Review of the Circumstances Concerning the Abrupt Departure of the Executive Director of the Philadelphia Housing Authority, Philadelphia, PA, and the Potential Improper Use of HUD Funds
We conducted a limited scope review of the Philadelphia Housing Authority based on questions surrounding the abrupt departure of the Authority’s executive director in June 2012. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority’s executive director improperly used U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funds by providing improper gifts or unsupported promotions to a senior staff member with whom he had an improper…
January 09, 2013
Memorandum
#2013-PH-1801
The Hoboken Housing Authority, Hoboken, NJ, Generally Administered the Recovery Act Capital Fund Program in Accordance With Regulations
We audited the Hoboken, NJ, Housing Authority’s administration of its Recovery Act Capital Fund program in support of HUD OIG’s audit plan goals to oversee Recovery Act-funded activity and improve HUD’s execution of and accountability for its fiscal responsibilities. We selected the Authority based on a risk assessment, which considered the Authority’s funding, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) risk analysis, and…
January 03, 2013
Report
#2013-NY-1002
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Real Estate Assessment Center Did Not Always Ensure That Independent Public Accountants Followed Statement on Auditing Standards 99 Requirements
The U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General audited HUD’s Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC) to determine whether it ensured that independent auditors followed Statement on Auditing Standards (SAS) 99 audit requirements.
REAC did not always ensure that independent auditors followed SAS 99 requirements. It did not identify deficiencies in 10 of the 11 deficient engagements we reviewed. For the one…
September 28, 2012
Report
#2012-KC-0005
HUD’s Office of Native American Programs Did Not Provide Adequate Oversight To Ensure Grantee Compliance With Annual Audit Report Submission Requirements
We completed a review of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Office of Native American Programs’ (ONAP) annual audit reporting process primarily in response to complaints that ONAP did not take appropriate enforcement action for two grantees that failed to submit required annual audits. Our objective was to determine whether ONAP provided adequate oversight of its grantees nationwide to ensure grantee compliance with…
September 28, 2012
Report
#2012-LA-0005
The Flint Housing Commission, Flint, MI, Did Not Always Administer Its Grants in Accordance With Recovery Act, HUD's, and Its Own Requirements
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General audited the Flint Housing Commission’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Public Housing Capital Fund competitive grants. We selected the Commission based upon our analysis of risk factors relating to the housing agencies in Region 5’s jurisdiction. Our objective was to determine whether the Commission administered its grants in accordance with…
September 27, 2012
Report
#2012-CH-0013
The Saginaw Housing Commission, Saginaw, MI, Did Not Always Administer Its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program in Accordance With HUD’s and Its Own Requirements
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of the Inspector General (OIG) audited the Saginaw Housing Commission’s Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program. The audit was part of the activities in our fiscal year 2012 annual audit plan. We selected the Commission based upon our previous audits of its use of Federal funds and a request from HUD management to perform a comprehensive review of its programs. Our objective…
September 27, 2012
Report
#2012-CH-1012
The Stark Metropolitan Housing Authority, Canton, OH, Did Not Always Administer Its Grant in Accordance With Recovery Act, HUD’s, and Its Own Requirements
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of the Inspector General (OIG) audited the Stark Metropolitan Housing Authority’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Public Housing Capital Fund stimulus formula grant as part of the activities in our fiscal year 2012 annual audit plan. We selected the Authority based upon risk factors related to the housing agencies in Region 5’s Region 5 includes the States of Illinois,…
September 27, 2012
Report
#2012-CH-1011
The Allegheny County Housing Authority, Pittsburgh, PA, Needs To Improve Its Inspections To Ensure That All Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Units Meet Housing Quality Standards
We audited the Allegheny County Housing Authority’s Housing Choice Voucher program because (1) the Authority received more than $27.3 million in Housing Choice Voucher funding in fiscal year 2011, (2) an article in the October 22, 2011, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette described housing quality standards problems with a housing unit participating in the Authority’s program, and (3) we had never audited the Authority’s Housing Choice Voucher program. The…
September 21, 2012
Report
#2012-PH-1012
HUD Did Not Ensure Public Housing Agencies' Use of Property Insurance Recoveries Met Program Requirements
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of the Inspector General (OIG) audited HUD’s Public Housing Capital Fund program and American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act) Capital Fund program monitoring procedures because it was included in our annual audit plan and was prompted by a prior external audit (OIG audit report 2011-LA-1802, issued May 5, 2011). Our objective was to determine whether HUD’s Capital…
September 21, 2012
Report
#2012-LA-0004
The Wichita, KS, Housing Authority Did Not Always Properly Administer Its Housing Choice Voucher Program
The U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General audited the Wichita, KS, Housing Authority’s Housing Choice Voucher program. We selected the Authority for review because it received more than $12 million in Section 8 funding in both 2011 and 2010. Also, it is one of the largest housing authorities in Kansas and had not been reviewed by HUD OIG. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority…
September 19, 2012
Report
#2012-KC-1005
The Buffalo, NY, Municipal Housing Authority Did Not Always Administer Its Recovery Act Capital Fund Program in Accordance With HUD Requirements
We audited the Buffalo Municipal Housing Authority’s Public Housing Capital Fund Stimulus (Formula) program funded under the Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 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 Authority officials (1) procured contracts in accordance with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)…
September 12, 2012
Report
#2012-NY-1012
HUD Did Not Effectively Oversee and Manage the Receivership of the East St. Louis Housing Authority
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD), Office of Inspector General reviewed HUD’s receivership of the East St. Louis Housing Authority based on the length of receivership and issues identified during recent external audits. Our objective was to determine whether HUD effectively oversaw and managed the recovery and turnaround of the Authority during the three-year period ending in September 2011.
