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…

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…

We audited the Taylor Housing Commission’s Housing Choice Voucher Program based on our analysis of risk factors relating to public housing agencies in Region 5’s jurisdiction (States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin). Our audit objective was to determine whether the Commission complied with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) and its own requirements regarding the administration of its…

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…

We audited the Detroit Housing Commission’s Moderate Rehabilitation program based on concerns regarding the conditions of the housing units and the results of our prior audit of the Commission’s former projects.  The audit was part of the activities in our fiscal year 2018 annual audit plan.  Our audit objective was to determine whether the Commission administered its program in accordance with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban…

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…

We audited the Grand Rapids Housing Commission’s Rental Assistance Demonstration program (RAD) based on the activities included in our 2017 annual audit plan and our analysis of the housing agencies participating in RAD in Region 5’s jurisdiction (States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin).  Our audit objective was to determine whether the Commission correctly calculated housing assistance payments for the units…

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…

We audited the Port Huron Housing Commission’s public housing program as part of the activities in our fiscal year 2016 annual audit plan.  We selected the Commission based on our analysis of the risk factors relating to public housing agencies in Region 5’s 1 jurisdiction.  Our objective was to determine whether the Commission administered its program in accordance with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) and…

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…

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…

We audited the Lansing Housing Commission’s Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program based on our analysis of risk factors related to the public housing agencies in Region 5’s  jurisdiction and the activities included in our 2015 annual audit plan.  Our audit objectives were to determine whether the Commission (1) appropriately calculated housing assistance payments, (2) maintained eligibility documentation required to support the…

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…

We audited the Detroit Housing Commission’s Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Program as part of the activities in our fiscal year 2015 annual audit plan.  We selected the Commission based upon a citizen’s complaint alleging mismanagement in the administration of the Commission’s former program projects, Colony Arms and Fisher Arms Apartments.  Our audit objectives were to determine whether the Commission appropriately (1) maintained…

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…

We audited the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Detroit Office of Public Housing as part of a nationwide audit of HUD’s oversight of environmental reviews.  We selected the Detroit Office based on our risk assessment.  Our audit objectives were to determine whether the Detroit Office’s oversight of public housing environmental reviews within its jurisdiction ensured that (1) the responsible entities performed…

We audited the Pontiac Housing Commission’s Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program based on our analysis of risk factors relating to the housing agencies in Region 5’s  jurisdiction.  Our objective was to determine whether the Commission complied with Federal, State, or its own requirements regarding its Family Self-Sufficiency program and conflicts of interest. The Commission did not always administer its Family Self-Sufficiency…

We audited the Ferndale Housing Commission’s Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program as part of the activities in our fiscal year 2014 annual audit plan.  We selected the Commission based upon an analysis of risk factors related to public housing agencies in Region 5’s jurisdiction.   Our objectives were to determine whether the Commission appropriately (1) calculated housing assistance payments, (2) maintained required…

We audited the Jackson Housing Commission’s Section 8 program as part of the activities in our fiscal year 2014 annual audit plan.  We selected the Commission based on our analysis of the risk factors relating to public housing agencies in Region 5’s jurisdiction.  Our objective was to determine whether the Commission administered its program in accordance with HUD’s and its own program requirements. The Commission generally…

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…