City of Los Angeles' Community Development Department, Los Angeles, California, Projects Dd Not Comply with Community Development Block Grant Program Requirements
We audited the City of Los Angeles’ Community Development Department (City) as a result of problems noted during a prior audit involving activities administered by the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles (subrecipient). Our objective was to determine whether Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds were administered in accordance with HUD’s requirements for the CDBG program as they relate to a specific subrecipient…
December 03, 2009
Report
#2010-LA-1003
City of Los Angeles Housing Department, Los Angeles, California, Did Not Ensure That the Noho Commons Housing Development Met HOME Program Requirements
We audited the City of Los Angeles Housing Department (City) as a result of two complaints alleging violations of affordable housing and low-income housing tax credit regulations at the NoHo Commons housing development (development), which was partially funded with HOME funds and administered by the Community Redevelopment Agency of Los Angeles (subrecipient). Our objective was to determine whether the alleged violations had merit and warranted…
October 28, 2009
Report
#2010-LA-1001
HUD Should Provide Additional Monitoring of the Navajo Housing Authority's Implementation of Recovery Act-Funded Projects
We conducted a capacity review of the Navajo Housing Authority’s (Authority) operations. The objective of the review was to evaluate the Authority’s capacity to administer its American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act) funds and identify related potential internal control weaknesses that could impact its ability to properly administer the funds. We did not find evidence indicating that the Authority lacked the basic capacity to…
October 09, 2009
Memorandum
#2010-LA-1801
HUD Needs to Make a Final Determination on Whether San Diego Square Subleased Property is HUD Insured Under Section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959
We performed a review of the San Diego Square (Square) project in response to a hotline complaint. The complainant stated that San Diego Kind Corporation (Corporation) misappropriated a lease prepayment of $480,060 and HUD failed to enforce program rules and regulations after detecting the misappropriation. Our objective was to determine whether the complaint was valid. We were unable to determine whether the allegations were valid. The…
October 01, 2009
Memorandum
#2010-LA-0801
The Housing Authority of the City of Eloy Lacked Capacity to Administer Its Recovery Act Capital Fund Grant Without Outside Assistance
We performed a capital fund administrative capacity review of the Housing Authority of the City of Eloy (Authority) because, despite the Authority’s persistent management problems, HUD awarded the Authority a Public Housing Capital Fund grant of $113,672 under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). Our objective was to determine whether the Authority had sufficient capacity to administer its Recovery Act Public…
September 25, 2009
Report
#2009-LA-1021
The Housing Authority of the City of Richmond, Richmond, California, Did Not Follow Procurement Requirements and Had Internal Control Weaknesses
We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Richmond’s (Authority) procurement activities. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority followed procurement requirements. We found that the Authority could not adequately support that procurement activities were conducted in accordance with applicable requirements. As a result, it could not demonstrate that contracts were awarded to vendors whose proposals were most advantageous to…
September 24, 2009
Report
#2009-LA-1020
The Owner of Park Lee Apartments, Phoenix, Arizona, Violated Its Regulatory Agreement with HUD
We audited Park Lee Apartments to determine whether it complied with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) regulatory agreement and other federal requirements.
We found that Park Lee Apartments did not use its project funds in compliance with HUD and other federal requirements. Specifically, the owner and/or management agents violated the regulatory agreement with HUD by paying $512,562 in questioned costs from the…
September 15, 2009
Report
#2009-LA-1019
DHI Mortgage Company, LTD’s Scottsdale and Tucson, Arizona, Branches Did Not Always Follow FHA-Insured Loan Underwriting and Quality Control Requirements
We audited FHA-insured loan processes at two DHI Mortgage Company, LTD (DHI Mortgage) branches in Tucson and Scottsdale, Arizona, to determine whether DHI Mortgage originated, approved, and closed FHA-insured single-family loans in accordance with HUD requirements. We chose DHI Mortgage because the Scottsdale, Arizona, branch had a default rate that was double the default rate for FHA-insured loans for the state of Arizona, and then expanded…
September 10, 2009
Report
#2009-LA-1018
The Los Angeles County Community Development Commission Had Sufficient Capacity and the Necessary Controls to Administer its Neighborhood Stabilization Program
We completed a capacity review of the Los Angeles County Community Development Commission’s (County) Neighborhood Stabilization Program. We performed the audit because Housing and Economic Recovery Act reviews were part of the Office of the Inspector General’s annual audit plan and the program was identified as high risk. In addition, the County was awarded significant Neighborhood Stabilization Program funds of $16.8 million. Our objective…
September 02, 2009
Report
#2009-LA-1017
State of California’s Department of Housing and Community Development, Sacramento, California, Review of the Allocation Formula for the Neighborhood Stabilization Program
We audited the State of California’s Department of Housing and Community Development (State) to determine the basis and method used to allocate its $145 million in Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) grant funds. Our objective was to determine whether the methodology the State used in allocating its NSP grant funds was logical, equitable, and in accordance with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requirements. The State…
August 21, 2009
Report
#2009-LA-1016
