February 28, 2014
The Housing Authority of the County of Lackawanna, Dunmore, PA, Needs To Improve Its Controls Over Its Operations To Comply With HUD Requirements
We audited the Housing Authority of the County of Lackawanna, PA, because we received an anonymous complaint alleging incompetent leadership, nepotism, misuse of funds, and poor quality of life at the Authority. Our objectives were to determine whether the allegations in the complaint had merit and whether the Authority had effective controls to prevent conflicts of interest, ensure that interfund accounts were settled in a timely manner, identify parties excluded from doing business with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and prevent undue risk to the Authority from its employees’ use of Authority-owned vehicles. This is the first of two audit reports to be issued on the Authority.
February 7, 2014
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. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Boston Office of Public Housing as part of a nationwide audit of HUD’s oversight of environmental reviews. We selected the Boston Office based on our risk assessment. Our audit objectives were to determine whether the Boston Office’s oversight of public housing environmental reviews within its jurisdiction ensured that (1) the responsible entities performed the required reviews and (2) HUD did not release funds until all required documents were submitted.
February 4, 2014
The Hopewell Redevelopment and Housing Authority, Hopewell, VA, Generally Used Housing Choice Voucher and Public Housing Program Funds in Accordance With Applicable Requirements
We audited the Hopewell Redevelopment and Housing Authority’s use of U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Housing Choice Voucher and public housing program funds. We audited the Authority because we received a complaint alleging that the Authority (1) improperly calculated tenant rents and utility allowances, (2) improperly managed the program waiting list, (3) used credit cards for personal transactions, (4) made duplicate payments for repairs, (5) improperly recorded time worked for an employee, and (6) paid for an employee’s personal cell phone expenses. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority used Housing Choice Voucher and public housing program funds related to the allegations in the complaint in accordance with applicable requirements.
January 24, 2014
The Housing Authority of the City of Bridgeport, CT, Did Not Always Ensure That Expenses Charged to Its Federal Programs Were Eligible, Reasonable, and Supported
We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Bridgeport, CT, based on a request from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Hartford, CT, field office. HUD officials were concerned about the Authority due to significant financial deficiencies that were not corrected in a timely manner. Our audit objective was to determine whether Authority officials ensured that expenses charged to Federal programs were eligible, reasonable, and supported.
January 15, 2014
The Paterson Housing Authority, Paterson, NJ, Had Weaknesses in Administration of its Housing Choice Voucher Program
In accordance with our regional plan to review public housing programs and because of weaknesses identified by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), we reviewed the Housing Authority of the City of Idabel, OK. Our objectives were to determine whether the Authority’s investment in and operation of non-public-housing units complied with HUD requirements and whether those activities adversely impacted the management of its public housing programs.