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 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 Greensboro Housing Authority, Greensboro, NC, Generally Administered Its Rental Assistance Demonstration Conversion in Accordance With HUD Requirements
We audited the Greensboro Housing Authority’s Rental Assistance Demonstration Program (RAD) conversion. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority administered its RAD conversion in accordance with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requirements. Specifically, we wanted to determine whether the Authority (1) executed appropriate written agreements, (2) ensured that project financing sources were secured…
May 10, 2018
Report
#2018-AT-1004
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 Lexington Housing Authority, Lexington, NC, Did Not Administer Its RAD Conversion in Accordance With HUD Requirements
We audited the Lexington Housing Authority’s Rental Assistance Demonstration Program (RAD) conversion. We selected the Authority based on concerns from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) North Carolina State Office of Public Housing and a request from the Housing Authority’s Board of Commissioners. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority administered its RAD program in accordance with HUD…
August 21, 2017
Report
#2017-AT-1011
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 Sanford Housing Authority, Sanford, NC, Did Not Comply With HUD’s and Its Own Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program Requirements
We audited the Sanford Housing Authority’s Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Programs as a result of problems identified during a technical assistance review performed by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) North Carolina State Office of Public Housing. Additionally, our audit is in keeping with our annual audit plan to ensure that public housing agencies sufficiently administer HUD’s programs in accordance with…
September 13, 2016
Report
#2016-AT-1013
The Sanford Housing Authority, Sanford, NC, Did Not Comply With Procurement and Financial Requirements
We audited the Sanford Housing Authority’s procurement and financial operations. We selected the Authority based on concerns from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) North Carolina State Office of Public Housing, following a technical assistance review performed. The technical assistance review identified issues with the Authority’s procurement practices and financial operations, among other items. The…
July 19, 2016
Report
#2016-AT-1008
The Housing Authority of the City of Durham, NC, Did Not Adequately Enforce HUD’s and Its Own Housing Quality Control Standards
We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Durham’s Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program’s housing quality standards based on our recent audit of the Authority’s program, during which potential issues with the Authority’s inspections were noted, and as part of our annual audit plan. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority ensured that program units met the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD…
May 10, 2016
Report
#2016-AT-1005
The Housing Authority of the City of Durham, NC, Did Not Always Comply With HUD’s and Its Own Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program Requirements
We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Durham’s Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program based on a hotline citizen complaint and as part of the activities in our fiscal year 2015 annual audit plan. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority administered its program in accordance with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) and its own requirements and whether the complaint was valid.
The Authority…
September 30, 2015
Report
#2015-AT-1011
Improvements Are Needed Over Environmental Reviews of Public Housing and Recovery Act Funds in the Greensboro Office
We audited the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Greensboro, NC, Office of Public Housing as part of a nationwide audit of HUD’s oversight of environmental reviews. We selected the Greensboro Office based on our risk assessment. Our audit objectives were to determine whether the Greensboro Office of Public Housing ensured that it performed the required reviews and did not release funds until all requirements…
July 14, 2014
Report
#2014-FW-0004
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
The Housing Authority of the City of Lumberton, NC, Did Not Administer Its Public Housing Program in Accordance With Requirements
We initiated a review of the Housing Authority of the City of Lumberton, NC, at the request of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Greensboro, NC, Office of Public Housing. HUD staff described many areas of concern, including cash management, procurement, and inventory controls. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority operated its public housing program in accordance with HUD and other Federal…
December 04, 2013
Report
#2014-AT-1002
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
The Housing Authority of the City of Hickory, NC, Mismanaged Some of Its HUD Funds
We audited the public housing program of the Housing Authority of the City of Hickory, NC, due to a citizen’s hotline complaint. Our objectives were to evaluate the merits of the complaint allegations and determine whether the Authority complied with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requirements for procurement, cash disbursements, a 2004 Resident Opportunity and Self-Sufficiency (ROSS) grant, and inventory control.
The…
June 01, 2012
Report
#2012-AT-1012
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