REPORT DIGEST

ILLINOIS CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION
AUTHORITY

COMPLIANCE EXAMINATION
FOR THE TWO YEARS ENDED JUNE 30, 2017

Release Date:  January 29, 2018

FINDINGS THIS AUDIT:  10

CATEGORY:  NEW -- REPEAT -- TOTAL
Category 1:  4 -- 0 -- 4
Category 2:  3 -- 3 -- 6
Category 3:  0 -- 0 -- 0
TOTAL:  7 -- 3 -- 10

FINDINGS LAST AUDIT: 4

Category 1: Findings that are material
weaknesses in internal control and/or a
qualification on compliance with State laws
and regulations (material noncompliance).
Category 2: Findings that are significant
deficiencies in internal control and
noncompliance with State laws and
regulations.
Category 3: Findings that have no internal
control issues but are in noncompliance
with State laws and regulations.

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, Iles Park
Plaza, 740 E. Ash Street, Springfield, IL
62703
(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

• (17-01) The Authority failed to conduct
adequate site visit monitoring of its
grantees in accordance with its Federal and
State Grants Unit’s Policies and
Procedures.
• (17-02) The Authority failed to prepare
and maintain adequate documentation
supporting its administrative and fiscal
operations.
• (17-03) The Authority did not exercise
adequate controls over the monitoring of
grant agreements under its purview.

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

FAILURE TO CONDUCT ADEQUATE SITE VISIT
MONITORING OF GRANTEES

The Illinois Criminal Justice Information
Authority (Authority) failed to conduct
adequate site visit monitoring of its
grantees in accordance with its Federal and
State Grants Unit’s Policies and Procedures
(FSGU P&P) during the examination period.

Specifically, we noted the following
deficiencies:

• The Authority was unable to provide a
complete listing of programs for which it
had conducted a site visit for during the
examination period.
• For 25 out of the 72 programs (35%) which
had a site visit conducted, the Authority
performed the site visit untimely.
• The Authority did not perform a site
visit of the one equipment grant issued
(100%) during the examination period.
• For 1 of 1 grant agreements tested (100%)
which required a site visit be performed,
the Authority did not perform the site
visit.
• Of the 47 programs which had a site visit
conducted timely by the Authority, we
sampled 10 grants to determine if the
Authority performed the site visit as
required by its FSGU P&P. For all 10 grants
selected (100%), documentation of the site
visit was considered to be inadequate.
• The Authority was unable to provide its
Fiscal Years’ 2016 and 2017 risk assessment
listings from the FSGU. The risk assessment
is the annual process through which the
FSGU collects project-specific data
regarding each grant and then uses it to
select the minimum list of grant programs
for site visits. (Finding 1, pages 10-14).

We recommended the Authority take immediate
action to adequately conduct and document
the site visits it performs during a state
fiscal year for the purposes of monitoring
grantees of the grant programs administered
by the Authority.

The Authority agreed with the
recommendation and stated it has made great
efforts to increase its site visit
activities.

GENERAL FAILURE TO PREPARE AND MAINTAIN
DOCUMENTATION

The Authority failed to prepare and
maintain adequate documentation supporting
its administrative and fiscal operations
during the examination period. As a result,
we were unable to determine if the
Authority complied with the applicable
statutory regulations.

Some of the missing documentation we noted
were as follows:

• For 66 of 289 (23%) reconciliations
performed of the Monthly Appropriations
Status Report (SB01) to the Authority’s
records, the Authority did not document the
date the reconciliations were performed.
• For 11 of the 40 (28%) revenue receipts
and for 6 of the 20 (30%) refund receipts
we tested, totaling $4,586,674, the
Authority did not document the date the
receipts were received.
• For 3 of 26 (12%) employees tested,
Fiscal Year 2016 annual performance
evaluations were missing from the employee
personnel files.
• For 7 of 60 (12%) grant agreements
selected for detail testing, we noted the
grants’ progress reports required to be
received by the Authority were not dated.
(Finding 2, pages 15-17).

We recommended Authority management and
staff take immediate action to strengthen
its control over records maintenance.

The Authority agreed with the
recommendation and stated it is currently
updating its record retention policies and
working to acquire an electronic grant
management system.

INADEQUATE CONTROLS OVER MONITORING GRANT
AGREEMENT REQUIREMENTS

The Authority did not exercise adequate
controls over the monitoring of grant
agreements under its purview during the
examination period.

During our grant agreement detail testing
of 60 grants, some of the deficiencies we
noted were as follows:

• Indirect Cost Rate proposals were not on
file,
• Corrective Action Plans for Sites at Risk
of not Meeting Reduction Goals were not on
file,
• Progress reports from the grantees were
not dated,
• No disclosures of lobbying activities for
subawards were on file,
• Subcontractor agreements were not on
file,
• Timekeeping procedures were not on file,
and
• Grant agreements were signed by the
Authority and the grantee after the start
of the grant period. The grant agreements
were signed between 7 and 193 days late.
(Finding 3, pages 18-24).

We recommended the Authority ensure all
reporting requirements are adhered to and
ensure grant agreements are approved prior
to the effective date of the agreement.

The Authority agreed with the
recommendation and stated it has updated
its grant policies and will continue to
conduct ongoing training for its staff.  In
addition, the Authority stated they are now
using the Grant Accountability and
Transparency portal.

OTHER FINDINGS

The remaining findings pertain to
inadequate controls over expenditures and
obligations, payroll file deductions and
performance evaluations, noncompliance with
the Gang Witness Protection Act of 2013,
failure to report grant information,
obsolete provisions of State statute, and
noncompliance with Board appointments and
meetings.  We will review the Authority’s
progress towards the implementation of our
recommendations in our next compliance
examination.

ACCOUNTANT’S OPINION

The accountants conducted a compliance
examination of the Authority for the two
years ended June 30, 2017, as required by
the Illinois State Auditing Act.  The
accountants qualified their report on State
compliance for Findings 2017-001 through
2017-004.  Except for the noncompliance
described in these findings, the
accountants stated the Authority complied,
in all material respects, with the
requirements described in the report.

This compliance examination was conducted
by Adelfia LLC.

JANE CLARK
Division Director

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

FRANK J. MAUTINO
Auditor General

FJM:jv