The Housing Authority of the City of Annapolis, MD, Did Not Always Properly Administer Its Housing Choice Voucher Program
We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Annapolis, MD’s Housing Choice Voucher Program because we received a complaint alleging that the Authority (1) ignored discrepancies between income information for applicants and program participants and (2) did not properly administer its program. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority administered its program in accordance with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development…
August 14, 2019
Report
#2019-PH-1004
The Lender Generally Underwrote the Second and Delaware Project Loan in Accordance With HUD Rules and Regulations
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General, audited the lender, Berkeley Point Capital, and the underwriting for the Second and Delaware project loan. We initiated the review of the loan underwriting based on a previous review of the Second and Delaware project, which focused on the construction and development of the project. The almost $46 million project is Federal Housing Administration (…
September 27, 2018
Report
#2018-KC-1003
The Crisfield Housing Authority, Crisfield, MD, Did Not Properly Administer Its Public Housing Program Operating and Capital Funds
We audited the Crisfield Housing Authority’s use of public housing program operating and capital funds because we received a hotline complaint alleging misuse of public housing assets and we had never audited the Authority. The audit objective was to determine whether the Authority administered its public housing program in accordance with applicable U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requirements and its annual…
September 25, 2018
Report
#2018-PH-1007
The Housing Authority of the City of Evansville, Evansville, IN, Did Not Follow HUD’s and Its Own Requirements for Units Converted Under the Rental Assistance Demonstration
We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Evansville’s Rental Assistance Demonstration Program (RAD) conversion based on the activities included in our 2018 annual audit plan and our analysis of the housing agencies participating in RAD in Region 5’s jurisdiction (States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin). Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority complied with the U.S. Department of…
August 02, 2018
Report
#2018-CH-1003
The Indianapolis Housing Agency, Indianapolis, IN, Did Not Always Comply With HUD’s Regulations and Its Own Requirements Regarding the Financial Administration of Its Housing Choice Voucher Program
We audited the Indianapolis Housing Agency’s Housing Choice Voucher program based on an anonymous complaint. The audit was part of the activities in our fiscal year 2018 audit plan. Our objective was specific to the allegations in the complaint and was to determine whether the Agency wrote off accounts receivable, deleted adjustments to accounts payable and receivable, and made adjustments to accounts payable and receivable…
August 01, 2018
Report
#2018-CH-1002
The Crisfield Housing Authority, Crisfield, MD, Did Not Properly Administer Its Housing Choice Voucher Program
We audited the Crisfield Housing Authority’s Housing Choice Voucher program because we received a hotline complaint alleging that it misused public housing assets and we had never audited the Authority. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority (1) ensured that families met eligibility requirements, (2) properly admitted families from the waiting list, (3) correctly calculated housing assistance payments and maintained…
March 30, 2018
Report
#2018-PH-1003
The City of Chattanooga, TN, Did Not Always Administer Its ESG Program in Accordance With HUD’s Requirements
We audited the City of Chattanooga’s Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG) program. We selected the City for review in accordance with our annual audit plan. Our audit objective was to determine whether the City administered its ESG program in accordance with HUD’s requirements.
The City did not always administer its ESG program in accordance with HUD’s requirements. Specifically, it did not ensure that program expenditures were…
September 28, 2017
Report
#2017-AT-1013
The Housing Authority of the City of Hammond, Hammond, IN, Did Not Always Comply With HUD’s Requirements Regarding the Administration of Its Housing Choice Voucher Program
We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Hammond, IN’s Housing Choice Voucher program based on the activities included in our 2017 annual audit plan and our analysis of risk factors related to the public housing agencies in Region 5’s jurisdiction. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority correctly calculated housing assistance and utility allowances and appropriately managed its Family Self-Sufficiency program.…
July 14, 2017
Report
#2017-CH-1003
Shelby County, TN, Administered Its Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Program Funds for Infrastructure in Accordance With HUD Requirements
We audited Shelby County’s Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) grant. We selected the County for review in accordance with our annual audit plan and because the County received more than $7.4 million in funding to recover from severe storms, tornadoes, straight-line winds, and flooding that occurred in April 2011. Our audit objective was to determine whether the County ensured that (1) funds were spent only…
January 17, 2017
Report
#2017-AT-1002
The Owner and Former Management Agent for Baldwin Creek Apartments, Fort Wayne, IN, Did Not Always Operate the Project in Accordance With HUD’s Requirements and the Regulatory Agreement
We audited Baldwin Creek Apartments as part of the activities in our fiscal year 2016 annual audit plan. We selected the project based on our analysis of risk factors related to multifamily projects in Region 5’s jurisdiction1. Our objective was to determine whether the project’s owner and management agents operated the project in accordance with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) requirements and the…
September 30, 2016
Report
#2016-CH-1010
The Housing Opportunities Commission of Montgomery County, Kensington, MD, Did Not Always Ensure That Its Program Units Met Housing Quality Standards
We audited the Housing Opportunities Commission of Montgomery County’s Housing Choice Voucher program because (1) it had a large program receiving more than $82 million in fiscal year 2015, (2) it had the second largest number of housing choice vouchers of non-Moving to Work housing agencies within the jurisdiction of the Philadelphia region, and (3) we had not audited its program. Our audit objective was to determine whether the…
September 29, 2016
Report
#2016-PH-1008
The Housing Authority of the City of Annapolis, MD, Did Not Always Follow Applicable Procurement Requirements
We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Annapolis’ procurement activities due to a hotline complaint. The complaint alleged that the Authority failed to follow procurement requirements. This is the second of two audit reports on the Authority. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority procured services and products using operating and capital funds in accordance with applicable requirements.
