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.

The State of Connecticut Department of Social Services Significantly Underleased Its Housing Choice Voucher Program and Did Not Always Comply with Its Annual Contributions and HUD Regulations

We initiated this audit as part of the audit plan to determine whether the State of Connecticut Department of Social Services (agency) properly administered its Housing Choice Voucher program (Voucher program) in compliance with its annual contributions contracts and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations.

The Housing Authority of the City of Brighton, Colorado, Did Not Maintain Proper Inventory Records and Improperly Awarded Contracts

We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Brighton, Colorado (Authority) in response to a complaint alleging that it did not have an inventory control system and that it used poor procurement practices. Our audit objectives were to determine whether the Authority had an adequate inventory control system and whether it performed contracting activities in accordance with federal procurement requirements. The Authority did not have complete and accurate inventory records of its fixed assets.

The Housing Authority of the County of Ventura, Payment-in-Lieu-of-Taxes Obligations

We audited the Area Housing Authority of the County of Ventura based on concerns over the Authority's compliance with its annual contributions contract. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority fulfilled its Payment-in-Lieu-of-Taxes obligations for its Low Rent Public Housing program and if not, whether applicable funds were used in accordance with HUD requirements.

The Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, Did Not Adequately Conduct Housing Quality Standards Inspections

We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles' (Authority) Section 8 housing quality standards inspections for its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program. The objective of the audit was to determine whether the Authority adequately enforced HUD's housing quality standards. Using a statistical sample of 68 units, we determined 19 units (28 percent) were in material noncompliance with HUD's housing quality standards, and we found that 43 (63 percent) of the Authority's Section 8 units did not meet housing quality standards.

The Housing Authority of the County of Marin, San Rafael, CA, Did not Correctly Calculate Renant Rents in the Public Housing Program

We audited the Housing Authority of the County of Marin's (Authority) Section 8 funds transfer and public housing program (program) tenant rent calculations. Our objectives were to determine (1) whether the transfer of Section 8 operating reserve funds to the public housing program in fiscal year 2006 was made in compliance with HUD regulations and (2) whether the Authority calculated public housing tenant rents in accordance with HUD requirements.

The Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles, California, Could Not Show That It Used HUD Program Funds in Accordance with HUD Requirements

We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles' (Authority) Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program's financial transactions. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority properly used Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program funds in accordance with HUD rules and regulations for the benefit of its program participants. During the audit, we expanded our scope to include a review of its other HUD programs to determine the extent of its inappropriate interprogram fund transfers.

The Housing Authority of the City of Calexico, Calexico, California, Did Not Comply with Public Housing Program Rules and Regulations

We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Calexico (Authority) in response to a request from our Office of Investigation and the FBI. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority complied with HUD's rules and regulations with respect to its public housing program. We found the Authority improperly used Section 5(h) program funds for the acquisition and operation of the Second Street Apartments.

The Housing Authority of the City of San Buenaventura, San Buenaventura, California, Did Not Manage HUD Program Funds in Accordance with HUD Requirements

We audited the Housing Authority of the City of San Buenaventura (Authority) in response to a hotline complaint alleging mismanagement and misuse of U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funding. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority's financial activities, operations, and controls complied with HUD requirements. We found that the Authority did not use program funds in accordance with the requirements of its Annual Contributions Contract and HUD requirements.

The Housing Authority of the County of San Joaquin, Stockton, California, Did Not Administer Capital Funds in Accordance with HUD Requirements

We reviewed the Housing Authority of the County of San Joaquin's (the Authority) capital fund program to determine whether it used capital funds in accordance with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) rules and regulations. The Authority did not use capital funds in accordance with requirements.

The Housing Authority of the County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, Did Not Adequately Administer Its Section 8 Voucher Program

We audited the Housing Authority of the County of Los Angeles’ (Authority) Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority determined tenant eligibility and performed annual reexaminations in accordance with HUD rules and regulations. Although we did not identify any tenants that were not eligible for the program, the Authority did not comply with HUD’s requirements or its own administrative plan in performing reexaminations.