The Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, Reno, NV Did Not Always Comply With HUD Procurement Regulations
We audited the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony based on a complaint alleging the misuse of U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funds due to improper procurement activities. The objective of the audit was to determine the validity of the complaint and whether the Colony used its Indian Housing Block Grant and Indian Community Development Block Grant funds in accordance with HUD requirements.
The complaint allegations had merit…
February 09, 2016
Report
#2016-LA-1001
The Westmoreland County Housing Authority, Greensburg, PA, Did Not Properly Manage Its Housing Choice Voucher Waiting List and Select Applicants as Required
We audited the Westmoreland County Housing Authority’s Housing Choice Voucher program. We selected the Authority for audit because the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) authorized it more than $8.7 million in program funding per year for fiscal years 2013 and 2014 and we had not audited its program. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority managed its waiting list and selected families in…
January 12, 2016
Report
#2016-PH-1001
Buildings at Three Public Housing Authorities Did Not Have Flood Insurance Before Hurricane Sandy
We evaluated public housing authorities (PHA) that did not have flood insurance before Hurricane Sandy to determine why some buildings were not insured as required. Flood insurance is necessary to ensure that PHAs remain financially viable, continue to provide safe and habitable housing to low-income residents, and minimize costs to taxpayers for keeping public housing units operational.
We identified three PHAs with some buildings in a flood…
December 20, 2015
Report
#2015-OE-0007S
The Lansing Housing Commission, Lansing, MI, Did Not Always Comply With HUD’s Requirements and Its Own Policies Regarding the Administration of Its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program
We audited the Lansing Housing Commission’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 2015 annual audit plan. Our audit objectives were to determine whether the Commission (1) appropriately calculated housing assistance payments, (2) maintained eligibility documentation required to support the…
December 15, 2015
Report
#2016-CH-1002
The Virgin Islands Housing Authority, St. Thomas, VI, Did Not Adequately Enforce HUD’s Housing Quality Standards
We audited the Virgin Islands Housing Authority’s Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program’s housing quality standards as part of the activities in our fiscal year 2015 audit plan. We selected the Authority because it had a large program receiving more than $14 million in 2014. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority’s inspection process adequately ensured that its units complied with housing quality standards.
The…
December 07, 2015
Report
#2016-AT-1001
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 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
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
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 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
Very Small and Small Housing Agencies Reviewed Had Common Violations of Requirements
In accordance with our regional audit plan, we performed a number of reviews of very small and small housing agencies located in the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Region 6 jurisdiction. We worked with HUD’s Office of Public and Indian Housing (PIH) and Departmental Enforcement Center and the Office of the Inspector General’s (OIG) Office of Investigation to identify housing agencies with areas of concern. …
September 16, 2015
Memorandum
#2015-FW-0802
The Cambridge Housing Authority Appropriately Handled Exception Payments
We conducted a limited review of the Cambridge Housing Authority’s Moving to Work Housing Choice Voucher Program’s use of exception payment standards. This program allows public housing authorities to use exception payment standards to set rental payments in excess of the payment standard established for an authority’s rents . The review was initiated as a result of a concern raised by a member of Congress about whether public…
September 16, 2015
Memorandum
#2015-BO-1801
The Duson Housing Authority, Duson, LA, Failed To Administer Its Public Housing Program in Accordance With HUD Requirements
The Duson Housing Authority failed to administer its public housing programs in accordance with HUD regulations and other requirements. Specifically, it did not maintain (1) its units and property grounds or perform annual unit inspections, (2) auditable files, (3) adequate documentation to support tenant childcare and medical expense deductions and utility allowances, and (4) its waiting list properly. This condition occurred…
September 11, 2015
Memorandum
#2015-FW-1808
The Fresno Housing Authority’s Procurement of Goods and Services Did Not Always Comply With HUD Regulations
We audited the Fresno Housing Authority due to a complaint alleging that the Authority steered contracts, did not seek competition for all of its required procurements, and did not maintain adequate supporting documentation. The objective of the audit was to determine whether the Authority used its operating and capital funds in accordance with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requirements when procuring goods and…
September 11, 2015
Report
#2015-LA-1007
The Jefferson Metropolitan Housing Authority, Steubenville, OH, Did Not Always Ensure That Its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program Files Complied With HUD’s and Its Own Requirements
We audited the Jefferson Metropolitan Housing Authority’s Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program 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 objectives were to determine whether the Authority (1) appropriately calculated housing assistance payments, (2) maintained required eligibility documentation to support the admission and…
September 09, 2015
Report
#2015-CH-1004