal control plan, budgeting to ensure sufficient funding, and expenditures of state funds. Facilities were also adequately secured to prevent prisoner escapes.

    Original Description:

    State Auditors report of the Hampden County Sheriff's Department. The report found no deficiencies or shortfalls in the operations of the department or at any of its correctional facilities.

    Original Title

    Dec. 19 audit report of the Hampden County Sheriff's Department

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The audit reviewed Hampden Sheriff's Department's internal controls, budgeting practices, and compliance with reporting requirements. The audit found that SDH has established adequate controls in the areas reviewed, including internal control plan, budgeting to ensure sufficient funding, and expenditures of state funds. Facilities were also adequately secured to prevent prisoner escapes.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    3K views9 pages

    Dec. 19 Audit Report of The Hampden County Sheriff's Department

    Uploaded by

    Patrick Johnson
    The audit reviewed Hampden Sheriff's Department's internal controls, budgeting practices, and compliance with reporting requirements. The audit found that SDH has established adequate controls in the areas reviewed, including internal control plan, budgeting to ensure sufficient funding, and expenditures of state funds. Facilities were also adequately secured to prevent prisoner escapes.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 9

    Official Audit Report Issued December 19, 2016

    Hampden Sheriffs Department


    For the period July 1, 2015 through September 30, 2016

    State House Room 230 Boston, MA 02133 [email protected] www.mass.gov/auditor

    December 19, 2016

    Sheriff Michael J. Ashe


    Hampden Sheriffs Department
    627 Randall Road
    Ludlow, MA 01056
    Dear Sheriff Ashe:
    I am pleased to provide this performance audit of the Hampden Sheriffs Department. This report details
    the audit objectives, scope, methodology, and conclusions for the audit period, July 1, 2015 through
    September 30, 2016. My audit staff discussed the contents of this report with management of the agency,
    whose comments are reflected in this report.
    I would also like to express my appreciation to the Hampden Sheriffs Department for the cooperation
    and assistance provided to my staff during the audit.
    Sincerely,

    Suzanne M. Bump
    Auditor of the Commonwealth

    Audit No. 2017-1434-11J


    Table of Contents

    Hampden Sheriffs Department

    TABLE OF CONTENTS

    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................... 1


    OVERVIEW OF AUDITED ENTITY ............................................................................................................................. 2
    AUDIT OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................. 3

    Audit No. 2017-1434-11J


    List of Abbreviations

    Hampden Sheriffs Department

    LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

    ICP
    MMARS
    OSA
    OSC
    SDH

    internal control plan


    Massachusetts Management Accounting and Reporting System
    Office of the State Auditor
    Office of the State Comptroller
    Hampden Sheriffs Department

    ii

    Audit No. 2017-1434-11J


    Executive Summary

    Hampden Sheriffs Department

    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
    In accordance with Section 12 of Chapter 11 of the Massachusetts General Laws, the Office of the State
    Auditor has performed an audit of various activities of the Hampden Sheriffs Department (SDH) for the
    period July 1, 2015 through September 30, 2016. The current Sheriff of Hampden County will retire after
    42 years of service, and the newly elected Sheriff will be sworn in, on January 4, 2017; the conclusions
    reached in this report refer to office operations in effect during the current administration. The outgoing
    Sheriff requested the audit to review the status of certain fiscal and administrative operations in effect,
    to ease the transition to the newly elected Sheriff, and to identify any areas needing corrective action and
    improvement.
    Based on our audit, we have concluded that SDH has established adequate controls and practices in the
    areas we reviewed that were related to our audit objectives. We did not identify any significant
    deficiencies in those areas.

