The Lanagan Housing Authority Mismanaged Its Public Housing Program
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) - Office of Inspector General audited the Lanagan Housing Authority in Lanagan, MO’s participation in HUD’s Office of Public and Indian Housing programs. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority operated its public housing program in accordance with HUD requirements.
The Authority did not operate its public housing program in accordance with HUD requirements. ...
Septiembre 30, 2015
Report
#2015-KC-1011
The Pineville Housing Authority Mismanaged Its Public Housing Program
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) - Office of Inspector General audited the Pineville Housing Authority in Pineville, MO’s participation in HUD’s Office of Public and Indian Housing programs. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority operated its public housing program in accordance with HUD requirements.
The Authority did not operate its public housing program in accordance with HUD...
Septiembre 30, 2015
Report
#2015-KC-1009
The Housing Authority of the City of Durham, NC, Did Not Always Comply With HUD’s and Its Own Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program Requirements
We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Durham’s Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program based on a hotline citizen complaint and as part of the activities in our fiscal year 2015 annual audit plan. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority administered its program in accordance with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) and its own requirements and whether the complaint was valid.
The Authority...
Septiembre 30, 2015
Report
#2015-AT-1011
The New Hampshire Housing Finance Authority Administered Its HOME Investment Partnerships Program in Accordance With HUD Requirements
We audited the New Hampshire Housing Finance Authority’s HOME Investment Partnerships Program based on a risk analysis of the Authority’s program that considered the amount of funding and the results of HUD monitoring reviews and because the Office of Inspector General had not reviewed the Authority’s HOME program within the past 10 years. Our audit objective was to determine whether Authority officials administered the HOME program in...
Septiembre 30, 2015
Report
#2015-BO-1005
The Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs Administered Its Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Funds for Infrastructure in Accordance With HUD Requirements
We audited the State of Alabama’s Department of Economic and Community Affairs’ Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) grant. We selected the State for review because it was awarded more than $49 million in funding to recover from the tornadoes of April 2011. Our audit objective was to determine whether the State administered its CDBG-DR funds used for infrastructure to ensure that only eligible applicants...
Septiembre 28, 2015
Report
#2015-AT-1010
Veterans First Did Not Administer or Spend Its Supportive Housing Program Grants in Accordance With HUD Requirements
Due to concerns identified by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Office of Community Planning and Development (CPD), we completed a limited scope, spinoff audit of Veterans First and reviewed additional grants not covered in our original audit (2015-LA-1002, issued April16, 2015). CPD was concerned that HUD funds for two additional grants not reviewed in the first audit were used to cover shortfalls in Veterans...
Septiembre 25, 2015
Memorandum
#2015-LA-1802
The State of Maryland Could Not Show That Replacement Homes Complied With the Green Building Standard
We audited the State of Maryland’s Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery-funded Housing Recovery program. We conducted the audit because the program was the largest funded program in the State’s first action plan. Our objectives were to determine whether the State (1) assisted eligible applicants, (2) avoided duplicating assistance, (3) incurred eligible expenses that were properly supported, (4) procured services and...
Septiembre 25, 2015
Report
#2015-PH-1005
The Housing Authority of the City of South Bend, IN, Did Not Always Comply with HUD Requirements and Its Own Policies Regarding the Administration of Its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program
We audited the Housing Authority of the City of South Bend, IN’s Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program based on our analysis of risk factors related to the public housing agencies in Region 5’s jurisdiction and the activities included in our fiscal year 2015 annual audit plan. Our audit objectives were to determine whether the Authority (1) correctly calculated and paid housing assistance and utility allowances, (2) obtained and...
Septiembre 25, 2015
Report
#2015-CH-1008
Program Control Weaknesses Lessened Assurance That New York Rising Housing Recovery Program Funds Were Always Disbursed for Eligible Costs
We audited the New York State Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Assistance (CDBG-DR) funded New York Rising Housing Recovery Program to address the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act requirement that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General, monitor the expenditure of CDBG-DR funds. State officials allocated more than $1 billion in CDBG-DR funds to the Housing Recovery...
Septiembre 17, 2015
Report
#2015-NY-1011
New York State Did Not Always Administer Its Rising Home Enhanced Buyout Program in Accordance with Federal and State Regulations
We audited the New York Rising Home Enhanced Buyout Program to address the requirement that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General, monitor the expenditure of Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) funds made available by the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act. Our audit objective was to determine whether New York State officials established adequate controls to ensure that...
