The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Office of Inspector General audited the Housing Authority of the City of Fort Wayne's (Authority) Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program (program). The audit was part of the activities in our fiscal year 2007 annual audit plan. We selected the Authority based upon our analysis of risk factors relating to the housing agencies in Region V's jurisdiction. Our objective...

Attached is the final report on our audit of the Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority (Authority), Richmond, Virginia, Audit Report Number 2008-PH-1006, dated April 15, 2008. Our audit objectives were to determine whether the Authority adequately managed its waiting list, met HUD's lease-up thresholds, and operated its Family Self-Sufficiency program according to HUD requirements. The Authority's Housing Choice Voucher program...

We audited the Harrisburg Housing Authority's (Authority) administration of its housing quality standards inspection program for its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program based on the survey results of our recently completed audit of the Authority's low-rent public housing and Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher programs. This is our second audit report issued on the Authority's programs. The audit objective addressed in this...

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) audited the Indianapolis Housing Agency's (Agency) Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program (program). The audit was part of the activities in our fiscal year 2007 annual audit plan. We selected the Agency based upon our analysis of risk factors relating to the housing agencies in Region V's jurisdiction. Our objective was to determine whether the Agency administered its...

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Office of Inspector General audited HUD's Enterprise Income Verification (EIV) system. HUD implemented the EIV system nationwide for public housing authorities to use to identify and reduce tenant income and subsidy errors within the Section 8 and public housing programs. Our objective was to determine whether HUD provided adequate guidance and training to its EIV...

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Office of Inspector General audited the Peoria Housing Authority's (Authority) Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program (program). The audit was part of the activities in our fiscal year 2007 annual audit plan. We selected the Authority based upon our analysis of risk factors relating to the housing agencies in Region V's jurisdiction. Our objective was to determine...

Our audit objective was to determine whether Elders Place, Incorporated, (Elders Place, Inc.), administered project operating funds in accordance with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requirements. Elders Place, Inc., did not administer project operating funds in accordance with HUD requirements. It made more than $309,900 in unsupported disbursements and more than $73,400 in ineligible disbursements and, thereby, did not...

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Office of Inspector General audited HUD's community service and self-sufficiency requirement (the requirement) as a result of news media reports that the requirement is rarely enforced. Our audit objective was to determine whether HUD ensured that housing authorities properly administered the requirement. We found that HUD did not have adequate controls to ensure that housing...

As part of our strategic plan objective to assist the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) efforts to reduce rental assistance overpayments, we audited the Dallas Housing Authority's (Authority) financial management of its Housing Choice Voucher program (voucher program). Our objective was to determine whether the Authority had the necessary financial controls in place to operate its voucher program in an efficient...

We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Brighton, Colorado (Authority) in response to a complaint alleging that it did not have an inventory control system and that it used poor procurement practices. Our audit objectives were to determine whether the Authority had an adequate inventory control system and whether it performed contracting activities in accordance with federal procurement requirements. The Authority did not have complete...

We reviewed the Housing Authority of the County of San Joaquin's (the Authority) capital fund program to determine whether it used capital funds in accordance with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) rules and regulations. The Authority did not use capital funds in accordance with requirements. Specifically, the Authority used $175,775 to absorb shared administrative costs of other housing programs, improperly charged $...

We audited HUD's controls over the FHA appraiser roster in response to a single-family loan origination audit that had raised concerns about FHA appraisers and appraisals. We reviewed HUD's appraiser roster (roster) to determine whether HUD's controls over the roster were adequate to ensure that only qualified/eligible appraisers were placed on the roster and whether the oversight and maintenance of the roster were sufficient to...

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Office of Inspector General audited the Schuyler Housing Authority (Authority) to determine whether the Authority improperly spent public housing assets when developing and operating an assisted living program. We found that the Authority inappropriately used more than $78,000 in public housing funds to pay expenses of a non-HUD assisted living program. In addition, the Authority...

We audited Oneida Housing Authority (Authority) to determine whether the Authority calculated program income for NAHASDA-assisted 1937 Act properties in accordance with applicable U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) guidance, regulations, and requirements and to observe uses of revenue from NAHASDA-assisted 1937 Act properties. The Authority failed to track Block Grant rehabilitation or capital expenses for each property and...

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Office of Inspector General audited the Highland Park Housing Commission's (Commission) Public Housing and Public Housing Capital Fund programs (programs). The audit was part of the activities in our annual audit plan. We selected the Commission based upon its fiscal year 2005 independent auditor's report that identified it as having high-risk programs. Our objectives...

We reviewed the use of contract fee inspectors by the Office of Multifamily Housing Boston Hub (Boston Hub) as part of our 2007 annual audit plan. This review was initiated because U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) staff rely on contract fee inspectors to oversee the work of contractors performing renovation work on HUD-insured properties. Our objective was to determine whether the Boston Hub effectively used contract fee...

HUD OIG reviewed the development activities of the Douglas County Housing Authority (Authority), Omaha, Nebraska, to determine whether the Authority encumbered or spent U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) assets for nonfederal development activities without HUD approval. The Authority inappropriately encumbered nearly $1.67 million in federal assets when it entered into loan documents containing setoff provisions against the...

HUD OIG performed a corrective action verification of the audit recommendations cited in the audit report, Miami-Dade Housing Agency (Agency) Did Not Ensure Section 8-Assisted Units Met Housing Quality Standards (2006-AT-1001) issued December 21, 2005. The purpose of the corrective action verification was to determine if the selected audit recommendations were implemented and the deficiencies reported in the audit report corrected. The Agency...

We audited the Housing Authority of the County of Los Angeles’ (Authority) Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority determined tenant eligibility and performed annual reexaminations in accordance with HUD rules and regulations. Although we did not identify any tenants that were not eligible for the program, the Authority did not comply with HUD’s requirements or its own administrative plan...

Based on a hotline complaint, we reviewed whether the Phoenix Apartments multifamily project located in Concord, California, used its project funds in accordance with HUD rules and regulations. We found that the project did not use project funds in accordance with the requirements of its regulatory agreement and applicable HUD rules and regulations. Specifically, during fiscal years 2004, 2005, and 2006, the project used $89,751 of its funds...