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. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Indianapolis Office of Public and Indian Housing.  Our objective was to determine whether the Authority administered its program in accordance with HUD’s and its own requirements.  The…

In accordance with our regional plan to review public housing programs and because of weaknesses identified during a prior audit by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of the Inspector General (OIG), we reviewed the public housing programs of the Kenner Housing Authority in Kenner, LA.  Our overall objective was to determine whether the Authority administered its public housing programs in accordance with…

We audited the Municipality of Carolina’s HOME Investment Partnerships Program as part of our strategic plan, based on the amount of HOME funds approved.  The objectives of the audit were to determine whether HOME-funded activities met program objectives, home buyers complied with HOME’s primary residency requirement for the duration of the period of affordability, and the Municipality maintained a financial management system in compliance…

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. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) requirements.  However, we limited…

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…

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. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) management.  Our objective was to determine whether the Authority used public housing program funds in accordance with HUD’s and its own requirements. The Authority generally used…

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General audited the Northeast Oregon Housing Authority.  We selected the Authority because we received a hotline complaint expressing several concerns about the Authority’s procurement, asset disposal, payroll withholdings, maintenance charge rates, and tenant commissioner housing issues.  Our objective was to determine whether the allegations in hotline…

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General audited King County, WA’s Shelter Plus Care program to determine whether King County met the matching requirements for its Shelter Plus Care grants.  We selected King County because it received the most Shelter Plus Care funding in HUD’s Region 10 (Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington). While it was able to provide the necessary service match support…

We completed a review of Palladia, Inc.’s administration of its Supportive Housing Program.  We selected Palladia for review based on a request from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) New York City Office of Community Planning and Development.  The objectives of the audit were to determine whether Palladia officials (1) carried out program-assisted activities with the appropriate beneficiaries, (2) expended…

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development – Office of Inspector General audited Pierce County because it received almost $9 million in total funding in Washington State for its community planning and development grants under the 2011 and 2012 notices of funding availability. The County claimed nearly $242,000 in ineligible matching funds for three HOME projects.  Since these three projects had already received HOME funding and…

We audited the Cumberland Plateau Regional Housing Authority’s HOME Investment Partnerships program because a Russell County, VA, special grand jury investigation resulted in the indictment of four people involved with the Authority’s HOME program.  Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority procured services in accordance with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations and other applicable…

We audited the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Greensboro, NC, Office of Public Housing as part of a nationwide audit of HUD’s oversight of environmental reviews.  We selected the Greensboro Office based on our risk assessment.  Our audit objectives were to determine whether the Greensboro Office of Public Housing ensured that it performed the required reviews and did not release funds until all requirements…

We audited the Moline Housing Authority’s Section 8 program as part of the activities in our fiscal year 2013 annual audit plan.  We selected the Authority based on a citizen’s complaint to our office.  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. The Authority did not always comply with HUD’s…

We audited the Niagara Falls Housing Authority’s HOPE VI grant program based on an Office of Inspector General risk analysis and the amount of funding the Authority received.  The objectives of the audit were to determine whether the Authority administered its HOPE VI grant program and activities in accordance with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and HOPE VI grant program requirements. The Authority did not always…

We audited the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program administered by Hillsborough County, FL, as part of the activities in our 2013 fiscal year annual audit plan.  We selected the County for review based on a complaint referral from the Office of Inspector General’s Office of Investigation on a public complaint alleging the County’s misuse of CDBG funds for the County’s cleanup events.  Our audit objective was to determine…

We audited the White Mountain Apache Housing Authority’s Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG).  We conducted the audit primarily due to concerns raised by HUD’s Southwest Office of Native American Programs regarding the Authority’s financial management practices.  The objective of the audit was to determine whether the Authority used its IHBG funds in accordance with HUD requirements. The Authority failed to use its IHBG funds in…

We audited Monmouth County, NJ’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program based on a risk assessment that considered grantee funding, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) risk analysis, and prior Office of Inspector General (OIG) audit coverage. The objective of the audit was to determine whether County officials established and implemented adequate controls to provide assurance that CDBG funds were expended for…

We audited the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) methodology and monitoring regarding the Office of Public Housing’s asset management fees and central office cost centers due to our concerns over potential misspending by public housing authorities and the lack of restrictions in the use of such funds.  Our objective was to determine how HUD arrived at the asset management fee limits in its Public Housing Operating…

We audited the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Columbia, SC Office of Public Housing as part of a nationwide audit of HUD’s oversight of environmental reviews.  We selected the Columbia Office based on our risk assessment.  Our audit objectives were to determine whether the Columbia Office ensured that it performed the required reviews and did not release funds until all requirements were met and required…

We reviewed the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, (HUD), Office of Public and Indian Housing’s Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) program regarding HUD’s implementation and monitoring.  We initiated our review because there had been no prior Office of Inspector General reviews of the HUD-VASH program.  Our objective was to determine whether HUD’s implementation and monitoring of the program was adequate. …