Independent Attestation Review: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, DATA Act Readiness Review
The Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act), and implementing guidance provided in the Office of Management and Budget Memorandum M-15-12, is a mandate that Federal agencies must follow to report their financial, budgetary and programmatic information to the USASpending.gov web site. We have reviewed the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) compliance efforts as of July 15, 2016. To…
August 26, 2016
Memorandum
#2016-FO-0802
The Housing Authority of the City of Muncie, Muncie, IN, Did Not Always Comply With HUD’s Requirements and Its Own Policies Regarding the Administration of Its Housing Choice Voucher Program
We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Muncie’s Housing Choice Voucher program based on the activities included in our 2016 annual audit plan and our analysis of risk factors related to the public housing agencies in Region 5’s jurisdiction. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority administered its program in accordance with HUD’s and its own requirements.
The Authority did not always administer its program in…
August 23, 2016
Report
#2016-CH-1006
The Housing Authority of the County of Salt Lake Did Not Always Procure Goods and Services in Accordance With Applicable Requirements
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General audited the Housing Authority of the County of Salt Lake Public Housing Capital Fund grants for fiscal years 2011-2014. We initiated this audit due to the amount of funding the Authority received during our review period. The Authority is the highest funded public housing agency in the State of Utah. The objective of our audit was to…
August 17, 2016
Report
#2016-DE-1001
The Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority, Richmond, VA, Did Not Always Charge Eligible and Reasonable Central Office Cost Center Fees
We audited the fees that the Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority charged to its U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) housing programs for central office cost center services based on issues identified during our prior audit of the Authority. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority charged fees to its HUD housing programs for central office cost center services that were eligible, reasonable, and…
August 17, 2016
Report
#2016-PH-1005
The Somerville Housing Authority, Somerville, MA, Did Not Always Support Its Allocation of Costs to Asset Management Projects
We audited the Somerville Housing Authority’s public housing and Public Housing Capital Fund programs as part of our fiscal year 2016 regional audit plan. We initiated our review because the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Boston Office of Public and Indian Housing had not monitored the programs in the past 5 years and we had not audited the Authority in the past 10 years. Our audit objectives were to…
August 12, 2016
Report
#2016-BO-1004
Officials of the Rochester Housing Authority, Rochester, NY, Generally Administered the Housing Choice Voucher Program in Accordance with HUD Regulations
We audited the Rochester Housing Authority’s Housing Choice Voucher program to address our goal to contribute to improving the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) execution of its fiscal responsibilities. We selected this auditee based on a risk analysis of public housing agencies administered by the HUD Buffalo field office, which considered, among other factors, funds received and the number of program housing units…
August 05, 2016
Report
#2016-NY-1008
The Mobile Housing Board Did Not Comply With HUD Regulations for Its Financial Operations
We audited the Mobile Housing Board’s financial operations. We selected the Housing Board based on concerns from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Alabama State Office of Public Housing, following a Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC) financial assessment of the Housing Board for fiscal years 2009 to 2013. The REAC assessment showed that the Housing Board’s financial condition had deteriorated over those…
August 04, 2016
Report
#2016-AT-1010
The Jefferson Metropolitan Housing Authority, Steubenville, OH, Failed To Manage Its Procurements and Contracts in Accordance With HUD's and Its Own Requirements
We audited the Jefferson Metropolitan Housing Authority’s public housing program based on the activities included in our 2016 annual audit plan and a request from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority complied with (1) Federal and its own procurement requirements and (2) HUD’s requirements for the administration of its energy performance contract.
The…
August 03, 2016
Report
#2016-CH-1005
The Housing Authority of the City of Anderson, Anderson, IN, Did Not Always Comply With HUD’s and Its Own Requirements Regarding the Administration of Its Housing Choice Voucher Program
We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Anderson’s Housing Choice Voucher program based on the activities included in our 2016 annual audit plan and our analysis of risk factors related to the public housing agencies in Region 5’s jurisdiction. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority administered its program in accordance with HUD’s and its own requirements.
