The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutFollow-up of Sheriff's Office EvidenceFollow-up report on Sheriff’s Office Evidence #13/14-3 August 2013 FOLLOW-UP REPORT Sheriff’s Office Evidence (Internal audit report #11/12-10 issued October 2012) To request this information in an alternate format, please call (541) 330-4674 or send email to David.Givans@Deschutes.org Deschutes County, Oregon David Givans, CPA, CIA, CGMA Deschutes County Internal Auditor 1300 NW Wall St PO Box 6005 Bend, OR 97708-6005 (541) 330-4674 David.Givans@Deschutes.org Audit committee: Gayle McConnell, Chair - Public member Chris Earnest - Public member Jean Pedelty - Public member Michael Shadrach - Public member Jennifer Welander - Public member Anthony DeBone, County Commissioner Dan Despotopulos, Fair & Expo Director Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk Follow-up report on Sheriff’s Office Evidence #13/14-3 August 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS: 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Background ………………………………………...………………................................... 1 1.2. Objectives & Scope ……………………………………..………………………….…….… 1 1.3. Methodology ……………………………………………………..…………………….……. 1 2. FOLLOW-UP RESULTS ……………….…...………………………….............................. 2 3. APPENDIX I – Internal Audit Recommendations - Updated Workplan for Report #11/12-10 (Status updated as of August 2013) ……….……...….................... 3-6 Follow-up report on Sheriff’s Office Evidence #13/14-3 August 2013 Page 1 1. Introduction 1.1 BACKGROUND Audit Authority: The Deschutes County Audit Committee has suggested that follow-ups occur from nine months to one year after the original report issuance. The Audit Committee’s would like to make sure departments satisfactorily address recommendations. 1.2 OBJECTIVES and SCOPE Objectives: The objective was to follow-up on the outstanding audit recommendations. Scope: The follow-up included twenty (20) recommendations from the internal audit report on Sheriff’s Office Evidence (#11/12-10) (issued October 2012). The follow-up reflects the status as of August 2013. The original internal audit report should be referenced for the full text of recommendations and discussion. 1.3 METHODOLOGY The follow-up report was developed from information provided by Tom Anderson, County Administrator, Captain Tim Edwards and Dana Whitehurst, Administrative Supervisor. In cases where recommendations have not been implemented, comments were sought for the reasons why and the timing for addressing these. The follow-up is, by nature, subjective. In determining the status of recommendations that were followed up, we relied on assertions provided by those involved and did not attempt to independently verify those assertions. The Sheriff’s Office should be acknowledged for their work in addressing these recommendations. Since no substantive audit work was performed, Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States were not followed. DESCHUTES COUNTY INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT DESCHUTES COUNTY INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT DESCHUTES COUNTY INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT Follow-up report on Sheriff’s Office Evidence #13/14-3 August 2013 Page 2 2. Follow-up Results Figure I - How were recommenda- tions implemented? The follow-up included twenty (20) recommendations. Management agreed with all of the recommendations. Figure I provides an overview of the implementation status of the recommendations. The details of the updated workplan are provided in Appendix I. With this follow-up, 15 of the recommendations (75%) have been sufficiently completed. County Administration and the Sheriff’s Office are working on the remaining 5 recommendations. During the follow-up, it was determined the data migration of the prior evidence room data to the new system had been completed. A prior audit objective that had not been completed was to review the completeness of the conversion of evidence records. Performance of those internal audit additional procedures will be discussed with the Sheriff’s Office to see if they are still warranted. Follow-up report on Sheriff’s Office Evidence #13/14-3 August 2013 Page 3 3. Appendix Appendix I –Updated Workplan for Report #11/12-10 (Status as of August 2013) Rec # Recommendation text Agreement Updated Status Estimated Completion Date Responsible Party Updated Department Comments 1 It is recommended for staff to establish additional procedures to assure "blank" location entries are not utilized until the movement of those items are confirmed. It is recommended the department consider utilizing/developing an audit trail report available under the new software system to monitor location changes of evidence items to assure proper handling. Agree Complete New RMS System prevents this from happening. 2 It is recommended for separate Sheriff’s Office staff perform a more extensive review of items for destruction (i.e. it could be determined that all controlled substances would be audited). Agree Complete Staff are performing a complete inventory of evidence to be destroyed and this is overseen by a separate Captain. 