FAC Explorer

Audit 323134

FY End
2023-12-31
Total Expended
$3.54M
Findings
20
Programs
3
Organization: Milton Housing Authority (MA)
Year: 2023 Accepted: 2024-09-30
Auditor: Dooley & Vicars CPAS LLP

Organization Exclusion Status:

Findings

ID Ref Severity Repeat Requirement
500365 2023-001 Significant Deficiency Yes E
500366 2023-002 Significant Deficiency Yes L
500367 2023-003 Significant Deficiency Yes N
500368 2023-001 Significant Deficiency Yes E
500369 2023-002 Significant Deficiency Yes L
500370 2023-003 Significant Deficiency Yes N
500371 2023-004 Significant Deficiency - L
500372 2023-004 Significant Deficiency - L
500373 2023-004 Significant Deficiency - L
500374 2023-005 Significant Deficiency - B
1076807 2023-001 Significant Deficiency Yes E
1076808 2023-002 Significant Deficiency Yes L
1076809 2023-003 Significant Deficiency Yes N
1076810 2023-001 Significant Deficiency Yes E
1076811 2023-002 Significant Deficiency Yes L
1076812 2023-003 Significant Deficiency Yes N
1076813 2023-004 Significant Deficiency - L
1076814 2023-004 Significant Deficiency - L
1076815 2023-004 Significant Deficiency - L
1076816 2023-005 Significant Deficiency - B

Programs

ALN Program Spent Major Findings
14.871 Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers $2.92M Yes 4
14.879 Mainstream Vouchers $526,069 Yes 4
14.896 Family Self-Sufficiency Program $90,000 - 2

Contacts

Name Title Type
FBZXWQZDYNJ1 Jane Isnor Auditee
6176982169 Jake Dooley Auditor
No contacts on file

Notes to SEFA

Title: Note 1 Accounting Policies: The accompanying schedule of expenditures of federal awards is prepared on the accrual basis of accounting. De Minimis Rate Used: N Rate Explanation: The auditee did not use the de minimus cost rate. The accompanying Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards includes the federal grant activity of the Milton Housing Authority under programs of the federal government for the year ended December 31, 2023. The information in this schedule is presented in accordance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Because the schedule presents only a selected portion of the operations of the Milton Housing Authority, it is not intended to and does not present the financial position, changes in net position, or cash flows of the Milton Housing Authority.
Title: Note 2 Accounting Policies: The accompanying schedule of expenditures of federal awards is prepared on the accrual basis of accounting. De Minimis Rate Used: N Rate Explanation: The auditee did not use the de minimus cost rate. The (*) to the right of a ALN identifies the grant as a major federal program as defined by OMB Uniform Guidance.
Title: Note 3 Accounting Policies: The accompanying schedule of expenditures of federal awards is prepared on the accrual basis of accounting. De Minimis Rate Used: N Rate Explanation: The auditee did not use the de minimus cost rate. On the Housing Choice Voucher program, the Authority receives annual funds based on an annual estimate of need. Unexpended grant funds are available to meet subsequent year HAP shortfalls.
Title: Note 4 Accounting Policies: The accompanying schedule of expenditures of federal awards is prepared on the accrual basis of accounting. De Minimis Rate Used: N Rate Explanation: The auditee did not use the de minimus cost rate. The amounts shown as current year expenditures represent only the federal and state portion of the actual program costs. Actual program costs, including the Housing Authority’s portion, may be more than shown.
Title: Note 5 Accounting Policies: The accompanying schedule of expenditures of federal awards is prepared on the accrual basis of accounting. De Minimis Rate Used: N Rate Explanation: The auditee did not use the de minimus cost rate. The Authority has not elected to use the 10-percent de minimus indirect cost rate as allowed under Uniform Guidance.

