The New York City Housing Authority Should Enhance Its Fraud Risk Management Practices
Departments are required by law to develop and maintain governance structures, controls, and processes to safeguard resources and assets. A robust fraud risk framework helps to ensure that programs fulfill their intended purpose and that funds are spent effectively. HUD relies on public housing authorities (PHAs) to detect and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse in its housing programs. Therefore, we audited the New York City Housing Authority…
March 07, 2025
Report
#2025-FO-1001
The Buffalo Municipal Housing Authority, Buffalo, NY, Needs To Improve Its Management of the Commodore Perry Homes Development To Address Longstanding Concerns
We audited the Buffalo Municipal Housing Authority’s management of its Commodore Perry Homes development. We selected the Authority based on congressional interest. Half of the development’s buildings were demolished more than 20 years ago, and the majority of the remaining buildings and units have been vacant for years without redevelopment activity. The objective of the audit was to determine whether the Authority properly…
January 11, 2022
Report
#2022-NY-1001
New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development, New York, NY, Did Not Always Ensure That Units Met Housing Quality Standards but Generally Abated Payments When Required
We audited the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development’s (HPD) Housing Choice Voucher Program. We selected HPD for review based on its size and because we had not conducted an audit of its Housing Choice Voucher Program. The objective of the audit was to determine whether HPD ensured that its program units met HUD’s housing quality standards and whether it abated housing assistance payments when required.…
August 02, 2019
Report
#2019-NY-1003
The Buffalo Municipal Housing Authority, Buffalo, NY, Did Not Administer Its Operating Funds in Accordance With Requirements
We audited the Buffalo Municipal Housing Authority based on our risk analysis of public housing agencies that fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Buffalo, NY, field office. The objective of our audit was to determine whether the Authority administered its operating funds in accordance with applicable HUD, Federal, and Authority requirements.
We found that the Authority did not…
September 26, 2018
Report
#2018-NY-1006
Glen Cove Housing Authority, Glen Cove, NY, Did Not Always Use Property Disposition Proceeds in Accordance With Requirements
We audited the Glen Cove Housing Authority’s administration of the disposition proceeds it received from selling properties. We selected the Authority for review because the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) New York Office of Public and Indian Housing ranked it as the third highest risk performer among 67 public housing providers in New York and because the audited financial statements and property disposition…
January 18, 2018
Report
#2018-NY-1002
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 New Brunswick Housing Authority, NJ, Did Not Always Administer Its Operating and Capital Funds in Accordance With HUD Requirements
We audited the New Brunswick Housing Authority because it was classified as a troubled public housing agency 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 Authority administered its operating and capital funds in accordance with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requirements.
We found that the Authority did not…
September 28, 2017
Report
#2017-NY-1013
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 New Rochelle Municipal Housing Authority, New Rochelle, NY, Did Not Always Administer Its Public Housing Program in Accordance With HUD’s Rules and Regulations
We completed a review of the New Rochelle Municipal Housing Authority’s administration of its public housing program. We selected the Authority based on a management request from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) New York Office of Public Housing. The Authority was designated as a troubled housing authority and had indicators of noncompliance with program requirements, such as using program funds to pay…
January 30, 2017
Report
#2017-NY-1006
The Town of Amherst, NY, Did Not Ensure That Its Housing Choice Voucher Program Units Met Housing Quality Standards (REISSUED February 17, 2017)
(REISSUED February 17, 2017)
We audited the Town of Amherst’s Housing Choice Voucher program administered through a contractor, Belmont Housing Resources for Western New York, to address our audit plan priority to ensure that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) public and Indian housing programs are sufficiently administered by public housing agencies (PHA). We selected this auditee based on a risk analysis of…
December 13, 2016
Report
#2017-NY-1003
The Tarrytown Municipal Housing Authority, Did Not Always Comply With HUD’s Procurement, Administrative, and Program Requirements
We audited the Tarrytown Municipal Housing Authority’s administration of its public housing program based on an Office of Inspector General risk assessment. The objectives of the audit were to evaluate the Authority’s financial controls to determine whether (1) U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funds were used for eligible, reasonable, and supported expenses and (2) adequate financial controls were maintained to…
November 21, 2016
Report
#2017-NY-1002
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
Officials of the Rochester Housing Authority, Rochester, NY, Generally Administered the Housing Choice Voucher Program in Accordance with HUD Regulations
We audited the Rochester Housing Authority’s Housing Choice Voucher program to address our goal to contribute to improving the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) execution of its fiscal responsibilities. We selected this auditee based on a risk analysis of public housing agencies administered by the HUD Buffalo field office, which considered, among other factors, funds received and the number of program housing units…
August 05, 2016
Report
#2016-NY-1008
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 Freeport Housing Authority, Freeport, NY, Did Not Administer Its Low-Rent Housing and Homeownership Programs in Accordance With HUD’s Regulations
We completed a review of the Freeport Housing Authority’s administration of its low-rent housing and homeownership programs. We selected the Authority due to a request from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) New York Office of Public and Indian Housing officials. The objective of the audit was to determine whether the Authority administered its low-rent housing and homeownership programs in accordance with…
November 30, 2014
Report
#2015-NY-1002
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 Niagara Falls Housing Authority Did Not Always Administer Its HOPE VI Grant Program and Activities in Accordance With HUD Requirements
We audited the Niagara Falls Housing Authority’s HOPE VI grant program based on an Office of Inspector General risk analysis and the amount of funding the Authority received. The objectives of the audit were to determine whether the Authority administered its HOPE VI grant program and activities in accordance with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and HOPE VI grant program requirements.
The Authority did not always…
July 10, 2014
Report
#2014-NY-1007
The New York City Housing Authority, New York, NY, Did Not Always Administer Its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program in Accordance With Regulations
We completed a review of the New York City Housing Authority’s administration of its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program. We selected the Authority based on indicators from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) monitoring reports. The objectives of the audit were to determine whether the Authority administered its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program in accordance with HUD regulations and made housing…
May 01, 2014
Report
#2014-NY-1002