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
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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
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 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 Stark Metropolitan Housing Authority, Canton, OH, Did Not Always Administer Its Grant in Accordance With Recovery Act, HUD’s, and Its Own Requirements
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of the Inspector General (OIG) audited the Stark Metropolitan Housing Authority’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Public Housing Capital Fund stimulus formula grant as part of the activities in our fiscal year 2012 annual audit plan. We selected the Authority based upon risk factors related to the housing agencies in Region 5’s Region 5 includes the States of Illinois,…
September 27, 2012
Report
#2012-CH-1011
Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority, Cleveland, OH, Did Not Operate Its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program According to HUD’s Requirements
We audited the Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority’s Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program. The audit was part of the activities in our fiscal year 2012 annual audit plan. We selected the Authority based upon our analysis of risk factors relating to the housing agencies in Region V’s jurisdiction. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority administered its program in accordance with applicable U.S. Department of Housing and…
March 29, 2012
Report
#2012-CH-1006
The Gallia Metropolitan Housing Authority, Bidwell, OH, Did Not Always Administer Its Grant in Accordance with Recovery Act and HUD Requirements
We audited the Gallia Metropolitan Housing Authority’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Public Housing Capital Fund Stimulus (formula) grant. The audit was part of the activities in our fiscal year 2011 annual audit plan. We selected the Authority based upon our analysis of risk factors relating to the housing agencies in Region V’s (see footnote 1) jurisdiction and a request by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban…
January 25, 2012
Report
#2012-CH-1001