The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General audited the Flint Housing Commission’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Public Housing Capital Fund competitive grants. We selected the Commission based upon our analysis of risk factors relating to the housing agencies in Region 5’s jurisdiction. Our objective was to determine whether the Commission administered its grants in accordance with Recovery Act, HUD’s, and its own requirements. This is the first of two planned audit reports on the Commission’s Recovery Act grants.

We audited the Allegheny County Housing Authority’s Housing Choice Voucher program because (1) the Authority received more than $27.3 million in Housing Choice Voucher funding in fiscal year 2011, (2) an article in the October 22, 2011, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette described housing quality standards problems with a housing unit participating in the Authority’s program, and (3) we had never audited the Authority’s Housing Choice Voucher program. The audit objective was to determine whether the Authority ensured that its Housing Choice Voucher program units met the U.S.

We audited the Buffalo Municipal Housing Authority’s Public Housing Capital Fund Stimulus (Formula) program funded under the Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 based on an Office of Inspector General risk analysis and the amount of funding the Authority received. The objectives of the audit were to determine whether Authority officials (1) procured contracts in accordance with U.S.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General audited the Hammond Housing Authority’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Public Housing Capital Fund Stimulus formula and competitive grants. The audit was part of the activities in our fiscal year 2012 annual audit plan. We selected the Authority based upon our analysis of risk factors related to the housing agencies in Region V’s jurisdiction.

We audited the Gallia Metropolitan Housing Authority’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Public Housing Capital Fund Stimulus (formula) grant. The audit was part of the activities in our fiscal year 2011 annual audit plan. We selected the Authority based upon our analysis of risk factors relating to the housing agencies in Region V’s (see footnote 1) jurisdiction and a request by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Office of Public and Indian Housing.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General initiated an audit of the Opelousas Housing Authority’s Public Housing Capital Fund Stimulus Recovery Act-funded grant as part of our annual audit plan.

We audited the Sanford Housing Authority (Authority) to assess certain issues raised in a congressional referral. The referral alleged improper use or mismanagement of the Authority’s public housing, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program funds.

We audited the Springfield Housing Authority’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Public Housing Capital Fund Stimulus formula grant. The audit was part of the activities in our fiscal year 2011 annual audit plan. We selected the Authority based upon our analysis of risk factors relating to the housing agencies in Region V’s jurisdiction. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority administered its grant in accordance with Recovery Act, U.S.

We audited the Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority’s Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program. The audit was part of the activities in our fiscal year 2012 annual audit plan. We selected the Authority based upon our analysis of risk factors relating to the housing agencies in Region V’s jurisdiction. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority administered its program in accordance with applicable U.S.

We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Shreveport (Authority) as part of our annual audit plan to review American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) funds. Our objective was to determine whether obligations the Authority made between January 30 and March 17, 2010, were appropriate, prudent, eligible, and supported and whether procurements were made in accordance with requirements. We determined that the Authority mismanaged its Recovery Act funds by entering into imprudent contracts to meet the March 17, 2010 obligation deadline.