Finding Details

Finding 2023-001
Finding No. 2023-001 - Tenant Eligibility; Significant Deficiency (HCV Cluster #14.871 and #14.879) CONDITION: The Authority's Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers program had a file missing form HUD-9886, authorization for release of information, for participants in accordance with HUD regulations. CRITERIA: Participants in the Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers program are required to sign a HUD-9886 form authorizing release of information, in accordance with appropriate laws and regulations governing the program. QUESTIONED COSTS: The amount of questioned costs could not be determined. CONTEXT: Forty tenant files were chosen using a statically valid sample. Of the forty tenant files examined, one fi le did not include form HUD-9886. EFFECT: The Housing Authority could be accessing tenant information without proper tenant consent. CAUSE: The overall cause was a lack of quality control in understanding the importance of maintaining these intake documents across the life of the residents' files RECOMMENDATION: The Housing Authority should implement greater oversight over the Housing Choice Voucher Program tenant compliance requirements and train employees on procedures mandated by HUD regarding tenant eligibility.
Finding 2023-002
Finding No. 2023-002 - Reporting; Significant Deficiency (HC~ Cluster #14.871 and #14.879) CONDITION: During a HUD Compliance Review, the results of several indicators of the Section 8 Management Assessment Program_{SEMAP) were changed resulting in the Authority being designated as a Troubled Performer. CRITERIA: When the Authority conducts its SEMAP, it should be properly documented how they selected sample sizes and the methods that were used to ensure that the items being tested were properly calculated. QUESTIONED COSTS: The amount of questioned costs could not be determined. CONTEXT; Several indicators were adjusted to reflect a score of 0, resulting in a Troubled Performer designation for fiscal year 2023. EFFECT: By not properly conducting and documenting the SEMAP, the Housing Authority is labeled as a Troubled Performer. Additionally, the SEMAP is a good cqntrol tool to ensure that the HCV program is being conducted In accordance with HUD regulations. CAUSE: The overall cause was a lack of quality control in performing the SEMAP. RECOMMENDATION: The Housing Authority should develop better internal controls over the performance and documentation of SEMAP or consider outsourcing this to a reputable third party.
Finding 2023-003
Finding No. 2023-003 - Special Tests and Provisions; Significant Deficiency (HCV Cluster #14.871 and #14.879) CONDITION: The Authority's Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers program does not have a board adopted Administrative Plan that reflects the order of preference of selecting applicants off the waiting list from the Mainstream Program. CRITERIA: When the Authority is awarded Mainstream vouchers, these vouchers must be used for new admissions to the program from the waiting list. The Authority must lease these vouchers by pulling the first Mainstream-eligible family from its tenant-based waiting list. The Authority is not permitted to reassign existing participants to the program in order to make regular tenant-based vouchers available. Further, the Authority may not skip over Mainstream-eligible families on the waiting list because the Authority is serving the required number of Mainstream families. QUESTIONED COSTS: The amount of questioned costs could not be determined. CONTEXT: A review of the Authority's Administrative Plan revealed it has not been updated to reflect how Mainstream applicants are selected from the waiting list and at what preference. EFFECT: The Housing Authority could be admitting applicants not in the preferred order. CAUSE: The overall cause was a lack of quality control in understanding the importance of waiting list selections in accordance with preference structure of the Mainstream Program. RECOMMENDATION: The Housing Authority should adopt a board-approved Administrative Plan that properly defines how applicants are selected from the waiting list.
Finding 2023-001
Finding No. 2023-001 - Tenant Eligibility; Significant Deficiency (HCV Cluster #14.871 and #14.879) CONDITION: The Authority's Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers program had a file missing form HUD-9886, authorization for release of information, for participants in accordance with HUD regulations. CRITERIA: Participants in the Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers program are required to sign a HUD-9886 form authorizing release of information, in accordance with appropriate laws and regulations governing the program. QUESTIONED COSTS: The amount of questioned costs could not be determined. CONTEXT: Forty tenant files were chosen using a statically valid sample. Of the forty tenant files examined, one fi le did not include form HUD-9886. EFFECT: The Housing Authority could be accessing tenant information without proper tenant consent. CAUSE: The overall cause was a lack of quality control in understanding the importance of maintaining these intake documents across the life of the residents' files RECOMMENDATION: The Housing Authority should implement greater oversight over the Housing Choice Voucher Program tenant compliance requirements and train employees on procedures mandated by HUD regarding tenant eligibility.
