We audited the West Village Expansion Project in Durham, NC, a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Section 220-insured property, due to a citizen’s hotline complaint. The anonymous complainant alleged that the managing member of the project’s ownership entity spent an excessive amount of project funds on legal fees, transferred more than $500,000 to another entity owned by it, and failed to keep the mortgage current. Our…

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General (OIG), conducted a review of loans underwritten by Countrywide Home Loans Inc., and its divisions Countrywide Bank FSB and Countrywide Mortgage Ventures, LLC. The objective of the review was to determine whether Countrywide underwrote Federal Housing Administration (FHA) loans in accordance with HUD-FHA regulations. Countrywide is a subsidiary of Bank of…

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…

As part of the Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) nationwide effort to review the foreclosure practices of the five largest Federal Housing Administration (FHA) mortgage servicers (Bank of America, Wells Fargo Bank, CitiMortgage, JP Morgan Chase, and Ally Financial, Incorporated) we reviewed Bank of America’s foreclosure and claims processes. In addition to this memorandum, OIG issued separate memorandums for each of the other four reviews.…

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…

We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Little Rock’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 funding. The Authority received more than $6.5 million in Recovery Act funds through three grants: one formula and two competitive. Our objectives were to determine whether the Authority (1) obligated and expended its Recovery Act funding in accordance with HUD rules and regulations and (2) followed Recovery Act reporting requirements…

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…

At the request of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Greensboro, NC, Director of Community Planning and Development, we reviewed Mecklenburg County’s (County) administration of its Shelter Plus Care program (program). Our objectives were to determine whether the County paid for only eligible program administrative expenses; housed its participants in decent, safe, and sanitary units; and properly documented its 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.…

We audited the West Memphis Housing Authority (Authority) in Arkansas as part of our annual audit plan to review American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (Recovery Act). Our objective was to determine whether obligations the Authority made between January 30 and March 17, 2010, were appropriate, prudent, eligible, and supported, whether procurements and disbursements were made in accordance with requirements. Generally, the Authority complied…

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…

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…

The State of Arkansas (State) is scheduled to receive more than $15.67 million under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). As part of our organization’s commitment to ensure the proper use of Recovery Act funds, we reviewed the State’s controls and operations. Specifically, our objective was to determine whether the State has the capacity to account for Recovery Act funding and the controls to ensure that its…

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…

HUD OIG performed an audit of the High Point Housing Authority’s (Authority) U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program pursuant to a citizen’s complaint. Our objectives were to determine whether the Authority properly (1) enforced HUD’s housing quality standards, (2) calculated Section 8 administrative fees, and (3) determined housing assistance subsidies and issued vouchers to qualified…

We audited the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program administered by the City of Durham, North Carolina (City). The objective of the audit was to determine whether the City administered its program in accordance with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requirements. We selected the City for review based on HUD's risk assessment and previous monitoring reviews. The City did not administer its CDBG program in…

We audited the Fort Smith Housing Authority (Authority) in response to a request from the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Office of Public Housing. The objectives were to determine whether the Authority and its instrumentality, North Pointe Limited Partnership (Partnership), spent HUD-provided funds in compliance with HUD's rules and regulations for costs related to North Pointe Development (the development),…

We audited the City of Durham (City), North Carolina's HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) program. Our audit objective was to determine whether the City complied with applicable federal procurement requirements with respect to its homeowner rehabilitation activity. This is the second of two audits of the City's program. The City did not advertise for homeowner rehabilitation contractors as required. Also, it did not take necessary…

We audited the City of Durham (City), North Carolina 's HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) program as part of our annual audit plan. Our audit objectives were to determine whether the City complied with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requirements for monitoring HOME subrecipients and recording and using HOME program income. The City did not always perform required monitoring reviews or provide adequate evidence that…