Finding 2024-002 - Low Rent Public Housing Tenant Flies - Eligibility- Rent Calculations Noncompliance & Significant Deficiency
low Rent Public Housing - ALN 14.850
Condition & Cause: Our review of thirty-five (35) low Rent Public Housing tenant files identified noncompliance in four (4) files, or 11.4% of our sample. Of these, two (2) files did not receive their annual unit inspection, one (1) file lacked the necessary 50058 and supporting documentation to verify the rental charge, and one (1) file was missing the Enterprise Income Verification (EIVJ for the action we reviewed, as well as the required quarterly EIV review for tenants who report zero income as stipulated by the Authority's Admissions and Continued Occupancy Policy (ACOP).
Criteria: The Code of Federal Regulations and the Authority's ACOP mandate annual unit inspections, retention of reexaminations and verifications in tenant files, and comprehensive use of the EIV system.
Effect: Failure to perform required annual inspections, maintain accurate documentation, and conduct timely EIV reviews can lead to inaccurate tenant records, potential overpayments or underpayments, and noncompliance with HUD requirements. This compromises the integrity of tenant file management and program compliance.
Recommendation: We recommend that the Authority enhance its procedures to ensure compliance with annual inspection requirements, maintain proper documentation for reexaminations, and implement a robust process for EIV reviews that adhere to the Authority's ACOP. Regular audits and staff training should be conducted to address these compliance issues effectively.
Questioned Costs: None
Repeat Finding: No
Was sampling statistically valid? Yes
Finding 2024-003 - Public Housing Internal Control over Waiting List - Eligibility
Noncompliance and Significant Deficiency
Low Rent Public Housing - Subsidy ALN 14.850
Condition & Cause: We examined the Public Housing waiting list as part of our tests of the related internal controls. We selected five (5) newly housed participants to review for compliance with the PHA's move in policies and procedures. Although the Authority was able to locate the batches that the participants were selected from the Authority was unable to provide the complete waiting list for three (3) of the selected participants. Since we did not have the waiting list to agree to the batches there was not a clear audit trail to follow to provide assertion to the compliance with housing and selection policies.
Criteria: The Code of Federal Regulations and the Housing Authority's Admissions and Continued Occupancy Policy (ACOP). 24 CFR 960.206(e)(2) states that there must be a clear audit trail to verify that each applicant has been selected in accordance with the method specified in the PHA plan.
Effect: Failure to maintain compliance can result in loss of funding for grants and other programs which require operations to have no audit findings and noncompliance.
Recommendation: We recommend that the Agency closely adhere to the ACOP and Code of Federal Regulations regarding management of the waitlist. The Authority should be able to support each selection and move in from the waiting list with evidence that it followed its board approved housing policies.
Questioned Costs: None
Repeat Finding: No
Was sampling statistically valid? Yes
Finding 2024-001 - Housing Choice Voucher Tenant Files - Eligibility - Rent Calculations Noncompliance & Significant Deficiency
Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Cluster - ALN 14.871and 14.EHV
Condition & Cause: Our review of one hundred fifty (150) Housing Choice Voucher tenant files identified noncompliance in eleven (11) files, representing 7.3%. Of these, six (6) files contained errors in calculating annual income, with the most common issue being the incorrect annualization of wages due to using the wrong pay frequency. These errors often stemmed from manual calculation mistakes and inadequate cross-checking procedures. The remaining five (5) files lacked the required quarterly review of the Enterprise Income Verification {EIV) system for tenants who reported zero income, as stipulated by the Authority's Administrative Plan.
Criteria: The Code of Federal Regulations and the Authority's Administrative Plan require accurate income calculations for determining Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) subsidies. Correct income verification and calculation are essential for compliance with HUD guidelines and ensuring proper subsidy amounts.
Effect: Inadequate verification and incorrect calculation of participant income can lead to inaccuracies in financial statements, incorrect HAP subsidy calculations, and noncompliance with Federal Housing Choice Voucher program requirements.
Recommendation: We recommend that the Authority establish a systematic review process for income calculations to ensure accuracy. This process should incorporate comprehensive staff training in correct calculation methods and include regular quality control checks to promptly identify and correct errors. Furthermore, the Authority should ensure stricter adherence to its Administrative Plan.
