HUD Audits

RSS

HUD’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) audited the Housing Choice Voucher and public housing programs at the West Warwick Housing Authority as a result of concerns from HUD and a hotline complaint. The audit objectives were to determine whether procurements were executed in accordance with federal regulations, West Warwick officials established adequate controls over the Housing Choice Voucher and public housing programs to ensure compliance with HUD regulations, and purchases and inventory were reasonable and adequately supported.

HUD’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) audited the Youngstown Metropolitan Housing Authority’s Housing Choice Voucher program. The audit’s objective was to determine whether the PHA appropriately managed its Family Self-Sufficiency program and Housing Choice Voucher program files in accordance with HUD and its own requirements.

HUD’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) audited the Weslaco Housing Authority in Weslaco, Texas, after noting issues in the PHA’s travel while reviewing its independent public accountant’s audited financial statements. Auditors found that the PHA paid its commissioners and employees for ineligible, unreasonable, unnecessary, and unsupported travel costs. This condition occurred because the PHA lacked controls and oversight, its staff was intimidated and did not question travelers’ costs, and travelers did not understand or disregarded the requirements.

HUD’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) audited a project-based Section 8 site after receiving a complaint of potential fraud. In October 2015, HUD’s OIG received a complaint that a tenant had been denied assistance at a different apartment complex. The tenant was listed as an assisted tenant at the investigated site, although she had moved out two years earlier. The complainant also alleged that she paid cash to rent the unit when she lived at the site.

HUD’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) audited the Housing Authority of the Township of Irvington, N.J., regarding the administration of its public housing program because it was classified as a troubled PHA and based on a complaint from the union representing its maintenance and clerical employees. The complaint alleged serious financial and operational mismanagement.

HUD’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) audited the Section 8 housing assistance payments program of a site in Kansas City, Mo. Auditors found that the owner’s management agent didn’t properly verify tenant eligibility, requested subsidies for ineligible tenants and tenants not living in units, didn’t retain tenant files, didn’t properly collect and deposit rents, and had unreported tenants living in the units.

HUD’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) 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 PHA used ROSS grant funds to pay a resident who didn’t work on a grant. The audit found that the PHA didn’t always administer its ROSS program in accordance with applicable HUD requirements, and the allegation in the complaint had merit.

HUD’s OIG audited the Dolores Frances Affordable Housing project, based on a citizen complaint and a suggestion from the HUD’s Departmental Enforcement Center. The complaint alleged nonpayment of HUD utility allowances and security deposits, mismanagement of the maintenance department, related parties hired in supervisory positions, and conflict-of-interest vendor contracts by the related party of Dolores Frances.

HUD’s OIG found that the Housing Authority of the City of Muncie didn’t always administer its Housing Choice Voucher program in accordance with HUD’s and its own requirements. It did not: (1) obtain and maintain required eligibility documentation; and (2) correctly calculate and pay housing assistance and utility allowances. As a result of these weaknesses, HUD and the PHA lacked assurance that more than $587,000 in program funds was used appropriately.

HUD’s OIG audited the Housing Authority of the County of Salt Lake Public Housing Capital Fund grants for fiscal years 2011-2014. Auditors found that the PHA didn’t properly procure its goods or services. All of the PHA’s 25 contracts that were greater than $2,000 from 2011 to 2014 lacked evidence of most if not all parts of the procurement process. The PHA had over $734,000 in unsupported procurement actions.