2024-002 Public Housing Tenant Files: Eligibility
Program: U.S. Department of HUD: Public and Indian Housing Program (ALN #14.850)
Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance, Other Matters
Statement of Condition: We tested 19 out of approximately 181 tenant files and discovered the following errors:
• 1 tenant file had the following error:
o A dependent of the household did not check the checkbox on the 214-affidavit form indicating their immigration status. However, based on the dependent’s birth certificate, the dependent is a U.S. citizen.
• 1 tenant file had the following error:
o The tenant’s childcare income was calculated and reported incorrectly on the 50058 form in the amount of $2,472. Correcting the tenant’s childcare income to $2,237 would decrease the tenant’s rent by $6.
• 1 tenant file had the following error:
o Support for the tenant’s wage income could not be located. It’s unknown as to whether the tenant’s wage income is calculated and reported correctly on the 50058 form and whether the tenant’s rent is calculated correctly.
• 1 tenant file had the following error:
o The tenant’s social security income was carried forward from the prior year in the amount of $11,172. Correcting the tenant’s social security income to $12,144 for the annual recertification period tested, would increase the tenant’s rent by $25.
• 1 tenant file had the following error:
o The tenant’s social security income was carried forward from the prior year in the amount of $12,456. Correcting the tenant’s social security income to $13,548 for the annual recertification period tested, would increase the tenant’s rent by $27.
• 1 tenant file had the following error:
o The tenant’s other source income of $720 was carried forward from the prior year. The tenant’s income was not updated for the annual recertification and it’s unknown as to whether the tenant’s other source income is calculated and reported correctly on the 50058 form and whether the tenant’s rent is calculated correctly.
Criteria: Per 24 CFR 982.516, internal controls are required to ensure full compliance with HUD requirements and the integrity of tenant files. Furthermore, the Authority’s ACOP Plan mandates adherence to established procedures for the accurate determination of tenant income and rent, with comprehensive documentation maintained within tenant records.
Questioned Costs: None.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with all of HUD requirements regarding eligibility and tenant recertification, which could result in incorrect total tenant payments for rent.
Cause: Procedures to ensure compliance with all of HUD requirements were not being carefully followed.
Recommendation: The Authority should correct the deficiencies noted in the tested files and utilize an ongoing quality control review process on the entire tenant population to ensure proper compliance with the requirements related to tenant eligibility. Ongoing staff training and timely management reviews should be utilized to ensure staff is aware of acceptable procedures. In addition, the Authority should review staffing levels, skill sets and case load.
Views of Responsible Officials of the Auditee: The Authority concurs with this finding. The Authority has an established review, oversight and training process for all of its staff and will continue to improve its review, oversight, and training process to ensure proper procedures are being followed.
2024-003 Housing Choice Voucher Tenant Files: Eligibility
Program: U.S. Department of HUD: Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers (ALN #14.871)
Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance, Other Matters
This is a repeat finding of 2023-002 from September 30, 2023 (Originally reported as Material non-compliance and Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance under finding 2019-001 from September 30, 2019)
Statement of Condition: Out of a total tenant population of approximately 1,118 vouchers, 25 files were selected for testing, and the following errors were discovered.
• 2 tenant files had the following error:
o The HAP contract in the tenants’ file was not signed by a representative of Ocala Housing Authority.
• 1 tenant file had the following error:
o The tenant's utility allowance was incorrectly calculated using the 2023 utility allowance rates. The 2024 utility allowance rates should have been used. Correcting this error will decrease the Housing Assistance Payment by $4.
• 1 tenant file had the following error:
o The tenant's utility allowance was incorrectly calculated using the 2023 utility allowance rates. The 2024 utility allowance rates should have been used. Correcting this error will increase the Housing Assistance Payment by $23.
• 1 tenant file had the following error:
o The tenant's utility allowance was incorrectly calculated using the 2023 utility allowance rates. The 2024 utility allowance rates should have been used. Correcting this error will increase the Housing Assistance Payment by $7.
• 1 tenant file had the following error:
o The tenant's utility allowance was incorrectly calculated using the 2023 utility allowance rates for a 1-bedroom unit. The 2024 utility allowance rates for a 2-bedroom unit should have been used. Correcting this error will increase the Housing Assistance Payment by $20.
