The Housing Authority of the City of Springfield, MA, Did Not Always Comply With Procurement and Contract Administration Requirements
We audited the Springfield Housing Authority’s Public Housing Operating Fund and Capital Fund programs because the Authority ranked fifth highest on our risk assessment of Massachusetts public housing agencies and is the third largest in the State. In addition, we had not audited the Authority in more than 10 years.
March 19, 2020
The Huntsville Housing Authority Administered Its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program in Accordance With HUD’s and Its Own Requirements
We audited the Huntsville Housing Authority’s Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program. We initiated the audit under the U.S.
February 17, 2016
The Boston Office of Public Housing Did Not Provide Adequate Oversight of Environmental Reviews of Three Housing Agencies, Including Reviews Involving Recovery Act Funds
We audited the U.S.
February 06, 2014
The Southern Nevada Regional Housing Authority, Las Vegas, NV, Did Not Always Administer Its Recovery Act Capital Fund Grants in Accordance With Recovery Act and HUD Requirements
We audited the Southern Nevada Regional Housing Authority’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Public Housing Capital Fund grants as part of our objective to review funds provided under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
January 22, 2013
Weymouth Housing Authority, Weymouth, MA, Did Not Always Administer Its Housing Choice Voucher Program and Public Housing Program in Accordance With HUD Regulations and Its Annual Contributions Contracts
We audited the Housing Choice Voucher program and Federal public housing programs at the Weymouth Housing Authority as part of our annual audit plan. The overall objective of the audit was to determine whether the Authority had acceptable management practices to efficiently and effectively administer its Housing Choice Voucher program while providing decent, safe, and sanitary housing in compliance with U.S.
August 29, 2011
We audited the monitoring conducted by the Office of Public Housing (PIH), in Region 1 of their Recovery Act Capital Fund Grantees, for compliance with the Recovery Act and applicable U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations, policies and procedures.
May 13, 2011
The New Bedford Housing Authority, New Bedford, MA, Generally Administered Its Public Housing Capital Fund Stimulus Formula and Competitive Grants (Recovery Act Funded) in Accordance With Applicable Requirements
We audited the New Bedford Housing Authority’s (Authority) $9.9 million of the Public Housing Capital Fund Stimulus Formula and Competitive Grants (Recovery Act Funded). Our objective was to determine whether the Authority obligated and disbursed capital funds received under the Recovery Act according to the requirements of the act and applicable U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) rules and regulations.
March 02, 2011
The Boston, MA, Housing Authority Generally Administered Its Capital Fund Recovery Grant as Required
We audited the Boston, MA, Housing Authority (Authority) because it was awarded more than $33 million in Capital Fund Recovery Grant funds under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) and obligated the majority of the grant shortly before the required obligation deadline.
September 27, 2010
The State of Massachusetts, Department of Housing and Community Development, Boston, MA Properly Administered Its Section 8 Project Based Voucher Program
We audited the Section 8 Project-Based Voucher program operated by the State of Massachusetts, Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD), as part of our annual audit plan. Our objective was to determine whether the DHCD properly administered its Project-Based Voucher program in compliance with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requirements.
December 16, 2009
HUD OIG performed a corrective action verification of audit recommendations cited in the audit report, Opelika Housing Authority, Public Housing Programs (2004-AT-1011) issued July 23, 2004. The purpose of the corrective action verification was to determine whether the selected audit recommendations were implemented and the deficiencies cited in the report were corrected.
May 12, 2008