Criteria or specific requirement: (1) For units under HAP contract that fail to meet HQS, the PHA must require the owner to correct any life threatening HQS deficiencies within 24 hours after the inspections and all other HQS deficiencies within 30 calendar days or within a specified PHA-approved extension. If the owner does not correct the cited HQS deficiencies within the specified correction period, the PHA must stop (abate) HAPs beginning no later than the first of the month following the specified correction period or must terminate the HAP contract. The owner is not responsible for a breach of HQS as a result of the family’s failure to pay for utilities for which the family is responsible under the lease or for tenant damage. For family-caused defects, if the family does not correct the cited HQS deficiencies within the specified correction period, the PHA must take prompt and vigorous action to enforce the family obligations (24 CFR sections 982.158(d) and 982.404).
(2) According to the HCV Administrative Plan, "The owner and the family will be notified in writing of the results of failed inspections. When an inspection identifies HQS failures, the PHA will determine (1) whether or not the failure is a life-threatening condition and (2) whether the family or owner is responsible. The notice of inspection results will inform the owner that if life-threatening conditions are not corrected within 24 hours, urgent conditions are not corrected within 72 hours and non-life-threatening conditions are not corrected within the specified time frame, the owner’s HAP will be abated in accordance with PHA policy. Likewise, in the case of family caused deficiencies the notice will inform the family that if corrections are not made within the specified time frame, the family’s assistance will be terminated in accordance with PHA policy."
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that failed inspections were completed in accordance with compliance requirements.
Questioned costs: $57,215
Context: During the testing of the HCV tenant files, certain special provision compliance deficiencies were noted in 14 of 40 files:
(1)(a) 9 out of 40 sampled inspections were not properly abated.
(b) 10 out of 40 files did not show evidence of timely repairs after inspection/reinspection.
(2) 10 out of 40 files did not show evidence of any communication to the tenant or landlord regarding failed inspection results.
Cause: The Authority faced high turnover rates in the case management department, causing a lot of issues to go unaddressed.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding minimum housing quality standards and was paying housing assistance for units that did not meet these standards.
Recommendation: We recommend management designate one person to oversee the inspection process to ensure that all inspections are being performed in a timely manner. Furthermore, management should ensure no HAP payments are issued for units that have not passed HQS housing inspections.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: (1) For units under HAP contract that fail to meet HQS, the PHA must require the owner to correct any life threatening HQS deficiencies within 24 hours after the inspections and all other HQS deficiencies within 30 calendar days or within a specified PHA-approved extension. If the owner does not correct the cited HQS deficiencies within the specified correction period, the PHA must stop (abate) HAPs beginning no later than the first of the month following the specified correction period or must terminate the HAP contract. The owner is not responsible for a breach of HQS as a result of the family’s failure to pay for utilities for which the family is responsible under the lease or for tenant damage. For family-caused defects, if the family does not correct the cited HQS deficiencies within the specified correction period, the PHA must take prompt and vigorous action to enforce the family obligations (24 CFR sections 982.158(d) and 982.404).
(2) According to the HCV Administrative Plan, "The owner and the family will be notified in writing of the results of failed inspections. When an inspection identifies HQS failures, the PHA will determine (1) whether or not the failure is a life-threatening condition and (2) whether the family or owner is responsible. The notice of inspection results will inform the owner that if life-threatening conditions are not corrected within 24 hours, urgent conditions are not corrected within 72 hours and non-life-threatening conditions are not corrected within the specified time frame, the owner’s HAP will be abated in accordance with PHA policy. Likewise, in the case of family caused deficiencies the notice will inform the family that if corrections are not made within the specified time frame, the family’s assistance will be terminated in accordance with PHA policy."
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that failed inspections were completed in accordance with compliance requirements.
Questioned costs: $57,215
Context: During the testing of the HCV tenant files, certain special provision compliance deficiencies were noted in 14 of 40 files:
(1)(a) 9 out of 40 sampled inspections were not properly abated.
(b) 10 out of 40 files did not show evidence of timely repairs after inspection/reinspection.
(2) 10 out of 40 files did not show evidence of any communication to the tenant or landlord regarding failed inspection results.
Cause: The Authority faced high turnover rates in the case management department, causing a lot of issues to go unaddressed.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding minimum housing quality standards and was paying housing assistance for units that did not meet these standards.
Recommendation: We recommend management designate one person to oversee the inspection process to ensure that all inspections are being performed in a timely manner. Furthermore, management should ensure no HAP payments are issued for units that have not passed HQS housing inspections.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: (1) For units under HAP contract that fail to meet HQS, the PHA must require the owner to correct any life threatening HQS deficiencies within 24 hours after the inspections and all other HQS deficiencies within 30 calendar days or within a specified PHA-approved extension. If the owner does not correct the cited HQS deficiencies within the specified correction period, the PHA must stop (abate) HAPs beginning no later than the first of the month following the specified correction period or must terminate the HAP contract. The owner is not responsible for a breach of HQS as a result of the family’s failure to pay for utilities for which the family is responsible under the lease or for tenant damage. For family-caused defects, if the family does not correct the cited HQS deficiencies within the specified correction period, the PHA must take prompt and vigorous action to enforce the family obligations (24 CFR sections 982.158(d) and 982.404).
(2) According to the HCV Administrative Plan, "The owner and the family will be notified in writing of the results of failed inspections. When an inspection identifies HQS failures, the PHA will determine (1) whether or not the failure is a life-threatening condition and (2) whether the family or owner is responsible. The notice of inspection results will inform the owner that if life-threatening conditions are not corrected within 24 hours, urgent conditions are not corrected within 72 hours and non-life-threatening conditions are not corrected within the specified time frame, the owner’s HAP will be abated in accordance with PHA policy. Likewise, in the case of family caused deficiencies the notice will inform the family that if corrections are not made within the specified time frame, the family’s assistance will be terminated in accordance with PHA policy."
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that failed inspections were completed in accordance with compliance requirements.
Questioned costs: $57,215
Context: During the testing of the HCV tenant files, certain special provision compliance deficiencies were noted in 14 of 40 files:
(1)(a) 9 out of 40 sampled inspections were not properly abated.
(b) 10 out of 40 files did not show evidence of timely repairs after inspection/reinspection.
(2) 10 out of 40 files did not show evidence of any communication to the tenant or landlord regarding failed inspection results.
Cause: The Authority faced high turnover rates in the case management department, causing a lot of issues to go unaddressed.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding minimum housing quality standards and was paying housing assistance for units that did not meet these standards.
Recommendation: We recommend management designate one person to oversee the inspection process to ensure that all inspections are being performed in a timely manner. Furthermore, management should ensure no HAP payments are issued for units that have not passed HQS housing inspections.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: (1) For units under HAP contract that fail to meet HQS, the PHA must require the owner to correct any life threatening HQS deficiencies within 24 hours after the inspections and all other HQS deficiencies within 30 calendar days or within a specified PHA-approved extension. If the owner does not correct the cited HQS deficiencies within the specified correction period, the PHA must stop (abate) HAPs beginning no later than the first of the month following the specified correction period or must terminate the HAP contract. The owner is not responsible for a breach of HQS as a result of the family’s failure to pay for utilities for which the family is responsible under the lease or for tenant damage. For family-caused defects, if the family does not correct the cited HQS deficiencies within the specified correction period, the PHA must take prompt and vigorous action to enforce the family obligations (24 CFR sections 982.158(d) and 982.404).
(2) According to the HCV Administrative Plan, "The owner and the family will be notified in writing of the results of failed inspections. When an inspection identifies HQS failures, the PHA will determine (1) whether or not the failure is a life-threatening condition and (2) whether the family or owner is responsible. The notice of inspection results will inform the owner that if life-threatening conditions are not corrected within 24 hours, urgent conditions are not corrected within 72 hours and non-life-threatening conditions are not corrected within the specified time frame, the owner’s HAP will be abated in accordance with PHA policy. Likewise, in the case of family caused deficiencies the notice will inform the family that if corrections are not made within the specified time frame, the family’s assistance will be terminated in accordance with PHA policy."
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that failed inspections were completed in accordance with compliance requirements.
Questioned costs: $57,215
Context: During the testing of the HCV tenant files, certain special provision compliance deficiencies were noted in 14 of 40 files:
(1)(a) 9 out of 40 sampled inspections were not properly abated.
(b) 10 out of 40 files did not show evidence of timely repairs after inspection/reinspection.
(2) 10 out of 40 files did not show evidence of any communication to the tenant or landlord regarding failed inspection results.
Cause: The Authority faced high turnover rates in the case management department, causing a lot of issues to go unaddressed.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding minimum housing quality standards and was paying housing assistance for units that did not meet these standards.
Recommendation: We recommend management designate one person to oversee the inspection process to ensure that all inspections are being performed in a timely manner. Furthermore, management should ensure no HAP payments are issued for units that have not passed HQS housing inspections.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: (1) For units under HAP contract that fail to meet HQS, the PHA must require the owner to correct any life threatening HQS deficiencies within 24 hours after the inspections and all other HQS deficiencies within 30 calendar days or within a specified PHA-approved extension. If the owner does not correct the cited HQS deficiencies within the specified correction period, the PHA must stop (abate) HAPs beginning no later than the first of the month following the specified correction period or must terminate the HAP contract. The owner is not responsible for a breach of HQS as a result of the family’s failure to pay for utilities for which the family is responsible under the lease or for tenant damage. For family-caused defects, if the family does not correct the cited HQS deficiencies within the specified correction period, the PHA must take prompt and vigorous action to enforce the family obligations (24 CFR sections 982.158(d) and 982.404).
(2) According to the HCV Administrative Plan, "The owner and the family will be notified in writing of the results of failed inspections. When an inspection identifies HQS failures, the PHA will determine (1) whether or not the failure is a life-threatening condition and (2) whether the family or owner is responsible. The notice of inspection results will inform the owner that if life-threatening conditions are not corrected within 24 hours, urgent conditions are not corrected within 72 hours and non-life-threatening conditions are not corrected within the specified time frame, the owner’s HAP will be abated in accordance with PHA policy. Likewise, in the case of family caused deficiencies the notice will inform the family that if corrections are not made within the specified time frame, the family’s assistance will be terminated in accordance with PHA policy."
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that failed inspections were completed in accordance with compliance requirements.
Questioned costs: $57,215
Context: During the testing of the HCV tenant files, certain special provision compliance deficiencies were noted in 14 of 40 files:
(1)(a) 9 out of 40 sampled inspections were not properly abated.
(b) 10 out of 40 files did not show evidence of timely repairs after inspection/reinspection.
(2) 10 out of 40 files did not show evidence of any communication to the tenant or landlord regarding failed inspection results.
Cause: The Authority faced high turnover rates in the case management department, causing a lot of issues to go unaddressed.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding minimum housing quality standards and was paying housing assistance for units that did not meet these standards.
Recommendation: We recommend management designate one person to oversee the inspection process to ensure that all inspections are being performed in a timely manner. Furthermore, management should ensure no HAP payments are issued for units that have not passed HQS housing inspections.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: (1) For units under HAP contract that fail to meet HQS, the PHA must require the owner to correct any life threatening HQS deficiencies within 24 hours after the inspections and all other HQS deficiencies within 30 calendar days or within a specified PHA-approved extension. If the owner does not correct the cited HQS deficiencies within the specified correction period, the PHA must stop (abate) HAPs beginning no later than the first of the month following the specified correction period or must terminate the HAP contract. The owner is not responsible for a breach of HQS as a result of the family’s failure to pay for utilities for which the family is responsible under the lease or for tenant damage. For family-caused defects, if the family does not correct the cited HQS deficiencies within the specified correction period, the PHA must take prompt and vigorous action to enforce the family obligations (24 CFR sections 982.158(d) and 982.404).
(2) According to the HCV Administrative Plan, "The owner and the family will be notified in writing of the results of failed inspections. When an inspection identifies HQS failures, the PHA will determine (1) whether or not the failure is a life-threatening condition and (2) whether the family or owner is responsible. The notice of inspection results will inform the owner that if life-threatening conditions are not corrected within 24 hours, urgent conditions are not corrected within 72 hours and non-life-threatening conditions are not corrected within the specified time frame, the owner’s HAP will be abated in accordance with PHA policy. Likewise, in the case of family caused deficiencies the notice will inform the family that if corrections are not made within the specified time frame, the family’s assistance will be terminated in accordance with PHA policy."
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that failed inspections were completed in accordance with compliance requirements.
Questioned costs: $57,215
Context: During the testing of the HCV tenant files, certain special provision compliance deficiencies were noted in 14 of 40 files:
(1)(a) 9 out of 40 sampled inspections were not properly abated.
(b) 10 out of 40 files did not show evidence of timely repairs after inspection/reinspection.
(2) 10 out of 40 files did not show evidence of any communication to the tenant or landlord regarding failed inspection results.
Cause: The Authority faced high turnover rates in the case management department, causing a lot of issues to go unaddressed.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding minimum housing quality standards and was paying housing assistance for units that did not meet these standards.
Recommendation: We recommend management designate one person to oversee the inspection process to ensure that all inspections are being performed in a timely manner. Furthermore, management should ensure no HAP payments are issued for units that have not passed HQS housing inspections.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: (1) For units under HAP contract that fail to meet HQS, the PHA must require the owner to correct any life threatening HQS deficiencies within 24 hours after the inspections and all other HQS deficiencies within 30 calendar days or within a specified PHA-approved extension. If the owner does not correct the cited HQS deficiencies within the specified correction period, the PHA must stop (abate) HAPs beginning no later than the first of the month following the specified correction period or must terminate the HAP contract. The owner is not responsible for a breach of HQS as a result of the family’s failure to pay for utilities for which the family is responsible under the lease or for tenant damage. For family-caused defects, if the family does not correct the cited HQS deficiencies within the specified correction period, the PHA must take prompt and vigorous action to enforce the family obligations (24 CFR sections 982.158(d) and 982.404).
(2) According to the HCV Administrative Plan, "The owner and the family will be notified in writing of the results of failed inspections. When an inspection identifies HQS failures, the PHA will determine (1) whether or not the failure is a life-threatening condition and (2) whether the family or owner is responsible. The notice of inspection results will inform the owner that if life-threatening conditions are not corrected within 24 hours, urgent conditions are not corrected within 72 hours and non-life-threatening conditions are not corrected within the specified time frame, the owner’s HAP will be abated in accordance with PHA policy. Likewise, in the case of family caused deficiencies the notice will inform the family that if corrections are not made within the specified time frame, the family’s assistance will be terminated in accordance with PHA policy."
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that failed inspections were completed in accordance with compliance requirements.
Questioned costs: $57,215
Context: During the testing of the HCV tenant files, certain special provision compliance deficiencies were noted in 14 of 40 files:
(1)(a) 9 out of 40 sampled inspections were not properly abated.
(b) 10 out of 40 files did not show evidence of timely repairs after inspection/reinspection.
(2) 10 out of 40 files did not show evidence of any communication to the tenant or landlord regarding failed inspection results.
Cause: The Authority faced high turnover rates in the case management department, causing a lot of issues to go unaddressed.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding minimum housing quality standards and was paying housing assistance for units that did not meet these standards.
Recommendation: We recommend management designate one person to oversee the inspection process to ensure that all inspections are being performed in a timely manner. Furthermore, management should ensure no HAP payments are issued for units that have not passed HQS housing inspections.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: (1) For units under HAP contract that fail to meet HQS, the PHA must require the owner to correct any life threatening HQS deficiencies within 24 hours after the inspections and all other HQS deficiencies within 30 calendar days or within a specified PHA-approved extension. If the owner does not correct the cited HQS deficiencies within the specified correction period, the PHA must stop (abate) HAPs beginning no later than the first of the month following the specified correction period or must terminate the HAP contract. The owner is not responsible for a breach of HQS as a result of the family’s failure to pay for utilities for which the family is responsible under the lease or for tenant damage. For family-caused defects, if the family does not correct the cited HQS deficiencies within the specified correction period, the PHA must take prompt and vigorous action to enforce the family obligations (24 CFR sections 982.158(d) and 982.404).
(2) According to the HCV Administrative Plan, "The owner and the family will be notified in writing of the results of failed inspections. When an inspection identifies HQS failures, the PHA will determine (1) whether or not the failure is a life-threatening condition and (2) whether the family or owner is responsible. The notice of inspection results will inform the owner that if life-threatening conditions are not corrected within 24 hours, urgent conditions are not corrected within 72 hours and non-life-threatening conditions are not corrected within the specified time frame, the owner’s HAP will be abated in accordance with PHA policy. Likewise, in the case of family caused deficiencies the notice will inform the family that if corrections are not made within the specified time frame, the family’s assistance will be terminated in accordance with PHA policy."
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that failed inspections were completed in accordance with compliance requirements.
Questioned costs: $57,215
Context: During the testing of the HCV tenant files, certain special provision compliance deficiencies were noted in 14 of 40 files:
(1)(a) 9 out of 40 sampled inspections were not properly abated.
(b) 10 out of 40 files did not show evidence of timely repairs after inspection/reinspection.
(2) 10 out of 40 files did not show evidence of any communication to the tenant or landlord regarding failed inspection results.
Cause: The Authority faced high turnover rates in the case management department, causing a lot of issues to go unaddressed.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding minimum housing quality standards and was paying housing assistance for units that did not meet these standards.
Recommendation: We recommend management designate one person to oversee the inspection process to ensure that all inspections are being performed in a timely manner. Furthermore, management should ensure no HAP payments are issued for units that have not passed HQS housing inspections.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: (1) For units under HAP contract that fail to meet HQS, the PHA must require the owner to correct any life threatening HQS deficiencies within 24 hours after the inspections and all other HQS deficiencies within 30 calendar days or within a specified PHA-approved extension. If the owner does not correct the cited HQS deficiencies within the specified correction period, the PHA must stop (abate) HAPs beginning no later than the first of the month following the specified correction period or must terminate the HAP contract. The owner is not responsible for a breach of HQS as a result of the family’s failure to pay for utilities for which the family is responsible under the lease or for tenant damage. For family-caused defects, if the family does not correct the cited HQS deficiencies within the specified correction period, the PHA must take prompt and vigorous action to enforce the family obligations (24 CFR sections 982.158(d) and 982.404).
(2) According to the HCV Administrative Plan, "The owner and the family will be notified in writing of the results of failed inspections. When an inspection identifies HQS failures, the PHA will determine (1) whether or not the failure is a life-threatening condition and (2) whether the family or owner is responsible. The notice of inspection results will inform the owner that if life-threatening conditions are not corrected within 24 hours, urgent conditions are not corrected within 72 hours and non-life-threatening conditions are not corrected within the specified time frame, the owner’s HAP will be abated in accordance with PHA policy. Likewise, in the case of family caused deficiencies the notice will inform the family that if corrections are not made within the specified time frame, the family’s assistance will be terminated in accordance with PHA policy."
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that failed inspections were completed in accordance with compliance requirements.
Questioned costs: $57,215
Context: During the testing of the HCV tenant files, certain special provision compliance deficiencies were noted in 14 of 40 files:
(1)(a) 9 out of 40 sampled inspections were not properly abated.
(b) 10 out of 40 files did not show evidence of timely repairs after inspection/reinspection.
(2) 10 out of 40 files did not show evidence of any communication to the tenant or landlord regarding failed inspection results.
Cause: The Authority faced high turnover rates in the case management department, causing a lot of issues to go unaddressed.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding minimum housing quality standards and was paying housing assistance for units that did not meet these standards.
Recommendation: We recommend management designate one person to oversee the inspection process to ensure that all inspections are being performed in a timely manner. Furthermore, management should ensure no HAP payments are issued for units that have not passed HQS housing inspections.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: (1) For units under HAP contract that fail to meet HQS, the PHA must require the owner to correct any life threatening HQS deficiencies within 24 hours after the inspections and all other HQS deficiencies within 30 calendar days or within a specified PHA-approved extension. If the owner does not correct the cited HQS deficiencies within the specified correction period, the PHA must stop (abate) HAPs beginning no later than the first of the month following the specified correction period or must terminate the HAP contract. The owner is not responsible for a breach of HQS as a result of the family’s failure to pay for utilities for which the family is responsible under the lease or for tenant damage. For family-caused defects, if the family does not correct the cited HQS deficiencies within the specified correction period, the PHA must take prompt and vigorous action to enforce the family obligations (24 CFR sections 982.158(d) and 982.404).
