Audit 342050

FY End
2024-06-30
Total Expended
$11.55M
Findings
8
Programs
5
Year: 2024 Accepted: 2025-02-11

Organization Exclusion Status:

Checking exclusion status...

Findings

ID Ref Severity Repeat Requirement
522695 2024-001 Significant Deficiency - E
522696 2024-002 Significant Deficiency - I
522697 2024-002 Significant Deficiency - I
522698 2024-001 Significant Deficiency - E
1099137 2024-001 Significant Deficiency - E
1099138 2024-002 Significant Deficiency - I
1099139 2024-002 Significant Deficiency - I
1099140 2024-001 Significant Deficiency - E

Programs

ALN Program Spent Major Findings
14.881 Moving to Work Demonstration Program $4.12M Yes 1
17.274 Youthbuild $383,282 - 0
14.871 Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers $227,081 - 0
14.870 Resident Opportunity and Supportive Services - Service Coordinators $130,799 - 0
14.896 Family Self-Sufficiency Program $24,949 - 0

Contacts

Name Title Type
ECWTTNGMJQY7 Tony Still Auditee
8032594612 Dale R. Rector Auditor
No contacts on file

Notes to SEFA

Title: BASIS OF PRESENTATION Accounting Policies: Expenditures reported on the Schedule are reported on the accrual basis of accounting. Such expenditures are recognized following the cost principles contained in the Uniform Guidance, wherein certain types of expenditures are not allowable or are limited as to reimbursement. Negative amounts shown on the Schedule represent adjustments or credits made in the normal course of business to amounts reported as expenditures in prior years. De Minimis Rate Used: N Rate Explanation: The Authority did not elect to use the 10% de minimis cost rate. The accompanying schedule of expenditures of federal awards (the “Schedule”) includes the federal award activity of the Authority under programs of the federal government for the year ended June 30, 2024. The information in this Schedule is presented in accordance with the requirements of Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance). Because the Schedule presents only a selected portion of the operations of the Authority, it is not intended to and does not present the financial position, changes in net assets, or cash flows of the Authority.
Title: SUBRECIPIENTS Accounting Policies: Expenditures reported on the Schedule are reported on the accrual basis of accounting. Such expenditures are recognized following the cost principles contained in the Uniform Guidance, wherein certain types of expenditures are not allowable or are limited as to reimbursement. Negative amounts shown on the Schedule represent adjustments or credits made in the normal course of business to amounts reported as expenditures in prior years. De Minimis Rate Used: N Rate Explanation: The Authority did not elect to use the 10% de minimis cost rate. The Authority provided no federal awards to subrecipients during the fiscal year ending June 30, 2024.
Title: DISCLOSURE OF OTHER FORMS OF ASSISTANCE Accounting Policies: Expenditures reported on the Schedule are reported on the accrual basis of accounting. Such expenditures are recognized following the cost principles contained in the Uniform Guidance, wherein certain types of expenditures are not allowable or are limited as to reimbursement. Negative amounts shown on the Schedule represent adjustments or credits made in the normal course of business to amounts reported as expenditures in prior years. De Minimis Rate Used: N Rate Explanation: The Authority did not elect to use the 10% de minimis cost rate. The South Carolina Regional Housing Authority No. 3 received no federal awards of non-monetary assistance that are required to be disclosed for the year ended June 30, 2024. The South Carolina Regional Housing Authority No. 3 had no loans, loan guarantees, or federally restricted endowment funds required to be disclosed for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2024. The South Carolina Regional Housing Authority No. 3 maintains the following limits of insurance as of June 30, 2024: Property $ 53,156,476 Liability $ 1,000,000 Commercial Auto Liability $ 1,000,000 Worker Compensation $ 500,000 Employee Dishonesty $ 150,000 Inland Marine $ 257,673 Electronic Data Processing $ 225,000 Settled claims have not exceeded the above commercial insurance coverage limits over the past three years.

