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 HUD believed that as much as $2.72 million was withdrawn from a trust account in violation of a trust agreement (agreement) with HUD, dated April 22, 2005, and questioned certain disbursements.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
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
The State of Washington Did Not Always Allocate Its Neighborhood Stabilization Program Funds Based on Greatest Need
We audited the State of Washington’s Neighborhood Stabilization Program. The audit was part of our fiscal year 2009 annual audit plan. We selected the State because it was responsible for the distribution of funds to the entitlement areas, as well as to nonentitlement areas for the state of Washington. Our objective was to determine whether the State’s Program implementation was compliant with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development…
September 15, 2009
Memorandum
#2009-SE-1802
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
Bank of America, Seattle, Washington, Needs to Improve Its Compliance with HUD Requirements
We reviewed Bank of America's (servicer) home equity conversion mortgage (HECM) servicing division located in Seattle, Washington. Bank of America is one of the largest lenders of HECM mortgages for properties located in the five southwest states in the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Region VI jurisdiction. Our objective was to determine whether the servicer complied with HUD regulations, specifically,…
July 29, 2009
Report
#2009-FW-1013
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
Eagle Home Mortgage, Kirkland, Washington, Did Not Always Comply with HUD Guidelines When Underwriting Federal Housing Administration-Insured Loans
We audited single-family loan originations at Eagle Home Mortgage (Eagle Mortgage), located in Kirkland, Washington, to determine whether it originated Federal Housing Administration (FHA)-insured loans in accordance with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requirements. Eagle Mortgage did not always originate FHA insured loans in accordance with HUD requirements. Specifically, Eagle Mortgage did not follow HUD's…
July 20, 2009
Report
#2009-SE-1003
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 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
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
The John C. Cannon Retirement and Assisted Living Residence, Seattle, Washington, Violated Its Regulatory Agreement
At the request of the Region X Multifamily Hub, we audited the John C Cannon Retirement and Assisted Living Residence (project) to determine if the project owner used project funds in accordance with the regulatory agreement. We found that the project owner failed to get HUD approval for leases costing $189,000, used project funds to obtain unneeded equipment costing $10,700, and failed to keep adequate documentation to support expenditures…
April 15, 2009
Report
#2009-SE-1002