We reviewed the Housing Authority of the City of Wilson (Authority) because it was granted $9.2 million for Public Housing Capital Fund projects (capital funds) under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). In addition, we received a citizen’s complaint alleging that the Authority used unethical procurement practices and did not plan to use Recovery Act funds effectively. Our objectives were to evaluate the Authority...

We audited the Hartford Housing Authority (Authority) because it was awarded a $5 million Public Housing Capital Fund grant under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) and obligated the majority of the grant just before the required obligation deadline. Our objectives were to determine whether the Authority (1) had adequate management controls over its obligation process, (2) maintained support for obligations, and (...

We audited the Philadelphia Housing Authority’s (Authority) administration of its housing quality standards inspection program for its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program as part of our fiscal year 2010 audit plan. The audit objective addressed in this report was to determine whether the Authority ensured that its program units met the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) housing quality standards. The Authority did...

We completed an audit of the City of Jersey City’s (City) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) float loan activity. Our audit objective was to determine whether the City ensured that CDBG funds used for the float loan complied with applicable rules and regulations. The City did not comply with applicable regulations and failed to take timely action when the float loan defaulted. Specifically, it did not (1) make a good faith effort to...

We evaluated the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) award process for the Neighborhood Stabilization Program 2 (NSP2). We initiated the review as part of the activities in our fiscal year 2010 annual audit plan. Our primary objective was to determine whether HUD’s methodology and controls for the evaluation and selection of applications for the $1.93 billion in NSP2 funds were in accordance with applicable requirements. We...

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Office of Inspector General audited the DuPage Housing Authority’s (Authority) Section 8 Project-Based Voucher program (program). The audit was part of the activities in our fiscal year 2009 annual audit plan. We selected the Authority as part of our internal audit of HUD’s oversight of the program and based upon our analysis of risk factors relating to the housing authorities in...

We completed a review of Clark County’s (grantee) Neighborhood Stabilization Program (Program). The grantee includes Clark County and the City of North Las Vegas. We performed the review because Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (Act) reviews are part of the OIG’s audit plan, and the Program was identified as high risk. In addition, the grantee was awarded more than $29.6 million in Program funding. Our objectives were to determine...

We performed a capacity review to assess the Rochester Housing Authority’s (Authority) administration of its capital funding program. The Authority was awarded $5.9 million in capital funds under the Recovery Act. Our review determined that the Authority had weaknesses in its financial controls that if left unaddressed could lead to its having a diminished capacity to effectively administer its supplemental Recovery Act funds. Specifically,...

As part of the Office of Inspector General’s commitment to ensure the proper use of America Recovery and Reinvestment Act and Housing and Economic Recovery Act funds, we assessed the City of Oklahoma City’s capacity and risks in three areas: internal controls, financial operations, and procurement. Our review did not disclose any reportable conditions or control deficiencies.

We audited the Sacramento Housing Redevelopment Agency (Agency) as a result of a hotline complaint, which alleged violations of Neighborhood Stabilization Program (program) funds provided through the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008. Our objective was to determine whether the alleged violations had merit. The complaint alleged several instances where the Agency did not follow program rules and regulations, including but not limited to...

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Office of Inspector General audited the Michigan State Housing Development Authority’s (Authority) Section 8 Project-Based Voucher program (program). The audit was part of the activities in our fiscal year 2010 annual audit plan. We selected the Authority’s program based upon our analysis of the housing authorities’ programs in Region V’s jurisdiction and as part of our internal audit...

We audited the Housing Authority of the Sac and Fox Nation of Oklahoma’s (Authority) American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) funds. The objective was to determine whether the Authority had the capacity to use its Recovery Act funds in accordance with U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development requirements. We reviewed the Authority because of concerns identified in a previous audit of the Authority. The Authority...

We audited the Harrisburg Housing Authority’s (Authority) administration of its Public Housing Capital Fund grant that it received under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). We selected the Authority for audit because the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) awarded the Authority a $4.4 million formula grant. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority administered the grant funds...

We audited Sasha Bruce Youthwork, Incorporated (Youthwork, Inc.) to determine whether it used its Youthbuild and Supportive Housing program grant funds in accordance with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations and its grant agreements. We found that Youthwork, Inc., did not support the eligibility of more than $1.9 million in expenditures. Youthwork, Inc., failed to maintain records identifying the source and...

We audited the Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program at the State of Arizona Housing Department (Department) because it was the largest single Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program grant awarded within Arizona under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). Our objective was to determine whether the Department administered the grant in compliance with Recovery Act and other applicable...

We audited the Elkton Housing Authority (Authority) because it received Public Housing Capital Fund Recovery Act grant (grant) funding as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). Our objective was to determine whether the Authority obligated and disbursed capital funds received under the Recovery Act according to the requirements of the act and applicable U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)...

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Office of Inspector General audited The Other Place, Inc.’s (The Other Place) use of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009’s (Act) Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program (program) funds. The Other Place was selected for audit based upon a citizen’s complaint to the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board that was forwarded to our office. The...

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Office of Inspector General conducted a capacity review of Seattle Housing Authority’s (Authority) capital fund to determine whether there was evidence that the Authority lacked the capacity to adequately administer its Recovery Act funding in accordance with requirements. Our review of the Authority was limited to gaining an understanding of internal controls over the...

We reviewed the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Office of Community Planning and Development’s (CPD) risk assessment process. We initiated the review as part of the activities in our fiscal year 2010 annual audit plan. Our objective was to determine whether CPD had established and properly implemented a risk assessment process that used appropriate measures to determine risk and identify grantees for monitoring. We found...