(2) According to the HCV Administrative Plan, "The owner and the family will be notified in writing of the results of failed inspections. When an inspection identifies HQS failures, the PHA will determine (1) whether or not the failure is a life-threatening condition and (2) whether the family or owner is responsible. The notice of inspection results will inform the owner that if life-threatening conditions are not corrected within 24 hours, urgent conditions are not corrected within 72 hours and non-life-threatening conditions are not corrected within the specified time frame, the owner’s HAP will be abated in accordance with PHA policy. Likewise, in the case of family caused deficiencies the notice will inform the family that if corrections are not made within the specified time frame, the family’s assistance will be terminated in accordance with PHA policy."
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that failed inspections were completed in accordance with compliance requirements.
Questioned costs: $57,215
Context: During the testing of the HCV tenant files, certain special provision compliance deficiencies were noted in 14 of 40 files:
(1)(a) 9 out of 40 sampled inspections were not properly abated.
(b) 10 out of 40 files did not show evidence of timely repairs after inspection/reinspection.
(2) 10 out of 40 files did not show evidence of any communication to the tenant or landlord regarding failed inspection results.
Cause: The Authority faced high turnover rates in the case management department, causing a lot of issues to go unaddressed.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding minimum housing quality standards and was paying housing assistance for units that did not meet these standards.
Recommendation: We recommend management designate one person to oversee the inspection process to ensure that all inspections are being performed in a timely manner. Furthermore, management should ensure no HAP payments are issued for units that have not passed HQS housing inspections.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: (1) For units under HAP contract that fail to meet HQS, the PHA must require the owner to correct any life threatening HQS deficiencies within 24 hours after the inspections and all other HQS deficiencies within 30 calendar days or within a specified PHA-approved extension. If the owner does not correct the cited HQS deficiencies within the specified correction period, the PHA must stop (abate) HAPs beginning no later than the first of the month following the specified correction period or must terminate the HAP contract. The owner is not responsible for a breach of HQS as a result of the family’s failure to pay for utilities for which the family is responsible under the lease or for tenant damage. For family-caused defects, if the family does not correct the cited HQS deficiencies within the specified correction period, the PHA must take prompt and vigorous action to enforce the family obligations (24 CFR sections 982.158(d) and 982.404).
(2) According to the HCV Administrative Plan, "The owner and the family will be notified in writing of the results of failed inspections. When an inspection identifies HQS failures, the PHA will determine (1) whether or not the failure is a life-threatening condition and (2) whether the family or owner is responsible. The notice of inspection results will inform the owner that if life-threatening conditions are not corrected within 24 hours, urgent conditions are not corrected within 72 hours and non-life-threatening conditions are not corrected within the specified time frame, the owner’s HAP will be abated in accordance with PHA policy. Likewise, in the case of family caused deficiencies the notice will inform the family that if corrections are not made within the specified time frame, the family’s assistance will be terminated in accordance with PHA policy."
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that failed inspections were completed in accordance with compliance requirements.
Questioned costs: $57,215
Context: During the testing of the HCV tenant files, certain special provision compliance deficiencies were noted in 14 of 40 files:
(1)(a) 9 out of 40 sampled inspections were not properly abated.
(b) 10 out of 40 files did not show evidence of timely repairs after inspection/reinspection.
(2) 10 out of 40 files did not show evidence of any communication to the tenant or landlord regarding failed inspection results.
Cause: The Authority faced high turnover rates in the case management department, causing a lot of issues to go unaddressed.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding minimum housing quality standards and was paying housing assistance for units that did not meet these standards.
Recommendation: We recommend management designate one person to oversee the inspection process to ensure that all inspections are being performed in a timely manner. Furthermore, management should ensure no HAP payments are issued for units that have not passed HQS housing inspections.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: The PHA must determine that the rent to the owner is reasonable at the time of initial leasing. Also, the PHA must determine reasonable rent during the term of the contract (a) before any increase in the rent to owner, and (b) at the HAP contract anniversary if there is a 10% decrease in the published Fair Market Rent in effect 60 days before the HAP contract anniversary. The PHA must maintain records to document the basis for the determination that rent to owner is a reasonable rent (initially and during the term of the HAP contract) (24 CFR sections 982.4, 982.54(d)(15), 982.158(f)(7), and 982.507).
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that rent reasonableness was completed in accordance with compliance requirements.
Questioned costs: $3,817
Context: During the testing of the HCV tenant files, certain special provision compliance deficiencies were noted in 3 of 46 files:
(1) 1 out of 29 tenant’s rent reasonableness determination was not found in file.
(2) 2 out of 17 tenants’ rent per 50058 and HAP contract did not match that on the rent reasonableness determination.
Cause: The Authority faced high turnover rates in the case management department, causing a lot of issues to go unaddressed.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding rent reasonableness determination.
Recommendation: We recommend management designate one person to oversee the rent reasonableness determination for new tenants and contract rent changes to ensure rent reasonableness is completed properly and accurately flows to the HAP contract and HUD-50058 form.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: The PHA must determine that the rent to the owner is reasonable at the time of initial leasing. Also, the PHA must determine reasonable rent during the term of the contract (a) before any increase in the rent to owner, and (b) at the HAP contract anniversary if there is a 10% decrease in the published Fair Market Rent in effect 60 days before the HAP contract anniversary. The PHA must maintain records to document the basis for the determination that rent to owner is a reasonable rent (initially and during the term of the HAP contract) (24 CFR sections 982.4, 982.54(d)(15), 982.158(f)(7), and 982.507).
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that rent reasonableness was completed in accordance with compliance requirements.
Questioned costs: $3,817
Context: During the testing of the HCV tenant files, certain special provision compliance deficiencies were noted in 3 of 46 files:
(1) 1 out of 29 tenant’s rent reasonableness determination was not found in file.
(2) 2 out of 17 tenants’ rent per 50058 and HAP contract did not match that on the rent reasonableness determination.
Cause: The Authority faced high turnover rates in the case management department, causing a lot of issues to go unaddressed.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding rent reasonableness determination.
Recommendation: We recommend management designate one person to oversee the rent reasonableness determination for new tenants and contract rent changes to ensure rent reasonableness is completed properly and accurately flows to the HAP contract and HUD-50058 form.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: The PHA must determine that the rent to the owner is reasonable at the time of initial leasing. Also, the PHA must determine reasonable rent during the term of the contract (a) before any increase in the rent to owner, and (b) at the HAP contract anniversary if there is a 10% decrease in the published Fair Market Rent in effect 60 days before the HAP contract anniversary. The PHA must maintain records to document the basis for the determination that rent to owner is a reasonable rent (initially and during the term of the HAP contract) (24 CFR sections 982.4, 982.54(d)(15), 982.158(f)(7), and 982.507).
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that rent reasonableness was completed in accordance with compliance requirements.
Questioned costs: $3,817
Context: During the testing of the HCV tenant files, certain special provision compliance deficiencies were noted in 3 of 46 files:
(1) 1 out of 29 tenant’s rent reasonableness determination was not found in file.
(2) 2 out of 17 tenants’ rent per 50058 and HAP contract did not match that on the rent reasonableness determination.
Cause: The Authority faced high turnover rates in the case management department, causing a lot of issues to go unaddressed.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding rent reasonableness determination.
Recommendation: We recommend management designate one person to oversee the rent reasonableness determination for new tenants and contract rent changes to ensure rent reasonableness is completed properly and accurately flows to the HAP contract and HUD-50058 form.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: The PHA must determine that the rent to the owner is reasonable at the time of initial leasing. Also, the PHA must determine reasonable rent during the term of the contract (a) before any increase in the rent to owner, and (b) at the HAP contract anniversary if there is a 10% decrease in the published Fair Market Rent in effect 60 days before the HAP contract anniversary. The PHA must maintain records to document the basis for the determination that rent to owner is a reasonable rent (initially and during the term of the HAP contract) (24 CFR sections 982.4, 982.54(d)(15), 982.158(f)(7), and 982.507).
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that rent reasonableness was completed in accordance with compliance requirements.
Questioned costs: $3,817
Context: During the testing of the HCV tenant files, certain special provision compliance deficiencies were noted in 3 of 46 files:
(1) 1 out of 29 tenant’s rent reasonableness determination was not found in file.
(2) 2 out of 17 tenants’ rent per 50058 and HAP contract did not match that on the rent reasonableness determination.
Cause: The Authority faced high turnover rates in the case management department, causing a lot of issues to go unaddressed.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding rent reasonableness determination.
Recommendation: We recommend management designate one person to oversee the rent reasonableness determination for new tenants and contract rent changes to ensure rent reasonableness is completed properly and accurately flows to the HAP contract and HUD-50058 form.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: The PHA must determine that the rent to the owner is reasonable at the time of initial leasing. Also, the PHA must determine reasonable rent during the term of the contract (a) before any increase in the rent to owner, and (b) at the HAP contract anniversary if there is a 10% decrease in the published Fair Market Rent in effect 60 days before the HAP contract anniversary. The PHA must maintain records to document the basis for the determination that rent to owner is a reasonable rent (initially and during the term of the HAP contract) (24 CFR sections 982.4, 982.54(d)(15), 982.158(f)(7), and 982.507).
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that rent reasonableness was completed in accordance with compliance requirements.
Questioned costs: $3,817
Context: During the testing of the HCV tenant files, certain special provision compliance deficiencies were noted in 3 of 46 files:
(1) 1 out of 29 tenant’s rent reasonableness determination was not found in file.
(2) 2 out of 17 tenants’ rent per 50058 and HAP contract did not match that on the rent reasonableness determination.
Cause: The Authority faced high turnover rates in the case management department, causing a lot of issues to go unaddressed.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding rent reasonableness determination.
Recommendation: We recommend management designate one person to oversee the rent reasonableness determination for new tenants and contract rent changes to ensure rent reasonableness is completed properly and accurately flows to the HAP contract and HUD-50058 form.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: The PHA must determine that the rent to the owner is reasonable at the time of initial leasing. Also, the PHA must determine reasonable rent during the term of the contract (a) before any increase in the rent to owner, and (b) at the HAP contract anniversary if there is a 10% decrease in the published Fair Market Rent in effect 60 days before the HAP contract anniversary. The PHA must maintain records to document the basis for the determination that rent to owner is a reasonable rent (initially and during the term of the HAP contract) (24 CFR sections 982.4, 982.54(d)(15), 982.158(f)(7), and 982.507).
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that rent reasonableness was completed in accordance with compliance requirements.
Questioned costs: $3,817
Context: During the testing of the HCV tenant files, certain special provision compliance deficiencies were noted in 3 of 46 files:
(1) 1 out of 29 tenant’s rent reasonableness determination was not found in file.
(2) 2 out of 17 tenants’ rent per 50058 and HAP contract did not match that on the rent reasonableness determination.
Cause: The Authority faced high turnover rates in the case management department, causing a lot of issues to go unaddressed.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding rent reasonableness determination.
Recommendation: We recommend management designate one person to oversee the rent reasonableness determination for new tenants and contract rent changes to ensure rent reasonableness is completed properly and accurately flows to the HAP contract and HUD-50058 form.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: The PHA must determine that the rent to the owner is reasonable at the time of initial leasing. Also, the PHA must determine reasonable rent during the term of the contract (a) before any increase in the rent to owner, and (b) at the HAP contract anniversary if there is a 10% decrease in the published Fair Market Rent in effect 60 days before the HAP contract anniversary. The PHA must maintain records to document the basis for the determination that rent to owner is a reasonable rent (initially and during the term of the HAP contract) (24 CFR sections 982.4, 982.54(d)(15), 982.158(f)(7), and 982.507).
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that rent reasonableness was completed in accordance with compliance requirements.
Questioned costs: $3,817
Context: During the testing of the HCV tenant files, certain special provision compliance deficiencies were noted in 3 of 46 files:
(1) 1 out of 29 tenant’s rent reasonableness determination was not found in file.
(2) 2 out of 17 tenants’ rent per 50058 and HAP contract did not match that on the rent reasonableness determination.
Cause: The Authority faced high turnover rates in the case management department, causing a lot of issues to go unaddressed.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding rent reasonableness determination.
Recommendation: We recommend management designate one person to oversee the rent reasonableness determination for new tenants and contract rent changes to ensure rent reasonableness is completed properly and accurately flows to the HAP contract and HUD-50058 form.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: The PHA must determine that the rent to the owner is reasonable at the time of initial leasing. Also, the PHA must determine reasonable rent during the term of the contract (a) before any increase in the rent to owner, and (b) at the HAP contract anniversary if there is a 10% decrease in the published Fair Market Rent in effect 60 days before the HAP contract anniversary. The PHA must maintain records to document the basis for the determination that rent to owner is a reasonable rent (initially and during the term of the HAP contract) (24 CFR sections 982.4, 982.54(d)(15), 982.158(f)(7), and 982.507).
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that rent reasonableness was completed in accordance with compliance requirements.
Questioned costs: $3,817
Context: During the testing of the HCV tenant files, certain special provision compliance deficiencies were noted in 3 of 46 files:
(1) 1 out of 29 tenant’s rent reasonableness determination was not found in file.
(2) 2 out of 17 tenants’ rent per 50058 and HAP contract did not match that on the rent reasonableness determination.
Cause: The Authority faced high turnover rates in the case management department, causing a lot of issues to go unaddressed.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding rent reasonableness determination.
Recommendation: We recommend management designate one person to oversee the rent reasonableness determination for new tenants and contract rent changes to ensure rent reasonableness is completed properly and accurately flows to the HAP contract and HUD-50058 form.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: The PHA must determine that the rent to the owner is reasonable at the time of initial leasing. Also, the PHA must determine reasonable rent during the term of the contract (a) before any increase in the rent to owner, and (b) at the HAP contract anniversary if there is a 10% decrease in the published Fair Market Rent in effect 60 days before the HAP contract anniversary. The PHA must maintain records to document the basis for the determination that rent to owner is a reasonable rent (initially and during the term of the HAP contract) (24 CFR sections 982.4, 982.54(d)(15), 982.158(f)(7), and 982.507).
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that rent reasonableness was completed in accordance with compliance requirements.
Questioned costs: $3,817
Context: During the testing of the HCV tenant files, certain special provision compliance deficiencies were noted in 3 of 46 files:
(1) 1 out of 29 tenant’s rent reasonableness determination was not found in file.
(2) 2 out of 17 tenants’ rent per 50058 and HAP contract did not match that on the rent reasonableness determination.
Cause: The Authority faced high turnover rates in the case management department, causing a lot of issues to go unaddressed.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding rent reasonableness determination.
Recommendation: We recommend management designate one person to oversee the rent reasonableness determination for new tenants and contract rent changes to ensure rent reasonableness is completed properly and accurately flows to the HAP contract and HUD-50058 form.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: The PHA must determine that the rent to the owner is reasonable at the time of initial leasing. Also, the PHA must determine reasonable rent during the term of the contract (a) before any increase in the rent to owner, and (b) at the HAP contract anniversary if there is a 10% decrease in the published Fair Market Rent in effect 60 days before the HAP contract anniversary. The PHA must maintain records to document the basis for the determination that rent to owner is a reasonable rent (initially and during the term of the HAP contract) (24 CFR sections 982.4, 982.54(d)(15), 982.158(f)(7), and 982.507).
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that rent reasonableness was completed in accordance with compliance requirements.
Questioned costs: $3,817
Context: During the testing of the HCV tenant files, certain special provision compliance deficiencies were noted in 3 of 46 files:
(1) 1 out of 29 tenant’s rent reasonableness determination was not found in file.
(2) 2 out of 17 tenants’ rent per 50058 and HAP contract did not match that on the rent reasonableness determination.
Cause: The Authority faced high turnover rates in the case management department, causing a lot of issues to go unaddressed.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding rent reasonableness determination.
Recommendation: We recommend management designate one person to oversee the rent reasonableness determination for new tenants and contract rent changes to ensure rent reasonableness is completed properly and accurately flows to the HAP contract and HUD-50058 form.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: The PHA must determine that the rent to the owner is reasonable at the time of initial leasing. Also, the PHA must determine reasonable rent during the term of the contract (a) before any increase in the rent to owner, and (b) at the HAP contract anniversary if there is a 10% decrease in the published Fair Market Rent in effect 60 days before the HAP contract anniversary. The PHA must maintain records to document the basis for the determination that rent to owner is a reasonable rent (initially and during the term of the HAP contract) (24 CFR sections 982.4, 982.54(d)(15), 982.158(f)(7), and 982.507).
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that rent reasonableness was completed in accordance with compliance requirements.
Questioned costs: $3,817
Context: During the testing of the HCV tenant files, certain special provision compliance deficiencies were noted in 3 of 46 files:
(1) 1 out of 29 tenant’s rent reasonableness determination was not found in file.
(2) 2 out of 17 tenants’ rent per 50058 and HAP contract did not match that on the rent reasonableness determination.
Cause: The Authority faced high turnover rates in the case management department, causing a lot of issues to go unaddressed.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding rent reasonableness determination.
Recommendation: We recommend management designate one person to oversee the rent reasonableness determination for new tenants and contract rent changes to ensure rent reasonableness is completed properly and accurately flows to the HAP contract and HUD-50058 form.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: (1) According to the Authority’s internal procedures, case managers are to complete a checklist to keep in tenant file any time a new computation is created, be that for an annual, interim, or special reexamination. This must be signed and dated by the completing caseworker.
(2) According to the compliance supplement for the Housing Voucher Cluster, "The PHA must do the following: (1) As a condition of admission or continued occupancy, require the tenant and other family members to provide necessary information, documentation, and releases for the PHA to verify income eligibility (24 CFR sections 5.230, 5.609, and 982.516). Reexamine family income and composition at least once every 12 months and adjust the tenant rent and housing assistance payment as necessary using the documentation from third party verification (24 CFR section 982.516).
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure HCV eligibility requirements were being met.
Questioned costs: $20,820
Context: During the testing of the HCV tenant files, certain eligibility compliance deficiencies were noted in 3 of 46 files:
(1) 2 of 40 sampled tenant files did not show evidence of an internal control checklist completed by the caseworker.
(2) 1 of 40 tenants was not properly terminated. Tenant did not complete 2023 annual review and was sent to be terminated. Termination was not followed through on until FY 2025.
Cause: Repeated change in staff left the file overlooked and the termination incomplete. The Authority failed to provide adequate monitoring and oversight to ensure compliance with HUD rules and regulations, as well as its administrative policy.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding the recertification of household circumstances within 12 months. The Authority is also not in compliance with its own administrative policy on the HCV program.
Recommendation: We recommend that the Authority review the controls in place to ensure that no tenants are overlooked, even when the original case manager is no longer an employee of the Authority.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: (1) According to the Authority’s internal procedures, case managers are to complete a checklist to keep in tenant file any time a new computation is created, be that for an annual, interim, or special reexamination. This must be signed and dated by the completing caseworker.
(2) According to the compliance supplement for the Housing Voucher Cluster, "The PHA must do the following: (1) As a condition of admission or continued occupancy, require the tenant and other family members to provide necessary information, documentation, and releases for the PHA to verify income eligibility (24 CFR sections 5.230, 5.609, and 982.516). Reexamine family income and composition at least once every 12 months and adjust the tenant rent and housing assistance payment as necessary using the documentation from third party verification (24 CFR section 982.516).
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure HCV eligibility requirements were being met.
Questioned costs: $20,820
Context: During the testing of the HCV tenant files, certain eligibility compliance deficiencies were noted in 3 of 46 files:
(1) 2 of 40 sampled tenant files did not show evidence of an internal control checklist completed by the caseworker.
(2) 1 of 40 tenants was not properly terminated. Tenant did not complete 2023 annual review and was sent to be terminated. Termination was not followed through on until FY 2025.