Criteria: Per 24 CFR 982.516, internal controls are required to ensure full compliance with HUD requirements and the integrity of tenant files. Furthermore, the Authority’s Administrative Plan mandates adherence to established procedures for the accurate determination of tenant income and utility allowance, with comprehensive documentation maintained within tenant records.
Questioned Costs: None.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with all of the HUD requirements regarding eligibility and tenant recertification, which could result in incorrect total tenant payments for rent and HAP payments to landlords.
Cause: Procedures to ensure compliance with all of the HUD requirements were not being carefully followed. In addition, the Authority experienced some turnover in the HCV department which contributed to these errors.
Recommendation: The Authority should correct the deficiencies noted in the tested files and utilize an ongoing quality control review process on the entire tenant population to ensure proper compliance with the requirements related to tenant eligibility. Ongoing staff training and timely management reviews should be utilized to ensure staff is aware of acceptable procedures. In addition, the Authority should review staffing levels, skill sets and case load.
Views of Responsible Officials of the Auditee: The Authority concurs with this finding. The Authority has an established review, oversight and training process for all of its staff and will continue to improve its review, oversight, and training process to ensure proper procedures are being followed.
2024-003 Housing Choice Voucher Tenant Files: Eligibility
Program: U.S. Department of HUD: Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers (ALN #14.871)
Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance, Other Matters
This is a repeat finding of 2023-002 from September 30, 2023 (Originally reported as Material non-compliance and Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance under finding 2019-001 from September 30, 2019)
Statement of Condition: Out of a total tenant population of approximately 1,118 vouchers, 25 files were selected for testing, and the following errors were discovered.
• 2 tenant files had the following error:
o The HAP contract in the tenants’ file was not signed by a representative of Ocala Housing Authority.
• 1 tenant file had the following error:
o The tenant's utility allowance was incorrectly calculated using the 2023 utility allowance rates. The 2024 utility allowance rates should have been used. Correcting this error will decrease the Housing Assistance Payment by $4.
• 1 tenant file had the following error:
o The tenant's utility allowance was incorrectly calculated using the 2023 utility allowance rates. The 2024 utility allowance rates should have been used. Correcting this error will increase the Housing Assistance Payment by $23.
• 1 tenant file had the following error:
o The tenant's utility allowance was incorrectly calculated using the 2023 utility allowance rates. The 2024 utility allowance rates should have been used. Correcting this error will increase the Housing Assistance Payment by $7.
• 1 tenant file had the following error:
o The tenant's utility allowance was incorrectly calculated using the 2023 utility allowance rates for a 1-bedroom unit. The 2024 utility allowance rates for a 2-bedroom unit should have been used. Correcting this error will increase the Housing Assistance Payment by $20.
Criteria: Per 24 CFR 982.516, internal controls are required to ensure full compliance with HUD requirements and the integrity of tenant files. Furthermore, the Authority’s Administrative Plan mandates adherence to established procedures for the accurate determination of tenant income and utility allowance, with comprehensive documentation maintained within tenant records.
Questioned Costs: None.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with all of the HUD requirements regarding eligibility and tenant recertification, which could result in incorrect total tenant payments for rent and HAP payments to landlords.
Cause: Procedures to ensure compliance with all of the HUD requirements were not being carefully followed. In addition, the Authority experienced some turnover in the HCV department which contributed to these errors.
Recommendation: The Authority should correct the deficiencies noted in the tested files and utilize an ongoing quality control review process on the entire tenant population to ensure proper compliance with the requirements related to tenant eligibility. Ongoing staff training and timely management reviews should be utilized to ensure staff is aware of acceptable procedures. In addition, the Authority should review staffing levels, skill sets and case load.
Views of Responsible Officials of the Auditee: The Authority concurs with this finding. The Authority has an established review, oversight and training process for all of its staff and will continue to improve its review, oversight, and training process to ensure proper procedures are being followed.