Finding 2023-002
Finding No. 2023-002 - Reporting; Significant Deficiency (HC~ Cluster #14.871 and #14.879) CONDITION: During a HUD Compliance Review, the results of several indicators of the Section 8 Management Assessment Program_{SEMAP) were changed resulting in the Authority being designated as a Troubled Performer. CRITERIA: When the Authority conducts its SEMAP, it should be properly documented how they selected sample sizes and the methods that were used to ensure that the items being tested were properly calculated. QUESTIONED COSTS: The amount of questioned costs could not be determined. CONTEXT; Several indicators were adjusted to reflect a score of 0, resulting in a Troubled Performer designation for fiscal year 2023. EFFECT: By not properly conducting and documenting the SEMAP, the Housing Authority is labeled as a Troubled Performer. Additionally, the SEMAP is a good cqntrol tool to ensure that the HCV program is being conducted In accordance with HUD regulations. CAUSE: The overall cause was a lack of quality control in performing the SEMAP. RECOMMENDATION: The Housing Authority should develop better internal controls over the performance and documentation of SEMAP or consider outsourcing this to a reputable third party.
Finding 2023-003
Finding No. 2023-003 - Special Tests and Provisions; Significant Deficiency (HCV Cluster #14.871 and #14.879) CONDITION: The Authority's Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers program does not have a board adopted Administrative Plan that reflects the order of preference of selecting applicants off the waiting list from the Mainstream Program. CRITERIA: When the Authority is awarded Mainstream vouchers, these vouchers must be used for new admissions to the program from the waiting list. The Authority must lease these vouchers by pulling the first Mainstream-eligible family from its tenant-based waiting list. The Authority is not permitted to reassign existing participants to the program in order to make regular tenant-based vouchers available. Further, the Authority may not skip over Mainstream-eligible families on the waiting list because the Authority is serving the required number of Mainstream families. QUESTIONED COSTS: The amount of questioned costs could not be determined. CONTEXT: A review of the Authority's Administrative Plan revealed it has not been updated to reflect how Mainstream applicants are selected from the waiting list and at what preference. EFFECT: The Housing Authority could be admitting applicants not in the preferred order. CAUSE: The overall cause was a lack of quality control in understanding the importance of waiting list selections in accordance with preference structure of the Mainstream Program. RECOMMENDATION: The Housing Authority should adopt a board-approved Administrative Plan that properly defines how applicants are selected from the waiting list.
Finding 2023-004
Finding No. 2023-004 - Reporting; Significant Deficiency (All Federal Programs) CONDITION: The Authority failed to submit audited financial statements electronically into the Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC) within nine (9) months after its fiscal year end. CRITERIA: Public Housing Authorities are required to ensure that audited financial statements are electronically submitted to REAC within 9 months after its fiscal year end. QUESTIONED COSTS: The amount of questioned costs could not be determined. CONTEXT: The Authority lacked proper urgency and diligence to ensure that REAC deadlines were met. CAUSE: The overall cause was a lack of quality control in understanding the importance of meeting all deadlines required by HUD. EFFECT: The Authority was unable to submit the audited financial statements into REAC within the required deadline. RECOMMENDATION: No recommendation. This occurred under prior Authority management.
Finding 2023-004
Finding No. 2023-004 - Reporting; Significant Deficiency (All Federal Programs) CONDITION: The Authority failed to submit audited financial statements electronically into the Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC) within nine (9) months after its fiscal year end. CRITERIA: Public Housing Authorities are required to ensure that audited financial statements are electronically submitted to REAC within 9 months after its fiscal year end. QUESTIONED COSTS: The amount of questioned costs could not be determined. CONTEXT: The Authority lacked proper urgency and diligence to ensure that REAC deadlines were met. CAUSE: The overall cause was a lack of quality control in understanding the importance of meeting all deadlines required by HUD. EFFECT: The Authority was unable to submit the audited financial statements into REAC within the required deadline. RECOMMENDATION: No recommendation. This occurred under prior Authority management.
