State Energy Standards (Project Number 2015-OE-0005)
In response to a request made by the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Office of Community Planning and Development (CPD), the Office of Inspector General, Office of Evaluation reviewed State qualified action plans to determine whether States included alternative building standards that are equivalent to Energy Star® building standard. CPD tracks HUD funded new home constructions that meet the Energy Star® building standard as they contribute…
November 19, 2015
Report
#2015-0E-0005
The Housing Authority of the City of Pearsall, TX, Improperly Procured and Paid Its Interim Executive Director
In accordance with the Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) goal to ensure the integrity and soundness of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Public and Indian Housing programs and to follow up on weaknesses identified in another review, we reviewed the Housing Authority of the City of Pearsall, TX, to determine whether it followed Federal procurement and the State of Texas’ requirements when contracting for its interim…
October 02, 2015
Memorandum
#2016-FW-1801
The City of Richmond, CA, Did Not Adequately Support Its Use of HUD-Funded Expenses for Its Filbert Phase 1 and Filbert Phase 2 Activities
We reviewed the City of Richmond’s Filbert Phase 1 and Filbert Phase 2 activities in response to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) San Francisco Office of Community Planning and Development’s and HUD’s Office of Program Enforcement’s concerns over the City’s administration of its HOME Investment Partnerships Program, Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), and CDBG Recovery (CDBG-R) funding of Filbert Phase 1…
September 30, 2015
Memorandum
#2015-LA-1803
The State of Illinois’ Administrator Lacked Adequate Controls Over the State’s Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Program-Funded Projects
We audited the State of Illinois’ Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery program. The audit was part of the activities in our fiscal year 2015 annual audit plan. We selected the State’s program based on a congressional request from the Honorable Mark Kirk to review the State’s awards of program funds under the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act of 2009 for three projects.…
September 30, 2015
Report
#2015-CH-1009
The Housing Authority of the City of Pittsburgh, PA, Did Not Always Make Payments for Outside Legal Services in Compliance With Applicable Requirements
We conducted a review of the Housing Authority of the City of Pittsburgh’s payments for outside legal services in conjunction with an ongoing internal audit of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) oversight of public housing agencies’ expenditures for outside legal services. Our review objective was to determine whether the Authority made payments for outside legal services in compliance with applicable…
September 30, 2015
Memorandum
#2015-PH-1808
Snohomish County Generally Administered Its Community Development Block Grant Entitlement Program in Accordance With HUD Rules and Regulations
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General audited Snohomish County’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) entitlement program because the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), as part of its 2014 monitoring report, noted findings and concerns related to the County’s use of program income. In addition, the County’s 2013 risk assessment concluded that procurement was an…
September 30, 2015
Report
#2015-SE-1002
The Anderson Housing Authority Mismanaged Its Public Housing Program
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) - Office of Inspector General audited the Anderson Housing Authority in Anderson, MO’s participation in HUD’s Office of Public and Indian Housing programs. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority operated its public housing program in accordance with HUD requirements.
The Authority did not operate its public housing program in accordance with HUD requirements.…
September 30, 2015
Report
#2015-KC-1010
The Lanagan Housing Authority Mismanaged Its Public Housing Program
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) - Office of Inspector General audited the Lanagan Housing Authority in Lanagan, MO’s participation in HUD’s Office of Public and Indian Housing programs. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority operated its public housing program in accordance with HUD requirements.
The Authority did not operate its public housing program in accordance with HUD requirements. …
September 30, 2015
Report
#2015-KC-1011
The Pineville Housing Authority Mismanaged Its Public Housing Program
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) - Office of Inspector General audited the Pineville Housing Authority in Pineville, MO’s participation in HUD’s Office of Public and Indian Housing programs. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority operated its public housing program in accordance with HUD requirements.
The Authority did not operate its public housing program in accordance with HUD…
September 30, 2015
Report
#2015-KC-1009
The Housing Authority of the City of Durham, NC, Did Not Always Comply With HUD’s and Its Own Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program Requirements
We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Durham’s Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program based on a hotline citizen complaint and as part of the activities in our fiscal year 2015 annual audit plan. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority administered its program in accordance with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) and its own requirements and whether the complaint was valid.