Cause: Repeated change in staff left the file overlooked and the termination incomplete. The Authority failed to provide adequate monitoring and oversight to ensure compliance with HUD rules and regulations, as well as its administrative policy.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding the recertification of household circumstances within 12 months. The Authority is also not in compliance with its own administrative policy on the HCV program.
Recommendation: We recommend that the Authority review the controls in place to ensure that no tenants are overlooked, even when the original case manager is no longer an employee of the Authority.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: (1) According to the Authority’s internal procedures, case managers are to complete a checklist to keep in tenant file any time a new computation is created, be that for an annual, interim, or special reexamination. This must be signed and dated by the completing caseworker.
(2) According to the compliance supplement for the Housing Voucher Cluster, "The PHA must do the following: (1) As a condition of admission or continued occupancy, require the tenant and other family members to provide necessary information, documentation, and releases for the PHA to verify income eligibility (24 CFR sections 5.230, 5.609, and 982.516). Reexamine family income and composition at least once every 12 months and adjust the tenant rent and housing assistance payment as necessary using the documentation from third party verification (24 CFR section 982.516).
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure HCV eligibility requirements were being met.
Questioned costs: $20,820
Context: During the testing of the HCV tenant files, certain eligibility compliance deficiencies were noted in 3 of 46 files:
(1) 2 of 40 sampled tenant files did not show evidence of an internal control checklist completed by the caseworker.
(2) 1 of 40 tenants was not properly terminated. Tenant did not complete 2023 annual review and was sent to be terminated. Termination was not followed through on until FY 2025.
Cause: Repeated change in staff left the file overlooked and the termination incomplete. The Authority failed to provide adequate monitoring and oversight to ensure compliance with HUD rules and regulations, as well as its administrative policy.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding the recertification of household circumstances within 12 months. The Authority is also not in compliance with its own administrative policy on the HCV program.
Recommendation: We recommend that the Authority review the controls in place to ensure that no tenants are overlooked, even when the original case manager is no longer an employee of the Authority.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: (1) According to the Authority’s internal procedures, case managers are to complete a checklist to keep in tenant file any time a new computation is created, be that for an annual, interim, or special reexamination. This must be signed and dated by the completing caseworker.
(2) According to the compliance supplement for the Housing Voucher Cluster, "The PHA must do the following: (1) As a condition of admission or continued occupancy, require the tenant and other family members to provide necessary information, documentation, and releases for the PHA to verify income eligibility (24 CFR sections 5.230, 5.609, and 982.516). Reexamine family income and composition at least once every 12 months and adjust the tenant rent and housing assistance payment as necessary using the documentation from third party verification (24 CFR section 982.516).
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure HCV eligibility requirements were being met.
Questioned costs: $20,820
Context: During the testing of the HCV tenant files, certain eligibility compliance deficiencies were noted in 3 of 46 files:
(1) 2 of 40 sampled tenant files did not show evidence of an internal control checklist completed by the caseworker.
(2) 1 of 40 tenants was not properly terminated. Tenant did not complete 2023 annual review and was sent to be terminated. Termination was not followed through on until FY 2025.
Cause: Repeated change in staff left the file overlooked and the termination incomplete. The Authority failed to provide adequate monitoring and oversight to ensure compliance with HUD rules and regulations, as well as its administrative policy.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding the recertification of household circumstances within 12 months. The Authority is also not in compliance with its own administrative policy on the HCV program.
Recommendation: We recommend that the Authority review the controls in place to ensure that no tenants are overlooked, even when the original case manager is no longer an employee of the Authority.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: (1) According to the Authority’s internal procedures, case managers are to complete a checklist to keep in tenant file any time a new computation is created, be that for an annual, interim, or special reexamination. This must be signed and dated by the completing caseworker.
(2) According to the compliance supplement for the Housing Voucher Cluster, "The PHA must do the following: (1) As a condition of admission or continued occupancy, require the tenant and other family members to provide necessary information, documentation, and releases for the PHA to verify income eligibility (24 CFR sections 5.230, 5.609, and 982.516). Reexamine family income and composition at least once every 12 months and adjust the tenant rent and housing assistance payment as necessary using the documentation from third party verification (24 CFR section 982.516).
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure HCV eligibility requirements were being met.
Questioned costs: $20,820
Context: During the testing of the HCV tenant files, certain eligibility compliance deficiencies were noted in 3 of 46 files:
(1) 2 of 40 sampled tenant files did not show evidence of an internal control checklist completed by the caseworker.
(2) 1 of 40 tenants was not properly terminated. Tenant did not complete 2023 annual review and was sent to be terminated. Termination was not followed through on until FY 2025.
Cause: Repeated change in staff left the file overlooked and the termination incomplete. The Authority failed to provide adequate monitoring and oversight to ensure compliance with HUD rules and regulations, as well as its administrative policy.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding the recertification of household circumstances within 12 months. The Authority is also not in compliance with its own administrative policy on the HCV program.
Recommendation: We recommend that the Authority review the controls in place to ensure that no tenants are overlooked, even when the original case manager is no longer an employee of the Authority.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: (1) According to the Authority’s internal procedures, case managers are to complete a checklist to keep in tenant file any time a new computation is created, be that for an annual, interim, or special reexamination. This must be signed and dated by the completing caseworker.
(2) According to the compliance supplement for the Housing Voucher Cluster, "The PHA must do the following: (1) As a condition of admission or continued occupancy, require the tenant and other family members to provide necessary information, documentation, and releases for the PHA to verify income eligibility (24 CFR sections 5.230, 5.609, and 982.516). Reexamine family income and composition at least once every 12 months and adjust the tenant rent and housing assistance payment as necessary using the documentation from third party verification (24 CFR section 982.516).
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure HCV eligibility requirements were being met.
Questioned costs: $20,820
Context: During the testing of the HCV tenant files, certain eligibility compliance deficiencies were noted in 3 of 46 files:
(1) 2 of 40 sampled tenant files did not show evidence of an internal control checklist completed by the caseworker.
(2) 1 of 40 tenants was not properly terminated. Tenant did not complete 2023 annual review and was sent to be terminated. Termination was not followed through on until FY 2025.
Cause: Repeated change in staff left the file overlooked and the termination incomplete. The Authority failed to provide adequate monitoring and oversight to ensure compliance with HUD rules and regulations, as well as its administrative policy.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding the recertification of household circumstances within 12 months. The Authority is also not in compliance with its own administrative policy on the HCV program.
Recommendation: We recommend that the Authority review the controls in place to ensure that no tenants are overlooked, even when the original case manager is no longer an employee of the Authority.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: (1) According to the Authority’s internal procedures, case managers are to complete a checklist to keep in tenant file any time a new computation is created, be that for an annual, interim, or special reexamination. This must be signed and dated by the completing caseworker.
(2) According to the compliance supplement for the Housing Voucher Cluster, "The PHA must do the following: (1) As a condition of admission or continued occupancy, require the tenant and other family members to provide necessary information, documentation, and releases for the PHA to verify income eligibility (24 CFR sections 5.230, 5.609, and 982.516). Reexamine family income and composition at least once every 12 months and adjust the tenant rent and housing assistance payment as necessary using the documentation from third party verification (24 CFR section 982.516).
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure HCV eligibility requirements were being met.
Questioned costs: $20,820
Context: During the testing of the HCV tenant files, certain eligibility compliance deficiencies were noted in 3 of 46 files:
(1) 2 of 40 sampled tenant files did not show evidence of an internal control checklist completed by the caseworker.
(2) 1 of 40 tenants was not properly terminated. Tenant did not complete 2023 annual review and was sent to be terminated. Termination was not followed through on until FY 2025.
Cause: Repeated change in staff left the file overlooked and the termination incomplete. The Authority failed to provide adequate monitoring and oversight to ensure compliance with HUD rules and regulations, as well as its administrative policy.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding the recertification of household circumstances within 12 months. The Authority is also not in compliance with its own administrative policy on the HCV program.
Recommendation: We recommend that the Authority review the controls in place to ensure that no tenants are overlooked, even when the original case manager is no longer an employee of the Authority.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: (1) According to the Authority’s internal procedures, case managers are to complete a checklist to keep in tenant file any time a new computation is created, be that for an annual, interim, or special reexamination. This must be signed and dated by the completing caseworker.
(2) According to the compliance supplement for the Housing Voucher Cluster, "The PHA must do the following: (1) As a condition of admission or continued occupancy, require the tenant and other family members to provide necessary information, documentation, and releases for the PHA to verify income eligibility (24 CFR sections 5.230, 5.609, and 982.516). Reexamine family income and composition at least once every 12 months and adjust the tenant rent and housing assistance payment as necessary using the documentation from third party verification (24 CFR section 982.516).
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure HCV eligibility requirements were being met.
Questioned costs: $20,820
Context: During the testing of the HCV tenant files, certain eligibility compliance deficiencies were noted in 3 of 46 files:
(1) 2 of 40 sampled tenant files did not show evidence of an internal control checklist completed by the caseworker.
(2) 1 of 40 tenants was not properly terminated. Tenant did not complete 2023 annual review and was sent to be terminated. Termination was not followed through on until FY 2025.
Cause: Repeated change in staff left the file overlooked and the termination incomplete. The Authority failed to provide adequate monitoring and oversight to ensure compliance with HUD rules and regulations, as well as its administrative policy.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding the recertification of household circumstances within 12 months. The Authority is also not in compliance with its own administrative policy on the HCV program.
Recommendation: We recommend that the Authority review the controls in place to ensure that no tenants are overlooked, even when the original case manager is no longer an employee of the Authority.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: (1) According to the Authority’s internal procedures, case managers are to complete a checklist to keep in tenant file any time a new computation is created, be that for an annual, interim, or special reexamination. This must be signed and dated by the completing caseworker.
(2) According to the compliance supplement for the Housing Voucher Cluster, "The PHA must do the following: (1) As a condition of admission or continued occupancy, require the tenant and other family members to provide necessary information, documentation, and releases for the PHA to verify income eligibility (24 CFR sections 5.230, 5.609, and 982.516). Reexamine family income and composition at least once every 12 months and adjust the tenant rent and housing assistance payment as necessary using the documentation from third party verification (24 CFR section 982.516).
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure HCV eligibility requirements were being met.
Questioned costs: $20,820
Context: During the testing of the HCV tenant files, certain eligibility compliance deficiencies were noted in 3 of 46 files:
(1) 2 of 40 sampled tenant files did not show evidence of an internal control checklist completed by the caseworker.
(2) 1 of 40 tenants was not properly terminated. Tenant did not complete 2023 annual review and was sent to be terminated. Termination was not followed through on until FY 2025.
Cause: Repeated change in staff left the file overlooked and the termination incomplete. The Authority failed to provide adequate monitoring and oversight to ensure compliance with HUD rules and regulations, as well as its administrative policy.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding the recertification of household circumstances within 12 months. The Authority is also not in compliance with its own administrative policy on the HCV program.
Recommendation: We recommend that the Authority review the controls in place to ensure that no tenants are overlooked, even when the original case manager is no longer an employee of the Authority.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: (1) According to the Authority’s internal procedures, case managers are to complete a checklist to keep in tenant file any time a new computation is created, be that for an annual, interim, or special reexamination. This must be signed and dated by the completing caseworker.
(2) According to the compliance supplement for the Housing Voucher Cluster, "The PHA must do the following: (1) As a condition of admission or continued occupancy, require the tenant and other family members to provide necessary information, documentation, and releases for the PHA to verify income eligibility (24 CFR sections 5.230, 5.609, and 982.516). Reexamine family income and composition at least once every 12 months and adjust the tenant rent and housing assistance payment as necessary using the documentation from third party verification (24 CFR section 982.516).
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure HCV eligibility requirements were being met.
Questioned costs: $20,820
Context: During the testing of the HCV tenant files, certain eligibility compliance deficiencies were noted in 3 of 46 files:
(1) 2 of 40 sampled tenant files did not show evidence of an internal control checklist completed by the caseworker.
(2) 1 of 40 tenants was not properly terminated. Tenant did not complete 2023 annual review and was sent to be terminated. Termination was not followed through on until FY 2025.
Cause: Repeated change in staff left the file overlooked and the termination incomplete. The Authority failed to provide adequate monitoring and oversight to ensure compliance with HUD rules and regulations, as well as its administrative policy.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding the recertification of household circumstances within 12 months. The Authority is also not in compliance with its own administrative policy on the HCV program.
Recommendation: We recommend that the Authority review the controls in place to ensure that no tenants are overlooked, even when the original case manager is no longer an employee of the Authority.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: (1) According to the Authority’s internal procedures, case managers are to complete a checklist to keep in tenant file any time a new computation is created, be that for an annual, interim, or special reexamination. This must be signed and dated by the completing caseworker.
(2) According to the compliance supplement for the Housing Voucher Cluster, "The PHA must do the following: (1) As a condition of admission or continued occupancy, require the tenant and other family members to provide necessary information, documentation, and releases for the PHA to verify income eligibility (24 CFR sections 5.230, 5.609, and 982.516). Reexamine family income and composition at least once every 12 months and adjust the tenant rent and housing assistance payment as necessary using the documentation from third party verification (24 CFR section 982.516).
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure HCV eligibility requirements were being met.
Questioned costs: $20,820
Context: During the testing of the HCV tenant files, certain eligibility compliance deficiencies were noted in 3 of 46 files:
(1) 2 of 40 sampled tenant files did not show evidence of an internal control checklist completed by the caseworker.
(2) 1 of 40 tenants was not properly terminated. Tenant did not complete 2023 annual review and was sent to be terminated. Termination was not followed through on until FY 2025.
Cause: Repeated change in staff left the file overlooked and the termination incomplete. The Authority failed to provide adequate monitoring and oversight to ensure compliance with HUD rules and regulations, as well as its administrative policy.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding the recertification of household circumstances within 12 months. The Authority is also not in compliance with its own administrative policy on the HCV program.
Recommendation: We recommend that the Authority review the controls in place to ensure that no tenants are overlooked, even when the original case manager is no longer an employee of the Authority.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: (1) The PHA must inspect the unit leased to a family at least biennially to determine if the unit meets Housing Quality Standards (HQS) and the PHA must conduct quality control re-inspections. The PHA must prepare a unit inspection report (24 CFR sections 982.158(d) and 982.405(b)). However, NSPIRE for HCV and PBV programs, referred to as NSPIRE-V during HUD’s demonstration, was effective October 1, 2023, and replaced Housing Quality Standards (HQS), as previously defined in 24 CFR 982.401, as the inspection standards for these programs. As announced in the Federal Register, “Economic Growth Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act: Implementation of National Standards for the Physical Inspection of Real Estate (NSPIRE); Extension of NSPIRE Compliance Date for HCV Programs,” HUD extended the compliance date for HCV and PBV programs until October 1, 2024. This applies to all Public Housing Agencies (PHAs), including Moving-to-Work (MTW) PHAs, administering Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher programs.
(2) According to the Authority’s inspection procedures, inspection team initials and dates the comment box within the Yardi system when inspection is completed.
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that NSPIRE inspections were completed in accordance with compliance requirements.
Questioned costs: None
Context: During the testing of the HCV inspections, certain special provision compliance and internal control deficiencies were noted in 5 of 40 files:
(1) 3 out of 40 sampled inspections were not completed within the allotted time frame (bi- and tri-ennially, per HCV Administrative plan). These three did not overlap with the one issue noted below.
(2) 1 of 40 sampled inspections did not show evidence of inspector signoff -- one was missing entirely. This did not overlap with the three issues noted above.
Cause: Lots of turnover in the inspections department during the fiscal year. The Authority failed to provide adequate monitoring and oversight to ensure compliance with HUD rules and regulations, as well as its internal inspection procedures.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding housing quality standards and completing reinspections in a timely manner that aligns with its administrative plan. The Authority is not following its internal inspection procedures.
Recommendation: We recommend that the Authority review the controls in place to ensure that the inspections team can complete the reinspections in a timely manner and are knowledgeable of all internal procedures in place over inspections.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: (1) The PHA must inspect the unit leased to a family at least biennially to determine if the unit meets Housing Quality Standards (HQS) and the PHA must conduct quality control re-inspections. The PHA must prepare a unit inspection report (24 CFR sections 982.158(d) and 982.405(b)). However, NSPIRE for HCV and PBV programs, referred to as NSPIRE-V during HUD’s demonstration, was effective October 1, 2023, and replaced Housing Quality Standards (HQS), as previously defined in 24 CFR 982.401, as the inspection standards for these programs. As announced in the Federal Register, “Economic Growth Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act: Implementation of National Standards for the Physical Inspection of Real Estate (NSPIRE); Extension of NSPIRE Compliance Date for HCV Programs,” HUD extended the compliance date for HCV and PBV programs until October 1, 2024. This applies to all Public Housing Agencies (PHAs), including Moving-to-Work (MTW) PHAs, administering Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher programs.
(2) According to the Authority’s inspection procedures, inspection team initials and dates the comment box within the Yardi system when inspection is completed.
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that NSPIRE inspections were completed in accordance with compliance requirements.
Questioned costs: None
Context: During the testing of the HCV inspections, certain special provision compliance and internal control deficiencies were noted in 5 of 40 files:
(1) 3 out of 40 sampled inspections were not completed within the allotted time frame (bi- and tri-ennially, per HCV Administrative plan). These three did not overlap with the one issue noted below.
(2) 1 of 40 sampled inspections did not show evidence of inspector signoff -- one was missing entirely. This did not overlap with the three issues noted above.
Cause: Lots of turnover in the inspections department during the fiscal year. The Authority failed to provide adequate monitoring and oversight to ensure compliance with HUD rules and regulations, as well as its internal inspection procedures.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding housing quality standards and completing reinspections in a timely manner that aligns with its administrative plan. The Authority is not following its internal inspection procedures.
Recommendation: We recommend that the Authority review the controls in place to ensure that the inspections team can complete the reinspections in a timely manner and are knowledgeable of all internal procedures in place over inspections.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: (1) The PHA must inspect the unit leased to a family at least biennially to determine if the unit meets Housing Quality Standards (HQS) and the PHA must conduct quality control re-inspections. The PHA must prepare a unit inspection report (24 CFR sections 982.158(d) and 982.405(b)). However, NSPIRE for HCV and PBV programs, referred to as NSPIRE-V during HUD’s demonstration, was effective October 1, 2023, and replaced Housing Quality Standards (HQS), as previously defined in 24 CFR 982.401, as the inspection standards for these programs. As announced in the Federal Register, “Economic Growth Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act: Implementation of National Standards for the Physical Inspection of Real Estate (NSPIRE); Extension of NSPIRE Compliance Date for HCV Programs,” HUD extended the compliance date for HCV and PBV programs until October 1, 2024. This applies to all Public Housing Agencies (PHAs), including Moving-to-Work (MTW) PHAs, administering Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher programs.
(2) According to the Authority’s inspection procedures, inspection team initials and dates the comment box within the Yardi system when inspection is completed.
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that NSPIRE inspections were completed in accordance with compliance requirements.
Questioned costs: None
Context: During the testing of the HCV inspections, certain special provision compliance and internal control deficiencies were noted in 5 of 40 files:
(1) 3 out of 40 sampled inspections were not completed within the allotted time frame (bi- and tri-ennially, per HCV Administrative plan). These three did not overlap with the one issue noted below.
(2) 1 of 40 sampled inspections did not show evidence of inspector signoff -- one was missing entirely. This did not overlap with the three issues noted above.
Cause: Lots of turnover in the inspections department during the fiscal year. The Authority failed to provide adequate monitoring and oversight to ensure compliance with HUD rules and regulations, as well as its internal inspection procedures.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding housing quality standards and completing reinspections in a timely manner that aligns with its administrative plan. The Authority is not following its internal inspection procedures.
