The Jackson Housing Commission, Jackson, MI, Needs To Improve Its Administration of Its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program
We audited the Jackson Housing Commission’s Section 8 program as part of the activities in our fiscal year 2014 annual audit plan. We selected the Commission based on our analysis of the risk factors relating to public housing agencies in Region 5’s jurisdiction. Our objective was to determine whether the Commission administered its program in accordance with HUD’s and its own program requirements.
The Commission generally...
Agosto 29, 2014
Report
#2014-CH-1007
The City of Richmond, CA, Did Not Administer Its Neighborhood Stabilization Program in Accordance With Requirements
We audited the City of Richmond’s Neighborhood Stabilization Program 1 (NSP1) in response to HUD Office of Community Planning and Development’s concerns over the City’s management of its NSP1. Our objective was to determine whether the City administered its NSP1 in accordance with requirements related to procurement and cost eligibility.
The City did not administer its NSP1 in accordance with requirements related to procurement and cost...
Agosto 22, 2014
Report
#2014-LA-1005
The South Landry Housing Authority, Grand Coteau, LA, Did Not Always Comply With Federal Procurement and Financial Requirements, Including a Procurement Using Recovery Act Funds
In accordance with our regional plan to review public housing programs and because of weaknesses identified by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), we reviewed the public housing programs of the South Landry Housing Authority, Grand Coteau, LA. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority administered its HUD public housing programs in accordance with regulations and guidance.
The Authority did not comply...
Agosto 19, 2014
Memorandum
#2014-FW-1806
The Boca Raton Housing Authority’s Administration of Its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program Tenant Files Had Some Deficiencies
We performed an audit of the Boca Raton Housing Authority mainly to assess the validity of nine allegations made against the Authority. The primary audit objective was to determine whether the Authority administered its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program tenant files in accordance with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s regulations, specifically to verify the validity of the complaint.
Four of the nine...
Agosto 18, 2014
Report
#2014-AT-1008
The Kenner Housing Authority, Kenner, LA, Did Not Administer Its Public Housing and Recovery Act Programs in Accordance With Regulations and Guidance
In accordance with our regional plan to review public housing programs and because of weaknesses identified during a prior audit by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of the Inspector General (OIG), we reviewed the public housing programs of the Kenner Housing Authority in Kenner, LA. Our overall objective was to determine whether the Authority administered its public housing programs in accordance with...
Agosto 13, 2014
Memorandum
#2014-FW-1805
The Municipality of Carolina Did Not Properly Administer Its HOME Program
We audited the Municipality of Carolina’s HOME Investment Partnerships Program as part of our strategic plan, based on the amount of HOME funds approved. The objectives of the audit were to determine whether HOME-funded activities met program objectives, home buyers complied with HOME’s primary residency requirement for the duration of the period of affordability, and the Municipality maintained a financial management system in compliance...
Agosto 08, 2014
Report
#2014-AT-1007
The Adams Metropolitan Housing Authority, Manchester, OH, Generally Used Public Housing Program Funds in Accordance With HUD’s and Its Own Requirements
We audited the Adams Metropolitan Housing Authority’s public housing program as part of the activities in our fiscal year 2014 annual audit plan. We selected the Authority based on a request from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) management. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority used public housing program funds in accordance with HUD’s and its own requirements.
The Authority generally used...
Julio 31, 2014
Report
#2014-CH-1005
King County Did Not Meet Shelter Plus Care Matching Requirements
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General audited King County, WA’s Shelter Plus Care program to determine whether King County met the matching requirements for its Shelter Plus Care grants. We selected King County because it received the most Shelter Plus Care funding in HUD’s Region 10 (Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington).
While it was able to provide the necessary service match support...
Julio 28, 2014
Report
#2014-SE-1005
Palladia, Inc., New York, NY, Did Not Administer Its Supportive Housing Program in Accordance with HUD Requirements
We completed a review of Palladia, Inc.’s administration of its Supportive Housing Program. We selected Palladia for review based on a request from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) New York City Office of Community Planning and Development. The objectives of the audit were to determine whether Palladia officials (1) carried out program-assisted activities with the appropriate beneficiaries, (2) expended...
Julio 25, 2014
Report
#2014-NY-1008
Pierce County Claimed Ineligible and Unsupported HOME Matching Funds
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development – Office of Inspector General audited Pierce County because it received almost $9 million in total funding in Washington State for its community planning and development grants under the 2011 and 2012 notices of funding availability.
The County claimed nearly $242,000 in ineligible matching funds for three HOME projects. Since these three projects had already received HOME funding and...
