Finding 1080622 (2024-001)

Significant Deficiency
Requirement
E
Questioned Costs
$1
Year
2024
Accepted
2024-10-30

AI Summary

  • Core Issue: Eleven out of 150 tenant files showed errors in income calculations, primarily due to incorrect wage annualization and lack of quarterly reviews for zero-income tenants.
  • Impacted Requirements: Noncompliance with federal regulations and the Authority's Administrative Plan regarding accurate income verification and subsidy calculations.
  • Recommended Follow-Up: Implement a systematic review process for income calculations, enhance staff training, and conduct regular quality control checks to ensure compliance.

Finding Text

Finding 2024-001 - Housing Choice Voucher Tenant Files - Eligibility - Rent Calculations Noncompliance & Significant Deficiency Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Cluster - ALN 14.871and 14.EHV Condition & Cause: Our review of one hundred fifty (150) Housing Choice Voucher tenant files identified noncompliance in eleven (11) files, representing 7.3%. Of these, six (6) files contained errors in calculating annual income, with the most common issue being the incorrect annualization of wages due to using the wrong pay frequency. These errors often stemmed from manual calculation mistakes and inadequate cross-checking procedures. The remaining five (5) files lacked the required quarterly review of the Enterprise Income Verification {EIV) system for tenants who reported zero income, as stipulated by the Authority's Administrative Plan. Criteria: The Code of Federal Regulations and the Authority's Administrative Plan require accurate income calculations for determining Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) subsidies. Correct income verification and calculation are essential for compliance with HUD guidelines and ensuring proper subsidy amounts. Effect: Inadequate verification and incorrect calculation of participant income can lead to inaccuracies in financial statements, incorrect HAP subsidy calculations, and noncompliance with Federal Housing Choice Voucher program requirements. Recommendation: We recommend that the Authority establish a systematic review process for income calculations to ensure accuracy. This process should incorporate comprehensive staff training in correct calculation methods and include regular quality control checks to promptly identify and correct errors. Furthermore, the Authority should ensure stricter adherence to its Administrative Plan. Questioned Costs: Based on our extrapolation, the likely questioned costs amount to $63,317 in overpaid HAP. This represents approximately 0.2% of the total HAP expense and is considered immaterial to the financiaI statements. Repeat Finding: No Was sampling statistically valid? Yes

Categories

Questioned Costs HUD Housing Programs Eligibility Significant Deficiency

Other Findings in this Audit

  • 504177 2024-002
    Significant Deficiency
  • 504178 2024-003
    Significant Deficiency
  • 504179 2024-001
    Significant Deficiency
  • 504180 2024-001
    Significant Deficiency
  • 1080619 2024-002
    Significant Deficiency
  • 1080620 2024-003
    Significant Deficiency
  • 1080621 2024-001
    Significant Deficiency

Programs in Audit

ALN Program Name Expenditures
14.872 Public Housing Capital Fund $6.02M
14.850 Public and Indian Housing $3.93M
14.267 Continuum of Care Program $1.34M
14.871 Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers $616,920
14.896 Family Self-Sufficiency Program $303,580
14.249 Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy $89,329