2022-001 Eligibility: HCV Tenant Files Section 8 Housing Voucher Cluster (Section 8): Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers Program ? CFDA Number 14.871 Mainstream Vouchers ? CFDA Number 14.879 Material Weakness in Internal Control, Material Noncompliance Repeat Finding from June 30, 2021 (Finding 2021-001 and originally reported in 2017 as Finding 2017-001) Condition: Out of a total tenant population of approximately 1400 vouchers, 26 files were selected for testing. Exceptions were noted as follows: ? 1 utility allowance error where the utility allowance amount of $288 on the 52667 form was reported on the 50058 form for $298. This had no effect on the HAP rent. ? 2 214 affidavit errors where a member of the tenant?s household did not checkmark the box on their 214 forms indicating that they are either a U.S. citizen or a permanent resident. Based on the birth certificates, the member of the households were a U.S. citizen. ? 1 214 affidavit error where the 214 form was missing for a member of the tenant?s household. ? 1 income error where one of the tenant?s pay check was missing for the tenant?s income calculation. Basing the tenant?s wage income calculation on the support in the tenant file would not have changed the HAP rent. ? 1 HAP contract error where the HAP contract is missing from the tenant file. ? 2 9886 errors where members of the household over the age of 18 did not sign and date the 9886 forms. ? 2 deduction errors where members of two households, who were 18 years of age, received a $480 deduction. Correcting this error caused the HAP rent to decrease by $12 for each tenant. ? 1 lead base paint error where the lessor (landlord) did not sign the form to indicate that the information provided to the tenant is accurate. ? 2 EIV errors where the EIV form was not generated or were missing for the tenant?s annual recertification. ? 1 50058 error where the tenant?s childcare support was coded as unemployment benefits on the 50058. ? 1 tenant file unavailable for review due to Hurricane IAN, but no support could be provided. In addition, we also noted as part of our new admissions testing (21 files tested out of approximately 203 new admissions) the following: ? 1 tenant file unavailable for review due to Hurricane IAN, but no support could be provided. Criteria: 24 CFR 982.516 requires internal controls to be in place to ensure compliance with HUD requirements, as well as complete and accurate tenant files. In addition, the Authority?s Administrative Plan also requires following proper procedures for determination of HAP and documentation in the tenant files. Questioned Costs: None. Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with all of the HUD requirements regarding eligibility and tenant recertification, which could result in incorrect total tenant payments for rent and HAP payments to landlords. Cause: Procedures to ensure compliance with all of the HUD requirements were not being carefully followed. Auditor?s Recommendation: The Authority should correct the deficiencies noted in the tested files and utilize an ongoing quality control review process on the entire tenant population to ensure proper compliance with the requirements related to tenant eligibility. Ongoing staff training and timely management reviews should be utilized to ensure staff is aware of acceptable procedures. In addition, the Authority should review staffing levels, skill sets and case load. Views of Responsible Officials of the Auditee: The Authority agrees with the finding and has taken corrective action. See the ?Action Taken? on the Corrective Action Plan
2022-002 Special Tests and Provisions: HCV Current Waiting List Section 8 Housing Voucher Cluster (Section 8): Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers Program ? CFDA Number 14.871 Mainstream Vouchers ? CFDA Number 14.879 Material Weakness in Internal Control, Material Noncompliance Condition: Out of a total waiting list population of approximately 1300 applicants, 25 applicants were selected for testing. Exceptions were noted as follows: ? 1 preference point error where the applicant selected the involuntary displacement and homeless preference points on their pre-application, which agrees to the information in Yardi, but doesn?t agree to the generated waiting list. ? 7 preference point errors where the applicants? selected the residency preference points on their pre-applications, which agrees to the information in Yardi, but doesn?t agree to the generated waiting list. As a result of the above, applicants may not be ranked properly on the waiting list and applicants may be selected out of order. Criteria: Applicants on the waiting list must be kept in the proper order based on application date and/or approved preferences. The Authority is required to admit tenants based on the waiting list in accordance with HUD requirements and the Authority?s policies. The Authority must have written policies in its HCV Administrative Plan for selecting applicants from the waiting list and Authority documentation must show that the PHA follows these policies when selecting applicants for admission from the waiting list. All proper documentation must be kept in the tenant file. In addition, only applicants who are eligible should be admitted to the program. Questioned Costs: None. Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with applicable HUD regulations and admission policies and as a result may admit applicants from the waiting list in an improper order. Cause: The waiting list software did not interface properly with the application preferences. Thus, procedures to ensure compliance with all of the HUD requirements were not carefully followed. Auditor?s Recommendation: The Authority should review procedures and increase training to employees and reviewers to ensure that the Authority is in compliance with HUD rules for new admissions and waiting list maintenance. In addition, the Authority should implement a review procedure to make sure that all tenants are admitted in the proper order with proper supporting documentation. Views of Responsible Officials of the Auditee: The Authority agrees with the finding and has taken corrective action. See the ?Action Taken? on the Corrective Action Plan.
2022-003 Special Tests and Provisions: HCV Failed Inspections Section 8 Housing Voucher Cluster (Section 8): Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers Program ? CFDA Number 14.871 Mainstream Vouchers ? CFDA Number 14.879 Material Weakness in Internal Control, Material Noncompliance Condition: Out of a total failed inspection population of approximately 540 units, 25 failed inspections were selected for testing. Exceptions were noted as follows: ? 1 Inspection and HAP abatement error where the tenant?s unit did not pass inspection and HAP payments were not withheld from July 2022 through February 2023. ? 1 HAP abatement error where the Authority pro-rated the HAP payment for August 2022 and abated the HAP payment for September through November 2022, but subsequently, whether due to a user or system error, HAP payments were paid out for the months from September through November 2022. ? 1 HAP abatement error where the Authority pro-rated the HAP payment for January & May 2022 and abated the HAP payment for February through April 2022, but subsequently, whether due to a user or system error, HAP payments were paid out for the months from January through May 2022. ? 1 HAP abatement error where the Authority didn't pro-rate the HAP payment withholding for June & December 2022 nor withhold the HAP payment for the month of July 2022. The Authority properly withheld the HAP payments for the months of August, September, October, and November 2022. Criteria: For units under HAP contract that fail the HQS inspection, 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. Questioned Costs: None. Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with applicable HUD regulations and HQS policies and as a result HAP payments were not properly abated which are designed to assure that landlords complete unit repairs timely to provide safe housing for tenants. Cause: Procedures to ensure compliance with all of the HUD requirements were not being carefully followed. Auditor?s Recommendation: The Authority should review procedures and increase training to employees and reviewers to ensure that the Authority is in compliance with HUD rules for HQS inspections. In addition, the Authority should implement a review procedure to make sure that HAP payments are properly abated when required. Views of Responsible Officials of the Auditee: The Authority agrees with the finding and has taken corrective action. See the ?Action Taken? on the Corrective Action Plan.
2022-001 Eligibility: HCV Tenant Files Section 8 Housing Voucher Cluster (Section 8): Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers Program ? CFDA Number 14.871 Mainstream Vouchers ? CFDA Number 14.879 Material Weakness in Internal Control, Material Noncompliance Repeat Finding from June 30, 2021 (Finding 2021-001 and originally reported in 2017 as Finding 2017-001) Condition: Out of a total tenant population of approximately 1400 vouchers, 26 files were selected for testing. Exceptions were noted as follows: ? 1 utility allowance error where the utility allowance amount of $288 on the 52667 form was reported on the 50058 form for $298. This had no effect on the HAP rent. ? 2 214 affidavit errors where a member of the tenant?s household did not checkmark the box on their 214 forms indicating that they are either a U.S. citizen or a permanent resident. Based on the birth certificates, the member of the households were a U.S. citizen. ? 1 214 affidavit error where the 214 form was missing for a member of the tenant?s household. ? 1 income error where one of the tenant?s pay check was missing for the tenant?s income calculation. Basing the tenant?s wage income calculation on the support in the tenant file would not have changed the HAP rent. ? 1 HAP contract error where the HAP contract is missing from the tenant file. ? 2 9886 errors where members of the household over the age of 18 did not sign and date the 9886 forms. ? 2 deduction errors where members of two households, who were 18 years of age, received a $480 deduction. Correcting this error caused the HAP rent to decrease by $12 for each tenant. ? 1 lead base paint error where the lessor (landlord) did not sign the form to indicate that the information provided to the tenant is accurate. ? 2 EIV errors where the EIV form was not generated or were missing for the tenant?s annual recertification. ? 1 50058 error where the tenant?s childcare support was coded as unemployment benefits on the 50058. ? 1 tenant file unavailable for review due to Hurricane IAN, but no support could be provided. In addition, we also noted as part of our new admissions testing (21 files tested out of approximately 203 new admissions) the following: ? 1 tenant file unavailable for review due to Hurricane IAN, but no support could be provided. Criteria: 24 CFR 982.516 requires internal controls to be in place to ensure compliance with HUD requirements, as well as complete and accurate tenant files. In addition, the Authority?s Administrative Plan also requires following proper procedures for determination of HAP and documentation in the tenant files. Questioned Costs: None. Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with all of the HUD requirements regarding eligibility and tenant recertification, which could result in incorrect total tenant payments for rent and HAP payments to landlords. Cause: Procedures to ensure compliance with all of the HUD requirements were not being carefully followed. Auditor?s Recommendation: The Authority should correct the deficiencies noted in the tested files and utilize an ongoing quality control review process on the entire tenant population to ensure proper compliance with the requirements related to tenant eligibility. Ongoing staff training and timely management reviews should be utilized to ensure staff is aware of acceptable procedures. In addition, the Authority should review staffing levels, skill sets and case load. Views of Responsible Officials of the Auditee: The Authority agrees with the finding and has taken corrective action. See the ?Action Taken? on the Corrective Action Plan
2022-002 Special Tests and Provisions: HCV Current Waiting List Section 8 Housing Voucher Cluster (Section 8): Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers Program ? CFDA Number 14.871 Mainstream Vouchers ? CFDA Number 14.879 Material Weakness in Internal Control, Material Noncompliance Condition: Out of a total waiting list population of approximately 1300 applicants, 25 applicants were selected for testing. Exceptions were noted as follows: ? 1 preference point error where the applicant selected the involuntary displacement and homeless preference points on their pre-application, which agrees to the information in Yardi, but doesn?t agree to the generated waiting list. ? 7 preference point errors where the applicants? selected the residency preference points on their pre-applications, which agrees to the information in Yardi, but doesn?t agree to the generated waiting list. As a result of the above, applicants may not be ranked properly on the waiting list and applicants may be selected out of order. Criteria: Applicants on the waiting list must be kept in the proper order based on application date and/or approved preferences. The Authority is required to admit tenants based on the waiting list in accordance with HUD requirements and the Authority?s policies. The Authority must have written policies in its HCV Administrative Plan for selecting applicants from the waiting list and Authority documentation must show that the PHA follows these policies when selecting applicants for admission from the waiting list. All proper documentation must be kept in the tenant file. In addition, only applicants who are eligible should be admitted to the program. Questioned Costs: None. Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with applicable HUD regulations and admission policies and as a result may admit applicants from the waiting list in an improper order. Cause: The waiting list software did not interface properly with the application preferences. Thus, procedures to ensure compliance with all of the HUD requirements were not carefully followed. Auditor?s Recommendation: The Authority should review procedures and increase training to employees and reviewers to ensure that the Authority is in compliance with HUD rules for new admissions and waiting list maintenance. In addition, the Authority should implement a review procedure to make sure that all tenants are admitted in the proper order with proper supporting documentation. Views of Responsible Officials of the Auditee: The Authority agrees with the finding and has taken corrective action. See the ?Action Taken? on the Corrective Action Plan.
