SAR 61 - Semiannual Report to Congress for period ending March 31, 2009
The Inspector General Act of 1978 requires the Inspector General to prepare semiannual reports summarizing the activities of the Office of Inspector General for the preceding six month periods. The semiannual reports are intended to keep the Secretary and the Congress fu
March 31, 2009
Semiannual report
#SAR 61
The Owners of Stonerook Apartments Phase I and Phase II, Baytown, Texas, Violated Their Regulatory Agreements With HUD
We audited Stonebrook Apartments Phase I and Phase II (projects) to determine whether the projects' owners complied with the regulatory agreements and U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations. Specifically, we wanted to determine whether the owners (1) made unauthorized distributions of project funds when the projects were in a non-surplus-cash position, (2) fully funded the tenant security deposit accounts, and (…
March 25, 2009
Report
#2009-FW-1007
The City of Norfolk, Virginia, Did Not Ensure That Program Income Was Returned to Its HOME Program as Required
We audited the City of Norfolk's (City) HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) program based on a request from the Community Planning and Development Division in the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Richmond, Virginia, field office. Our audit objective was to determine whether the City properly administered its HOME program by following HUD requirements related to homebuyer assistance, modernization rehabilitation…
March 20, 2009
Report
#2009-PH-1007
Campaige Place at Jackson, Phoenix, Arizona, Did Not Use Its Project Funds in Compliance with HUD’s Regulatory Agreement and Other Federal Requirements
We audited Campaige Place at Jackson (Campaige Place) to determine whether it used its project funds in compliance with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) regulatory agreement and other federal requirements.
Campaige Place did not use its project funds in compliance with HUD’s and other federal requirements. Specifically, we determined that:
•Owner advances of $73,750 were repaid when the project had no surplus cash…
March 18, 2009
Report
#2009-LA-1008
The Housing Authority of the City of Annapolis, Maryland, Did Not Comply with HUD and State of Maryland Lead-Based Paint Requirements in a Timely Manner
We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Annapolis' (Authority) management of lead-based paint in its public housing units in response to a citizen complaint. The audit objective was to determine whether the Authority complied with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and State of Maryland (State) requirements for inspecting and abating lead-based paint hazards in its public housing units.
The Authority did not…
March 05, 2009
Report
#2009-PH-1006
The City of Yonkers, New York, Had Weaknesses in the Administration of its Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program
We audited the City of Yonkers, New York's (the City) administration of its Section 108 Loan Guarantee program to determine whether the City disbursed Section 108 loan guarantee program funds for eligible costs and adequately safeguarded funds and prevented misuse. The audit disclosed that the City disbursed program funds for eligible activities in accordance with HUD rules and regulations, and maintained a financial management system that…
March 05, 2009
Report
#2009-NY-1009
The City of Yonkers, New York, Had Weaknesses in the Administration of its Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program
March 05, 2009
Report
#2009-NY-1009
The East St. Louis, Illinois, Housing Authority’s Section 8 Voucher Program Units Did Not Always Meet HUD’s Housing Quality Standards
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Office of Inspector General audited the Housing Choice Voucher program of the East St. Louis Housing Authority (Authority). Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority's Section 8 program units met the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) housing quality standards. We found that seventy-nine percent of the Authority's Section 8…
March 01, 2009
Report
#2009-KC-1005
The Housing Authority of the City of Brush, Colorado, Did Not Perform Contracting Activities in Accordance with Federal Procurement Requirements
The U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Office of Inspector General audited the Housing Authority of the City of Brush, Colorado (Authority) because we received information indicating there were irregularities in the Authority's procurement process. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority performed contracting activities in accordance with federal procurement requirements.
The Authority did not…
February 24, 2009
Report
#2009-DE-1002
The Puerto Rico Housing Finance Authority Generally Calculated Housing Assistance Correctly
As part of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of the Inspector General's (OIG) strategic plan, we audited the Puerto Rico Housing Finance Authority's (Authority) Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program. Our audit objectives were to determine whether the Authority properly determined housing assistance subsidies, properly determined the eligibility of tenants, and recertified tenants in a timely manner.…
February 24, 2009
Report
#2009-AT-1003
The City of Newburgh, New York, Did Not Always Administer Its Community Development Block Grant Program in Accordance with HUD Requirements
We completed an audit of the City of Newburgh, New York's administration of its Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. The objectives of our audit were to determine whether the City (1) administered its CDBG program effectively, efficiently, and economically in accordance with applicable rules and regulations, and (2) expended CDBG funds for eligible activities that met a national objective of the program.