2024-004 Housing Choice Voucher Waiting List: Special Tests and Provisions
Program: U.S. Department of HUD: Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers (ALN #14.871)
Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance, Other Matters
Statement of Condition: Out of a total population of approximately 258 applicants, 25 applicants were selected for testing, and the following errors were discovered.
• 1 applicant file had the following error:
o The applicant was incorrectly awarded local preference points. Removing these points would drop their waiting list rank from #54 to #258. However, this issue would have likely been identified and corrected during the routine verification of preference points, which occurs when an applicant is pulled from the waiting list.
• 1 applicant file had the following error:
o The applicant was incorrectly awarded working preference points. Removing these points would drop their waiting list rank from #64 to #245. However, this issue would have likely been identified and corrected during the routine verification of preference points, which occurs when an applicant is pulled from the waiting list.
• 1 applicant file had the following error:
o The applicant selected the local preference point, but was not awarded the local preference point. Correcting this issue would change the applicant’s ranking on the waiting list from #114 to #6. Nonetheless, it’s likely that the applicant would have been pulled from the waiting list at the correct time regardless of whether the applicant is ranked #114 or #6, since the Authority selects a large pool of applicants.
• 1 tenant file had the following error:
o The applicant selected the victim of domestic violence preference point, but was not awarded the preference point. Correcting this issue would change the applicant’s ranking on the waiting list from #124 to #2. Nonetheless, it’s likely that the applicant would have been pulled from the waiting list at the correct time regardless of whether the applicant is ranked #124 or #2, since the Authority selects a large pool of applicants.
• 1 tenant file had the following error:
o The applicant selected the local preference point, but was not awarded the local preference point. Correcting this issue would change the applicant’s ranking on the waiting list from #174 to #10. Nonetheless, it’s likely that the applicant would have been pulled from the waiting list at the correct time regardless of whether the applicant is ranked #174 or #10, since the Authority selects a large pool of applicants.
Criteria: The Public Housing Authority is required to maintain a current and accurate waiting list in accordance with 24 CFR § 982.204, "Waiting list: How to select families," which states that a PHA must establish and implement a written waiting list policy that includes its system for applying local preferences and the order of preferences.
Questioned Costs: None.
Effect: The identified errors in applying or not applying preference points, even if subsequently corrected during the verification process, indicates weaknesses in the initial processing and management of the HCV waiting list. Assigning or not assigning correct preference points leads to incorrect ranking of applicants on the waiting list, and the potential for management to vouch an applicant prematurely into the Section 8 program.
Cause: The cause of these errors is due to insufficient staff training or lack of a quality control review over the data entry process of assigning preference points to the applicants on the waiting list.
Recommendation: The Authority should provide ongoing staff training on accurate data entry and documentation requirements for preference points assigned to applicants on the waiting list. In addition, the Authority should implement a quality control review process to ensure preference points are appropriately assigned. This could involve a second staff member reviewing a sample of applicant entries for accuracy of preference point awarded.
Views of Responsible Officials of the Auditee: The Authority concurs with this finding. The Authority has an established review, oversight and training process for all of its staff and will continue to improve its review, oversight, and training process to ensure proper procedures are being followed.
2024-004 Housing Choice Voucher Waiting List: Special Tests and Provisions
Program: U.S. Department of HUD: Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers (ALN #14.871)
Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance, Other Matters
Statement of Condition: Out of a total population of approximately 258 applicants, 25 applicants were selected for testing, and the following errors were discovered.
• 1 applicant file had the following error:
o The applicant was incorrectly awarded local preference points. Removing these points would drop their waiting list rank from #54 to #258. However, this issue would have likely been identified and corrected during the routine verification of preference points, which occurs when an applicant is pulled from the waiting list.
• 1 applicant file had the following error:
o The applicant was incorrectly awarded working preference points. Removing these points would drop their waiting list rank from #64 to #245. However, this issue would have likely been identified and corrected during the routine verification of preference points, which occurs when an applicant is pulled from the waiting list.
• 1 applicant file had the following error:
o The applicant selected the local preference point, but was not awarded the local preference point. Correcting this issue would change the applicant’s ranking on the waiting list from #114 to #6. Nonetheless, it’s likely that the applicant would have been pulled from the waiting list at the correct time regardless of whether the applicant is ranked #114 or #6, since the Authority selects a large pool of applicants.
