Require public housing agencies to maintain support for any communication with a multifamily property listed on the Enterprise Income Verification existing tenant search.
2017-KC-0002 | January 19, 2017
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Did Not Always Prevent Program Participants From Receiving Multiple Subsidies
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2017-KC-0002-001-COpenClosed
- Status2017-KC-0002-001-DOpenClosed
Require HUD staff to review Enterprise Income Verification reports from the last 12-month period during onsite housing agency reviews to ensure that any multiple subsidies have been resolved.
- Status2017-KC-0002-001-EOpenClosed$2,244,680Funds 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 recommendations 1A through 1D to ensure that $2.24 million in housing assistance funds will be put to better use.
2016-AT-1014 | September 30, 2016
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
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2016-AT-1014-001-AOpenClosed$28,199Questioned 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 $28,199 ($19,771 $7,793 $635) from non-Federal funds for the overpayment of housing assistance and ineligible administrative fees it received for the deficiencies cited in this report.
2016-NY-0001 | September 19, 2016
Operating Fund Calculations Were Not Always Adequately Verified
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2016-NY-0001-001-AOpenClosed$3,630,286Questioned 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 Director of the Public Housing Financial Management Division determine whether any of the overpayment of $3,630,286 was ineligible and take appropriate actions to recoup the ineligible payments.
- Status2016-NY-0001-001-BOpenClosed$1,191,767Funds 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 the Director of the Public Housing Financial Management Division validate the $1,191,767 in underpayments and determine if any corrections should be made.
- Status2016-NY-0001-001-FOpenClosed$116,218Questioned 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 Director of the Public Housing Financial Management Division recapture the overpayment of $116,218 disbursed for the units, which exceeded the PHAs’ Faircloth limit.
2016-PH-1006 | August 31, 2016
The Housing Authority of the City of Annapolis, MD, Did Not Always Administer Its Resident Opportunities and Self-Sufficiency Program in Accordance With Applicable Requirements
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2016-PH-1006-001-AOpenClosed$292,611Questioned 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.
Provide documentation to support program accomplishment data related to disbursements totaling $292,611 or repay HUD from non-Federal funds for any amount that it cannot support.
2016-AT-1008 | July 19, 2016
The Sanford Housing Authority, Sanford, NC, Did Not Comply With Procurement and Financial Requirements
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2016-AT-1008-001-AOpenClosed$408,958Questioned 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 the cost reasonableness of the nine contracts or reimburse $408,958 to the appropriate Operating Fund, Capital Fund, and Housing Choice Voucher programs from non-Federal funds.
2015-LA-0002 | July 06, 2015
HUD Did Not Provide Adequate Oversight of the Section 184 Indian Home Loan Guarantee Program
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2015-LA-0002-001-AOpenClosed$76,967,618Funds 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.
Develop and implement written policies and procedures with an emphasis on increased controls toward the monitoring, tracking, underwriting, and evaluating of the Section 184 program. Implementing these controls would reduce the current high level of risk in the program and result in potentially $76,967,618 in funds to be put to better use (see appendix A).
- Status2015-LA-0002-001-BOpenClosed
Develop and implement policies and procedures for a standardized monthly delinquency report format that lenders must follow when submitting information to OLG.
- Status2015-LA-0002-001-COpenClosed
Develop and implement policies and procedures to deny payments to direct guarantee lenders for claims on loans that have material underwriting deficiencies.
- Status2015-LA-0002-001-DOpenClosed
Develop and implement policies and procedures to ensure that OLG uses enforcement actions available under 12 U.S.C. 1715z-3a(g) for lenders that do not underwrite loans according to the Section 184 processing guidelines.
- Status2015-LA-0002-001-HOpenClosed
Ensure that only underwriters that are approved by OLG are underwriting Section 184 loans.
- Status2015-LA-0002-001-IOpenClosed
Develop and implement written policies and procedures for situations in which the borrower for a Section 184 loan is an Indian housing authority, a tribally designated housing entity, or an Indian tribe.
- Status2015-LA-0002-001-JOpenClosed
Reconcile the total list of guaranteed Section 184 loans to the complete loan file storage list and identify and locate any missing loan files.
2015-NY-1002 | November 30, 2014
The Freeport Housing Authority, Freeport, NY, Did Not Administer Its Low-Rent Housing and Homeownership Programs in Accordance With HUD’s Regulations
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2015-NY-1002-002-COpenClosed$1,250,417Questioned 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 Director of HUD’s New York Office of Public and Indian Housing require Authority officials to provide supporting documents for the proper use of $1,250,417 in sale proceeds from the scattered-site properties. Any amounts not supported or found to be improperly used should be repaid to the homeownership program from non-Federal funds.
2015-FW-1801 | October 02, 2014
The Management of the Housing Authority of the City of Taylor, Taylor, TX, Did Not Exercise Adequate Oversight of Its Programs
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2015-FW-1801-001-COpenClosed$2,032,266Funds 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.
Require the Authority to take action to reclaim its properties valued at $2,032,266 to improve its financial position, decrease its reliance on HUD program funding, and address its comingling issues.
- Status2015-FW-1801-001-DOpenClosed$243,442Questioned 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.
Require the Authority to determine how much of the $243,442 in salaries for individuals assigned to work at multiple properties was improperly paid with Federal funds and repay the amounts to the appropriate programs from non-Federal funds. If the Authority is unable to accurately determine the amount due to and due from each program or support that the funds charged to the Federal programs were appropriate, the full $243,422 should be repaid to HUD.
- Status2015-FW-1801-001-FOpenClosed$40,600Questioned 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.
Require the Authority to determine whether the Authority improperly used Federal funds totaling $40,600 to make lease payments on the parking lot it already owned. If Federal funds were improperly used, the Authority should repay $40,600 from non-Federal funds to its Federal program accounts. If the Authority is unable to accurately determine the amount due to and due from each program or support that the funds charged to the Federal program were appropriate, the full $40,600 should be repaid to HUD.