We audited the Wausau Community Development Authority’s Housing Choice Voucher Program based on our analysis of risk factors related to the public housing agencies in Region 5’s jurisdiction (States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin). The audit was part of the activities in our fiscal year 2019 annual audit plan. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority ad
The Irvington, NJ, Housing Authority Did Not Always Administer Its Public Housing Program in Accordance With Program Requirements
We audited the Housing Authority of the Township of Irvington, NJ, regarding the administration of its public housing program because it was classified as a troubled public housing agency and based on a complaint from the union representing its maintenance and clerical employees. The complaint alleged serious financial and operational mismanagement. The audit objectives were to determine whether the issues identified in the complai
March 09, 2017
The Alphabet Group, LLC, Marks Group, LLC, and Imagineers, Inc., Settled Allegations Related to Section 8 Rent Certifications
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General (OIG), assisted the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Connecticut in the civil investigation of The Alphabet Group, LLC, Marks Group, LLC, and Imagineers, Inc. Alphabet and Marks are owners of residential housing in Hartford, CT, and Imagineers administers the Section 8 program for the City of Hartford Housing Authority.
September 19, 2016
The Huntsville Housing Authority Administered Its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program in Accordance With HUD’s and Its Own Requirements
We audited the Huntsville Housing Authority’s Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program. We initiated the audit under the U.S.
February 17, 2016
Brown County Housing Authority, Green Bay, WI, Did Not Always Ensure That Its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program Files Complied With HUD’s and Its Own Requirements
We audited the Brown County Housing Authority’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 fiscal year 2015 annual audit plan. Our audit objectives were to determine whether the Authority (1) appropriately calculated housing assistance payments and (2) maintained required eligibility documentation
August 28, 2015
The Housing Authority of the City of Camden, NJ, Did Not Ensure That Its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program Units Met Housing Quality Standards
We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Camden NJ's administration of its housing quality standards inspection program for its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program as part of our fiscal year 2010 audit plan. The audit objective addressed in this report was to determine whether the Authority ensured that its program units met the U.S.
July 19, 2011
State of Connecticut Department of Social Services' Section 8 Housing Units Did Not Always Meet HUD's Housing Quality Standards
We audited the State of Connecticut Department of Social Services’ (agency) administration of its housing quality standards program for its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program (Voucher program) as part of our fiscal year 2009 audit plan. The agency was selected based upon our analysis of risk factors relating to rental housing authorities in Region 1.
November 01, 2009
The Housing Authority of the City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Needs to Improve Its Procedures and Controls Regarding Its Homeownership Programs
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Office of Inspector General audited the Housing Authority of the City of Milwaukee's (Authority) 5(h) and Section 32 homeownership programs (programs). We selected the Authority based on a risk analysis showing that it had high-risk program indicators.
April 08, 2009
HUD OIG performed a corrective action verification of audit recommendations cited in the audit report, Opelika Housing Authority, Public Housing Programs (2004-AT-1011) issued July 23, 2004. The purpose of the corrective action verification was to determine whether the selected audit recommendations were implemented and the deficiencies cited in the report were corrected.
May 12, 2008