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
Palm Beach County Housing Authority, West Palm Beach, FL, Did Not Support and Spend HUD Funds According to Regulations
We audited the Palm Beach County Housing Authority in West Palm Beach, FL, based on concerns raised by news articles stating that the Authority dismissed its former executive director because of financial misconduct and ethical violations. The concerns included bonuses paid and payments for contracted services. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority spent U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)…
September 30, 2019
Report
#2019-AT-1006
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 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 Broward County Housing Authority, Lauderdale Lakes, FL, Did Not Always Comply With HUD’s and Its Own Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program Requirements
We audited the Broward County Housing Authority’s Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program as part of the activities in our fiscal year 2016 annual audit plan. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority administered its program in accordance with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) and its own requirements.
The Authority did not always comply with HUD’s requirements and its own administrative policies…
September 30, 2016
Report
#2016-AT-1014
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 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
The Boca Raton Housing Authority’s Administration of Its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program Tenant Files Had Some Deficiencies
We performed an audit of the Boca Raton Housing Authority mainly to assess the validity of nine allegations made against the Authority. The primary audit objective was to determine whether the Authority administered its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program tenant files in accordance with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s regulations, specifically to verify the validity of the complaint.
Four of the nine…
August 18, 2014
Report
#2014-AT-1008
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
Final Action – Section 8 Landlord Settled Violations of the Housing Choice Voucher Program
We conducted a review of Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program payments made to Deandra Caison, a landlord, for a tenant residing in a property that Ms. Caison no longer owned. Ms. Caison had sold the property to her brother but continued to receive housing assistance payments. Between November 2007 and March 2010, Caison received $29,055 in housing assistance payments from the Orlando Housing Authority. To resolve the…
February 25, 2014
Memorandum
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 Housing Authority of the City of Fort Lauderdale, FL, Did Not Fully Comply With Federal Requirements When Administering Its Public Housing Capital Fund Recovery Grants
HUD OIG audited the Housing Authority of the City of Fort Lauderdale’s (Authority’s) administration of its Public Housing Capital Fund grants under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. This was an OIG-initiated audit in accordance with OIG’s 2010-2015 strategic plan to contribute to the effective use of Federal funds allocated by the Recovery Act. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority administered its…
January 08, 2012
Report
#2012-AT-1005
The Sanford Housing Authority Lacked Adequate Management of and Controls Over Its Public Housing and Section 8 Programs
We audited the Sanford Housing Authority (Authority) to assess certain issues raised in a congressional referral. The referral alleged improper use or mismanagement of the Authority’s public housing, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program funds. The audit objectives were to determine whether the Authority properly used and accounted for public housing, Recovery Act, and Section 8 funds.
We…
October 28, 2011
Report
#2012-AT-1002