Finding Details

Finding 2024-001 - Moving to Work Demonstration ALN 14.881 - Income Verification Requirements, Eligibility - Noncompliance & Significant Deficiency Condition & Cause: We reviewed a sample of sixty-five (65) tenant files, which included both Public Housing and Housing Choice Voucher participants. Of these, eight (8) files were found to be noncompliant, representing approximately 12% of the sample. Specifically, three (3) files lacked the required Enterprise Income Verification (EIV) documentation, and five (5) files relied on tenant self-declarations for income verification without documenting efforts to obtain the preferred third-party verification. The cause of this noncompliance, as discussed with management, ls attributed to staff vacancies and challenges in hiring and retaining qualified personnel. This staffing issue has likely contributed to the oversight and failure to consistently adhere to income verification requirements. Criteria: The Code of Federal Regulations, the Housing Authority's Administrative Plan, Admissions & Continued Occupancy Policy, and MTW Plan, and specific HUD guidelines in documenting and maintaining Public Housing and Housing Choice Voucher tenant files. Effect: The absence of EIV documentation and reliance on tenant self-declaration without adequate third­ party verification efforts may result in inaccurate income assessments, potentially affecting eligibility and rent calculations. Recommendation: we recommend that the PHA enhance quality control review procedures to ensure all tenant files contain the required EIV documentation and that efforts to obtain third-party verification of income are consistently documented. Questioned Costs: None· Repeat Finding: No Was sampling statistically valid? Yes Views of responsible officials: The PHA agrees with the results of the audit and recommendations.
Finding 2024-002 - Moving to Work Demonstration ALN 14.881- Procurement - Formal Competitive Requirements - Noncompliance & Significant Deficiency Condition & Cause: We reviewed the contracts associated with the largest purchases of the fiscal year to determine if the procurement procedures followed the Housing Authority's Procurement Policy and Federal Regulations. We found that large PHA-wide purchases for roofing materials and labor were being Improperly split into smaller contracts by individual property. The Authority gathered quotes for all properties at the same time under small purchase procedures, though the aggregate contract costs exceeded the small purchase ceiling. We feel these projects met the conditions for sealed bidding to be feasible as outlined in 2 CFR §200.320(b){l). Additionally, the Procurement Policy was last updated and approved by the Board 1n 2003. Failure to consistently enforce the requirements for competitive procurement methods for larger contracts may have been driven by a lack of oversight or understanding of the regulatory requirements. Criteria: The Code of Federal Regulations and the Housing Authority's Procurement Policy. Effect: Circumventing the competitive procurement process potentially leads to higher costs, lack of transparency, and limited competition. This practice undermines the integrity of the procurement process and may result in the inefficient use of federal funds, violating HUD's procurement standards. Recommendation: We recommend that the PHA review its procurement policies and training to ensure that all large purchases are properly identified and handled through competitive procurement methods, In compliance with applicable regulations. The PHA should also implement controls to prevent the improper splitting of contracts in the future. Questioned Costs: None Repeat Finding: No Was sampling statistically valid? No Views of responsible officials: The PHA agrees with the results of the audit and recommendations.
Finding 2024-002 - Moving to Work Demonstration ALN 14.881- Procurement - Formal Competitive Requirements - Noncompliance & Significant Deficiency Condition & Cause: We reviewed the contracts associated with the largest purchases of the fiscal year to determine if the procurement procedures followed the Housing Authority's Procurement Policy and Federal Regulations. We found that large PHA-wide purchases for roofing materials and labor were being Improperly split into smaller contracts by individual property. The Authority gathered quotes for all properties at the same time under small purchase procedures, though the aggregate contract costs exceeded the small purchase ceiling. We feel these projects met the conditions for sealed bidding to be feasible as outlined in 2 CFR §200.320(b){l). Additionally, the Procurement Policy was last updated and approved by the Board 1n 2003. Failure to consistently enforce the requirements for competitive procurement methods for larger contracts may have been driven by a lack of oversight or understanding of the regulatory requirements. Criteria: The Code of Federal Regulations and the Housing Authority's Procurement Policy. Effect: Circumventing the competitive procurement process potentially leads to higher costs, lack of transparency, and limited competition. This practice undermines the integrity of the procurement process and may result in the inefficient use of federal funds, violating HUD's procurement standards. Recommendation: We recommend that the PHA review its procurement policies and training to ensure that all large purchases are properly identified and handled through competitive procurement methods, In compliance with applicable regulations. The PHA should also implement controls to prevent the improper splitting of contracts in the future. Questioned Costs: None Repeat Finding: No Was sampling statistically valid? No Views of responsible officials: The PHA agrees with the results of the audit and recommendations.
