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 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
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 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 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 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
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
Prudential Huntoon Paige Associates, LTD Did Not Underwrite and Process a $49 Million Loan in Accordance With HUD Requirements
We audited Prudential’s underwriting of a $49 million mortgage loan to develop the Preserve at Alafia, a multifamily project located in Riverview, FL. We initiated the review based on the early default, assignment, and significant amount of the project. Our objective was to determine whether Prudential underwrote and processed the loan for the Preserve of Alafia according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (…
September 30, 2014
Report
#2014-AT-1015
The Cumberland Plateau Regional Housing Authority, Lebanon, VA, Did Not Procure Services in Accordance With HUD Requirements
We audited the Cumberland Plateau Regional Housing Authority’s HOME Investment Partnerships program because a Russell County, VA, special grand jury investigation resulted in the indictment of four people involved with the Authority’s HOME program. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority procured services in accordance with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations and other applicable…
July 15, 2014
Report
#2014-PH-1007
The Hopewell Redevelopment and Housing Authority, Hopewell, VA, Generally Used Housing Choice Voucher and Public Housing Program Funds in Accordance With Applicable Requirements
We audited the Hopewell Redevelopment and Housing Authority’s use of U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Housing Choice Voucher and public housing program funds. We audited the Authority because we received a complaint alleging that the Authority (1) improperly calculated tenant rents and utility allowances, (2) improperly managed the program waiting list, (3) used credit cards for personal transactions, (4) made…
February 03, 2014
Report
#2014-PH-1002
The City of Norfolk, VA, Generally Failed To Justify Its Community Development Block Grant Activities
We audited the City of Norfolk’s Community Development Block Grant program based on our annual audit plan and a risk analysis, which indicated that the City had the most open activities in Virginia. Our objective was to determine whether the City justified its program activities by ensuring that they were properly supported by adequate documentation and met national objectives as required.
The City could not provide adequate…
December 16, 2013
Report
#2014-PH-1001
The Virginia Housing Development Authority, Richmond, VA, Generally Administered Its Tax Credit Assistance Program Funded Under the Recovery Act in Accordance With Applicable Requirements
We audited the Virginia Housing Development Authority (Authority) because it received $44.2 million in Tax Credit Assistance Program (Program) funds under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). The Authority received the second largest amount of Program funds awarded in Region III. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority administered its Program in accordance with Recovery Act and applicable U.S.…
October 25, 2010
Report
#2011-PH-1001
The Omaha, Nebraska Housing Authority Did Not Comply With Recovery Act Requirements When Reporting on Recovery Act Capital Funds
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General audited the Omaha Nebraska Housing Authority (Authority) to determine whether the Authority (1) obligated Recovery Act grant funds in accordance with Recovery Act requirements and applicable U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) rules, (2) expended Recovery Act grant funds in accordance with Recovery Act requirements and applicable HUD rules…
September 30, 2010
Report
#2010-KC-1009
Prospect Mortgage, LLC, Fairfax, VA, Generally Complied With HUD Requirements Regarding FHA-Insured Single-Family Loans
We audited the Fairfax, VA, branch office (branch office) of Prospect Mortgage, LLC (Prospect Mortgage), because it had one of the highest default rates for U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)-approved lenders for loans issued in the State of Maryland. Our objective was to determine whether Prospect Mortgage and its branch office complied with HUD regulations, procedures, and instructions in the origination and quality…
June 22, 2010
Report
#2010-PH-1010
The Yorkville Cooperative, Fairfax, Virginia, Did Not Administer Its Section 221(d)(3) Property and Housing Assistance Contract According to Its Regulatory Agreement and HUD Requirements
We audited the Yorkville Cooperative (Cooperative) based on a request from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Richmond Multifamily Program Center and a citizen complaint. The objective of the audit was to determine whether the Cooperative administered its Section 221(d)(3) property and housing assistance contract according to its regulatory agreement and HUD requirements.
The Cooperative did not administer its Section…
November 24, 2009
Report
#2010-PH-1003