Asset Repositioning Fees for Public Housing Authorities with Units Approved for Demolition or Disposition Were Not Always Accurately Calculated
We audited the U.S.
The Jackson Housing Commission, Jackson, MI, Needs To Improve Its Administration of Its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program
We audited the Jackson Housing Commission’s Section 8 program as part of the activities in our fiscal year 2014 annual audit plan. We selected the Commission based on our analysis of the risk factors relating to public housing agencies in Region 5’s jurisdiction. Our objective was to determine whether the Commission administered its program in accordance with HUD’s and its own program requirements. The Commission generally administered its program in accordance with HUD’s and its own requirements with two exceptions. Specifically, it did not always (1) properl
The Boca Raton Housing Authority’s Administration of Its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program Tenant Files Had Some Deficiencies
We performed an audit of the Boca Raton Housing Authority mainly to assess the validity of nine allegations made against the Authority. The primary audit objective was to determine whether the Authority administered its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program tenant files in accordance with the U.S.
The South Landry Housing Authority, Grand Coteau, LA, Did Not Always Comply With Federal Procurement and Financial Requirements, Including a Procurement Using Recovery Act Funds
In accordance with our regional plan to review public housing programs and because of weaknesses identified by the U.S.
The Goshen Housing Authority, Goshen, IN, Failed To Follow HUD’s and Its Own Requirements Regarding the Administration of Its Program
We audited the Goshen Housing Authority’s Section 8 program as part of the activities in our fiscal year 2014 annual audit plan. We selected the Authority based on a request from the U.S.
The Kenner Housing Authority, Kenner, LA, Did Not Administer Its Public Housing and Recovery Act Programs in Accordance With Regulations and Guidance
In accordance with our regional plan to review public housing programs and because of weaknesses identified during a prior audit by the U.S.
The Adams Metropolitan Housing Authority, Manchester, OH, Generally Used Public Housing Program Funds in Accordance With HUD’s and Its Own Requirements
We audited the Adams Metropolitan Housing Authority’s public housing program as part of the activities in our fiscal year 2014 annual audit plan. We selected the Authority based on a request from the U.S.
Authority Officials Did Not Always Follow HUD Requirements
We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Bridgeport, CT, to address complaints and areas that came to our attention during a prior audit. Our objective was determine whether costs charged to Federal housing programs were eligible, reasonable, and supported. Specifically, we determined whether officials properly (1) charged development staff costs, (2) charged Section 8 consulting costs, (3) implemented flat rents, (4) loaned Federal funds, (5) performed renovation work at Greene Homes, and (6) followed conflict of interest rules. Although development st
The Management of the Housing Authority of the City of Beeville, Beeville, TX, Did Not Exercise Adequate Oversight and Allowed Ineligible and Unsupported Costs
In accordance with our regional plan to review public housing programs and as part of our overall risk strategy to review smaller housing authorities, we reviewed the Housing Authority of the City of Beeville, TX. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority operated its public housing and related grant programs in accordance with the U.S.