The Authority…
September 30, 2015
Report
#2015-AT-1011
The Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority, Richmond, VA, Did Not Comply With HUD Requirements When Procuring Services
We audited the Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority’s public housing program based on a request from the Office of Public Housing in the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Richmond, VA, field office. The request was made after media inquiries noted possible fraud, waste, or abuse at the Authority. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority complied with HUD procurement requirements.…
September 30, 2015
Report
#2015-PH-1008
The New Hampshire Housing Finance Authority Administered Its HOME Investment Partnerships Program in Accordance With HUD Requirements
We audited the New Hampshire Housing Finance Authority’s HOME Investment Partnerships Program based on a risk analysis of the Authority’s program that considered the amount of funding and the results of HUD monitoring reviews and because the Office of Inspector General had not reviewed the Authority’s HOME program within the past 10 years. Our audit objective was to determine whether Authority officials administered the HOME program in…
September 30, 2015
Report
#2015-BO-1005
Allocation of Costs to the Waterbury Housing Authority Asset Management Projects Was Generally Supported
We audited the Waterbury Housing Authority’s administration of its asset management projects based on a risk assessment that considered the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) risk assessment and the Authority’s funding and number of asset management units. Our overall audit objective was to determine whether Authority officials ensured that expenses charged to the Authority’s asset management projects complied with…
September 30, 2015
Report
#2015-BO-1004
The Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs Administered Its Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Funds for Infrastructure in Accordance With HUD Requirements
We audited the State of Alabama’s Department of Economic and Community Affairs’ Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) grant. We selected the State for review because it was awarded more than $49 million in funding to recover from the tornadoes of April 2011. Our audit objective was to determine whether the State administered its CDBG-DR funds used for infrastructure to ensure that only eligible applicants…
September 28, 2015
Report
#2015-AT-1010
Veterans First Did Not Administer or Spend Its Supportive Housing Program Grants in Accordance With HUD Requirements
Due to concerns identified by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Office of Community Planning and Development (CPD), we completed a limited scope, spinoff audit of Veterans First and reviewed additional grants not covered in our original audit (2015-LA-1002, issued April16, 2015). CPD was concerned that HUD funds for two additional grants not reviewed in the first audit were used to cover shortfalls in Veterans…
September 25, 2015
Memorandum
#2015-LA-1802
The State of Maryland Could Not Show That Replacement Homes Complied With the Green Building Standard
We audited the State of Maryland’s Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery-funded Housing Recovery program. We conducted the audit because the program was the largest funded program in the State’s first action plan. Our objectives were to determine whether the State (1) assisted eligible applicants, (2) avoided duplicating assistance, (3) incurred eligible expenses that were properly supported, (4) procured services and…
September 25, 2015
Report
#2015-PH-1005
The Housing Authority of the City of South Bend, IN, Did Not Always Comply with HUD Requirements and Its Own Policies Regarding the Administration of Its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program
We audited the Housing Authority of the City of South Bend, IN’s Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program based on our analysis of risk factors related to the public housing agencies in Region 5’s jurisdiction and the activities included in our fiscal year 2015 annual audit plan. Our audit objectives were to determine whether the Authority (1) correctly calculated and paid housing assistance and utility allowances, (2) obtained and…
September 25, 2015
Report
#2015-CH-1008
The Jefferson Metropolitan Housing Authority, Steubenville, OH, Did Not Adequately Enforce HUD’s Housing Quality Standards and Its Own Requirements
We audited the Jefferson Metropolitan Housing Authority’s Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program housing quality standards based on a request from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the activities included in our 2015 annual audit plan. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority conducted thorough housing quality standards inspections of its program units in accordance with HUD’s and its own…
September 24, 2015
Report
#2015-CH-1007
Program Control Weaknesses Lessened Assurance That New York Rising Housing Recovery Program Funds Were Always Disbursed for Eligible Costs
We audited the New York State Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Assistance (CDBG-DR) funded New York Rising Housing Recovery Program to address the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act requirement that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General, monitor the expenditure of CDBG-DR funds. State officials allocated more than $1 billion in CDBG-DR funds to the Housing Recovery…
September 17, 2015
Report
#2015-NY-1011
New York State Did Not Always Administer Its Rising Home Enhanced Buyout Program in Accordance with Federal and State Regulations
We audited the New York Rising Home Enhanced Buyout Program to address the requirement that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General, monitor the expenditure of Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) funds made available by the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act. Our audit objective was to determine whether New York State officials established adequate controls to ensure that…
September 17, 2015
Report
#2015-NY-1010