Naomi Gardens, Arcadia, CA, Did Not Comply With HUD Procurement and Waiting List Requirements
We audited the Naomi Gardens housing project (project) in response to a congressional request from Representative David Dreier of the 26th District of California. The request to review the project was based on a constituent’s complaint that alleged the possible misuse of U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funds, including the award of work to the family members of project employees without seeking proposals from other…
November 23, 2010
Report
#2011-LA-1003
The Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles Generally Had Capacity; However, It Needs To Improve Controls Over Its Administration of Its Capital Fund Grant Awarded Under The Recovery Act Program
We completed a capacity review of the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles’ (Authority) capital fund grant awarded under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) program. We performed the audit because Recovery Act reviews are part of the Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) annual plan and the Authority was awarded a significant amount of program funds. Our objective was to evaluate the Authority’s capacity in…
November 04, 2010
Report
#2011-LA-1002
The Virginia Housing Development Authority, Richmond, VA, Generally Administered Its Tax Credit Assistance Program Funded Under the Recovery Act in Accordance With Applicable Requirements
We audited the Virginia Housing Development Authority (Authority) because it received $44.2 million in Tax Credit Assistance Program (Program) funds under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). The Authority received the second largest amount of Program funds awarded in Region III. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority administered its Program in accordance with Recovery Act and applicable U.S.…
October 25, 2010
Report
#2011-PH-1001
The City of Los Angeles Housing Department, Los Angeles, CA, Did Not Always Effectively Administer Its Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program
We audited the Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program (program) at the City of Los Angeles Housing Department (Department) because it was the second largest single program grant awarded within California under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). In addition, our audit is part of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) national mandate to monitor…
October 25, 2010
Report
#2011-LA-1001
The Compton Housing Authority, Compton, CA, Was Not Fully Reimbursed for Housing Assistance Payments for Portability Tenants
We audited the Compton Housing Authority’s (Authority) Section 8 program as the result of the Los Angeles Office of Public Housing’s concerns regarding its program administration. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority used Section 8 program funds in accordance with HUD rules and regulations. The Authority did not use Section 8 program funds in accordance with HUD rules and regulations as it did not fully comply with portability…
September 28, 2010
Report
#2010-LA-1016
Financial Freedom Senior Funding Corporation, Irvine, CA, Improperly Funded One Ineligible HECM Loan
While performing an internal audit of the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Home Equity Conversion Mortgage (HECM) program, we noted one HECM loan underwritten by Financial Freedom Senior Funding Corporation, (Financial Freedom) of Irvine, CA, that was improperly insured as the property had several years of deferred property taxes, which is a violation of the HECM regulations. Neither Financial Freedom’s loan…
September 17, 2010
Memorandum
#2010-FW-1805
The Housing Authority of the City and County of San Francisco, CA, Did Not Effectively Operate Its Housing Choice Voucher Housing Quality Standards Inspections
We audited the Housing Authority of the City and County of San Francisco’s (Authority) Section 8 housing quality standards inspections of Housing Choice Voucher program (voucher)-funded housing units. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority conducted its housing quality standards inspections in accordance with HUD rules and regulations. We found that the Authority did not conduct its housing quality standards inspections of…
August 31, 2010
Report
#2010-LA-1015
The City of Montebello, CA, Did Not Comply With HOME Requirements
We reviewed the City of Montebello’s (City) HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) at the request of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Los Angeles Office of Community Planning and Development (CPD). The request was based on findings contained in a 2008 single audit report and 2009 HUD CPD technical assistance report, which stated that the City did not fully comply with HOME program requirements in the ongoing…
July 08, 2010
Report
#2010-LA-1013
Prospect Mortgage, LLC, Fairfax, VA, Generally Complied With HUD Requirements Regarding FHA-Insured Single-Family Loans
We audited the Fairfax, VA, branch office (branch office) of Prospect Mortgage, LLC (Prospect Mortgage), because it had one of the highest default rates for U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)-approved lenders for loans issued in the State of Maryland. Our objective was to determine whether Prospect Mortgage and its branch office complied with HUD regulations, procedures, and instructions in the origination and quality…
June 22, 2010
Report
#2010-PH-1010
Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency Did Not Always Administer the Neighborhood Stabilization Program in Accordance With HUD Rules and Regulations
We audited the Sacramento Housing Redevelopment Agency (Agency) as a result of a hotline complaint, which alleged violations of Neighborhood Stabilization Program (program) funds provided through the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008. Our objective was to determine whether the alleged violations had merit. The complaint alleged several instances where the Agency did not follow program rules and regulations, including but not limited to…
June 02, 2010
Report
#2010-LA-1011
The City of Los Angeles Housing Department Generally Had Sufficient Capacity and Adequate Internal Controls To Administer its Neighborhod Stabilization Program Funds
We completed a capacity review of the City of Los Angeles’ Housing Department’s (City) Neighborhood Stabilization Program (Program). We performed the review because Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA) reviews are part of our annual audit plan and the program was identified as high risk. We previously audited several different aspects of the City’s HOME Investment Partnerships program, all of which disclosed significant monitoring…
March 17, 2010
Report
#2010-LA-1008
The County of San Bernardino, CA, Had Questionable Capacity to Administer Neighborhood Stabilization Program Funds
We completed a capacity review of the County of San Bernardino’s (County) Neighborhood Stabilization Program (Program). We performed the audit because Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 reviews are 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 Program funds of $22.7 million. Our objective was to determine whether the County…
February 10, 2010
Report
#2010-LA-1007
City of Fresno Generally Had Sufficient Capacity and the Necessary Controls to Manage and Administer Its Neighborhood Stabilization Program
We completed a capacity review of the City of Fresno’s (City) Neighborhood Stabilization Program (Program). We performed the audit because Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 reviews are part of the Office of the Inspector General’s annual audit plan and the program was identified as high risk. In addition, the City was awarded a $10.9 grant. Our objective was to determine whether the City had sufficient capacity and the necessary…
February 02, 2010
Report
#2010-LA-1006
Although the County of Riverside Had Sufficient Overall Capacity, It Lacked Necessary Controls To Administer its Neighborhood Stabilization Program
We completed a capacity review of the County of Riverside’s (County) Neighborhood Stabilization Program (Program). We performed the audit because Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 reviews are 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 Program funds of $48.6 million. Our objective was to determine whether the County had…
December 28, 2009
Report
#2010-LA-1004
Review of Lutheran Gardens Corporation Trust Fund Account Compton, California
We performed a review of the Lutheran Gardens Corporation (Corporation) trust fund account in response to a HUD request, dated March 30, 2009. HUD believed that as much as $2.72 million was withdrawn from a trust account in violation of a trust agreement (agreement) with HUD, dated April 22, 2005, and questioned certain disbursements. Our objective was to determine whether the Corporation withdrew and expended trust funds in accordance with…
December 17, 2009
Memorandum
#2010-LA-1802
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
The Yorkville Cooperative, Fairfax, Virginia, Did Not Administer Its Section 221(d)(3) Property and Housing Assistance Contract According to Its Regulatory Agreement and HUD Requirements
We audited the Yorkville Cooperative (Cooperative) based on a request from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Richmond Multifamily Program Center and a citizen complaint. The objective of the audit was to determine whether the Cooperative administered its Section 221(d)(3) property and housing assistance contract according to its regulatory agreement and HUD requirements.
The Cooperative did not administer its Section…
November 24, 2009
Report
#2010-PH-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 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 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