The Authority did not always administer its program in…
July 28, 2016
Report
#2016-CH-1004
HUD Did Not Ensure That All Costs for Ginnie Mae’s Contract With Burson-Marsteller Were Supported, Reasonable, and Necessary
We audited the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) oversight of the Government National Mortgage Association’s (Ginnie Mae) contract for financial industry and media marketing services with public relations and communications firm Burson-Marsteller. We initiated the audit after we became aware of potential issues regarding the amount of funds used for services, which may not have been reasonable or necessary. …
July 23, 2016
Report
#2016-PH-0002
The Sanford Housing Authority, Sanford, NC, Did Not Comply With Procurement and Financial Requirements
We audited the Sanford Housing Authority’s procurement and financial operations. We selected the Authority based on concerns from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) North Carolina State Office of Public Housing, following a technical assistance review performed. The technical assistance review identified issues with the Authority’s procurement practices and financial operations, among other items. The…
July 19, 2016
Report
#2016-AT-1008
The Administration of Accounting, Inventory, and Procurement of the Bridgeport Housing Authority in Bridgeport, CT, Did Not Always Comply With HUD Regulations
We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Bridgeport, CT, in response to complaints about improper use of funds, procurement irregularities, and inadequate safeguarding of equipment. The audit objective was to determine whether Federal funds were used for eligible and adequately supported costs, procurements were executed in compliance with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations, and the Authority had…
June 27, 2016
Report
#2016-BO-1002
The Richmond Housing Authority, Richmond, CA, Mismanaged Its Financial Operations
We audited the Richmond Housing Authority due to a complaint alleging that the Authority submitted falsified documentation to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and allowed the City of Richmond to use the Authority’s HUD funds and the Authority’s assets and that the City charged the Authority for rent and services at an unreasonable price. Our audit objective was to validate complaint allegations regarding whether…
June 03, 2016
Report
#2016-LA-1006
The Housing Authority of Fort Worth, Fort Worth, TX, Generally Complied With HUD Regulations When Administering Its Housing Choice Voucher Program and Financial Transactions
In accordance with our audit plan to review public housing programs, we reviewed the Housing Authority of Fort Worth, TX. Our objectives were to determine whether the Authority (1) properly administered its U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Housing Choice Voucher program and (2) properly used HUD funds and resources for a related entity, FW Hunter Plaza, LP.
With minor exceptions, the Authority generally…
May 24, 2016
Report
#2016-FW-1002
The Alton Housing Authority, Alton, IL, Improperly Phased In Flat Rents for Its Public Housing Program
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General, audited the Alton Housing Authority because it appeared to have flat rents set at a rate below 80 percent of the fair market rent in that area based on the information available in the Public and Indian Housing Information Center system. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority complied with HUD’s flat rent requirements.
The Authority did…
May 19, 2016
Report
#2016-KC-1004
The Orange County Housing Authority, Santa Ana, CA, Did Not Adequately Monitor Its Contractors' Performance of HUD's Housing Quality Standards Inspections
We audited the Orange County Housing Authority’s monitoring of its contractors’ performance of housing quality standards inspections of its mobility out units due to inadequacies identified in another review of the Authority’s Housing Choice Voucher program’s housing quality standards. The Authority contracted out the administration and housing quality standards inspections for its mobility out housing units, Housing Choice Voucher…
May 13, 2016
Report
#2016-LA-1005
The Housing Authority of the City of Durham, NC, Did Not Adequately Enforce HUD’s and Its Own Housing Quality Control Standards
We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Durham’s Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program’s housing quality standards based on our recent audit of the Authority’s program, during which potential issues with the Authority’s inspections were noted, and as part of our annual audit plan. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority ensured that program units met the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD…
May 10, 2016
Report
#2016-AT-1005
The Richmond Housing Authority, Richmond, CA, Did Not Always Procure Services and Manage Rents in Accordance With HUD Requirements
We audited the Richmond Housing Authority due to a complaint alleging that the Authority violated procurement requirements related to legal and accounting services and wrote off tenant debts improperly. The objective of the audit was to determine whether the Authority procured goods and services and managed tenant rents for its public housing program in accordance with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requirements.…
April 28, 2016
Report
#2016-LA-1004
The Westmoreland County Housing Authority, Greensburg, PA, Did Not Always Ensure That Its Program Units Met Housing Quality Standards and That It Accurately Calculated Housing Assistance Payment Abatements
We audited the Westmoreland County Housing Authority’s Housing Choice Voucher program because the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) authorized it more than $8.7 million in program funding per year in fiscal years 2013 and 2014 and we had not audited its program. This is the second of two audit reports on the Authority’s program. Our objectives in this audit were to determine whether the Authority ensured that…
April 27, 2016
Report
#2016-PH-1002
The Orange County Housing Authority, Santa Ana, CA, Did Not Always Ensure That Housing Units Met HUD’s Housing Quality Standards
We audited the Orange County Housing Authority’s Housing Choice Voucher program’s housing quality standards primarily due to the Orange County district attorney’s investigation into allegations that Authority inspectors conducted personal business during the work day. These allegations resulted in concerns that inspections may not have been thorough to ensure housing units met HUD standards. Our objective was to determine whether…
April 21, 2016
Report
#2016-LA-1003