Recommendation: We recommend that the Authority review the controls in place to ensure that the inspections team can complete the reinspections in a timely manner and are knowledgeable of all internal procedures in place over inspections.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: (1) The PHA must inspect the unit leased to a family at least biennially to determine if the unit meets Housing Quality Standards (HQS) and the PHA must conduct quality control re-inspections. The PHA must prepare a unit inspection report (24 CFR sections 982.158(d) and 982.405(b)). However, NSPIRE for HCV and PBV programs, referred to as NSPIRE-V during HUD’s demonstration, was effective October 1, 2023, and replaced Housing Quality Standards (HQS), as previously defined in 24 CFR 982.401, as the inspection standards for these programs. As announced in the Federal Register, “Economic Growth Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act: Implementation of National Standards for the Physical Inspection of Real Estate (NSPIRE); Extension of NSPIRE Compliance Date for HCV Programs,” HUD extended the compliance date for HCV and PBV programs until October 1, 2024. This applies to all Public Housing Agencies (PHAs), including Moving-to-Work (MTW) PHAs, administering Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher programs.
(2) According to the Authority’s inspection procedures, inspection team initials and dates the comment box within the Yardi system when inspection is completed.
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that NSPIRE inspections were completed in accordance with compliance requirements.
Questioned costs: None
Context: During the testing of the HCV inspections, certain special provision compliance and internal control deficiencies were noted in 5 of 40 files:
(1) 3 out of 40 sampled inspections were not completed within the allotted time frame (bi- and tri-ennially, per HCV Administrative plan). These three did not overlap with the one issue noted below.
(2) 1 of 40 sampled inspections did not show evidence of inspector signoff -- one was missing entirely. This did not overlap with the three issues noted above.
Cause: Lots of turnover in the inspections department during the fiscal year. The Authority failed to provide adequate monitoring and oversight to ensure compliance with HUD rules and regulations, as well as its internal inspection procedures.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding housing quality standards and completing reinspections in a timely manner that aligns with its administrative plan. The Authority is not following its internal inspection procedures.
Recommendation: We recommend that the Authority review the controls in place to ensure that the inspections team can complete the reinspections in a timely manner and are knowledgeable of all internal procedures in place over inspections.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: (1) The PHA must inspect the unit leased to a family at least biennially to determine if the unit meets Housing Quality Standards (HQS) and the PHA must conduct quality control re-inspections. The PHA must prepare a unit inspection report (24 CFR sections 982.158(d) and 982.405(b)). However, NSPIRE for HCV and PBV programs, referred to as NSPIRE-V during HUD’s demonstration, was effective October 1, 2023, and replaced Housing Quality Standards (HQS), as previously defined in 24 CFR 982.401, as the inspection standards for these programs. As announced in the Federal Register, “Economic Growth Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act: Implementation of National Standards for the Physical Inspection of Real Estate (NSPIRE); Extension of NSPIRE Compliance Date for HCV Programs,” HUD extended the compliance date for HCV and PBV programs until October 1, 2024. This applies to all Public Housing Agencies (PHAs), including Moving-to-Work (MTW) PHAs, administering Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher programs.
(2) According to the Authority’s inspection procedures, inspection team initials and dates the comment box within the Yardi system when inspection is completed.
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that NSPIRE inspections were completed in accordance with compliance requirements.
Questioned costs: None
Context: During the testing of the HCV inspections, certain special provision compliance and internal control deficiencies were noted in 5 of 40 files:
(1) 3 out of 40 sampled inspections were not completed within the allotted time frame (bi- and tri-ennially, per HCV Administrative plan). These three did not overlap with the one issue noted below.
(2) 1 of 40 sampled inspections did not show evidence of inspector signoff -- one was missing entirely. This did not overlap with the three issues noted above.
Cause: Lots of turnover in the inspections department during the fiscal year. The Authority failed to provide adequate monitoring and oversight to ensure compliance with HUD rules and regulations, as well as its internal inspection procedures.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding housing quality standards and completing reinspections in a timely manner that aligns with its administrative plan. The Authority is not following its internal inspection procedures.
Recommendation: We recommend that the Authority review the controls in place to ensure that the inspections team can complete the reinspections in a timely manner and are knowledgeable of all internal procedures in place over inspections.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: (1) The PHA must inspect the unit leased to a family at least biennially to determine if the unit meets Housing Quality Standards (HQS) and the PHA must conduct quality control re-inspections. The PHA must prepare a unit inspection report (24 CFR sections 982.158(d) and 982.405(b)). However, NSPIRE for HCV and PBV programs, referred to as NSPIRE-V during HUD’s demonstration, was effective October 1, 2023, and replaced Housing Quality Standards (HQS), as previously defined in 24 CFR 982.401, as the inspection standards for these programs. As announced in the Federal Register, “Economic Growth Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act: Implementation of National Standards for the Physical Inspection of Real Estate (NSPIRE); Extension of NSPIRE Compliance Date for HCV Programs,” HUD extended the compliance date for HCV and PBV programs until October 1, 2024. This applies to all Public Housing Agencies (PHAs), including Moving-to-Work (MTW) PHAs, administering Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher programs.
(2) According to the Authority’s inspection procedures, inspection team initials and dates the comment box within the Yardi system when inspection is completed.
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that NSPIRE inspections were completed in accordance with compliance requirements.
Questioned costs: None
Context: During the testing of the HCV inspections, certain special provision compliance and internal control deficiencies were noted in 5 of 40 files:
(1) 3 out of 40 sampled inspections were not completed within the allotted time frame (bi- and tri-ennially, per HCV Administrative plan). These three did not overlap with the one issue noted below.
(2) 1 of 40 sampled inspections did not show evidence of inspector signoff -- one was missing entirely. This did not overlap with the three issues noted above.
Cause: Lots of turnover in the inspections department during the fiscal year. The Authority failed to provide adequate monitoring and oversight to ensure compliance with HUD rules and regulations, as well as its internal inspection procedures.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding housing quality standards and completing reinspections in a timely manner that aligns with its administrative plan. The Authority is not following its internal inspection procedures.
Recommendation: We recommend that the Authority review the controls in place to ensure that the inspections team can complete the reinspections in a timely manner and are knowledgeable of all internal procedures in place over inspections.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: (1) The PHA must inspect the unit leased to a family at least biennially to determine if the unit meets Housing Quality Standards (HQS) and the PHA must conduct quality control re-inspections. The PHA must prepare a unit inspection report (24 CFR sections 982.158(d) and 982.405(b)). However, NSPIRE for HCV and PBV programs, referred to as NSPIRE-V during HUD’s demonstration, was effective October 1, 2023, and replaced Housing Quality Standards (HQS), as previously defined in 24 CFR 982.401, as the inspection standards for these programs. As announced in the Federal Register, “Economic Growth Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act: Implementation of National Standards for the Physical Inspection of Real Estate (NSPIRE); Extension of NSPIRE Compliance Date for HCV Programs,” HUD extended the compliance date for HCV and PBV programs until October 1, 2024. This applies to all Public Housing Agencies (PHAs), including Moving-to-Work (MTW) PHAs, administering Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher programs.
(2) According to the Authority’s inspection procedures, inspection team initials and dates the comment box within the Yardi system when inspection is completed.
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that NSPIRE inspections were completed in accordance with compliance requirements.
Questioned costs: None
Context: During the testing of the HCV inspections, certain special provision compliance and internal control deficiencies were noted in 5 of 40 files:
(1) 3 out of 40 sampled inspections were not completed within the allotted time frame (bi- and tri-ennially, per HCV Administrative plan). These three did not overlap with the one issue noted below.
(2) 1 of 40 sampled inspections did not show evidence of inspector signoff -- one was missing entirely. This did not overlap with the three issues noted above.
Cause: Lots of turnover in the inspections department during the fiscal year. The Authority failed to provide adequate monitoring and oversight to ensure compliance with HUD rules and regulations, as well as its internal inspection procedures.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding housing quality standards and completing reinspections in a timely manner that aligns with its administrative plan. The Authority is not following its internal inspection procedures.
Recommendation: We recommend that the Authority review the controls in place to ensure that the inspections team can complete the reinspections in a timely manner and are knowledgeable of all internal procedures in place over inspections.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: (1) The PHA must inspect the unit leased to a family at least biennially to determine if the unit meets Housing Quality Standards (HQS) and the PHA must conduct quality control re-inspections. The PHA must prepare a unit inspection report (24 CFR sections 982.158(d) and 982.405(b)). However, NSPIRE for HCV and PBV programs, referred to as NSPIRE-V during HUD’s demonstration, was effective October 1, 2023, and replaced Housing Quality Standards (HQS), as previously defined in 24 CFR 982.401, as the inspection standards for these programs. As announced in the Federal Register, “Economic Growth Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act: Implementation of National Standards for the Physical Inspection of Real Estate (NSPIRE); Extension of NSPIRE Compliance Date for HCV Programs,” HUD extended the compliance date for HCV and PBV programs until October 1, 2024. This applies to all Public Housing Agencies (PHAs), including Moving-to-Work (MTW) PHAs, administering Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher programs.
(2) According to the Authority’s inspection procedures, inspection team initials and dates the comment box within the Yardi system when inspection is completed.
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that NSPIRE inspections were completed in accordance with compliance requirements.
Questioned costs: None
Context: During the testing of the HCV inspections, certain special provision compliance and internal control deficiencies were noted in 5 of 40 files:
(1) 3 out of 40 sampled inspections were not completed within the allotted time frame (bi- and tri-ennially, per HCV Administrative plan). These three did not overlap with the one issue noted below.
(2) 1 of 40 sampled inspections did not show evidence of inspector signoff -- one was missing entirely. This did not overlap with the three issues noted above.
Cause: Lots of turnover in the inspections department during the fiscal year. The Authority failed to provide adequate monitoring and oversight to ensure compliance with HUD rules and regulations, as well as its internal inspection procedures.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding housing quality standards and completing reinspections in a timely manner that aligns with its administrative plan. The Authority is not following its internal inspection procedures.
Recommendation: We recommend that the Authority review the controls in place to ensure that the inspections team can complete the reinspections in a timely manner and are knowledgeable of all internal procedures in place over inspections.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: (1) The PHA must inspect the unit leased to a family at least biennially to determine if the unit meets Housing Quality Standards (HQS) and the PHA must conduct quality control re-inspections. The PHA must prepare a unit inspection report (24 CFR sections 982.158(d) and 982.405(b)). However, NSPIRE for HCV and PBV programs, referred to as NSPIRE-V during HUD’s demonstration, was effective October 1, 2023, and replaced Housing Quality Standards (HQS), as previously defined in 24 CFR 982.401, as the inspection standards for these programs. As announced in the Federal Register, “Economic Growth Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act: Implementation of National Standards for the Physical Inspection of Real Estate (NSPIRE); Extension of NSPIRE Compliance Date for HCV Programs,” HUD extended the compliance date for HCV and PBV programs until October 1, 2024. This applies to all Public Housing Agencies (PHAs), including Moving-to-Work (MTW) PHAs, administering Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher programs.
(2) According to the Authority’s inspection procedures, inspection team initials and dates the comment box within the Yardi system when inspection is completed.
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that NSPIRE inspections were completed in accordance with compliance requirements.
Questioned costs: None
Context: During the testing of the HCV inspections, certain special provision compliance and internal control deficiencies were noted in 5 of 40 files:
(1) 3 out of 40 sampled inspections were not completed within the allotted time frame (bi- and tri-ennially, per HCV Administrative plan). These three did not overlap with the one issue noted below.
(2) 1 of 40 sampled inspections did not show evidence of inspector signoff -- one was missing entirely. This did not overlap with the three issues noted above.
Cause: Lots of turnover in the inspections department during the fiscal year. The Authority failed to provide adequate monitoring and oversight to ensure compliance with HUD rules and regulations, as well as its internal inspection procedures.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding housing quality standards and completing reinspections in a timely manner that aligns with its administrative plan. The Authority is not following its internal inspection procedures.
Recommendation: We recommend that the Authority review the controls in place to ensure that the inspections team can complete the reinspections in a timely manner and are knowledgeable of all internal procedures in place over inspections.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: (1) The PHA must inspect the unit leased to a family at least biennially to determine if the unit meets Housing Quality Standards (HQS) and the PHA must conduct quality control re-inspections. The PHA must prepare a unit inspection report (24 CFR sections 982.158(d) and 982.405(b)). However, NSPIRE for HCV and PBV programs, referred to as NSPIRE-V during HUD’s demonstration, was effective October 1, 2023, and replaced Housing Quality Standards (HQS), as previously defined in 24 CFR 982.401, as the inspection standards for these programs. As announced in the Federal Register, “Economic Growth Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act: Implementation of National Standards for the Physical Inspection of Real Estate (NSPIRE); Extension of NSPIRE Compliance Date for HCV Programs,” HUD extended the compliance date for HCV and PBV programs until October 1, 2024. This applies to all Public Housing Agencies (PHAs), including Moving-to-Work (MTW) PHAs, administering Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher programs.
(2) According to the Authority’s inspection procedures, inspection team initials and dates the comment box within the Yardi system when inspection is completed.
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that NSPIRE inspections were completed in accordance with compliance requirements.
Questioned costs: None
Context: During the testing of the HCV inspections, certain special provision compliance and internal control deficiencies were noted in 5 of 40 files:
(1) 3 out of 40 sampled inspections were not completed within the allotted time frame (bi- and tri-ennially, per HCV Administrative plan). These three did not overlap with the one issue noted below.
(2) 1 of 40 sampled inspections did not show evidence of inspector signoff -- one was missing entirely. This did not overlap with the three issues noted above.
Cause: Lots of turnover in the inspections department during the fiscal year. The Authority failed to provide adequate monitoring and oversight to ensure compliance with HUD rules and regulations, as well as its internal inspection procedures.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding housing quality standards and completing reinspections in a timely manner that aligns with its administrative plan. The Authority is not following its internal inspection procedures.
Recommendation: We recommend that the Authority review the controls in place to ensure that the inspections team can complete the reinspections in a timely manner and are knowledgeable of all internal procedures in place over inspections.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: (1) The PHA must inspect the unit leased to a family at least biennially to determine if the unit meets Housing Quality Standards (HQS) and the PHA must conduct quality control re-inspections. The PHA must prepare a unit inspection report (24 CFR sections 982.158(d) and 982.405(b)). However, NSPIRE for HCV and PBV programs, referred to as NSPIRE-V during HUD’s demonstration, was effective October 1, 2023, and replaced Housing Quality Standards (HQS), as previously defined in 24 CFR 982.401, as the inspection standards for these programs. As announced in the Federal Register, “Economic Growth Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act: Implementation of National Standards for the Physical Inspection of Real Estate (NSPIRE); Extension of NSPIRE Compliance Date for HCV Programs,” HUD extended the compliance date for HCV and PBV programs until October 1, 2024. This applies to all Public Housing Agencies (PHAs), including Moving-to-Work (MTW) PHAs, administering Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher programs.
(2) According to the Authority’s inspection procedures, inspection team initials and dates the comment box within the Yardi system when inspection is completed.
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that NSPIRE inspections were completed in accordance with compliance requirements.
Questioned costs: None
Context: During the testing of the HCV inspections, certain special provision compliance and internal control deficiencies were noted in 5 of 40 files:
(1) 3 out of 40 sampled inspections were not completed within the allotted time frame (bi- and tri-ennially, per HCV Administrative plan). These three did not overlap with the one issue noted below.
(2) 1 of 40 sampled inspections did not show evidence of inspector signoff -- one was missing entirely. This did not overlap with the three issues noted above.
Cause: Lots of turnover in the inspections department during the fiscal year. The Authority failed to provide adequate monitoring and oversight to ensure compliance with HUD rules and regulations, as well as its internal inspection procedures.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding housing quality standards and completing reinspections in a timely manner that aligns with its administrative plan. The Authority is not following its internal inspection procedures.
Recommendation: We recommend that the Authority review the controls in place to ensure that the inspections team can complete the reinspections in a timely manner and are knowledgeable of all internal procedures in place over inspections.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: According to the HCV Administrative Plan and 24 CFR 982.516, "It is required that all adult applicants and participants sign a Release of Information form. The purpose of this form is to facilitate automated data collection and computer matching from specific sources and provides the family’s consent only for the specific purposes listed on the form. HUD and the PHA may collect information from State Wage Information Collection Agencies (SWICAs) and current and former employers of adult family members. Only HUD is authorized to collect information directly from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Social Security Administration (SSA). Adult family members must sign other consent forms as needed to collect information relevant to the family’s eligibility and level of assistance."
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure MTW eligibility requirements were being met.
Questioned costs: None
Context: During the testing of the MTW tenant files, certain eligibility compliance deficiencies were noted in 3 out of 40 files:
(1) 3 out of 40 sampled tenant files did not have signed Release of Information consent forms documented in their file that were applicable to the eligible time frame.
Cause: The Authority failed to provide adequate monitoring and oversight to ensure compliance with MTW rules and regulations.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding the recertification of household circumstances within 12 months. The Authority is also not in compliance with its own administrative policy on the HCV program.
Recommendation: We recommend that the Authority review the controls in place to ensure that all required recertification documents are completed, signed, and in the tenant’s file.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: (1) According to the OMB Compliance Supplement for the Moving To Work Program, "MTW Agencies must ensure that housing assisted under the demonstration program meets housing quality standards established or approved by the Secretary. The HCV program regulations at 24 CFR sections 982.401 through 982.405 set forth basic housing quality standards (HQS) which all units must meet, and the PHA must verify by inspection, before initial assistance can be paid on behalf of a family and at least annually throughout the term of the assisted tenancy. Current HQS regulations consist of 13 key aspects of housing quality, performance requirements, and acceptability criteria to meet each performance requirement. HQS include requirements for all housing types, including single and multi-family dwelling units, as well as specific requirements for special housing types, such as manufactured homes, congregate housing, single room occupancy, shared housing, and group residences (Section 204(c)(3)(E) of Pub. L. No. 104-134 (42 USC 1437f (note)))."
(2) According to the Authority’s inspection procedures, inspection team initials and dates the comment box within the Yardi system when inspection is completed.
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that NSPIRE inspections were completed in accordance with compliance requirements.
Questioned costs: None
Context: During the testing of the MTW tenant files, certain eligibility compliance deficiencies were noted in 3 out of 40 files:
(1) 2 out of 40 sampled units did not have inspections completed in a timely manner. Only one unit’s issues overlapped with the issues noted below.
(2) 2 out of 40 sampled units did not provide the inspections results for the correct unit addresses that were being tested, and therefore did not meet the internal control requirement. Only one unit’s issues overlapped with the issues noted above.
Cause: Lots of turnover in the inspections department during the fiscal year. The Authority failed to provide adequate monitoring and oversight to ensure compliance with HUD rules and regulations, as well as its internal inspection procedures.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding housing quality standards and completing reinspections in a timely manner that aligns with its administrative plan. The Authority is not following its internal inspection procedures.
Repeat Finding: 2023 – 002
Recommendation: We recommend that the Authority review the controls in place to ensure that the inspections team can complete the reinspections in a timely manner and are knowledgeable of all internal procedures in place over inspections. We also recommend that the Authority review rules and internal controls in place around record retention for completed inspections.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: According to the OMB Compliance Supplement for the Moving To Work Program, "The information on [HUD-50058-MTW, Family Report] is submitted to HUD through the Inventory Management System/Public and Indian Housing Information Center (IMS/PIC). [...] Data must be submitted each time the PHA completes an admission, annual reexamination, interim reexamination, portability move-in, or other change of unit for a family. The PHA must also submit the Family Report when a family ends participation in the program or moves out of the PHA’s jurisdiction under portability."
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that all HUD-50058s were properly uploaded to the PIC system.
Questioned costs: None
Context: During the testing of the MTW tenant files, certain special reporting compliance deficiencies were noted in 1 out of 40 files:
(1) 1 out of 40 sampled tenant files did not have their updated HUD-50058 form uploaded into the PIC system. Form was incorrectly placed into a non-uploaded property code and, therefore, did not get uploaded.
Cause: The Authority failed to provide adequate monitoring and oversight to ensure compliance with MTW rules and regulations. The Yardi system in which the HUD-50058-MTW is created requires a certain property code to ensure it falls into the list pulled for PIC uploads.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding the recertification of household circumstances within 12 months. The Authority is also not in compliance with its own administrative policy on the HCV program.
