The Kentucky Commission on Human Rights Has Opportunities To Improve Its Fair Housing Complaint Intake Process
We audited the Kentucky Commission on Human Rights’ fair housing complaint intake process. We initiated this audit based on an internal risk assessment of Fair Housing Assistance Program agencies’ challenges. Our audit objectives were to (1) determine the extent to which the Commission processed fair housing inquiries within 30 days and (2) evaluate its reasons for closing fair housing inquiries.We were unable to determine the extent…
February 15, 2024
Report
#2024-BO-1001
Summit Construction and Environmental Services, LLC, Richmond, VA Generally Complied With Requirements for Lead-Based Paint Evaluations
We audited Summit Construction and Environmental Services, LLC, because we received an anonymous complaint alleging that Summit Construction (1) did not perform lead-based paint evaluations in a timely manner, (2) did not produce adequate lead-based paint inspection reports in accordance with applicable requirements, and (3) showed favoritism toward certain contractors performing lead-paint inspections. Our objective was to determine…
September 25, 2019
Report
#2019-PH-1005
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 Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority, Charlottesville, VA, Did Not Always Comply With Applicable Procurement Requirements
We audited the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority’s use of public housing operating and capital funds because (1) we received a hotline complaint alleging that the Authority mismanaged its procurement activities and improperly awarded an internet services contract for more than $200,000 without receiving competitive bids and (2) we had never audited the Authority. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority…
August 02, 2019
Report
#2019-PH-1002
Louisville Metro, Louisville, KY, Did Not Always Administer the TBRA Activity in Its HOME and CoC Programs in Accordance With Program Requirements
We audited the Louisville-Jefferson County Metropolitan Government’s tenant-based rental assistance (TBRA) activity in its HOME Investment Partnerships and Continuum of Care (CoC) programs, based on a hotline complaint alleging inappropriate administration of TBRA. In addition, we selected Louisville Metro for review in accordance with the Office of Inspector General’s annual audit plan. Our audit objective was to determine whether…
March 18, 2019
Report
#2019-AT-1002
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 Lexington-Fayette Urban County Housing Authority, Lexington, KY, Did Not Always Comply With HUD’s and Its Own Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program Requirements
We audited the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Housing Authority’s Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program based on our risk assessment of all Kentucky public housing agencies and as part of the activities in our annual audit plan. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority administered its program units in accordance with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) and its own requirements.
The Authority…
July 13, 2018
Report
#2018-AT-1006
The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Housing Authority, Lexington, KY, Did Not Fully Comply With HUD’s Program Requirements After the Completion of Its Rental Assistance Demonstration Program Conversion
We audited the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Housing Authority’s Rental Assistance Demonstration Program (RAD) conversion to the Section 8 Project-Based Voucher program and compliance with requirements after the conversion. We selected the Authority for review in accordance with our annual audit plan. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority complied with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD…
July 13, 2018
Report
#2018-AT-1008
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 Commonwealth of Kentucky Generally Administered Its Neighborhood Stabilization Program in Accordance With HUD Requirements
We audited the Commonwealth of Kentucky’s (Commonwealth) administration of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) based on a referral from the Louisville, KY, Office of Community Planning and Development and in accordance with our annual audit plan. Our objective was to determine whether the Commonwealth administered its NSP1 and NSP3 grants in accordance with HUD’s…
December 20, 2017
Report
#2018-AT-1001
The Louisville Metro Housing Authority, Louisville, KY, Did Not Comply With HUD’s and Its Own Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program Requirements
We audited the Louisville Metro Housing Authority’s Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program based on our risk assessment of all Kentucky public housing agencies and as part of the activities in our annual audit plan. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority administered its program units in accordance with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) and its own requirements.
The Authority did not…
August 04, 2017
Report
#2017-AT-1010
Louisville Metro, Louisville, KY, Did Not Always Administer Its HOPWA Program in Accordance With HUD’s and Its Own Requirements
We audited the Louisville-Jefferson County Metropolitan Government’s Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA) program. We selected Louisville Metro for review based on a management referral from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Louisville, KY, Office of Community Planning and Development and in accordance with our annual audit plan. Our audit objective was to determine whether Louisville Metro…
July 21, 2017
Report
#2017-AT-1009
The Loudoun County Department of Family Services, Leesburg, VA, Did Not Always Ensure That Its Program Units Met Housing Quality Standards
We audited the Loudoun County Department of Family Services’ Housing Choice Voucher program because (1) we received a complaint alleging housing quality standards problems with a housing unit participating in the County’s program, (2) the County had 688 vouchers and received more than $6.4 million in fiscal year 2016, and (3) we had not audited its program. Our audit objective was to determine whether the County ensured that its Housing…
June 09, 2017
Report
#2017-PH-1004
The Yorkville Cooperative, Fairfax, VA, Did Not Administer Its HUD-Insured Property and Housing Assistance Contract According to Applicable Requirements
We audited the Yorkville Cooperative’s administration of its U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)-insured property and housing assistance contract based on a complaint alleging that the Cooperative (1) spent excessive amounts for maintenance and repairs and (2) did not recertify tenants in a timely manner. Our objective was to determine whether the Cooperative administered its HUD-insured property and housing assistance…
May 22, 2017
Report
#2017-PH-1003
The Kentucky Housing Corporation Did Not Always Accurately Report on FHA-Insured Loans to HUD
We audited the Kentucky Housing Corporation’s administration of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Loss Mitigation program for loans insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA). We selected the Corporation based on our analysis of risk factors of single-family loan servicers in Region 4’s jurisdiction. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Corporation accurately reported the default…
September 30, 2016
Report
#2016-AT-1015
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
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 Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority, Richmond, VA, Did Not Always Charge Eligible and Reasonable Central Office Cost Center Fees
We audited the fees that the Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority charged to its U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) housing programs for central office cost center services based on issues identified during our prior audit of the Authority. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority charged fees to its HUD housing programs for central office cost center services that were eligible, reasonable, and…
August 17, 2016
Report
#2016-PH-1005