Questioned Costs: Based on our extrapolation, the likely questioned costs amount to $63,317 in overpaid HAP. This represents approximately 0.2% of the total HAP expense and is considered immaterial to the financiaI statements.
Repeat Finding: No
Was sampling statistically valid? Yes
Finding 2024-001 - Housing Choice Voucher Tenant Files - Eligibility - Rent Calculations Noncompliance & Significant Deficiency
Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Cluster - ALN 14.871and 14.EHV
Condition & Cause: Our review of one hundred fifty (150) Housing Choice Voucher tenant files identified noncompliance in eleven (11) files, representing 7.3%. Of these, six (6) files contained errors in calculating annual income, with the most common issue being the incorrect annualization of wages due to using the wrong pay frequency. These errors often stemmed from manual calculation mistakes and inadequate cross-checking procedures. The remaining five (5) files lacked the required quarterly review of the Enterprise Income Verification {EIV) system for tenants who reported zero income, as stipulated by the Authority's Administrative Plan.
Criteria: The Code of Federal Regulations and the Authority's Administrative Plan require accurate income calculations for determining Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) subsidies. Correct income verification and calculation are essential for compliance with HUD guidelines and ensuring proper subsidy amounts.
Effect: Inadequate verification and incorrect calculation of participant income can lead to inaccuracies in financial statements, incorrect HAP subsidy calculations, and noncompliance with Federal Housing Choice Voucher program requirements.
Recommendation: We recommend that the Authority establish a systematic review process for income calculations to ensure accuracy. This process should incorporate comprehensive staff training in correct calculation methods and include regular quality control checks to promptly identify and correct errors. Furthermore, the Authority should ensure stricter adherence to its Administrative Plan.
Questioned Costs: Based on our extrapolation, the likely questioned costs amount to $63,317 in overpaid HAP. This represents approximately 0.2% of the total HAP expense and is considered immaterial to the financiaI statements.
Repeat Finding: No
Was sampling statistically valid? Yes
Finding 2024-002 - Low Rent Public Housing Tenant Flies - Eligibility- Rent Calculations Noncompliance & Significant Deficiency
low Rent Public Housing - ALN 14.850
Condition & Cause: Our review of thirty-five (35) low Rent Public Housing tenant files identified noncompliance in four (4) files, or 11.4% of our sample. Of these, two (2) files did not receive their annual unit inspection, one (1) file lacked the necessary 50058 and supporting documentation to verify the rental charge, and one (1) file was missing the Enterprise Income Verification (EIVJ for the action we reviewed, as well as the required quarterly EIV review for tenants who report zero income as stipulated by the Authority's Admissions and Continued Occupancy Policy (ACOP).
Criteria: The Code of Federal Regulations and the Authority's ACOP mandate annual unit inspections, retention of reexaminations and verifications in tenant files, and comprehensive use of the EIV system.
Effect: Failure to perform required annual inspections, maintain accurate documentation, and conduct timely EIV reviews can lead to inaccurate tenant records, potential overpayments or underpayments, and noncompliance with HUD requirements. This compromises the integrity of tenant file management and program compliance.
Recommendation: We recommend that the Authority enhance its procedures to ensure compliance with annual inspection requirements, maintain proper documentation for reexaminations, and implement a robust process for EIV reviews that adhere to the Authority's ACOP. Regular audits and staff training should be conducted to address these compliance issues effectively.
Questioned Costs: None
Repeat Finding: No
Was sampling statistically valid? Yes
Finding 2024-003 - Public Housing Internal Control over Waiting List - Eligibility
Noncompliance and Significant Deficiency
Low Rent Public Housing - Subsidy ALN 14.850
Condition & Cause: We examined the Public Housing waiting list as part of our tests of the related internal controls. We selected five (5) newly housed participants to review for compliance with the PHA's move in policies and procedures. Although the Authority was able to locate the batches that the participants were selected from the Authority was unable to provide the complete waiting list for three (3) of the selected participants. Since we did not have the waiting list to agree to the batches there was not a clear audit trail to follow to provide assertion to the compliance with housing and selection policies.
