REPORT DIGEST

CHICAGO STATE UNIVERSITY

COMPLIANCE EXAMINATION
FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2025

Release Date:  April 23, 2026

FINDINGS THIS AUDIT:15

CATEGORY:  NEW -- REPEAT – TOTAL
Category 1:  1 -- 5 -- 6
Category 2:  5 -- 4 -- 9
Category 3:  0 -- 0 -- 0
TOTAL:  6 -- 9 – 15

FINDINGS LAST AUDIT: 14

State of Illinois, Office of the Auditor
General
FRANK J. MAUTINO, 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

INTRODUCTION

This digest covers the Compliance
Examination of Chicago State University
(University) for the year ended June 30,
2025.  A separate digest covering the
University’s financial audit as of and for
the year ended June 30, 2025, was
previously released on March 10, 2026.  In
addition, a separate digest covering the
University’s Single Audit for the year
ended June 30, 2025, was previously
released on March 24, 2026.  In total, this
report contains fifteen findings, five of
which were reported in the Financial Audit
and Single Audit collectively.

SYNOPSIS

• (25-06) The University did not maintain
adequate controls over personal services.
• (25-07) The University did not have
adequate controls over contractual services
expenditures.
• (25-08) The University did not maintain
adequate controls over its equipment.

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

INADEQUATE CONTROLS OVER PERSONAL SERVICES

The Chicago State University (University)
did not maintain adequate controls over
personal services.

During review of 60 employees’ personnel
files, we noted the following:

• Three (5%) employees’ gross pay rates did
not agree with the established rate per the
State Universities Civil Service System
(SUCSS).
• 42 (70%) employees’ W-4 forms could not
be located.
• 18 (30%) employees’ federal income taxes
were incorrectly calculated. As a result,
the discrepancies in withheld federal
income tax amounts ranged from $5 to $138.
• Eight (13%) employees’ State income taxes
were incorrectly calculated. As a result,
the discrepancies in withheld State income
tax amounts ranged from $2 to $29.
• Two (3%) employees’ retirement deductions
were incorrectly calculated.
• Two (3%) employees’ payroll records or
supporting documents could not be located.
As a result, we were unable to determine
whether the employees’ payroll was
accurate.

During testing of 60 employees’ timesheets,
we noted the following:

• 27 (45%) employees’ timesheets could not
be located; therefore, we were unable to
determine if the timesheets were timely
submitted and approved.
• 13 (22%) employees’ timesheets were not
approved by the employee’s supervisor.

During testing of 60 employees’ overtime
records, we noted 60 employees (100%) did
not have overtime authorized prior to the
scheduled overtime period. Specifically,
overtime requests were approved between 12
and 45 days after the scheduled overtime.

During the review of 60 employees’ accrued
leave balances, we noted 12 (20%)
employees’ accrued leave balances were
incorrectly calculated, with discrepancies
ranging from 6 to 61 hours.

During testing of 15 terminated employees,
we noted two (13%) employees’ lump sum
payments lacked adequate supporting
documentation. As a result, we were unable
to determine whether the lump sum payments
were accurately calculated.

During testing of 60 employees’ performance
evaluations, we noted the following:

• 16 (27%) employees’ performance
evaluations were not completed.
• Eight (13%) employees’ performance
evaluations were completed one to 114 days
late.
• One (2%) employee’s performance
evaluation had no indication of the
completion date; therefore, we were unable
to determine if the performance evaluation
was completed timely.

During testing of employees’ training
requirements, we noted the following:

• Four of 799 (1%) employees completed the
annual ethics and harassment and
discrimination prevention training two to
37 days late.
• Four of 799 (1%) employees did not
complete the annual Identity Protection Act
training.
• 61 of 692 (9%) employees completed the
annual Identity Protection Act training one
to 48 days late. (Finding 6, pages 25-29).
This finding has been reported since 2022.

We recommended the University strengthen
controls over personal services to ensure
employee timesheets and overtime timecards
are maintained and approved by their
supervisors, and W-4 forms and terminated
employees’ lump sum payments calculation
are properly maintained. In addition, we
recommended the University ensure
employees’ gross pay rates, income
withholding taxes, retirement deductions,
and accrued leave calculations are
accurate. Further, we recommended the
University ensure employees complete the
required trainings in accordance with the
State Officials and Employees Ethics Act
and Identity Protection Act. Lastly, we
recommended the University enforce
monitoring procedures to ensure employee
performance evaluations are timely and
properly completed.

The University agreed with the
recommendations and indicated it will work
towards implementing processes to
strengthen controls over personal services.

