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
Bank2, Oklahoma City, OK, Originated Loans Reviewed in Accordance with Section 184 Loan Guarantees for Indian Housing Program Processing Guidelines
We audited Bank2’s origination of Section 184 Loan Guarantees for Indian Housing program loans. We selected Bank2’s Section 184 program because (1) an internal audit report and corrective action verification determined that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) lacked proper oversight of the program and lenders did not underwrite loans in accordance with HUD requirements 2) Bank2 is one of the largest Section 184…
July 11, 2019
Report
#2019-LA-1007
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
Final Civil Action: BSR Trust, LLC, Settled Allegations of Making False Claims Related to Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments
On April 17, 2018, the Office of Program Enforcement issued a letter stating that it had reached a resolution under a Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986[1] case regarding Summit Bradford Apartments located in Tulsa, OK, following its review. The Government alleged that the owner submitted 40 false claims under the Act.
The Office of Program Enforcement included with its letter the March 28, 2018, settlement agreement with BSR…
May 21, 2018
Memorandum
#2018-FW-1801
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 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 Housing Authority of the City of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK, Did Not Always Correctly Compute Housing Assistance Payments
We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Tulsa’s administration of its Section 8 program. We selected the Authority based on reports generated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Enterprise Income Verification system (EIV). The Authority had indicators of noncompliance with program requirements. Specifically, EIV reported an annualized income discrepancy of more than $1.6 million for 328…
May 17, 2017
Report
#2017-FW-1007
The State of Oklahoma Did Not Obligate and Spend Its Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Funds in Accordance With Requirements
We audited the State of Oklahoma because it received $93.7 million in Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) allocations for presidentially declared disasters that occurred in 2011, 2012, and 2013. The substantial amount of CDBG-DR funding required a review of the State’s program. Our objective was to determine whether the State obligated and spent its grant in accordance with requirements.
The State…
September 30, 2016
Report
#2016-FW-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
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
The Muscogee (Creek) Nation, Okmulgee, OK, Did Not Always Comply With HUD Requirements
We audited the Muscogee (Creek) Nation’s use of U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funds in accordance with the Office of Inspector General’s goal to ensure the integrity and soundness of HUD’s Public and Indian Housing programs and to follow up on weaknesses identified in other reviews. The audit objective was to determine whether the Nation complied with HUD requirements when it housed families and procured contracts…
July 08, 2016
Report
#2016-FW-1003
The Virginia Housing Development Authority, Richmond, VA, Did Not Always Accurately Report Its Servicing Actions in HUD’s Single Family Default Monitoring System
We audited the Virginia Housing Development Authority’s implementation 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 conducted the audit because the Authority had the largest active portfolio and the largest number of delinquent loans for servicers located in Virginia as of October 31, 2014. Our objectives were to determine…
September 30, 2015
Report
#2015-PH-1007
LoanCare Did Not Always File Claims for Foreclosed-Upon Properties Held on Behalf of Ginnie Mae and Convey Them to FHA in a Timely Manner
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General audited LoanCare, LLC, Virginia Beach, VA regarding its post-foreclosure activities as a single family master subservicer for the Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae). Our objective was to determine whether LoanCare conveyed foreclosed-upon properties held on behalf of Ginnie Mae, filed claims with FHA, and remitted the funds to Ginnie…
September 30, 2015
Report
#2015-KC-1012
The Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority, Richmond, VA, Did Not Comply With HUD Requirements When Procuring Services
We audited the Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority’s public housing program based on a request from the Office of Public Housing in the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Richmond, VA, field office. The request was made after media inquiries noted possible fraud, waste, or abuse at the Authority. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority complied with HUD procurement requirements.…
September 30, 2015
Report
#2015-PH-1008