    Audit No. 2017-1434-11J


    Overview of Audited Entity

    Hampden Sheriffs Department

    OVERVIEW OF AUDITED ENTITY


    The Hampden Sheriffs Department (SDH) was established as a state agency on July 1, 1998, as a result of
    the abolition of Hampden County pursuant to Chapter 48 of the Acts of 1997. Chapter 127 of the Acts of
    1999 amended the Massachusetts General Laws by adding Chapter 34B, under which the Sheriff became
    an employee of the Commonwealth, remained an elected official, and retained administrative and
    operational control over SDH. As presently structured, SDH is responsible for running and overseeing all
    aspects of its programs and facilities: the SDH administrative offices, the Hampden County Jail and House
    of Correction, the Western Massachusetts Regional Womens Correctional Center, the Pre-Release
    Center, York Street Industries, the Western Massachusetts Correctional Addiction Center, and the
    Community Safety Center. It also operates programs for adult education, substance-abuse treatment,
    volunteering, and other purposes. In addition to its correctional programs, SDH is responsible for the
    service of legal papers and notices through its Civil Process Division.
    SDH houses its inmates in secure facilities; inmates are required to leave SDH grounds for various events,
    such as medical appointments, court events, and outside correctional services. According to inmate
    counts provided by SDH, as of the end of the audit period SDH housed 1,535 inmates.
    During our audit period, SDH was appropriated $153,085,305 of state funds to cover operational
    expenses. A detailed breakdown of each state appropriation and its purpose is shown below.

    Appropriation Breakdown

    Appropriation Name

    Description

    Fiscal Year 2017

    Fiscal Year 2016

    HAMPDEN SHERIFFS
    DEPARTMENT

    For the operation of the Hampden


    sheriffs office

    $70,957,484

    $71,726,757

    HAMPDEN SHERIFF
    REGIONAL MENTAL HEALTH
    STAB UNIT

    For the operations of a regional


    behavioral evaluation and stabilization
    unit

    $1,087,493

    $1,087,493

    HAMPDEN SHERIFF INMATE


    TRANSFERS

    For costs related to department of


    correction inmates . . . who have been
    transferred to the Hampden sheriffs
    office

    $542,605

    $542,605

    WESTERN MASS REGIONAL


    WOMENS CORRECTION

    For the operation of the Western


    Massachusetts Regional Womens
    Correctional Center

    $3,570,434

    $3,570,434

    Appropriation names and descriptions are quoted from SDH appropriations 8910-0102, 8910-1010, 8910-1020, and 89101030.

    Audit No. 2017-1434-11J


    Audit Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

    Hampden Sheriffs Department

    AUDIT OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY


    In accordance with Section 12 of Chapter 11 of the Massachusetts General Laws, the Office of the State
    Auditor (OSA) has conducted a performance audit of certain activities of the Hampden Sheriffs
    Department (SDH) for the period July 1, 2015 through September 30, 2016.
    We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
    standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate
    evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We
    believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on
    our audit objectives.
    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.
    Objective

    Conclusion

    1.

    Has SDH developed an internal control plan (ICP) that is consistent with the
    requirements of the Office of the State Comptrollers (OSCs) Internal Control Guide?

    Yes

    2.

    Does SDH comply with the requirements of Chapter 647 of the Acts of 1989 by
    reporting all instances of unaccounted-for variances, losses, shortages, or thefts of
    funds or property to OSA?

    Yes

    3.

    Does SDH have proper budgeting practices in place to ensure that its annual funding is
    sufficient to meet its operational needs?

    Yes

    4.

    Does SDH ensure that state appropriation expenditures for employee compensation
    and purchases of goods and services that cost $10,000 or more are authorized,
    allowable, and properly documented?

    Yes

    5.

    Are SDH facilities adequately secured to prevent prisoner escapes?

    Yes

    To achieve our objectives, we gained an understanding of the internal controls we considered significant
    to our audit objectives and evaluated the design and effectiveness of controls over budgeting,
    administrative expenditures, and payroll expenditures.
    We conducted further audit procedures as follows:

    We obtained and reviewed SDHs ICP and OSCs Internal Control Guide. The Internal Control Guide
    includes an ICP checklist, identifying the eight components of enterprise risk management and 17

    Audit No. 2017-1434-11J


    Audit Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

    Hampden Sheriffs Department

    sub-attributes of those components, to guide state agencies in developing ICPs. We used all 17
    sub-attributes as our population to test SDHs ICP for compliance with the Internal Control Guide,
    reviewing the ICP to verify the existence of all 17 sub-attributes.

