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
HUD Information Technology (IT) Modernization Report
Office of Evaluation, IT Evaluation Division (iTED) conducted an evaluation of HUD’s IT Modernization program, which included reviews on the implementation and maturity of HUD’s capital planning and investment control (CIPIC) process and Enterprise Architecture (EA) program. With the corroboration of HUD’s Office of Chief Information Officer (OCIO), the report focuses on three major IT programs and policies within the CPIC and EA programs: IT…
September 30, 2015
Report
#2015-OE-0002
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
HUD Did Not Complete an Adequate Front-End Risk Assessment for the Rental Assistance Demonstration
We audited the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Rental Assistance Demonstration. We initiated the audit under the HUD Office of Inspector General’s annual audit plan. Our objective was to determine whether HUD had adequate controls over the Demonstration, to include (1) an appropriate completion of a risk assessment that adequately evaluated the following risks: (a) the need for additional administrative…
September 03, 2015
Report
#2015-AT-0003
The Housing Authority of the City of Victoria, TX, Allowed Improper and Unsupported Payments
In accordance with our regional plan to review public housing programs and as part of our overall risk strategy, we reviewed the Housing Authority of the City of Victoria, 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 our review to determining whether the…
September 02, 2015
Report
#2015-FW-1005
The Fairmont Housing Authority Did Not Fully Comply With Procurement Requirements and Spent Funds for Ineligible Expenses
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) – Office of Inspector General audited the Fairmont Housing Authority in Fairmont, NE, regarding its procurement and expenditures for its HUD, Office of Public and Indian Housing programs. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority followed HUD rules and regulations and its own policies and procedures for procurement and expenditures.
The Authority did not properly…
September 01, 2015
Report
#2015-KC-1008
Brown County Housing Authority, Green Bay, WI, Did Not Always Ensure That Its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program Files Complied With HUD’s and Its Own Requirements
We audited the Brown County Housing Authority’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) appropriately calculated housing assistance payments and (2) maintained required eligibility documentation…
August 28, 2015
Report
#2015-CH-1003
HUD's Office of Public Housing Investments Could Improve Its Oversight of the Chicago Housing Authority's Exception Payment Standards Under Its Moving to Work Housing Choice Voucher Program
We reviewed the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) oversight of the Chicago Housing Authority’s Moving to Work program based on a congressional request from former Congressman Aaron Schock and media attention regarding the Authority’s exception payment standards. Our objective was to determine whether HUD provided adequate oversight of the Authority’s Moving to Work exception payment standards.
HUD’s Office of Public…
August 26, 2015
Memorandum
#2015-CH-0802
The Detroit Housing Commission, Detroit, MI, Did Not Always Manage Its Program Projects in Accordance With HUD’s Requirements
We audited the Detroit Housing Commission’s Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Program as part of the activities in our fiscal year 2015 annual audit plan. We selected the Commission based upon a citizen’s complaint alleging mismanagement in the administration of the Commission’s former program projects, Colony Arms and Fisher Arms Apartments. Our audit objectives were to determine whether the Commission appropriately (1) maintained…
August 26, 2015
Report
#2015-CH-1002