2022-003 Special Tests and Provisions: HCV Failed Inspections Section 8 Housing Voucher Cluster (Section 8): Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers Program ? CFDA Number 14.871 Mainstream Vouchers ? CFDA Number 14.879 Material Weakness in Internal Control, Material Noncompliance Condition: Out of a total failed inspection population of approximately 540 units, 25 failed inspections were selected for testing. Exceptions were noted as follows: ? 1 Inspection and HAP abatement error where the tenant?s unit did not pass inspection and HAP payments were not withheld from July 2022 through February 2023. ? 1 HAP abatement error where the Authority pro-rated the HAP payment for August 2022 and abated the HAP payment for September through November 2022, but subsequently, whether due to a user or system error, HAP payments were paid out for the months from September through November 2022. ? 1 HAP abatement error where the Authority pro-rated the HAP payment for January & May 2022 and abated the HAP payment for February through April 2022, but subsequently, whether due to a user or system error, HAP payments were paid out for the months from January through May 2022. ? 1 HAP abatement error where the Authority didn't pro-rate the HAP payment withholding for June & December 2022 nor withhold the HAP payment for the month of July 2022. The Authority properly withheld the HAP payments for the months of August, September, October, and November 2022. Criteria: For units under HAP contract that fail the HQS inspection, 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. Questioned Costs: None. Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with applicable HUD regulations and HQS policies and as a result HAP payments were not properly abated which are designed to assure that landlords complete unit repairs timely to provide safe housing for tenants. Cause: Procedures to ensure compliance with all of the HUD requirements were not being carefully followed. Auditor?s Recommendation: The Authority should review procedures and increase training to employees and reviewers to ensure that the Authority is in compliance with HUD rules for HQS inspections. In addition, the Authority should implement a review procedure to make sure that HAP payments are properly abated when required. Views of Responsible Officials of the Auditee: The Authority agrees with the finding and has taken corrective action. See the ?Action Taken? on the Corrective Action Plan.
2022-001 Eligibility: HCV Tenant Files Section 8 Housing Voucher Cluster (Section 8): Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers Program ? CFDA Number 14.871 Mainstream Vouchers ? CFDA Number 14.879 Material Weakness in Internal Control, Material Noncompliance Repeat Finding from June 30, 2021 (Finding 2021-001 and originally reported in 2017 as Finding 2017-001) Condition: Out of a total tenant population of approximately 1400 vouchers, 26 files were selected for testing. Exceptions were noted as follows: ? 1 utility allowance error where the utility allowance amount of $288 on the 52667 form was reported on the 50058 form for $298. This had no effect on the HAP rent. ? 2 214 affidavit errors where a member of the tenant?s household did not checkmark the box on their 214 forms indicating that they are either a U.S. citizen or a permanent resident. Based on the birth certificates, the member of the households were a U.S. citizen. ? 1 214 affidavit error where the 214 form was missing for a member of the tenant?s household. ? 1 income error where one of the tenant?s pay check was missing for the tenant?s income calculation. Basing the tenant?s wage income calculation on the support in the tenant file would not have changed the HAP rent. ? 1 HAP contract error where the HAP contract is missing from the tenant file. ? 2 9886 errors where members of the household over the age of 18 did not sign and date the 9886 forms. ? 2 deduction errors where members of two households, who were 18 years of age, received a $480 deduction. Correcting this error caused the HAP rent to decrease by $12 for each tenant. ? 1 lead base paint error where the lessor (landlord) did not sign the form to indicate that the information provided to the tenant is accurate. ? 2 EIV errors where the EIV form was not generated or were missing for the tenant?s annual recertification. ? 1 50058 error where the tenant?s childcare support was coded as unemployment benefits on the 50058. ? 1 tenant file unavailable for review due to Hurricane IAN, but no support could be provided. In addition, we also noted as part of our new admissions testing (21 files tested out of approximately 203 new admissions) the following: ? 1 tenant file unavailable for review due to Hurricane IAN, but no support could be provided. Criteria: 24 CFR 982.516 requires internal controls to be in place to ensure compliance with HUD requirements, as well as complete and accurate tenant files. In addition, the Authority?s Administrative Plan also requires following proper procedures for determination of HAP and documentation in the tenant files. Questioned Costs: None. Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with all of the HUD requirements regarding eligibility and tenant recertification, which could result in incorrect total tenant payments for rent and HAP payments to landlords. Cause: Procedures to ensure compliance with all of the HUD requirements were not being carefully followed. Auditor?s Recommendation: The Authority should correct the deficiencies noted in the tested files and utilize an ongoing quality control review process on the entire tenant population to ensure proper compliance with the requirements related to tenant eligibility. Ongoing staff training and timely management reviews should be utilized to ensure staff is aware of acceptable procedures. In addition, the Authority should review staffing levels, skill sets and case load. Views of Responsible Officials of the Auditee: The Authority agrees with the finding and has taken corrective action. See the ?Action Taken? on the Corrective Action Plan
2022-002 Special Tests and Provisions: HCV Current Waiting List Section 8 Housing Voucher Cluster (Section 8): Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers Program ? CFDA Number 14.871 Mainstream Vouchers ? CFDA Number 14.879 Material Weakness in Internal Control, Material Noncompliance Condition: Out of a total waiting list population of approximately 1300 applicants, 25 applicants were selected for testing. Exceptions were noted as follows: ? 1 preference point error where the applicant selected the involuntary displacement and homeless preference points on their pre-application, which agrees to the information in Yardi, but doesn?t agree to the generated waiting list. ? 7 preference point errors where the applicants? selected the residency preference points on their pre-applications, which agrees to the information in Yardi, but doesn?t agree to the generated waiting list. As a result of the above, applicants may not be ranked properly on the waiting list and applicants may be selected out of order. Criteria: Applicants on the waiting list must be kept in the proper order based on application date and/or approved preferences. The Authority is required to admit tenants based on the waiting list in accordance with HUD requirements and the Authority?s policies. The Authority must have written policies in its HCV Administrative Plan for selecting applicants from the waiting list and Authority documentation must show that the PHA follows these policies when selecting applicants for admission from the waiting list. All proper documentation must be kept in the tenant file. In addition, only applicants who are eligible should be admitted to the program. Questioned Costs: None. Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with applicable HUD regulations and admission policies and as a result may admit applicants from the waiting list in an improper order. Cause: The waiting list software did not interface properly with the application preferences. Thus, procedures to ensure compliance with all of the HUD requirements were not carefully followed. Auditor?s Recommendation: The Authority should review procedures and increase training to employees and reviewers to ensure that the Authority is in compliance with HUD rules for new admissions and waiting list maintenance. In addition, the Authority should implement a review procedure to make sure that all tenants are admitted in the proper order with proper supporting documentation. Views of Responsible Officials of the Auditee: The Authority agrees with the finding and has taken corrective action. See the ?Action Taken? on the Corrective Action Plan.
2022-003 Special Tests and Provisions: HCV Failed Inspections Section 8 Housing Voucher Cluster (Section 8): Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers Program ? CFDA Number 14.871 Mainstream Vouchers ? CFDA Number 14.879 Material Weakness in Internal Control, Material Noncompliance Condition: Out of a total failed inspection population of approximately 540 units, 25 failed inspections were selected for testing. Exceptions were noted as follows: ? 1 Inspection and HAP abatement error where the tenant?s unit did not pass inspection and HAP payments were not withheld from July 2022 through February 2023. ? 1 HAP abatement error where the Authority pro-rated the HAP payment for August 2022 and abated the HAP payment for September through November 2022, but subsequently, whether due to a user or system error, HAP payments were paid out for the months from September through November 2022. ? 1 HAP abatement error where the Authority pro-rated the HAP payment for January & May 2022 and abated the HAP payment for February through April 2022, but subsequently, whether due to a user or system error, HAP payments were paid out for the months from January through May 2022. ? 1 HAP abatement error where the Authority didn't pro-rate the HAP payment withholding for June & December 2022 nor withhold the HAP payment for the month of July 2022. The Authority properly withheld the HAP payments for the months of August, September, October, and November 2022. Criteria: For units under HAP contract that fail the HQS inspection, 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. Questioned Costs: None. Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with applicable HUD regulations and HQS policies and as a result HAP payments were not properly abated which are designed to assure that landlords complete unit repairs timely to provide safe housing for tenants. Cause: Procedures to ensure compliance with all of the HUD requirements were not being carefully followed. Auditor?s Recommendation: The Authority should review procedures and increase training to employees and reviewers to ensure that the Authority is in compliance with HUD rules for HQS inspections. In addition, the Authority should implement a review procedure to make sure that HAP payments are properly abated when required. Views of Responsible Officials of the Auditee: The Authority agrees with the finding and has taken corrective action. See the ?Action Taken? on the Corrective Action Plan.
2022-001 Eligibility: HCV Tenant Files Section 8 Housing Voucher Cluster (Section 8): Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers Program ? CFDA Number 14.871 Mainstream Vouchers ? CFDA Number 14.879 Material Weakness in Internal Control, Material Noncompliance Repeat Finding from June 30, 2021 (Finding 2021-001 and originally reported in 2017 as Finding 2017-001) Condition: Out of a total tenant population of approximately 1400 vouchers, 26 files were selected for testing. Exceptions were noted as follows: ? 1 utility allowance error where the utility allowance amount of $288 on the 52667 form was reported on the 50058 form for $298. This had no effect on the HAP rent. ? 2 214 affidavit errors where a member of the tenant?s household did not checkmark the box on their 214 forms indicating that they are either a U.S. citizen or a permanent resident. Based on the birth certificates, the member of the households were a U.S. citizen. ? 1 214 affidavit error where the 214 form was missing for a member of the tenant?s household. ? 1 income error where one of the tenant?s pay check was missing for the tenant?s income calculation. Basing the tenant?s wage income calculation on the support in the tenant file would not have changed the HAP rent. ? 1 HAP contract error where the HAP contract is missing from the tenant file. ? 2 9886 errors where members of the household over the age of 18 did not sign and date the 9886 forms. ? 2 deduction errors where members of two households, who were 18 years of age, received a $480 deduction. Correcting this error caused the HAP rent to decrease by $12 for each tenant. ? 1 lead base paint error where the lessor (landlord) did not sign the form to indicate that the information provided to the tenant is accurate. ? 2 EIV errors where the EIV form was not generated or were missing for the tenant?s annual recertification. ? 1 50058 error where the tenant?s childcare support was coded as unemployment benefits on the 50058. ? 1 tenant file unavailable for review due to Hurricane IAN, but no support could be provided. In addition, we also noted as part of our new admissions testing (21 files tested out of approximately 203 new admissions) the following: ? 1 tenant file unavailable for review due to Hurricane IAN, but no support could be provided. Criteria: 24 CFR 982.516 requires internal controls to be in place to ensure compliance with HUD requirements, as well as complete and accurate tenant files. In addition, the Authority?s Administrative Plan also requires following proper procedures for determination of HAP and documentation in the tenant files. Questioned Costs: None. Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with all of the HUD requirements regarding eligibility and tenant recertification, which could result in incorrect total tenant payments for rent and HAP payments to landlords. Cause: Procedures to ensure compliance with all of the HUD requirements were not being carefully followed. Auditor?s Recommendation: The Authority should correct the deficiencies noted in the tested files and utilize an ongoing quality control review process on the entire tenant population to ensure proper compliance with the requirements related to tenant eligibility. Ongoing staff training and timely management reviews should be utilized to ensure staff is aware of acceptable procedures. In addition, the Authority should review staffing levels, skill sets and case load. Views of Responsible Officials of the Auditee: The Authority agrees with the finding and has taken corrective action. See the ?Action Taken? on the Corrective Action Plan
2022-002 Special Tests and Provisions: HCV Current Waiting List Section 8 Housing Voucher Cluster (Section 8): Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers Program ? CFDA Number 14.871 Mainstream Vouchers ? CFDA Number 14.879 Material Weakness in Internal Control, Material Noncompliance Condition: Out of a total waiting list population of approximately 1300 applicants, 25 applicants were selected for testing. Exceptions were noted as follows: ? 1 preference point error where the applicant selected the involuntary displacement and homeless preference points on their pre-application, which agrees to the information in Yardi, but doesn?t agree to the generated waiting list. ? 7 preference point errors where the applicants? selected the residency preference points on their pre-applications, which agrees to the information in Yardi, but doesn?t agree to the generated waiting list. As a result of the above, applicants may not be ranked properly on the waiting list and applicants may be selected out of order. Criteria: Applicants on the waiting list must be kept in the proper order based on application date and/or approved preferences. The Authority is required to admit tenants based on the waiting list in accordance with HUD requirements and the Authority?s policies. The Authority must have written policies in its HCV Administrative Plan for selecting applicants from the waiting list and Authority documentation must show that the PHA follows these policies when selecting applicants for admission from the waiting list. All proper documentation must be kept in the tenant file. In addition, only applicants who are eligible should be admitted to the program. Questioned Costs: None. Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with applicable HUD regulations and admission policies and as a result may admit applicants from the waiting list in an improper order. Cause: The waiting list software did not interface properly with the application preferences. Thus, procedures to ensure compliance with all of the HUD requirements were not carefully followed. Auditor?s Recommendation: The Authority should review procedures and increase training to employees and reviewers to ensure that the Authority is in compliance with HUD rules for new admissions and waiting list maintenance. In addition, the Authority should implement a review procedure to make sure that all tenants are admitted in the proper order with proper supporting documentation. Views of Responsible Officials of the Auditee: The Authority agrees with the finding and has taken corrective action. See the ?Action Taken? on the Corrective Action Plan.
