The Boston Housing Authority Did Not Always Comply With HUD’s and Its Own Requirements for Its Public Housing Program Units
We audited the Boston Housing Authority’s public housing program to determine whether the physical condition of the Authority’s program units complied with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) and the Authority’s requirements. The audit was initiated based on our assessment of risks associated with public housing agencies’ program units and recent media attention and public concern about the condition of subsidized…
February 25, 2025
Report
#2025-CH-1001
The Boston Housing Authority Did Not Always Comply With HUD’s Requirements for Its Housing Choice Voucher Program Units
We audited the Boston Housing Authority’s Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program. We initiated this audit based upon our assessment of risks associated with public housing agencies' HCV Program units, as well as recent media attention and public concern about the conditions of subsidized housing properties. Our objective was to determine whether the physical conditions of the Authority’s HCV units complied with both the U.S. Department…
August 23, 2024
Report
#2024-CH-1004
The Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority, Cleveland, OH, Did Not Have Adequate Oversight of Lead-Based Paint in Its Public Housing
We audited the Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority’s management of lead‐based paint in its public housing program based on our assessment of the risks of lead‐based paint in public housing. The risk factors assessed included the age of buildings, the number of units, household demographics, and reported cases of childhood lead poisoning. Our audit objectives were to determine whether the Authority (1) complied with HUD’s…
July 12, 2024
Report
#2024-CH-1002
The Columbus Metropolitan Housing Authority, Columbus, OH, Did Not Always Comply With HUD’s Requirements for Its Housing Choice Voucher Program Units
We audited the Columbus Metropolitan Housing Authority’s Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program. The audit was initiated based on our assessment of risks associated with public housing agencies’ HCV Program units and recent media attention and public concern about the conditions of subsidized housing properties. Our objective was to determine whether the physical condition of the Authority’s HCV Program units complied with the U.S.…
June 28, 2024
Report
#2024-CH-1001
The Stark Metropolitan Housing Authority, Canton, OH, Did Not Always Comply With Federal and Its Own Procurement Requirements
We audited the Stark Metropolitan Housing Authority’s public housing program based on significant deficiencies noted during our prior audit of the Authority. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority complied with Federal and its own requirements for procuring goods and services.
The Authority did not always comply with Federal and its own procurement requirements. Specifically, for the contracts reviewed, it did…
May 24, 2023
Report
#2023-CH-1002
The Housing Authority of the City of Springfield, MA, Did Not Always Comply With Procurement and Contract Administration Requirements
We audited the Springfield Housing Authority’s Public Housing Operating Fund and Capital Fund programs because the Authority ranked fifth highest on our risk assessment of Massachusetts public housing agencies and is the third largest in the State. In addition, we had not audited the Authority in more than 10 years. The objective of the audit was to determine whether the Authority complied with procurement and contract administration…
March 19, 2020
Report
#2020-BO-1002
The Columbus Metropolitan Housing Authority, Columbus, OH, Did Not Always Comply With HUD’s Requirements Regarding the Administration of Its Public Housing Operating and Capital Fund Programs
We audited the Columbus Metropolitan Housing Authority’s Public Housing Operating and Capital Fund programs based on an anonymous complaint to our hotline. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority administered its programs in accordance with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) requirements.
The Authority invested Federal funds in non-HUD-approved investment accounts and did not properly record…
September 18, 2018
Report
#2018-CH-1006
The Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority, Cleveland, OH, Generally Administered Its Public Housing Program in Accordance With HUD’s and Its Own Requirements
We audited the Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority’s public housing program based on an anonymous complaint to our hotline. Our objective was specific to the allegations in the complaint and was to determine whether the Authority (1) engaged in nepotism when hiring staff, (2) used program funds for inappropriate or unreasonable travel expenses, (3) failed to comply with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) and…
August 28, 2018
Report
#2018-CH-1004
The Youngstown Metropolitan Housing Authority, Youngstown, OH, Did Not Always Comply With HUD’s and Its Own Requirements Regarding the Administration of Its Housing Choice Voucher Program
We audited the Youngstown Metropolitan Housing Authority’s Housing Choice Voucher program based on the activities included in our 2016 annual audit plan and our analysis of risk factors related to the public housing agencies in Region 5’s jurisdiction. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority appropriately managed its Family Self-Sufficiency program and Housing Choice Voucher program files in accordance with the U.S.…
July 07, 2017
Report
#2017-CH-1002
The Boston Housing Authority, Boston, MA, Housed Eligible Tenants and Correctly Calculated Voucher Subsidies
We audited the Housing Choice Voucher program at the Boston Housing Authority because of the size of the program, the time that had elapsed since our last audit, and the inherent program risk. The Authority operates the second largest Housing Choice Voucher program in New England. In addition, our office had not audited any Authority program since 2010. The Housing Choice Voucher program is inherently risky as Congress…