Recommendation: We recommend that the Authority implement a higher-level review of the HUD-50058 listing that gets uploaded to the PIC system. We also recommend providing additional training to case management employees to ensure that they are aware of the necessity for the property code to be reported accurately.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: (1) For units under HAP contract that fail to meet HQS, the PHA must require the owner to correct any life threatening HQS deficiencies within 24 hours after the inspections and all other HQS deficiencies within 30 calendar days or within a specified PHA-approved extension. If the owner does not correct the cited HQS deficiencies within the specified correction period, the PHA must stop (abate) HAPs beginning no later than the first of the month following the specified correction period or must terminate the HAP contract. The owner is not responsible for a breach of HQS as a result of the family’s failure to pay for utilities for which the family is responsible under the lease or for tenant damage. For family-caused defects, if the family does not correct the cited HQS deficiencies within the specified correction period, the PHA must take prompt and vigorous action to enforce the family obligations (24 CFR sections 982.158(d) and 982.404).
(2) According to the HCV Administrative Plan, "The owner and the family will be notified in writing of the results of failed inspections. When an inspection identifies HQS failures, the PHA will determine (1) whether or not the failure is a life-threatening condition and (2) whether the family or owner is responsible. The notice of inspection results will inform the owner that if life-threatening conditions are not corrected within 24 hours, urgent conditions are not corrected within 72 hours and non-life-threatening conditions are not corrected within the specified time frame, the owner’s HAP will be abated in accordance with PHA policy. Likewise, in the case of family caused deficiencies the notice will inform the family that if corrections are not made within the specified time frame, the family’s assistance will be terminated in accordance with PHA policy."
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that failed inspections were completed in accordance with compliance requirements.
Questioned costs: $57,215
Context: During the testing of the HCV tenant files, certain special provision compliance deficiencies were noted in 14 of 40 files:
(1)(a) 9 out of 40 sampled inspections were not properly abated.
(b) 10 out of 40 files did not show evidence of timely repairs after inspection/reinspection.
(2) 10 out of 40 files did not show evidence of any communication to the tenant or landlord regarding failed inspection results.
Cause: The Authority faced high turnover rates in the case management department, causing a lot of issues to go unaddressed.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding minimum housing quality standards and was paying housing assistance for units that did not meet these standards.
Recommendation: We recommend management designate one person to oversee the inspection process to ensure that all inspections are being performed in a timely manner. Furthermore, management should ensure no HAP payments are issued for units that have not passed HQS housing inspections.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: (1) For units under HAP contract that fail to meet HQS, the PHA must require the owner to correct any life threatening HQS deficiencies within 24 hours after the inspections and all other HQS deficiencies within 30 calendar days or within a specified PHA-approved extension. If the owner does not correct the cited HQS deficiencies within the specified correction period, the PHA must stop (abate) HAPs beginning no later than the first of the month following the specified correction period or must terminate the HAP contract. The owner is not responsible for a breach of HQS as a result of the family’s failure to pay for utilities for which the family is responsible under the lease or for tenant damage. For family-caused defects, if the family does not correct the cited HQS deficiencies within the specified correction period, the PHA must take prompt and vigorous action to enforce the family obligations (24 CFR sections 982.158(d) and 982.404).
(2) According to the HCV Administrative Plan, "The owner and the family will be notified in writing of the results of failed inspections. When an inspection identifies HQS failures, the PHA will determine (1) whether or not the failure is a life-threatening condition and (2) whether the family or owner is responsible. The notice of inspection results will inform the owner that if life-threatening conditions are not corrected within 24 hours, urgent conditions are not corrected within 72 hours and non-life-threatening conditions are not corrected within the specified time frame, the owner’s HAP will be abated in accordance with PHA policy. Likewise, in the case of family caused deficiencies the notice will inform the family that if corrections are not made within the specified time frame, the family’s assistance will be terminated in accordance with PHA policy."
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that failed inspections were completed in accordance with compliance requirements.
Questioned costs: $57,215
Context: During the testing of the HCV tenant files, certain special provision compliance deficiencies were noted in 14 of 40 files:
(1)(a) 9 out of 40 sampled inspections were not properly abated.
(b) 10 out of 40 files did not show evidence of timely repairs after inspection/reinspection.
(2) 10 out of 40 files did not show evidence of any communication to the tenant or landlord regarding failed inspection results.
Cause: The Authority faced high turnover rates in the case management department, causing a lot of issues to go unaddressed.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding minimum housing quality standards and was paying housing assistance for units that did not meet these standards.
Recommendation: We recommend management designate one person to oversee the inspection process to ensure that all inspections are being performed in a timely manner. Furthermore, management should ensure no HAP payments are issued for units that have not passed HQS housing inspections.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: (1) For units under HAP contract that fail to meet HQS, the PHA must require the owner to correct any life threatening HQS deficiencies within 24 hours after the inspections and all other HQS deficiencies within 30 calendar days or within a specified PHA-approved extension. If the owner does not correct the cited HQS deficiencies within the specified correction period, the PHA must stop (abate) HAPs beginning no later than the first of the month following the specified correction period or must terminate the HAP contract. The owner is not responsible for a breach of HQS as a result of the family’s failure to pay for utilities for which the family is responsible under the lease or for tenant damage. For family-caused defects, if the family does not correct the cited HQS deficiencies within the specified correction period, the PHA must take prompt and vigorous action to enforce the family obligations (24 CFR sections 982.158(d) and 982.404).
(2) According to the HCV Administrative Plan, "The owner and the family will be notified in writing of the results of failed inspections. When an inspection identifies HQS failures, the PHA will determine (1) whether or not the failure is a life-threatening condition and (2) whether the family or owner is responsible. The notice of inspection results will inform the owner that if life-threatening conditions are not corrected within 24 hours, urgent conditions are not corrected within 72 hours and non-life-threatening conditions are not corrected within the specified time frame, the owner’s HAP will be abated in accordance with PHA policy. Likewise, in the case of family caused deficiencies the notice will inform the family that if corrections are not made within the specified time frame, the family’s assistance will be terminated in accordance with PHA policy."
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that failed inspections were completed in accordance with compliance requirements.
Questioned costs: $57,215
Context: During the testing of the HCV tenant files, certain special provision compliance deficiencies were noted in 14 of 40 files:
(1)(a) 9 out of 40 sampled inspections were not properly abated.
(b) 10 out of 40 files did not show evidence of timely repairs after inspection/reinspection.
(2) 10 out of 40 files did not show evidence of any communication to the tenant or landlord regarding failed inspection results.
Cause: The Authority faced high turnover rates in the case management department, causing a lot of issues to go unaddressed.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding minimum housing quality standards and was paying housing assistance for units that did not meet these standards.
Recommendation: We recommend management designate one person to oversee the inspection process to ensure that all inspections are being performed in a timely manner. Furthermore, management should ensure no HAP payments are issued for units that have not passed HQS housing inspections.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: (1) For units under HAP contract that fail to meet HQS, the PHA must require the owner to correct any life threatening HQS deficiencies within 24 hours after the inspections and all other HQS deficiencies within 30 calendar days or within a specified PHA-approved extension. If the owner does not correct the cited HQS deficiencies within the specified correction period, the PHA must stop (abate) HAPs beginning no later than the first of the month following the specified correction period or must terminate the HAP contract. The owner is not responsible for a breach of HQS as a result of the family’s failure to pay for utilities for which the family is responsible under the lease or for tenant damage. For family-caused defects, if the family does not correct the cited HQS deficiencies within the specified correction period, the PHA must take prompt and vigorous action to enforce the family obligations (24 CFR sections 982.158(d) and 982.404).
(2) According to the HCV Administrative Plan, "The owner and the family will be notified in writing of the results of failed inspections. When an inspection identifies HQS failures, the PHA will determine (1) whether or not the failure is a life-threatening condition and (2) whether the family or owner is responsible. The notice of inspection results will inform the owner that if life-threatening conditions are not corrected within 24 hours, urgent conditions are not corrected within 72 hours and non-life-threatening conditions are not corrected within the specified time frame, the owner’s HAP will be abated in accordance with PHA policy. Likewise, in the case of family caused deficiencies the notice will inform the family that if corrections are not made within the specified time frame, the family’s assistance will be terminated in accordance with PHA policy."
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that failed inspections were completed in accordance with compliance requirements.
Questioned costs: $57,215
Context: During the testing of the HCV tenant files, certain special provision compliance deficiencies were noted in 14 of 40 files:
(1)(a) 9 out of 40 sampled inspections were not properly abated.
(b) 10 out of 40 files did not show evidence of timely repairs after inspection/reinspection.
(2) 10 out of 40 files did not show evidence of any communication to the tenant or landlord regarding failed inspection results.
Cause: The Authority faced high turnover rates in the case management department, causing a lot of issues to go unaddressed.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding minimum housing quality standards and was paying housing assistance for units that did not meet these standards.
Recommendation: We recommend management designate one person to oversee the inspection process to ensure that all inspections are being performed in a timely manner. Furthermore, management should ensure no HAP payments are issued for units that have not passed HQS housing inspections.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: (1) For units under HAP contract that fail to meet HQS, the PHA must require the owner to correct any life threatening HQS deficiencies within 24 hours after the inspections and all other HQS deficiencies within 30 calendar days or within a specified PHA-approved extension. If the owner does not correct the cited HQS deficiencies within the specified correction period, the PHA must stop (abate) HAPs beginning no later than the first of the month following the specified correction period or must terminate the HAP contract. The owner is not responsible for a breach of HQS as a result of the family’s failure to pay for utilities for which the family is responsible under the lease or for tenant damage. For family-caused defects, if the family does not correct the cited HQS deficiencies within the specified correction period, the PHA must take prompt and vigorous action to enforce the family obligations (24 CFR sections 982.158(d) and 982.404).
(2) According to the HCV Administrative Plan, "The owner and the family will be notified in writing of the results of failed inspections. When an inspection identifies HQS failures, the PHA will determine (1) whether or not the failure is a life-threatening condition and (2) whether the family or owner is responsible. The notice of inspection results will inform the owner that if life-threatening conditions are not corrected within 24 hours, urgent conditions are not corrected within 72 hours and non-life-threatening conditions are not corrected within the specified time frame, the owner’s HAP will be abated in accordance with PHA policy. Likewise, in the case of family caused deficiencies the notice will inform the family that if corrections are not made within the specified time frame, the family’s assistance will be terminated in accordance with PHA policy."
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that failed inspections were completed in accordance with compliance requirements.
Questioned costs: $57,215
Context: During the testing of the HCV tenant files, certain special provision compliance deficiencies were noted in 14 of 40 files:
(1)(a) 9 out of 40 sampled inspections were not properly abated.
(b) 10 out of 40 files did not show evidence of timely repairs after inspection/reinspection.
(2) 10 out of 40 files did not show evidence of any communication to the tenant or landlord regarding failed inspection results.
Cause: The Authority faced high turnover rates in the case management department, causing a lot of issues to go unaddressed.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding minimum housing quality standards and was paying housing assistance for units that did not meet these standards.
Recommendation: We recommend management designate one person to oversee the inspection process to ensure that all inspections are being performed in a timely manner. Furthermore, management should ensure no HAP payments are issued for units that have not passed HQS housing inspections.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: (1) For units under HAP contract that fail to meet HQS, the PHA must require the owner to correct any life threatening HQS deficiencies within 24 hours after the inspections and all other HQS deficiencies within 30 calendar days or within a specified PHA-approved extension. If the owner does not correct the cited HQS deficiencies within the specified correction period, the PHA must stop (abate) HAPs beginning no later than the first of the month following the specified correction period or must terminate the HAP contract. The owner is not responsible for a breach of HQS as a result of the family’s failure to pay for utilities for which the family is responsible under the lease or for tenant damage. For family-caused defects, if the family does not correct the cited HQS deficiencies within the specified correction period, the PHA must take prompt and vigorous action to enforce the family obligations (24 CFR sections 982.158(d) and 982.404).
(2) According to the HCV Administrative Plan, "The owner and the family will be notified in writing of the results of failed inspections. When an inspection identifies HQS failures, the PHA will determine (1) whether or not the failure is a life-threatening condition and (2) whether the family or owner is responsible. The notice of inspection results will inform the owner that if life-threatening conditions are not corrected within 24 hours, urgent conditions are not corrected within 72 hours and non-life-threatening conditions are not corrected within the specified time frame, the owner’s HAP will be abated in accordance with PHA policy. Likewise, in the case of family caused deficiencies the notice will inform the family that if corrections are not made within the specified time frame, the family’s assistance will be terminated in accordance with PHA policy."
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that failed inspections were completed in accordance with compliance requirements.
Questioned costs: $57,215
Context: During the testing of the HCV tenant files, certain special provision compliance deficiencies were noted in 14 of 40 files:
(1)(a) 9 out of 40 sampled inspections were not properly abated.
(b) 10 out of 40 files did not show evidence of timely repairs after inspection/reinspection.
(2) 10 out of 40 files did not show evidence of any communication to the tenant or landlord regarding failed inspection results.
Cause: The Authority faced high turnover rates in the case management department, causing a lot of issues to go unaddressed.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding minimum housing quality standards and was paying housing assistance for units that did not meet these standards.
Recommendation: We recommend management designate one person to oversee the inspection process to ensure that all inspections are being performed in a timely manner. Furthermore, management should ensure no HAP payments are issued for units that have not passed HQS housing inspections.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: (1) For units under HAP contract that fail to meet HQS, the PHA must require the owner to correct any life threatening HQS deficiencies within 24 hours after the inspections and all other HQS deficiencies within 30 calendar days or within a specified PHA-approved extension. If the owner does not correct the cited HQS deficiencies within the specified correction period, the PHA must stop (abate) HAPs beginning no later than the first of the month following the specified correction period or must terminate the HAP contract. The owner is not responsible for a breach of HQS as a result of the family’s failure to pay for utilities for which the family is responsible under the lease or for tenant damage. For family-caused defects, if the family does not correct the cited HQS deficiencies within the specified correction period, the PHA must take prompt and vigorous action to enforce the family obligations (24 CFR sections 982.158(d) and 982.404).
(2) According to the HCV Administrative Plan, "The owner and the family will be notified in writing of the results of failed inspections. When an inspection identifies HQS failures, the PHA will determine (1) whether or not the failure is a life-threatening condition and (2) whether the family or owner is responsible. The notice of inspection results will inform the owner that if life-threatening conditions are not corrected within 24 hours, urgent conditions are not corrected within 72 hours and non-life-threatening conditions are not corrected within the specified time frame, the owner’s HAP will be abated in accordance with PHA policy. Likewise, in the case of family caused deficiencies the notice will inform the family that if corrections are not made within the specified time frame, the family’s assistance will be terminated in accordance with PHA policy."
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that failed inspections were completed in accordance with compliance requirements.
Questioned costs: $57,215
Context: During the testing of the HCV tenant files, certain special provision compliance deficiencies were noted in 14 of 40 files:
(1)(a) 9 out of 40 sampled inspections were not properly abated.
(b) 10 out of 40 files did not show evidence of timely repairs after inspection/reinspection.
(2) 10 out of 40 files did not show evidence of any communication to the tenant or landlord regarding failed inspection results.
Cause: The Authority faced high turnover rates in the case management department, causing a lot of issues to go unaddressed.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding minimum housing quality standards and was paying housing assistance for units that did not meet these standards.
Recommendation: We recommend management designate one person to oversee the inspection process to ensure that all inspections are being performed in a timely manner. Furthermore, management should ensure no HAP payments are issued for units that have not passed HQS housing inspections.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: (1) For units under HAP contract that fail to meet HQS, the PHA must require the owner to correct any life threatening HQS deficiencies within 24 hours after the inspections and all other HQS deficiencies within 30 calendar days or within a specified PHA-approved extension. If the owner does not correct the cited HQS deficiencies within the specified correction period, the PHA must stop (abate) HAPs beginning no later than the first of the month following the specified correction period or must terminate the HAP contract. The owner is not responsible for a breach of HQS as a result of the family’s failure to pay for utilities for which the family is responsible under the lease or for tenant damage. For family-caused defects, if the family does not correct the cited HQS deficiencies within the specified correction period, the PHA must take prompt and vigorous action to enforce the family obligations (24 CFR sections 982.158(d) and 982.404).
(2) According to the HCV Administrative Plan, "The owner and the family will be notified in writing of the results of failed inspections. When an inspection identifies HQS failures, the PHA will determine (1) whether or not the failure is a life-threatening condition and (2) whether the family or owner is responsible. The notice of inspection results will inform the owner that if life-threatening conditions are not corrected within 24 hours, urgent conditions are not corrected within 72 hours and non-life-threatening conditions are not corrected within the specified time frame, the owner’s HAP will be abated in accordance with PHA policy. Likewise, in the case of family caused deficiencies the notice will inform the family that if corrections are not made within the specified time frame, the family’s assistance will be terminated in accordance with PHA policy."
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that failed inspections were completed in accordance with compliance requirements.
Questioned costs: $57,215
Context: During the testing of the HCV tenant files, certain special provision compliance deficiencies were noted in 14 of 40 files:
(1)(a) 9 out of 40 sampled inspections were not properly abated.
(b) 10 out of 40 files did not show evidence of timely repairs after inspection/reinspection.
(2) 10 out of 40 files did not show evidence of any communication to the tenant or landlord regarding failed inspection results.
Cause: The Authority faced high turnover rates in the case management department, causing a lot of issues to go unaddressed.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding minimum housing quality standards and was paying housing assistance for units that did not meet these standards.
Recommendation: We recommend management designate one person to oversee the inspection process to ensure that all inspections are being performed in a timely manner. Furthermore, management should ensure no HAP payments are issued for units that have not passed HQS housing inspections.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: (1) For units under HAP contract that fail to meet HQS, the PHA must require the owner to correct any life threatening HQS deficiencies within 24 hours after the inspections and all other HQS deficiencies within 30 calendar days or within a specified PHA-approved extension. If the owner does not correct the cited HQS deficiencies within the specified correction period, the PHA must stop (abate) HAPs beginning no later than the first of the month following the specified correction period or must terminate the HAP contract. The owner is not responsible for a breach of HQS as a result of the family’s failure to pay for utilities for which the family is responsible under the lease or for tenant damage. For family-caused defects, if the family does not correct the cited HQS deficiencies within the specified correction period, the PHA must take prompt and vigorous action to enforce the family obligations (24 CFR sections 982.158(d) and 982.404).
(2) According to the HCV Administrative Plan, "The owner and the family will be notified in writing of the results of failed inspections. When an inspection identifies HQS failures, the PHA will determine (1) whether or not the failure is a life-threatening condition and (2) whether the family or owner is responsible. The notice of inspection results will inform the owner that if life-threatening conditions are not corrected within 24 hours, urgent conditions are not corrected within 72 hours and non-life-threatening conditions are not corrected within the specified time frame, the owner’s HAP will be abated in accordance with PHA policy. Likewise, in the case of family caused deficiencies the notice will inform the family that if corrections are not made within the specified time frame, the family’s assistance will be terminated in accordance with PHA policy."
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that failed inspections were completed in accordance with compliance requirements.
Questioned costs: $57,215
Context: During the testing of the HCV tenant files, certain special provision compliance deficiencies were noted in 14 of 40 files:
(1)(a) 9 out of 40 sampled inspections were not properly abated.
(b) 10 out of 40 files did not show evidence of timely repairs after inspection/reinspection.
(2) 10 out of 40 files did not show evidence of any communication to the tenant or landlord regarding failed inspection results.
Cause: The Authority faced high turnover rates in the case management department, causing a lot of issues to go unaddressed.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding minimum housing quality standards and was paying housing assistance for units that did not meet these standards.
Recommendation: We recommend management designate one person to oversee the inspection process to ensure that all inspections are being performed in a timely manner. Furthermore, management should ensure no HAP payments are issued for units that have not passed HQS housing inspections.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: (1) For units under HAP contract that fail to meet HQS, the PHA must require the owner to correct any life threatening HQS deficiencies within 24 hours after the inspections and all other HQS deficiencies within 30 calendar days or within a specified PHA-approved extension. If the owner does not correct the cited HQS deficiencies within the specified correction period, the PHA must stop (abate) HAPs beginning no later than the first of the month following the specified correction period or must terminate the HAP contract. The owner is not responsible for a breach of HQS as a result of the family’s failure to pay for utilities for which the family is responsible under the lease or for tenant damage. For family-caused defects, if the family does not correct the cited HQS deficiencies within the specified correction period, the PHA must take prompt and vigorous action to enforce the family obligations (24 CFR sections 982.158(d) and 982.404).
