The Taylor Housing Commission, Taylor, MI, Did Not Always Comply With HUD’s and Its Own Requirements for Its Program Household Files
We audited the Taylor Housing Commission’s Housing Choice Voucher Program based on our analysis of risk factors relating to public housing agencies in Region 5’s jurisdiction (States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin). Our audit objective was to determine whether the Commission complied with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) and its own requirements regarding the administration of its…
September 30, 2019
Report
#2019-CH-1004
The Detroit Housing Commission, Detroit, MI, Did Not Always Administer Its Moderate Rehabilitation Program in Accordance With HUD’s and Its Own Requirements
We audited the Detroit Housing Commission’s Moderate Rehabilitation program based on concerns regarding the conditions of the housing units and the results of our prior audit of the Commission’s former projects. The audit was part of the activities in our fiscal year 2018 annual audit plan. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Commission administered its program in accordance with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban…
February 06, 2019
Report
#2019-CH-1002
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
We audited the Grand Rapids Housing Commission’s Rental Assistance Demonstration program (RAD) based on the activities included in our 2017 annual audit plan and our analysis of the housing agencies participating in RAD in Region 5’s jurisdiction (States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin). Our audit objective was to determine whether the Commission correctly calculated housing assistance payments for the units…
June 11, 2018
Report
#2018-CH-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 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 Port Huron Housing Commission, Port Huron, MI, Did Not Properly Implement Asset Management
We audited the Port Huron Housing Commission’s public housing program as part of the activities in our fiscal year 2016 annual audit plan. We selected the Commission based on our analysis of the risk factors relating to public housing agencies in Region 5’s 1 jurisdiction. Our objective was to determine whether the Commission administered its program in accordance with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) and…
January 23, 2017
Report
#2017-CH-1001
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 Lansing Housing Commission, Lansing, MI, Did Not Always Comply With HUD’s Requirements and Its Own Policies Regarding the Administration of Its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program
We audited the Lansing Housing Commission’s Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program based on our analysis of risk factors related to the public housing agencies in Region 5’s jurisdiction and the activities included in our 2015 annual audit plan. Our audit objectives were to determine whether the Commission (1) appropriately calculated housing assistance payments, (2) maintained eligibility documentation required to support the…
December 15, 2015
Report
#2016-CH-1002
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
The Detroit Housing Commission, Detroit, MI, Did Not Always Manage Its Program Projects in Accordance With HUD’s Requirements
We audited the Detroit Housing Commission’s Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Program as part of the activities in our fiscal year 2015 annual audit plan. We selected the Commission based upon a citizen’s complaint alleging mismanagement in the administration of the Commission’s former program projects, Colony Arms and Fisher Arms Apartments. Our audit objectives were to determine whether the Commission appropriately (1) maintained…
August 26, 2015
Report
#2015-CH-1002
Improvements Are Needed Over Environmental Reviews of Public Housing and Recovery Act Funds in the Detroit Office
We audited the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Detroit Office of Public Housing as part of a nationwide audit of HUD’s oversight of environmental reviews. We selected the Detroit Office based on our risk assessment. Our audit objectives were to determine whether the Detroit Office’s oversight of public housing environmental reviews within its jurisdiction ensured that (1) the responsible entities performed…
September 24, 2014
Report
#2014-FW-0005
The Pontiac Housing Commission, Pontiac, MI, Did Not Always Administer Its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program in Accordance With HUD’s and Its Own Requirements
We audited the Pontiac Housing Commission’s Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program based on our analysis of risk factors relating to the housing agencies in Region 5’s jurisdiction. Our objective was to determine whether the Commission complied with Federal, State, or its own requirements regarding its Family Self-Sufficiency program and conflicts of interest.
The Commission did not always administer its Family Self-Sufficiency…
September 12, 2014
Report
#2014-CH-1009
The Ferndale Housing Commission, Ferndale, MI, Generally Administered Its Housing Choice Voucher Program Household Files in accordance With HUD's and Its Own Requirements
We audited the Ferndale Housing Commission’s Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program as part of the activities in our fiscal year 2014 annual audit plan. We selected the Commission based upon an analysis of risk factors related to public housing agencies in Region 5’s jurisdiction. Our objectives were to determine whether the Commission appropriately (1) calculated housing assistance payments, (2) maintained required…
September 11, 2014
Report
#2014-CH-1008
The Jackson Housing Commission, Jackson, MI, Needs To Improve Its Administration of Its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program
We audited the Jackson Housing Commission’s Section 8 program as part of the activities in our fiscal year 2014 annual audit plan. We selected the Commission based on our analysis of the risk factors relating to public housing agencies in Region 5’s jurisdiction. Our objective was to determine whether the Commission administered its program in accordance with HUD’s and its own program requirements.
The Commission generally…
August 29, 2014
Report
#2014-CH-1007
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 Hamtramck Housing Commission, Hamtramck, MI, Did Not Always Administer Its Grant in Accordance With Recovery Act, HUD’s, or Its Own Requirements
We audited the Hamtramck Housing Commission’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Public Housing Capital Fund competitive grant. We selected the Commission based upon our analysis of the risk factors relating to public housing agencies in Region 5’s jurisdiction. Our objective was to determine whether the Commission administered its grant in accordance with Recovery Act, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban…
April 30, 2014
Report
#2014-CH-1003
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 Hamtramck Housing Commission, Hamtramck, MI, Did Not Administer Its Grant in Accordance With Recovery Act, HUD’s, and Its Own Requirements
We audited the Hamtramck Housing Commission’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Public Housing Capital Fund Stimulus formula grant. We selected the Commission based upon our analysis of risk factors related to the public housing agencies in Region 5’s1 jurisdiction. Our objective was to determine whether the Commission administered its grant in accordance with Recovery Act, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban…
September 30, 2013
Report
#2013-CH-1012