2022-003 Special Tests and Provisions: HCV Failed Inspections Section 8 Housing Voucher Cluster (Section 8): Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers Program ? CFDA Number 14.871 Mainstream Vouchers ? CFDA Number 14.879 Material Weakness in Internal Control, Material Noncompliance Condition: Out of a total failed inspection population of approximately 540 units, 25 failed inspections were selected for testing. Exceptions were noted as follows: ? 1 Inspection and HAP abatement error where the tenant?s unit did not pass inspection and HAP payments were not withheld from July 2022 through February 2023. ? 1 HAP abatement error where the Authority pro-rated the HAP payment for August 2022 and abated the HAP payment for September through November 2022, but subsequently, whether due to a user or system error, HAP payments were paid out for the months from September through November 2022. ? 1 HAP abatement error where the Authority pro-rated the HAP payment for January & May 2022 and abated the HAP payment for February through April 2022, but subsequently, whether due to a user or system error, HAP payments were paid out for the months from January through May 2022. ? 1 HAP abatement error where the Authority didn't pro-rate the HAP payment withholding for June & December 2022 nor withhold the HAP payment for the month of July 2022. The Authority properly withheld the HAP payments for the months of August, September, October, and November 2022. Criteria: For units under HAP contract that fail the HQS inspection, 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. Questioned Costs: None. Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with applicable HUD regulations and HQS policies and as a result HAP payments were not properly abated which are designed to assure that landlords complete unit repairs timely to provide safe housing for tenants. Cause: Procedures to ensure compliance with all of the HUD requirements were not being carefully followed. Auditor?s Recommendation: The Authority should review procedures and increase training to employees and reviewers to ensure that the Authority is in compliance with HUD rules for HQS inspections. In addition, the Authority should implement a review procedure to make sure that HAP payments are properly abated when required. Views of Responsible Officials of the Auditee: The Authority agrees with the finding and has taken corrective action. See the ?Action Taken? on the Corrective Action Plan.
2022-001 Eligibility: HCV Tenant Files Section 8 Housing Voucher Cluster (Section 8): Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers Program ? CFDA Number 14.871 Mainstream Vouchers ? CFDA Number 14.879 Material Weakness in Internal Control, Material Noncompliance Repeat Finding from June 30, 2021 (Finding 2021-001 and originally reported in 2017 as Finding 2017-001) Condition: Out of a total tenant population of approximately 1400 vouchers, 26 files were selected for testing. Exceptions were noted as follows: ? 1 utility allowance error where the utility allowance amount of $288 on the 52667 form was reported on the 50058 form for $298. This had no effect on the HAP rent. ? 2 214 affidavit errors where a member of the tenant?s household did not checkmark the box on their 214 forms indicating that they are either a U.S. citizen or a permanent resident. Based on the birth certificates, the member of the households were a U.S. citizen. ? 1 214 affidavit error where the 214 form was missing for a member of the tenant?s household. ? 1 income error where one of the tenant?s pay check was missing for the tenant?s income calculation. Basing the tenant?s wage income calculation on the support in the tenant file would not have changed the HAP rent. ? 1 HAP contract error where the HAP contract is missing from the tenant file. ? 2 9886 errors where members of the household over the age of 18 did not sign and date the 9886 forms. ? 2 deduction errors where members of two households, who were 18 years of age, received a $480 deduction. Correcting this error caused the HAP rent to decrease by $12 for each tenant. ? 1 lead base paint error where the lessor (landlord) did not sign the form to indicate that the information provided to the tenant is accurate. ? 2 EIV errors where the EIV form was not generated or were missing for the tenant?s annual recertification. ? 1 50058 error where the tenant?s childcare support was coded as unemployment benefits on the 50058. ? 1 tenant file unavailable for review due to Hurricane IAN, but no support could be provided. In addition, we also noted as part of our new admissions testing (21 files tested out of approximately 203 new admissions) the following: ? 1 tenant file unavailable for review due to Hurricane IAN, but no support could be provided. Criteria: 24 CFR 982.516 requires internal controls to be in place to ensure compliance with HUD requirements, as well as complete and accurate tenant files. In addition, the Authority?s Administrative Plan also requires following proper procedures for determination of HAP and documentation in the tenant files. Questioned Costs: None. Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with all of the HUD requirements regarding eligibility and tenant recertification, which could result in incorrect total tenant payments for rent and HAP payments to landlords. Cause: Procedures to ensure compliance with all of the HUD requirements were not being carefully followed. Auditor?s Recommendation: The Authority should correct the deficiencies noted in the tested files and utilize an ongoing quality control review process on the entire tenant population to ensure proper compliance with the requirements related to tenant eligibility. Ongoing staff training and timely management reviews should be utilized to ensure staff is aware of acceptable procedures. In addition, the Authority should review staffing levels, skill sets and case load. Views of Responsible Officials of the Auditee: The Authority agrees with the finding and has taken corrective action. See the ?Action Taken? on the Corrective Action Plan
2022-002 Special Tests and Provisions: HCV Current Waiting List Section 8 Housing Voucher Cluster (Section 8): Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers Program ? CFDA Number 14.871 Mainstream Vouchers ? CFDA Number 14.879 Material Weakness in Internal Control, Material Noncompliance Condition: Out of a total waiting list population of approximately 1300 applicants, 25 applicants were selected for testing. Exceptions were noted as follows: ? 1 preference point error where the applicant selected the involuntary displacement and homeless preference points on their pre-application, which agrees to the information in Yardi, but doesn?t agree to the generated waiting list. ? 7 preference point errors where the applicants? selected the residency preference points on their pre-applications, which agrees to the information in Yardi, but doesn?t agree to the generated waiting list. As a result of the above, applicants may not be ranked properly on the waiting list and applicants may be selected out of order. Criteria: Applicants on the waiting list must be kept in the proper order based on application date and/or approved preferences. The Authority is required to admit tenants based on the waiting list in accordance with HUD requirements and the Authority?s policies. The Authority must have written policies in its HCV Administrative Plan for selecting applicants from the waiting list and Authority documentation must show that the PHA follows these policies when selecting applicants for admission from the waiting list. All proper documentation must be kept in the tenant file. In addition, only applicants who are eligible should be admitted to the program. Questioned Costs: None. Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with applicable HUD regulations and admission policies and as a result may admit applicants from the waiting list in an improper order. Cause: The waiting list software did not interface properly with the application preferences. Thus, procedures to ensure compliance with all of the HUD requirements were not carefully followed. Auditor?s Recommendation: The Authority should review procedures and increase training to employees and reviewers to ensure that the Authority is in compliance with HUD rules for new admissions and waiting list maintenance. In addition, the Authority should implement a review procedure to make sure that all tenants are admitted in the proper order with proper supporting documentation. Views of Responsible Officials of the Auditee: The Authority agrees with the finding and has taken corrective action. See the ?Action Taken? on the Corrective Action Plan.
2022-003 Special Tests and Provisions: HCV Failed Inspections Section 8 Housing Voucher Cluster (Section 8): Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers Program ? CFDA Number 14.871 Mainstream Vouchers ? CFDA Number 14.879 Material Weakness in Internal Control, Material Noncompliance Condition: Out of a total failed inspection population of approximately 540 units, 25 failed inspections were selected for testing. Exceptions were noted as follows: ? 1 Inspection and HAP abatement error where the tenant?s unit did not pass inspection and HAP payments were not withheld from July 2022 through February 2023. ? 1 HAP abatement error where the Authority pro-rated the HAP payment for August 2022 and abated the HAP payment for September through November 2022, but subsequently, whether due to a user or system error, HAP payments were paid out for the months from September through November 2022. ? 1 HAP abatement error where the Authority pro-rated the HAP payment for January & May 2022 and abated the HAP payment for February through April 2022, but subsequently, whether due to a user or system error, HAP payments were paid out for the months from January through May 2022. ? 1 HAP abatement error where the Authority didn't pro-rate the HAP payment withholding for June & December 2022 nor withhold the HAP payment for the month of July 2022. The Authority properly withheld the HAP payments for the months of August, September, October, and November 2022. Criteria: For units under HAP contract that fail the HQS inspection, 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. Questioned Costs: None. Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with applicable HUD regulations and HQS policies and as a result HAP payments were not properly abated which are designed to assure that landlords complete unit repairs timely to provide safe housing for tenants. Cause: Procedures to ensure compliance with all of the HUD requirements were not being carefully followed. Auditor?s Recommendation: The Authority should review procedures and increase training to employees and reviewers to ensure that the Authority is in compliance with HUD rules for HQS inspections. In addition, the Authority should implement a review procedure to make sure that HAP payments are properly abated when required. Views of Responsible Officials of the Auditee: The Authority agrees with the finding and has taken corrective action. See the ?Action Taken? on the Corrective Action Plan.
