The Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, Did Not Always Manage Its Legal Services in Compliance With HUD Requirements
We audited the Housing Authority of City of Los Angeles’ legal services due to a hotline complaint alleging that the Authority did not properly procure its legal services and alleging questionable legal expenses that violated U.S.
September 27, 2018
The Inglewood Housing Authority, Inglewood, CA, Generally Ensured the Eligibility of Its Housing Choice Voucher Program Participants
We audited the Inglewood Housing Authority (Authority) based upon issues with participant eligibility identified during our previous review of the financial operations of the Authority’s Housing Choice Voucher program, audit report 2016-LA-1013. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority ensured that participants were eligible to receive housing assistance in accordance with U.S.
May 11, 2017
Inglewood Housing Authority, Inglewood, CA, Did Not Effectively Manage the Financial Operations of Its Housing Choice Voucher Program
We audited the Inglewood Housing Authority’s financial management of its Housing Choice Voucher program due to a hotline complaint allegation and the U.S.
September 30, 2016
The Sanford Housing Authority, Sanford, NC, Did Not Comply With HUD’s and Its Own Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program Requirements
We audited the Sanford Housing Authority’s Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Programs as a result of problems identified during a technical assistance review performed by the U.S.
September 13, 2016
The Housing Authority of the City of Durham, NC, Did Not Always Comply With HUD’s and Its Own Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program Requirements
We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Durham’s Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program based on a hotline citizen complaint and as part of the activities in our fiscal year 2015 annual audit plan. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority administered its program in accordance with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) and its own requirements and whether the complaint was valid.
September 30, 2015
The Hot Springs Housing Authority, Hot Springs, AR Did Not Comply With Federal Regulations and Other Requirements When Administering Its Public Housing Programs
In accordance with our regional plan to review public housing programs and because of a complaint filed by a contractor with the U.S.
August 14, 2015
The Housing Authority of the City of Lumberton, NC, Did Not Administer Its Public Housing Program in Accordance With Requirements
We initiated a review of the Housing Authority of the City of Lumberton, NC, at the request of the U.S.
December 04, 2013
We completed a corrective action verification of a recommendation made to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Office of Public and Indian Housing (PIH) pertaining to our review of the City of Hawthorne, CA’s Section 8 program, Audit Report 2011-LA-1008, which was issued March 28, 2011.
February 14, 2013
Weymouth Housing Authority, Weymouth, MA, Did Not Always Administer Its Housing Choice Voucher Program and Public Housing Program in Accordance With HUD Regulations and Its Annual Contributions Contracts
We audited the Housing Choice Voucher program and Federal public housing programs at the Weymouth Housing Authority as part of our annual audit plan. The overall objective of the audit was to determine whether the Authority had acceptable management practices to efficiently and effectively administer its Housing Choice Voucher program while providing decent, safe, and sanitary housing in compliance with U.S.
August 29, 2011
HUD OIG audited the Housing Authority of the City of Wilson’s (Authority) Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program. We elected to perform the audit after finding indicators of Section 8 deficiencies during our review of the Authority’s capacity to administer capital funds awarded under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Audit Report 2010-AT-1007).
January 13, 2011