(2) According to the HCV Administrative Plan, "The owner and the family will be notified in writing of the results of failed inspections. When an inspection identifies HQS failures, the PHA will determine (1) whether or not the failure is a life-threatening condition and (2) whether the family or owner is responsible. The notice of inspection results will inform the owner that if life-threatening conditions are not corrected within 24 hours, urgent conditions are not corrected within 72 hours and non-life-threatening conditions are not corrected within the specified time frame, the owner’s HAP will be abated in accordance with PHA policy. Likewise, in the case of family caused deficiencies the notice will inform the family that if corrections are not made within the specified time frame, the family’s assistance will be terminated in accordance with PHA policy."
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that failed inspections were completed in accordance with compliance requirements.
Questioned costs: $57,215
Context: During the testing of the HCV tenant files, certain special provision compliance deficiencies were noted in 14 of 40 files:
(1)(a) 9 out of 40 sampled inspections were not properly abated.
(b) 10 out of 40 files did not show evidence of timely repairs after inspection/reinspection.
(2) 10 out of 40 files did not show evidence of any communication to the tenant or landlord regarding failed inspection results.
Cause: The Authority faced high turnover rates in the case management department, causing a lot of issues to go unaddressed.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding minimum housing quality standards and was paying housing assistance for units that did not meet these standards.
Recommendation: We recommend management designate one person to oversee the inspection process to ensure that all inspections are being performed in a timely manner. Furthermore, management should ensure no HAP payments are issued for units that have not passed HQS housing inspections.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: (1) For units under HAP contract that fail to meet HQS, the PHA must require the owner to correct any life threatening HQS deficiencies within 24 hours after the inspections and all other HQS deficiencies within 30 calendar days or within a specified PHA-approved extension. If the owner does not correct the cited HQS deficiencies within the specified correction period, the PHA must stop (abate) HAPs beginning no later than the first of the month following the specified correction period or must terminate the HAP contract. The owner is not responsible for a breach of HQS as a result of the family’s failure to pay for utilities for which the family is responsible under the lease or for tenant damage. For family-caused defects, if the family does not correct the cited HQS deficiencies within the specified correction period, the PHA must take prompt and vigorous action to enforce the family obligations (24 CFR sections 982.158(d) and 982.404).
(2) According to the HCV Administrative Plan, "The owner and the family will be notified in writing of the results of failed inspections. When an inspection identifies HQS failures, the PHA will determine (1) whether or not the failure is a life-threatening condition and (2) whether the family or owner is responsible. The notice of inspection results will inform the owner that if life-threatening conditions are not corrected within 24 hours, urgent conditions are not corrected within 72 hours and non-life-threatening conditions are not corrected within the specified time frame, the owner’s HAP will be abated in accordance with PHA policy. Likewise, in the case of family caused deficiencies the notice will inform the family that if corrections are not made within the specified time frame, the family’s assistance will be terminated in accordance with PHA policy."
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that failed inspections were completed in accordance with compliance requirements.
Questioned costs: $57,215
Context: During the testing of the HCV tenant files, certain special provision compliance deficiencies were noted in 14 of 40 files:
(1)(a) 9 out of 40 sampled inspections were not properly abated.
(b) 10 out of 40 files did not show evidence of timely repairs after inspection/reinspection.
(2) 10 out of 40 files did not show evidence of any communication to the tenant or landlord regarding failed inspection results.
Cause: The Authority faced high turnover rates in the case management department, causing a lot of issues to go unaddressed.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding minimum housing quality standards and was paying housing assistance for units that did not meet these standards.
Recommendation: We recommend management designate one person to oversee the inspection process to ensure that all inspections are being performed in a timely manner. Furthermore, management should ensure no HAP payments are issued for units that have not passed HQS housing inspections.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: The PHA must determine that the rent to the owner is reasonable at the time of initial leasing. Also, the PHA must determine reasonable rent during the term of the contract (a) before any increase in the rent to owner, and (b) at the HAP contract anniversary if there is a 10% decrease in the published Fair Market Rent in effect 60 days before the HAP contract anniversary. The PHA must maintain records to document the basis for the determination that rent to owner is a reasonable rent (initially and during the term of the HAP contract) (24 CFR sections 982.4, 982.54(d)(15), 982.158(f)(7), and 982.507).
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that rent reasonableness was completed in accordance with compliance requirements.
Questioned costs: $3,817
Context: During the testing of the HCV tenant files, certain special provision compliance deficiencies were noted in 3 of 46 files:
(1) 1 out of 29 tenant’s rent reasonableness determination was not found in file.
(2) 2 out of 17 tenants’ rent per 50058 and HAP contract did not match that on the rent reasonableness determination.
Cause: The Authority faced high turnover rates in the case management department, causing a lot of issues to go unaddressed.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding rent reasonableness determination.
Recommendation: We recommend management designate one person to oversee the rent reasonableness determination for new tenants and contract rent changes to ensure rent reasonableness is completed properly and accurately flows to the HAP contract and HUD-50058 form.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: The PHA must determine that the rent to the owner is reasonable at the time of initial leasing. Also, the PHA must determine reasonable rent during the term of the contract (a) before any increase in the rent to owner, and (b) at the HAP contract anniversary if there is a 10% decrease in the published Fair Market Rent in effect 60 days before the HAP contract anniversary. The PHA must maintain records to document the basis for the determination that rent to owner is a reasonable rent (initially and during the term of the HAP contract) (24 CFR sections 982.4, 982.54(d)(15), 982.158(f)(7), and 982.507).
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that rent reasonableness was completed in accordance with compliance requirements.
Questioned costs: $3,817
Context: During the testing of the HCV tenant files, certain special provision compliance deficiencies were noted in 3 of 46 files:
(1) 1 out of 29 tenant’s rent reasonableness determination was not found in file.
(2) 2 out of 17 tenants’ rent per 50058 and HAP contract did not match that on the rent reasonableness determination.
Cause: The Authority faced high turnover rates in the case management department, causing a lot of issues to go unaddressed.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding rent reasonableness determination.
Recommendation: We recommend management designate one person to oversee the rent reasonableness determination for new tenants and contract rent changes to ensure rent reasonableness is completed properly and accurately flows to the HAP contract and HUD-50058 form.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: The PHA must determine that the rent to the owner is reasonable at the time of initial leasing. Also, the PHA must determine reasonable rent during the term of the contract (a) before any increase in the rent to owner, and (b) at the HAP contract anniversary if there is a 10% decrease in the published Fair Market Rent in effect 60 days before the HAP contract anniversary. The PHA must maintain records to document the basis for the determination that rent to owner is a reasonable rent (initially and during the term of the HAP contract) (24 CFR sections 982.4, 982.54(d)(15), 982.158(f)(7), and 982.507).
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that rent reasonableness was completed in accordance with compliance requirements.
Questioned costs: $3,817
Context: During the testing of the HCV tenant files, certain special provision compliance deficiencies were noted in 3 of 46 files:
(1) 1 out of 29 tenant’s rent reasonableness determination was not found in file.
(2) 2 out of 17 tenants’ rent per 50058 and HAP contract did not match that on the rent reasonableness determination.
Cause: The Authority faced high turnover rates in the case management department, causing a lot of issues to go unaddressed.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding rent reasonableness determination.
Recommendation: We recommend management designate one person to oversee the rent reasonableness determination for new tenants and contract rent changes to ensure rent reasonableness is completed properly and accurately flows to the HAP contract and HUD-50058 form.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: The PHA must determine that the rent to the owner is reasonable at the time of initial leasing. Also, the PHA must determine reasonable rent during the term of the contract (a) before any increase in the rent to owner, and (b) at the HAP contract anniversary if there is a 10% decrease in the published Fair Market Rent in effect 60 days before the HAP contract anniversary. The PHA must maintain records to document the basis for the determination that rent to owner is a reasonable rent (initially and during the term of the HAP contract) (24 CFR sections 982.4, 982.54(d)(15), 982.158(f)(7), and 982.507).
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that rent reasonableness was completed in accordance with compliance requirements.
Questioned costs: $3,817
Context: During the testing of the HCV tenant files, certain special provision compliance deficiencies were noted in 3 of 46 files:
(1) 1 out of 29 tenant’s rent reasonableness determination was not found in file.
(2) 2 out of 17 tenants’ rent per 50058 and HAP contract did not match that on the rent reasonableness determination.
Cause: The Authority faced high turnover rates in the case management department, causing a lot of issues to go unaddressed.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding rent reasonableness determination.
Recommendation: We recommend management designate one person to oversee the rent reasonableness determination for new tenants and contract rent changes to ensure rent reasonableness is completed properly and accurately flows to the HAP contract and HUD-50058 form.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: The PHA must determine that the rent to the owner is reasonable at the time of initial leasing. Also, the PHA must determine reasonable rent during the term of the contract (a) before any increase in the rent to owner, and (b) at the HAP contract anniversary if there is a 10% decrease in the published Fair Market Rent in effect 60 days before the HAP contract anniversary. The PHA must maintain records to document the basis for the determination that rent to owner is a reasonable rent (initially and during the term of the HAP contract) (24 CFR sections 982.4, 982.54(d)(15), 982.158(f)(7), and 982.507).
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that rent reasonableness was completed in accordance with compliance requirements.
Questioned costs: $3,817
Context: During the testing of the HCV tenant files, certain special provision compliance deficiencies were noted in 3 of 46 files:
(1) 1 out of 29 tenant’s rent reasonableness determination was not found in file.
(2) 2 out of 17 tenants’ rent per 50058 and HAP contract did not match that on the rent reasonableness determination.
Cause: The Authority faced high turnover rates in the case management department, causing a lot of issues to go unaddressed.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding rent reasonableness determination.
Recommendation: We recommend management designate one person to oversee the rent reasonableness determination for new tenants and contract rent changes to ensure rent reasonableness is completed properly and accurately flows to the HAP contract and HUD-50058 form.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: The PHA must determine that the rent to the owner is reasonable at the time of initial leasing. Also, the PHA must determine reasonable rent during the term of the contract (a) before any increase in the rent to owner, and (b) at the HAP contract anniversary if there is a 10% decrease in the published Fair Market Rent in effect 60 days before the HAP contract anniversary. The PHA must maintain records to document the basis for the determination that rent to owner is a reasonable rent (initially and during the term of the HAP contract) (24 CFR sections 982.4, 982.54(d)(15), 982.158(f)(7), and 982.507).
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that rent reasonableness was completed in accordance with compliance requirements.
Questioned costs: $3,817
Context: During the testing of the HCV tenant files, certain special provision compliance deficiencies were noted in 3 of 46 files:
(1) 1 out of 29 tenant’s rent reasonableness determination was not found in file.
(2) 2 out of 17 tenants’ rent per 50058 and HAP contract did not match that on the rent reasonableness determination.
Cause: The Authority faced high turnover rates in the case management department, causing a lot of issues to go unaddressed.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding rent reasonableness determination.
Recommendation: We recommend management designate one person to oversee the rent reasonableness determination for new tenants and contract rent changes to ensure rent reasonableness is completed properly and accurately flows to the HAP contract and HUD-50058 form.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: The PHA must determine that the rent to the owner is reasonable at the time of initial leasing. Also, the PHA must determine reasonable rent during the term of the contract (a) before any increase in the rent to owner, and (b) at the HAP contract anniversary if there is a 10% decrease in the published Fair Market Rent in effect 60 days before the HAP contract anniversary. The PHA must maintain records to document the basis for the determination that rent to owner is a reasonable rent (initially and during the term of the HAP contract) (24 CFR sections 982.4, 982.54(d)(15), 982.158(f)(7), and 982.507).
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that rent reasonableness was completed in accordance with compliance requirements.
Questioned costs: $3,817
Context: During the testing of the HCV tenant files, certain special provision compliance deficiencies were noted in 3 of 46 files:
(1) 1 out of 29 tenant’s rent reasonableness determination was not found in file.
(2) 2 out of 17 tenants’ rent per 50058 and HAP contract did not match that on the rent reasonableness determination.
Cause: The Authority faced high turnover rates in the case management department, causing a lot of issues to go unaddressed.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding rent reasonableness determination.
Recommendation: We recommend management designate one person to oversee the rent reasonableness determination for new tenants and contract rent changes to ensure rent reasonableness is completed properly and accurately flows to the HAP contract and HUD-50058 form.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: The PHA must determine that the rent to the owner is reasonable at the time of initial leasing. Also, the PHA must determine reasonable rent during the term of the contract (a) before any increase in the rent to owner, and (b) at the HAP contract anniversary if there is a 10% decrease in the published Fair Market Rent in effect 60 days before the HAP contract anniversary. The PHA must maintain records to document the basis for the determination that rent to owner is a reasonable rent (initially and during the term of the HAP contract) (24 CFR sections 982.4, 982.54(d)(15), 982.158(f)(7), and 982.507).
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that rent reasonableness was completed in accordance with compliance requirements.
Questioned costs: $3,817
Context: During the testing of the HCV tenant files, certain special provision compliance deficiencies were noted in 3 of 46 files:
(1) 1 out of 29 tenant’s rent reasonableness determination was not found in file.
(2) 2 out of 17 tenants’ rent per 50058 and HAP contract did not match that on the rent reasonableness determination.
Cause: The Authority faced high turnover rates in the case management department, causing a lot of issues to go unaddressed.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding rent reasonableness determination.
Recommendation: We recommend management designate one person to oversee the rent reasonableness determination for new tenants and contract rent changes to ensure rent reasonableness is completed properly and accurately flows to the HAP contract and HUD-50058 form.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: The PHA must determine that the rent to the owner is reasonable at the time of initial leasing. Also, the PHA must determine reasonable rent during the term of the contract (a) before any increase in the rent to owner, and (b) at the HAP contract anniversary if there is a 10% decrease in the published Fair Market Rent in effect 60 days before the HAP contract anniversary. The PHA must maintain records to document the basis for the determination that rent to owner is a reasonable rent (initially and during the term of the HAP contract) (24 CFR sections 982.4, 982.54(d)(15), 982.158(f)(7), and 982.507).
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that rent reasonableness was completed in accordance with compliance requirements.
Questioned costs: $3,817
Context: During the testing of the HCV tenant files, certain special provision compliance deficiencies were noted in 3 of 46 files:
(1) 1 out of 29 tenant’s rent reasonableness determination was not found in file.
(2) 2 out of 17 tenants’ rent per 50058 and HAP contract did not match that on the rent reasonableness determination.
Cause: The Authority faced high turnover rates in the case management department, causing a lot of issues to go unaddressed.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding rent reasonableness determination.
Recommendation: We recommend management designate one person to oversee the rent reasonableness determination for new tenants and contract rent changes to ensure rent reasonableness is completed properly and accurately flows to the HAP contract and HUD-50058 form.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: The PHA must determine that the rent to the owner is reasonable at the time of initial leasing. Also, the PHA must determine reasonable rent during the term of the contract (a) before any increase in the rent to owner, and (b) at the HAP contract anniversary if there is a 10% decrease in the published Fair Market Rent in effect 60 days before the HAP contract anniversary. The PHA must maintain records to document the basis for the determination that rent to owner is a reasonable rent (initially and during the term of the HAP contract) (24 CFR sections 982.4, 982.54(d)(15), 982.158(f)(7), and 982.507).
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that rent reasonableness was completed in accordance with compliance requirements.
Questioned costs: $3,817
Context: During the testing of the HCV tenant files, certain special provision compliance deficiencies were noted in 3 of 46 files:
(1) 1 out of 29 tenant’s rent reasonableness determination was not found in file.
(2) 2 out of 17 tenants’ rent per 50058 and HAP contract did not match that on the rent reasonableness determination.
Cause: The Authority faced high turnover rates in the case management department, causing a lot of issues to go unaddressed.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding rent reasonableness determination.
Recommendation: We recommend management designate one person to oversee the rent reasonableness determination for new tenants and contract rent changes to ensure rent reasonableness is completed properly and accurately flows to the HAP contract and HUD-50058 form.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: The PHA must determine that the rent to the owner is reasonable at the time of initial leasing. Also, the PHA must determine reasonable rent during the term of the contract (a) before any increase in the rent to owner, and (b) at the HAP contract anniversary if there is a 10% decrease in the published Fair Market Rent in effect 60 days before the HAP contract anniversary. The PHA must maintain records to document the basis for the determination that rent to owner is a reasonable rent (initially and during the term of the HAP contract) (24 CFR sections 982.4, 982.54(d)(15), 982.158(f)(7), and 982.507).
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that rent reasonableness was completed in accordance with compliance requirements.
Questioned costs: $3,817
Context: During the testing of the HCV tenant files, certain special provision compliance deficiencies were noted in 3 of 46 files:
(1) 1 out of 29 tenant’s rent reasonableness determination was not found in file.
(2) 2 out of 17 tenants’ rent per 50058 and HAP contract did not match that on the rent reasonableness determination.
Cause: The Authority faced high turnover rates in the case management department, causing a lot of issues to go unaddressed.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding rent reasonableness determination.
Recommendation: We recommend management designate one person to oversee the rent reasonableness determination for new tenants and contract rent changes to ensure rent reasonableness is completed properly and accurately flows to the HAP contract and HUD-50058 form.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: (1) According to the Authority’s internal procedures, case managers are to complete a checklist to keep in tenant file any time a new computation is created, be that for an annual, interim, or special reexamination. This must be signed and dated by the completing caseworker.
(2) According to the compliance supplement for the Housing Voucher Cluster, "The PHA must do the following: (1) As a condition of admission or continued occupancy, require the tenant and other family members to provide necessary information, documentation, and releases for the PHA to verify income eligibility (24 CFR sections 5.230, 5.609, and 982.516). Reexamine family income and composition at least once every 12 months and adjust the tenant rent and housing assistance payment as necessary using the documentation from third party verification (24 CFR section 982.516).
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure HCV eligibility requirements were being met.
Questioned costs: $20,820
Context: During the testing of the HCV tenant files, certain eligibility compliance deficiencies were noted in 3 of 46 files:
(1) 2 of 40 sampled tenant files did not show evidence of an internal control checklist completed by the caseworker.
(2) 1 of 40 tenants was not properly terminated. Tenant did not complete 2023 annual review and was sent to be terminated. Termination was not followed through on until FY 2025.
Cause: Repeated change in staff left the file overlooked and the termination incomplete. The Authority failed to provide adequate monitoring and oversight to ensure compliance with HUD rules and regulations, as well as its administrative policy.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding the recertification of household circumstances within 12 months. The Authority is also not in compliance with its own administrative policy on the HCV program.
Recommendation: We recommend that the Authority review the controls in place to ensure that no tenants are overlooked, even when the original case manager is no longer an employee of the Authority.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: (1) According to the Authority’s internal procedures, case managers are to complete a checklist to keep in tenant file any time a new computation is created, be that for an annual, interim, or special reexamination. This must be signed and dated by the completing caseworker.
(2) According to the compliance supplement for the Housing Voucher Cluster, "The PHA must do the following: (1) As a condition of admission or continued occupancy, require the tenant and other family members to provide necessary information, documentation, and releases for the PHA to verify income eligibility (24 CFR sections 5.230, 5.609, and 982.516). Reexamine family income and composition at least once every 12 months and adjust the tenant rent and housing assistance payment as necessary using the documentation from third party verification (24 CFR section 982.516).
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure HCV eligibility requirements were being met.
Questioned costs: $20,820
Context: During the testing of the HCV tenant files, certain eligibility compliance deficiencies were noted in 3 of 46 files:
(1) 2 of 40 sampled tenant files did not show evidence of an internal control checklist completed by the caseworker.
(2) 1 of 40 tenants was not properly terminated. Tenant did not complete 2023 annual review and was sent to be terminated. Termination was not followed through on until FY 2025.