2022-004 Eligibility: Public Housing Tenant Files Public and Indian Housing Program ? CFDA Number 14.850 Material Weakness in Internal Control, Material Noncompliance Repeat Finding from June 30, 2021 reported as Finding 2021-002 Condition: Out of a total tenant population of approximately 300 tenant files, 25 files were selected for testing (but stopped testing after 18 files due to the volume of errors). Exceptions were noted as follows: ? 1 tenant file where the Authority was unable to locate and therefore could not test items such as Form 9986, personal declaration form, birth certificates, social security cards, income and deduction support, and EIV verification. The Authority indicated it was recreating the file. ? 2 tenant files with missing 214 affidavits. ? 1 tenant file where the 214 affidavit was not signed. ? 5 tenant files where the personal declaration form was not in the file. ? 1 tenant file where the Form 9886 was not in the file. ? 1 tenant file where the Form 9886 was signed approximately 3 months after the recertification date. ? 4 tenant files with income issues which may have changed the tenant rent amount: o 1 file where there was no support for the family contribution listed on the 50058. o 1 file where there was no support for the child support listed on the 50058. o 2 files where general assistance income (food stamps) was listed as income on the 50058 but should have been excluded. ? 4 tenant files with deduction issues which may have changed the tenant rent amount: o 1 file where the utility allowance of $91 was not on the 50058. This was corrected subsequently on an interim certification. o 1 file where the ?Disclosure of Information? form listed weekly child care expenses, but no child care expenses were deducted on the 50058 and there was no documentation or support in the file explaining if the child care expenses were deductible. o 1 file where the ?Recertification Summary? form listed weekly medical expenses, but no medical expenses were deducted on the 50058 and there was no documentation or support in the file explaining if the medical expenses were deductible. o 1 tenant file where the prior year utility allowance of $82 was used instead of the current utility allowance of $90. ? 1 file where the tenant is paying a flat rent of $686. However, the flat rent appears to be the amount from the previous year and it doesn?t appear that a current flat rent study was conducted or approved. ? 1 file where the dependent date of birth listed on the 50058 did not agree to the birth certificate. ? 2 files where the birth certificates were missing. ? 2 files where the social security cards were missing. ? 1 file where the EIV was not in the file. Criteria: 24 CFR 960.253 - 259 requires internal controls to be in place to ensure compliance with HUD requirements, as well as complete and accurate tenant files. In addition, the Authority?s Admissions and Continued Occupancy Policy (ACOP) also requires following proper procedures for determination of HAP and documentation in the tenant files. Questioned Costs: None. Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with all of the HUD requirements regarding eligibility and tenant recertification, which could result in incorrect total tenant payments for rent. Cause: Procedures to ensure compliance with all of the HUD requirements were not being carefully followed. Auditor?s Recommendation: The Authority should correct the deficiencies noted in the tested files and utilize an ongoing quality control review process on the entire tenant population to ensure proper compliance with the requirements related to tenant eligibility. Ongoing staff training and timely management reviews should be utilized to ensure staff is aware of acceptable procedures. In addition, the Authority should review staffing levels, skill sets and case load. Views of Responsible Officials of the Auditee: The Authority agrees with the finding and has taken corrective action. See the ?Action Taken? on the Corrective Action Plan.
2022-005 Special Tests and Provisions: Public Housing New Admissions and Waiting List Public and Indian Housing Program ? CFDA Number 14.850 Material Weakness in Internal Control, Material Noncompliance Repeat Finding from June 30, 2021 reported as Finding 2021-003 Condition: New Admissions: We selected 5 new admissions (out of a population of 13) and noted the following: ? We are unable to test if the 5 new admissions were properly selected from the waiting list. Normally we are able to verify by checking where the applicant was on the wait list prior to selection and comparing the waiting list ranking (for date/time applied and preferences) to the application submitted. However, the Authority was not able to provide the applications from which would show the date and time they applied as well as any preferences selected so we were unable to determine if the new admissions were properly selected from the waiting list. Waiting list: We selected 25 applicants on the current waiting list (out of approximately of 700 applicants) and noted the following: ? We were unable to test the 25 applicants selected for testing. The Authority was unable to provide the application for each person on the waiting list and therefore we were unable to determine if the waiting list is ranked properly. As discussed with personnel, all active applications are received electronically (when the waiting list is open). The families create the application entering information such as family members, family income and family expenses. However, the on-line system appears to be flawed as it does not provide fields to indicate preferences (such as for being homeless or living locally) which if entered, would give the applicant points so they could be ranked higher on the waiting list and therefore selected faster. Once the applicant is selected to be housed, the Authority manually applies the applicable preferences (but at that point the Authority may have selected someone on the waiting list that should have been selected earlier and defeats the purpose of having preferences). The Authority has addressed this issue with Yardi and has sent notices to all active applicants asking them to update their preferences which the Authority will manually apply and generate the waiting list and the process is expected to be finalized before March 31, 2023. As a result of the above, applicants may not be ranked properly on the waiting list and applicants may be selected out of order. Criteria: Applicants on the waiting list must be kept in the proper order based on application date and/or approved preferences. The Authority is required to admit tenants based on the waiting list in accordance with HUD requirements and the Authority?s policies. The Authority must have written policies in its Public Housing ACOP for selecting applicants from the waiting list and Authority documentation must show that the PHA follows these policies when selecting applicants for admission from the waiting list. All proper documentation must be kept in the tenant file. In addition, only applicants who are eligible should be admitted to the program. Questioned Costs: None. Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with applicable HUD regulations and admission policies. Cause: Procedures to ensure compliance with all of the HUD requirements were not being carefully followed. Auditor?s Recommendation: The Authority should review procedures and increase training to employees and reviewers to ensure that the Authority is in compliance with HUD rules for new admissions and waiting list maintenance. In addition, the Authority should implement a review procedure to make sure that all tenants are admitted in the proper order with proper supporting documentation. In addition, the Authority should continue to investigate the issues with the waiting list software. Views of Responsible Officials of the Auditee: The Authority agrees with the finding and has taken corrective action. See the ?Action Taken? on the Corrective Action Plan.
2022-004 Eligibility: Public Housing Tenant Files Public and Indian Housing Program ? CFDA Number 14.850 Material Weakness in Internal Control, Material Noncompliance Repeat Finding from June 30, 2021 reported as Finding 2021-002 Condition: Out of a total tenant population of approximately 300 tenant files, 25 files were selected for testing (but stopped testing after 18 files due to the volume of errors). Exceptions were noted as follows: ? 1 tenant file where the Authority was unable to locate and therefore could not test items such as Form 9986, personal declaration form, birth certificates, social security cards, income and deduction support, and EIV verification. The Authority indicated it was recreating the file. ? 2 tenant files with missing 214 affidavits. ? 1 tenant file where the 214 affidavit was not signed. ? 5 tenant files where the personal declaration form was not in the file. ? 1 tenant file where the Form 9886 was not in the file. ? 1 tenant file where the Form 9886 was signed approximately 3 months after the recertification date. ? 4 tenant files with income issues which may have changed the tenant rent amount: o 1 file where there was no support for the family contribution listed on the 50058. o 1 file where there was no support for the child support listed on the 50058. o 2 files where general assistance income (food stamps) was listed as income on the 50058 but should have been excluded. ? 4 tenant files with deduction issues which may have changed the tenant rent amount: o 1 file where the utility allowance of $91 was not on the 50058. This was corrected subsequently on an interim certification. o 1 file where the ?Disclosure of Information? form listed weekly child care expenses, but no child care expenses were deducted on the 50058 and there was no documentation or support in the file explaining if the child care expenses were deductible. o 1 file where the ?Recertification Summary? form listed weekly medical expenses, but no medical expenses were deducted on the 50058 and there was no documentation or support in the file explaining if the medical expenses were deductible. o 1 tenant file where the prior year utility allowance of $82 was used instead of the current utility allowance of $90. ? 1 file where the tenant is paying a flat rent of $686. However, the flat rent appears to be the amount from the previous year and it doesn?t appear that a current flat rent study was conducted or approved. ? 1 file where the dependent date of birth listed on the 50058 did not agree to the birth certificate. ? 2 files where the birth certificates were missing. ? 2 files where the social security cards were missing. ? 1 file where the EIV was not in the file. Criteria: 24 CFR 960.253 - 259 requires internal controls to be in place to ensure compliance with HUD requirements, as well as complete and accurate tenant files. In addition, the Authority?s Admissions and Continued Occupancy Policy (ACOP) also requires following proper procedures for determination of HAP and documentation in the tenant files. Questioned Costs: None. Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with all of the HUD requirements regarding eligibility and tenant recertification, which could result in incorrect total tenant payments for rent. Cause: Procedures to ensure compliance with all of the HUD requirements were not being carefully followed. Auditor?s Recommendation: The Authority should correct the deficiencies noted in the tested files and utilize an ongoing quality control review process on the entire tenant population to ensure proper compliance with the requirements related to tenant eligibility. Ongoing staff training and timely management reviews should be utilized to ensure staff is aware of acceptable procedures. In addition, the Authority should review staffing levels, skill sets and case load. Views of Responsible Officials of the Auditee: The Authority agrees with the finding and has taken corrective action. See the ?Action Taken? on the Corrective Action Plan.
2022-005 Special Tests and Provisions: Public Housing New Admissions and Waiting List Public and Indian Housing Program ? CFDA Number 14.850 Material Weakness in Internal Control, Material Noncompliance Repeat Finding from June 30, 2021 reported as Finding 2021-003 Condition: New Admissions: We selected 5 new admissions (out of a population of 13) and noted the following: ? We are unable to test if the 5 new admissions were properly selected from the waiting list. Normally we are able to verify by checking where the applicant was on the wait list prior to selection and comparing the waiting list ranking (for date/time applied and preferences) to the application submitted. However, the Authority was not able to provide the applications from which would show the date and time they applied as well as any preferences selected so we were unable to determine if the new admissions were properly selected from the waiting list. Waiting list: We selected 25 applicants on the current waiting list (out of approximately of 700 applicants) and noted the following: ? We were unable to test the 25 applicants selected for testing. The Authority was unable to provide the application for each person on the waiting list and therefore we were unable to determine if the waiting list is ranked properly. As discussed with personnel, all active applications are received electronically (when the waiting list is open). The families create the application entering information such as family members, family income and family expenses. However, the on-line system appears to be flawed as it does not provide fields to indicate preferences (such as for being homeless or living locally) which if entered, would give the applicant points so they could be ranked higher on the waiting list and therefore selected faster. Once the applicant is selected to be housed, the Authority manually applies the applicable preferences (but at that point the Authority may have selected someone on the waiting list that should have been selected earlier and defeats the purpose of having preferences). The Authority has addressed this issue with Yardi and has sent notices to all active applicants asking them to update their preferences which the Authority will manually apply and generate the waiting list and the process is expected to be finalized before March 31, 2023. As a result of the above, applicants may not be ranked properly on the waiting list and applicants may be selected out of order. Criteria: Applicants on the waiting list must be kept in the proper order based on application date and/or approved preferences. The Authority is required to admit tenants based on the waiting list in accordance with HUD requirements and the Authority?s policies. The Authority must have written policies in its Public Housing ACOP for selecting applicants from the waiting list and Authority documentation must show that the PHA follows these policies when selecting applicants for admission from the waiting list. All proper documentation must be kept in the tenant file. In addition, only applicants who are eligible should be admitted to the program. Questioned Costs: None. Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with applicable HUD regulations and admission policies. Cause: Procedures to ensure compliance with all of the HUD requirements were not being carefully followed. Auditor?s Recommendation: The Authority should review procedures and increase training to employees and reviewers to ensure that the Authority is in compliance with HUD rules for new admissions and waiting list maintenance. In addition, the Authority should implement a review procedure to make sure that all tenants are admitted in the proper order with proper supporting documentation. In addition, the Authority should continue to investigate the issues with the waiting list software. Views of Responsible Officials of the Auditee: The Authority agrees with the finding and has taken corrective action. See the ?Action Taken? on the Corrective Action Plan.
