U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government Here’s how you know

The .gov means it’s official.

Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure.

The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Línea Directa

REPORTAR FRAUDE, DESPERDICIO O ABUSO
Junio 02, 2010
  • Public and Indian Housing
2010-FW-1004
ig1061004.pdf

We audited the Georgetown Housing Authority (Authority) due to a congressional request. Our objectives were to determine (1) whether the Authority and/or its nonprofit affiliates used U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funding for recent developments and if so, whether they followed HUD regulations and (2) whether the Authority used HUD funds only for eligible expenditures.

The Authority’s nonprofit related entities did not develop public housing units in their recent development projects; therefore, they were not required to follow HUD regulations for the developments. However, the Authority violated its annual contributions contract when it used $195,855 in HUD funding for development costs and other ineligible and unsupported expenditures. In addition, the Authority’s financial records were inaccurate. These conditions occurred because the Authority lacked financial and disbursement controls and had no formal written policies and procedures. As a result, it had fewer funds available to operate its HUD-funded programs, and its stakeholders were unaware of its true financial position.

We recommend that the Director of HUD’s San Antonio Office of Public Housing require the Authority to (1) reimburse its Housing Choice Voucher program fund $48,269 from non-Federal sources for ineligible development costs, (2) hire an independent firm to perform a comprehensive review of the $137,009 in questioned low-rent funds to determine the source and appropriated year and require reimbursements where appropriate, (3) provide support for or reimburse its Housing Choice Voucher program fund $1,109 in unsupported expenditures, (4) correct its books and records to show its true financial position, (5) reverse $9,468 in expenses for voided checks and record the voids in the general ledger, and (6) develop and implement written policies and procedures regarding financial and disbursement controls. We also recommend that the Director of HUD’s Departmental Enforcement Center take appropriate actions to ensure that the former executive director does not place HUD programs at further risk, including but not limited to issuing a limited denial of participation.