The Philadelphia Housing Authority Needs To Improve Oversight Of Lead-Based Paint In Its Public Housing
We audited the Philadelphia Housing Authority’s (Authority) management of lead‐based paint in its public housing program based on our assessment of the risks of lead‐based paint in public housing agencies’ (PHA) housing developments. The risk factors included the age of buildings, the number of units, household demographics, reported cases of childhood lead poisoning, and reports of missing lead‐based paint inspections in HUD’s data. The…
March 22, 2023
Report
#2023-CH-1001
The Philadelphia Housing Authority, Philadelphia, PA, Did Not Comply With Procurement and Conflict-of-Interest Requirements
We audited the Philadelphia, PA, Housing Authority’s use of public housing program operating funds because we received a complaint alleging that the Authority misused U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funds. Our objective was to determine whether allegations from the complaint had merit. We focused the audit on whether the Authority properly procured (1) relocation services, (2) job training services, (3) a…
April 20, 2020
Report
#2020-PH-1001
The Housing Authority of the City of Easton, PA, Did Not Always Properly Administer Its Housing Choice Voucher Program
We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Easton, PA’s Housing Choice Voucher Program because (1) we received a complaint alleging that the Authority made improper payments to program participants and a consultant to the Authority inappropriately placed herself on the program waiting list and (2) we had never audited the Authority. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority administered its program in accordance with…
July 30, 2019
Report
#2019-PH-1001
The Adams County Housing Authority, Gettysburg, PA, Did Not Administer Its Housing Choice Voucher Program According to HUD Requirements
We audited the Adams County Housing Authority because (1) a news article reported that the executive director received an excessive salary and practiced nepotism, (2) we received a complaint alleging nepotism and potential misuse of Federal funds, and (3) we had never audited the Authority. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority administered its program according to applicable U.S. Department of Housing and Urban…
September 19, 2018
Report
#2018-PH-1005
The Pell City Housing Authority, Pell City, AL, Did Not Always Administer Its and the Ragland Housing Authority, Ragland, AL’s Funds in Accordance With HUD Requirements
We audited the Pell City and Ragland Housing Authorities’ financial operations. We began our review of Pell City and Ragland because it aligns with a goal in our annual audit plan to improve the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) execution of and accountability for grant funds. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Pell City Housing Authority complied with HUD’s regulations regarding the management…
July 23, 2018
Report
#2018-AT-1009
The Chester Housing Authority, Chester, PA, Did Not Always Ensure That Its Program Units Met Housing Quality Standards
We audited the Chester Housing Authority’s Housing Choice Voucher program because (1) it recently regained control of its operations after 20 years in receivership, (2) it had 1,566 vouchers and received more than $14.9 million in fiscal year 2016, and (3) we had not audited its program. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority ensured that its Housing Choice Voucher program units met the U.S. Department of Housing and…
September 28, 2017
Report
#2017-PH-1007
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 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 Huntsville Housing Authority Administered Its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program in Accordance With HUD’s and Its Own Requirements
We audited the Huntsville Housing Authority’s Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program. We initiated the audit under the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) annual audit plan. We selected the Authority as part of a strategic plan with the Assistant United States Attorney in Northern Alabama to evaluate housing authorities in her jurisdiction. Our audit objective was to…
February 17, 2016
Report
#2016-AT-1003
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
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 Bucks County Housing Authority, Doylestown, PA, Did Not Always Ensure That Its Program Units Met Housing Quality Standards
We audited the Bucks County Housing Authority’s Housing Choice Voucher program because the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) authorized it more than $15 million per year in fiscal years 2012 to 2014 and we had not audited its housing quality standards inspection program. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority ensured that its Housing Choice Voucher program units met HUD’s housing quality standards…
May 05, 2015
Report
#2015-PH-1002
Review of the Housing Authority of the City of Pittsburgh, PA's Compliance With Federal Lobbying Disclosure Requirements and Restrictions
We conducted a review of the Housing Authority of the City of Pittsburgh’s compliance with Federal lobbying disclosure requirements and restrictions based on concerns noted during our ongoing internal audit of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) oversight of public housing authorities’ compliance with Federal lobbying disclosure requirements. Our review objective was to determine whether the Authority complied…
May 02, 2014
Memorandum
#2014-PH-1803
The Housing Authority of the County of Lackawanna, Dunmore, PA, Needs To Improve Its Controls Over Its Operations To Comply With HUD Requirements
We audited the Housing Authority of the County of Lackawanna, PA, because we received an anonymous complaint alleging incompetent leadership, nepotism, misuse of funds, and poor quality of life at the Authority. Our objectives were to determine whether the allegations in the complaint had merit and whether the Authority had effective controls to prevent conflicts of interest, ensure that interfund accounts were settled in a timely manner…
February 27, 2014
Report
#2014-PH-1003
The Blair County Housing Authority Generally Followed HUD's Housing Choice Voucher Program Regulations
We audited the Blair County Housing Authority’s Housing Choice Voucher program due to a citizen’s complaint alleging that the Authority (1) did not properly calculate housing assistance payments, (2) did not allow tenants to receive disability allowances, and (3) used outdated utility allowance schedules. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority accurately calculated housing assistance payments, disability allowances and…
June 27, 2013
Report
#2013-PH-1004
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 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
The Philadelphia Housing Authority, Philadelphia, PA, Did Not Have Conflicts of Interest Related to Recovery Act Rehabilitation but Failed To Comply With Financial Disclosure Requirements
We audited the Philadelphia Housing Authority’s compliance with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) conflict-of-interest and financial disclosure requirements as a result of the Authority’s initial failure to comply with an Office of Inspector General (OIG) subpoena during a previous American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 audit. (HUD OIG audit report number 2011-PH-1010, “The Philadelphia Housing Authority,…
September 28, 2011
Report
#2011-PH-1016
The Allegheny County Housing Authority, Pittsburgh, PA, Did Not Always Procure Goods and Services or Obligate Funds According to Recovery Act and Applicable HUD Requirements
We audited the Allegheny County Housing Authority’s administration of its Public Housing Capital Fund grants that it received under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. We selected the Authority for audit because it received a $7.7 million formula grant and three competitive grants totaling $5.8 million, which was the third largest formula grant and the second largest amount of capital fund competitive grants awarded in…
August 10, 2011
Report
#2011-PH-1014
The Philadelphia Housing Authority, Philadelphia, PA, Failed To Support Payments and Improperly Used Funds From the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
We audited the Philadelphia Housing Authority’s (Authority) use of its Public Housing Capital Fund formula grant that it received under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). We selected the Authority for audit based on a citizen’s complaint alleging misuse of these funds and because it received $126.5 million in Recovery Act capital funds. We focused strictly on $31.5 million of the funds that the Authority…
May 17, 2011
Report
#2011-PH-1010