2022-001 Eligibility: HCV Tenant Files Section 8 Housing Voucher Cluster (Section 8): Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers Program ? CFDA Number 14.871 Mainstream Vouchers ? CFDA Number 14.879 Material Weakness in Internal Control, Material Noncompliance Repeat Finding from June 30, 2021 (Finding 2021-001 and originally reported in 2017 as Finding 2017-001) Condition: Out of a total tenant population of approximately 1400 vouchers, 26 files were selected for testing. Exceptions were noted as follows: ? 1 utility allowance error where the utility allowance amount of $288 on the 52667 form was reported on the 50058 form for $298. This had no effect on the HAP rent. ? 2 214 affidavit errors where a member of the tenant?s household did not checkmark the box on their 214 forms indicating that they are either a U.S. citizen or a permanent resident. Based on the birth certificates, the member of the households were a U.S. citizen. ? 1 214 affidavit error where the 214 form was missing for a member of the tenant?s household. ? 1 income error where one of the tenant?s pay check was missing for the tenant?s income calculation. Basing the tenant?s wage income calculation on the support in the tenant file would not have changed the HAP rent. ? 1 HAP contract error where the HAP contract is missing from the tenant file. ? 2 9886 errors where members of the household over the age of 18 did not sign and date the 9886 forms. ? 2 deduction errors where members of two households, who were 18 years of age, received a $480 deduction. Correcting this error caused the HAP rent to decrease by $12 for each tenant. ? 1 lead base paint error where the lessor (landlord) did not sign the form to indicate that the information provided to the tenant is accurate. ? 2 EIV errors where the EIV form was not generated or were missing for the tenant?s annual recertification. ? 1 50058 error where the tenant?s childcare support was coded as unemployment benefits on the 50058. ? 1 tenant file unavailable for review due to Hurricane IAN, but no support could be provided. In addition, we also noted as part of our new admissions testing (21 files tested out of approximately 203 new admissions) the following: ? 1 tenant file unavailable for review due to Hurricane IAN, but no support could be provided. Criteria: 24 CFR 982.516 requires internal controls to be in place to ensure compliance with HUD requirements, as well as complete and accurate tenant files. In addition, the Authority?s Administrative Plan also requires following proper procedures for determination of HAP and documentation in the tenant files. Questioned Costs: None. Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with all of the HUD requirements regarding eligibility and tenant recertification, which could result in incorrect total tenant payments for rent and HAP payments to landlords. Cause: Procedures to ensure compliance with all of the HUD requirements were not being carefully followed. Auditor?s Recommendation: The Authority should correct the deficiencies noted in the tested files and utilize an ongoing quality control review process on the entire tenant population to ensure proper compliance with the requirements related to tenant eligibility. Ongoing staff training and timely management reviews should be utilized to ensure staff is aware of acceptable procedures. In addition, the Authority should review staffing levels, skill sets and case load. Views of Responsible Officials of the Auditee: The Authority agrees with the finding and has taken corrective action. See the ?Action Taken? on the Corrective Action Plan
2022-002 Special Tests and Provisions: HCV Current Waiting List Section 8 Housing Voucher Cluster (Section 8): Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers Program ? CFDA Number 14.871 Mainstream Vouchers ? CFDA Number 14.879 Material Weakness in Internal Control, Material Noncompliance Condition: Out of a total waiting list population of approximately 1300 applicants, 25 applicants were selected for testing. Exceptions were noted as follows: ? 1 preference point error where the applicant selected the involuntary displacement and homeless preference points on their pre-application, which agrees to the information in Yardi, but doesn?t agree to the generated waiting list. ? 7 preference point errors where the applicants? selected the residency preference points on their pre-applications, which agrees to the information in Yardi, but doesn?t agree to the generated waiting list. As a result of the above, applicants may not be ranked properly on the waiting list and applicants may be selected out of order. Criteria: Applicants on the waiting list must be kept in the proper order based on application date and/or approved preferences. The Authority is required to admit tenants based on the waiting list in accordance with HUD requirements and the Authority?s policies. The Authority must have written policies in its HCV Administrative Plan for selecting applicants from the waiting list and Authority documentation must show that the PHA follows these policies when selecting applicants for admission from the waiting list. All proper documentation must be kept in the tenant file. In addition, only applicants who are eligible should be admitted to the program. Questioned Costs: None. Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with applicable HUD regulations and admission policies and as a result may admit applicants from the waiting list in an improper order. Cause: The waiting list software did not interface properly with the application preferences. Thus, procedures to ensure compliance with all of the HUD requirements were not carefully followed. Auditor?s Recommendation: The Authority should review procedures and increase training to employees and reviewers to ensure that the Authority is in compliance with HUD rules for new admissions and waiting list maintenance. In addition, the Authority should implement a review procedure to make sure that all tenants are admitted in the proper order with proper supporting documentation. Views of Responsible Officials of the Auditee: The Authority agrees with the finding and has taken corrective action. See the ?Action Taken? on the Corrective Action Plan.
2022-003 Special Tests and Provisions: HCV Failed Inspections Section 8 Housing Voucher Cluster (Section 8): Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers Program ? CFDA Number 14.871 Mainstream Vouchers ? CFDA Number 14.879 Material Weakness in Internal Control, Material Noncompliance Condition: Out of a total failed inspection population of approximately 540 units, 25 failed inspections were selected for testing. Exceptions were noted as follows: ? 1 Inspection and HAP abatement error where the tenant?s unit did not pass inspection and HAP payments were not withheld from July 2022 through February 2023. ? 1 HAP abatement error where the Authority pro-rated the HAP payment for August 2022 and abated the HAP payment for September through November 2022, but subsequently, whether due to a user or system error, HAP payments were paid out for the months from September through November 2022. ? 1 HAP abatement error where the Authority pro-rated the HAP payment for January & May 2022 and abated the HAP payment for February through April 2022, but subsequently, whether due to a user or system error, HAP payments were paid out for the months from January through May 2022. ? 1 HAP abatement error where the Authority didn't pro-rate the HAP payment withholding for June & December 2022 nor withhold the HAP payment for the month of July 2022. The Authority properly withheld the HAP payments for the months of August, September, October, and November 2022. Criteria: For units under HAP contract that fail the HQS inspection, 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. Questioned Costs: None. Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with applicable HUD regulations and HQS policies and as a result HAP payments were not properly abated which are designed to assure that landlords complete unit repairs timely to provide safe housing for tenants. Cause: Procedures to ensure compliance with all of the HUD requirements were not being carefully followed. Auditor?s Recommendation: The Authority should review procedures and increase training to employees and reviewers to ensure that the Authority is in compliance with HUD rules for HQS inspections. In addition, the Authority should implement a review procedure to make sure that HAP payments are properly abated when required. Views of Responsible Officials of the Auditee: The Authority agrees with the finding and has taken corrective action. See the ?Action Taken? on the Corrective Action Plan.
2022-001 Eligibility: HCV Tenant Files Section 8 Housing Voucher Cluster (Section 8): Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers Program ? CFDA Number 14.871 Mainstream Vouchers ? CFDA Number 14.879 Material Weakness in Internal Control, Material Noncompliance Repeat Finding from June 30, 2021 (Finding 2021-001 and originally reported in 2017 as Finding 2017-001) Condition: Out of a total tenant population of approximately 1400 vouchers, 26 files were selected for testing. Exceptions were noted as follows: ? 1 utility allowance error where the utility allowance amount of $288 on the 52667 form was reported on the 50058 form for $298. This had no effect on the HAP rent. ? 2 214 affidavit errors where a member of the tenant?s household did not checkmark the box on their 214 forms indicating that they are either a U.S. citizen or a permanent resident. Based on the birth certificates, the member of the households were a U.S. citizen. ? 1 214 affidavit error where the 214 form was missing for a member of the tenant?s household. ? 1 income error where one of the tenant?s pay check was missing for the tenant?s income calculation. Basing the tenant?s wage income calculation on the support in the tenant file would not have changed the HAP rent. ? 1 HAP contract error where the HAP contract is missing from the tenant file. ? 2 9886 errors where members of the household over the age of 18 did not sign and date the 9886 forms. ? 2 deduction errors where members of two households, who were 18 years of age, received a $480 deduction. Correcting this error caused the HAP rent to decrease by $12 for each tenant. ? 1 lead base paint error where the lessor (landlord) did not sign the form to indicate that the information provided to the tenant is accurate. ? 2 EIV errors where the EIV form was not generated or were missing for the tenant?s annual recertification. ? 1 50058 error where the tenant?s childcare support was coded as unemployment benefits on the 50058. ? 1 tenant file unavailable for review due to Hurricane IAN, but no support could be provided. In addition, we also noted as part of our new admissions testing (21 files tested out of approximately 203 new admissions) the following: ? 1 tenant file unavailable for review due to Hurricane IAN, but no support could be provided. Criteria: 24 CFR 982.516 requires internal controls to be in place to ensure compliance with HUD requirements, as well as complete and accurate tenant files. In addition, the Authority?s Administrative Plan also requires following proper procedures for determination of HAP and documentation in the tenant files. Questioned Costs: None. Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with all of the HUD requirements regarding eligibility and tenant recertification, which could result in incorrect total tenant payments for rent and HAP payments to landlords. Cause: Procedures to ensure compliance with all of the HUD requirements were not being carefully followed. Auditor?s Recommendation: The Authority should correct the deficiencies noted in the tested files and utilize an ongoing quality control review process on the entire tenant population to ensure proper compliance with the requirements related to tenant eligibility. Ongoing staff training and timely management reviews should be utilized to ensure staff is aware of acceptable procedures. In addition, the Authority should review staffing levels, skill sets and case load. Views of Responsible Officials of the Auditee: The Authority agrees with the finding and has taken corrective action. See the ?Action Taken? on the Corrective Action Plan
2022-002 Special Tests and Provisions: HCV Current Waiting List Section 8 Housing Voucher Cluster (Section 8): Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers Program ? CFDA Number 14.871 Mainstream Vouchers ? CFDA Number 14.879 Material Weakness in Internal Control, Material Noncompliance Condition: Out of a total waiting list population of approximately 1300 applicants, 25 applicants were selected for testing. Exceptions were noted as follows: ? 1 preference point error where the applicant selected the involuntary displacement and homeless preference points on their pre-application, which agrees to the information in Yardi, but doesn?t agree to the generated waiting list. ? 7 preference point errors where the applicants? selected the residency preference points on their pre-applications, which agrees to the information in Yardi, but doesn?t agree to the generated waiting list. As a result of the above, applicants may not be ranked properly on the waiting list and applicants may be selected out of order. Criteria: Applicants on the waiting list must be kept in the proper order based on application date and/or approved preferences. The Authority is required to admit tenants based on the waiting list in accordance with HUD requirements and the Authority?s policies. The Authority must have written policies in its HCV Administrative Plan for selecting applicants from the waiting list and Authority documentation must show that the PHA follows these policies when selecting applicants for admission from the waiting list. All proper documentation must be kept in the tenant file. In addition, only applicants who are eligible should be admitted to the program. Questioned Costs: None. Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with applicable HUD regulations and admission policies and as a result may admit applicants from the waiting list in an improper order. Cause: The waiting list software did not interface properly with the application preferences. Thus, procedures to ensure compliance with all of the HUD requirements were not carefully followed. Auditor?s Recommendation: The Authority should review procedures and increase training to employees and reviewers to ensure that the Authority is in compliance with HUD rules for new admissions and waiting list maintenance. In addition, the Authority should implement a review procedure to make sure that all tenants are admitted in the proper order with proper supporting documentation. Views of Responsible Officials of the Auditee: The Authority agrees with the finding and has taken corrective action. See the ?Action Taken? on the Corrective Action Plan.
