HUD OIG performed a review of selected transactions at the Wilmington Housing Authority (Authority) in conjunction with our review of a citizen’s hotline complaint. Among other concerns, the complainant alleged that the Authority misused U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funds in conjunction with its purchase of Eastbrook Apartments in September 2005. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority misused HUD funds in its purchase of either Eastbrook Apartments or a tract of vacant land known locally as the “Winfield Smith” property.

In accordance with our goal to review funds provided under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's Office of Inspector General conducted a capacity review of the Benton Harbor Housing Commission’s (Commission) operations. We selected the Commission based upon the results of our audit of the Commission’s Public Housing Capital Fund (Capital Fund) program (see Office of Inspector General audit report #2006-CH-1010, issued May 18, 2006).

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Office of Inspector General audited the Michigan State Housing Development Authority’s (Authority) Section 8 Project-Based Voucher program (program). The audit was part of the activities in our fiscal year 2010 annual audit plan. We selected the Authority’s program based upon our analysis of the housing authorities’ programs in Region V’s jurisdiction and as part of our internal audit of HUD’s oversight of the program.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Office of Inspector General audited the Grand Rapids Housing Commission’s (Commission) Section 8 Project-Based Voucher program (program). The audit was part of the activities in our fiscal year 2009 annual audit plan. We selected the Commission’s program based upon our internal audit survey of HUD’s oversight of the program and our analysis of risk factors relating to the housing agencies in Region V’s jurisdiction.

We audited the Elkton Housing Authority (Authority) because it received Public Housing Capital Fund Recovery Act grant (grant) funding as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). Our objective was to determine whether the Authority obligated and disbursed capital funds received under the Recovery Act according to the requirements of the act and applicable U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) rules and regulations. The Authority did not comply with HUD regulations in obligating and disbursing capital funds.

We audited the Housing Authority of Baltimore City’s (Authority) administration of its Public Housing Capital Fund grants that it received under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). We selected the Authority for audit because it received a $32.7 million formula grant, which was the largest formula grant awarded in the State of Maryland. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority administered capital funds provided under the Recovery Act according to the requirements of the Recovery Act and applicable U.S.

We audited the Boston, MA, Housing Authority (Authority) because it was awarded more than $33 million in Capital Fund Recovery Grant funds under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) and obligated the majority of the grant shortly before the required obligation deadline. Our objectives were to determine whether the Authority (1) obligated the capital fund grant funds it received under the Recovery Act for eligible projects, (2) properly supported obligations, and (3) had adequate management controls governing its obligation process.

We conducted this audit as part of the Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) annual goals for audits of the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher (Voucher) and low-income public housing (low-income) programs. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Waltham Housing Authority (Authority) employed acceptable management and financial practices to efficiently and effectively administer the use of Voucher and low-income program funds in compliance with its annual contributions contracts and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requirements.

We audited the Section 8 Project-Based Voucher program operated by the State of Massachusetts, Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD), as part of our annual audit plan. Our objective was to determine whether the DHCD properly administered its Project-Based Voucher program in compliance with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requirements. The DHCD generally administered its program in compliance with HUD requirements.

We audited the Housing Authority of Whitesburg, Kentucky (Authority) pursuant to a request by the director of the Office of Public Housing, Kentucky State Office. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority properly accounted for cash receipts and disbursements, and made procurements in accordance with federal requirements. The Authority badly mismanaged its operations. It did not properly account for rental receipts of about $134,889.