Provide technical assistance and guidance to the Authority to ensure that it properly administers its Family Self-Sufficiency program.
2017-CH-1002 | July 07, 2017
The Youngstown Metropolitan Housing Authority, Youngstown, OH, Did Not Always Comply With HUD’s and Its Own Requirements Regarding the Administration of Its Housing Choice Voucher Program
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2017-CH-1002-001-OOpenClosed
- Status2017-CH-1002-002-AOpenClosed$34,666Questioned 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 $34,666 from non-Federal funds ($21,990 $12,676 in administrative fees) for the overpayment of housing assistance due to inappropriate calculations of housing assistance.
- Status2017-CH-1002-002-BOpenClosed$1,265Funds 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 $1,265 from program funds for the underpayment of housing assistance due to inappropriate calculations.
- Status2017-CH-1002-002-COpenClosed$9,644Questioned 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 $9,644 from non-Federal funds for the overpayment of housing assistance due to unreported or underreported income.
- Status2017-CH-1002-002-DOpenClosed$1,666Questioned 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 $1,666 from non-Federal funds for the unsupported payments of housing assistance cited in this finding.
- Status2017-CH-1002-002-EOpenClosed$322,550Funds 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) repayment agreements are created to recover overpaid housing assistance when unreported income is discovered during the examination process, and (3) annual reexaminations are completed in a timely manner to ensure that $322,550 in program funds is appropriately used for future payments.
2017-FW-1008 | June 28, 2017
The Weslaco Housing Authority, Weslaco, TX, Paid Travel Costs That Did Not Comply With Federal, State, and Local Requirements
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2017-FW-1008-001-AOpenClosed$11,172Questioned 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 San Antonio Office of Public Housing require the Authority to repay from non-Federal funds $11,172 paid for ineligible travel costs of which $6,904 was Housing Choice Voucher and $4,268 was operating subsidy funds.
- Status2017-FW-1008-001-BOpenClosed$2,946Questioned 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 San Antonio Office of Public Housing require the Authority to repay from non-Federal funds $2,946 paid for excessive lodging rates, extra trip days, and car rental costs of which $1,214 was Housing Choice Voucher and $1,732 was operating subsidy funds.
- Status2017-FW-1008-001-COpenClosed$9,020Questioned 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 San Antonio Office of Public Housing require the Authority to support or repay its HUD programs from non-Federal funds $9,020 for unsupported meals, incidental expenses, lodging costs, and travel for training of which $2,978 was Housing Choice Voucher and $6,041 was operating subsidy funds.
- Status2017-FW-1008-001-DOpenClosed
We recommend that the Director of the San Antonio Office of Public Housing require the Authority to adopt policies and procedures that contain current Federal and State guidance.
- Status2017-FW-1008-001-EOpenClosed
We recommend that the Director of the San Antonio Office of Public Housing require the Authority to provide training to commissioners and employees on travel requirements and their responsibilities and duties.
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-AOpenClosed$542,289Funds 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.
Deobligate $542,289 in fiscal year 2015 capital funds in HUD’s system until binding agreements are executed for eligible and reasonable purposes, or coordinate with HUD for terminating its funding.
- Status2017-AT-1006-002-BOpenClosed$398,022Funds 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.
Reclassify $398,022 in fiscal year 2016 capital funds as authorized in HUD’s system to an eligible and reasonable activity, or coordinate with HUD for terminating its funding.
- Status2017-AT-1006-002-COpenClosed$217,553Funds 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.
Coordinate with HUD for terminating the allocation of the remaining $217,553 funds given the Authority’s current intentions to not build or purchase public housing units.
- Status2017-AT-1006-002-DOpenClosed
Develop and implement adequate procedures and controls to ensure that the reporting of allocated capital funds in HUD’s system is accurate.
- Status2017-AT-1006-002-EOpenClosed
Provide adequate training to staff responsible for making entries into HUD’s system to ensure accurate reporting on allocated funds. The training should include but not be limited to ensuring that its staff understands all of HUD’s reporting requirements for obligations and authorizations.
- Status2017-AT-1006-002-FOpenClosed
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-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.