Finding 2024-001 - Moving to Work Demonstration ALN 14.881 - Income Verification Requirements, Eligibility - Noncompliance & Significant Deficiency Condition & Cause: We reviewed a sample of sixty-five (65) tenant files, which included both Public Housing and Housing Choice Voucher participants. Of these, eight (8) files were found to be noncompliant, representing approximately 12% of the sample. Specifically, three (3) files lacked the required Enterprise Income Verification (EIV) documentation, and five (5) files relied on tenant self-declarations for income verification without documenting efforts to obtain the preferred third-party verification. The cause of this noncompliance, as discussed with management, ls attributed to staff vacancies and challenges in hiring and retaining qualified personnel. This staffing issue has likely contributed to the oversight and failure to consistently adhere to income verification requirements. Criteria: The Code of Federal Regulations, the Housing Authority's Administrative Plan, Admissions & Continued Occupancy Policy, and MTW Plan, and specific HUD guidelines in documenting and maintaining Public Housing and Housing Choice Voucher tenant files. Effect: The absence of EIV documentation and reliance on tenant self-declaration without adequate third­ party verification efforts may result in inaccurate income assessments, potentially affecting eligibility and rent calculations. Recommendation: we recommend that the PHA enhance quality control review procedures to ensure all tenant files contain the required EIV documentation and that efforts to obtain third-party verification of income are consistently documented. Questioned Costs: None· Repeat Finding: No Was sampling statistically valid? Yes Views of responsible officials: The PHA agrees with the results of the audit and recommendations.
Finding 2024-001 - Moving to Work Demonstration ALN 14.881 - Income Verification Requirements, Eligibility - Noncompliance & Significant Deficiency Condition & Cause: We reviewed a sample of sixty-five (65) tenant files, which included both Public Housing and Housing Choice Voucher participants. Of these, eight (8) files were found to be noncompliant, representing approximately 12% of the sample. Specifically, three (3) files lacked the required Enterprise Income Verification (EIV) documentation, and five (5) files relied on tenant self-declarations for income verification without documenting efforts to obtain the preferred third-party verification. The cause of this noncompliance, as discussed with management, ls attributed to staff vacancies and challenges in hiring and retaining qualified personnel. This staffing issue has likely contributed to the oversight and failure to consistently adhere to income verification requirements. Criteria: The Code of Federal Regulations, the Housing Authority's Administrative Plan, Admissions & Continued Occupancy Policy, and MTW Plan, and specific HUD guidelines in documenting and maintaining Public Housing and Housing Choice Voucher tenant files. Effect: The absence of EIV documentation and reliance on tenant self-declaration without adequate third­ party verification efforts may result in inaccurate income assessments, potentially affecting eligibility and rent calculations. Recommendation: we recommend that the PHA enhance quality control review procedures to ensure all tenant files contain the required EIV documentation and that efforts to obtain third-party verification of income are consistently documented. Questioned Costs: None· Repeat Finding: No Was sampling statistically valid? Yes Views of responsible officials: The PHA agrees with the results of the audit and recommendations.
