Search

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. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) lacked proper oversight of the program and lenders did not underwrite loans in accordance with HUD requirements 2) Bank2 is one of the largest Section 184…

We audited the Fairmont-Morgantown Housing Authority’s Housing Choice Voucher program because (1) we received a complaint alleging that the Authority did not follow program requirements, (2) the Authority administered 1,117 vouchers and received more than $5.2 million in funding for fiscal year 2016, and (3) we had not audited its program.  Our audit objectives were to determine whether the Authority ensured that its Housing Choice…

We audited the Fairmont-Morgantown Housing Authority’s Housing Choice Voucher program because (1) we received a complaint alleging that the Authority did not follow program requirements, (2) the Authority administered 1,117 vouchers and received more than $5.2 million in funding for fiscal year 2016, and (3) we had not audited its program.  Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority adequately administered its Housing…

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.  Authority officials made $314,611 in ineligible…

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. The…

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. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Enterprise Income Verification system (EIV).  The Authority had indicators of noncompliance with program requirements.  Specifically, EIV reported an annualized income discrepancy of more than $1.6 million for 328 tenants in…

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. On May 17, 2012,…

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. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations, and the Authority had…

We audited the Waterbury Housing Authority’s administration of its asset management projects based on a risk assessment that considered the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) risk assessment and the Authority’s funding and number of asset management units.  Our overall audit objective was to determine whether Authority officials ensured that expenses charged to the Authority’s asset management projects complied…

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…