The Tacoma, WA, Housing Authority Generally Satisfied RAD Requirements but Did Not Follow Its Moving to Work Policy by Conducting Annual Tenant Reexaminations for Its RAD Converted Units
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General audited the Tacoma Housing Authority’s participation in the Rental Assistance Demonstration Program (RAD) because it had the highest number of completed RAD units and the second highest number of total RAD units in HUD’s Region 10. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority executed the appropriate written agreements for RAD, ensured that…
December 21, 2018
Report
#2019-SE-1001
The Greensboro Housing Authority, Greensboro, NC, Generally Administered Its Rental Assistance Demonstration Conversion in Accordance With HUD Requirements
We audited the Greensboro Housing Authority’s Rental Assistance Demonstration Program (RAD) conversion. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority administered its RAD conversion in accordance with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requirements. Specifically, we wanted to determine whether the Authority (1) executed appropriate written agreements, (2) ensured that project financing sources were secured…
May 10, 2018
Report
#2018-AT-1004
The Spokane, WA, Housing Authority Did Not Follow Permanent Relocation Requirements for Its RAD Conversion of the Parsons Apartments
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General audited the Spokane Housing Authority due to the Authority’s participation in the Rental Assistance Demonstration Program (RAD), which was a priority for the Office of Audit. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority followed relocation requirements during its RAD conversion of the Parsons Apartments.
We found that The Authority did not…
April 24, 2018
Report
#2018-SE-1001
The Housing Authority of Snohomish County, Everett, WA, Did Not Always Administer Its Section 8 Project-Based Voucher Program in Accordance With HUD Requirements
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General selected the Housing Authority of Snohomish County for audit based on a referral from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Office of Labor Standards Enforcement in Seattle, WA. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority executed Agreements To Enter Into Housing Assistance Payments Contract (forms HUD-52531-A and…
September 29, 2017
Report
#2017-SE-1002
The Lexington Housing Authority, Lexington, NC, Did Not Administer Its RAD Conversion in Accordance With HUD Requirements
We audited the Lexington Housing Authority’s Rental Assistance Demonstration Program (RAD) conversion. We selected the Authority based on concerns from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) North Carolina State Office of Public Housing and a request from the Housing Authority’s Board of Commissioners. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority administered its RAD program in accordance with HUD…
August 21, 2017
Report
#2017-AT-1011
The Sanford Housing Authority, Sanford, NC, Did Not Comply With HUD’s and Its Own Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program Requirements
We audited the Sanford Housing Authority’s Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Programs as a result of problems identified during a technical assistance review performed by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) North Carolina State Office of Public Housing. Additionally, our audit is in keeping with our annual audit plan to ensure that public housing agencies sufficiently administer HUD’s programs in accordance with…
September 13, 2016
Report
#2016-AT-1013
The Sanford Housing Authority, Sanford, NC, Did Not Comply With Procurement and Financial Requirements
We audited the Sanford Housing Authority’s procurement and financial operations. We selected the Authority based on concerns from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) North Carolina State Office of Public Housing, following a technical assistance review performed. The technical assistance review identified issues with the Authority’s procurement practices and financial operations, among other items. The…
July 19, 2016
Report
#2016-AT-1008
The Housing Authority of the City of Durham, NC, Did Not Adequately Enforce HUD’s and Its Own Housing Quality Control Standards
We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Durham’s Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program’s housing quality standards based on our recent audit of the Authority’s program, during which potential issues with the Authority’s inspections were noted, and as part of our annual audit plan. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority ensured that program units met the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD…
May 10, 2016
Report
#2016-AT-1005
The Housing Authority of the City of Durham, NC, Did Not Always Comply With HUD’s and Its Own Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program Requirements
We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Durham’s Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program based on a hotline citizen complaint and as part of the activities in our fiscal year 2015 annual audit plan. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority administered its program in accordance with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) and its own requirements and whether the complaint was valid.