April 05, 2017
Report
#2017-BO-1004
The Dayton Metropolitan Housing Authority, Dayton, OH, Did Not Always Follow HUD’s and Its Own Requirements for the Procurement of Capital Grant-Funded Contract
We audited the Dayton Metropolitan Housing Authority’s Public Housing Capital Fund program. We selected the Authority’s program for audit based on our analysis of risk factors related to public housing agencies in Region 5’s1 jurisdiction. The audit was part of the activities in our fiscal year 2016 annual audit plan. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority complied with the U.S. Department of Housing and…
September 30, 2016
Report
#2016-CH-1012
Final Audit Report: The Lucas Metropolitan Housing Authority, Toledo, OH, Did Not Always Follow HUD’s or Its Own Procurement Requirements
We audited the Lucas Metropolitan Housing Authority’s public housing program as part of the activities in our fiscal year 2016 annual audit plan. We selected the Authority based on the results of a risk assessment of housing agencies in Region 5’s1 jurisdiction. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority complied with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) and its own procurement requirements.…
September 30, 2016
Report
#2016-CH-1013
The Somerville Housing Authority, Somerville, MA, Did Not Always Support Its Allocation of Costs to Asset Management Projects
We audited the Somerville Housing Authority’s public housing and Public Housing Capital Fund programs as part of our fiscal year 2016 regional audit plan. We initiated our review because the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Boston Office of Public and Indian Housing had not monitored the programs in the past 5 years and we had not audited the Authority in the past 10 years. Our audit objectives were to…
August 12, 2016
Report
#2016-BO-1004
The Jefferson Metropolitan Housing Authority, Steubenville, OH, Failed To Manage Its Procurements and Contracts in Accordance With HUD's and Its Own Requirements
We audited the Jefferson Metropolitan Housing Authority’s public housing program based on the activities included in our 2016 annual audit plan and a request from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority complied with (1) Federal and its own procurement requirements and (2) HUD’s requirements for the administration of its energy performance contract.
The…
August 03, 2016
Report
#2016-CH-1005
The Jefferson Metropolitan Housing Authority, Steubenville, OH, Did Not Adequately Enforce HUD’s Housing Quality Standards and Its Own Requirements
We audited the Jefferson Metropolitan Housing Authority’s Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program housing quality standards based on a request from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the activities included in our 2015 annual audit plan. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority conducted thorough housing quality standards inspections of its program units in accordance with HUD’s and its own…
September 24, 2015
Report
#2015-CH-1007
The Cambridge Housing Authority Appropriately Handled Exception Payments
We conducted a limited review of the Cambridge Housing Authority’s Moving to Work Housing Choice Voucher Program’s use of exception payment standards. This program allows public housing authorities to use exception payment standards to set rental payments in excess of the payment standard established for an authority’s rents . The review was initiated as a result of a concern raised by a member of Congress about whether public…
September 16, 2015
Memorandum
#2015-BO-1801
The Jefferson Metropolitan Housing Authority, Steubenville, OH, Did Not Always Ensure That Its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program Files Complied With HUD’s and Its Own Requirements
We audited the Jefferson Metropolitan Housing Authority’s Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program based on a request from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the activities included in our 2015 annual audit plan. Our audit objectives were to determine whether the Authority (1) appropriately calculated housing assistance payments, (2) maintained required eligibility documentation to support the admission and…
September 09, 2015
Report
#2015-CH-1004
The Adams Metropolitan Housing Authority, Manchester, OH, Generally Used Public Housing Program Funds in Accordance With HUD’s and Its Own Requirements
We audited the Adams Metropolitan Housing Authority’s public housing program as part of the activities in our fiscal year 2014 annual audit plan. We selected the Authority based on a request from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) management. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority used public housing program funds in accordance with HUD’s and its own requirements.
The Authority generally used…
July 31, 2014
Report
#2014-CH-1005
Chelsea, MA, Housing Authority Review of Cost Allocation and Reasonableness of Salaries
We audited the Chelsea, MA, Housing Authority based on a request from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Boston Office of Public and Indian Housing, which was concerned about financial controls at the Authority. Our audit objectives were to determine whether Authority officials properly implemented financial controls over the allocation of costs, and reasonableness of salaries.
Authority officials did not design…
April 30, 2014
Report
#2014-BO-1002
The Boston Office of Public Housing Did Not Provide Adequate Oversight of Environmental Reviews of Three Housing Agencies, Including Reviews Involving Recovery Act Funds
We audited the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Boston Office of Public Housing as part of a nationwide audit of HUD’s oversight of environmental reviews. We selected the Boston Office based on our risk assessment. Our audit objectives were to determine whether the Boston Office’s oversight of public housing environmental reviews within its jurisdiction ensured that (1) the responsible entities performed the…
February 06, 2014
Report
#2014-FW-0001