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 Benkelman Housing Authority, Benkelman, NE, Did Not Follow HUD Rules and Regulations for Public Housing Programs Related to Procurement and Maintenance, Tenant Certifications, Laundry Machine Income, and Expenditures
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Office of Inspector General audited the Benkelman Housing Authority based on a request from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General (HUD OIG), Office of Investigation. Additionally, HUD conducted an onsite assessment in May 2016 and identified concerns, including procurement, income verification, travel policy, and significant control…
September 27, 2018
Report
#2018-KC-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 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 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 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
The Fairmont Housing Authority Did Not Fully Comply With Procurement Requirements and Spent Funds for Ineligible Expenses
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) – Office of Inspector General audited the Fairmont Housing Authority in Fairmont, NE, regarding its procurement and expenditures for its HUD, Office of Public and Indian Housing programs. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority followed HUD rules and regulations and its own policies and procedures for procurement and expenditures.
The Authority did not properly…
September 01, 2015
Report
#2015-KC-1008
The York Housing Authority Did Not Fully Comply With Procurement Requirements and Spent $21,047 for Ineligible and Unsupported Costs
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) – Office of Inspector General audited the York Housing Authority in York, NE, regarding its procurement and expenditures for its HUD, Office of Public and Indian Housing programs. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority followed HUD rules and regulations and its own policies and procedures for procurement and expenditures.
The Authority did not properly procure…
August 20, 2015
Report
#2015-KC-1006
The Stromsburg Housing Authority Did Not Fully Comply With Procurement Requirements and Spent Funds for Ineligible Expenses
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) – Office of Inspector General audited the Stromsburg Housing Authority in Stromsburg, NE, regarding its procurement and expenditures for its HUD, Office of Public and Indian Housing programs. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority followed HUD rules and regulations and its own policies and procedures for procurement and expenditures.
The Authority did not…
August 20, 2015
Report
#2015-KC-1007
The Housing Authority of the City of Spartanburg, SC, Used HUD Program Funds for Ineligible Expenses
We audited the public housing program of the Housing Authority of the City of Spartanburg, SC, because of a citizen’s complaint. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority’s performance in the areas of financial operations, procurement, and inventory practices met HUD requirements.
The Authority used HUD program funds for ineligible or unsupported expenses, and failed to maintain an accurate accounting and financial control…
September 30, 2014
Report
#2014-AT-1016
Improvements Are Needed Over Environmental Reviews of Public Housing and Recovery Act Funds in the Columbia Office
We audited the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Columbia, SC Office of Public Housing as part of a nationwide audit of HUD’s oversight of environmental reviews. We selected the Columbia Office based on our risk assessment. Our audit objectives were to determine whether the Columbia Office ensured that it performed the required reviews and did not release funds until all requirements were met and required…
June 19, 2014
Report
#2014-FW-0003
The State of Maryland, Crownsville, MD, Generally Administered Its Emergency Mortgage Assistance Program According to Applicable HUD Requirements
We audited the State of Maryland’s Department of Housing and Community Development’s administration of its Emergency Mortgage Assistance program. We audited the State’s program because the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) awarded the State $61.6 million in Emergency Homeowner’s Loan program funds to administer its Emergency Mortgage Assistance program. Our objective was to determine whether the State…
August 08, 2013
Report
#2013-PH-1006
Madison Park North Apartments Generally Ensured That Procurement and Reserve for Replacement Requirements Were Met
We audited the procurement process of Madison Park North Apartments, a Section 236 property, at the request of the Director of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Baltimore Office of Multifamily Housing Programs. We also reviewed Madison’s Park’s use of its reserve for replacement account. Madison Park generally ensured that procurement and reserve for replacement account requirements were met. However, it did not…
April 19, 2013
Report
#2013-PH-1003
New Day Financial, LLC, Fulton, MD, Ensured Loans Met FHA Requirements
We reviewed 32 Federal Housing Administration (FHA) loans that New Day Financial, LLC, underwrote as a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) FHA direct endorsement lender. We conducted the review as a result of a risk model assessment that identified mortgage lenders that were at high risk to cause losses to the FHA insurance fund. New Day was one of the lenders identified that made insurance claims within the first 2 years of…
March 07, 2013
Memorandum
#2013-PH-1802
The City of Baltimore, MD, Did Not Administer Its Homelessness Prevention andRapid Re-Housing Program Grant According to Recovery Act Requirements
We audited the City of Baltimore, MD's Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program grant because (1) its $9.5 million grant was the largest grant in the State of Maryland, (2) it had disbursed $6.6 million of its grant funds as of December 2011, and (3) we have a mandate to audit American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 activities. The audit objective was to determine whether the City properly obligated and expended grant…
November 08, 2012
Report
#2013-PH-1002
Prince George’s County, Largo, MD, Generally Did Not Administer Its HOME Program in Accordance With Federal Requirements
We audited Prince George’s County, MD’s administration of its HOME Investment Partnerships Program as part of our annual audit plan. Our objective was to determine whether the County properly administered its Program by ensuring that its community housing development organizations were eligible and complied with Program requirements, providing rental, home ownership, and rehabilitation assistance in accordance with requirements and implementing…
August 03, 2012
Report
#2012-PH-1011
Wells Fargo Bank, Foreclosure and Claims Process Review, Fort Mill, SC
As part of the Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) nationwide effort to review the foreclosure practices of the five largest Federal Housing Administration (FHA) mortgage servicers (Bank of America, Wells Fargo Bank, CitiMortgage, JP Morgan Chase, and Ally Financial, Incorporated) we reviewed Wells Fargo’s foreclosure and claims processes. In addition to this memorandum, OIG issued separate memorandums for each of the other four reviews. OIG…
March 12, 2012
Memorandum
#2012-AT-1801