• 1 tenant file had the following error:
o The applicant selected the victim of domestic violence preference point, but was not awarded the preference point. Correcting this issue would change the applicant’s ranking on the waiting list from #124 to #2. Nonetheless, it’s likely that the applicant would have been pulled from the waiting list at the correct time regardless of whether the applicant is ranked #124 or #2, since the Authority selects a large pool of applicants.
• 1 tenant file had the following error:
o The applicant selected the local preference point, but was not awarded the local preference point. Correcting this issue would change the applicant’s ranking on the waiting list from #174 to #10. Nonetheless, it’s likely that the applicant would have been pulled from the waiting list at the correct time regardless of whether the applicant is ranked #174 or #10, since the Authority selects a large pool of applicants.
Criteria: The Public Housing Authority is required to maintain a current and accurate waiting list in accordance with 24 CFR § 982.204, "Waiting list: How to select families," which states that a PHA must establish and implement a written waiting list policy that includes its system for applying local preferences and the order of preferences.
Questioned Costs: None.
Effect: The identified errors in applying or not applying preference points, even if subsequently corrected during the verification process, indicates weaknesses in the initial processing and management of the HCV waiting list. Assigning or not assigning correct preference points leads to incorrect ranking of applicants on the waiting list, and the potential for management to vouch an applicant prematurely into the Section 8 program.
Cause: The cause of these errors is due to insufficient staff training or lack of a quality control review over the data entry process of assigning preference points to the applicants on the waiting list.
Recommendation: The Authority should provide ongoing staff training on accurate data entry and documentation requirements for preference points assigned to applicants on the waiting list. In addition, the Authority should implement a quality control review process to ensure preference points are appropriately assigned. This could involve a second staff member reviewing a sample of applicant entries for accuracy of preference point awarded.
Views of Responsible Officials of the Auditee: The Authority concurs with this finding. The Authority has an established review, oversight and training process for all of its staff and will continue to improve its review, oversight, and training process to ensure proper procedures are being followed.
2024-002 Public Housing Tenant Files: Eligibility
Program: U.S. Department of HUD: Public and Indian Housing Program (ALN #14.850)
Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance, Other Matters
Statement of Condition: We tested 19 out of approximately 181 tenant files and discovered the following errors:
• 1 tenant file had the following error:
o A dependent of the household did not check the checkbox on the 214-affidavit form indicating their immigration status. However, based on the dependent’s birth certificate, the dependent is a U.S. citizen.
• 1 tenant file had the following error:
o The tenant’s childcare income was calculated and reported incorrectly on the 50058 form in the amount of $2,472. Correcting the tenant’s childcare income to $2,237 would decrease the tenant’s rent by $6.
• 1 tenant file had the following error:
o Support for the tenant’s wage income could not be located. It’s unknown as to whether the tenant’s wage income is calculated and reported correctly on the 50058 form and whether the tenant’s rent is calculated correctly.
• 1 tenant file had the following error:
o The tenant’s social security income was carried forward from the prior year in the amount of $11,172. Correcting the tenant’s social security income to $12,144 for the annual recertification period tested, would increase the tenant’s rent by $25.
• 1 tenant file had the following error:
o The tenant’s social security income was carried forward from the prior year in the amount of $12,456. Correcting the tenant’s social security income to $13,548 for the annual recertification period tested, would increase the tenant’s rent by $27.
• 1 tenant file had the following error:
o The tenant’s other source income of $720 was carried forward from the prior year. The tenant’s income was not updated for the annual recertification and it’s unknown as to whether the tenant’s other source income is calculated and reported correctly on the 50058 form and whether the tenant’s rent is calculated correctly.
Criteria: Per 24 CFR 982.516, internal controls are required to ensure full compliance with HUD requirements and the integrity of tenant files. Furthermore, the Authority’s ACOP Plan mandates adherence to established procedures for the accurate determination of tenant income and rent, with comprehensive documentation maintained within tenant records.
Questioned Costs: None.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with all of HUD requirements regarding eligibility and tenant recertification, which could result in incorrect total tenant payments for rent.