INADEQUATE CONTROLS OVER CONTRACTUAL
SERVICES EXPENDITURES

The University did not have adequate
controls over contractual services
expenditures.

During our testing of contractual
agreements, we requested the University to
provide the population of contractual
agreements including interagency agreements
entered during the examination period. In
response to this request, the University
provided a listing of purchase orders
issued during the examination period.
During testing, we noted the following:

• The University did not maintain an up-to-
date list of new and existing contracts
effective for the examination period.

• Multiple purchase orders can be linked to
a single contract. Therefore, a single
purchase order does not necessarily
indicate a new contract. As such, we were
unable to determine the completeness of new
contracts based on the purchase order
listing.

In addition, the University was unable to
provide a listing of interagency
agreements.

Further, during our review of 33 contracts
(totaling $3,737,856), including purchase
orders, executed during the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2025, we noted the
following:

• Two contracts (totaling $231,661) were
executed subsequent to the start date of
the contracts. The contract execution dates
ranged from 15 to 47 days from the
commencement of services.

• Two contracts (totaling $540,000) were
not approved by the Board of Trustees.
(Finding 7, pages 30-32). This finding has
been reported since 2016.

We recommended the University maintain a
complete and accurate list of contractual
agreements. In addition, we recommended the
University establish appropriate procedures
to ensure all contracts are signed and
executed prior to the commencement of
services. Further, the University should
strengthen internal controls to ensure
significant purchases requiring Board of
Trustees approval are formally approved by
the Board of Trustees prior to execution.

The University agreed with the
recommendation and indicated the University
acknowledges that improvements are
necessary and pledges to take immediate
corrective action to rectify these issues.

INADEQUATE CONTROLS OVER EQUIPMENT

The University did not maintain adequate
controls over its equipment.

We noted the University did not submit its
Annual Certification of Inventory
(Certification) to the Department of
Central Management Services (CMS) during
the Fiscal Year 2025. As a result, we were
unable to determine whether the University
had any unlocated equipment items during
the fiscal year or whether it implemented
the prior year recommendation to
investigate missing equipment items during
its annual inventory count. Additionally,
we were unable to trace the 50 equipment
items selected during our physical
inspection to the Certification due to its
non-submission.

Further, during our list to floor testing,
we noted four of 25 (16%) equipment items,
totaling $69,192, could not be located. In
addition, we noted one of 25 (4%) equipment
items amounting to $193,175 was not
properly tagged.

Additionally, during additions testing, we
noted three of 25 (12%) equipment items,
totaling $41,992, were recorded in the
University’s property records more than 90
days after acquisition, ranging from 94 to
322 days late.

Finally, during testing of the University’s
quarterly Agency Report of State Property
(Form C-15) for Fiscal Year 2025, we noted
one of four (25%) quarterly Form C-15 was
submitted to the Comptroller three days
late.  (Finding 8, pages 33-35)

We recommended the University strengthen
its internal controls over equipment and
property management to ensure equipment
transactions are recorded in the property
records in a timely manner, equipment items
are properly tagged, and all equipment is
adequately accounted for and safeguarded.
Additionally, the University should ensure
required property reports and
certifications are accurately prepared and
submitted to CMS and the Comptroller in
accordance with State requirements.

The University agreed with the
recommendation and indicated the University
will appropriately strengthen its controls
over equipment and property management.

OTHER FINDINGS

The remaining findings are reportedly being
given attention by the University.  We will
review the University’s progress towards
the implementation of our recommendations
in the next engagement.

AUDITOR’S OPINIONS

The financial audit was previously
released.  Our auditors stated the
financial statements of the University as
of and for the year ended June 30, 2025 are
fairly stated in all material respects.

The Single Audit was also previously
released. Our auditors conducted a Single
Audit of the University as required by the
Uniform Guidance and stated the University
complied, in all material respects, with
the types of compliance requirements that
could have a direct and material effect on
the University’s major federal programs for
the year ended June 30, 2025.

ACCOUNTANT’S OPINION

The accountants conducted a State
compliance examination of the University
for the year ended June 30, 2025, as
required by the Illinois State Auditing
Act.  The accountants qualified their
report on State compliance for Findings
2025-003, 2025-004, and 2025-006 through
2025-009.  Except for the noncompliance
described in these findings, the
accountants stated the University complied,
in all material respects, with the
requirements described in the report.

This State compliance examination was
conducted by Roth & Company, LLP.

COURTNEY DZIERWA
Division Director

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

FRANK J. MAUTINO
Auditor General

FJM:vrb