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
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
December 21, 2018
The Housing Authority of the City of Evansville, Evansville, IN, Did Not Follow HUD’s and Its Own Requirements for Units Converted Under the Rental Assistance Demonstration
We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Evansville’s Rental Assistance Demonstration Program (RAD) conversion based on the activities included in our 2018 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 Authority complied with the U.S.
August 02, 2018
The Indianapolis Housing Agency, Indianapolis, IN, Did Not Always Comply With HUD’s Regulations and Its Own Requirements Regarding the Financial Administration of Its Housing Choice Voucher Program
We audited the Indianapolis Housing Agency’s Housing Choice Voucher program based on an anonymous complaint. The audit was part of the activities in our fiscal year 2018 audit plan. Our objective was specific to the allegations in the complaint and was to determine whether the Agency wrote off accounts receivable, deleted adjustments to accounts payable and receivable, and made adjustments to accounts payable and receivable associa
August 01, 2018
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.
April 24, 2018
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.
September 29, 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 Housing Authority of the City of Hammond, Hammond, IN, Did Not Always Comply With HUD’s Requirements Regarding the Administration of Its Housing Choice Voucher Program
We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Hammond, IN’s Housing Choice Voucher program based on the activities included in our 2017 annual audit plan and our analysis of risk factors related to the public housing agencies in Region 5’s jurisdiction. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority correctly calculated housing assistance and utility allowances and appropriately managed its Family Self-Sufficiency prog
July 14, 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