Corrective Action Plans

Browse how organizations respond to audit findings

Total CAPs
64,113
In database
Filtered Results
60,361
Matching current filters
Showing Page
57 of 2415
25 per page

Filters

Clear
Management will also conduct a monthly waiting-list reconciliation to verify that the waiting list remains accurate and consistent with the applicant files and Tenant Selection Plan.
Management will also conduct a monthly waiting-list reconciliation to verify that the waiting list remains accurate and consistent with the applicant files and Tenant Selection Plan.
Any discrepancy identified through the monthly review will be documented and corrected promptly.
Any discrepancy identified through the monthly review will be documented and corrected promptly.
(3) Estimated Completion Date.The comprehensive waiting-list audit and reconciliation will be completed by October 31, 2026. Staff training and implementation of the waiting-list quality-control checklist will be completed by October 15, 2026. The monthly waiting-list reconciliation will become a pe...
(3) Estimated Completion Date.The comprehensive waiting-list audit and reconciliation will be completed by October 31, 2026. Staff training and implementation of the waiting-list quality-control checklist will be completed by October 15, 2026. The monthly waiting-list reconciliation will become a permanent management control beginning November 1, 2026.
1. Current Findings on the Schedule of Finding, Questioned Cost and Recommendation
1. Current Findings on the Schedule of Finding, Questioned Cost and Recommendation
a. Finding 2025-006 (14.157 – Supportive Housing for the Elderly – Section 202 Capital Advance)
a. Finding 2025-006 (14.157 – Supportive Housing for the Elderly – Section 202 Capital Advance)
Recertification:
Recertification:
In six (6) instances out of seventeen (17) tenant files selected for testing, the Form HUD-50059 was signed after the effective date by the Tenant and Property Manager.
In six (6) instances out of seventeen (17) tenant files selected for testing, the Form HUD-50059 was signed after the effective date by the Tenant and Property Manager.
In one (1) instance out of seventeen (17) tenant files tested, the HUD-EIV was not maintained in the tenant’s file.
In one (1) instance out of seventeen (17) tenant files tested, the HUD-EIV was not maintained in the tenant’s file.
In nine (9) instances out of seventeen (17) tenant files tested, the Notice and Consent for the Release of Information (Form 9887) was not maintained in the tenant’s file.
In nine (9) instances out of seventeen (17) tenant files tested, the Notice and Consent for the Release of Information (Form 9887) was not maintained in the tenant’s file.
In nine (9) instances out of seventeen (17) tenant files tested, the Applicant’s/Tenant’s Consent to the Release of Information (Form 9887-A) was not maintained in the tenant’s file.
In nine (9) instances out of seventeen (17) tenant files tested, the Applicant’s/Tenant’s Consent to the Release of Information (Form 9887-A) was not maintained in the tenant’s file.
In three (3) instances out of seventeen (17) tenant files tested, the housing quality inspection report was not maintained in the tenant’s file.
In three (3) instances out of seventeen (17) tenant files tested, the housing quality inspection report was not maintained in the tenant’s file.
In seven (7) instances out of seventeen (17) tenant files tested, the quality assurance information form was not maintained in the tenant’s file.
In seven (7) instances out of seventeen (17) tenant files tested, the quality assurance information form was not maintained in the tenant’s file.
In one (1) instance out of seventeen (17) tenant files tested, the quality assurance information form was not completed by the tenant. The form was signed by the tenant and management agent; however, each line was left blank.
In one (1) instance out of seventeen (17) tenant files tested, the quality assurance information form was not completed by the tenant. The form was signed by the tenant and management agent; however, each line was left blank.
In thirteen (13) instances out of seventeen (17) tenant files tested, the annual recertification letter was not maintained in the tenant’s file.
In thirteen (13) instances out of seventeen (17) tenant files tested, the annual recertification letter was not maintained in the tenant’s file.
In two (2) instances out of seventeen (17) tenant files tested, the lease addendum for violence against women was not maintained in the tenant’s file.
In two (2) instances out of seventeen (17) tenant files tested, the lease addendum for violence against women was not maintained in the tenant’s file.
In one (1) instance out of seventeen (17) tenant files tested, the lease addendum for violence against women was dated after the effective date on the Form HUD-50059.
In one (1) instance out of seventeen (17) tenant files tested, the lease addendum for violence against women was dated after the effective date on the Form HUD-50059.
In eight (8) instances out of seventeen (17) tenant files tested, the effective date on the Notification of Rent Increase resulting from Recertification Processing – Section 202/8 or 202 PACs form, did agree to the effective date on the HUD Form-50059.
In eight (8) instances out of seventeen (17) tenant files tested, the effective date on the Notification of Rent Increase resulting from Recertification Processing – Section 202/8 or 202 PACs form, did agree to the effective date on the HUD Form-50059.
In one (1) instance out of seventeen (17) tenant files tested, the Notification of Rent Increase resulting from Recertification Processing – Section 202/8 or 202 PACs form, was not maintained in the tenant’s file.
In one (1) instance out of seventeen (17) tenant files tested, the Notification of Rent Increase resulting from Recertification Processing – Section 202/8 or 202 PACs form, was not maintained in the tenant’s file.
In one (1) instance out of seventeen (17) tenant files tested, the form used for the verification of criminal background check was dated after the effective date on the Form HUD-50059.
In one (1) instance out of seventeen (17) tenant files tested, the form used for the verification of criminal background check was dated after the effective date on the Form HUD-50059.
In one (1) instance out of seventeen (17) tenant files tested, the non-smoking lease addendum was dated after the effective date on the Form HUD-50059.
In one (1) instance out of seventeen (17) tenant files tested, the non-smoking lease addendum was dated after the effective date on the Form HUD-50059.
In one (1) instance out of seventeen (17) tenant files tested, the non-smoking lease addendum was not maintained in the tenant’s file.
In one (1) instance out of seventeen (17) tenant files tested, the non-smoking lease addendum was not maintained in the tenant’s file.
In one (1) instance out of seventeen (17) tenant files tested, the non-smoking lease addendum was not signed by the Management Agent.
In one (1) instance out of seventeen (17) tenant files tested, the non-smoking lease addendum was not signed by the Management Agent.
In five (5) instances out of seventeen (17) tenant files tested, the tenant’s income per the EIV was based on the net social security benefits as opposed to the gross social security benefits. As result, the HUD subsidy was not properly calculated on the Form HUD-50059.
In five (5) instances out of seventeen (17) tenant files tested, the tenant’s income per the EIV was based on the net social security benefits as opposed to the gross social security benefits. As result, the HUD subsidy was not properly calculated on the Form HUD-50059.
« 1 55 56 58 59 2415 »