The Housing Authority of the City of Long Beach, California, Did Not Adequately Conduct Housing Quality Standards Inspections
We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Long Beach’s (Authority) Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program. The Authority was selected based on its having received low housing quality standards indicator scores for fiscal years 2006 and 2007 under HUD’s Section Eight Management Assessment Program in addition to a lack of recent on-site reviews by HUD. The objective of the audit was to determine whether the Authority conducted housing…
July 29, 2009
Report
#2009-LA-1014
The City of Oakland Did Not Always Administer Its HOME Investment Partnerships Program in Accordance with Federal Requirements and Its Own Policies and Procedures
We reviewed the City of Oakland’s HOME Investment Partnerships Program to determine whether it administered its program in accordance with federal requirements and its own policies and procedures. We selected the City for review due to its large annual HUD funding and because it had not been the subject of an OIG audit for several years. The City did not always administer its HOME program in accordance with federal requirements and its own…
July 24, 2009
Report
#2009-LA-1013
The City of Baldwin Park Housing Authority, Baldwin Park, California, Did Not Always Determine Housing Assistance Payments Correctly and Did Not Always Complete Reexaminations in a Timely Manner
We audited the City of Baldwin Park Housing Authority’s (Authority) Housing Choice Voucher program. We conducted the audit because the Authority received a “near troubled” status and scores of zero on five Section Eight Management Assessment Program indicators for fiscal year 2007. The objective was to determine whether the Authority determined housing assistance payments correctly and completed annual reexaminations in a timely manner. The…
July 23, 2009
Report
#2009-LA-1012
Financial Freedom Senior Funding Corporation, Irvine, California, Did Not Fully Follow HUD's Reverse Mortgage Requirements for Loans in the San Antonio, Texas Area
We audited Financial Freedom Senior Funding Corporation (Financial Freedom) as part of our annual audit plan objective of improving the integrity of single-family insurance programs. Our objective was to determine whether Financial Freedom complied with U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) origination requirements for the Home Equity Conversion Mortgage program, commonly known as a reverse mortgage.
Financial Freedom generally…
July 14, 2009
Report
#2009-FW-1012
The HUD Phoenix Field Office's Procedures for Monitoring the Nogales Housing Authority Were Not Adequate
We audited the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Office of Public Housing field office in Phoenix, Arizona (Public Housing). The objective of the audit was to determine whether Public Housing’s procedures for monitoring the Nogales Housing Authority (Authority) were effective. The audit was started because Public Housing performed several monitoring reviews at the Authority; however, there were indications that some of…
July 13, 2009
Report
#2009-LA-0001
The Culver City Housing Agency, Culver City, California, Did Not Administer Its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program in Accordance with HUD Requirements
We audited the Culver City Housing Agency’s (Agency) administration of its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program waiting list and housing assistance payment calculations. We initiated this review based upon information we received regarding waiting list administration and potential tenant eligibility issues. The Agency’s ongoing lease-up deficiency and lack of monitoring visits by the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)…
July 01, 2009
Report
#2009-LA-1010
City of Los Angeles Housing Department, Los Angeles, California, Did Not Ensure That the Buckingham Place Project Met HOME Program Requirements
We audited the City of Los Angeles Housing Department (City) as the result of problems noted during a prior audit involving HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME)-funded activities administered by the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles (subrecipient), which was not adequately monitored by the City, compounded by concerns stemming from various newspaper articles related to the Marlton Square project, which included the…
July 01, 2009
Report
#2009-LA-1011
Corrective Action Verification, Housing Authority of Maricopa County, Mixed-Finance Development Activities, Phoenix, Arizona
We performed a corrective action verification of HUD's actions in implementing recommendation 1F from our audit of the Housing Authority of Maricopa County's Mixed Finance Development Activities (Rose Terrace and Maricopa Revitalization), Audit Report 2005-LA-1002, issued March 14, 2005. The purpose of the corrective action verification was to determine whether HUD officials appropriately closed audit recommendation 1F in accordance…
June 16, 2009
Memorandum
#2009-LA-0801
The Housing Authority of the County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, Did Not Reasonably and Equitably Allocate Costs to Its Section 8 Program
We completed a financial review of the Housing Authority of the County of Los Angeles' (Authority) Section 8 program. We initiated the review in response to several citizen complaints alleging mismanagement, waste, and abuse of U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Section 8 funding, including the use of Section 8 funds to pay the costs of non-Section 8 programs. Our objective was to determine the validity of the above…
April 24, 2009
Report
#2009-LA-1009
Campaige Place at Jackson, Phoenix, Arizona, Did Not Use Its Project Funds in Compliance with HUD’s Regulatory Agreement and Other Federal Requirements
We audited Campaige Place at Jackson (Campaige Place) to determine whether it used its project funds in compliance with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) regulatory agreement and other federal requirements.
Campaige Place did not use its project funds in compliance with HUD’s and other federal requirements. Specifically, we determined that:
•Owner advances of $73,750 were repaid when the project had no surplus cash…
March 18, 2009
Report
#2009-LA-1008