Work with the Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes to update HUD’s regulations to expand the inspection and abatement requirements of 24 CFR Part 35 to housing completed after 1977 in cases in which a child with an elevated blood lead level is reported.
2018-CH-0002 | June 14, 2018
HUD Lacked Adequate Oversight of Lead-Based Paint Reporting and Remediation in Its Public Housing and Housing Choice Voucher Programs
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2018-CH-0002-001-FOpenClosed
- Status2018-CH-0002-001-GOpenClosed
Implement adequate procedures and controls at HUD’s field offices to ensure that requirements of 24 CFR Part 35 are followed by public housing agencies, including monitoring the public housing agencies to ensure that required actions are appropriately completed and performed in a timely manner.
2018-CH-1001 | June 11, 2018
The Grand Rapids Housing Commission, Grand Rapids, MI, Did Not Always Correctly Calculate and Pay Housing Assistance for Units Converted Under the Rental Assistance Demonstration
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2018-CH-1001-001-AOpenClosed$13,605Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Reimburse its program $13,605 from non-Federal funds ($8,735 in overpayments of housing assistance and utility allowances $4,870 in administrative fees) due to inappropriate calculations.
- Status2018-CH-1001-001-BOpenClosed$2,663Funds Put to Better Use
Recommendations that funds be put to better use estimate funds that could be used more efficiently. For example, recommendations that funds be put to better use could result in reductions in spending, deobligation of funds, or avoidance of unnecessary spending.
Reimburse the appropriate households $2,663 from non-Federal funds for the underpayment of housing assistance and utility allowances due to inappropriate calculations.
- Status2018-CH-1001-001-COpenClosed$44Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Support or reimburse the appropriate households $44 from non-Federal funds for the unsupported payments of housing assistance cited in this finding.
- Status2018-CH-1001-001-DOpenClosed$1,877Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Pursue collection from the applicable households or reimburse its program $1,877 from non-Federal funds for the overpayment of housing assistance due to unreported income.
- Status2018-CH-1001-001-EOpenClosed$5,065Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Pursue collection from the applicable projects or reimburse its program $5,065 from non-Federal funds for the overpayment of housing assistance.
- Status2018-CH-1001-001-FOpenClosed$177Funds Put to Better Use
Recommendations that funds be put to better use estimate funds that could be used more efficiently. For example, recommendations that funds be put to better use could result in reductions in spending, deobligation of funds, or avoidance of unnecessary spending.
Reimburse the appropriate projects $177 from program funds for the underpayment of housing assistance.
- Status2018-CH-1001-001-GOpenClosed$263Funds Put to Better Use
Recommendations that funds be put to better use estimate funds that could be used more efficiently. For example, recommendations that funds be put to better use could result in reductions in spending, deobligation of funds, or avoidance of unnecessary spending.
Reimburse the appropriate households $263 from program funds for the underpayment of utility allowance reimbursements.
- Status2018-CH-1001-001-HOpenClosed
Review the payments for all certifications completed between December 2016 and February 2017 for the remaining Housing Choice Voucher and Project-Based Voucher program participants to ensure that adjustments were appropriately paid.
- Status2018-CH-1001-001-IOpenClosed
Implement adequate quality control procedures to ensure that it correctly pays housing assistance.
- Status2018-CH-1001-001-JOpenClosed
Ensure that the quality controls over the calculation of housing assistance payments implemented by the Commission are sufficient.
2018-FW-0802 | May 15, 2018
Interim Report - Potential Antideficiency Act and Generally Accepted Accounting Principle Violations Occurred With Disaster Relief Appropriation Act, 2013, Funds
Chief Financial Officer
- Status2018-FW-0802-001-AOpenClosed$160,360,714Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
We recommend that the Chief Financial Officer determine whether the summary expenditures totaling $160,360,714, which exceeded the grant round obligations for the two grantees, were ADA violations. If the transactions were violations, action should be taken as required by the ADA.
- Status2018-FW-0802-001-BOpenClosed$435,263,268Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
We recommend that the Chief Financial Officer determine whether the revised and completed detail transactions totaling to $435,263,268, which occurred before and after grant rounds obligation and expenditure dates, were ADA violations. If the transactions were violations, actions should be taken as required by the ADA.
- Status2018-FW-0802-001-COpenClosed$496,913,235Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
We recommend that the Chief Financial Officer determine whether the revised and completed transactions totaling $496,913,235 and made more than a year after the original voucher entry were GAAP violations. If the transactions were violations, appropriate actions should be taken, including but not limited to adjusting the transactions in LOCCS and HUD’s financial statements.
- Status2018-FW-0802-001-DOpenClosed
We recommend that the Chief Financial Officer enter a 24-month expiration term into LOCCS for Disaster Recovery funding provided by the 2017 Act and monitor to ensure that expenses are not entered before or after the grant period.
- Status2018-FW-0802-001-EOpenClosed
We recommend that the Chief Financial Officer require CPD to enter into a separate grant agreement for each grantee’s round of disaster funding for funding provided by the 2017 and 2018 Acts.
- Status2018-FW-0802-001-FOpenClosed
We recommend that the Chief Financial Officer require CPD to monitor the detailed voucher transactions in the DRGR system to ensure that grantees appropriately record transactions.
- Status2018-FW-0802-001-GOpenClosed
We recommend that the Chief Financial Officer require CPD to prohibit grantees from revising completed vouchers in the DRGR system and require adjustments to be entered as new vouchers into the DRGR system, which will ensure that LOCCS records and tracks revisions.
2018-LA-0002 | May 07, 2018
HUD Did Not Have Adequate Controls To Ensure That Grantees Submitted Accurate Tribal Enrollment Numbers for Program Funding
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2018-LA-0002-001-AOpenClosed
Update the program’s information reporting requirements on form HUD-4117 to ensure that grantees report tribal enrollment numbers annually regardless of whether there are changes or corrections.