Julio 17, 2014
Report
#2014-SE-1003
The Cumberland Plateau Regional Housing Authority, Lebanon, VA, Did Not Procure Services in Accordance With HUD Requirements
We audited the Cumberland Plateau Regional Housing Authority’s HOME Investment Partnerships program because a Russell County, VA, special grand jury investigation resulted in the indictment of four people involved with the Authority’s HOME program. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority procured services in accordance with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations and other applicable...
Julio 15, 2014
Report
#2014-PH-1007
Improvements Are Needed Over Environmental Reviews of Public Housing and Recovery Act Funds in the Greensboro Office
We audited the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Greensboro, NC, Office of Public Housing as part of a nationwide audit of HUD’s oversight of environmental reviews. We selected the Greensboro Office based on our risk assessment. Our audit objectives were to determine whether the Greensboro Office of Public Housing ensured that it performed the required reviews and did not release funds until all requirements...
Julio 14, 2014
Report
#2014-FW-0004
Hillsborough County, FL Did Not Properly Administer Its Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program
We audited the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program administered by Hillsborough County, FL, as part of the activities in our 2013 fiscal year annual audit plan. We selected the County for review based on a complaint referral from the Office of Inspector General’s Office of Investigation on a public complaint alleging the County’s misuse of CDBG funds for the County’s cleanup events. Our audit objective was to determine...
Julio 09, 2014
Report
#2014-AT-1006
Monmouth County, NJ Expended Community Development Block Grant Funds for Eligible Activities, But Control Weaknesses Need To Be Strengthened.
We audited Monmouth County, NJ’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program based on a risk assessment that considered grantee funding, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) risk analysis, and prior Office of Inspector General (OIG) audit coverage. The objective of the audit was to determine whether County officials established and implemented adequate controls to provide assurance that CDBG funds were expended for...
Julio 02, 2014
Report
#2014-NY-1006
HUD Could Not Support the Reasonableness of the Operating and Capital Fund Programs’ Fees and Did Not Adequately Monitor Central Office Cost Centers
We audited the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) methodology and monitoring regarding the Office of Public Housing’s asset management fees and central office cost centers due to our concerns over potential misspending by public housing authorities and the lack of restrictions in the use of such funds. Our objective was to determine how HUD arrived at the asset management fee limits in its Public Housing Operating...
Junio 30, 2014
Report
#2014-LA-0004
Improvements Are Needed Over Environmental Reviews of Public Housing and Recovery Act Funds in the Columbia Office
We audited the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Columbia, SC Office of Public Housing as part of a nationwide audit of HUD’s oversight of environmental reviews. We selected the Columbia Office based on our risk assessment. Our audit objectives were to determine whether the Columbia Office ensured that it performed the required reviews and did not release funds until all requirements were met and required...
Junio 19, 2014
Report
#2014-FW-0003
HUD Adequately Implemented and Monitored the HUD-VASH Program, But Changes Are Needed To Improve Lease Rates
We reviewed the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, (HUD), Office of Public and Indian Housing’s Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) program regarding HUD’s implementation and monitoring. We initiated our review because there had been no prior Office of Inspector General reviews of the HUD-VASH program. Our objective was to determine whether HUD’s implementation and monitoring of the program was adequate. ...
Junio 18, 2014
Report
#2014-LA-0003
Financial and Administrative Weaknesses Existed in the Middlesex County, NJ, HOME Investment Partnerships Program
We audited Middlesex County, NJ’s HOME Investment Partnerships Program based on a risk analysis that considered funding, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) risk score, and prior Office of Inspector General audits. The audit objective was to determine whether County officials established and implemented adequate controls over their HOME program to ensure that program funds were expended and administered for...
Junio 10, 2014
Report
#2014-NY-1005
The County of San Bernardino, CA, Adequately Ensured That NSP Developer Fees Met HUD Requirements
We reviewed the developer fees the County of San Bernardino paid to its Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) developers. Our objective was to determine whether the County adequately ensured that NSP developer fees paid to its developers met HUD requirements. We performed our review to address questionable costs identified during a prior Office of Inspector General (OIG) review (audit report 2014-LA-0002). During that...
Junio 05, 2014
Report
#2014-LA-1003
The City of Huntsville Community Planning and Development Community Development Block Grant and HOME Investment Partnerships Program
We audited the City of Huntsville’s Community Development Department, which administers the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships Program, at the request of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Alabama Office of Community Planning and Development. Our objectives were to determine whether the Department’s commitment to use CDBG and HOME funds for the acquisition and rehabilitation...
Mayo 29, 2014
Report
#2014-AT-1005