Cause: Repeated change in staff left the file overlooked and the termination incomplete. The Authority failed to provide adequate monitoring and oversight to ensure compliance with HUD rules and regulations, as well as its administrative policy.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding the recertification of household circumstances within 12 months. The Authority is also not in compliance with its own administrative policy on the HCV program.
Recommendation: We recommend that the Authority review the controls in place to ensure that no tenants are overlooked, even when the original case manager is no longer an employee of the Authority.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: (1) According to the Authority’s internal procedures, case managers are to complete a checklist to keep in tenant file any time a new computation is created, be that for an annual, interim, or special reexamination. This must be signed and dated by the completing caseworker.
(2) According to the compliance supplement for the Housing Voucher Cluster, "The PHA must do the following: (1) As a condition of admission or continued occupancy, require the tenant and other family members to provide necessary information, documentation, and releases for the PHA to verify income eligibility (24 CFR sections 5.230, 5.609, and 982.516). Reexamine family income and composition at least once every 12 months and adjust the tenant rent and housing assistance payment as necessary using the documentation from third party verification (24 CFR section 982.516).
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure HCV eligibility requirements were being met.
Questioned costs: $20,820
Context: During the testing of the HCV tenant files, certain eligibility compliance deficiencies were noted in 3 of 46 files:
(1) 2 of 40 sampled tenant files did not show evidence of an internal control checklist completed by the caseworker.
(2) 1 of 40 tenants was not properly terminated. Tenant did not complete 2023 annual review and was sent to be terminated. Termination was not followed through on until FY 2025.
Cause: Repeated change in staff left the file overlooked and the termination incomplete. The Authority failed to provide adequate monitoring and oversight to ensure compliance with HUD rules and regulations, as well as its administrative policy.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding the recertification of household circumstances within 12 months. The Authority is also not in compliance with its own administrative policy on the HCV program.
Recommendation: We recommend that the Authority review the controls in place to ensure that no tenants are overlooked, even when the original case manager is no longer an employee of the Authority.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: (1) According to the Authority’s internal procedures, case managers are to complete a checklist to keep in tenant file any time a new computation is created, be that for an annual, interim, or special reexamination. This must be signed and dated by the completing caseworker.
(2) According to the compliance supplement for the Housing Voucher Cluster, "The PHA must do the following: (1) As a condition of admission or continued occupancy, require the tenant and other family members to provide necessary information, documentation, and releases for the PHA to verify income eligibility (24 CFR sections 5.230, 5.609, and 982.516). Reexamine family income and composition at least once every 12 months and adjust the tenant rent and housing assistance payment as necessary using the documentation from third party verification (24 CFR section 982.516).
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure HCV eligibility requirements were being met.
Questioned costs: $20,820
Context: During the testing of the HCV tenant files, certain eligibility compliance deficiencies were noted in 3 of 46 files:
(1) 2 of 40 sampled tenant files did not show evidence of an internal control checklist completed by the caseworker.
(2) 1 of 40 tenants was not properly terminated. Tenant did not complete 2023 annual review and was sent to be terminated. Termination was not followed through on until FY 2025.
Cause: Repeated change in staff left the file overlooked and the termination incomplete. The Authority failed to provide adequate monitoring and oversight to ensure compliance with HUD rules and regulations, as well as its administrative policy.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding the recertification of household circumstances within 12 months. The Authority is also not in compliance with its own administrative policy on the HCV program.
Recommendation: We recommend that the Authority review the controls in place to ensure that no tenants are overlooked, even when the original case manager is no longer an employee of the Authority.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: (1) According to the Authority’s internal procedures, case managers are to complete a checklist to keep in tenant file any time a new computation is created, be that for an annual, interim, or special reexamination. This must be signed and dated by the completing caseworker.
(2) According to the compliance supplement for the Housing Voucher Cluster, "The PHA must do the following: (1) As a condition of admission or continued occupancy, require the tenant and other family members to provide necessary information, documentation, and releases for the PHA to verify income eligibility (24 CFR sections 5.230, 5.609, and 982.516). Reexamine family income and composition at least once every 12 months and adjust the tenant rent and housing assistance payment as necessary using the documentation from third party verification (24 CFR section 982.516).
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure HCV eligibility requirements were being met.
Questioned costs: $20,820
Context: During the testing of the HCV tenant files, certain eligibility compliance deficiencies were noted in 3 of 46 files:
(1) 2 of 40 sampled tenant files did not show evidence of an internal control checklist completed by the caseworker.
(2) 1 of 40 tenants was not properly terminated. Tenant did not complete 2023 annual review and was sent to be terminated. Termination was not followed through on until FY 2025.
Cause: Repeated change in staff left the file overlooked and the termination incomplete. The Authority failed to provide adequate monitoring and oversight to ensure compliance with HUD rules and regulations, as well as its administrative policy.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding the recertification of household circumstances within 12 months. The Authority is also not in compliance with its own administrative policy on the HCV program.
Recommendation: We recommend that the Authority review the controls in place to ensure that no tenants are overlooked, even when the original case manager is no longer an employee of the Authority.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: (1) According to the Authority’s internal procedures, case managers are to complete a checklist to keep in tenant file any time a new computation is created, be that for an annual, interim, or special reexamination. This must be signed and dated by the completing caseworker.
(2) According to the compliance supplement for the Housing Voucher Cluster, "The PHA must do the following: (1) As a condition of admission or continued occupancy, require the tenant and other family members to provide necessary information, documentation, and releases for the PHA to verify income eligibility (24 CFR sections 5.230, 5.609, and 982.516). Reexamine family income and composition at least once every 12 months and adjust the tenant rent and housing assistance payment as necessary using the documentation from third party verification (24 CFR section 982.516).
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure HCV eligibility requirements were being met.
Questioned costs: $20,820
Context: During the testing of the HCV tenant files, certain eligibility compliance deficiencies were noted in 3 of 46 files:
(1) 2 of 40 sampled tenant files did not show evidence of an internal control checklist completed by the caseworker.
(2) 1 of 40 tenants was not properly terminated. Tenant did not complete 2023 annual review and was sent to be terminated. Termination was not followed through on until FY 2025.
Cause: Repeated change in staff left the file overlooked and the termination incomplete. The Authority failed to provide adequate monitoring and oversight to ensure compliance with HUD rules and regulations, as well as its administrative policy.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding the recertification of household circumstances within 12 months. The Authority is also not in compliance with its own administrative policy on the HCV program.
Recommendation: We recommend that the Authority review the controls in place to ensure that no tenants are overlooked, even when the original case manager is no longer an employee of the Authority.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: (1) According to the Authority’s internal procedures, case managers are to complete a checklist to keep in tenant file any time a new computation is created, be that for an annual, interim, or special reexamination. This must be signed and dated by the completing caseworker.
(2) According to the compliance supplement for the Housing Voucher Cluster, "The PHA must do the following: (1) As a condition of admission or continued occupancy, require the tenant and other family members to provide necessary information, documentation, and releases for the PHA to verify income eligibility (24 CFR sections 5.230, 5.609, and 982.516). Reexamine family income and composition at least once every 12 months and adjust the tenant rent and housing assistance payment as necessary using the documentation from third party verification (24 CFR section 982.516).
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure HCV eligibility requirements were being met.
Questioned costs: $20,820
Context: During the testing of the HCV tenant files, certain eligibility compliance deficiencies were noted in 3 of 46 files:
(1) 2 of 40 sampled tenant files did not show evidence of an internal control checklist completed by the caseworker.
(2) 1 of 40 tenants was not properly terminated. Tenant did not complete 2023 annual review and was sent to be terminated. Termination was not followed through on until FY 2025.
Cause: Repeated change in staff left the file overlooked and the termination incomplete. The Authority failed to provide adequate monitoring and oversight to ensure compliance with HUD rules and regulations, as well as its administrative policy.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding the recertification of household circumstances within 12 months. The Authority is also not in compliance with its own administrative policy on the HCV program.
Recommendation: We recommend that the Authority review the controls in place to ensure that no tenants are overlooked, even when the original case manager is no longer an employee of the Authority.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: (1) According to the Authority’s internal procedures, case managers are to complete a checklist to keep in tenant file any time a new computation is created, be that for an annual, interim, or special reexamination. This must be signed and dated by the completing caseworker.
(2) According to the compliance supplement for the Housing Voucher Cluster, "The PHA must do the following: (1) As a condition of admission or continued occupancy, require the tenant and other family members to provide necessary information, documentation, and releases for the PHA to verify income eligibility (24 CFR sections 5.230, 5.609, and 982.516). Reexamine family income and composition at least once every 12 months and adjust the tenant rent and housing assistance payment as necessary using the documentation from third party verification (24 CFR section 982.516).
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure HCV eligibility requirements were being met.
Questioned costs: $20,820
Context: During the testing of the HCV tenant files, certain eligibility compliance deficiencies were noted in 3 of 46 files:
(1) 2 of 40 sampled tenant files did not show evidence of an internal control checklist completed by the caseworker.
(2) 1 of 40 tenants was not properly terminated. Tenant did not complete 2023 annual review and was sent to be terminated. Termination was not followed through on until FY 2025.
Cause: Repeated change in staff left the file overlooked and the termination incomplete. The Authority failed to provide adequate monitoring and oversight to ensure compliance with HUD rules and regulations, as well as its administrative policy.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding the recertification of household circumstances within 12 months. The Authority is also not in compliance with its own administrative policy on the HCV program.
Recommendation: We recommend that the Authority review the controls in place to ensure that no tenants are overlooked, even when the original case manager is no longer an employee of the Authority.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: (1) According to the Authority’s internal procedures, case managers are to complete a checklist to keep in tenant file any time a new computation is created, be that for an annual, interim, or special reexamination. This must be signed and dated by the completing caseworker.
(2) According to the compliance supplement for the Housing Voucher Cluster, "The PHA must do the following: (1) As a condition of admission or continued occupancy, require the tenant and other family members to provide necessary information, documentation, and releases for the PHA to verify income eligibility (24 CFR sections 5.230, 5.609, and 982.516). Reexamine family income and composition at least once every 12 months and adjust the tenant rent and housing assistance payment as necessary using the documentation from third party verification (24 CFR section 982.516).
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure HCV eligibility requirements were being met.
Questioned costs: $20,820
Context: During the testing of the HCV tenant files, certain eligibility compliance deficiencies were noted in 3 of 46 files:
(1) 2 of 40 sampled tenant files did not show evidence of an internal control checklist completed by the caseworker.
(2) 1 of 40 tenants was not properly terminated. Tenant did not complete 2023 annual review and was sent to be terminated. Termination was not followed through on until FY 2025.
Cause: Repeated change in staff left the file overlooked and the termination incomplete. The Authority failed to provide adequate monitoring and oversight to ensure compliance with HUD rules and regulations, as well as its administrative policy.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding the recertification of household circumstances within 12 months. The Authority is also not in compliance with its own administrative policy on the HCV program.
Recommendation: We recommend that the Authority review the controls in place to ensure that no tenants are overlooked, even when the original case manager is no longer an employee of the Authority.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: (1) According to the Authority’s internal procedures, case managers are to complete a checklist to keep in tenant file any time a new computation is created, be that for an annual, interim, or special reexamination. This must be signed and dated by the completing caseworker.
(2) According to the compliance supplement for the Housing Voucher Cluster, "The PHA must do the following: (1) As a condition of admission or continued occupancy, require the tenant and other family members to provide necessary information, documentation, and releases for the PHA to verify income eligibility (24 CFR sections 5.230, 5.609, and 982.516). Reexamine family income and composition at least once every 12 months and adjust the tenant rent and housing assistance payment as necessary using the documentation from third party verification (24 CFR section 982.516).
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure HCV eligibility requirements were being met.
Questioned costs: $20,820
Context: During the testing of the HCV tenant files, certain eligibility compliance deficiencies were noted in 3 of 46 files:
(1) 2 of 40 sampled tenant files did not show evidence of an internal control checklist completed by the caseworker.
(2) 1 of 40 tenants was not properly terminated. Tenant did not complete 2023 annual review and was sent to be terminated. Termination was not followed through on until FY 2025.
Cause: Repeated change in staff left the file overlooked and the termination incomplete. The Authority failed to provide adequate monitoring and oversight to ensure compliance with HUD rules and regulations, as well as its administrative policy.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding the recertification of household circumstances within 12 months. The Authority is also not in compliance with its own administrative policy on the HCV program.
Recommendation: We recommend that the Authority review the controls in place to ensure that no tenants are overlooked, even when the original case manager is no longer an employee of the Authority.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: (1) According to the Authority’s internal procedures, case managers are to complete a checklist to keep in tenant file any time a new computation is created, be that for an annual, interim, or special reexamination. This must be signed and dated by the completing caseworker.
(2) According to the compliance supplement for the Housing Voucher Cluster, "The PHA must do the following: (1) As a condition of admission or continued occupancy, require the tenant and other family members to provide necessary information, documentation, and releases for the PHA to verify income eligibility (24 CFR sections 5.230, 5.609, and 982.516). Reexamine family income and composition at least once every 12 months and adjust the tenant rent and housing assistance payment as necessary using the documentation from third party verification (24 CFR section 982.516).
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure HCV eligibility requirements were being met.
Questioned costs: $20,820
Context: During the testing of the HCV tenant files, certain eligibility compliance deficiencies were noted in 3 of 46 files:
(1) 2 of 40 sampled tenant files did not show evidence of an internal control checklist completed by the caseworker.
(2) 1 of 40 tenants was not properly terminated. Tenant did not complete 2023 annual review and was sent to be terminated. Termination was not followed through on until FY 2025.
Cause: Repeated change in staff left the file overlooked and the termination incomplete. The Authority failed to provide adequate monitoring and oversight to ensure compliance with HUD rules and regulations, as well as its administrative policy.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding the recertification of household circumstances within 12 months. The Authority is also not in compliance with its own administrative policy on the HCV program.
Recommendation: We recommend that the Authority review the controls in place to ensure that no tenants are overlooked, even when the original case manager is no longer an employee of the Authority.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: (1) The PHA must inspect the unit leased to a family at least biennially to determine if the unit meets Housing Quality Standards (HQS) and the PHA must conduct quality control re-inspections. The PHA must prepare a unit inspection report (24 CFR sections 982.158(d) and 982.405(b)). However, NSPIRE for HCV and PBV programs, referred to as NSPIRE-V during HUD’s demonstration, was effective October 1, 2023, and replaced Housing Quality Standards (HQS), as previously defined in 24 CFR 982.401, as the inspection standards for these programs. As announced in the Federal Register, “Economic Growth Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act: Implementation of National Standards for the Physical Inspection of Real Estate (NSPIRE); Extension of NSPIRE Compliance Date for HCV Programs,” HUD extended the compliance date for HCV and PBV programs until October 1, 2024. This applies to all Public Housing Agencies (PHAs), including Moving-to-Work (MTW) PHAs, administering Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher programs.
(2) According to the Authority’s inspection procedures, inspection team initials and dates the comment box within the Yardi system when inspection is completed.
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that NSPIRE inspections were completed in accordance with compliance requirements.
Questioned costs: None
Context: During the testing of the HCV inspections, certain special provision compliance and internal control deficiencies were noted in 5 of 40 files:
(1) 3 out of 40 sampled inspections were not completed within the allotted time frame (bi- and tri-ennially, per HCV Administrative plan). These three did not overlap with the one issue noted below.
(2) 1 of 40 sampled inspections did not show evidence of inspector signoff -- one was missing entirely. This did not overlap with the three issues noted above.
Cause: Lots of turnover in the inspections department during the fiscal year. The Authority failed to provide adequate monitoring and oversight to ensure compliance with HUD rules and regulations, as well as its internal inspection procedures.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding housing quality standards and completing reinspections in a timely manner that aligns with its administrative plan. The Authority is not following its internal inspection procedures.
Recommendation: We recommend that the Authority review the controls in place to ensure that the inspections team can complete the reinspections in a timely manner and are knowledgeable of all internal procedures in place over inspections.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: (1) The PHA must inspect the unit leased to a family at least biennially to determine if the unit meets Housing Quality Standards (HQS) and the PHA must conduct quality control re-inspections. The PHA must prepare a unit inspection report (24 CFR sections 982.158(d) and 982.405(b)). However, NSPIRE for HCV and PBV programs, referred to as NSPIRE-V during HUD’s demonstration, was effective October 1, 2023, and replaced Housing Quality Standards (HQS), as previously defined in 24 CFR 982.401, as the inspection standards for these programs. As announced in the Federal Register, “Economic Growth Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act: Implementation of National Standards for the Physical Inspection of Real Estate (NSPIRE); Extension of NSPIRE Compliance Date for HCV Programs,” HUD extended the compliance date for HCV and PBV programs until October 1, 2024. This applies to all Public Housing Agencies (PHAs), including Moving-to-Work (MTW) PHAs, administering Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher programs.
(2) According to the Authority’s inspection procedures, inspection team initials and dates the comment box within the Yardi system when inspection is completed.
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that NSPIRE inspections were completed in accordance with compliance requirements.
Questioned costs: None
Context: During the testing of the HCV inspections, certain special provision compliance and internal control deficiencies were noted in 5 of 40 files:
(1) 3 out of 40 sampled inspections were not completed within the allotted time frame (bi- and tri-ennially, per HCV Administrative plan). These three did not overlap with the one issue noted below.
(2) 1 of 40 sampled inspections did not show evidence of inspector signoff -- one was missing entirely. This did not overlap with the three issues noted above.
Cause: Lots of turnover in the inspections department during the fiscal year. The Authority failed to provide adequate monitoring and oversight to ensure compliance with HUD rules and regulations, as well as its internal inspection procedures.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding housing quality standards and completing reinspections in a timely manner that aligns with its administrative plan. The Authority is not following its internal inspection procedures.
Recommendation: We recommend that the Authority review the controls in place to ensure that the inspections team can complete the reinspections in a timely manner and are knowledgeable of all internal procedures in place over inspections.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: (1) The PHA must inspect the unit leased to a family at least biennially to determine if the unit meets Housing Quality Standards (HQS) and the PHA must conduct quality control re-inspections. The PHA must prepare a unit inspection report (24 CFR sections 982.158(d) and 982.405(b)). However, NSPIRE for HCV and PBV programs, referred to as NSPIRE-V during HUD’s demonstration, was effective October 1, 2023, and replaced Housing Quality Standards (HQS), as previously defined in 24 CFR 982.401, as the inspection standards for these programs. As announced in the Federal Register, “Economic Growth Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act: Implementation of National Standards for the Physical Inspection of Real Estate (NSPIRE); Extension of NSPIRE Compliance Date for HCV Programs,” HUD extended the compliance date for HCV and PBV programs until October 1, 2024. This applies to all Public Housing Agencies (PHAs), including Moving-to-Work (MTW) PHAs, administering Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher programs.
(2) According to the Authority’s inspection procedures, inspection team initials and dates the comment box within the Yardi system when inspection is completed.
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that NSPIRE inspections were completed in accordance with compliance requirements.
Questioned costs: None
Context: During the testing of the HCV inspections, certain special provision compliance and internal control deficiencies were noted in 5 of 40 files:
(1) 3 out of 40 sampled inspections were not completed within the allotted time frame (bi- and tri-ennially, per HCV Administrative plan). These three did not overlap with the one issue noted below.
(2) 1 of 40 sampled inspections did not show evidence of inspector signoff -- one was missing entirely. This did not overlap with the three issues noted above.
Cause: Lots of turnover in the inspections department during the fiscal year. The Authority failed to provide adequate monitoring and oversight to ensure compliance with HUD rules and regulations, as well as its internal inspection procedures.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding housing quality standards and completing reinspections in a timely manner that aligns with its administrative plan. The Authority is not following its internal inspection procedures.
