Long Branch Housing Authority, Long Branch, NJ, Did Not Properly Handle Income and Expenses Related to Agreements With Other Housing Agencies
We audited the Long Branch Housing Authority based on the results of our previous audits of the Asbury Park and Red Bank Housing Authorities, which received management services and technical assistance from Long Branch for several years. The objective of the audit was to determine whether Long Branch properly handled income and expenses associated with its agreements with Asbury Park and Red Bank in accordance with requirements.
Long Branch did…
August 24, 2022
Report
#2022-NY-1003
The Housing Authority of Plainfield, NJ, Did Not Always Comply With Requirements When Administering Its Public Housing Programs
We audited the Housing Authority of Plainfield, NJ’s administration of its public housing programs. We selected the Authority based on a risk analysis of public housing agencies in New Jersey that considered the size of the agency, the amount of operating and capital funds received, and previous work conducted by the Office of Inspector General. The objective of the audit was to determine whether the Authority administered its Public…
March 30, 2022
Report
#2022-NY-1002
The Newark Housing Authority, Newark, NJ, Did Not Ensure That Units Met Housing Quality Standards and That It Accurately Calculated Abatements
We audited the Newark Housing Authority’s Housing Choice Voucher Program. We selected the Authority for review because the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) authorized more than $111 million in program funding for its Housing Choice Voucher Program in fiscal years 2016 and 2017 and based on our risk analysis of public housing agencies located in the State of New Jersey. The objective of the audit was to determine whether the…
September 28, 2018
Report
#2018-NY-1008
The Red Bank Housing Authority, Red Bank, NJ, Did Not Always Administer Its Operating and Capital Funds in Accordance With Requirements
We audited the Red Bank Housing Authority based on the results of our audit of Asbury Park Housing Authority because both public housing agencies had agreements with the Long Branch Housing Authority to provide services. The objective of this audit was to determine whether the Authority administered its Public Housing Operating and Capital Fund programs in accordance with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Federal,…
September 26, 2018
Report
#2018-NY-1005
The Housing Authority of the City of Asbury Park, NJ, Did Not Always Administer Its Operating and Capital Funds in Accordance With Requirements
We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Asbury Park based on our risk analysis of public housing agencies located in the State of New Jersey. The objective of the audit was to determine whether the Authority administered its Public Housing Operating and Capital Fund programs in accordance with applicable U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Federal, and Authority requirements.
The Authority did not always…
February 07, 2018
Report
#2018-NY-1003
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 Irvington, NJ, Housing Authority Did Not Always Administer Its Public Housing Program in Accordance With Program Requirements
We audited the Housing Authority of the Township of Irvington, NJ, regarding the administration of its public housing program because it was classified as a troubled public housing agency and based on a complaint from the union representing its maintenance and clerical employees. The complaint alleged serious financial and operational mismanagement. The audit objectives were to determine whether the issues identified in the…
March 09, 2017
Report
#2017-NY-1008
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 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 Paterson Housing Authority, Paterson, NJ, Had Weaknesses in Administration of its Housing Choice Voucher Program
We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Paterson, Paterson, NJ’s Housing Choice Voucher program based on a risk assessment of authorities administered by the HUD Newark, NJ, field office that considered funding, HUD’s 2012 risk score, and prior OIG audits. The audit objectives were to determine whether Authority officials implemented adequate controls to ensure that the program was administered in accordance with HUD regulations and its…
January 14, 2014
Report
#2014-NY-1001
Authority Officials Generally Administered Recovery Act Funds in Accordance With Requirements but Budgetary and Procurement Controls Had Weaknesses
We audited the Housing Authority of the City of New Brunswick’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Capital Fund Program based upon a risk analysis of authorities administered through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Newark, NJ field office, which considered the funding received and HUD’s assigned risk score. The objectives of the audit were to determine whether Authority officials (1) obligated and expended their…
June 21, 2013
Report
#2013-NY-1007
West New York, NJ Housing Authority Officials Generally Administered Their Recovery Act Capital Fund Program in Accordance With Recover Act and HUD Requirements
We audited the West New York Housing Authority’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Capital Fund program in support of the Office of Inspector General’s audit plan goal to oversee Recovery Act-funded activities. We selected the Authority based upon a risk analysis of authorities receiving Recovery Act capital funds administered through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Newark, NJ, field office, which considered…
March 03, 2013
Report
#2013-NY-1005
The Hoboken Housing Authority, Hoboken, NJ, Generally Administered the Recovery Act Capital Fund Program in Accordance With Regulations
We audited the Hoboken, NJ, Housing Authority’s administration of its Recovery Act Capital Fund program in support of HUD OIG’s audit plan goals to oversee Recovery Act-funded activity and improve HUD’s execution of and accountability for its fiscal responsibilities. We selected the Authority based on a risk assessment, which considered the Authority’s funding, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) risk analysis, and…
January 03, 2013
Report
#2013-NY-1002
Transactions Between the Housing Authority of the City of Perth Amboy, NJ and its Nonprofit Subsidiary Did Not Always Comply With HUD Regulations
We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Perth Amboy’s transactions with its nonprofit subsidiary, the Perth Amboy Redevelopment Team for Neighborhood Enterprise and Revitalization (PARTNER), in response to a hotline complaint. The audit objectives were to assess the merits of this complaint and determine whether Authority officials complied with provisions of the Authority’s regulatory agreement and other U.S. Department of Housing and…
June 01, 2012
Report
#2012-NY-1008
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