Evaluate its quality control process to ensure that calculation, voucher size, payment standard, and utility allowance errors are identified and appropriately corrected.
Publication Report
2017-CH-1007 | September 28, 2017
The Menard County Housing Authority, Petersburg, IL, Did Not Comply With HUD’s and Its Own Requirements Regarding the Administration of Its Housing Choice Voucher Program
We audited the Menard County Housing Authority’s Housing Choice Voucher program based on the activities included in our 2017 annual audit plan and our analysis of risk factors related to the public housing agencies in Region 5’s jurisdiction. Our… moreRelated Recommendations
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2017-CH-1007-001-AOpenClosedClosed on September 11, 2023$373,860.00Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A] resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B] that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost]; or (C] that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Reimburse its program $373,860 ($302,638 in ineligible housing assistance payments $63,643 in associated administrative fees $7,579 in program funds paid to the contractor) from non-Federal funds for the inappropriate payments cited in this finding.
- Status2017-CH-1007-001-BOpenClosedClosed on September 11, 2023$358,237.00Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A] resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B] that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost]; or (C] that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Seek retroactive approval or reimburse its program $358,237 ($339,908 in housing assistance payments $18,329 in program funds paid to the contractor) for the housing quality standards inspections of units owned by entities substantially controlled by the Authority, completed by contractors that were not approved by HUD.
Implement adequate procedures and controls to ensure that the Authority complies with HUD’s requirements for program conflicts of interest, including but not limited to ensuring that (1) its staff does not complete inspections for units owned by entities substantially controlled by the Authority, (2) its staff is appropriately trained and familiar with HUD’s requirements for units owned by entities it substantially controls, and (3) future contracts to perform housing quality standards inspections for program units owned by entities substantially controlled by the Authority are with a HUD-approved independent third party.
- Status2017-CH-1007-002-AOpenClosedClosed on September 06, 2023$163,316.00Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A] resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B] that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost]; or (C] that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Reimburse its program $163,316 from non-Federal funds ($29,074 in housing assistance due to calculation errors 74,957 due to inappropriate voucher sizes, payment standards, and utility allowances $18,141 $41,144 in administrative fees) for the inappropriate payments cited in this finding.
- Status2017-CH-1007-002-BOpenClosedClosed on July 09, 2019$9,280.00Funds Put to Better Use
Recommendations that funds be put to better use estimate funds that could be used more efficiently. For example, recommendations that funds be put to better use could result in reductions in spending, deobligation of funds, or avoidance of unnecessary spending.
Reimburse the appropriate households $9,280 ($2,588 in housing assistance underpayments due to calculation errors $6,692 due to inappropriate voucher sizes, payment standards, and utility allowances) from program funds for the inappropriate underpayments cited in this finding.
- Status2017-CH-1007-002-COpenClosedClosed on September 27, 2019$2,533.00Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A] resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B] that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost]; or (C] that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Support or reimburse its program $2,533 from non-Federal funds for the unsupported payments of housing assistance cited in this finding.
- Status2017-CH-1007-002-DOpenClosedClosed on September 27, 2019$470.00Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A] resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B] that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost]; or (C] that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Pursue collection from the applicable households or reimburse its program $470 from non-Federal funds for the overpayment of housing assistance due to unreported or underreported income.
- Status2017-CH-1007-002-EOpenClosedClosed on November 26, 2018$3,178.00Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A] resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B] that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost]; or (C] that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Reimburse the appropriate households $3,178 from non-Federal funds for the rent amount paid in excess of 40 percent of the adjusted monthly income for the units that were not affordable.
For the five household’s residing in units that were not affordable, renegotiate the rent to the owners or require the households to move into units that are affordable.
- Status2017-CH-1007-002-GOpenClosedClosed on March 06, 2019$108,214.00Funds Put to Better Use
Recommendations that funds be put to better use estimate funds that could be used more efficiently. For example, recommendations that funds be put to better use could result in reductions in spending, deobligation of funds, or avoidance of unnecessary spending.
Implement adequate procedures and controls to ensure that (1) housing assistance payments are appropriately calculated and supported, (2) households reside in units that are affordable, and (3) repayment agreements are created to recover overpaid housing assistance when unreported income is discovered during the examination process to ensure that $108,214 ($103,841 in potential overpayments $4,373 in potential underpayments of housing assistance) in program funds is appropriately used for future payments.
Ensure that its staff is properly trained and familiar with HUD’s and its own requirements regarding program housing assistance calculations, applying appropriate voucher sizes, and when to apply changes to households’ payment standards and utility allowances.
Review all of the remaining program household files to determine whether appropriate voucher sizes were provided and payment standards and utility allowances were applied and updated appropriately. The Authority should conduct special recertifications for the households with vouchers that do not comply with HUD’s requirements and the Authority’s administrative plan, issue the appropriate voucher sizes, and apply updated payment standards and utility allowances as appropriate.
Restrict the Authority from administering other HUD-funded programs until it substantially improves its program administration to ensure compliance with applicable requirements based on the findings cited in this audit report, absent sufficient documentation provided by the Authority.