The Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority, Cleveland, OH, Did Not Have Adequate Oversight of Lead-Based Paint in Its Public Housing
We audited the Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority’s management of lead‐based paint in its public housing program based on our assessment of the risks of lead‐based paint in public housing. The risk factors assessed included the age of buildings, the number of units, household demographics, and reported cases of childhood lead poisoning. Our audit objectives were to determine whether the Authority (1) complied with HUD’s…
July 12, 2024
Report
#2024-CH-1002
The Columbus Metropolitan Housing Authority, Columbus, OH, Did Not Always Comply With HUD’s Requirements for Its Housing Choice Voucher Program Units
We audited the Columbus Metropolitan Housing Authority’s Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program. The audit was initiated based on our assessment of risks associated with public housing agencies’ HCV Program units and recent media attention and public concern about the conditions of subsidized housing properties. Our objective was to determine whether the physical condition of the Authority’s HCV Program units complied with the U.S.…
June 28, 2024
Report
#2024-CH-1001
The Stark Metropolitan Housing Authority, Canton, OH, Did Not Always Comply With Federal and Its Own Procurement Requirements
We audited the Stark Metropolitan Housing Authority’s public housing program based on significant deficiencies noted during our prior audit of the Authority. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority complied with Federal and its own requirements for procuring goods and services.
The Authority did not always comply with Federal and its own procurement requirements. Specifically, for the contracts reviewed, it did…
May 24, 2023
Report
#2023-CH-1002
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 Columbus Metropolitan Housing Authority, Columbus, OH, Did Not Always Comply With HUD’s Requirements Regarding the Administration of Its Public Housing Operating and Capital Fund Programs
We audited the Columbus Metropolitan Housing Authority’s Public Housing Operating and Capital Fund programs based on an anonymous complaint to our hotline. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority administered its programs in accordance with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) requirements.
The Authority invested Federal funds in non-HUD-approved investment accounts and did not properly record…
September 18, 2018
Report
#2018-CH-1006
The Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority, Cleveland, OH, Generally Administered Its Public Housing Program in Accordance With HUD’s and Its Own Requirements
We audited the Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority’s public housing program based on an anonymous complaint to our hotline. Our objective was specific to the allegations in the complaint and was to determine whether the Authority (1) engaged in nepotism when hiring staff, (2) used program funds for inappropriate or unreasonable travel expenses, (3) failed to comply with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) and…
August 28, 2018
Report
#2018-CH-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 Youngstown Metropolitan Housing Authority, Youngstown, OH, Did Not Always Comply With HUD’s and Its Own Requirements Regarding the Administration of Its Housing Choice Voucher Program
We audited the Youngstown Metropolitan Housing Authority’s Housing Choice Voucher program based on the activities included in our 2016 annual audit plan and our analysis of risk factors related to the public housing agencies in Region 5’s jurisdiction. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority appropriately managed its Family Self-Sufficiency program and Housing Choice Voucher program files in accordance with the U.S.…
July 07, 2017
Report
#2017-CH-1002
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 Dayton Metropolitan Housing Authority, Dayton, OH, Did Not Always Follow HUD’s and Its Own Requirements for the Procurement of Capital Grant-Funded Contract
We audited the Dayton Metropolitan Housing Authority’s Public Housing Capital Fund program. We selected the Authority’s program for audit based on our analysis of risk factors related to public housing agencies in Region 5’s1 jurisdiction. The audit was part of the activities in our fiscal year 2016 annual audit plan. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority complied with the U.S. Department of Housing and…
September 30, 2016
Report
#2016-CH-1012
Final Audit Report: The Lucas Metropolitan Housing Authority, Toledo, OH, Did Not Always Follow HUD’s or Its Own Procurement Requirements
We audited the Lucas Metropolitan Housing Authority’s public housing program as part of the activities in our fiscal year 2016 annual audit plan. We selected the Authority based on the results of a risk assessment of housing agencies in Region 5’s1 jurisdiction. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority complied with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) and its own procurement requirements.…
September 30, 2016
Report
#2016-CH-1013
The Jefferson Metropolitan Housing Authority, Steubenville, OH, Failed To Manage Its Procurements and Contracts in Accordance With HUD's and Its Own Requirements
We audited the Jefferson Metropolitan Housing Authority’s public housing program based on the activities included in our 2016 annual audit plan and a request from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority complied with (1) Federal and its own procurement requirements and (2) HUD’s requirements for the administration of its energy performance contract.
The…
August 03, 2016
Report
#2016-CH-1005
The Jefferson Metropolitan Housing Authority, Steubenville, OH, Did Not Adequately Enforce HUD’s Housing Quality Standards and Its Own Requirements
We audited the Jefferson Metropolitan Housing Authority’s Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program housing quality standards based on a request from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the activities included in our 2015 annual audit plan. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority conducted thorough housing quality standards inspections of its program units in accordance with HUD’s and its own…
September 24, 2015
Report
#2015-CH-1007
The Jefferson Metropolitan Housing Authority, Steubenville, OH, Did Not Always Ensure That Its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program Files Complied With HUD’s and Its Own Requirements
We audited the Jefferson Metropolitan Housing Authority’s Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program based on a request from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the activities included in our 2015 annual audit plan. Our audit objectives were to determine whether the Authority (1) appropriately calculated housing assistance payments, (2) maintained required eligibility documentation to support the admission and…
September 09, 2015
Report
#2015-CH-1004
The Adams Metropolitan Housing Authority, Manchester, OH, Generally Used Public Housing Program Funds in Accordance With HUD’s and Its Own Requirements
We audited the Adams Metropolitan Housing Authority’s public housing program as part of the activities in our fiscal year 2014 annual audit plan. We selected the Authority based on a request from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) management. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority used public housing program funds in accordance with HUD’s and its own requirements.
The Authority generally used…
July 31, 2014
Report
#2014-CH-1005
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