HUD did not effectively…
September 05, 2012
Report
#2012-KC-0003
The Aurora Housing Authority, Aurora, IL, Did Not Administer Its Grant in
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General audited the Aurora Housing Authority’s Recovery Act formula grant. The audit was part of the activities in our fiscal year 2012 annual audit plan. We selected the Authority based upon our analysis of risk factors related to the housing agencies in Region V’s (see footnote) jurisdiction. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority administered its grant…
September 05, 2012
Report
#2012-CH-1010
The State of Washington Generally Complied With Lead Hazard Control Grant and Recovery Act Requirements but Charged Excessive Administrative Costs
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General audited the Washington State Department of Commerce to determine whether it complied with Lead Hazard Control grant project eligibility, matching contribution, administrative cost, and American Recovery and Reinvestment Act reporting requirements. This audit is part of the national mandate to monitor grant activities funded by the Recovery Act. We selected…
August 09, 2012
Report
#2012-SE-1005
The Hammond Housing Authority, Hammond, IN, Did Not Administer Its Recovery Act Grants in Accordance With Recovery Act, HUD’s, and Its Own Requirements
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General audited the Hammond Housing Authority’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Public Housing Capital Fund Stimulus formula and competitive grants. The audit was part of the activities in our fiscal year 2012 annual audit plan. We selected the Authority based upon our analysis of risk factors related to the housing agencies in Region V’s jurisdiction. Our…
August 03, 2012
Report
#2012-CH-1009
Most Allegations Against the Oakland Housing Authority, Related to Housing Quality Standards Inspection Services, Were Generally Not Valid
We completed a review of the Oakland Housing Authority in response to a hotline complaint alleging that the Authority engaged in various questionable functions involving its inspection services. The objective of the review was to determine whether the complaint allegations against the Authority were valid.
Most of the allegations against the Authority were generally not valid. However, we found indications that 13 of the 19 housing units…
August 03, 2012
Report
#2012-LA-1009
The Section Eight Management Assessment Program Lacked Adequate Controls To Accomplish Its Objective
As part of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) annual plan, we audited HUD’s controls over the Section Eight Management Assessment Program (SEMAP). Our objective was to determine whether HUD had adequate controls to ensure that SEMAP effectively assessed public housing agencies’ Section 8 administration.
HUD had not developed adequate controls to ensure that SEMAP would be effective…
August 03, 2012
Report
#2012-AT-0001
The Jefferson Parish Housing Authority Marrero, LA, Violated Federal Regulations
We audited the Jefferson Parish Housing Authority as part of our annual audit plan to review public housing programs. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority operated in accordance with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) and other requirements. Specifically, we wanted to determine whether the Authority (1) complied with procurement requirements and (2) ensured that its expenditures were eligible and…
July 30, 2012
Report
#2012-AO-1002
The Housing Authority of the City of Mineral Wells, TX, Had Errors in the Administration of Its Recovery Act Public Housing Capital Fund Grant
To meet the Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) objective to review funds provided under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and at HUD's suggestion, we reviewed the Housing Authority of the City of Mineral Wells Public Housing Capital Fund Stimulus (formula) Recovery Act funded activities. Specifically, our objectives were to determine whether the Authority followed the Recovery Act rules and regulations when obligating and…
June 29, 2012
Report
#2012-FW-1010
The Gonzales, TX, Housing Authority Generally Followed Recovery Act Public Housing Capital Fund Requirements
We audited the Gonzales Housing Authority’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Public Housing Capital Fund formula grant because it met the Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) most recent audit plan objective to contribute to the oversight objectives of the Recovery Act and the San Antonio Office of Public Housing recommended it for audit. Our objectives were to determine whether the Authority (1) properly obligated and spent its…
June 18, 2012
Report
#2012-FW-1009