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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Camden, NJ, Generally Calculated Housing Assistance Correctly, Properly Determined the Eligibility of Tenants, and Recertified Tenants in a Timely Manner
We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Camden, NJ's administration of housing assistance payments that it made under the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program as part of our fiscal year 2011 audit plan. This is the second of two audit reports that we issued on the Authority’s Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program. The audit objectives addressed in this report were to determine whether the Authority accurately calculated…
January 09, 2012
Report
#2012-PH-1003
Long Branch Housing Authority, Long Branch, NJ, Generally Complied With Capital Fund Program Regulations
We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Long Branch, New Jersey’s, (Authority) administration of its Capital Fund Program and Capital Fund Financing Program in support of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Office of the Inspector General’s (OIG) goal to contribute to improving HUD’s execution and accountability of fiscal responsibilities. The objectives of this audit were to determine whether Authority officials…
September 01, 2011
Report
#2011-NY-1013
The Housing Authority of Long Branch, NJ, Needs To Strengthen Its Accounting for Transactions with Affiliated Entities
During the audit of the City of Long Branch, New Jersey Housing Authority’s administration of its Public Housing Capital Fund and Capital Fund Financing Programs (report number 2011-NY-1013), we found that Authority officials had not accurately accounted for some transactions with its affiliated entities. Therefore, we performed a limited review of the Authority’s processes for recording these transactions.
Authority officials did not properly…
September 01, 2011
Memorandum
#2011-NY-1803