Finding 2023-004
Finding No. 2023-004 - Reporting; Significant Deficiency (All Federal Programs) CONDITION: The Authority failed to submit audited financial statements electronically into the Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC) within nine (9) months after its fiscal year end. CRITERIA: Public Housing Authorities are required to ensure that audited financial statements are electronically submitted to REAC within 9 months after its fiscal year end. QUESTIONED COSTS: The amount of questioned costs could not be determined. CONTEXT: The Authority lacked proper urgency and diligence to ensure that REAC deadlines were met. CAUSE: The overall cause was a lack of quality control in understanding the importance of meeting all deadlines required by HUD. EFFECT: The Authority was unable to submit the audited financial statements into REAC within the required deadline. RECOMMENDATION: No recommendation. This occurred under prior Authority management.
Finding 2023-005
Finding No. 2023-005 - Allowable Costs/Cost Principles; Significant Deficiency (#14.896 - Family Self Sufficiency Program) CONDITION: The Authority was improperly administering the Family Self Sufficiency program by failing to account for the FSS funds provided to the Authority that has been contracted to administer the program on behalf of Milton Housing Authority. Additionally, the Authority was improperly reimbursing itself with FSS funds. CRITERIA: When the Authority is awarded Family Self Sufficiency funds, these funds are only allowed to be used for reimbursable FSS activities in accordance with program guidelines. QUESTIONED COSTS: The amount of questioned costs could not be determined. CONTEXT: It was discovered that the Authority was not overseeing the FSS funds disbursed to the Brockton Housing Authority to administer the FSS program for the Authority. Additionally, .the Authority was reimbursing itself with FSS funds that is not believed to be in accordance with allowable reimbursable FSS activities. CAUSE: The overall cause was a lack of quality control in understanding the program guidelines and reimbursable activities. EFFECT: The Housing Authority could be using FSS funds for unallowable costs. RECOMMENDATION: The Housing Authority should review FSS program guidelines and reimbursable activities to ensure that it is properly disbursing FSS funds.
Finding 2023-001
Finding No. 2023-001 - Tenant Eligibility; Significant Deficiency (HCV Cluster #14.871 and #14.879) CONDITION: The Authority's Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers program had a file missing form HUD-9886, authorization for release of information, for participants in accordance with HUD regulations. CRITERIA: Participants in the Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers program are required to sign a HUD-9886 form authorizing release of information, in accordance with appropriate laws and regulations governing the program. QUESTIONED COSTS: The amount of questioned costs could not be determined. CONTEXT: Forty tenant files were chosen using a statically valid sample. Of the forty tenant files examined, one fi le did not include form HUD-9886. EFFECT: The Housing Authority could be accessing tenant information without proper tenant consent. CAUSE: The overall cause was a lack of quality control in understanding the importance of maintaining these intake documents across the life of the residents' files RECOMMENDATION: The Housing Authority should implement greater oversight over the Housing Choice Voucher Program tenant compliance requirements and train employees on procedures mandated by HUD regarding tenant eligibility.
Finding 2023-002
Finding No. 2023-002 - Reporting; Significant Deficiency (HC~ Cluster #14.871 and #14.879) CONDITION: During a HUD Compliance Review, the results of several indicators of the Section 8 Management Assessment Program_{SEMAP) were changed resulting in the Authority being designated as a Troubled Performer. CRITERIA: When the Authority conducts its SEMAP, it should be properly documented how they selected sample sizes and the methods that were used to ensure that the items being tested were properly calculated. QUESTIONED COSTS: The amount of questioned costs could not be determined. CONTEXT; Several indicators were adjusted to reflect a score of 0, resulting in a Troubled Performer designation for fiscal year 2023. EFFECT: By not properly conducting and documenting the SEMAP, the Housing Authority is labeled as a Troubled Performer. Additionally, the SEMAP is a good cqntrol tool to ensure that the HCV program is being conducted In accordance with HUD regulations. CAUSE: The overall cause was a lack of quality control in performing the SEMAP. RECOMMENDATION: The Housing Authority should develop better internal controls over the performance and documentation of SEMAP or consider outsourcing this to a reputable third party.
