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…

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…

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…

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Office of Inspector General audited the Fort Collins Housing Authority’s Village on Redwood Rental Assistance Demonstration Program (RAD) project.  We selected the Authority because it had completed the entire RAD conversion process with new construction, and its Village on Redwood RAD project used the largest amount of Federal funds of the State of Colorado projects.  Our…

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…

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…

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General audited the Denver Housing Authority of Denver, CO for calendar years 2013-2015.  The audit was initiated because of deficiencies found in other procurement audits in our region.  The Authority is the largest recipient of U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funds in the region, and we wanted to ensure that it did not have the…

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…

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…

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…

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…

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…

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…

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General audited the Jefferson County Housing Authority (Authority) based on concerns that there were irregularities in its disposition process.  The objective of our audit was to determine whether the Authority followed HUD disposition procedures and used its sales proceeds properly. The Authority did not follow required disposition procedures and did not use…

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General audited the Adams County Housing Authority based on concerns that the Authority did not follow HUD regulations in the use of its disposition sales proceeds.  The objectives of our audit were to determine whether the Authority placed the required number of Section 8 voucher holders into its Terrace Gardens units and appropriately spent its disposition…

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…

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…

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…

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Office of Inspector General reviewed the Aurora Housing Authority to determine whether the Authority obligated its funds by the deadline, adequately managed its procurements and contracts, and accurately reported its Recovery Act information in FederalReporting.gov. We determined that the Authority did not obligate $22,018 of its Recovery Act funds by the March 17, 2010, deadline,…