    To assess whether SDH complied with the requirement to report unaccounted for variances,
    losses, shortages, or thefts of funds or property to OSA under Chapter 647 of the Acts of 1989,
    we interviewed key personnel involved with reporting and reviewed the legislation details, SDHs
    ICP, and SDHs policies related to losses. We also performed the following procedure:

    To determine whether SDH budgeting practices were sufficient to ensure that its state funding
    would cover its anticipated operational costs, we obtained and reviewed SDH state appropriation
    expenditure data from the states Massachusetts Management Accounting and Reporting System
    (MMARS) for the audit period; we also obtained and reviewed spending plans developed by SDH
    for fiscal years 2016 and 2017 and interviewed key personnel involved with budgeting. We also
    conducted the following analysis of the current and prior fiscal years appropriations:

    We identified in SDHs policy and procedure manual the Fixed Asset Removal from Inventory
    Form, which SDHs departments use to request the removal of assets from SDHs inventory
    list. We requested all of the forms that were filled out and given to the assistant
    superintendent of Business and Administration during the audit period. There were 62
    instances of asset disposals by SDH representing the entire population. We reviewed each
    form, identified the reason given for disposal, and determined whether a Chapter 647 report
    should have been filed with OSA.

    We used expenditure data from MMARS to create tables for each appropriation that showed
    the subtotal of expenditures for each object code1 and fiscal year. We used the budgets
    developed by SDH to determine whether the budgeted amounts were in line with actual
    spending for fiscal year 2016. We used the fiscal year 2017 budgets developed by SDH to
    create estimates for the spending through the end of the first quarter of fiscal year 2017 to
    compare to actual expenditures and identify deficient areas.

    To determine whether employee compensation and purchases of more than $10,000 were
    proper, we reviewed the SDH policies and procedures related to procurement, payroll, and
    accounts payable. We also reviewed various collective bargaining agreements and interviewed
    key employees from the Administration and Business Department to gain a better understanding
    of the procedures in place at HSD. In addition, we conducted the following tests.

    Using a nonstatistical sampling method and 15 randomly selected vendors out of a population
    of 93 vendors that had been paid $10,000 or more from state appropriated funds during our
    audit period, we reviewed supporting documents (contracts, invoices, and purchase orders)
    provided by SDH for each vendor to determine the following:

    whether the funds had been encumbered2 and spent in accordance with the purpose of
    the appropriation

    1. An object code is an identifier used in MMARS to show what an expense is for (e.g., object code A01 represents employee
    salaries).
    2. Encumbrances are funds set aside from an organizations budget to pay for future items or services received.

    Audit No. 2017-1434-11J


    Audit Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

    Hampden Sheriffs Department

    whether there was proof of receipt of the goods/services

    whether the procurement process had been followed

    whether proper approvals had been received before payment was made

    Using a nonstatistical sampling method, we randomly selected 40 employees from a


    population of 972 employees whose compensation was paid from state appropriated funds
    during the audit period. Our testing determined whether each employee was authorized to
    be placed on the payroll, the salary amount was approved, and the compensation rate agreed
    with the salary schedules and collective bargaining agreements.

    To determine whether SDH facilities were adequately secured, we toured the four facilities that
    housed inmates, observing each sites physical security features, and interviewed key employees
    who were responsible for security at SDH. We also reviewed Title 924.01 of the Code of
    Massachusetts Regulations, which governs the minimum physical security measures at county
    correctional facilities, and reviewed SDH policies and procedures for security and preventing
    prisoner escapes. We also performed the following procedures:

    We verified that each of the four facilities met the minimum requirements of the regulation.

    Using a nonstatistical sample and randomly selecting 30 days out of a population of 458 days,
    we tested the completeness, accuracy, and signoffs of daily key-count numbers of SDHs
    Western Massachusetts Correctional Addiction Center.

    We estimated the staff-to-inmate ratio at SDH by dividing the SDH employee count by the
    total inmate count for the same period and compared that ratio to state and national staffto-inmate ratios to determine whether SDH was in line with the state and national averages.

    We applied a nonstatistical approach to all of our audit tests (vendors that were paid more than $10,000,
    employees that were paid with state appropriated funding, and daily key-count numbers); therefore, the
    results of our tests cannot be projected to the entire population and only apply to the items selected.
    During the audit, we used expenditure data processed through MMARS. We relied on OSAs most recent
    data reliability assessment of MMARS to determine that the data we used were sufficiently reliable for
    the purposes of this report.

    You might also like