Cause: Procedures to ensure compliance with all of HUD requirements were not being carefully followed.
Recommendation: The Authority should correct the deficiencies noted in the tested files and utilize an ongoing quality control review process on the entire tenant population to ensure proper compliance with the requirements related to tenant eligibility. Ongoing staff training and timely management reviews should be utilized to ensure staff is aware of acceptable procedures. In addition, the Authority should review staffing levels, skill sets and case load.
Views of Responsible Officials of the Auditee: The Authority concurs with this finding. The Authority has an established review, oversight and training process for all of its staff and will continue to improve its review, oversight, and training process to ensure proper procedures are being followed.
2024-003 Housing Choice Voucher Tenant Files: Eligibility
Program: U.S. Department of HUD: Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers (ALN #14.871)
Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance, Other Matters
This is a repeat finding of 2023-002 from September 30, 2023 (Originally reported as Material non-compliance and Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance under finding 2019-001 from September 30, 2019)
Statement of Condition: Out of a total tenant population of approximately 1,118 vouchers, 25 files were selected for testing, and the following errors were discovered.
• 2 tenant files had the following error:
o The HAP contract in the tenants’ file was not signed by a representative of Ocala Housing Authority.
• 1 tenant file had the following error:
o The tenant's utility allowance was incorrectly calculated using the 2023 utility allowance rates. The 2024 utility allowance rates should have been used. Correcting this error will decrease the Housing Assistance Payment by $4.
• 1 tenant file had the following error:
o The tenant's utility allowance was incorrectly calculated using the 2023 utility allowance rates. The 2024 utility allowance rates should have been used. Correcting this error will increase the Housing Assistance Payment by $23.
• 1 tenant file had the following error:
o The tenant's utility allowance was incorrectly calculated using the 2023 utility allowance rates. The 2024 utility allowance rates should have been used. Correcting this error will increase the Housing Assistance Payment by $7.
• 1 tenant file had the following error:
o The tenant's utility allowance was incorrectly calculated using the 2023 utility allowance rates for a 1-bedroom unit. The 2024 utility allowance rates for a 2-bedroom unit should have been used. Correcting this error will increase the Housing Assistance Payment by $20.
Criteria: Per 24 CFR 982.516, internal controls are required to ensure full compliance with HUD requirements and the integrity of tenant files. Furthermore, the Authority’s Administrative Plan mandates adherence to established procedures for the accurate determination of tenant income and utility allowance, with comprehensive documentation maintained within tenant records.
Questioned Costs: None.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with all of the HUD requirements regarding eligibility and tenant recertification, which could result in incorrect total tenant payments for rent and HAP payments to landlords.
Cause: Procedures to ensure compliance with all of the HUD requirements were not being carefully followed. In addition, the Authority experienced some turnover in the HCV department which contributed to these errors.
Recommendation: The Authority should correct the deficiencies noted in the tested files and utilize an ongoing quality control review process on the entire tenant population to ensure proper compliance with the requirements related to tenant eligibility. Ongoing staff training and timely management reviews should be utilized to ensure staff is aware of acceptable procedures. In addition, the Authority should review staffing levels, skill sets and case load.
Views of Responsible Officials of the Auditee: The Authority concurs with this finding. The Authority has an established review, oversight and training process for all of its staff and will continue to improve its review, oversight, and training process to ensure proper procedures are being followed.
2024-003 Housing Choice Voucher Tenant Files: Eligibility
Program: U.S. Department of HUD: Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers (ALN #14.871)
Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance, Other Matters
This is a repeat finding of 2023-002 from September 30, 2023 (Originally reported as Material non-compliance and Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance under finding 2019-001 from September 30, 2019)
Statement of Condition: Out of a total tenant population of approximately 1,118 vouchers, 25 files were selected for testing, and the following errors were discovered.
• 2 tenant files had the following error:
o The HAP contract in the tenants’ file was not signed by a representative of Ocala Housing Authority.
• 1 tenant file had the following error:
o The tenant's utility allowance was incorrectly calculated using the 2023 utility allowance rates. The 2024 utility allowance rates should have been used. Correcting this error will decrease the Housing Assistance Payment by $4.
