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 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 Memphis Housing Authority, Memphis, TN, Did Not Always Ensure That Its Housing Choice Voucher Program Units Met HUD’s Housing Quality Standards
We audited the Memphis, TN, Housing Authority’s Housing Choice Voucher program as part of the activities in our fiscal year 2014 audit plan. We selected the Authority because it had a large program, receiving about $40 million in yearly funding, and was part of the OIG’s annual audit plan. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority’s inspection process adequately ensured that its units were in material compliance with…
September 30, 2014
Report
#2014-AT-1014
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 Shelby County, TN, Housing Authority Mismanaged Its HUD-Funded Programs
We audited the Shelby County Housing Authority in Memphis, TN, based upon an audit request from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General for Investigation. The request included many areas of concern for both public housing operations and Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program administration. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority complied with HUD requirements for administering its…
January 25, 2012
Report
#2012-AT-1007
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 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
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
Seattle Housing Authority’s Capacity To Administer Recovery Act Funding Under the Capital Fund Program
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Office of Inspector General conducted a capacity review of Seattle Housing Authority’s (Authority) capital fund to determine whether there was evidence that the Authority lacked the capacity to adequately administer its Recovery Act funding in accordance with requirements. Our review of the Authority was limited to gaining an understanding of internal controls over the…
April 21, 2010
Memorandum
#2010-SE-1801
The Chattanooga Housing Authority Demonstrated Capacity To Administer Its Recovery Act Funds
The Chattanooga Housing Authority (Authority) was awarded a $6.35 million capital fund formula grant and a $4.8 million capital fund competitive grant under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). In accordance with our goal to review funds provided under the Recovery Act, we conducted a capacity review of the Authority’s operations. The objective was to determine whether the Authority had the capacity to adequately…
January 25, 2010
Memorandum
#2010-AT-1804
The Chattanooga Housing Authority Mismanaged Its Finances
We audited the Chattanooga Housing Authority's (Authority) financial operations after the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Public Housing, Tennessee State Office, informed us of the Authority's deteriorating financial condition. We began with a review of the Authority's development activities but expanded the review based on our survey results.
The Authority, with the exception of $49,316 in…
June 11, 2009
Report
#2009-AT-1007
The Richland Housing Authority, Richland, Washington, Did Not Adequately Account for Housing Choice Voucher Funds
At HUD's request, we audited the Housing Choice Voucher program of the Richland Housing Authority (Authority). HUD was concerned about the results of an audit of the Authority performed by the Washington State Auditor's Office. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority made ineligible purchases with program funds. We found that the Authority did not track its program expenses. Also, it charged more than $57,000 in…
July 07, 2008
Report
#2008-SE-1006
Renton Housing Authority, Renton, Washington, Overpaid Rental Assistance And Did Not Have Sufficient Controls Over Rent Reasonableness
We audited Renton Housing Authority (Authority), Renton, Washington. The review was initiated due to a hotline complaint from a Housing Choice Voucher program recipient. The complainant stated that the contract rent was unreasonable because it exceeded the rent for comparable unassisted units on the premises. The audit objective was to determine whether the complaint was valid. We also wanted to determine whether the Authority had controls in…
June 03, 2008
Report
#2008-SE-1005