We recommend that the Director of HUD’s New Orleans Office of Public Housing require the Authority to reimburse its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program $1,223, from non-Federal funds, for the overpayment of housing assistance due to inaccurate calculation.
2019-FW-1006 | August 16, 2019
The Bogalusa Housing Authority, Bogalusa, LA, Did Not Always Administer Its Public Housing Programs in Accordance With Requirements
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2019-FW-1006-002-BOpenClosed$1,223Questioned 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.
- Status2019-FW-1006-002-COpenClosed$2,535Questioned 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 Orleans Office of Public Housing require the Authority to support that the participant is income eligible, considering all adult household members, or repay its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program $2,535 from non-Federal funds.
- Status2019-FW-1006-002-DOpenClosed$709Funds 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 HUD’s New Orleans Office of Public Housing require the Authority to reimburse the appropriate households $709, from non-Federal funds, for the underpayment of housing assistance due to inaccurate calculations.
- Status2019-FW-1006-002-EOpenClosed
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s New Orleans Office of Public Housing require the Authority to correct the deficiencies in the participants’ files as appropriate.
- Status2019-FW-1006-002-FOpenClosed
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s New Orleans Office of Public Housing require the Authority to review and implement procedures and controls to ensure that all Federal requirements and the Authority’s Section 8 administrative plan are followed for (1) supporting household eligibility, (2) performing initial housing quality standards inspections, (3) rent reasonableness assessments, (4) execution of housing assistance payments contracts, and (5) income verifications and calculations.
- Status2019-FW-1006-002-GOpenClosed
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s New Orleans Office of Public Housing require the Authority to develop and implement procedures for (1) conducting annual reviews of the Authority’s payment standard amounts and utility allowances and maintaining adequate supporting documentation, and (2) completing and documenting the criminal history background checks for all adult household members.
- Status2019-FW-1006-002-HOpenClosed
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s New Orleans Office of Public Housing require the Authority to obtain training for its staff to ensure compliance with HUD’s Housing Choice Voucher requirements.
2019-PH-1004 | August 14, 2019
The Housing Authority of the City of Annapolis, MD, Did Not Always Properly Administer Its Housing Choice Voucher Program
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2019-PH-1004-001-AOpenClosed
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Baltimore Office of Public Housing direct the Authority to update its administrative plan to clearly define the weights or rankings of its waiting list preference system.
- Status2019-PH-1004-001-BOpenClosed
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Baltimore Office of Public Housing direct the Authority to develop and implement controls to ensure that it administers its waiting list according to the requirements in its administrative plan, including maintaining documentation to show that it properly selected applicants from the waiting list.
- Status2019-PH-1004-001-COpenClosed
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Baltimore Office of Public Housing direct the Authority to develop and implement procedures to ensure that it maintains documentation to show that it admitted eligible families into the program.
- Status2019-PH-1004-001-DOpenClosed
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Baltimore Office of Public Housing direct the Authority to update its administrative plan to establish the timeframe during which an applicant must not have engaged in criminal activity before it will admit the applicant into the program.
2019-AT-1005 | August 09, 2019
The Municipality of Yauco, PR, Did Not Always Administer Its CDBG Program in Accordance With HUD Requirements
Community Planning and Development
- Status2019-AT-1005-001-COpenClosed$1,641Funds 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 Municipality to return to its line of credit and put to better use $1,641 associated with the unspent program funds that have been carried over since December 2017.
- Status2019-AT-1005-001-DOpenClosed$106Questioned 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 CDBG program from non-Federal funds the $106 paid for ineligible bank penalties.
2019-BO-1003 | August 05, 2019
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Did Not Always Ensure That Its Grantees Complied With Applicable State and Federal Laws and Requirements
Community Planning and Development
- Status2019-BO-1003-001-AOpenClosed$665,920Questioned 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 non-Federal funds the $665,920 in ineligible costs charged to the program
- Status2019-BO-1003-001-BOpenClosed$494,517Questioned 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 that 14 projects, with $494,517 in construction costs, met the environmental review requirements and repay from non-Federal funds any amounts attributed to projects that cannot be certified.
- Status2019-BO-1003-001-COpenClosed
Provide additional guidance to their grantees and strengthen controls to ensure that tier two environmental reviews are performed and properly conducted and signed by the responsible entity before committing program funds.
- Status2019-BO-1003-001-DOpenClosed$401,870Questioned 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 $401,870 for contracts that were awarded without an independent cost estimate or repay from non-Federal funds any amount that cannot be supported.
- Status2019-BO-1003-001-EOpenClosed
Provide additional guidance to their grantees and strengthen controls over procurement to ensure that grantees follow applicable State and Federal procurement requirements, including obtaining independent cost estimates and ensuring full and open competition.
- Status2019-BO-1003-001-FOpenClosed
Define which expenses should be considered program delivery costs and strengthen controls over program costs to ensure that costs are properly charged.
2019-PH-1003 | August 02, 2019
PK Management, LLC, Richmond Heights, OH, Did Not Always Maintain Documentation Required to Support Housing Assistance Payments
Housing
- Status2019-PH-1003-001-AOpenClosed$497,762Questioned 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 housing assistance payments the projects received totaling $497,762 or reimburse HUD from nonproject funds for any amount that it cannot support.