REPORT DIGEST

PRISONER REVIEW BOARD

COMPLIANCE EXAMINATION
FOR THE TWO YEARS ENDED JUNE 30, 2024

Release Date:  August 13, 2026

FINDINGS THIS AUDIT: 14

CATEGORY:  NEW -- REPEAT – TOTAL
Category 1:  0 -- 5 -- 5
Category 2:  2 -- 7 -- 9
Category 3:  0 -- 0 -- 0
TOTAL:  2 -- 12 -- 14

FINDINGS LAST AUDIT: 14

State of Illinois, Office of the Auditor
General
CHRISTOPHER B. MEISTER, AUDITOR GENERAL

To obtain a copy of the Report contact:
Office of the Auditor General, 400 West
Monroe, Suite 306, Springfield, IL
62704-9849
(217) 782-6046 or TTY (888) 261-2887

This Report Digest and Full Report are
also available on the worldwide web at
www.auditor.illinois.gov

SYNOPSIS

• (24-01) The Board did not exercise
adequate controls over voucher processing.
• (24-02) The Board did not exercise
adequate controls over the recording and
reporting of State property.
• (24-03) The Board’s internal controls
over its receipt processing function were
not operating effectively during the
examination period.

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

VOUCHER PROCESSING WEAKNESSES

The Prisoner Review Board (Board) did not
exercise adequate controls over voucher
processing.

Due to our ability to rely upon the
processing integrity of the Enterprise
Resource Planning System (ERP) operated by
the Department of Innovation and
Technology (DoIT), we were able to limit
our voucher testing at the Board to
determine whether certain key attributes
were properly entered by the Board’s staff
into the ERP.  In order to determine the
operating effectiveness of the Board’s
internal controls related to voucher
processing and subsequent payment of
interest, we selected a sample of key
attributes (attributes) to determine if
the attributes were properly entered into
the State’s ERP System based on supporting
documentation.  The attributes tested were
1) vendor information, 2) expenditure
amount, 3) object(s) of expenditure, and
4) the later of the receipt date of the
proper bill or the receipt date of the
goods and/or services.

Our testing noted 11 of 140 (8%)
attributes were not properly entered into
the ERP System.  Therefore, the Board’s
internal controls over voucher processing
were not operating effectively.

Due to this condition, we qualified our
opinion because we determined the Board
had not complied, in all material
respects, with applicable laws and
regulations, including the State uniform
accounting system, in its financial and
fiscal operations.

Even given the limitations noted above, we
conducted an analysis of the Board’s
expenditures data for Fiscal Years 2023
and 2024 and noted the following
noncompliance:

• The Board did not timely approve 554 of
963 (58%) vouchers processed during the
examination period, totaling $759,601. We
noted these vouchers were approved between
31 and 283 days after receipt of a proper
bill or other obligating document.

• For 1 of 35 (3%) vouchers selected for
testing, totaling $26,723, auditors noted
that the Board did not pay the invoice
amount. The underpayment totaled $6,723.
(Finding 1, pages 11-13). This finding was
first reported in 2014.

We recommended the Board strengthen its
controls to ensure attributes are entered
correctly into the ERP System. We
recommended the Board approve proper bills
and obligations due within 30 days of
receipt. Additionally, we recommended the
Board ensure that proper amounts are paid.

The Board accepted the recommendation. The
Board will work to strengthen its controls
to ensure attributes are entered correctly
into the ERP system, approve proper bills
and obligations within thirty days of
receipt, and ensure proper amounts are
paid.

PROPERTY CONTROL WEAKNESSES

The Board did not exercise adequate
controls over the recording and reporting
of State property. Some of the more
significant exceptions reported are noted
below.

Property Records

• The Board’s Fiscal Year 2022 Inventory
Certification contained four items,
totaling $2,559, that were listed as
discrepancies, but were still included on
the Board’s property listing submitted
with the Fiscal Year 2024 Inventory
Certification. In addition, the status of
the items was not marked as missing or “M”
on the property listings submitted with
the Inventory Certifications. Further, the
items were also recorded on the Board’s
property listings as of June 30, 2023, and
June 30, 2024. As a result, the Board’s
property records were overstated by
$2,559.

Equipment Additions and Deletions Testing

• Seven of 60 (12%) equipment deletions
tested, totaling $104,023, were vehicles
that were sent to surplus, but were not
removed from the Board’s property listing
within 30 days of the disposal dates. The
equipment items were removed from the
Board’s property listing between 640 and
1,357 days late.

• Eight of 60 (13%) deletions tested,
totaling $28,893, were not removed from
the Board’s property listing within 90
days of deletion. The equipment items were
removed from the Board’s property listing
between 248 and 1,090 days late.

