The Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority, Charlottesville, VA, Did Not Always Comply With Applicable Procurement Requirements
We audited the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority’s use of public housing operating and capital funds because (1) we received a hotline complaint alleging that the Authority mismanaged its procurement activities and improperly awarded an internet services contract for more than $200,000 without receiving competitive bids and (2) we had never audited the Authority. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority…
August 02, 2019
Report
#2019-PH-1002
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 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 Loudoun County Department of Family Services, Leesburg, VA, Did Not Always Ensure That Its Program Units Met Housing Quality Standards
We audited the Loudoun County Department of Family Services’ Housing Choice Voucher program because (1) we received a complaint alleging housing quality standards problems with a housing unit participating in the County’s program, (2) the County had 688 vouchers and received more than $6.4 million in fiscal year 2016, and (3) we had not audited its program. Our audit objective was to determine whether the County ensured that its Housing…
June 09, 2017
Report
#2017-PH-1004
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 Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority, Richmond, VA, Did Not Always Charge Eligible and Reasonable Central Office Cost Center Fees
We audited the fees that the Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority charged to its U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) housing programs for central office cost center services based on issues identified during our prior audit of the Authority. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority charged fees to its HUD housing programs for central office cost center services that were eligible, reasonable, and…
August 17, 2016
Report
#2016-PH-1005
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
The Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority, Richmond, VA, Did Not Comply With HUD Requirements When Procuring Services
We audited the Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority’s public housing program based on a request from the Office of Public Housing in the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Richmond, VA, field office. The request was made after media inquiries noted possible fraud, waste, or abuse at the Authority. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority complied with HUD procurement requirements.…
September 30, 2015
Report
#2015-PH-1008
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 Hopewell Redevelopment and Housing Authority, Hopewell, VA, Generally Used Housing Choice Voucher and Public Housing Program Funds in Accordance With Applicable Requirements
We audited the Hopewell Redevelopment and Housing Authority’s use of U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Housing Choice Voucher and public housing program funds. We audited the Authority because we received a complaint alleging that the Authority (1) improperly calculated tenant rents and utility allowances, (2) improperly managed the program waiting list, (3) used credit cards for personal transactions, (4) made…
February 03, 2014
Report
#2014-PH-1002
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
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
The Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina Did Not Follow Some Requirements for Its Native American Housing Block Grants Received Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
We selected the tribe for audit because it received a $4.7 million formula grant and a $4 million competitive grant, the largest Native American Housing Block Grants awarded in North Carolina under the Recovery Act. Our objective was to determine whether the tribe administered its Native American Housing Block Grants in compliance with Recovery Act and other applicable requirements, specifically, whether it had (1) expended funds on a timely…
December 05, 2011
Report
#2012-AT-1003
The Greensboro Housing Authority Needs To Improve Internal Controls for Administering Recovery Act Funds
We audited the Greensboro Housing Authority (Authority) as part of our annual plan to review public housing capital funds awarded under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). The Authority received a $5.6 million Public Housing Capital Fund Stimulus (formula) Recovery Act Funded grant, the second highest in the State. It also received a Recovery Act funded $1.05 million capital fund competitive grant for addressing…
July 21, 2011
Report
#2011-AT-1013
The Housing Authority, City of Wilson, NC, Mismanaged Its Section 8 Program
HUD OIG audited the Housing Authority of the City of Wilson’s (Authority) Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program. We elected to perform the audit after finding indicators of Section 8 deficiencies during our review of the Authority’s capacity to administer capital funds awarded under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Audit Report 2010-AT-1007). Our objectives were to determine whether the Authority complied with U.S.…
January 13, 2011
Report
#2011-AT-1003
The Housing Authority, City of Wilson, NC, Lacked the Capacity To Effectively Administer Recovery Act Funds
We reviewed the Housing Authority of the City of Wilson (Authority) because it was granted $9.2 million for Public Housing Capital Fund projects (capital funds) under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). In addition, we received a citizen’s complaint alleging that the Authority used unethical procurement practices and did not plan to use Recovery Act funds effectively. Our objectives were to evaluate the Authority…
July 27, 2010
Report
#2010-AT-1007
The Wilmington Housing Authority of Wilmington, NC, Misused Federal Funds in the Purchase of Two Properties
HUD OIG performed a review of selected transactions at the Wilmington Housing Authority (Authority) in conjunction with our review of a citizen’s hotline complaint. Among other concerns, the complainant alleged that the Authority misused U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funds in conjunction with its purchase of Eastbrook Apartments in September 2005. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority misused HUD funds…
May 19, 2010
Memorandum
#2010-AT-1805
The Housing Authority of the City of Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Needs to Improve Financial Controls
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) awarded the Housing Authority of the City of Winston-Salem (Authority) $3.9 million in formula-based capital funds under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). HUD’s Office of Inspector General evaluated the Authority’s capacity to administer these funds. We found that the Authority generally has the capacity to administer these funds but needed to improve some…
September 29, 2009
Report
#2009-AT-1014