Finding 2023-003
Finding No. 2023-003 - Special Tests and Provisions; Significant Deficiency (HCV Cluster #14.871 and #14.879) CONDITION: The Authority's Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers program does not have a board adopted Administrative Plan that reflects the order of preference of selecting applicants off the waiting list from the Mainstream Program. CRITERIA: When the Authority is awarded Mainstream vouchers, these vouchers must be used for new admissions to the program from the waiting list. The Authority must lease these vouchers by pulling the first Mainstream-eligible family from its tenant-based waiting list. The Authority is not permitted to reassign existing participants to the program in order to make regular tenant-based vouchers available. Further, the Authority may not skip over Mainstream-eligible families on the waiting list because the Authority is serving the required number of Mainstream families. QUESTIONED COSTS: The amount of questioned costs could not be determined. CONTEXT: A review of the Authority's Administrative Plan revealed it has not been updated to reflect how Mainstream applicants are selected from the waiting list and at what preference. EFFECT: The Housing Authority could be admitting applicants not in the preferred order. CAUSE: The overall cause was a lack of quality control in understanding the importance of waiting list selections in accordance with preference structure of the Mainstream Program. RECOMMENDATION: The Housing Authority should adopt a board-approved Administrative Plan that properly defines how applicants are selected from the waiting list.
Finding 2023-001
Finding No. 2023-001 - Tenant Eligibility; Significant Deficiency (HCV Cluster #14.871 and #14.879) CONDITION: The Authority's Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers program had a file missing form HUD-9886, authorization for release of information, for participants in accordance with HUD regulations. CRITERIA: Participants in the Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers program are required to sign a HUD-9886 form authorizing release of information, in accordance with appropriate laws and regulations governing the program. QUESTIONED COSTS: The amount of questioned costs could not be determined. CONTEXT: Forty tenant files were chosen using a statically valid sample. Of the forty tenant files examined, one fi le did not include form HUD-9886. EFFECT: The Housing Authority could be accessing tenant information without proper tenant consent. CAUSE: The overall cause was a lack of quality control in understanding the importance of maintaining these intake documents across the life of the residents' files RECOMMENDATION: The Housing Authority should implement greater oversight over the Housing Choice Voucher Program tenant compliance requirements and train employees on procedures mandated by HUD regarding tenant eligibility.
Finding 2023-002
Finding No. 2023-002 - Reporting; Significant Deficiency (HC~ Cluster #14.871 and #14.879) CONDITION: During a HUD Compliance Review, the results of several indicators of the Section 8 Management Assessment Program_{SEMAP) were changed resulting in the Authority being designated as a Troubled Performer. CRITERIA: When the Authority conducts its SEMAP, it should be properly documented how they selected sample sizes and the methods that were used to ensure that the items being tested were properly calculated. QUESTIONED COSTS: The amount of questioned costs could not be determined. CONTEXT; Several indicators were adjusted to reflect a score of 0, resulting in a Troubled Performer designation for fiscal year 2023. EFFECT: By not properly conducting and documenting the SEMAP, the Housing Authority is labeled as a Troubled Performer. Additionally, the SEMAP is a good cqntrol tool to ensure that the HCV program is being conducted In accordance with HUD regulations. CAUSE: The overall cause was a lack of quality control in performing the SEMAP. RECOMMENDATION: The Housing Authority should develop better internal controls over the performance and documentation of SEMAP or consider outsourcing this to a reputable third party.
Finding 2023-003
Finding No. 2023-003 - Special Tests and Provisions; Significant Deficiency (HCV Cluster #14.871 and #14.879) CONDITION: The Authority's Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers program does not have a board adopted Administrative Plan that reflects the order of preference of selecting applicants off the waiting list from the Mainstream Program. CRITERIA: When the Authority is awarded Mainstream vouchers, these vouchers must be used for new admissions to the program from the waiting list. The Authority must lease these vouchers by pulling the first Mainstream-eligible family from its tenant-based waiting list. The Authority is not permitted to reassign existing participants to the program in order to make regular tenant-based vouchers available. Further, the Authority may not skip over Mainstream-eligible families on the waiting list