We recommend that the Director of HUD’s New Orleans Office of Public Housing require the Authority to implement additional controls and procedures to ensure that RAD disbursements are properly tracked and accounted for.
2019-FW-1006 | Agosto 16, 2019
The Bogalusa Housing Authority, Bogalusa, LA, Did Not Always Administer Its Public Housing Programs in Accordance With Requirements
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2019-FW-1006-001-FOpenClosedClosed on Enero 22, 2021
- Status2019-FW-1006-001-GOpenClosedClosed on Enero 22, 2021
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s New Orleans Office of Public Housing require the Authority to evaluate the apparent conflict-of-interest situations in this report and pursue administrative sanctions or corrective action if warranted.
- Status2019-FW-1006-002-AOpenClosedClosed on Junio 05, 2020$24,728Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s New Orleans Office of Public Housing require the Authority to reimburse its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program $24,728, from non-Federal funds, for the ineligible housing assistance payments.
- Status2019-FW-1006-002-BOpenClosedClosed on Junio 05, 2020$1,223Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s New Orleans Office of Public Housing require the Authority to reimburse its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program $1,223, from non-Federal funds, for the overpayment of housing assistance due to inaccurate calculation.
- Status2019-FW-1006-002-COpenClosedClosed on Junio 05, 2020$2,535Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s New Orleans Office of Public Housing require the Authority to support that the participant is income eligible, considering all adult household members, or repay its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program $2,535 from non-Federal funds.
- Status2019-FW-1006-002-DOpenClosedClosed on Septiembre 23, 2021$709Funds Put to Better Use
Recommendations that funds be put to better use estimate funds that could be used more efficiently. For example, recommendations that funds be put to better use could result in reductions in spending, deobligation of funds, or avoidance of unnecessary spending.
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s New Orleans Office of Public Housing require the Authority to reimburse the appropriate households $709, from non-Federal funds, for the underpayment of housing assistance due to inaccurate calculations.
- Status2019-FW-1006-002-EOpenClosedClosed on Septiembre 29, 2021
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s New Orleans Office of Public Housing require the Authority to correct the deficiencies in the participants’ files as appropriate.
- Status2019-FW-1006-002-FOpenClosedClosed on Septiembre 29, 2021
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s New Orleans Office of Public Housing require the Authority to review and implement procedures and controls to ensure that all Federal requirements and the Authority’s Section 8 administrative plan are followed for (1) supporting household eligibility, (2) performing initial housing quality standards inspections, (3) rent reasonableness assessments, (4) execution of housing assistance payments contracts, and (5) income verifications and calculations.
- Status2019-FW-1006-002-GOpenClosedClosed on Septiembre 29, 2021
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s New Orleans Office of Public Housing require the Authority to develop and implement procedures for (1) conducting annual reviews of the Authority’s payment standard amounts and utility allowances and maintaining adequate supporting documentation, and (2) completing and documenting the criminal history background checks for all adult household members.
- Status2019-FW-1006-002-HOpenClosedClosed on Septiembre 23, 2021
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s New Orleans Office of Public Housing require the Authority to obtain training for its staff to ensure compliance with HUD’s Housing Choice Voucher requirements.
2019-PH-1004 | Agosto 14, 2019
The Housing Authority of the City of Annapolis, MD, Did Not Always Properly Administer Its Housing Choice Voucher Program
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2019-PH-1004-001-AOpenClosedClosed on Agosto 11, 2020
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Baltimore Office of Public Housing direct the Authority to update its administrative plan to clearly define the weights or rankings of its waiting list preference system.
- Status2019-PH-1004-001-BOpenClosedClosed on Junio 12, 2022
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Baltimore Office of Public Housing direct the Authority to develop and implement controls to ensure that it administers its waiting list according to the requirements in its administrative plan, including maintaining documentation to show that it properly selected applicants from the waiting list.
- Status2019-PH-1004-001-COpenClosedClosed on Junio 14, 2022
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Baltimore Office of Public Housing direct the Authority to develop and implement procedures to ensure that it maintains documentation to show that it admitted eligible families into the program.
- Status2019-PH-1004-001-DOpenClosedClosed on Agosto 11, 2020
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Baltimore Office of Public Housing direct the Authority to update its administrative plan to establish the timeframe during which an applicant must not have engaged in criminal activity before it will admit the applicant into the program.
2019-AT-1005 | Agosto 09, 2019
The Municipality of Yauco, PR, Did Not Always Administer Its CDBG Program in Accordance With HUD Requirements
Community Planning and Development
- Status2019-AT-1005-001-AOpenClosed
Develop and implement a financial management system in accordance with HUD requirements, including but not limited to permitting the disbursement of funds in a timely manner.
- Status2019-AT-1005-001-BOpenClosed$1,045,085Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Ensure that $1,045,085 in CDBG funds drawn from HUD between July 1, 2015, and October 31, 2018, can be traced to a level, which ensures that such funds have not been used in violation of the restrictions and prohibitions of applicable statutes, or reimburse the CDBG program from non-Federal funds. Footnote 2: Total drawdowns of more than $1.5 million were adjusted to consider $106 questioned in recommendation 1D and $469,974 in recommendation 2A.
- Status2019-AT-1005-001-COpenClosed$1,641Funds Put to Better Use
Recommendations that funds be put to better use estimate funds that could be used more efficiently. For example, recommendations that funds be put to better use could result in reductions in spending, deobligation of funds, or avoidance of unnecessary spending.
Require the Municipality to return to its line of credit and put to better use $1,641 associated with the unspent program funds that have been carried over since December 2017.
- Status2019-AT-1005-001-DOpenClosedClosed on Julio 17, 2020$106Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Reimburse the CDBG program from non-Federal funds the $106 paid for ineligible bank penalties.
- Status2019-AT-1005-001-EOpenClosed
Establish and implement adequate controls and procedures to permit proper accountability for all CDBG funds to ensure that they are used solely for authorized purposes and properly safeguarded.
- Status2019-AT-1005-002-AOpenClosed$469,974Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Submit supporting documentation showing how $469,974 in CDBG funds disbursed for street improvements was properly used and in accordance with HUD requirements or reimburse the CDBG program from non-Federal funds.