U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government Here’s how you know

The .gov means it’s official.

Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure.

The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Hotline

Report Fraud, Waste and Abuse
Export
Date Issued
2006-CH-1018 | September 28, 2006

Saginaw Housing Commission, Saginaw, Michigan Improperly Used Public Housing Funds to Purchased Property

Public and Indian Housing

  • 2006-CH-1018-001-A
    $535,903
    Questioned 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 Detroit Office of Public Housing require the Commission to Reimburse its program $535,903 from nonfederal funds ($507,860 for the property purchase plus $28,043 for legal costs) for the improper use of program funds to pay for the property’s acquisition costs.

2006-PH-1013 | September 18, 2006

The Commonwealth of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, Did not Ensure HOME Funds Were Disbursed and Used in Accordance with Federal Regulations

Community Planning and Development

  • 2006-PH-1013-001-B
    $150,000
    Questioned 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 Commonwealth to provide documentation to substantiate the eligibility of $150,000 provided to Southampton or repay the HOME program from nonfederal funds.

2006-BO-0001 | June 11, 2006

HUD Incorrectly Approved $42 Million in Operating Subsidies for Phase-Down for Demolition Add-On Funding

Public and Indian Housing

  • 2006-BO-0001-001-B
    $17,891,782
    Questioned 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.

    Obtain and review support (as identified in recommendation 1D) for $15.1 million in unsupported phase-down funding in fiscal years 2004 and 2005, determine the correct amount of phase-down funding, and require the public housing agencies to reimburse HUD for any ineligible funding received.

  • 2006-BO-0001-001-C
    $32,864,306
    Questioned 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.

    For the overpayments of phase-down funding identified in appendix C, recover $20.6 million in ineligible phase-down funding requests from the public housing agencies for fiscal years 2004 and 2005.

2006-CH-1010 | May 18, 2006

Benton Harbor Housing Commission Public Housing Capital Fund Program, Benton Harbor, Michigan

Public and Indian Housing

  • 2006-CH-1010-001-A
    $206,224
    Questioned 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 Detroit Office of Public Housing require the Commission to provide documentation to support the $206,224 in unsupported program disbursements cited in this finding or reimburse its program from nonfederal funds for the applicable amount.

2005-CH-1020 | September 29, 2005

Housing Authority of the City of Gary Section 8 Housing Program, Gary, IN

Public and Indian Housing

  • 2005-CH-1020-004-A
    $812,967
    Questioned 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 Public Housing Hub, Cleveland Field Office, require the Authority to provide support or reimburse its Section 8 program $812,967 ($738,708 in housing assistance payments plus $74,259 in related administrative fees) from nonfederal funds for unsupported housing assistance payments and unearned administrative fees related to the 65 tenants cited in this finding.

2005-AT-1013 | September 15, 2005

Corporacion para el Fomento EcoNmico de la Ciudad Capital, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Did not Administer Its Independent Capital Fund in Accordance with HUD Requirements.

Community Planning and Development

  • 2005-AT-1013-002-A
    $1,011,801
    Questioned 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 Municipality to obtain and submit all supporting documentation and HUD determine the eligibility and propriety of $1,011,801 in administrative costs the Corporation charged to the Block Grant revolving fund. Any amounts determined ineligible must be reimbursed to the Block Grant program from nonfederal funds.

  • 2005-AT-1013-003-A
    $631,195
    Questioned 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 Municipality to obtain and submit all supporting documentation and HUD determine the eligibility and compliance with national objectives of the $631,195 the Corporation disbursed for the four loans. Any amounts determined ineligible must be reimbursed to the Block Grant program from nonfederal funds.

2005-CH-1003 | November 29, 2004

Royal Oak Township Housing Commission, Public Housing Program, Ferndale, Michigan

Public and Indian Housing

  • 2005-CH-1003-001-A
    $367,516
    Questioned 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 HUD’s Director of Public Housing Hub, Detroit Field Office, assure the Royal Oak Township Housing Commission: Reimburse its Public Housing Program $367,516 from non-Federal funds for the improper use of HUD operating subsidy funds cited in this finding.

  • 2005-CH-1003-002-A
    $45,220
    Questioned 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 HUD’s Director of Public Housing Hub, Detroit Field Office, assure the Royal Oak Township Housing Commission: Reimburse its Public Housing Program $45,220 from non-Federal funds for the operating subsidy that was not used in accordance with HUD's One Strike Policy.

  • 2005-CH-1003-002-C
    $3,340
    Questioned 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 HUD’s Director of Public Housing Hub, Detroit Field Office, assure the Royal Oak Township Housing Commission: Reimburse its Public Housing Program $3,340 from non-Federal funds for thee ineligible travel costs.

2004-AT-1006 | April 22, 2004

Puerto Rico Public Housing Administration, San Juan, Puerto Rico

Public and Indian Housing

  • 2004-AT-1006-001-B
    $4,230,646
    Questioned 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 PRPHA to submit all supporting documentation and determine the accuracy of the $4,230,646 owed by PBA and its public housing management agents. Any amounts determined ineligible must be reimbursed to the ACC projects, from non-Federal funds.

2004-BO-1002 | November 04, 2003

Family Living Adult Care Center FHA Project Number 024-22019 Biddeford and Saco, Maine

Housing

  • 2004-BO-1002-001-A
    $2,687,822
    Questioned 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.

    Recover from owner $2,687,822, the difference between $3,662,822 owed to HUD by owner and $975,000 proceeds of foreclosure sale.

2003-CH-1019 | July 25, 2003

Section 8 Housing Program

Public and Indian Housing

  • 2003-CH-1019-002-A
    $42,206
    Questioned 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.

    Reimburses its Section 8 Voucher Program $42,206 from non-Federal funds for the ineligible costs cited in this finding.

  • 2003-CH-1019-002-B
    $1,672
    Questioned 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.

    Provides documentation to support the $1,672 of unsupported payments cited in this finding. If documentation cannot be provided, then the Authority should reimburse its Section 8 Voucher Program from non-Federal funds for the amount that cannot be supported.

2003-CH-1014 | March 28, 2003

Coshocton Metropolitan Housing Authority Public Housing Program

Public and Indian Housing

  • 2003-CH-1014-002-A
    $72,329
    Questioned 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.

    Provides documentation to support the $72,329 of unsupported salaries and wages cited in this finding. If documentation cannot be provided, the Authority should reimburse its Public Housing Program the appropriate amount from non-Federal funds.

2003-CH-1011 | March 24, 2003

Coshocton Metropolitan Housing Authority Comprehensive Improvement Assistance Program

Public and Indian Housing

  • 2003-CH-1011-001-A
    $287,224
    Questioned 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.

    Ensures that the $287,224 of housing work cited in this finding is completed correctly using non-federal funds. If the Authority is unable to ensure the work is completed correctly, then the Authority should reimburse its Comprehensive Assistance Improvement Program (now the Capital Fund Program) from non-Federal funds the applicable amount of work not completed correctly or not provided.

2002-PH-1005 | September 30, 2002

Philadelphia Regional Alliance of HUD Tenants, OTAG and ITAG, Philadelphia PA

Housing

  • 2002-PH-1005-001-D
    $23,422
    Questioned 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 HUD for the $23,422 ineligible expenditures charged to the grant.

2001-AT-1001 | October 20, 2000

Housing Authority of the City of Miami Beach, Miami Beach, Florida

Public and Indian Housing

  • 2001-AT-1001-001-A
    $795,178
    Questioned 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.

    Obtain additional supporting documentation or recover from city $795,178 paid for police protection, recreation and code enforcement activities.

Displaying 3041 - 3059 of 3059 Recommendations