Tuscan Homes I and II in Hartford, CT, Was Not Always Managed in Accordance With Its Regulatory Agreement and HUD Requirements
We audited Tuscan Homes I and II, a multifamily project located in Hartford, CT, because our risk assessment ranked the project as the highest risk multifamily project in New England. Our audit objective was to determine whether the owner managed the project in accordance with its regulatory agreement and U.S.
September 09, 2019
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 State of Connecticut Did Not Ensure That Its Grantees Properly Administered Their Housing Rehabilitation Programs
We audited the State of Connecticut’s Small Cities Community Development Block Grant program based on an Office of Inspector General risk assessment, which ranked the State as the highest risk grantee in Connecticut. Our audit objective was to determine whether the State ensured that its grantees properly administered their housing rehabilitation programs. We also assessed various complaints made against the program to determine wh
September 19, 2018
The Middlesex Health Care Center, Middletown, CT, Was Not Always Operated According to Its Regulatory Agreement and HUD Requirements
We audited the Federal Housing Administration-insured nursing home, Middlesex Health Care Center in Middletown, CT, because we identified profitability and solvency issues during ongoing work with the Section 232 program. Additionally, the U.S.
June 29, 2018
The Housing Authority of the City of New Haven, CT, Made Ineligible Housing Assistance Payments From Its Housing Choice Voucher Program
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.
November 15, 2017
The Riverside Health and Rehabilitation Center, East Hartford, CT Was Not Operated Under the Required Controlling Documents of the Section 232 Program
We audited the Federal Housing Administration-insured nursing home, Riverside Health and Rehabilitation Center (the project), of East Hartford, CT, based on our risk assessment of nursing homes in the New England region. Additionally, the U.S.
November 12, 2017
The Housing Authority of the City of Hartford, CT, Did Not Always Comply With Procurement Requirements
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.
September 21, 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 Connecticut Did Not Always Comply With Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Assistance Requirements
We audited the Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) assistance grant provided to the State of Connecticut by the U.S.
October 12, 2016
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