• 1 tenant file had the following error:
o The tenant's utility allowance was incorrectly calculated using the 2023 utility allowance rates. The 2024 utility allowance rates should have been used. Correcting this error will increase the Housing Assistance Payment by $23.
• 1 tenant file had the following error:
o The tenant's utility allowance was incorrectly calculated using the 2023 utility allowance rates. The 2024 utility allowance rates should have been used. Correcting this error will increase the Housing Assistance Payment by $7.
• 1 tenant file had the following error:
o The tenant's utility allowance was incorrectly calculated using the 2023 utility allowance rates for a 1-bedroom unit. The 2024 utility allowance rates for a 2-bedroom unit should have been used. Correcting this error will increase the Housing Assistance Payment by $20.
Criteria: Per 24 CFR 982.516, internal controls are required to ensure full compliance with HUD requirements and the integrity of tenant files. Furthermore, the Authority’s Administrative Plan mandates adherence to established procedures for the accurate determination of tenant income and utility allowance, with comprehensive documentation maintained within tenant records.
Questioned Costs: None.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with all of the HUD requirements regarding eligibility and tenant recertification, which could result in incorrect total tenant payments for rent and HAP payments to landlords.
Cause: Procedures to ensure compliance with all of the HUD requirements were not being carefully followed. In addition, the Authority experienced some turnover in the HCV department which contributed to these errors.
Recommendation: The Authority should correct the deficiencies noted in the tested files and utilize an ongoing quality control review process on the entire tenant population to ensure proper compliance with the requirements related to tenant eligibility. Ongoing staff training and timely management reviews should be utilized to ensure staff is aware of acceptable procedures. In addition, the Authority should review staffing levels, skill sets and case load.
Views of Responsible Officials of the Auditee: The Authority concurs with this finding. The Authority has an established review, oversight and training process for all of its staff and will continue to improve its review, oversight, and training process to ensure proper procedures are being followed.
2024-004 Housing Choice Voucher Waiting List: Special Tests and Provisions
Program: U.S. Department of HUD: Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers (ALN #14.871)
Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance, Other Matters
Statement of Condition: Out of a total population of approximately 258 applicants, 25 applicants were selected for testing, and the following errors were discovered.
• 1 applicant file had the following error:
o The applicant was incorrectly awarded local preference points. Removing these points would drop their waiting list rank from #54 to #258. However, this issue would have likely been identified and corrected during the routine verification of preference points, which occurs when an applicant is pulled from the waiting list.
• 1 applicant file had the following error:
o The applicant was incorrectly awarded working preference points. Removing these points would drop their waiting list rank from #64 to #245. However, this issue would have likely been identified and corrected during the routine verification of preference points, which occurs when an applicant is pulled from the waiting list.
• 1 applicant file had the following error:
o The applicant selected the local preference point, but was not awarded the local preference point. Correcting this issue would change the applicant’s ranking on the waiting list from #114 to #6. Nonetheless, it’s likely that the applicant would have been pulled from the waiting list at the correct time regardless of whether the applicant is ranked #114 or #6, since the Authority selects a large pool of applicants.
• 1 tenant file had the following error:
o The applicant selected the victim of domestic violence preference point, but was not awarded the preference point. Correcting this issue would change the applicant’s ranking on the waiting list from #124 to #2. Nonetheless, it’s likely that the applicant would have been pulled from the waiting list at the correct time regardless of whether the applicant is ranked #124 or #2, since the Authority selects a large pool of applicants.
• 1 tenant file had the following error:
o The applicant selected the local preference point, but was not awarded the local preference point. Correcting this issue would change the applicant’s ranking on the waiting list from #174 to #10. Nonetheless, it’s likely that the applicant would have been pulled from the waiting list at the correct time regardless of whether the applicant is ranked #174 or #10, since the Authority selects a large pool of applicants.
Criteria: The Public Housing Authority is required to maintain a current and accurate waiting list in accordance with 24 CFR § 982.204, "Waiting list: How to select families," which states that a PHA must establish and implement a written waiting list policy that includes its system for applying local preferences and the order of preferences.
Questioned Costs: None.