Septiembre 17, 2015
Report
#2015-NY-1010
The Jefferson Metropolitan Housing Authority, Steubenville, OH, Did Not Always Ensure That Its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program Files Complied With HUD’s and Its Own Requirements
We audited the Jefferson Metropolitan Housing Authority’s Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program based on a request from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the activities included in our 2015 annual audit plan. Our audit objectives were to determine whether the Authority (1) appropriately calculated housing assistance payments, (2) maintained required eligibility documentation to support the admission and...
Septiembre 09, 2015
Report
#2015-CH-1004
HUD Did Not Complete an Adequate Front-End Risk Assessment for the Rental Assistance Demonstration
We audited the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Rental Assistance Demonstration. We initiated the audit under the HUD Office of Inspector General’s annual audit plan. Our objective was to determine whether HUD had adequate controls over the Demonstration, to include (1) an appropriate completion of a risk assessment that adequately evaluated the following risks: (a) the need for additional administrative...
Septiembre 03, 2015
Report
#2015-AT-0003
Brown County Housing Authority, Green Bay, WI, Did Not Always Ensure That Its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program Files Complied With HUD’s and Its Own Requirements
We audited the Brown County Housing Authority’s Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program based on our analysis of risk factors related to the public housing agencies in Region 5’s jurisdiction and the activities included in our fiscal year 2015 annual audit plan. Our audit objectives were to determine whether the Authority (1) appropriately calculated housing assistance payments and (2) maintained required eligibility documentation...
Agosto 28, 2015
Report
#2015-CH-1003
HUD’s Approval of the City of High Point’s Use of a 15 Percent Margin for Procurement Bids
We reviewed the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Greensboro, NC, Office of Community Planning and Development’s approval of the City of High Point’s use of a 15 percent cost estimate margin. The objective of this review was to determine whether HUD knowingly allowed the City to use the 15 percent margin.
HUD’s Greensboro, NC, Office of Community Planning and Development allowed the City to use the 15 percent...
Agosto 25, 2015
Memorandum
#2015-AT-0801
Broward County, Fort Lauderdale, FL, Did Not Properly Administer One of Its Projects and Did Not Comply With Some Match Requirements
We audited Broward County’s Continuum of Care Program, which was awarded more than $21 million in the 2011 through 2013 grant years. The objectives were to determine whether Broward County (1) spent grant funds for eligible program activities and ensured that expenditures were sufficiently supported and (2) maintained sufficient documentation to support that the funding sources used to match the grant funds were eligible.
Broward County...
Agosto 23, 2015
Report
#2015-AT-1008
The City of West Covina, CA, Did Not Administer Its Community Development Block Grant Program in Accordance With HUD Rules and Requirements
We audited the City of West Covina’s Community Development Block Grant program because of a news article 1 raising concerns about the City’s financial policies and past spending practices that included the mismanagement of funds. The review was also the first time that the Office of Inspector General had conducted a review of the City. Our objective was to determine whether the City administered its program in accordance with...
Agosto 21, 2015
Report
#2015-LA-1006
The Hot Springs Housing Authority, Hot Springs, AR Did Not Comply With Federal Regulations and Other Requirements When Administering Its Public Housing Programs
In accordance with our regional plan to review public housing programs and because of a complaint filed by a contractor with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) and issues identified by HUD’s Office of Public Housing, we performed a review of the Hot Springs Housing Authority. The contractor alleged that the Authority did not procure a contract in compliance with Federal...
Agosto 14, 2015
Memorandum
#2015-FW-1807
The Office of Community Planning and Development’s Reviews of Matching Contributions Were Ineffective and Its Application of Match Reductions Was Not Always Correct
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General audited HUD’s Office of Community Planning and Development’s (CPD) administration of the HOME Investment Partnerships Program’s matching requirements to determine whether CPD effectively reviewed participating jurisdictions’ match logs and the support for their match contributions and whether it applied the correct match reductions in fiscal year 2013....
Agosto 11, 2015
Report
#2015-KC-0002
County Officials Did Not Always Administer the County’s CDBG Program in Accordance With Program Requirements
We completed a review of Hudson County, NJ’s administration of its Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program based on a risk analysis performed by the Office of Inspector General (OIG). The objective of the audit was to determine whether County officials had established and implemented controls to ensure that the County administered its CDBG program in accordance with program requirements.
Our review determined that Hudson County’s...
Agosto 11, 2015
Report
#2015-NY-1009
The State of Florida, Tallahassee, FL, Did Not Properly Support the Eligibility of Some Funds Used for the Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Program
We audited the State of Florida’s Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) program because the State was awarded more than $107 million to recover from the 2008 natural disasters and to undertake activities and long-term strategies that focus on reducing future natural disasters. Further, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General, had not audited the State since 2006....
Julio 27, 2015
Report
#2015-AT-1006