Finding 2024-002 - Moving to Work Demonstration ALN 14.881- Procurement - Formal Competitive Requirements - Noncompliance & Significant Deficiency Condition & Cause: We reviewed the contracts associated with the largest purchases of the fiscal year to determine if the procurement procedures followed the Housing Authority's Procurement Policy and Federal Regulations. We found that large PHA-wide purchases for roofing materials and labor were being Improperly split into smaller contracts by individual property. The Authority gathered quotes for all properties at the same time under small purchase procedures, though the aggregate contract costs exceeded the small purchase ceiling. We feel these projects met the conditions for sealed bidding to be feasible as outlined in 2 CFR §200.320(b){l). Additionally, the Procurement Policy was last updated and approved by the Board 1n 2003. Failure to consistently enforce the requirements for competitive procurement methods for larger contracts may have been driven by a lack of oversight or understanding of the regulatory requirements. Criteria: The Code of Federal Regulations and the Housing Authority's Procurement Policy. Effect: Circumventing the competitive procurement process potentially leads to higher costs, lack of transparency, and limited competition. This practice undermines the integrity of the procurement process and may result in the inefficient use of federal funds, violating HUD's procurement standards. Recommendation: We recommend that the PHA review its procurement policies and training to ensure that all large purchases are properly identified and handled through competitive procurement methods, In compliance with applicable regulations. The PHA should also implement controls to prevent the improper splitting of contracts in the future. Questioned Costs: None Repeat Finding: No Was sampling statistically valid? No Views of responsible officials: The PHA agrees with the results of the audit and recommendations.
Finding 2024-002 - Moving to Work Demonstration ALN 14.881- Procurement - Formal Competitive Requirements - Noncompliance & Significant Deficiency Condition & Cause: We reviewed the contracts associated with the largest purchases of the fiscal year to determine if the procurement procedures followed the Housing Authority's Procurement Policy and Federal Regulations. We found that large PHA-wide purchases for roofing materials and labor were being Improperly split into smaller contracts by individual property. The Authority gathered quotes for all properties at the same time under small purchase procedures, though the aggregate contract costs exceeded the small purchase ceiling. We feel these projects met the conditions for sealed bidding to be feasible as outlined in 2 CFR §200.320(b){l). Additionally, the Procurement Policy was last updated and approved by the Board 1n 2003. Failure to consistently enforce the requirements for competitive procurement methods for larger contracts may have been driven by a lack of oversight or understanding of the regulatory requirements. Criteria: The Code of Federal Regulations and the Housing Authority's Procurement Policy. Effect: Circumventing the competitive procurement process potentially leads to higher costs, lack of transparency, and limited competition. This practice undermines the integrity of the procurement process and may result in the inefficient use of federal funds, violating HUD's procurement standards. Recommendation: We recommend that the PHA review its procurement policies and training to ensure that all large purchases are properly identified and handled through competitive procurement methods, In compliance with applicable regulations. The PHA should also implement controls to prevent the improper splitting of contracts in the future. Questioned Costs: None Repeat Finding: No Was sampling statistically valid? No Views of responsible officials: The PHA agrees with the results of the audit and recommendations.
Finding 2024-001 - Moving to Work Demonstration ALN 14.881 - Income Verification Requirements, Eligibility - Noncompliance & Significant Deficiency Condition & Cause: We reviewed a sample of sixty-five (65) tenant files, which included both Public Housing and Housing Choice Voucher participants. Of these, eight (8) files were found to be noncompliant, representing approximately 12% of the sample. Specifically, three (3) files lacked the required Enterprise Income Verification (EIV) documentation, and five (5) files relied on tenant self-declarations for income verification without documenting efforts to obtain the preferred third-party verification. The cause of this noncompliance, as discussed with management, ls attributed to staff vacancies and challenges in hiring and retaining qualified personnel. This staffing issue has likely contributed to the oversight and failure to consistently adhere to income verification requirements. Criteria: The Code of Federal Regulations, the Housing Authority's Administrative Plan, Admissions & Continued Occupancy Policy, and MTW Plan, and specific HUD guidelines in documenting and maintaining Public Housing and Housing Choice Voucher tenant files. Effect: The absence of EIV documentation and reliance on tenant self-declaration without adequate third­ party verification efforts may result in inaccurate income assessments, potentially affecting eligibility and rent calculations. Recommendation: we recommend that the PHA enhance quality control review procedures to ensure all tenant files contain the required EIV documentation and that efforts to obtain third-party verification of income are consistently documented. Questioned Costs: None· Repeat Finding: No Was sampling statistically valid? Yes Views of responsible officials: The PHA agrees with the results of the audit and recommendations.