2022-003 Special Tests and Provisions: HCV Failed Inspections Section 8 Housing Voucher Cluster (Section 8): Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers Program ? CFDA Number 14.871 Mainstream Vouchers ? CFDA Number 14.879 Material Weakness in Internal Control, Material Noncompliance Condition: Out of a total failed inspection population of approximately 540 units, 25 failed inspections were selected for testing. Exceptions were noted as follows: ? 1 Inspection and HAP abatement error where the tenant?s unit did not pass inspection and HAP payments were not withheld from July 2022 through February 2023. ? 1 HAP abatement error where the Authority pro-rated the HAP payment for August 2022 and abated the HAP payment for September through November 2022, but subsequently, whether due to a user or system error, HAP payments were paid out for the months from September through November 2022. ? 1 HAP abatement error where the Authority pro-rated the HAP payment for January & May 2022 and abated the HAP payment for February through April 2022, but subsequently, whether due to a user or system error, HAP payments were paid out for the months from January through May 2022. ? 1 HAP abatement error where the Authority didn't pro-rate the HAP payment withholding for June & December 2022 nor withhold the HAP payment for the month of July 2022. The Authority properly withheld the HAP payments for the months of August, September, October, and November 2022. Criteria: For units under HAP contract that fail the HQS inspection, 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. Questioned Costs: None. Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with applicable HUD regulations and HQS policies and as a result HAP payments were not properly abated which are designed to assure that landlords complete unit repairs timely to provide safe housing for tenants. Cause: Procedures to ensure compliance with all of the HUD requirements were not being carefully followed. Auditor?s Recommendation: The Authority should review procedures and increase training to employees and reviewers to ensure that the Authority is in compliance with HUD rules for HQS inspections. In addition, the Authority should implement a review procedure to make sure that HAP payments are properly abated when required. Views of Responsible Officials of the Auditee: The Authority agrees with the finding and has taken corrective action. See the ?Action Taken? on the Corrective Action Plan.
2022-001 Eligibility: HCV Tenant Files Section 8 Housing Voucher Cluster (Section 8): Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers Program ? CFDA Number 14.871 Mainstream Vouchers ? CFDA Number 14.879 Material Weakness in Internal Control, Material Noncompliance Repeat Finding from June 30, 2021 (Finding 2021-001 and originally reported in 2017 as Finding 2017-001) Condition: Out of a total tenant population of approximately 1400 vouchers, 26 files were selected for testing. Exceptions were noted as follows: ? 1 utility allowance error where the utility allowance amount of $288 on the 52667 form was reported on the 50058 form for $298. This had no effect on the HAP rent. ? 2 214 affidavit errors where a member of the tenant?s household did not checkmark the box on their 214 forms indicating that they are either a U.S. citizen or a permanent resident. Based on the birth certificates, the member of the households were a U.S. citizen. ? 1 214 affidavit error where the 214 form was missing for a member of the tenant?s household. ? 1 income error where one of the tenant?s pay check was missing for the tenant?s income calculation. Basing the tenant?s wage income calculation on the support in the tenant file would not have changed the HAP rent. ? 1 HAP contract error where the HAP contract is missing from the tenant file. ? 2 9886 errors where members of the household over the age of 18 did not sign and date the 9886 forms. ? 2 deduction errors where members of two households, who were 18 years of age, received a $480 deduction. Correcting this error caused the HAP rent to decrease by $12 for each tenant. ? 1 lead base paint error where the lessor (landlord) did not sign the form to indicate that the information provided to the tenant is accurate. ? 2 EIV errors where the EIV form was not generated or were missing for the tenant?s annual recertification. ? 1 50058 error where the tenant?s childcare support was coded as unemployment benefits on the 50058. ? 1 tenant file unavailable for review due to Hurricane IAN, but no support could be provided. In addition, we also noted as part of our new admissions testing (21 files tested out of approximately 203 new admissions) the following: ? 1 tenant file unavailable for review due to Hurricane IAN, but no support could be provided. Criteria: 24 CFR 982.516 requires internal controls to be in place to ensure compliance with HUD requirements, as well as complete and accurate tenant files. In addition, the Authority?s Administrative Plan also requires following proper procedures for determination of HAP and documentation in the tenant files. Questioned Costs: None. Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with all of the HUD requirements regarding eligibility and tenant recertification, which could result in incorrect total tenant payments for rent and HAP payments to landlords. Cause: Procedures to ensure compliance with all of the HUD requirements were not being carefully followed. Auditor?s Recommendation: The Authority should correct the deficiencies noted in the tested files and utilize an ongoing quality control review process on the entire tenant population to ensure proper compliance with the requirements related to tenant eligibility. Ongoing staff training and timely management reviews should be utilized to ensure staff is aware of acceptable procedures. In addition, the Authority should review staffing levels, skill sets and case load. Views of Responsible Officials of the Auditee: The Authority agrees with the finding and has taken corrective action. See the ?Action Taken? on the Corrective Action Plan
2022-002 Special Tests and Provisions: HCV Current Waiting List Section 8 Housing Voucher Cluster (Section 8): Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers Program ? CFDA Number 14.871 Mainstream Vouchers ? CFDA Number 14.879 Material Weakness in Internal Control, Material Noncompliance Condition: Out of a total waiting list population of approximately 1300 applicants, 25 applicants were selected for testing. Exceptions were noted as follows: ? 1 preference point error where the applicant selected the involuntary displacement and homeless preference points on their pre-application, which agrees to the information in Yardi, but doesn?t agree to the generated waiting list. ? 7 preference point errors where the applicants? selected the residency preference points on their pre-applications, which agrees to the information in Yardi, but doesn?t agree to the generated waiting list. As a result of the above, applicants may not be ranked properly on the waiting list and applicants may be selected out of order. Criteria: Applicants on the waiting list must be kept in the proper order based on application date and/or approved preferences. The Authority is required to admit tenants based on the waiting list in accordance with HUD requirements and the Authority?s policies. The Authority must have written policies in its HCV Administrative Plan for selecting applicants from the waiting list and Authority documentation must show that the PHA follows these policies when selecting applicants for admission from the waiting list. All proper documentation must be kept in the tenant file. In addition, only applicants who are eligible should be admitted to the program. Questioned Costs: None. Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with applicable HUD regulations and admission policies and as a result may admit applicants from the waiting list in an improper order. Cause: The waiting list software did not interface properly with the application preferences. Thus, procedures to ensure compliance with all of the HUD requirements were not carefully followed. Auditor?s Recommendation: The Authority should review procedures and increase training to employees and reviewers to ensure that the Authority is in compliance with HUD rules for new admissions and waiting list maintenance. In addition, the Authority should implement a review procedure to make sure that all tenants are admitted in the proper order with proper supporting documentation. Views of Responsible Officials of the Auditee: The Authority agrees with the finding and has taken corrective action. See the ?Action Taken? on the Corrective Action Plan.
2022-003 Special Tests and Provisions: HCV Failed Inspections Section 8 Housing Voucher Cluster (Section 8): Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers Program ? CFDA Number 14.871 Mainstream Vouchers ? CFDA Number 14.879 Material Weakness in Internal Control, Material Noncompliance Condition: Out of a total failed inspection population of approximately 540 units, 25 failed inspections were selected for testing. Exceptions were noted as follows: ? 1 Inspection and HAP abatement error where the tenant?s unit did not pass inspection and HAP payments were not withheld from July 2022 through February 2023. ? 1 HAP abatement error where the Authority pro-rated the HAP payment for August 2022 and abated the HAP payment for September through November 2022, but subsequently, whether due to a user or system error, HAP payments were paid out for the months from September through November 2022. ? 1 HAP abatement error where the Authority pro-rated the HAP payment for January & May 2022 and abated the HAP payment for February through April 2022, but subsequently, whether due to a user or system error, HAP payments were paid out for the months from January through May 2022. ? 1 HAP abatement error where the Authority didn't pro-rate the HAP payment withholding for June & December 2022 nor withhold the HAP payment for the month of July 2022. The Authority properly withheld the HAP payments for the months of August, September, October, and November 2022. Criteria: For units under HAP contract that fail the HQS inspection, 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. Questioned Costs: None. Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with applicable HUD regulations and HQS policies and as a result HAP payments were not properly abated which are designed to assure that landlords complete unit repairs timely to provide safe housing for tenants. Cause: Procedures to ensure compliance with all of the HUD requirements were not being carefully followed. Auditor?s Recommendation: The Authority should review procedures and increase training to employees and reviewers to ensure that the Authority is in compliance with HUD rules for HQS inspections. In addition, the Authority should implement a review procedure to make sure that HAP payments are properly abated when required. Views of Responsible Officials of the Auditee: The Authority agrees with the finding and has taken corrective action. See the ?Action Taken? on the Corrective Action Plan.
2022-001 Eligibility: HCV Tenant Files Section 8 Housing Voucher Cluster (Section 8): Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers Program ? CFDA Number 14.871 Mainstream Vouchers ? CFDA Number 14.879 Material Weakness in Internal Control, Material Noncompliance Repeat Finding from June 30, 2021 (Finding 2021-001 and originally reported in 2017 as Finding 2017-001) Condition: Out of a total tenant population of approximately 1400 vouchers, 26 files were selected for testing. Exceptions were noted as follows: ? 1 utility allowance error where the utility allowance amount of $288 on the 52667 form was reported on the 50058 form for $298. This had no effect on the HAP rent. ? 2 214 affidavit errors where a member of the tenant?s household did not checkmark the box on their 214 forms indicating that they are either a U.S. citizen or a permanent resident. Based on the birth certificates, the member of the households were a U.S. citizen. ? 1 214 affidavit error where the 214 form was missing for a member of the tenant?s household. ? 1 income error where one of the tenant?s pay check was missing for the tenant?s income calculation. Basing the tenant?s wage income calculation on the support in the tenant file would not have changed the HAP rent. ? 1 HAP contract error where the HAP contract is missing from the tenant file. ? 2 9886 errors where members of the household over the age of 18 did not sign and date the 9886 forms. ? 2 deduction errors where members of two households, who were 18 years of age, received a $480 deduction. Correcting this error caused the HAP rent to decrease by $12 for each tenant. ? 1 lead base paint error where the lessor (landlord) did not sign the form to indicate that the information provided to the tenant is accurate. ? 2 EIV errors where the EIV form was not generated or were missing for the tenant?s annual recertification. ? 1 50058 error where the tenant?s childcare support was coded as unemployment benefits on the 50058. ? 1 tenant file unavailable for review due to Hurricane IAN, but no support could be provided. In addition, we also noted as part of our new admissions testing (21 files tested out of approximately 203 new admissions) the following: ? 1 tenant file unavailable for review due to Hurricane IAN, but no support could be provided. Criteria: 24 CFR 982.516 requires internal controls to be in place to ensure compliance with HUD requirements, as well as complete and accurate tenant files. In addition, the Authority?s Administrative Plan also requires following proper procedures for determination of HAP and documentation in the tenant files. Questioned Costs: None. Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with all of the HUD requirements regarding eligibility and tenant recertification, which could result in incorrect total tenant payments for rent and HAP payments to landlords. Cause: Procedures to ensure compliance with all of the HUD requirements were not being carefully followed. Auditor?s Recommendation: The Authority should correct the deficiencies noted in the tested files and utilize an ongoing quality control review process on the entire tenant population to ensure proper compliance with the requirements related to tenant eligibility. Ongoing staff training and timely management reviews should be utilized to ensure staff is aware of acceptable procedures. In addition, the Authority should review staffing levels, skill sets and case load. Views of Responsible Officials of the Auditee: The Authority agrees with the finding and has taken corrective action. See the ?Action Taken? on the Corrective Action Plan
2022-002 Special Tests and Provisions: HCV Current Waiting List Section 8 Housing Voucher Cluster (Section 8): Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers Program ? CFDA Number 14.871 Mainstream Vouchers ? CFDA Number 14.879 Material Weakness in Internal Control, Material Noncompliance Condition: Out of a total waiting list population of approximately 1300 applicants, 25 applicants were selected for testing. Exceptions were noted as follows: ? 1 preference point error where the applicant selected the involuntary displacement and homeless preference points on their pre-application, which agrees to the information in Yardi, but doesn?t agree to the generated waiting list. ? 7 preference point errors where the applicants? selected the residency preference points on their pre-applications, which agrees to the information in Yardi, but doesn?t agree to the generated waiting list. As a result of the above, applicants may not be ranked properly on the waiting list and applicants may be selected out of order. Criteria: Applicants on the waiting list must be kept in the proper order based on application date and/or approved preferences. The Authority is required to admit tenants based on the waiting list in accordance with HUD requirements and the Authority?s policies. The Authority must have written policies in its HCV Administrative Plan for selecting applicants from the waiting list and Authority documentation must show that the PHA follows these policies when selecting applicants for admission from the waiting list. All proper documentation must be kept in the tenant file. In addition, only applicants who are eligible should be admitted to the program. Questioned Costs: None. Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with applicable HUD regulations and admission policies and as a result may admit applicants from the waiting list in an improper order. Cause: The waiting list software did not interface properly with the application preferences. Thus, procedures to ensure compliance with all of the HUD requirements were not carefully followed. Auditor?s Recommendation: The Authority should review procedures and increase training to employees and reviewers to ensure that the Authority is in compliance with HUD rules for new admissions and waiting list maintenance. In addition, the Authority should implement a review procedure to make sure that all tenants are admitted in the proper order with proper supporting documentation. Views of Responsible Officials of the Auditee: The Authority agrees with the finding and has taken corrective action. See the ?Action Taken? on the Corrective Action Plan.
