The Benkelman Housing Authority, Benkelman, NE, Did Not Follow HUD Rules and Regulations for Public Housing Programs Related to Procurement and Maintenance, Tenant Certifications, Laundry Machine Income, and Expenditures
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Office of Inspector General audited the Benkelman Housing Authority based on a request from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General (HUD OIG), Office of Investigation. Additionally, HUD conducted an onsite assessment in May 2016 and identified concerns, including procurement, income verification, travel policy, and significant control…
September 27, 2018
Report
#2018-KC-1004
The Housing Authority of the City of New Haven, CT, Made Ineligible Housing Assistance Payments From Its Housing Choice Voucher Program
We audited the Housing Authority of the City of New Haven’s Housing Choice Voucher program based on our risk assessment of the program for the New England region, the size of the Authority’s program, the time lapse since our last audit, and the inherent risk of the program. Our audit objective was to determine whether Authority officials only made eligible housing assistance payments.
Authority officials made $314,611 in ineligible…
November 15, 2017
Report
#2018-BO-1002
The Housing Authority of the City of Hartford, CT, Did Not Always Comply With Procurement Requirements
We audited the public housing and Housing Choice Voucher programs at the Housing Authority of the City of Hartford, CT, as a result of a hotline complaint alleging potential noncompliance with procurement requirements. The objective of the audit was to determine whether the Authority complied with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Federal procurement requirements and the Authority’s procurement policy.
The…
September 21, 2017
Report
#2017-BO-1007
The Alphabet Group, LLC, Marks Group, LLC, and Imagineers, Inc., Settled Allegations Related to Section 8 Rent Certifications
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General (OIG), assisted the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Connecticut in the civil investigation of The Alphabet Group, LLC, Marks Group, LLC, and Imagineers, Inc. Alphabet and Marks are owners of residential housing in Hartford, CT, and Imagineers administers the Section 8 program for the City of Hartford Housing Authority.
On May 17, 2012, an…
September 19, 2016
Memorandum
#2016-CF-1807
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
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 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
The York Housing Authority Did Not Fully Comply With Procurement Requirements and Spent $21,047 for Ineligible and Unsupported Costs
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) – Office of Inspector General audited the York Housing Authority in York, 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 procure…
August 20, 2015
Report
#2015-KC-1006
The Stromsburg 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 Stromsburg Housing Authority in Stromsburg, 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…
August 20, 2015
Report
#2015-KC-1007
The Housing Authority of the City of Stamford, CT Took Appropriate Action to Resolve a Complaint While Complying With Procurement Regulations
We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Stamford, doing business as Charter Oak Communities. We received an anonymous complaint against the Authority related to an alleged improper procurement. The complainant alleged that Authority officials awarded a contract to an employee’s spouse without following procurement and conflict-of-interest requirements. In addition, a previous audit (Audit report number 2012-BO-1002…
September 26, 2014
Memorandum
#2014-BO-1801
Authority Officials Did Not Always Follow HUD Requirements
We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Bridgeport, CT, to address complaints and areas that came to our attention during a prior audit. Our objective was determine whether costs charged to Federal housing programs were eligible, reasonable, and supported. Specifically, we determined whether officials properly (1) charged development staff costs, (2) charged Section 8 consulting costs, (3) implemented flat rents, (4) loaned…
July 31, 2014
Report
#2014-BO-1003
The Housing Authority of the City of Bridgeport, CT, Did Not Always Ensure That Expenses Charged to Its Federal Programs Were Eligible, Reasonable, and Supported
We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Bridgeport, CT, based on a request from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Hartford, CT, field office. HUD officials were concerned about the Authority due to significant financial deficiencies that were not corrected in a timely manner. Our audit objective was to determine whether Authority officials ensured that expenses charged to Federal programs were…
January 23, 2014
Report
#2014-BO-1001
The Housing Authority of the City of Stamford, CT, Did Not Properly Administer and Oversee the Operations of Its Federal Programs
We audited the Housing Authority ofthe City of Stamford, CT's administration of its Federal housing programs based on an anonymous complaint. Federal programs included Operating Fund, Section 8 programs (including the Housing Choice Voucher program, Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation program, and Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy
program), and Capital Fund programs. The Authority was also awarded an American Recovery…
March 14, 2012
Report
#2012-BO-1002
Corrective Action Verification of prior audit finding on procurement
We performed a corrective action verification review of the audit recommendations made on the procurement practices of the Housing Authority of the City of Danbury for finding 5 of Audit Report Number 2004-BO-1004, issued December 5, 2003. This review was based on a complaint. The purpose of the review was to determine whether the selected audit recommendations were implemented and the deficiencies cited in the report were corrected.
