The Boston Housing Authority, Boston, MA, Housed Eligible Tenants and Correctly Calculated Voucher Subsidies
We audited the Housing Choice Voucher program at the Boston Housing Authority because of the size of the program, the time that had elapsed since our last audit, and the inherent program risk. The Authority operates the second largest Housing Choice Voucher program in New England. In addition, our office had not audited any Authority program since 2010. The Housing Choice Voucher program is inherently risky as Congress...
Abril 05, 2017
Report
#2017-BO-1004
The Irvington, NJ, Housing Authority Did Not Always Administer Its Public Housing Program in Accordance With Program Requirements
We audited the Housing Authority of the Township of Irvington, NJ, regarding the administration of its public housing program because it was classified as a troubled public housing agency and based on a complaint from the union representing its maintenance and clerical employees. The complaint alleged serious financial and operational mismanagement. The audit objectives were to determine whether the issues identified in the...
Marzo 09, 2017
Report
#2017-NY-1008
The New Rochelle Municipal Housing Authority, New Rochelle, NY, Did Not Always Administer Its Public Housing Program in Accordance With HUD’s Rules and Regulations
We completed a review of the New Rochelle Municipal Housing Authority’s administration of its public housing program. We selected the Authority based on a management request from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) New York Office of Public Housing. The Authority was designated as a troubled housing authority and had indicators of noncompliance with program requirements, such as using program funds to pay...
Enero 30, 2017
Report
#2017-NY-1006
The Port Huron Housing Commission, Port Huron, MI, Did Not Properly Implement Asset Management
We audited the Port Huron Housing Commission’s public housing program as part of the activities in our fiscal year 2016 annual audit plan. We selected the Commission based on our analysis of the risk factors relating to public housing agencies in Region 5’s 1 jurisdiction. Our objective was to determine whether the Commission administered its program in accordance with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) and...
Enero 23, 2017
Report
#2017-CH-1001
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Did Not Always Prevent Program Participants From Receiving Multiple Subsidies
This report was revised on March 30, 2017 to change the
cost type for recommendation 1A on pages 8 and 13 from
unreasonable or unnecessary to funds to be put to better use.
This change is needed to align the report language with the
terminology used by HUD’s audit tracking system.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General, audited HUD’s Office of Public and Indian...
Enero 19, 2017
Report
#2017-KC-0002
The Houston Housing Authority, Houston, TX, Needs To Improve Its Procurement and Financial Operations and Its Housing Choice Voucher Program Subsidy Determinations
The Houston Housing Authority, Houston, TX, Needs To Improve Its Procurement and Financial Operations and Its Housing Choice Voucher Program Subsidy Determinations
We audited the Houston Housing Authority’s public housing and Housing Choice Voucher programs. We selected the Authority for review in accordance with our audit plan and based upon risk analyses. Our objectives were to determine whether the Authority (1) followed U.S....
Diciembre 26, 2016
Report
#2017-FW-1003
Fort Worth Housing Solutions, Fort Worth, TX, Generally Complied With HUD Regulations In Its Transactions With Its Related Entity, QuadCo Management Solutions, LLC
Based on the results of a prior audit, we reviewed Fort Worth Housing Solutions (FWHS) and transactions with its related entity QuadCo Management Solutions, LLC (QuadCo) of Fort Worth, TX. Our objectives were to determine whether FWHS (1) properly managed its U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funds, specifically whether it improperly loaned $1.6 million in HUD funds to QuadCo; (2) paid management fees within HUD’s...
Diciembre 20, 2016
Report
#2017-FW-1002
The Town of Amherst, NY, Did Not Ensure That Its Housing Choice Voucher Program Units Met Housing Quality Standards (REISSUED February 17, 2017)
(REISSUED February 17, 2017)
We audited the Town of Amherst’s Housing Choice Voucher program administered through a contractor, Belmont Housing Resources for Western New York, to address our audit plan priority to ensure that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) public and Indian housing programs are sufficiently administered by public housing agencies (PHA). We selected this auditee based on a risk analysis of...
Diciembre 13, 2016
Report
#2017-NY-1003
The Lubbock Housing Authority, Lubbock, TX, Had Weaknesses in Managing Its Capital Fund Program Operations
We audited the Lubbock Housing Authority’s Public Housing Capital Fund program as part of our regional audit plan. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority properly implemented its U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Capital Fund program.
The Authority generally implemented its Capital Fund program in compliance with HUD requirements and undertook work consistent with its annual and 5-year plans. ...
Diciembre 11, 2016
Report
#2017-FW-1001
The Tarrytown Municipal Housing Authority, Did Not Always Comply With HUD’s Procurement, Administrative, and Program Requirements
We audited the Tarrytown Municipal Housing Authority’s administration of its public housing program based on an Office of Inspector General risk assessment. The objectives of the audit were to evaluate the Authority’s financial controls to determine whether (1) U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funds were used for eligible, reasonable, and supported expenses and (2) adequate financial controls were maintained to...
