We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Annapolis, MD’s Housing Choice Voucher Program because we received a complaint alleging that the Authority (1) ignored discrepancies between income information for applicants and program participants and (2) did not properly administer its program. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority administered its program in accordance with U.S.
Bank2, Oklahoma City, OK, Originated Loans Reviewed in Accordance with Section 184 Loan Guarantees for Indian Housing Program Processing Guidelines
We audited Bank2’s origination of Section 184 Loan Guarantees for Indian Housing program loans. We selected Bank2’s Section 184 program because (1) an internal audit report and corrective action verification determined that the U.S.
July 11, 2019
The Crisfield Housing Authority, Crisfield, MD, Did Not Properly Administer Its Public Housing Program Operating and Capital Funds
We audited the Crisfield Housing Authority’s use of public housing program operating and capital funds because we received a hotline complaint alleging misuse of public housing assets and we had never audited the Authority. The audit objective was to determine whether the Authority administered its public housing program in accordance with applicable U.S.
September 25, 2018
The Owner of Luther Towers II, Wilmington, DE, Did Not Manage Its HUD-Insured Project in Accordance With Its Regulatory Agreement and HUD Requirements
We audited Luther Towers II because it was a high-risk multifamily project that received low inspection and financial assessment scores on our multifamily risk assessment for projects within our region and we had never audited it. Our audit objective was to determine whether the owner managed the project in accordance with its regulatory agreement and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requirements.
September 21, 2018
The Crisfield Housing Authority, Crisfield, MD, Did Not Properly Administer Its Housing Choice Voucher Program
We audited the Crisfield Housing Authority’s Housing Choice Voucher program because we received a hotline complaint alleging that it misused public housing assets and we had never audited the Authority. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority (1) ensured that families met eligibility requirements, (2) properly admitted families from the waiting list, (3) correctly calculated housing assistance payments and maintai
March 30, 2018
The City of Albuquerque, NM, Did Not Administer Its Community Development Block Grant Program in Accordance With Requirements
We audited the City of Albuquerque’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program based on our risk analysis and as part of the Office of Inspector General’s annual audit plan to review community planning and development funds. The audit objective was to determine whether the City administered its CDBG program in accordance with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requirements.
August 16, 2017
The Housing Authority of the City of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK, Did Not Always Correctly Compute Housing Assistance Payments
We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Tulsa’s administration of its Section 8 program. We selected the Authority based on reports generated by the U.S.
May 17, 2017
The State of Oklahoma Did Not Obligate and Spend Its Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Funds in Accordance With Requirements
We audited the State of Oklahoma because it received $93.7 million in Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) allocations for presidentially declared disasters that occurred in 2011, 2012, and 2013. The substantial amount of CDBG-DR funding required a review of the State’s program. Our objective was to determine whether the State obligated and spent its grant in accordance with requirements.
September 30, 2016
The Housing Opportunities Commission of Montgomery County, Kensington, MD, Did Not Always Ensure That Its Program Units Met Housing Quality Standards
We audited the Housing Opportunities Commission of Montgomery County’s Housing Choice Voucher program because (1) it had a large program receiving more than $82 million in fiscal year 2015, (2) it had the second largest number of housing choice vouchers of non-Moving to Work housing agencies within the jurisdiction of the Philadelphia region, and (3) we had not audited its program. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Co
September 29, 2016