3 It is recommended the Sheriff’s Office develop procedures to be systematic about how they locate evidence in the evidence system. It is recommended for the Sheriff’s Office to develop and implement consistent practices around evidence locations. Agree Complete New RMS System prevents this from happening. 4 It is recommended that staff utilize meaningful descriptions in their system for inventory requiring special handling. Agree Complete New RMS System prevents this from happening. Follow-up report on Sheriff’s Office Evidence #13/14-3 August 2013 Page 4 Rec # Recommendation text Agreement Updated Status Estimated Completion Date Responsible Party Updated Department Comments 5 It is recommended for the Sheriff’s Office to establish evidence documentation and preparation procedures that will provide and require meaningful weight, measures and descriptions for controlled substances. Agree Complete Additional procedures established. Officers still struggle with compliance issues. 6 It is recommended that evidence that is potentially a hazardous material be specifically identified and located as such for the safety of personnel. The description for non-hazardous material location could also be changed. Agree Complete Very limited hazardous materials held as evidence. New RMS system and procedures will help on this. 7 It is recommended that evidence room staff periodically reconcile the information present in the two systems for managing electronic media. Agree Ongoing/ Complete Will continue to address in RMS. 8 It is recommended for the department to consider additional procedures for electronic media evidence that will help assure more efficient and effective management of the information. Agree Ongoing/ Complete The Sheriff's Office will continue to address in RMS. 9 It is recommended for evidence room staff to resolve all discrepancies identified during inventory prior to the conversion to the new system. Agree Complete Identified issues have been resolved. 10 It is recommended that management consider how evidence currently located as “hazardous materials”, “shop” and “not received” should be handled for controlling the chain of custody and providing adequate safekeeping for those items. Agree Complete Established additional procedures in RMS. 10.1 It is recommended that staff should notify supervisors if evidence information is submitted without the corresponding evidence. The custodian of that evidence should handle the associated evidence sheets. Separate evidence room sheets could be utilized or shared by different custodians. Agree Complete New procedures established Follow-up report on Sheriff’s Office Evidence #13/14-3 August 2013 Page 5 Rec # Recommendation text Agreement Updated Status Estimated Completion Date Responsible Party Updated Department Comments 10.2 It is recommended for the Sheriff’s Office in coordination with their peers in drug enforcement (C.O.D.E.) develop and implement a combined and uniform approach to handling their evidence. Agree Complete New procedures established 10.3 It is recommended C.O.D.E. assign a limited number of staff to perform the role as evidence custodians to limit access, provide better accountability and better manage the evidence system. Agree Complete New procedures established 10.4 In order to consolidate C.O.D.E.’s current evidence items, it is recommended they accumulate current evidence information from all of the team members, inventory all evidence, compare and resolve all discrepancies to the inventory. Additional inquiry and resolution should occur with any evidence not properly accounted for. Agree Complete New procedures established 11 It is recommended for software administrators assure the reports in the system (especially the security role reports) be fixed so that appropriate settings can be confirmed. Agree Underway November- 2013 RMS Software vendor Anticipate RMS upgrades and fixes as requested. 12 It is recommended for software administrators receive an operational user login for daily usage. Usage of their administrator rights should be limited to when necessary. Agree Underway January- 2014 Software Administrator Administrator has created an operating ID, but not using until system fully installed. RMS still under development. 13 It is recommended for the department to develop a process to provide oversight over the infrequent need to delete electronic evidence records. Agree Complete New procedures established 14 It is recommended the software administrator(s) develop a written manual for how they have setup the system and plan for its operation. Agree Underway December- 2014 Software Administrator Need to develop operationalized procedures. Some universal procedures already established. Follow-up report on Sheriff’s Office Evidence #13/14-3 August 2013 Page 6 Rec # Recommendation text Agreement Updated Status Estimated Completion Date Responsible Party Updated Department Comments 15 It is recommended for the County to implement additional procedures to identify and budget non-recurring capital expenditures. Agree Planned June-2014 County Administrator The County anticipates improving capital budgeting process in next budget cycle. 16 It is recommended for capital projects, the County consider improving the County’s process for capital budgeting to follow the guidance provided by GFOA. Agree Planned June-2014 County Administrator The County anticipates improving capital budgeting process in next budget cycle. {END OF REPORT}