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
Bank2, Oklahoma City, OK, Originated Loans Reviewed in Accordance with Section 184 Loan Guarantees for Indian Housing Program Processing Guidelines
We audited Bank2’s origination of Section 184 Loan Guarantees for Indian Housing program loans. We selected Bank2’s Section 184 program because (1) an internal audit report and corrective action verification determined that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) lacked proper oversight of the program and lenders did not underwrite loans in accordance with HUD requirements 2) Bank2 is one of the largest Section 184…
July 11, 2019
Report
#2019-LA-1007
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 Housing Authority of the City of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK, Did Not Always Correctly Compute Housing Assistance Payments
We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Tulsa’s administration of its Section 8 program. We selected the Authority based on reports generated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Enterprise Income Verification system (EIV). The Authority had indicators of noncompliance with program requirements. Specifically, EIV reported an annualized income discrepancy of more than $1.6 million for 328…
May 17, 2017
Report
#2017-FW-1007
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 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 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 Cherokee Nation Generally Administered Its Recovery Act Funds According to Requirements
We audited the Cherokee Nation in accordance with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General’s goal to review funds provided under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Our objective was to determine whether the Nation complied with Recovery Act requirements for procuring, expending, and reporting its formula Native American Housing Block Grant funds received under the Recovery Act.
The…
March 12, 2013
Report
#2013-FW-1001
The Housing Authority of the Sac and Fox Nation of Oklahoma, Shawnee, OK, Did Not Demonstrate the Administrative Capacity To Appropriately Expend Its Recovery Act Funding
We audited the Housing Authority of the Sac and Fox Nation of Oklahoma’s (Authority) American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) funds. The objective was to determine whether the Authority had the capacity to use its Recovery Act funds in accordance with U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development requirements. We reviewed the Authority because of concerns identified in a previous audit of the Authority. The Authority…
May 13, 2010
Report
#2010-FW-1003
The Housing Authority of the Sac and Fox Nation of Oklahoma, Shawnee, Oklahoma, Improperly Spent More Than $800,000 in Contracts and Did Not Always Operate in Accordance with HUD Rules and Regulations or Its Own Policies
We audited the Housing Authority of the Sac and Fox Nation of Oklahoma (Authority) due to a U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) request. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority expended its Indian Housing Block Grant (grant) program funds in accordance with HUD rules and regulations.
While the Authority has improved since HUD’s fiscal year 2006 monitoring review, it still needs additional improvement. Because…
January 19, 2010
Report
#2010-FW-1002
The Richmond Redevelopment & Housing Authority, Richmond, Virginia, Did Not Adequately Administer Its Housing Assistance Payments for Its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program
We audited the Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority (Authority) administration of its housing assistance payments for leased housing. This is the last of three audit reports we plan to issue on the Authority's program. The audit objective addressed in this report was to determine whether the Authority properly maintained documentation to support housing assistance payments and accurately calculated them.
The Authority did not…
July 10, 2009
Report
#2009-PH-1009
The Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority, Richmond, Virginia, Did Not Ensure That Its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program Units Met Housing Quality Standards
We audited the Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority's (Authority) administration of its housing quality standards inspection program for its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program as part of our fiscal year 2008 audit plan. Our audit was to determine whether the Authority adequately administered its Section 8 housing quality standards inspection program to ensure that its program units met housing quality standards in accordance…
November 13, 2008
Report
#2009-PH-1001
The Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority, Richmond, Virginia, Did Not Effectively Operate Its Housing Choice Voucher Program
Attached is the final report on our audit of the Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority (Authority), Richmond, Virginia, Audit Report Number 2008-PH-1006, dated April 15, 2008. Our audit objectives were to determine whether the Authority adequately managed its waiting list, met HUD's lease-up thresholds, and operated its Family Self-Sufficiency program according to HUD requirements. The Authority's Housing Choice Voucher program…
April 15, 2008
Report
#2008-PH-1006
The Housing Authorities of the City of Konawa, City of Langston, City of Pauls Valley, City of Wynnewood, Town of Cheyenne, and Caddo Electric Cooperative Improperly Awarded Their Management Contracts and Did Not Manage Certain Operations or Administer Fu
At the request of HUD, we audited Green River Management, Inc., (Green River) which managed the Housing Authorities of the City of Konawa, City of Langston, City of Pauls Valley, City of Wynnewood, Town of Cheyenne, and Caddo Electric Cooperative. Our objective was to determine whether the housing authorities appropriately procured Green River as their management agent, maintained properties, and carried out their financial responsibilities in…
October 26, 2007
Report
#2008-FW-1001
The Newport News Redevelopment and Housing Authority, Newport News, Virginia, Did Not Effectively Operate Its Housing Choice Voucher Program
July 24, 2007
Report
#2007-PH-1009
The Newport News Redevelopment and Housing Authority, Newport News, Virginia, Did Not Always Follow HUD Requirements
February 19, 2007
Report
#2007-PH-1005