HUD Audits

RSS

HUD audited the Section 8 program administered by an owner in Tulsa, Okla., after being informed that the site’s management agent may have received Section 8 subsidies for vacant units. HUD controls the property, which has 191 units, through a housing assistance payments (HAP) contract that was renewed with the owner on Sept. 23, 2007, for 20 years. The agreement summarized the terms and conditions for the Section 8 housing assistance payment amounts, including establishing the initial contract rents.

HUD received an anonymous complaint alleging incompetent leadership, nepotism, misuse of funds, and poor quality of life at the Housing Authority of the County of Lackawanna, Pa. In response, HUD audited the authority to determine whether the allegations in the complaint had merit and whether the authority had effective internal controls.

HUD audited the Housing Authority of the City of Bridgeport, Conn., based on a request from HUD’s Hartford field office. HUD officials were concerned about the authority due to significant financial deficiencies that weren’t corrected in a timely manner.

HUD audited the Housing Choice Voucher program of the Housing Authority of the City of Paterson, N.J. It decided to do so based on a risk assessment of housing authorities administered by HUD's Newark, N.J., field office that considered funding, HUD’s 2012 risk score, and prior Office of Inspector General (OIG) audits.

HUD auditors conducted a review of Brownsville Apartments in Brownsville, Pa., based on a referral from HUD’s Departmental Enforcement Center and the Pittsburgh Office of Multifamily Housing, due to concerns that project funds were used inappropriately for purposes other than the operation of the project. This concern was due largely to the owner’s lengthy history of being uncooperative with HUD.

In accordance with its regional plan to review public housing programs, HUD reviewed the Housing Authority of the City of Idabel, Okla.

HUD audited the Charleston-Kanawha Housing Authority’s Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program because: (1) it received more than $13.7 million in program funding in fiscal year 2012; (2) it’s the largest assisted housing agency in West Virginia; and (3) HUD had never audited its HCV program. The audit objectives were to determine whether the authority ensured that its HCV program units met HUD housing quality standards (HQS) and whether it applied the appropriate payment standard when calculating housing assistance.

 Based on a previous audit and on an anonymous complaint received by the Office of Inspector General’s hotline, HUD audited the Stark Metropolitan Housing Authority’s public housing program.

HUD audited the Allegheny County Housing Authority's Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program because the authority received more than $27.3 million in HCV funding in fiscal year 2011 and an article published in the local newspaper in October 2011 described Housing Quality Standards problems with a unit participating in the authority's program. HUD had never audited the authority's HCV program before, and the audit was conducted solely to determine whether the authority ensured that its HCV program units met HUD's Housing Quality Standards (HQS).

HUD reviewed the records of the Housing Authority of the City of Orlando. Specifically, HUD looked at the Section 8 assistance payments made to an owner for a resident with whom he lived. The housing authority discovered potential fraud when the owner brought the death certificate of the resident to the authority to discontinue the housing assistance payments. The resident's last name on the death certificate matched the owner's last name.