2022-003 Special Tests and Provisions: HCV Failed Inspections Section 8 Housing Voucher Cluster (Section 8): Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers Program ? CFDA Number 14.871 Mainstream Vouchers ? CFDA Number 14.879 Material Weakness in Internal Control, Material Noncompliance Condition: Out of a total failed inspection population of approximately 540 units, 25 failed inspections were selected for testing. Exceptions were noted as follows: ? 1 Inspection and HAP abatement error where the tenant?s unit did not pass inspection and HAP payments were not withheld from July 2022 through February 2023. ? 1 HAP abatement error where the Authority pro-rated the HAP payment for August 2022 and abated the HAP payment for September through November 2022, but subsequently, whether due to a user or system error, HAP payments were paid out for the months from September through November 2022. ? 1 HAP abatement error where the Authority pro-rated the HAP payment for January & May 2022 and abated the HAP payment for February through April 2022, but subsequently, whether due to a user or system error, HAP payments were paid out for the months from January through May 2022. ? 1 HAP abatement error where the Authority didn't pro-rate the HAP payment withholding for June & December 2022 nor withhold the HAP payment for the month of July 2022. The Authority properly withheld the HAP payments for the months of August, September, October, and November 2022. Criteria: For units under HAP contract that fail the HQS inspection, 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. Questioned Costs: None. Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with applicable HUD regulations and HQS policies and as a result HAP payments were not properly abated which are designed to assure that landlords complete unit repairs timely to provide safe housing for tenants. Cause: Procedures to ensure compliance with all of the HUD requirements were not being carefully followed. Auditor?s Recommendation: The Authority should review procedures and increase training to employees and reviewers to ensure that the Authority is in compliance with HUD rules for HQS inspections. In addition, the Authority should implement a review procedure to make sure that HAP payments are properly abated when required. Views of Responsible Officials of the Auditee: The Authority agrees with the finding and has taken corrective action. See the ?Action Taken? on the Corrective Action Plan.
2022-001 Eligibility: HCV Tenant Files Section 8 Housing Voucher Cluster (Section 8): Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers Program ? CFDA Number 14.871 Mainstream Vouchers ? CFDA Number 14.879 Material Weakness in Internal Control, Material Noncompliance Repeat Finding from June 30, 2021 (Finding 2021-001 and originally reported in 2017 as Finding 2017-001) Condition: Out of a total tenant population of approximately 1400 vouchers, 26 files were selected for testing. Exceptions were noted as follows: ? 1 utility allowance error where the utility allowance amount of $288 on the 52667 form was reported on the 50058 form for $298. This had no effect on the HAP rent. ? 2 214 affidavit errors where a member of the tenant?s household did not checkmark the box on their 214 forms indicating that they are either a U.S. citizen or a permanent resident. Based on the birth certificates, the member of the households were a U.S. citizen. ? 1 214 affidavit error where the 214 form was missing for a member of the tenant?s household. ? 1 income error where one of the tenant?s pay check was missing for the tenant?s income calculation. Basing the tenant?s wage income calculation on the support in the tenant file would not have changed the HAP rent. ? 1 HAP contract error where the HAP contract is missing from the tenant file. ? 2 9886 errors where members of the household over the age of 18 did not sign and date the 9886 forms. ? 2 deduction errors where members of two households, who were 18 years of age, received a $480 deduction. Correcting this error caused the HAP rent to decrease by $12 for each tenant. ? 1 lead base paint error where the lessor (landlord) did not sign the form to indicate that the information provided to the tenant is accurate. ? 2 EIV errors where the EIV form was not generated or were missing for the tenant?s annual recertification. ? 1 50058 error where the tenant?s childcare support was coded as unemployment benefits on the 50058. ? 1 tenant file unavailable for review due to Hurricane IAN, but no support could be provided. In addition, we also noted as part of our new admissions testing (21 files tested out of approximately 203 new admissions) the following: ? 1 tenant file unavailable for review due to Hurricane IAN, but no support could be provided. Criteria: 24 CFR 982.516 requires internal controls to be in place to ensure compliance with HUD requirements, as well as complete and accurate tenant files. In addition, the Authority?s Administrative Plan also requires following proper procedures for determination of HAP and documentation in the tenant files. Questioned Costs: None. Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with all of the HUD requirements regarding eligibility and tenant recertification, which could result in incorrect total tenant payments for rent and HAP payments to landlords. Cause: Procedures to ensure compliance with all of the HUD requirements were not being carefully followed. Auditor?s Recommendation: The Authority should correct the deficiencies noted in the tested files and utilize an ongoing quality control review process on the entire tenant population to ensure proper compliance with the requirements related to tenant eligibility. Ongoing staff training and timely management reviews should be utilized to ensure staff is aware of acceptable procedures. In addition, the Authority should review staffing levels, skill sets and case load. Views of Responsible Officials of the Auditee: The Authority agrees with the finding and has taken corrective action. See the ?Action Taken? on the Corrective Action Plan
2022-002 Special Tests and Provisions: HCV Current Waiting List Section 8 Housing Voucher Cluster (Section 8): Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers Program ? CFDA Number 14.871 Mainstream Vouchers ? CFDA Number 14.879 Material Weakness in Internal Control, Material Noncompliance Condition: Out of a total waiting list population of approximately 1300 applicants, 25 applicants were selected for testing. Exceptions were noted as follows: ? 1 preference point error where the applicant selected the involuntary displacement and homeless preference points on their pre-application, which agrees to the information in Yardi, but doesn?t agree to the generated waiting list. ? 7 preference point errors where the applicants? selected the residency preference points on their pre-applications, which agrees to the information in Yardi, but doesn?t agree to the generated waiting list. As a result of the above, applicants may not be ranked properly on the waiting list and applicants may be selected out of order. Criteria: Applicants on the waiting list must be kept in the proper order based on application date and/or approved preferences. The Authority is required to admit tenants based on the waiting list in accordance with HUD requirements and the Authority?s policies. The Authority must have written policies in its HCV Administrative Plan for selecting applicants from the waiting list and Authority documentation must show that the PHA follows these policies when selecting applicants for admission from the waiting list. All proper documentation must be kept in the tenant file. In addition, only applicants who are eligible should be admitted to the program. Questioned Costs: None. Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with applicable HUD regulations and admission policies and as a result may admit applicants from the waiting list in an improper order. Cause: The waiting list software did not interface properly with the application preferences. Thus, procedures to ensure compliance with all of the HUD requirements were not carefully followed. Auditor?s Recommendation: The Authority should review procedures and increase training to employees and reviewers to ensure that the Authority is in compliance with HUD rules for new admissions and waiting list maintenance. In addition, the Authority should implement a review procedure to make sure that all tenants are admitted in the proper order with proper supporting documentation. Views of Responsible Officials of the Auditee: The Authority agrees with the finding and has taken corrective action. See the ?Action Taken? on the Corrective Action Plan.
2022-003 Special Tests and Provisions: HCV Failed Inspections Section 8 Housing Voucher Cluster (Section 8): Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers Program ? CFDA Number 14.871 Mainstream Vouchers ? CFDA Number 14.879 Material Weakness in Internal Control, Material Noncompliance Condition: Out of a total failed inspection population of approximately 540 units, 25 failed inspections were selected for testing. Exceptions were noted as follows: ? 1 Inspection and HAP abatement error where the tenant?s unit did not pass inspection and HAP payments were not withheld from July 2022 through February 2023. ? 1 HAP abatement error where the Authority pro-rated the HAP payment for August 2022 and abated the HAP payment for September through November 2022, but subsequently, whether due to a user or system error, HAP payments were paid out for the months from September through November 2022. ? 1 HAP abatement error where the Authority pro-rated the HAP payment for January & May 2022 and abated the HAP payment for February through April 2022, but subsequently, whether due to a user or system error, HAP payments were paid out for the months from January through May 2022. ? 1 HAP abatement error where the Authority didn't pro-rate the HAP payment withholding for June & December 2022 nor withhold the HAP payment for the month of July 2022. The Authority properly withheld the HAP payments for the months of August, September, October, and November 2022. Criteria: For units under HAP contract that fail the HQS inspection, 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. Questioned Costs: None. Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with applicable HUD regulations and HQS policies and as a result HAP payments were not properly abated which are designed to assure that landlords complete unit repairs timely to provide safe housing for tenants. Cause: Procedures to ensure compliance with all of the HUD requirements were not being carefully followed. Auditor?s Recommendation: The Authority should review procedures and increase training to employees and reviewers to ensure that the Authority is in compliance with HUD rules for HQS inspections. In addition, the Authority should implement a review procedure to make sure that HAP payments are properly abated when required. Views of Responsible Officials of the Auditee: The Authority agrees with the finding and has taken corrective action. See the ?Action Taken? on the Corrective Action Plan.
