The Housing Authority of the City of New Haven, CT, Made Ineligible Housing Assistance Payments From Its Housing Choice Voucher Program
We audited the Housing Authority of the City of New Haven’s Housing Choice Voucher program based on our risk assessment of the program for the New England region, the size of the Authority’s program, the time lapse since our last audit, and the inherent risk of the program. Our audit objective was to determine whether Authority officials only made eligible housing assistance payments.
November 15, 2017
The Housing Authority of the City of Hartford, CT, Did Not Always Comply With Procurement Requirements
We audited the public housing and Housing Choice Voucher programs at the Housing Authority of the City of Hartford, CT, as a result of a hotline complaint alleging potential noncompliance with procurement requirements. The objective of the audit was to determine whether the Authority complied with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Federal procurement requirements and the Authority’s procurement policy.
September 21, 2017
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General audited the Denver Housing Authority of Denver, CO for calendar years 2013-2015. The audit was initiated because of deficiencies found in other procurement audits in our region. The Authority is the largest recipient of U.S.
August 18, 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 Administration of Accounting, Inventory, and Procurement of the Bridgeport Housing Authority in Bridgeport, CT, Did Not Always Comply With HUD Regulations
We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Bridgeport, CT, in response to complaints about improper use of funds, procurement irregularities, and inadequate safeguarding of equipment. The audit objective was to determine whether Federal funds were used for eligible and adequately supported costs, procurements were executed in compliance with U.S.
June 27, 2016
Allocation of Costs to the Waterbury Housing Authority Asset Management Projects Was Generally Supported
We audited the Waterbury Housing Authority’s administration of its asset management projects based on a risk assessment that considered the U.S.
September 30, 2015
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 hou
September 30, 2014
The Housing Authority of the City of Stamford, CT Took Appropriate Action to Resolve a Complaint While Complying With Procurement Regulations
We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Stamford, doing business as Charter Oak Communities. We received an anonymous complaint against the Authority related to an alleged improper procurement. The complainant alleged that Authority officials awarded a contract to an employee’s spouse without following procurement and conflict-of-interest requirements. In addition, a previous audit (Audit report number 2012-BO-1002 issued
September 26, 2014
We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Bridgeport, CT, to address complaints and areas that came to our attention during a prior audit. Our objective was determine whether costs charged to Federal housing programs were eligible, reasonable, and supported. Specifically, we determined whether officials properly (1) charged development staff costs, (2) charged Section 8 consulting costs, (3) implemented flat rents, (4) loaned
July 31, 2014