because the Authority is serving the required number of Mainstream families. QUESTIONED COSTS: The amount of questioned costs could not be determined. CONTEXT: A review of the Authority's Administrative Plan revealed it has not been updated to reflect how Mainstream applicants are selected from the waiting list and at what preference. EFFECT: The Housing Authority could be admitting applicants not in the preferred order. CAUSE: The overall cause was a lack of quality control in understanding the importance of waiting list selections in accordance with preference structure of the Mainstream Program. RECOMMENDATION: The Housing Authority should adopt a board-approved Administrative Plan that properly defines how applicants are selected from the waiting list.
Finding 2023-004
Finding No. 2023-004 - Reporting; Significant Deficiency (All Federal Programs) CONDITION: The Authority failed to submit audited financial statements electronically into the Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC) within nine (9) months after its fiscal year end. CRITERIA: Public Housing Authorities are required to ensure that audited financial statements are electronically submitted to REAC within 9 months after its fiscal year end. QUESTIONED COSTS: The amount of questioned costs could not be determined. CONTEXT: The Authority lacked proper urgency and diligence to ensure that REAC deadlines were met. CAUSE: The overall cause was a lack of quality control in understanding the importance of meeting all deadlines required by HUD. EFFECT: The Authority was unable to submit the audited financial statements into REAC within the required deadline. RECOMMENDATION: No recommendation. This occurred under prior Authority management.
Finding 2023-004
Finding No. 2023-004 - Reporting; Significant Deficiency (All Federal Programs) CONDITION: The Authority failed to submit audited financial statements electronically into the Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC) within nine (9) months after its fiscal year end. CRITERIA: Public Housing Authorities are required to ensure that audited financial statements are electronically submitted to REAC within 9 months after its fiscal year end. QUESTIONED COSTS: The amount of questioned costs could not be determined. CONTEXT: The Authority lacked proper urgency and diligence to ensure that REAC deadlines were met. CAUSE: The overall cause was a lack of quality control in understanding the importance of meeting all deadlines required by HUD. EFFECT: The Authority was unable to submit the audited financial statements into REAC within the required deadline. RECOMMENDATION: No recommendation. This occurred under prior Authority management.
Finding 2023-004
Finding No. 2023-004 - Reporting; Significant Deficiency (All Federal Programs) CONDITION: The Authority failed to submit audited financial statements electronically into the Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC) within nine (9) months after its fiscal year end. CRITERIA: Public Housing Authorities are required to ensure that audited financial statements are electronically submitted to REAC within 9 months after its fiscal year end. QUESTIONED COSTS: The amount of questioned costs could not be determined. CONTEXT: The Authority lacked proper urgency and diligence to ensure that REAC deadlines were met. CAUSE: The overall cause was a lack of quality control in understanding the importance of meeting all deadlines required by HUD. EFFECT: The Authority was unable to submit the audited financial statements into REAC within the required deadline. RECOMMENDATION: No recommendation. This occurred under prior Authority management.
Finding 2023-005
Finding No. 2023-005 - Allowable Costs/Cost Principles; Significant Deficiency (#14.896 - Family Self Sufficiency Program) CONDITION: The Authority was improperly administering the Family Self Sufficiency program by failing to account for the FSS funds provided to the Authority that has been contracted to administer the program on behalf of Milton Housing Authority. Additionally, the Authority was improperly reimbursing itself with FSS funds. CRITERIA: When the Authority is awarded Family Self Sufficiency funds, these funds are only allowed to be used for reimbursable FSS activities in accordance with program guidelines. QUESTIONED COSTS: The amount of questioned costs could not be determined. CONTEXT: It was discovered that the Authority was not overseeing the FSS funds disbursed to the Brockton Housing Authority to administer the FSS program for the Authority. Additionally, .the Authority was reimbursing itself with FSS funds that is not believed to be in accordance with allowable reimbursable FSS activities. CAUSE: The overall cause was a lack of quality control in understanding the program guidelines and reimbursable activities. EFFECT: The Housing Authority could be using FSS funds for unallowable costs. RECOMMENDATION: The Housing Authority should review FSS program guidelines and reimbursable activities to ensure that it is properly disbursing FSS funds.