The Authority…
September 30, 2015
Report
#2015-AT-1011
Improvements Are Needed Over Environmental Reviews of Public Housing and Recovery Act Funds in the Greensboro Office
We audited the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Greensboro, NC, Office of Public Housing as part of a nationwide audit of HUD’s oversight of environmental reviews. We selected the Greensboro Office based on our risk assessment. Our audit objectives were to determine whether the Greensboro Office of Public Housing ensured that it performed the required reviews and did not release funds until all requirements…
July 14, 2014
Report
#2014-FW-0004
The Yakama Nation Housing Authority Did Not Always Properly Spend Its Recovery Act funds
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General audited how the Yakama Nation Housing Authority used its nearly $4.9 million Native American Housing Block Grant provided under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Our objectives were to determine whether the Authority properly spent its Recovery Act funds, correctly obtained small purchases, and properly reported Recovery Act…
April 29, 2014
Report
#2014-SE-1002
The Housing Authority of the City of Lumberton, NC, Did Not Administer Its Public Housing Program in Accordance With Requirements
We initiated a review of the Housing Authority of the City of Lumberton, NC, at the request of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Greensboro, NC, Office of Public Housing. HUD staff described many areas of concern, including cash management, procurement, and inventory controls. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority operated its public housing program in accordance with HUD and other Federal…
December 04, 2013
Report
#2014-AT-1002
The Housing Authority of the City of Hickory, NC, Mismanaged Some of Its HUD Funds
We audited the public housing program of the Housing Authority of the City of Hickory, NC, due to a citizen’s hotline complaint. Our objectives were to evaluate the merits of the complaint allegations and determine whether the Authority complied with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requirements for procurement, cash disbursements, a 2004 Resident Opportunity and Self-Sufficiency (ROSS) grant, and inventory control.
The…
June 01, 2012
Report
#2012-AT-1012
Vancouver, WA, Housing Authority Did Not Always Manage or Report on Recovery Act Funds in Accordance With Requirements
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General audited the Vancouver Housing Authority to determine whether it was managing and reporting its three awarded Recovery Act Capital Fund grants in accordance with requirements. We selected the Authority because it was part of our annual audit plan, which includes reviewing funds provided under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
The Authority did not…
December 20, 2011
Report
#2012-SE-1002
The Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina Did Not Follow Some Requirements for Its Native American Housing Block Grants Received Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
We selected the tribe for audit because it received a $4.7 million formula grant and a $4 million competitive grant, the largest Native American Housing Block Grants awarded in North Carolina under the Recovery Act. Our objective was to determine whether the tribe administered its Native American Housing Block Grants in compliance with Recovery Act and other applicable requirements, specifically, whether it had (1) expended funds on a timely…
December 05, 2011
Report
#2012-AT-1003
The Bellingham Whatcom County Housing Authorities, Bellingham, WA, Generally Complied With American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Capital Fund Grant Requirements
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General audited the Bellingham Whatcom County Housing Authorities to determine whether expenditures for American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Capital Fund Grants were appropriate, eligible, and adequately supported and whether related procurements were made in accordance with 24 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) Part 85 and Recovery Act requirements. We selected…
October 14, 2011
Report
#2012-SE-1001
The Greensboro Housing Authority Needs To Improve Internal Controls for Administering Recovery Act Funds
We audited the Greensboro Housing Authority (Authority) as part of our annual plan to review public housing capital funds awarded under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). The Authority received a $5.6 million Public Housing Capital Fund Stimulus (formula) Recovery Act Funded grant, the second highest in the State. It also received a Recovery Act funded $1.05 million capital fund competitive grant for addressing…
July 21, 2011
Report
#2011-AT-1013
King County Housing Authority, Tukwila, WA, Generally Complied With Recovery Act Capital Fund Competition Grant Requirements
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General audited King County Housing Authority to determine whether its expenditures for three Recovery Act Capital Fund Competition Grants were appropriate, eligible, and adequately supported and whether related procurements were made in accordance with 24 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) Part 85 and Recovery Act requirements. We selected the Authority because it…
July 20, 2011
Report
#2011-SE-1007
The Housing Authority, City of Wilson, NC, Mismanaged Its Section 8 Program
HUD OIG audited the Housing Authority of the City of Wilson’s (Authority) Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program. We elected to perform the audit after finding indicators of Section 8 deficiencies during our review of the Authority’s capacity to administer capital funds awarded under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Audit Report 2010-AT-1007). Our objectives were to determine whether the Authority complied with U.S.…
January 13, 2011
Report
#2011-AT-1003
The Housing Authority, City of Wilson, NC, Lacked the Capacity To Effectively Administer Recovery Act Funds
We reviewed the Housing Authority of the City of Wilson (Authority) because it was granted $9.2 million for Public Housing Capital Fund projects (capital funds) under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). In addition, we received a citizen’s complaint alleging that the Authority used unethical procurement practices and did not plan to use Recovery Act funds effectively. Our objectives were to evaluate the Authority…
July 27, 2010
Report
#2010-AT-1007