Criteria: The Code of Federal Regulations and the Housing Authority's Admissions and Continued Occupancy Policy (ACOP). 24 CFR 960.206(e)(2) states that there must be a clear audit trail to verify that each applicant has been selected in accordance with the method specified in the PHA plan.
Effect: Failure to maintain compliance can result in loss of funding for grants and other programs which require operations to have no audit findings and noncompliance.
Recommendation: We recommend that the Agency closely adhere to the ACOP and Code of Federal Regulations regarding management of the waitlist. The Authority should be able to support each selection and move in from the waiting list with evidence that it followed its board approved housing policies.
Questioned Costs: None
Repeat Finding: No
Was sampling statistically valid? Yes
Finding 2024-001 - Housing Choice Voucher Tenant Files - Eligibility - Rent Calculations Noncompliance & Significant Deficiency
Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Cluster - ALN 14.871and 14.EHV
Condition & Cause: Our review of one hundred fifty (150) Housing Choice Voucher tenant files identified noncompliance in eleven (11) files, representing 7.3%. Of these, six (6) files contained errors in calculating annual income, with the most common issue being the incorrect annualization of wages due to using the wrong pay frequency. These errors often stemmed from manual calculation mistakes and inadequate cross-checking procedures. The remaining five (5) files lacked the required quarterly review of the Enterprise Income Verification {EIV) system for tenants who reported zero income, as stipulated by the Authority's Administrative Plan.
Criteria: The Code of Federal Regulations and the Authority's Administrative Plan require accurate income calculations for determining Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) subsidies. Correct income verification and calculation are essential for compliance with HUD guidelines and ensuring proper subsidy amounts.
Effect: Inadequate verification and incorrect calculation of participant income can lead to inaccuracies in financial statements, incorrect HAP subsidy calculations, and noncompliance with Federal Housing Choice Voucher program requirements.
Recommendation: We recommend that the Authority establish a systematic review process for income calculations to ensure accuracy. This process should incorporate comprehensive staff training in correct calculation methods and include regular quality control checks to promptly identify and correct errors. Furthermore, the Authority should ensure stricter adherence to its Administrative Plan.
Questioned Costs: Based on our extrapolation, the likely questioned costs amount to $63,317 in overpaid HAP. This represents approximately 0.2% of the total HAP expense and is considered immaterial to the financiaI statements.
Repeat Finding: No
Was sampling statistically valid? Yes
Finding 2024-001 - Housing Choice Voucher Tenant Files - Eligibility - Rent Calculations Noncompliance & Significant Deficiency
Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Cluster - ALN 14.871and 14.EHV
Condition & Cause: Our review of one hundred fifty (150) Housing Choice Voucher tenant files identified noncompliance in eleven (11) files, representing 7.3%. Of these, six (6) files contained errors in calculating annual income, with the most common issue being the incorrect annualization of wages due to using the wrong pay frequency. These errors often stemmed from manual calculation mistakes and inadequate cross-checking procedures. The remaining five (5) files lacked the required quarterly review of the Enterprise Income Verification {EIV) system for tenants who reported zero income, as stipulated by the Authority's Administrative Plan.
Criteria: The Code of Federal Regulations and the Authority's Administrative Plan require accurate income calculations for determining Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) subsidies. Correct income verification and calculation are essential for compliance with HUD guidelines and ensuring proper subsidy amounts.
Effect: Inadequate verification and incorrect calculation of participant income can lead to inaccuracies in financial statements, incorrect HAP subsidy calculations, and noncompliance with Federal Housing Choice Voucher program requirements.
Recommendation: We recommend that the Authority establish a systematic review process for income calculations to ensure accuracy. This process should incorporate comprehensive staff training in correct calculation methods and include regular quality control checks to promptly identify and correct errors. Furthermore, the Authority should ensure stricter adherence to its Administrative Plan.
Questioned Costs: Based on our extrapolation, the likely questioned costs amount to $63,317 in overpaid HAP. This represents approximately 0.2% of the total HAP expense and is considered immaterial to the financiaI statements.
Repeat Finding: No
Was sampling statistically valid? Yes