We audited the Fairmont-Morgantown Housing Authority’s Housing Choice Voucher program because (1) we received a complaint alleging that the Authority did not follow program requirements, (2) the Authority administered 1,117 vouchers and received more than $5.2 million in funding for fiscal year 2016, and (3) we had not audited its program.  Our audit objectives were to determine whether the Authority ensured that its Housing Choice Voucher...

We audited the Fairmont-Morgantown Housing Authority’s Housing Choice Voucher program because (1) we received a complaint alleging that the Authority did not follow program requirements, (2) the Authority administered 1,117 vouchers and received more than $5.2 million in funding for fiscal year 2016, and (3) we had not audited its program.  Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority adequately administered its Housing...

We audited the public housing program of the Housing Authority of the City of Spartanburg, SC, because of a citizen’s complaint.  Our objective was to determine whether the Authority’s performance in the areas of financial operations, procurement, and inventory practices met HUD requirements. The Authority used HUD program funds for ineligible or unsupported expenses, and failed to maintain an accurate accounting and financial control...

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...

We audited the Charleston-Kanawha Housing Authority’s Housing Choice Voucher program because (1) it received more than $13.7 million in program funding in fiscal year 2012, (2) it is the largest assisted housing agency in the State of West Virginia, and (3) we had never audited its Housing Choice Voucher program.  The audit objectives were to determine whether the Authority ensured that its Housing Choice Voucher program units met U.S....

We audited Mountain CAP of WV, Inc.’s administration of its Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program funds. We selected Mountain CAP for audit because of a complaint alleging that controls over its disbursements were weak. Our audit objective was to determine whether Mountain CAP maintained proper financial management of and accountability for its program to ensure that it used the funds according to the American Recovery and...

As part of the Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) nationwide effort to review the foreclosure practices of the five largest Federal Housing Administration (FHA) mortgage servicers (Bank of America, Wells Fargo Bank, CitiMortgage, JP Morgan Chase, and Ally Financial, Incorporated) we reviewed Wells Fargo’s foreclosure and claims processes. In addition to this memorandum, OIG issued separate memorandums for each of the other four reviews. OIG...

We performed a limited review of Wells Fargo Home Mortgage (Wells Fargo) as a result of our internal audit of the Federal Housing Administration’s (FHA) Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). During the audit, we visited Wells Fargo and reviewed a limited number of loans to determine whether the National Servicing Center implemented and operated FHA-HAMP in accordance with rules and regulations. Our objective for this limited review was...

We audited the West Virginia Housing Development Fund’s (Fund) Tax Credit Assistance Program (Program) funds awarded under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) due to a complaint from the Recovery and Transparency Board. We also audited the Fund’s Program because it was the only housing finance agency across the Nation that had not spent any of its Program funds. Our objective was to determine whether the Fund...

We conducted a review of the Guam Housing and Urban Renewal Authority (the authority) because it received more than $1.9 million in Capital Fund Recovery Act Grant (grant) funding as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Our objectives were to determine whether the authority (1) had effective and efficient operations in place to manage its grant-funded projects and (2) had administered its grant funds in accordance with U....