We audited the Housing Choice Voucher Program at the New Hampshire Housing Finance Authority because it was rated high risk on our risk assessment and due to the size of the Authority’s program. It averaged 3,508 vouchers and more than $2.4 million in housing assistance payments monthly. In addition, we had not audited the Authority’s program in the last 10 years. The audit objective was to determine
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 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
Final Civil Action: BSR Trust, LLC, Settled Allegations of Making False Claims Related to Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments
On April 17, 2018, the Office of Program Enforcement issued a letter stating that it had reached a resolution under a Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986 case regarding Summit Bradford Apartments located in Tulsa, OK, following its review. The Government alleged that the owner submitted 40 false claims under the Act.
May 21, 2018
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 New Hampshire Housing Finance Authority Administered Its HOME Investment Partnerships Program in Accordance With HUD Requirements
We audited the New Hampshire Housing Finance Authority’s HOME Investment Partnerships Program based on a risk analysis of the Authority’s program that considered the amount of funding and the results of HUD monitoring reviews and because the Office of Inspector General had not reviewed the Authority’s HOME program within the past 10 years. Our audit objective was to determine whether Authority officials administered the HOME program
September 30, 2015
The City of Moore, OK, Generally Had the Capacity To Expend Its Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Funds
We reviewed the City of Moore, OK, because it received $52.2 million in Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) funding in response to the tornado that struck Moore on May 20, 2013. Further, the City only recently became a CDBG entitlement grantee, and there was a substantial increase between its regular CDBG funding and its CDBG-DR funding. Also, our annual audit plan placed a priority on reviewing entities t
August 07, 2015
A Former Employee of the Helena Housing Authority, Helena, MT, Improperly Released Personally Identifiable Information
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development – Office of Inspector General audited the Helena, MT Housing Authority in response to a hotline complaint alleging a former employee of the housing authority improperly released housing choice voucher holders’ personally identifiable information. The objective of our review was to determine whether the allegation had merit.
September 25, 2014