The…
January 05, 2012
Memorandum
#2012-BO-1801
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act grant (hotline complaint)
We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Hartford’s (the Authority’s) administration of its American Recovery and Reinvestment Act grant that funded a construction management contract based on a hotline complaint. Our objective was to determine if the Authority solicited, evaluated, and administered the $2.5 million grant funding and associated contract (the contract) properly and in accordance with federal requirements. We also visited…
January 05, 2012
Report
#2012-BO-1001
The Housing Authority of the City of New Haven, CT, Could Not Show That It Always Complied With Environmental and Labor Standards Enforcement Requirements
We audited the Housing Authority of the City of New Haven’s (Authority) Public Housing Capital Fund (Capital Fund) and American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 Capital Fund (Recovery Act Capital Fund) projects for compliance with environmental and labor law requirements. We initiated this assignment because a previous Office of Inspector General (OIG) audit of the Authority’s Recovery Act Capital Fund activities identified a significant…
June 10, 2011
Report
#2011-BO-1008
The Housing Authority of the City of New Haven, CT, Did Not Support Cost Reasonableness for More Than $1.4 Million or Properly Obligate $60,000 of Its Capital Fund Stimulus Recovery Act Grant
We selected the Housing Authority of the City of New Haven (Authority), a Moving to Work agency, because it obligated a majority of its $6 million in Public Housing Capital Fund Stimulus (formula) Recovery Act Funded grant (grant) received under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) just before the required obligation deadline. Our objectives were to determine whether the Authority (I) obligated its Recovery Act…
December 16, 2010
Report
#2011-BO-1003
The Omaha, Nebraska Housing Authority Did Not Comply With Recovery Act Requirements When Reporting on Recovery Act Capital Funds
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General audited the Omaha Nebraska Housing Authority (Authority) to determine whether the Authority (1) obligated Recovery Act grant funds in accordance with Recovery Act requirements and applicable U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) rules, (2) expended Recovery Act grant funds in accordance with Recovery Act requirements and applicable HUD rules…
September 30, 2010
Report
#2010-KC-1009
The Manchester Housing Authority in Manchester, CT, Obligated Its Recovery Act Grant Funds in a Timely Manner for Eligible Projects and Properly Suported Expenditures
We audited the Manchester Housing Authority (Authority) in Manchester, CT, because it obligated the majority of its $520,654 Public Housing Capital Fund Stimulus (Formula) Recovery Act Funded grant awarded under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) just before the required obligation deadline. Our objectives were to determine whether the Authority (1) obligated its grant funds in a timely manner for eligible…
September 21, 2010
Report
#2010-BO-1009
The Hartford Housing Authority's Plan To Replace Boilers Did Not Meet Recovery Act and Federal Efficiency Requirements
We audited the Hartford Housing Authority (Authority) because it was awarded a $5 million Public Housing Capital Fund grant under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) and obligated the majority of the grant just before the required obligation deadline. Our objectives were to determine whether the Authority (1) had adequate management controls over its obligation process, (2) maintained support for obligations, and (…
July 21, 2010
Report
#2010-BO-1005