Noviembre 21, 2016
Report
#2017-NY-1002
Inglewood Housing Authority, Inglewood, CA, Did Not Effectively Manage the Financial Operations of Its Housing Choice Voucher Program
We audited the Inglewood Housing Authority’s financial management of its Housing Choice Voucher program due to a hotline complaint allegation and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Los Angeles Office of Public Housing’s concerns about the Authority’s financial management of its program. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority managed the financial operations of its program in compliance with HUD...
Septiembre 30, 2016
Report
#2016-LA-1013
The Broward County Housing Authority, Lauderdale Lakes, FL, Did Not Always Comply With HUD’s and Its Own Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program Requirements
We audited the Broward County Housing Authority’s Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program as part of the activities in our fiscal year 2016 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.
The Authority did not always comply with HUD’s requirements and its own administrative policies...
Septiembre 30, 2016
Report
#2016-AT-1014
The Dayton Metropolitan Housing Authority, Dayton, OH, Did Not Always Follow HUD’s and Its Own Requirements for the Procurement of Capital Grant-Funded Contract
We audited the Dayton Metropolitan Housing Authority’s Public Housing Capital Fund program. We selected the Authority’s program for audit based on our analysis of risk factors related to public housing agencies in Region 5’s1 jurisdiction. The audit was part of the activities in our fiscal year 2016 annual audit plan. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority complied with the U.S. Department of Housing and...
Septiembre 30, 2016
Report
#2016-CH-1012
Final Audit Report: The Lucas Metropolitan Housing Authority, Toledo, OH, Did Not Always Follow HUD’s or Its Own Procurement Requirements
We audited the Lucas Metropolitan Housing Authority’s public housing program as part of the activities in our fiscal year 2016 annual audit plan. We selected the Authority based on the results of a risk assessment of housing agencies in Region 5’s1 jurisdiction. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority complied with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) and its own procurement requirements....
Septiembre 30, 2016
Report
#2016-CH-1013
The Housing Opportunities Commission of Montgomery County, Kensington, MD, Did Not Always Ensure That Its Program Units Met Housing Quality Standards
We audited the Housing Opportunities Commission of Montgomery County’s Housing Choice Voucher program because (1) it had a large program receiving more than $82 million in fiscal year 2015, (2) it had the second largest number of housing choice vouchers of non-Moving to Work housing agencies within the jurisdiction of the Philadelphia region, and (3) we had not audited its program. Our audit objective was to determine whether the...
Septiembre 29, 2016
Report
#2016-PH-1008
HUD’s Oversight of Legal Costs at Moving to Work Housing Agencies Was Not Adequate To Ensure That Costs Were Reasonable and Necessary
We audited the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) oversight of legal costs at housing agencies participating in the Moving to Work Demonstration program based on (1) congressional concerns, (2) concerns from a previous external audit, and (3) our initiative to focus HUD management’s attention on problem areas on which we and others have reported over the years. Our audit objective was to determine whether HUD...
Septiembre 29, 2016
Report
#2016-PH-0004
The Housing Authority of the City of Rock Island, Rock Island, IL, Did Not Always Comply With HUD’s Requirements Regarding the Administration of Its Housing Choice Voucher Program
We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Rock Island, IL’s Housing Choice Voucher program based on the activities included in our 2016 annual audit plan and our analysis of risk factors related to the public housing agencies in Region 5’s jurisdiction. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority administered its program in accordance with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) requirements.
The...
Septiembre 28, 2016
Report
#2016-CH-1007
The Housing Authority of the City of Annapolis, MD, Did Not Always Follow Applicable Procurement Requirements
We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Annapolis’ procurement activities due to a hotline complaint. The complaint alleged that the Authority failed to follow procurement requirements. This is the second of two audit reports on the Authority. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority procured services and products using operating and capital funds in accordance with applicable requirements.
The...
Septiembre 27, 2016
Report
#2016-PH-1007
The Alphabet Group, LLC, Marks Group, LLC, and Imagineers, Inc., Settled Allegations Related to Section 8 Rent Certifications
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General (OIG), assisted the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Connecticut in the civil investigation of The Alphabet Group, LLC, Marks Group, LLC, and Imagineers, Inc. Alphabet and Marks are owners of residential housing in Hartford, CT, and Imagineers administers the Section 8 program for the City of Hartford Housing Authority.
On May 17, 2012, an...
Septiembre 19, 2016
Memorandum
#2016-CF-1807
Operating Fund Calculations Were Not Always Adequately Verified
We audited the calculation process for Public Housing Operating Fund subsidies awarded to public housing agencies (PHA). We initiated this review based on an internal audit suggestion, which was included in our annual audit plan. The objective of the audit was to determine whether the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) verified Operating Fund calculations to ensure that PHAs received the correct amounts and...
Septiembre 19, 2016
Report
#2016-NY-0001