The Niagara Falls Housing Authority Did Not Always Administer Its HOPE VI Grant Program and Activities in Accordance With HUD Requirements
We audited the Niagara Falls Housing Authority’s HOPE VI grant program based on an Office of Inspector General risk analysis and the amount of funding the Authority received. The objectives of the audit were to determine whether the Authority administered its HOPE VI grant program and activities in accordance with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and HOPE VI grant program requirements.
The Authority did not always...
Julio 10, 2014
Report
#2014-NY-1007
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
The White Mountain Apache Housing Authority Did Not Always Comply With Its Indian Housing Block Grant Requirements
We audited the White Mountain Apache Housing Authority’s Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG). We conducted the audit primarily due to concerns raised by HUD’s Southwest Office of Native American Programs regarding the Authority’s financial management practices. The objective of the audit was to determine whether the Authority used its IHBG funds in accordance with HUD requirements.
The Authority failed to use its IHBG funds in...
Julio 08, 2014
Report
#2014-LA-1004
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
HUD’s Monitoring of Public Housing Authority Demolition and Disposition Projects Was Not Always Adequate to Ensure Data in IMS/PIC Was Accurate
We audited the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Inventory Management System-Public and Indian Housing Information Center (IMS/PIC) inventory data related to public housing demolition and disposition projects. The objective of the audit was to determine whether HUD adequately monitored the demolition and disposition projects to ensure the reliability of IMS/PIC inventory data and awarded appropriate Capital Fund...
Junio 11, 2014
Report
#2014-NY-0002
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
The Truth or Consequences Housing Authority’s Financial Controls Were Not Adequate To Ensure That It Used Its Low-Rent Funds Appropriately
We audited the Truth or Consequences Housing Authority of Truth or Consequences, NM, in response to an anonymous complaint alleging that the Authority inappropriately transferred ownership of some of its properties to the New Mexico Housing and Community Development Corporation and used its assets to support the Corporation’s activities. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority had adequate controls to ensure that it complied...
Mayo 27, 2014
Report
#2014-FW-1002
The City of Elmira, NY, Did Not Always Administer Its CDBG Program in Accordance with HUD Requirements
We audited the City of Elmira, NY’s administration of its Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program based on our risk analysis and funding received by the City. The objectives of the audit were to determine whether the City (1) ensured that program activities were adequately documented and administered in accordance with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations, and (2) expended CDBG funds for eligible...
Mayo 20, 2014
Report
#2014-NY-1004
Review of the Housing Authority of the City of Pittsburgh, PA's Compliance With Federal Lobbying Disclosure Requirements and Restrictions
We conducted a review of the Housing Authority of the City of Pittsburgh’s compliance with Federal lobbying disclosure requirements and restrictions based on concerns noted during our ongoing internal audit of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) oversight of public housing authorities’ compliance with Federal lobbying disclosure requirements. Our review objective was to determine whether the Authority complied...
Mayo 02, 2014
Memorandum
#2014-PH-1803
The New York City Housing Authority, New York, NY, Did Not Always Administer Its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program in Accordance With Regulations
We completed a review of the New York City Housing Authority’s administration of its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program. We selected the Authority based on indicators from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) monitoring reports. The objectives of the audit were to determine whether the Authority administered its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program in accordance with HUD regulations and made housing...
Mayo 01, 2014
Report
#2014-NY-1002
The New York City Housing Authority, New York, NY, Did Not Always Ensure That Its Housing Choice Voucher Program Units Met HUD’s Housing Quality Standards
We completed a review of the New York City Housing Authority’s administration of its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program to ensure that its units met the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) housing quality standards. We selected the Authority based on indicators from HUD monitoring reports, such as the Authority’s overall Section 8 Management Assessment Program performance rating modified to standard for fiscal...
Mayo 01, 2014
Report
#2014-NY-1003
Chelsea, MA, Housing Authority Review of Cost Allocation and Reasonableness of Salaries
We audited the Chelsea, MA, Housing Authority based on a request from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Boston Office of Public and Indian Housing, which was concerned about financial controls at the Authority. Our audit objectives were to determine whether Authority officials properly implemented financial controls over the allocation of costs, and reasonableness of salaries.
Authority officials did not design...
Abril 30, 2014
Report
#2014-BO-1002
The Hamtramck Housing Commission, Hamtramck, MI, Did Not Always Administer Its Grant in Accordance With Recovery Act, HUD’s, or Its Own Requirements
We audited the Hamtramck Housing Commission’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Public Housing Capital Fund competitive grant. We selected the Commission based upon 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 grant in accordance with Recovery Act, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban...
Abril 30, 2014
Report
#2014-CH-1003
The County of Northumberland, Sunbury, PA, Did Not Administer Its Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program Grant According to Recovery Act Requirements
We audited the County of Northumberland, PA’s Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program grant because the chairman of the Northumberland County board of commissioners requested that we audit the program. Our objective was to determine whether the County administered its program grant in accordance with American Recovery and Reinvestment Act requirements.
The County did not administer its program according to Recovery Act...
Abril 30, 2014
Report
#2014-PH-1004
The Yakama Nation Housing Authority Did Not Always Properly Spend Its Recovery Act funds
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General audited how the Yakama Nation Housing Authority used its nearly $4.9 million Native American Housing Block Grant provided under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Our objectives were to determine whether the Authority properly spent its Recovery Act funds, correctly obtained small purchases, and properly reported Recovery Act...
Abril 29, 2014
Report
#2014-SE-1002