REPORT DIGEST DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS COMPLIANCE EXAMINATION FOR THE TWO YEARS ENDED June 30, 2024 Release Date: September 23, 2025 FINDINGS THIS AUDIT: 40 CATEGORY: NEW -- REPEAT – TOTAL Category 1: 2 -- 4 -- 6 Category 2: 11 -- 23 -- 34 Category 3: 0 -- 0 -- 0 TOTAL: 13 -- 27 -- 40 FINDINGS LAST AUDIT: 46 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 SYNOPSIS • (24-2) The Department did not properly maintain its commodity and commissary inventory. • (24-4) The Department failed to appropriately notify the appropriate parties of residency of persons on parole and mandatory supervised release. • (24-16) The Department allowed employees to use leave time for their regular shift and then work another shift at an overtime rate on the same day. • (24-40) The Department failed to report individuals’ progress under the extended supervision of sex offender requirements of the Unified Code of Corrections. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS INADEQUATE MAINTENANCE OF COMMODITY AND COMMISSARY INVENTORY The Department of Corrections (Department) did not properly maintain its commodity and commissary inventory. During our commodity and commissary inventory testing at five correctional centers, we noted the following: ? Stateville Correctional Center did not enter into the accounting system the general commodity inventory items received or issued during Fiscal Year 2023 and 2024. As a result, the center failed to provide a complete and accurate population of items held in inventory on June 30, 2023, and 2024. ? Twelve of 60 (20%) inventory items selected from inventory records did not agree with physical test counts, resulting in a net variance of $15,407. ? Ten of 60 (17%) inventory items observed for physical test counts while touring inventory locations did not agree with the inventory records, resulting in a net variance of $4,027. ? We tested 13 items with inventory balances exceeding $5,000 which appeared to be overstocked as of June 30, 2024, and noted Stateville and Danville Correctional Centers held more than one year’s supply of inventory for 5 (38%) items with an excess amount of $165,679. (Finding 2, pages 15-16) We recommended the Department improve its centralized oversight function related to inventory to allow for adequate controls, compliance with procedures and rules, as well as provision of guidance, reminders, and assistance to the Center’s staff. We also recommended the Department ensure staff are adequately trained on inventory policies and procedures, to ensure inventory and records are properly maintained. Department management accepted the recommendation and noted the Correctional Centers are required to count inventory at the end of each month and reconcile inventory records to physical counts at that time. Management further stated the auditors counted samples of inventory during the month in most cases, which caused the discrepancies since the inventory was actively being received and/or sold. Management also stated staff have been trained on the use of the ERP system in the Stateville and Danville locations. In an accountant’s comment, we noted the inventory exceptions were communicated to the Centers and Department at the time of testing, but they were unable to provide support to resolve these discrepancies. FAILURE TO PROVIDE OFFENDER RESIDENT INFORMATION TO APPROPRIATE PARTIES The Department failed to appropriately notify the appropriate parties of residency of persons on parole and mandatory supervised release. The Department was unable to provide the population of persons on parole or mandatory supervised release who became a resident of a facility licensed or regulated by the Departments of Public Health (DPH), Healthcare and Family Services, or Human Services. Therefore, we were unable to test whether notifications of residence to police chiefs and sheriffs occurred. As of June 30, 2024, the Department had a total of 15,185 individuals on parole or mandatory supervised release. This finding has been reported since 2020. (Finding 4, pages 19-20) We recommended the Department implement measures to identify individuals subject to notification requirements and to report required information to the appropriate parties as soon as possible. We also recommended the Department seek legislative remedy if the mandated timeframe for notification is deemed unreasonable. Department officials accepted the recommendation and stated they are unable to provide the mandated information within the 3-day turnaround time because they are rarely notified within this time frame that a person on parole has become a resident of a DPH licensed or regulated facility. The Department also stated they asked for a mandate revision during Fall 2024, but it was not allowed to proceed. TAKING PAID LEAVE TIME AND WORKING OVERTIME ON THE SAME DAY The Department allowed employees to use leave time for their regular shift and then work another shift at an overtime rate on the same day. For Fiscal Year 2024, 2,958,142 hours of overtime were paid at a cost of $151,734,099. We reviewed overtime payments for 20 employees and noted 16 employees (80%) had a total of 150 instances in two years in which they used a full day of benefit time the same day they also worked overtime. This finding was first reported in 2014. (Finding 16, pages 43-44) We recommended the Department monitor the use of leave time being used on the same day as overtime is worked and comply with its training manual by not allowing employees to work overtime on the same day that a full day of leave time is also used. The Department responded that the recommendation has been implemented, then stated it follows policy by not allowing employees to work overtime on the same shift for which benefit time was used, since the overtime would occur during their absence. The Department also stated it plans to revise the Manual to explicitly state the circumstances where the policy applies. Management further noted union agreement requirements to exhaust all efforts to seek volunteers to work overtime prior to mandating employee overtime. Finally, the Department stated that if it excludes offering overtime occurring on a shift other than the shift for which benefit time was used to volunteers, it would violate the union agreement and result in a higher cost to the State. In an accountant’s comment, we noted that management contended in their finding response that the Manual only prohibits an employee from working overtime during the hours an employee is on leave. Since 2014, the Department has accepted the recommendation to “comply with its training manual by not allowing employees to work overtime on the same day that a full day of leave time is also used”. The Department also issued a directive in 2016 that “employees who utilize a full shift of pre- approved benefit time off on their regularly assigned shift shall not be eligible for an overtime offering for [n]either the preceding shift nor the following shift.” The accountant’s comment also stated the Department did not provide documentation of their current position in sufficient time to allow us to test and fully evaluate the Department’s claims in response to the finding which are inconsistent with documentation examined regarding the allowability of overtime pay on the same day that leave time is taken. NONCOMPLIANCE WITH EXTENDED SUPERVISION OF SEX OFFENDER REQUIREMENTS OF THE UNIFIED CODE OF CORRECTIONS The Department failed to report individuals’ progress under the extended supervision of sex offender requirements. During Fiscal Years 2023 and 2024, 695 individuals were released under extended mandatory supervision of sex offender requirements. We noted for all 60 (100%) individuals tested, the Department was unable to provide support for the submission of the required progress reports to the chief of police, or sheriff in the municipality or county in which the offender resides and is registered. This finding has been reported since 2020. (Finding 40, pages 87-88) We recommended the Department train responsible staff and implement internal controls to ensure the submission of the required progress reports to the chief of police or sheriff in the municipality or county in which the offender resides and is registered. We further recommended the Department pursue legislative change if they do not believe the statutory requirement is reasonable and appropriate. The Department responded the recommendation has been implemented and stated it sent progress reports during the examination period but did not retain emails or delivery receipt for hand deliveries. Management stated that going forward, Parole Agents are notating delivery in the case management system and email is now saved. OTHER FINDINGS The remaining findings pertain to receipts, statutory mandates, information technology, personnel, expenditures, property, and vehicles. We will review the Department’s progress towards the implementation of our recommendations in our next State compliance examination. ACCOUNTANT’S OPINION The accountants conducted a State compliance examination of the Department 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 2024-006 individually and Findings 2024-012, 2024-021 through 2024-024, 2024-026 through 2024-028, 2024-030, 2024-033, 2024-034, 2024-039, 2024-040 in the aggregate. Except for the noncompliance described in these findings, the accountants stated the Department complied, in all material respects, with the requirements described in the report. This State compliance examination was conducted by Adelfia LLC. 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:lkw