REPORT DIGEST

ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

COMPLIANCE EXAMINATION
FOR THE TWO YEARS ENDED JUNE 30, 2025

Release Date:  February 24, 2026

FINDINGS THIS AUDIT: 9

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

FINDINGS LAST AUDIT: 13

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 Illinois Department
of Human Rights’ (Department) State
Compliance Examination for the two years
ended June 30, 2025.

SYNOPSIS

• (25-1) The Department’s internal controls
over its voucher processing function were
not operating effectively during the
examination period.

• (25-3) The Department did not meet the
procedural time limits set forth when a
charge of a civil rights violation had been
filed and when a complainant filed a
request to opt out of the Department’s
investigation.

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

VOUCHER PROCESSING INTERNAL CONTROLS NOT
OPERATING EFFECTIVELY

The Illinois Department of Human Rights’
(Department) internal controls over its
voucher 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 (ERP) System operated by
the Department of Innovation and Technology
(DoIT), we were able to limit our voucher
testing at the Department to determine
whether certain key attributes were
properly entered by the Department’s staff
into the ERP System. In order to determine
the operating effectiveness of the
Department’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
vendor information, expenditure amount,
object(s) of expenditure, and the later of
the receipt date of the proper bill or the
receipt date of the goods and/or services.

Our testing noted 5 of 140 (4%) attributes
were not properly entered into the ERP
System. Therefore, the Department’s
internal controls over voucher processing
were not operating effectively.

Even given the limitations noted above, we
conducted an analysis of the Department’s
expenditures data for Fiscal Years 2024 and
2025 and noted the following:

• The Department did not timely approve 34
of 1,364 (2%) vouchers processed during the
examination period, totaling $3,216,707. We
noted these vouchers were approved between
35 and 197 days after receipt of a proper
bill or other obligating document.

• For 4 of 35 (11%) vouchers tested,
totaling $14,489, the Department did not
utilize the correct detail expenditure
(object) codes.

• For one of one (100%) State property
voucher tested for furniture purchase,
totaling $13,326, the State property was
not recorded in the Department’s property
control records. (Finding 1, pages 9-11)

We recommended the Department design and
maintain internal controls to provide
assurance its data entry of key attributes
into the ERP System is complete and
accurate. In addition, we recommended the
Department timely approve proper bills and
obligations due and utilize appropriate
detail expenditure (object) codes. Further,
we recommended the Department properly
record purchases in the property control
records.

The Department accepted our
recommendations.

NONCOMPLIANCE WITH STATUTORILY MANDATED
TIME LIMITS

The Department did not meet the procedural
time limits set forth when a charge of a
civil rights violation had been filed and
when a complainant filed a request to opt
out of the Department’s investigation.

In our review of 40 employment cases filed
with the Department, we noted the
following:

• In 12 (30%) employment cases tested, the
Department did not serve a copy of the
charge to the respondent within 10 days of
the day the charge was filed. The charges
were served to the respondent from 1 to 245
days late.

• In 12 (30%) employment cases tested, the
Department did not serve a notice to the
complainant of the complainant’s right to
file a complaint with the Human Rights
Commission or commence a civil action in
the appropriate circuit court within 10
days of the day the charge was filed. These
notices were served to the complainant from
1 to 245 days late.

• In 12 (30%) employment cases tested, the
Department did not serve a notice to the
respondent of the complainant’s right to
file a complaint with the Human Rights
Commission or commence a civil action in
the appropriate circuit court within 10
days of the day the charge was filed. These
notices were served to the respondent from
1 to 245 days late.

In addition, in our testing of 40
employment cases where the complainant
requested to opt-out of the Department’s
investigation, we noted the Department did
not issue the required notice to the
parties for five (13%) employment cases
tested within 10 business days of receipt
of the complainants’ request to opt out of
the investigation. Specifically, four (10%)
notices were issued from 2 to 69 days late,
and one (3%) notice was not issued at all.

In our review of 40 real estate cases filed
with the Department, we noted the
following:

• In five (13%) real estate cases tested,
the Department did not serve the respondent
a copy of the charge and procedural notice
within 10 days after the charge was filed.
The charges were served to the respondent
from 3 to 28 days late.

• In two (5%) real estate cases tested, the
Department did not complete the
investigation of the allegations set forth
in the charge and did not notify the
complainant and respondent in writing of
the reasons for not completing the
investigation.

• In two (5%) real estate cases tested, the
Department did not make a determination as
to whether substantial evidence existed to
support the charge and did not notify the
complainant and respondent in writing of
the reasons for not making the
determination. (Finding 3, pages 15-18)
This finding has been reported since 2017.

We recommended the Department timely notify
the appropriate parties as mandated by the
Illinois Human Rights Act.

The Department accepted our
recommendations.

OTHER FINDINGS

The remaining findings pertain to receipt
and refund processing internal controls not
operating effectively, disaster recovery
planning weaknesses, weaknesses in
cybersecurity programs and practices,
inadequate control over travel, inadequate
controls over census data, inadequate
controls over State property and equipment,
and employee performance evaluations not
performed or timely performed. 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, 2025, as
required by the Illinois State Auditing
Act. The accountants qualified their report
on State compliance for Findings 2025-001
through 2025-003.  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 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:dmg