The Housing Authority of the City of Annapolis, MD, Did Not Always Properly Administer Its Housing Choice Voucher Program
We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Annapolis, MD’s Housing Choice Voucher Program because we received a complaint alleging that the Authority (1) ignored discrepancies between income information for applicants and program participants and (2) did not properly administer its program. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority administered its program in accordance with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development…
August 14, 2019
Report
#2019-PH-1004
The Crisfield Housing Authority, Crisfield, MD, Did Not Properly Administer Its Public Housing Program Operating and Capital Funds
We audited the Crisfield Housing Authority’s use of public housing program operating and capital funds because we received a hotline complaint alleging misuse of public housing assets and we had never audited the Authority. The audit objective was to determine whether the Authority administered its public housing program in accordance with applicable U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requirements and its annual…
September 25, 2018
Report
#2018-PH-1007
The Crisfield Housing Authority, Crisfield, MD, Did Not Properly Administer Its Housing Choice Voucher Program
We audited the Crisfield Housing Authority’s Housing Choice Voucher program because we received a hotline complaint alleging that it misused public housing assets and we had never audited the Authority. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority (1) ensured that families met eligibility requirements, (2) properly admitted families from the waiting list, (3) correctly calculated housing assistance payments and maintained…
March 30, 2018
Report
#2018-PH-1003
The Housing Opportunities Commission of Montgomery County, Kensington, MD, Did Not Always Ensure That Its Program Units Met Housing Quality Standards
We audited the Housing Opportunities Commission of Montgomery County’s Housing Choice Voucher program because (1) it had a large program receiving more than $82 million in fiscal year 2015, (2) it had the second largest number of housing choice vouchers of non-Moving to Work housing agencies within the jurisdiction of the Philadelphia region, and (3) we had not audited its program. Our audit objective was to determine whether the…
September 29, 2016
Report
#2016-PH-1008
The Housing Authority of the City of Annapolis, MD, Did Not Always Follow Applicable Procurement Requirements
We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Annapolis’ procurement activities due to a hotline complaint. The complaint alleged that the Authority failed to follow procurement requirements. This is the second of two audit reports on the Authority. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority procured services and products using operating and capital funds in accordance with applicable requirements.
The…
September 27, 2016
Report
#2016-PH-1007
The Housing Authority of the City of Annapolis, MD, Did Not Always Administer Its Resident Opportunities and Self-Sufficiency Program in Accordance With Applicable Requirements
We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Annapolis’ Resident Opportunities and Self-Sufficiency (ROSS) program due to a hotline complaint. The complaint alleged that the Authority used ROSS grant funds to pay a resident who did not work on a grant. This is the first of two audit reports on the Authority. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority administered its ROSS program in accordance with applicable U.S…
August 31, 2016
Report
#2016-PH-1006
The Wichita, KS, Housing Authority Did Not Always Properly Administer Its Housing Choice Voucher Program
The U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General audited the Wichita, KS, Housing Authority’s Housing Choice Voucher program. We selected the Authority for review because it received more than $12 million in Section 8 funding in both 2011 and 2010. Also, it is one of the largest housing authorities in Kansas and had not been reviewed by HUD OIG. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority…
September 19, 2012
Report
#2012-KC-1005
The Manhattan, KS, Housing Authority Improperly Executed a Contract Change Order and Did Not Accurately Report on Its Recovery Act Funds
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General audited the Manhattan, KS Housing Authority’s administration of its Recovery Act capital fund grants. Our objectives were to determine whether the Authority executed a contract change order in compliance with HUD procurement regulations and the Authority’s procurement policy and accurately and completely reported Recovery Act grant information in…
April 09, 2012
Report
#2012-KC-1004
The Topeka, KS, Housing Authority Did Not Always Document Its Procurement Actions and Did Not Accurately Report on Its Recovery Act Funds
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General audited the Topeka, KS Housing Authority’s administration of its Recovery Act competitive capital fund grants. We selected the Authority for review because it spent a large amount of Recovery Act funds. Our objectives were to determine whether the Authority expended Recovery Act grant funds in accordance with Recovery Act requirements and applicable HUD…
April 05, 2012
Report
#2012-KC-1003
The Housing Authority of Baltimore City, MD, Generally Administered Its Recovery Act Captial Fund Grants in Accordance With Applicable Requirements
We audited the Housing Authority of Baltimore City’s (Authority) administration of its Public Housing Capital Fund grants that it received under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). We selected the Authority for audit because it received a $32.7 million formula grant, which was the largest formula grant awarded in the State of Maryland. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority administered…
September 20, 2010
Report
#2010-PH-1013
The Elkton Housing Authority, Elkton, MD, Did Not Comply With HUD Regulations in Obligating and Disbursing Recovery Act Capital Funds
We audited the Elkton Housing Authority (Authority) because it received Public Housing Capital Fund Recovery Act grant (grant) funding as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). Our objective was to determine whether the Authority obligated and disbursed capital funds received under the Recovery Act according to the requirements of the act and applicable U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)…
May 03, 2010
Report
#2010-PH-1007
The Kansas City, Kansas Housing Authority Did Not Violate HUD’s Waiting List Rules When It Issued Section 8 Vouchers to Delaware Highlands Assisted Living Tenants
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General audited the Kansas City, Kansas Housing Authority (Authority) to determine whether the Authority violated HUD’s waiting list rules when it offered Section 8 vouchers to applicants for Delaware Highlands Assisted Living. We conducted the audit because of concerns raised during a previous audit of the Authority, in which we saw indications that the Authority…
March 11, 2010
Report
#2010-KC-1002
The Kansas City, Kansas, Housing Authority Inappropriately Spent Federal Funds for Nonfederal Development Activities
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General audited the development activities of the Kansas City, Kansas, Housing Authority (Authority) to determine whether the Authority improperly spent federal public housing funds when developing and operating nonfederal developments. We conducted the audit because of a citizen complaint received by our office.
We concluded that the Authority inappropriately…
September 22, 2009
Report
#2009-KC-1010
The Housing Authority of the City of Annapolis, Maryland, Did Not Comply with HUD and State of Maryland Lead-Based Paint Requirements in a Timely Manner
We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Annapolis' (Authority) management of lead-based paint in its public housing units in response to a citizen complaint. The audit objective was to determine whether the Authority complied with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and State of Maryland (State) requirements for inspecting and abating lead-based paint hazards in its public housing units.
The Authority did not…
March 05, 2009
Report
#2009-PH-1006
Housing Authority of Baltimore City, Maryland, Did Not Ensure That Its Program Units Met Housing Quality Standards under Its Moving to Work Program
We audited the Housing Authority of Baltimore City's (Authority) administration of its leased housing under its Moving to Work Demonstration (Moving to Work) program based on our analysis of various risk factors relating to the housing authorities under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Baltimore field office. This is the second audit report issued on the Authority's program. The…
September 12, 2008
Report
#2008-PH-1013
The Housing Authority of Baltimore City, Baltimore, Maryland, Generally Had Adequate Controls over Its Tenant Files
We audited the Housing Authority of Baltimore City's (Authority) administration of its leased housing under its Moving to Work Demonstration (Moving to Work) program. We conducted the audit based on our analysis of various risk factors relating to the housing authorities under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Baltimore field office. This is the first of two audit reports to be issued on…
December 18, 2007
Report
#2008-PH-1004