Effect: The identified errors in applying or not applying preference points, even if subsequently corrected during the verification process, indicates weaknesses in the initial processing and management of the HCV waiting list. Assigning or not assigning correct preference points leads to incorrect ranking of applicants on the waiting list, and the potential for management to vouch an applicant prematurely into the Section 8 program.
Cause: The cause of these errors is due to insufficient staff training or lack of a quality control review over the data entry process of assigning preference points to the applicants on the waiting list.
Recommendation: The Authority should provide ongoing staff training on accurate data entry and documentation requirements for preference points assigned to applicants on the waiting list. In addition, the Authority should implement a quality control review process to ensure preference points are appropriately assigned. This could involve a second staff member reviewing a sample of applicant entries for accuracy of preference point awarded.
Views of Responsible Officials of the Auditee: The Authority concurs with this finding. The Authority has an established review, oversight and training process for all of its staff and will continue to improve its review, oversight, and training process to ensure proper procedures are being followed.
2024-004 Housing Choice Voucher Waiting List: Special Tests and Provisions
Program: U.S. Department of HUD: Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers (ALN #14.871)
Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance, Other Matters
Statement of Condition: Out of a total population of approximately 258 applicants, 25 applicants were selected for testing, and the following errors were discovered.
• 1 applicant file had the following error:
o The applicant was incorrectly awarded local preference points. Removing these points would drop their waiting list rank from #54 to #258. However, this issue would have likely been identified and corrected during the routine verification of preference points, which occurs when an applicant is pulled from the waiting list.
• 1 applicant file had the following error:
o The applicant was incorrectly awarded working preference points. Removing these points would drop their waiting list rank from #64 to #245. However, this issue would have likely been identified and corrected during the routine verification of preference points, which occurs when an applicant is pulled from the waiting list.
• 1 applicant file had the following error:
o The applicant selected the local preference point, but was not awarded the local preference point. Correcting this issue would change the applicant’s ranking on the waiting list from #114 to #6. Nonetheless, it’s likely that the applicant would have been pulled from the waiting list at the correct time regardless of whether the applicant is ranked #114 or #6, since the Authority selects a large pool of applicants.
• 1 tenant file had the following error:
o The applicant selected the victim of domestic violence preference point, but was not awarded the preference point. Correcting this issue would change the applicant’s ranking on the waiting list from #124 to #2. Nonetheless, it’s likely that the applicant would have been pulled from the waiting list at the correct time regardless of whether the applicant is ranked #124 or #2, since the Authority selects a large pool of applicants.
• 1 tenant file had the following error:
o The applicant selected the local preference point, but was not awarded the local preference point. Correcting this issue would change the applicant’s ranking on the waiting list from #174 to #10. Nonetheless, it’s likely that the applicant would have been pulled from the waiting list at the correct time regardless of whether the applicant is ranked #174 or #10, since the Authority selects a large pool of applicants.
Criteria: The Public Housing Authority is required to maintain a current and accurate waiting list in accordance with 24 CFR § 982.204, "Waiting list: How to select families," which states that a PHA must establish and implement a written waiting list policy that includes its system for applying local preferences and the order of preferences.
Questioned Costs: None.
Effect: The identified errors in applying or not applying preference points, even if subsequently corrected during the verification process, indicates weaknesses in the initial processing and management of the HCV waiting list. Assigning or not assigning correct preference points leads to incorrect ranking of applicants on the waiting list, and the potential for management to vouch an applicant prematurely into the Section 8 program.
Cause: The cause of these errors is due to insufficient staff training or lack of a quality control review over the data entry process of assigning preference points to the applicants on the waiting list.
Recommendation: The Authority should provide ongoing staff training on accurate data entry and documentation requirements for preference points assigned to applicants on the waiting list. In addition, the Authority should implement a quality control review process to ensure preference points are appropriately assigned. This could involve a second staff member reviewing a sample of applicant entries for accuracy of preference point awarded.
Views of Responsible Officials of the Auditee: The Authority concurs with this finding. The Authority has an established review, oversight and training process for all of its staff and will continue to improve its review, oversight, and training process to ensure proper procedures are being followed.