Confirm the replacement of program units was appropriate for the number of units demolished at Johnson Ferry East, and submit a development proposal to construct new public housing units, transfer public housing assistance to another public housing agency, or terminate its annual contributions contract and return all unobligated and unexpended capital funds to HUD.
2017-AT-1006 | June 09, 2017
The Housing Authority of DeKalb County, Decatur, GA, Generally Administered RAD Appropriately but Did Not Accurately Report on Its Capital Fund Program
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2017-AT-1006-002-FOpenClosed
2017-PH-1004 | June 09, 2017
The Loudoun County Department of Family Services, Leesburg, VA, Did Not Always Ensure That Its Program Units Met Housing Quality Standards
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2017-PH-1004-001-AOpenClosed
Certify, along with the owners of the 11 units cited in this finding, that the applicable housing quality standards violations have been corrected.
- Status2017-PH-1004-001-BOpenClosed$9,715Questioned 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 $9,715 from non-Federal funds ($9,660 for housing assistance payments and $55 in associated administrative fees) for the unit that materially failed to meet HUD’s housing quality standards.
- Status2017-PH-1004-001-COpenClosed
Provide training to its inspectors on conducting housing quality standards inspections.
2017-NY-0001 | May 18, 2017
HUD PIH’s Required Conversion Program Was Not Adequately Implemented
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2017-NY-0001-001-AOpenClosed$75,540,916Funds 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.
We recommend that HUD’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Housing Investments direct staff to determine whether the nine PHAs that were classified as troubled or physically substandard have public housing developments that are subject to the required conversion requirements to support whether potentially distressed projects should be converted to tenant-based rental assistance. If conversion is required, ensure that it is accomplished timely, thereby ensuring that up to $75,540,916 is used effectively for other projects that are cost effective and have long term viability and ensuring that residents receive other rental assistance. Footnote: The $75 million cited as funds to be put to better use is based on an analysis of available data. We recognize that the 131 PHAs cited in this report, including the 9 PHAs that comprise the $75 million figure, may not have projects with at least 250 units on one or more contiguous sites that have vacancy rates of 12 percent or more. However, the data did not allow us to calculate vacancy rates for each group of contiguous units, and HUD could not provide a reasonable, supported method to identify projects subject to required conversion. To address this recommendation, HUD will need to determine whether these PHAs have projects that are subject to required conversion.
- Status2017-NY-0001-001-BOpenClosed
We recommend that HUD’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Housing Investments direct staff to develop and implement policies and procedures with the Office of Field Operations regarding identification of potentially distressed projects and monitoring and enforcement of the required conversion program.
2017-FW-1007 | May 17, 2017
The Housing Authority of the City of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK, Did Not Always Correctly Compute Housing Assistance Payments
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2017-FW-1007-001-AOpenClosed$12,739Questioned 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.
We recommend that the Program Center Coordinator, Office of Public Housing, Oklahoma City, OK, require the Authority to repay $12,739 from non-Federal funds to its Section 8 program for ineligible payments based on incorrect housing assistance payment calculations, incorrect payment standards and utility allowances, and unreported income.
- Status2017-FW-1007-001-BOpenClosed$28,574Questioned 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.
We recommend that the Program Center Coordinator, Office of Public Housing, Oklahoma City, OK, require the Authority to support or repay $28,574 from non-Federal funds to its Section 8 program for unsupported payments based on questionable income calculations.
- Status2017-FW-1007-001-COpenClosed
We recommend that the Program Center Coordinator, Office of Public Housing, Oklahoma City, OK, require the Authority to strengthen its compliance with requirements by implementing a quality control system that would require management to review a sample number of income calculations, ensure staff follow-up on income discrepancies and document their analysis.
- Status2017-FW-1007-001-DOpenClosed
We recommend that the Program Center Coordinator, Office of Public Housing, Oklahoma City, OK, require the Authority to implement policies and procedures to monitor the EIV income discrepancy reports each quarter to minimize subsidy payment errors.
2017-LA-1002 | May 11, 2017
The Inglewood Housing Authority, Inglewood, CA, Generally Ensured the Eligibility of Its Housing Choice Voucher Program Participants
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2017-LA-1002-001-AOpenClosed$648Funds 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 its program $648 from non-Federal funds and use its internal control procedures to ensure that housing assistance payments are correctly calculated during the certification process to ensure that a $648 overpayment in program funds is appropriately used for future payments.
- Status2017-LA-1002-001-BOpenClosed$84Questioned 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 participants $84 from non-Federal funds for the underpayment of housing assistance.
- Status2017-LA-1002-001-COpenClosed
Develop and implement an internal policy and procedure related to interim certifications to ensure that it obtains EIV reports and maintains those reports in participant files.
- Status2017-LA-1002-001-DOpenClosed
Develop and implement controls to minimize instances of overpayment and underpayment of housing assistance.
2017-FW-1006 | April 26, 2017
The Housing Authority of the City of Jasper, TX, Did Not Operate Its Public Housing Programs in Compliance With HUD’s Requirements
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2017-FW-1006-001-AOpenClosed$27,818Questioned 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.
Repay from nonfederal funds $27,818 to its Capital Funds program from non-Federal funds for the ineligible purchase of the truck and expenditure of 2013 funds before they were available.
- Status2017-FW-1006-001-BOpenClosed$7,446Questioned 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.
Repay from nonfederal funds its HUD programs $7,446 for the executive director’s personal use of the Authority’s equipment, and amend the executive director’s prior Internal Revenue Forms W-2 to include the annual personal use of $5,888 as income.
- Status2017-FW-1006-001-COpenClosed$4,739Questioned 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.
Repay from nonfederal funds its HUD programs $4,739 paid to its fee accountant, which had a conflict of interest with the executive director.
- Status2017-FW-1006-001-DOpenClosed$1,273Questioned 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.
Repay from nonfederal funds its HUD programs $1,273 lost on the conflict of interest sale of the Authority’s vehicle to the executive director’s daughter.
- Status2017-FW-1006-001-EOpenClosed$1,034Questioned 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.
Repay from nonfederal funds its HUD programs $1,034 for ineligible charges on the Authority’s credit cards.
- Status2017-FW-1006-001-FOpenClosed$652Questioned 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 repay from nonfederal funds its HUD programs $652 for unsupported charges on the Authority’s credit card.