Departments are required by law to develop and maintain governance structures, controls, and processes to safeguard resources and assets. A robust fraud risk framework helps to ensure that programs fulfill their intended purpose and that funds are spent effectively. HUD relies on public housing authorities (PHAs) to detect and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse in its housing programs.  Therefore, we audited the New York City Housing Authority…

We audited the Buffalo Municipal Housing Authority’s management of its Commodore Perry Homes development.  We selected the Authority based on congressional interest.  Half of the development’s buildings were demolished more than 20 years ago, and the majority of the remaining buildings and units have been vacant for years without redevelopment activity.  The objective of the audit was to determine whether the Authority properly…

We audited the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development’s (HPD) Housing Choice Voucher Program.  We selected HPD for review based on its size and because we had not conducted an audit of its Housing Choice Voucher Program.  The objective of the audit was to determine whether HPD ensured that its program units met HUD’s housing quality standards and whether it abated housing assistance payments when required.…

We audited the Buffalo Municipal Housing Authority based on our risk analysis of public housing agencies that fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Buffalo, NY, field office.  The objective of our audit was to determine whether the Authority administered its operating funds in accordance with applicable HUD, Federal, and Authority requirements. We found that the Authority did not…

We audited the Glen Cove Housing Authority’s administration of the disposition proceeds it received from selling properties.  We selected the Authority for review because the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) New York Office of Public and Indian Housing ranked it as the third highest risk performer among 67 public housing providers in New York and because the audited financial statements and property disposition…

We audited the New Brunswick Housing Authority because it was classified as a troubled public housing agency 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 Authority administered its operating and capital funds in accordance with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requirements. We found that the Authority did not…

We completed a review of the New Rochelle Municipal Housing Authority’s administration of its public housing program.  We selected the Authority based on a management request from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) New York Office of Public Housing.  The Authority was designated as a troubled housing authority and had indicators of noncompliance with program requirements, such as using program funds to pay…

(REISSUED February 17, 2017) We audited the Town of Amherst’s Housing Choice Voucher program administered through a contractor, Belmont Housing Resources for Western New York, to address our audit plan priority to ensure that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) public and Indian housing programs are sufficiently administered by public housing agencies (PHA).  We selected this auditee based on a risk analysis of…

We audited the Tarrytown Municipal Housing Authority’s administration of its public housing program based on an Office of Inspector General risk assessment.  The objectives of the audit were to evaluate the Authority’s financial controls to determine whether (1) U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funds were used for eligible, reasonable, and supported expenses and (2) adequate financial controls were maintained to…

We audited the Rochester Housing Authority’s Housing Choice Voucher program to address our goal to contribute to improving the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) execution of its fiscal responsibilities.  We selected this auditee based on a risk analysis of public housing agencies administered by the HUD Buffalo field office, which considered, among other factors, funds received and the number of program housing units…

We completed a review of the Freeport Housing Authority’s administration of its low-rent housing and homeownership programs.  We selected the Authority due to a request from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) New York Office of Public and Indian Housing officials.  The objective of the audit was to determine whether the Authority administered its low-rent housing and homeownership programs in accordance with…

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development – Office of Inspector General audited the Helena, MT Housing Authority in response to a hotline complaint alleging a former employee of the housing authority improperly released housing choice voucher holders’ personally identifiable information.  The objective of our review was to determine whether the allegation had merit. A former Authority employee did improperly release personally…

We audited the Niagara Falls Housing Authority’s HOPE VI grant program based on an Office of Inspector General risk analysis and the amount of funding the Authority received.  The objectives of the audit were to determine whether the Authority administered its HOPE VI grant program and activities in accordance with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and HOPE VI grant program requirements. The Authority did not always…

We completed a review of the New York City Housing Authority’s administration of its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program.  We selected the Authority based on indicators from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) monitoring reports.  The objectives of the audit were to determine whether the Authority administered its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program in accordance with HUD regulations and made housing…

We completed a review of the New York City Housing Authority’s administration of its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program to ensure that its units met the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) housing quality standards.  We selected the Authority based on indicators from HUD monitoring reports, such as the Authority’s overall Section 8 Management Assessment Program performance rating modified to standard for fiscal…

We audited the Buffalo Municipal Housing Authority’s Public Housing Capital Fund Stimulus (Formula) program funded under the Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 based on an Office of Inspector General risk analysis and the amount of funding the Authority received. The objectives of the audit were to determine whether Authority officials (1) procured contracts in accordance with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)…

We completed a review of the New York City Housing Authority’s use of Federal funds. We selected this auditee based on a hotline complaint, case number HL-2011-0705, which alleged a pattern of waste, overspending, and abuse by the Authority. Specifically, the complaint alleged that the Authority (1) froze its Section 8 vouchers due to lack of available funds, (2) overpaid at least one housing manager with an annual salary of $187,000, (3) paid…

We completed a corrective action verification review of the audit recommendations for findings 1 and 2 of Audit Report Number 2006-NY-1005, issued February 21, 2006 pertaining to the general operations of the Utica Municipal Housing Authority, Utica, New York (Authority). The purpose of the corrective action verification was to determine whether the selected audit recommendations were implemented and the deficiencies cited in the report were…

We performed a capacity review to assess the Rochester Housing Authority’s (Authority) administration of its capital funding program. The Authority was awarded $5.9 million in capital funds under the Recovery Act. Our review determined that the Authority had weaknesses in its financial controls that if left unaddressed could lead to its having a diminished capacity to effectively administer its supplemental Recovery Act funds. Specifically,…