2022-004 Eligibility: Public Housing Tenant Files Public and Indian Housing Program ? CFDA Number 14.850 Material Weakness in Internal Control, Material Noncompliance Repeat Finding from June 30, 2021 reported as Finding 2021-002 Condition: Out of a total tenant population of approximately 300 tenant files, 25 files were selected for testing (but stopped testing after 18 files due to the volume of errors). Exceptions were noted as follows: ? 1 tenant file where the Authority was unable to locate and therefore could not test items such as Form 9986, personal declaration form, birth certificates, social security cards, income and deduction support, and EIV verification. The Authority indicated it was recreating the file. ? 2 tenant files with missing 214 affidavits. ? 1 tenant file where the 214 affidavit was not signed. ? 5 tenant files where the personal declaration form was not in the file. ? 1 tenant file where the Form 9886 was not in the file. ? 1 tenant file where the Form 9886 was signed approximately 3 months after the recertification date. ? 4 tenant files with income issues which may have changed the tenant rent amount: o 1 file where there was no support for the family contribution listed on the 50058. o 1 file where there was no support for the child support listed on the 50058. o 2 files where general assistance income (food stamps) was listed as income on the 50058 but should have been excluded. ? 4 tenant files with deduction issues which may have changed the tenant rent amount: o 1 file where the utility allowance of $91 was not on the 50058. This was corrected subsequently on an interim certification. o 1 file where the ?Disclosure of Information? form listed weekly child care expenses, but no child care expenses were deducted on the 50058 and there was no documentation or support in the file explaining if the child care expenses were deductible. o 1 file where the ?Recertification Summary? form listed weekly medical expenses, but no medical expenses were deducted on the 50058 and there was no documentation or support in the file explaining if the medical expenses were deductible. o 1 tenant file where the prior year utility allowance of $82 was used instead of the current utility allowance of $90. ? 1 file where the tenant is paying a flat rent of $686. However, the flat rent appears to be the amount from the previous year and it doesn?t appear that a current flat rent study was conducted or approved. ? 1 file where the dependent date of birth listed on the 50058 did not agree to the birth certificate. ? 2 files where the birth certificates were missing. ? 2 files where the social security cards were missing. ? 1 file where the EIV was not in the file. Criteria: 24 CFR 960.253 - 259 requires internal controls to be in place to ensure compliance with HUD requirements, as well as complete and accurate tenant files. In addition, the Authority?s Admissions and Continued Occupancy Policy (ACOP) also requires following proper procedures for determination of HAP and documentation in the tenant files. Questioned Costs: None. Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with all of the HUD requirements regarding eligibility and tenant recertification, which could result in incorrect total tenant payments for rent. Cause: Procedures to ensure compliance with all of the HUD requirements were not being carefully followed. Auditor?s Recommendation: The Authority should correct the deficiencies noted in the tested files and utilize an ongoing quality control review process on the entire tenant population to ensure proper compliance with the requirements related to tenant eligibility. Ongoing staff training and timely management reviews should be utilized to ensure staff is aware of acceptable procedures. In addition, the Authority should review staffing levels, skill sets and case load. Views of Responsible Officials of the Auditee: The Authority agrees with the finding and has taken corrective action. See the ?Action Taken? on the Corrective Action Plan.
2022-005 Special Tests and Provisions: Public Housing New Admissions and Waiting List Public and Indian Housing Program ? CFDA Number 14.850 Material Weakness in Internal Control, Material Noncompliance Repeat Finding from June 30, 2021 reported as Finding 2021-003 Condition: New Admissions: We selected 5 new admissions (out of a population of 13) and noted the following: ? We are unable to test if the 5 new admissions were properly selected from the waiting list. Normally we are able to verify by checking where the applicant was on the wait list prior to selection and comparing the waiting list ranking (for date/time applied and preferences) to the application submitted. However, the Authority was not able to provide the applications from which would show the date and time they applied as well as any preferences selected so we were unable to determine if the new admissions were properly selected from the waiting list. Waiting list: We selected 25 applicants on the current waiting list (out of approximately of 700 applicants) and noted the following: ? We were unable to test the 25 applicants selected for testing. The Authority was unable to provide the application for each person on the waiting list and therefore we were unable to determine if the waiting list is ranked properly. As discussed with personnel, all active applications are received electronically (when the waiting list is open). The families create the application entering information such as family members, family income and family expenses. However, the on-line system appears to be flawed as it does not provide fields to indicate preferences (such as for being homeless or living locally) which if entered, would give the applicant points so they could be ranked higher on the waiting list and therefore selected faster. Once the applicant is selected to be housed, the Authority manually applies the applicable preferences (but at that point the Authority may have selected someone on the waiting list that should have been selected earlier and defeats the purpose of having preferences). The Authority has addressed this issue with Yardi and has sent notices to all active applicants asking them to update their preferences which the Authority will manually apply and generate the waiting list and the process is expected to be finalized before March 31, 2023. As a result of the above, applicants may not be ranked properly on the waiting list and applicants may be selected out of order. Criteria: Applicants on the waiting list must be kept in the proper order based on application date and/or approved preferences. The Authority is required to admit tenants based on the waiting list in accordance with HUD requirements and the Authority?s policies. The Authority must have written policies in its Public Housing ACOP for selecting applicants from the waiting list and Authority documentation must show that the PHA follows these policies when selecting applicants for admission from the waiting list. All proper documentation must be kept in the tenant file. In addition, only applicants who are eligible should be admitted to the program. Questioned Costs: None. Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with applicable HUD regulations and admission policies. Cause: Procedures to ensure compliance with all of the HUD requirements were not being carefully followed. Auditor?s Recommendation: The Authority should review procedures and increase training to employees and reviewers to ensure that the Authority is in compliance with HUD rules for new admissions and waiting list maintenance. In addition, the Authority should implement a review procedure to make sure that all tenants are admitted in the proper order with proper supporting documentation. In addition, the Authority should continue to investigate the issues with the waiting list software. Views of Responsible Officials of the Auditee: The Authority agrees with the finding and has taken corrective action. See the ?Action Taken? on the Corrective Action Plan.
2022-004 Eligibility: Public Housing Tenant Files Public and Indian Housing Program ? CFDA Number 14.850 Material Weakness in Internal Control, Material Noncompliance Repeat Finding from June 30, 2021 reported as Finding 2021-002 Condition: Out of a total tenant population of approximately 300 tenant files, 25 files were selected for testing (but stopped testing after 18 files due to the volume of errors). Exceptions were noted as follows: ? 1 tenant file where the Authority was unable to locate and therefore could not test items such as Form 9986, personal declaration form, birth certificates, social security cards, income and deduction support, and EIV verification. The Authority indicated it was recreating the file. ? 2 tenant files with missing 214 affidavits. ? 1 tenant file where the 214 affidavit was not signed. ? 5 tenant files where the personal declaration form was not in the file. ? 1 tenant file where the Form 9886 was not in the file. ? 1 tenant file where the Form 9886 was signed approximately 3 months after the recertification date. ? 4 tenant files with income issues which may have changed the tenant rent amount: o 1 file where there was no support for the family contribution listed on the 50058. o 1 file where there was no support for the child support listed on the 50058. o 2 files where general assistance income (food stamps) was listed as income on the 50058 but should have been excluded. ? 4 tenant files with deduction issues which may have changed the tenant rent amount: o 1 file where the utility allowance of $91 was not on the 50058. This was corrected subsequently on an interim certification. o 1 file where the ?Disclosure of Information? form listed weekly child care expenses, but no child care expenses were deducted on the 50058 and there was no documentation or support in the file explaining if the child care expenses were deductible. o 1 file where the ?Recertification Summary? form listed weekly medical expenses, but no medical expenses were deducted on the 50058 and there was no documentation or support in the file explaining if the medical expenses were deductible. o 1 tenant file where the prior year utility allowance of $82 was used instead of the current utility allowance of $90. ? 1 file where the tenant is paying a flat rent of $686. However, the flat rent appears to be the amount from the previous year and it doesn?t appear that a current flat rent study was conducted or approved. ? 1 file where the dependent date of birth listed on the 50058 did not agree to the birth certificate. ? 2 files where the birth certificates were missing. ? 2 files where the social security cards were missing. ? 1 file where the EIV was not in the file. Criteria: 24 CFR 960.253 - 259 requires internal controls to be in place to ensure compliance with HUD requirements, as well as complete and accurate tenant files. In addition, the Authority?s Admissions and Continued Occupancy Policy (ACOP) also requires following proper procedures for determination of HAP and documentation in the tenant files. Questioned Costs: None. Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with all of the HUD requirements regarding eligibility and tenant recertification, which could result in incorrect total tenant payments for rent. Cause: Procedures to ensure compliance with all of the HUD requirements were not being carefully followed. Auditor?s Recommendation: The Authority should correct the deficiencies noted in the tested files and utilize an ongoing quality control review process on the entire tenant population to ensure proper compliance with the requirements related to tenant eligibility. Ongoing staff training and timely management reviews should be utilized to ensure staff is aware of acceptable procedures. In addition, the Authority should review staffing levels, skill sets and case load. Views of Responsible Officials of the Auditee: The Authority agrees with the finding and has taken corrective action. See the ?Action Taken? on the Corrective Action Plan.
2022-005 Special Tests and Provisions: Public Housing New Admissions and Waiting List Public and Indian Housing Program ? CFDA Number 14.850 Material Weakness in Internal Control, Material Noncompliance Repeat Finding from June 30, 2021 reported as Finding 2021-003 Condition: New Admissions: We selected 5 new admissions (out of a population of 13) and noted the following: ? We are unable to test if the 5 new admissions were properly selected from the waiting list. Normally we are able to verify by checking where the applicant was on the wait list prior to selection and comparing the waiting list ranking (for date/time applied and preferences) to the application submitted. However, the Authority was not able to provide the applications from which would show the date and time they applied as well as any preferences selected so we were unable to determine if the new admissions were properly selected from the waiting list. Waiting list: We selected 25 applicants on the current waiting list (out of approximately of 700 applicants) and noted the following: ? We were unable to test the 25 applicants selected for testing. The Authority was unable to provide the application for each person on the waiting list and therefore we were unable to determine if the waiting list is ranked properly. As discussed with personnel, all active applications are received electronically (when the waiting list is open). The families create the application entering information such as family members, family income and family expenses. However, the on-line system appears to be flawed as it does not provide fields to indicate preferences (such as for being homeless or living locally) which if entered, would give the applicant points so they could be ranked higher on the waiting list and therefore selected faster. Once the applicant is selected to be housed, the Authority manually applies the applicable preferences (but at that point the Authority may have selected someone on the waiting list that should have been selected earlier and defeats the purpose of having preferences). The Authority has addressed this issue with Yardi and has sent notices to all active applicants asking them to update their preferences which the Authority will manually apply and generate the waiting list and the process is expected to be finalized before March 31, 2023. As a result of the above, applicants may not be ranked properly on the waiting list and applicants may be selected out of order. Criteria: Applicants on the waiting list must be kept in the proper order based on application date and/or approved preferences. The Authority is required to admit tenants based on the waiting list in accordance with HUD requirements and the Authority?s policies. The Authority must have written policies in its Public Housing ACOP for selecting applicants from the waiting list and Authority documentation must show that the PHA follows these policies when selecting applicants for admission from the waiting list. All proper documentation must be kept in the tenant file. In addition, only applicants who are eligible should be admitted to the program. Questioned Costs: None. Effect: The Authority is not in compliance with applicable HUD regulations and admission policies. Cause: Procedures to ensure compliance with all of the HUD requirements were not being carefully followed. Auditor?s Recommendation: The Authority should review procedures and increase training to employees and reviewers to ensure that the Authority is in compliance with HUD rules for new admissions and waiting list maintenance. In addition, the Authority should implement a review procedure to make sure that all tenants are admitted in the proper order with proper supporting documentation. In addition, the Authority should continue to investigate the issues with the waiting list software. Views of Responsible Officials of the Auditee: The Authority agrees with the finding and has taken corrective action. See the ?Action Taken? on the Corrective Action Plan.