The…
September 27, 2016
Report
#2016-PH-1007
Franklin American Mortgage Company Settled Allegations of Failing To Comply With HUD’s Federal Housing Administration Loan Requirements
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General (OIG), assisted the U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of Colorado, in the civil investigation of Franklin American Mortgage Company. Franklin American has its principal place of business in Franklin, TN. Franklin American became an FHA-approved direct endorsement lender in 1995. As a direct…
September 08, 2016
Memorandum
#2016-CF-1801
The Housing Authority of the City of Annapolis, MD, Did Not Always Administer Its Resident Opportunities and Self-Sufficiency Program in Accordance With Applicable Requirements
We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Annapolis’ Resident Opportunities and Self-Sufficiency (ROSS) program due to a hotline complaint. The complaint alleged that the Authority used ROSS grant funds to pay a resident who did not work on a grant. This is the first of two audit reports on the Authority. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority administered its ROSS program in accordance with applicable U.S…
August 31, 2016
Report
#2016-PH-1006
The Housing Authority of the City of Muncie, Muncie, IN, Did Not Always Comply With HUD’s Requirements and Its Own Policies Regarding the Administration of Its Housing Choice Voucher Program
We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Muncie’s Housing Choice Voucher program based on the activities included in our 2016 annual audit plan and our analysis of risk factors related to the public housing agencies in Region 5’s jurisdiction. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority administered its program in accordance with HUD’s and its own requirements.
The Authority did not always administer its program in…
August 23, 2016
Report
#2016-CH-1006
The Housing Authority of the City of Anderson, Anderson, IN, Did Not Always Comply With HUD’s and Its Own Requirements Regarding the Administration of Its Housing Choice Voucher Program
We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Anderson’s Housing Choice Voucher program based on the activities included in our 2016 annual audit plan and our analysis of risk factors related to the public housing agencies in Region 5’s jurisdiction. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority administered its program in accordance with HUD’s and its own requirements.
The Authority did not always administer its program in…
July 28, 2016
Report
#2016-CH-1004
The State of Indiana’s Administrator Lacked Adequate Controls Over the State’s Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Program Income and Posting of Quarterly Performance Reports
We audited the State of Indiana’s Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery program. The audit was part of the activities in our fiscal year 2015 annual audit plan. We selected the State because it received the most program funds under the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act of 2009 in Region 5’s1 jurisdiction. Our objectives were to determine whether the State’s Office…
June 30, 2016
Report
#2016-CH-1003
Taliafaro, Inc., a Multifamily Housing Management Agent, Did Not Always Comply With HUD’ Requirements or Its Own Policies and Procedures in the Disbursement of Project Funds and Collection of Its Fees
We reviewed the disbursement of project funds for seven of the Sections 202 and 811 supportive housing projects for the elderly and persons with disabilities managed by Taliafaro, Inc. We initiated the audit under the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General’s annual audit plan. Our objective was to determine whether Taliafaro used project funds appropriately and operated multifamily…
September 30, 2015
Report
#2015-AT-1012
First Tennessee, N.A. Settled Allegations of Failing To Comply With HUD’s Federal Housing Administration Loan Requirements
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General (OIG) assisted the U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Georgia, in conducting a review of First Tennessee has its principal place of business in Memphis, TN and is a wholly owned subsidiary of First Horizon Financial Corporation. First Tennessee became an FHA-approved direct endorsement…
September 29, 2015
Memorandum
#2015-AT-1801
The State of Maryland Could Not Show That Replacement Homes Complied With the Green Building Standard
We audited the State of Maryland’s Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery-funded Housing Recovery program. We conducted the audit because the program was the largest funded program in the State’s first action plan. Our objectives were to determine whether the State (1) assisted eligible applicants, (2) avoided duplicating assistance, (3) incurred eligible expenses that were properly supported, (4) procured services and…
September 25, 2015
Report
#2015-PH-1005