We audited Summit Construction and Environmental Services, LLC, because we received an anonymous complaint alleging that Summit Construction (1) did not perform lead-based paint evaluations in a timely manner, (2) did not produce adequate lead-based paint inspection reports in accordance with applicable requirements, and (3) showed favoritism toward certain contractors performing lead-paint inspections. Our o
The Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority, Charlottesville, VA, Did Not Always Comply With Applicable Procurement Requirements
We audited the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority’s use of public housing operating and capital funds because (1) we received a hotline complaint alleging that the Authority mismanaged its procurement activities and improperly awarded an internet services contract for more than $200,000 without receiving competitive bids and (2) we had never audited the Authority. Our audit objective was to determine whe
August 02, 2019
The North Carolina Department of Commerce Did Not Administer Its Neighborhood Stabilization Program Grants as Required by HUD
We audited the North Carolina Department of Commerce’s Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) grants as part of our annual audit plan because the Department received more than $57 million in NSP1 and NSP3 funding. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Department administered its NSP1 and NSP3 grants in accordance with the U.S.
June 14, 2019
The Housing Authority of the City of Woonsocket, RI, Did Not Always Comply With Capital Fund Program and Procurement Requirements
We audited the Public Housing Capital Fund program at the Housing Authority of the City of Woonsocket, RI, based on a request by the U.S.
May 07, 2019
We audited the City of Providence RI’s HOME Investment Partnerships program based on an OIG risk assessment, which ranked the City as the highest risk HOME grantee in New England. The objective of the audit was to determine whether the City properly committed and disbursed HOME funds in accordance with Federal and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) rules and regulations.
June 20, 2018
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.
May 10, 2018
The North Carolina Department of Commerce, Raleigh, NC, Generally Administered Its Grant Program in Accordance With HUD Regulations
We audited the North Carolina Department of Commerce’s Small Cities Community Development Block Grant as part of the activities in our annual audit plan. Our audit objectives were to determine whether the Department of Commerce (1) awarded funds to local governments that met a CDBG national objective, (2) spent funds only for activities that were eligible and supported, and (3) included all methods of distribution in its action plan
April 16, 2018
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.
August 21, 2017
The West Warwick Housing Authority, West Warwick, RI, Needs To Improve Its Compliance With Federal Regulations for Its Housing Choice Voucher and Public Housing Programs
We audited the Housing Choice Voucher and public housing programs at the West Warwick Housing Authority as a result of concerns from the U.S.
August 18, 2017
The Loudoun County Department of Family Services, Leesburg, VA, Did Not Always Ensure That Its Program Units Met Housing Quality Standards
We audited the Loudoun County Department of Family Services’ Housing Choice Voucher program because (1) we received a complaint alleging housing quality standards problems with a housing unit participating in the County’s program, (2) the County had 688 vouchers and received more than $6.4 million in fiscal year 2016, and (3) we had not audited its program. Our audit objective was to determine whether the County ensured that its Hou
June 09, 2017