The audit disclosed…
February 23, 2009
Report
#2009-NY-1008
The City of Los Angeles Housing Department Did Not Always Ensure That Its HOME-Assisted Rehabilitation Work Was Complete and in Accordance with HOME Requirements
We audited the City of Los Angeles Housing Department (Department) as a result of an earlier audit of the HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) affordability monitoring requirements and inspections of HOME-assisted rental units, which detected four projects that may not have been rehabilitated as intended. Our audit objective was to determine whether HOME funds were used as intended to rehabilitate the four projects and in accordance with…
February 19, 2009
Report
#2009-LA-1007
The Chicago Housing Authority, Chicago, Illinois, Did Not Always Ensure That Section 8 Units Met HUD's Housing Quality Standards
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Office of Inspector General audited the Chicago Housing Authority's (Authority) Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program (program) under its Moving to Work Demonstration program. The audit was part of the activities in our fiscal year 2008 annual audit plan. We selected the Authority based upon our analysis of risk factors relating to the housing agencies in Region V's…
February 18, 2009
Report
#2009-CH-1005
Enterprise Home Ownership partners-Dallas, INC., Dallas, TX Achieved Program Objectives But Did Not Fully Comply With Certain Requirements
We audited the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Supplemental II Disaster Recovery program funds, administered by the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs (TDHCA). Specifically, we wanted to determine whether TDHCA monitored its program management firm (the Firm) to ensure compliance with Federal and State regulations and to ensure costs reimbursed for the Housing…
February 17, 2009
Report
#2009-FW-1006
The City of Rochester, New York's Management Controls Over the Asset Control Area Program Needs Improvement To Comply With All Requirements
We completed an audit of the City of Rochester's (City) asset control area (ACA) program as part of a nationwide audit of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) monitoring of ACA participants. The objective of the audit was to determine whether the City administered its ACA program in compliance with program requirements to increase homeownership for low and moderate income borrowers and contribute to the…
February 11, 2009
Report
#2009-NY-1007
The Adams County, Colorado, Did Not Comply with HOME Investment Partnerships Program Regulations
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General, audited Adams County, Colorado's HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) to determine whether Adams County appropriately spent and accounted for HOME funds and maintained supporting documentation for its matching contributions reported to HUD.
Adams County inappropriately spent or could not support more than $2.1 million in HOME funds. Specifically…
February 10, 2009
Report
#2009-DE-1001
The City of Augusta Georgia Needs to Improve Controls Over its Community Development Block Grant Facade Program
HUD OIG performed an audit of the City of Augusta's Community Development Block Grant Facade Rehabilitation Grant program due to concerns of mismanagement and abuse regarding the City's program. The purpose of the audit was to determine whether the City's facade program complied with federal requirements and whether program activities met the national objectives of the CDBG program
The City did not have adequate controls over its…
February 09, 2009
Report
#2009-AT-1002
Allied Home Mortgage Capital Corporation, Houston, Texas, Did Not Fully Follow HUD's Branch Office Requirements
We reviewed Allied Home Mortgage Capital Corporation (Allied), a nonsupervised loan correspondent. The objective of the review was to determine the validity of a hotline complaint that Allied operated its branches in violation of U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requirements.
The complaint was partially valid as Allied did not fully follow HUD's branch office requirements. Allied required branch managers to personally…
February 09, 2009
Report
#2009-FW-1005
St. Vincent de Paul Village, Inc., San Diego, California, Generally Administered Its Supportive Housing Program Grants in Accordance with HUD Requirements
We audited the use of Supportive Housing Program funds by St. Vincent de Paul Village, Inc. (St. Vincent de Paul Village), because it is a large organization receiving more than $4 million in grants annually. Our objective was to determine whether St. Vincent de Paul Village used supportive housing grants in accordance with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requirements and the grant agreements.
St. Vincent de Paul Village…
February 08, 2009
Report
#2009-LA-1006
NAHASDA Program Income from 1937 Act Properties
We audited the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Native American Program’s (ONAP) rules regarding calculation of program income under the Native American Housing and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA). Our objectives were to determine whether ONAP’s guidance on calculating program income for the NAHASDA-assisted 1937 Act housing projects was consistent with the generally accepted accounting principles. We also…
February 05, 2009
Report
#2009-SE-0002