Search Term Techniques
When searching with multiple terms consider wrapping the words in quotes "terms here" to search on the whole set of terms over individual words.
The Crisfield Housing Authority, Crisfield, MD, Did Not Properly Administer Its Housing Choice Voucher Program
Evaluate the Authority’s email system and its computer, internet, and email use policy to determine whether they provide sufficient safeguards for transmitting and handling confidential information.
Open Recommendation
The Crisfield Housing Authority, Crisfield, MD, Did Not Properly Administer Its Housing Choice Voucher Program
Provide technical assistance to the Authority to ensure that it properly administers its program and that program regulations are met.
Open Recommendation
The Crisfield Housing Authority, Crisfield, MD, Did Not Properly Administer Its Housing Choice Voucher Program
Follow its administrative plan to ensure that program requirements are met.
Open Recommendation
The Crisfield Housing Authority, Crisfield, MD, Did Not Properly Administer Its Housing Choice Voucher Program
Develop and implement controls to ensure that its Section 8 coordinator is adequately trained and supervised to ensure that the program operates in accordance with requirements.
Open Recommendation
The Crisfield Housing Authority, Crisfield, MD, Did Not Properly Administer Its Housing Choice Voucher Program
Develop and implement controls to ensure that employees comply with its computer, internet, and email use policy and use only official business email accounts to transmit confidential information.
Open Recommendation
The Crisfield Housing Authority, Crisfield, MD, Did Not Properly Administer Its Housing Choice Voucher Program
Develop and implement procedures and controls to ensure that required eligibility documentation is obtained and maintained to support households’ selection from its waiting list and admission to and continued assistance on the program.
Open Recommendation
The Crisfield Housing Authority, Crisfield, MD, Did Not Properly Administer Its Housing Choice Voucher Program
Correct the errors in the files identified in this report.
Open Recommendation
The Crisfield Housing Authority, Crisfield, MD, Did Not Properly Administer Its Housing Choice Voucher Program
Develop and implement procedures and controls to ensure that housing assistance and utility allowance payments are correctly calculated, including the use of the Enterprise Income Verification system to verify household income, and that they are adequately supported.
Open Recommendation
The Crisfield Housing Authority, Crisfield, MD, Did Not Properly Administer Its Housing Choice Voucher Program
Reimburse five households $984 from program funds for the underpayment of housing assistance and utility reimbursements due to incorrect calculations.
Open Recommendation
The Crisfield Housing Authority, Crisfield, MD, Did Not Properly Administer Its Housing Choice Voucher Program
Reimburse its program $17,101 from non-Federal funds for the overpayment of housing assistance and utility allowances to 14 families.
Open Recommendation
The Crisfield Housing Authority, Crisfield, MD, Did Not Properly Administer Its Housing Choice Voucher Program
Provide documentation to support $280,561 (housing assistance and utility allowance payments totaling $237,809 for families that did not meet eligibility requirements and $42,752 in administrative fees) or reimburse its program from non-Federal funds for any amounts it cannot support.
Open Recommendation
Cypress Meadows Assisted Living, Antioch, CA, Was Not Administered in
Accordance With Its Regulatory Agreement and HUD Requirements
Determine legal sufficiency and if legally sufficient, pursue civil and administrative remedies against Cypress Meadows, LLC; Skyline Crest Enterprises, LLC; the project’s owner; or all three for inappropriately disbursing funds in violation of the project’s regulatory agreement, operating lease Read More
Open Recommendation
Cypress Meadows Assisted Living, Antioch, CA, Was Not Administered in
Accordance With Its Regulatory Agreement and HUD Requirements
Pursue appropriate civil money penalties and administrative actions, up to and including debarment, against Cypress Meadows LLC; Skyline Crest Enterprises LLC; the project’s owner; or all three for violating the project’s regulatory agreement, operating lease agreement, and HUD requirements.
Open Recommendation
Cypress Meadows Assisted Living, Antioch, CA, Was Not Administered in
Accordance With Its Regulatory Agreement and HUD Requirements
Repay the project from non-project funds $263,289 for ineligible salary expenses.
Open Recommendation
Cypress Meadows Assisted Living, Antioch, CA, Was Not Administered in
Accordance With Its Regulatory Agreement and HUD Requirements
Remove $283,307 in ineligible accrued salary fees payable from its financial statements and records and ensure that these expenses are not accrued or paid for with project funds.
Open Recommendation
Cypress Meadows Assisted Living, Antioch, CA, Was Not Administered in
Accordance With Its Regulatory Agreement and HUD Requirements
Repay the project from non-project funds $110,710 for ineligible offsite accounting expenses.
Open Recommendation
Cypress Meadows Assisted Living, Antioch, CA, Was Not Administered in
Accordance With Its Regulatory Agreement and HUD Requirements
Remove $129,416 in ineligible accrued offsite accounting fees payable from its financial statements and records and ensure that these expenses are not accrued or paid for with project funds.
Open Recommendation
Cypress Meadows Assisted Living, Antioch, CA, Was Not Administered in
Accordance With Its Regulatory Agreement and HUD Requirements
Repay the project from non-project funds $99,160 for ineligible personal health insurance expenses of the owner.
Open Recommendation
Cypress Meadows Assisted Living, Antioch, CA, Was Not Administered in
Accordance With Its Regulatory Agreement and HUD Requirements
Repay the project from non-project funds $4,179 for excessive bank fees.
Open Recommendation
Cypress Meadows Assisted Living, Antioch, CA, Was Not Administered in
Accordance With Its Regulatory Agreement and HUD Requirements
Repay the project from non-project funds $1,352 for expenses related to the identity-of-interest hair salon.
Open Recommendation