We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Tulsa’s administration of its Section 8 program. We selected the Authority based on reports generated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Enterprise Income Verification system (EIV). The Authority had indicators of noncompliance with program requirements. Specifically, EIV reported an annualized income discrepancy of more than $1.6 million for 328 tenants in the Authority’s Section 8 program. The objective of the audit was to determine whether the Authority conducted tenant certifications and calculated housing assistance payments for its Section 8 program in accordance with HUD’s admission and occupancy requirements.
The Authority did not always comply with program requirements in accordance with HUD’s rules and regulations. Specifically, it did not ensure that its staff computed housing assistance payments correctly for 13 of 25 tenant files (52 percent) reviewed and monitored EIV income discrepancy reports as required. This condition occurred because the Authority did not follow its income calculation requirements. In addition, it did not have policies and procedures to monitor the EIV income discrepancy reports. As a result, it spent $41,313 on ineligible and unsupported housing assistance payments and may have spent more because it did not adequately use the EIV income discrepancy reports.
We recommended that HUD require the Authority to (1) repay $12,739 from non-Federal funds to its Section 8 program for ineligible payments; (2) support or repay $28,574 from non-Federal funds to its Section 8 program for unsupported payments; and (3) strengthen its controls over its income verification process, including the use of the EIV discrepancy report to support tenant-reported income.
Recommendations
Public and Indian Housing
-
Status2017-FW-1007-001-AOpenClosed$12,739.00Questioned 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.
Closed on Febrero 20, 2018We recommend that the Program Center Coordinator, Office of Public Housing, Oklahoma City, OK, require the Authority to repay $12,739 from non-Federal funds to its Section 8 program for ineligible payments based on incorrect housing assistance payment calculations, incorrect payment standards and utility allowances, and unreported income.
-
Status2017-FW-1007-001-BOpenClosed$28,574.00Questioned 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.
Closed on Febrero 20, 2018We recommend that the Program Center Coordinator, Office of Public Housing, Oklahoma City, OK, require the Authority to support or repay $28,574 from non-Federal funds to its Section 8 program for unsupported payments based on questionable income calculations.
-
Status2017-FW-1007-001-COpenClosedClosed on Febrero 20, 2018
We recommend that the Program Center Coordinator, Office of Public Housing, Oklahoma City, OK, require the Authority to strengthen its compliance with requirements by implementing a quality control system that would require management to review a sample number of income calculations, ensure staff follow-up on income discrepancies and document their analysis.
-
Status2017-FW-1007-001-DOpenClosedClosed on Febrero 20, 2018
We recommend that the Program Center Coordinator, Office of Public Housing, Oklahoma City, OK, require the Authority to implement policies and procedures to monitor the EIV income discrepancy reports each quarter to minimize subsidy payment errors.