Recommendation: We recommend that the Authority review the controls in place to ensure that the inspections team can complete the reinspections in a timely manner and are knowledgeable of all internal procedures in place over inspections.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: (1) The PHA must inspect the unit leased to a family at least biennially to determine if the unit meets Housing Quality Standards (HQS) and the PHA must conduct quality control re-inspections. The PHA must prepare a unit inspection report (24 CFR sections 982.158(d) and 982.405(b)). However, NSPIRE for HCV and PBV programs, referred to as NSPIRE-V during HUD’s demonstration, was effective October 1, 2023, and replaced Housing Quality Standards (HQS), as previously defined in 24 CFR 982.401, as the inspection standards for these programs. As announced in the Federal Register, “Economic Growth Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act: Implementation of National Standards for the Physical Inspection of Real Estate (NSPIRE); Extension of NSPIRE Compliance Date for HCV Programs,” HUD extended the compliance date for HCV and PBV programs until October 1, 2024. This applies to all Public Housing Agencies (PHAs), including Moving-to-Work (MTW) PHAs, administering Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher programs.
(2) According to the Authority’s inspection procedures, inspection team initials and dates the comment box within the Yardi system when inspection is completed.
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that NSPIRE inspections were completed in accordance with compliance requirements.
Questioned costs: None
Context: During the testing of the HCV inspections, certain special provision compliance and internal control deficiencies were noted in 5 of 40 files:
(1) 3 out of 40 sampled inspections were not completed within the allotted time frame (bi- and tri-ennially, per HCV Administrative plan). These three did not overlap with the one issue noted below.
(2) 1 of 40 sampled inspections did not show evidence of inspector signoff -- one was missing entirely. This did not overlap with the three issues noted above.
Cause: Lots of turnover in the inspections department during the fiscal year. The Authority failed to provide adequate monitoring and oversight to ensure compliance with HUD rules and regulations, as well as its internal inspection procedures.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding housing quality standards and completing reinspections in a timely manner that aligns with its administrative plan. The Authority is not following its internal inspection procedures.
Recommendation: We recommend that the Authority review the controls in place to ensure that the inspections team can complete the reinspections in a timely manner and are knowledgeable of all internal procedures in place over inspections.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: (1) The PHA must inspect the unit leased to a family at least biennially to determine if the unit meets Housing Quality Standards (HQS) and the PHA must conduct quality control re-inspections. The PHA must prepare a unit inspection report (24 CFR sections 982.158(d) and 982.405(b)). However, NSPIRE for HCV and PBV programs, referred to as NSPIRE-V during HUD’s demonstration, was effective October 1, 2023, and replaced Housing Quality Standards (HQS), as previously defined in 24 CFR 982.401, as the inspection standards for these programs. As announced in the Federal Register, “Economic Growth Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act: Implementation of National Standards for the Physical Inspection of Real Estate (NSPIRE); Extension of NSPIRE Compliance Date for HCV Programs,” HUD extended the compliance date for HCV and PBV programs until October 1, 2024. This applies to all Public Housing Agencies (PHAs), including Moving-to-Work (MTW) PHAs, administering Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher programs.
(2) According to the Authority’s inspection procedures, inspection team initials and dates the comment box within the Yardi system when inspection is completed.
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that NSPIRE inspections were completed in accordance with compliance requirements.
Questioned costs: None
Context: During the testing of the HCV inspections, certain special provision compliance and internal control deficiencies were noted in 5 of 40 files:
(1) 3 out of 40 sampled inspections were not completed within the allotted time frame (bi- and tri-ennially, per HCV Administrative plan). These three did not overlap with the one issue noted below.
(2) 1 of 40 sampled inspections did not show evidence of inspector signoff -- one was missing entirely. This did not overlap with the three issues noted above.
Cause: Lots of turnover in the inspections department during the fiscal year. The Authority failed to provide adequate monitoring and oversight to ensure compliance with HUD rules and regulations, as well as its internal inspection procedures.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding housing quality standards and completing reinspections in a timely manner that aligns with its administrative plan. The Authority is not following its internal inspection procedures.
Recommendation: We recommend that the Authority review the controls in place to ensure that the inspections team can complete the reinspections in a timely manner and are knowledgeable of all internal procedures in place over inspections.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: (1) The PHA must inspect the unit leased to a family at least biennially to determine if the unit meets Housing Quality Standards (HQS) and the PHA must conduct quality control re-inspections. The PHA must prepare a unit inspection report (24 CFR sections 982.158(d) and 982.405(b)). However, NSPIRE for HCV and PBV programs, referred to as NSPIRE-V during HUD’s demonstration, was effective October 1, 2023, and replaced Housing Quality Standards (HQS), as previously defined in 24 CFR 982.401, as the inspection standards for these programs. As announced in the Federal Register, “Economic Growth Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act: Implementation of National Standards for the Physical Inspection of Real Estate (NSPIRE); Extension of NSPIRE Compliance Date for HCV Programs,” HUD extended the compliance date for HCV and PBV programs until October 1, 2024. This applies to all Public Housing Agencies (PHAs), including Moving-to-Work (MTW) PHAs, administering Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher programs.
(2) According to the Authority’s inspection procedures, inspection team initials and dates the comment box within the Yardi system when inspection is completed.
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that NSPIRE inspections were completed in accordance with compliance requirements.
Questioned costs: None
Context: During the testing of the HCV inspections, certain special provision compliance and internal control deficiencies were noted in 5 of 40 files:
(1) 3 out of 40 sampled inspections were not completed within the allotted time frame (bi- and tri-ennially, per HCV Administrative plan). These three did not overlap with the one issue noted below.
(2) 1 of 40 sampled inspections did not show evidence of inspector signoff -- one was missing entirely. This did not overlap with the three issues noted above.
Cause: Lots of turnover in the inspections department during the fiscal year. The Authority failed to provide adequate monitoring and oversight to ensure compliance with HUD rules and regulations, as well as its internal inspection procedures.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding housing quality standards and completing reinspections in a timely manner that aligns with its administrative plan. The Authority is not following its internal inspection procedures.
Recommendation: We recommend that the Authority review the controls in place to ensure that the inspections team can complete the reinspections in a timely manner and are knowledgeable of all internal procedures in place over inspections.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: (1) The PHA must inspect the unit leased to a family at least biennially to determine if the unit meets Housing Quality Standards (HQS) and the PHA must conduct quality control re-inspections. The PHA must prepare a unit inspection report (24 CFR sections 982.158(d) and 982.405(b)). However, NSPIRE for HCV and PBV programs, referred to as NSPIRE-V during HUD’s demonstration, was effective October 1, 2023, and replaced Housing Quality Standards (HQS), as previously defined in 24 CFR 982.401, as the inspection standards for these programs. As announced in the Federal Register, “Economic Growth Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act: Implementation of National Standards for the Physical Inspection of Real Estate (NSPIRE); Extension of NSPIRE Compliance Date for HCV Programs,” HUD extended the compliance date for HCV and PBV programs until October 1, 2024. This applies to all Public Housing Agencies (PHAs), including Moving-to-Work (MTW) PHAs, administering Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher programs.
(2) According to the Authority’s inspection procedures, inspection team initials and dates the comment box within the Yardi system when inspection is completed.
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that NSPIRE inspections were completed in accordance with compliance requirements.
Questioned costs: None
Context: During the testing of the HCV inspections, certain special provision compliance and internal control deficiencies were noted in 5 of 40 files:
(1) 3 out of 40 sampled inspections were not completed within the allotted time frame (bi- and tri-ennially, per HCV Administrative plan). These three did not overlap with the one issue noted below.
(2) 1 of 40 sampled inspections did not show evidence of inspector signoff -- one was missing entirely. This did not overlap with the three issues noted above.
Cause: Lots of turnover in the inspections department during the fiscal year. The Authority failed to provide adequate monitoring and oversight to ensure compliance with HUD rules and regulations, as well as its internal inspection procedures.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding housing quality standards and completing reinspections in a timely manner that aligns with its administrative plan. The Authority is not following its internal inspection procedures.
Recommendation: We recommend that the Authority review the controls in place to ensure that the inspections team can complete the reinspections in a timely manner and are knowledgeable of all internal procedures in place over inspections.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: (1) The PHA must inspect the unit leased to a family at least biennially to determine if the unit meets Housing Quality Standards (HQS) and the PHA must conduct quality control re-inspections. The PHA must prepare a unit inspection report (24 CFR sections 982.158(d) and 982.405(b)). However, NSPIRE for HCV and PBV programs, referred to as NSPIRE-V during HUD’s demonstration, was effective October 1, 2023, and replaced Housing Quality Standards (HQS), as previously defined in 24 CFR 982.401, as the inspection standards for these programs. As announced in the Federal Register, “Economic Growth Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act: Implementation of National Standards for the Physical Inspection of Real Estate (NSPIRE); Extension of NSPIRE Compliance Date for HCV Programs,” HUD extended the compliance date for HCV and PBV programs until October 1, 2024. This applies to all Public Housing Agencies (PHAs), including Moving-to-Work (MTW) PHAs, administering Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher programs.
(2) According to the Authority’s inspection procedures, inspection team initials and dates the comment box within the Yardi system when inspection is completed.
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that NSPIRE inspections were completed in accordance with compliance requirements.
Questioned costs: None
Context: During the testing of the HCV inspections, certain special provision compliance and internal control deficiencies were noted in 5 of 40 files:
(1) 3 out of 40 sampled inspections were not completed within the allotted time frame (bi- and tri-ennially, per HCV Administrative plan). These three did not overlap with the one issue noted below.
(2) 1 of 40 sampled inspections did not show evidence of inspector signoff -- one was missing entirely. This did not overlap with the three issues noted above.
Cause: Lots of turnover in the inspections department during the fiscal year. The Authority failed to provide adequate monitoring and oversight to ensure compliance with HUD rules and regulations, as well as its internal inspection procedures.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding housing quality standards and completing reinspections in a timely manner that aligns with its administrative plan. The Authority is not following its internal inspection procedures.
Recommendation: We recommend that the Authority review the controls in place to ensure that the inspections team can complete the reinspections in a timely manner and are knowledgeable of all internal procedures in place over inspections.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: (1) The PHA must inspect the unit leased to a family at least biennially to determine if the unit meets Housing Quality Standards (HQS) and the PHA must conduct quality control re-inspections. The PHA must prepare a unit inspection report (24 CFR sections 982.158(d) and 982.405(b)). However, NSPIRE for HCV and PBV programs, referred to as NSPIRE-V during HUD’s demonstration, was effective October 1, 2023, and replaced Housing Quality Standards (HQS), as previously defined in 24 CFR 982.401, as the inspection standards for these programs. As announced in the Federal Register, “Economic Growth Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act: Implementation of National Standards for the Physical Inspection of Real Estate (NSPIRE); Extension of NSPIRE Compliance Date for HCV Programs,” HUD extended the compliance date for HCV and PBV programs until October 1, 2024. This applies to all Public Housing Agencies (PHAs), including Moving-to-Work (MTW) PHAs, administering Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher programs.
(2) According to the Authority’s inspection procedures, inspection team initials and dates the comment box within the Yardi system when inspection is completed.
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that NSPIRE inspections were completed in accordance with compliance requirements.
Questioned costs: None
Context: During the testing of the HCV inspections, certain special provision compliance and internal control deficiencies were noted in 5 of 40 files:
(1) 3 out of 40 sampled inspections were not completed within the allotted time frame (bi- and tri-ennially, per HCV Administrative plan). These three did not overlap with the one issue noted below.
(2) 1 of 40 sampled inspections did not show evidence of inspector signoff -- one was missing entirely. This did not overlap with the three issues noted above.
Cause: Lots of turnover in the inspections department during the fiscal year. The Authority failed to provide adequate monitoring and oversight to ensure compliance with HUD rules and regulations, as well as its internal inspection procedures.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding housing quality standards and completing reinspections in a timely manner that aligns with its administrative plan. The Authority is not following its internal inspection procedures.
Recommendation: We recommend that the Authority review the controls in place to ensure that the inspections team can complete the reinspections in a timely manner and are knowledgeable of all internal procedures in place over inspections.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: (1) The PHA must inspect the unit leased to a family at least biennially to determine if the unit meets Housing Quality Standards (HQS) and the PHA must conduct quality control re-inspections. The PHA must prepare a unit inspection report (24 CFR sections 982.158(d) and 982.405(b)). However, NSPIRE for HCV and PBV programs, referred to as NSPIRE-V during HUD’s demonstration, was effective October 1, 2023, and replaced Housing Quality Standards (HQS), as previously defined in 24 CFR 982.401, as the inspection standards for these programs. As announced in the Federal Register, “Economic Growth Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act: Implementation of National Standards for the Physical Inspection of Real Estate (NSPIRE); Extension of NSPIRE Compliance Date for HCV Programs,” HUD extended the compliance date for HCV and PBV programs until October 1, 2024. This applies to all Public Housing Agencies (PHAs), including Moving-to-Work (MTW) PHAs, administering Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher programs.
(2) According to the Authority’s inspection procedures, inspection team initials and dates the comment box within the Yardi system when inspection is completed.
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that NSPIRE inspections were completed in accordance with compliance requirements.
Questioned costs: None
Context: During the testing of the HCV inspections, certain special provision compliance and internal control deficiencies were noted in 5 of 40 files:
(1) 3 out of 40 sampled inspections were not completed within the allotted time frame (bi- and tri-ennially, per HCV Administrative plan). These three did not overlap with the one issue noted below.
(2) 1 of 40 sampled inspections did not show evidence of inspector signoff -- one was missing entirely. This did not overlap with the three issues noted above.
Cause: Lots of turnover in the inspections department during the fiscal year. The Authority failed to provide adequate monitoring and oversight to ensure compliance with HUD rules and regulations, as well as its internal inspection procedures.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding housing quality standards and completing reinspections in a timely manner that aligns with its administrative plan. The Authority is not following its internal inspection procedures.
Recommendation: We recommend that the Authority review the controls in place to ensure that the inspections team can complete the reinspections in a timely manner and are knowledgeable of all internal procedures in place over inspections.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: (1) The PHA must inspect the unit leased to a family at least biennially to determine if the unit meets Housing Quality Standards (HQS) and the PHA must conduct quality control re-inspections. The PHA must prepare a unit inspection report (24 CFR sections 982.158(d) and 982.405(b)). However, NSPIRE for HCV and PBV programs, referred to as NSPIRE-V during HUD’s demonstration, was effective October 1, 2023, and replaced Housing Quality Standards (HQS), as previously defined in 24 CFR 982.401, as the inspection standards for these programs. As announced in the Federal Register, “Economic Growth Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act: Implementation of National Standards for the Physical Inspection of Real Estate (NSPIRE); Extension of NSPIRE Compliance Date for HCV Programs,” HUD extended the compliance date for HCV and PBV programs until October 1, 2024. This applies to all Public Housing Agencies (PHAs), including Moving-to-Work (MTW) PHAs, administering Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher programs.
(2) According to the Authority’s inspection procedures, inspection team initials and dates the comment box within the Yardi system when inspection is completed.
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that NSPIRE inspections were completed in accordance with compliance requirements.
Questioned costs: None
Context: During the testing of the HCV inspections, certain special provision compliance and internal control deficiencies were noted in 5 of 40 files:
(1) 3 out of 40 sampled inspections were not completed within the allotted time frame (bi- and tri-ennially, per HCV Administrative plan). These three did not overlap with the one issue noted below.
(2) 1 of 40 sampled inspections did not show evidence of inspector signoff -- one was missing entirely. This did not overlap with the three issues noted above.
Cause: Lots of turnover in the inspections department during the fiscal year. The Authority failed to provide adequate monitoring and oversight to ensure compliance with HUD rules and regulations, as well as its internal inspection procedures.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding housing quality standards and completing reinspections in a timely manner that aligns with its administrative plan. The Authority is not following its internal inspection procedures.
Recommendation: We recommend that the Authority review the controls in place to ensure that the inspections team can complete the reinspections in a timely manner and are knowledgeable of all internal procedures in place over inspections.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: According to the HCV Administrative Plan and 24 CFR 982.516, "It is required that all adult applicants and participants sign a Release of Information form. The purpose of this form is to facilitate automated data collection and computer matching from specific sources and provides the family’s consent only for the specific purposes listed on the form. HUD and the PHA may collect information from State Wage Information Collection Agencies (SWICAs) and current and former employers of adult family members. Only HUD is authorized to collect information directly from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Social Security Administration (SSA). Adult family members must sign other consent forms as needed to collect information relevant to the family’s eligibility and level of assistance."
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure MTW eligibility requirements were being met.
Questioned costs: None
Context: During the testing of the MTW tenant files, certain eligibility compliance deficiencies were noted in 3 out of 40 files:
(1) 3 out of 40 sampled tenant files did not have signed Release of Information consent forms documented in their file that were applicable to the eligible time frame.
Cause: The Authority failed to provide adequate monitoring and oversight to ensure compliance with MTW rules and regulations.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding the recertification of household circumstances within 12 months. The Authority is also not in compliance with its own administrative policy on the HCV program.
Recommendation: We recommend that the Authority review the controls in place to ensure that all required recertification documents are completed, signed, and in the tenant’s file.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: (1) According to the OMB Compliance Supplement for the Moving To Work Program, "MTW Agencies must ensure that housing assisted under the demonstration program meets housing quality standards established or approved by the Secretary. The HCV program regulations at 24 CFR sections 982.401 through 982.405 set forth basic housing quality standards (HQS) which all units must meet, and the PHA must verify by inspection, before initial assistance can be paid on behalf of a family and at least annually throughout the term of the assisted tenancy. Current HQS regulations consist of 13 key aspects of housing quality, performance requirements, and acceptability criteria to meet each performance requirement. HQS include requirements for all housing types, including single and multi-family dwelling units, as well as specific requirements for special housing types, such as manufactured homes, congregate housing, single room occupancy, shared housing, and group residences (Section 204(c)(3)(E) of Pub. L. No. 104-134 (42 USC 1437f (note)))."
(2) According to the Authority’s inspection procedures, inspection team initials and dates the comment box within the Yardi system when inspection is completed.
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that NSPIRE inspections were completed in accordance with compliance requirements.
Questioned costs: None
Context: During the testing of the MTW tenant files, certain eligibility compliance deficiencies were noted in 3 out of 40 files:
(1) 2 out of 40 sampled units did not have inspections completed in a timely manner. Only one unit’s issues overlapped with the issues noted below.
(2) 2 out of 40 sampled units did not provide the inspections results for the correct unit addresses that were being tested, and therefore did not meet the internal control requirement. Only one unit’s issues overlapped with the issues noted above.
Cause: Lots of turnover in the inspections department during the fiscal year. The Authority failed to provide adequate monitoring and oversight to ensure compliance with HUD rules and regulations, as well as its internal inspection procedures.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding housing quality standards and completing reinspections in a timely manner that aligns with its administrative plan. The Authority is not following its internal inspection procedures.
Repeat Finding: 2023 – 002
Recommendation: We recommend that the Authority review the controls in place to ensure that the inspections team can complete the reinspections in a timely manner and are knowledgeable of all internal procedures in place over inspections. We also recommend that the Authority review rules and internal controls in place around record retention for completed inspections.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: According to the OMB Compliance Supplement for the Moving To Work Program, "The information on [HUD-50058-MTW, Family Report] is submitted to HUD through the Inventory Management System/Public and Indian Housing Information Center (IMS/PIC). [...] Data must be submitted each time the PHA completes an admission, annual reexamination, interim reexamination, portability move-in, or other change of unit for a family. The PHA must also submit the Family Report when a family ends participation in the program or moves out of the PHA’s jurisdiction under portability."
Condition: The Authority did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure that all HUD-50058s were properly uploaded to the PIC system.
Questioned costs: None
Context: During the testing of the MTW tenant files, certain special reporting compliance deficiencies were noted in 1 out of 40 files:
(1) 1 out of 40 sampled tenant files did not have their updated HUD-50058 form uploaded into the PIC system. Form was incorrectly placed into a non-uploaded property code and, therefore, did not get uploaded.
Cause: The Authority failed to provide adequate monitoring and oversight to ensure compliance with MTW rules and regulations. The Yardi system in which the HUD-50058-MTW is created requires a certain property code to ensure it falls into the list pulled for PIC uploads.
Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with federal regulations regarding the recertification of household circumstances within 12 months. The Authority is also not in compliance with its own administrative policy on the HCV program.
Recommendation: We recommend that the Authority implement a higher-level review of the HUD-50058 listing that gets uploaded to the PIC system. We also recommend providing additional training to case management employees to ensure that they are aware of the necessity for the property code to be reported accurately.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.