• One of 3 (33%) additions tested,
totaling $3,388, was recorded 394 days
after the 90-day requirement.

Forwards Testing

• Two of 18 (11%) items selected for
testing, totaling $16,257, listed on the
Board’s property listing could not be
located at the time of testing.

• Seven of 18 (39%) items selected for
testing, totaling $2,034, were identified
as high theft items in the Board’s
property listing, but were not included in
the Fiscal Year 2022 or Fiscal Year 2023
Inventory Certifications submitted by the
Board to DCMS.

• Three of 18 (17%) items selected for
testing, totaling $20,507, were found in a
different location than indicated on the
Board’s property listing.

Backwards Testing

• Five of 18 (28%) items selected for
testing, totaling $4,460, were not found
at the location indicated on the Board’s
property listing.

• One of 18 (6%) items selected for
testing, totaling $157, was considered
high theft, but was not included in the
Fiscal Year 2022 and Fiscal Year 2023
Annual Certifications of Inventory sent to
DCMS. (Finding 2, pages 14-18). This
finding was first reported in 2014.

We recommended the Board take action to
strengthen its internal controls over
recording and reporting its State property
and equipment transactions. We also
recommended the Board complete a full
inventory to identify and correct any
discrepancies.

The Board accepted the recommendation and
stated that during the period covered by
this audit, the Board moved from one
office location to another. The Board
stated it has been and will continue to
take action to strengthen its internal
controls over recording and reporting its
State property and required transactions.

RECEIPT PROCESSING INTERNAL CONTROLS NOT
OPERATING EFFECTIVELY

The Board’s internal controls over its
receipt processing function were not
operating effectively during the
examination period.

Due to our ability to rely upon the
processing integrity of the Enterprise
Resource Planning System (ERP) operated by
the Department of Innovation and
Technology (DoIT), we were able to limit
our receipt testing at the Board to
determine whether certain key attributes
were properly entered by the Board’s staff
into the ERP System.  In order to
determine the operating effectiveness of
the Board’s internal controls related to
receipt processing, we selected a sample
of key attributes (attributes) to
determine if the attributes were properly
entered into the State’s ERP System based
on supporting documentation.  The
attributes tested during receipts testing
were (1) amount, (2) fund being deposited
into, (3) date of receipt, (4) date
deposited, and (5) SAMS Source Code.  The
attributes tested during refund receipts
testing were (1) amount, (2) date of
receipt, (3) date deposited, and (4)
offset against the correct appropriation
code.

Our testing of receipts noted 4 of 10
(40%) attributes were not properly entered
into the ERP System. In addition, our
testing of refund receipts noted 3 of 8
(38%) attributes were not properly entered
into the ERP System.

Therefore, the Board’s internal controls
over receipt processing were not operating
effectively.

Even given the limitations noted above, we
conducted an analysis of the Board’s
receipts data for Fiscal Years 2023 and
2024 to determine compliance with the Act.
We noted the following noncompliance:

• For 2 of 2 (100%) of receipts tested,
totaling $1,438, and 2 of 2 (100%) refund
receipts tested, totaling $2,194, the
Board failed to document the date when
receipts were received at the Board's
office, which are then forwarded to the
Public Safety Shared Services Center for
processing and deposit. As such, auditors
were unable to determine when the checks
were received by the Board or if the
checks were timely deposited. (Finding 3,
pages 19-21). This finding was first
reported in 2020.

We recommended the Board properly enter
key attributes into the State’s ERP.
Additionally, we recommend the Board
timely deposit receipts and maintain
adequate supporting documentation.

The Board accepted the recommendation and
stated it will strive to properly enter
key attributes into the State’s ERP and
deposit receipts timely with adequate
supporting documentation. The Board stated
it has and will continue to expand its
fiscal department to achieve these
recommendations.

OTHER FINDINGS

The remaining findings are reportedly
being given attention by the Board. We
will review the Board’s progress towards
the implementation of our recommendations
in our next  compliance examination.
ACCOUNTANT’S OPINION

The accountants conducted a State
compliance examination of the Board for
the two years ended June 30, 2024, as
required by the Illinois State Auditing
Act. The accountants qualified their
report on State compliance for Findings
2024-001 through 2024-005. Except for the
noncompliance described in these findings,
the accountants stated the Board complied,
in all material respects, with the
requirements described in the report.

This State compliance examination was
conducted by the Office of the Auditor
General’s staff.

COURTNEY DZIERWA
Deputy Auditor General

This report is transmitted in accordance
with Section 3-14 of the Illinois State
Auditing Act.

CHRISTOPHER B. MEISTER
Auditor General

CBM:AXG