Finding 566968 (2024-004)

Significant Deficiency
Requirement
N
Questioned Costs
-
Year
2024
Accepted
2025-06-25
Audit: 359829
Organization: Ocala Housing Authority (FL)

AI Summary

  • Core Issue: Errors in awarding preference points for the Housing Choice Voucher waiting list led to incorrect applicant rankings.
  • Impacted Requirements: Compliance with 24 CFR § 982.204 mandates accurate maintenance of the waiting list and proper application of local preferences.
  • Recommended Follow-Up: Implement ongoing staff training and a quality control review process to ensure accurate data entry for preference points.

Finding Text

2024-004 Housing Choice Voucher Waiting List: Special Tests and Provisions Program: U.S. Department of HUD: Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers (ALN #14.871) Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance, Other Matters Statement of Condition: Out of a total population of approximately 258 applicants, 25 applicants were selected for testing, and the following errors were discovered. • 1 applicant file had the following error: o The applicant was incorrectly awarded local preference points. Removing these points would drop their waiting list rank from #54 to #258. However, this issue would have likely been identified and corrected during the routine verification of preference points, which occurs when an applicant is pulled from the waiting list. • 1 applicant file had the following error: o The applicant was incorrectly awarded working preference points. Removing these points would drop their waiting list rank from #64 to #245. However, this issue would have likely been identified and corrected during the routine verification of preference points, which occurs when an applicant is pulled from the waiting list. • 1 applicant file had the following error: o The applicant selected the local preference point, but was not awarded the local preference point. Correcting this issue would change the applicant’s ranking on the waiting list from #114 to #6. Nonetheless, it’s likely that the applicant would have been pulled from the waiting list at the correct time regardless of whether the applicant is ranked #114 or #6, since the Authority selects a large pool of applicants. • 1 tenant file had the following error: o The applicant selected the victim of domestic violence preference point, but was not awarded the preference point. Correcting this issue would change the applicant’s ranking on the waiting list from #124 to #2. Nonetheless, it’s likely that the applicant would have been pulled from the waiting list at the correct time regardless of whether the applicant is ranked #124 or #2, since the Authority selects a large pool of applicants. • 1 tenant file had the following error: o The applicant selected the local preference point, but was not awarded the local preference point. Correcting this issue would change the applicant’s ranking on the waiting list from #174 to #10. Nonetheless, it’s likely that the applicant would have been pulled from the waiting list at the correct time regardless of whether the applicant is ranked #174 or #10, since the Authority selects a large pool of applicants. Criteria: The Public Housing Authority is required to maintain a current and accurate waiting list in accordance with 24 CFR § 982.204, "Waiting list: How to select families," which states that a PHA must establish and implement a written waiting list policy that includes its system for applying local preferences and the order of preferences. Questioned Costs: None. Effect: The identified errors in applying or not applying preference points, even if subsequently corrected during the verification process, indicates weaknesses in the initial processing and management of the HCV waiting list. Assigning or not assigning correct preference points leads to incorrect ranking of applicants on the waiting list, and the potential for management to vouch an applicant prematurely into the Section 8 program. Cause: The cause of these errors is due to insufficient staff training or lack of a quality control review over the data entry process of assigning preference points to the applicants on the waiting list. Recommendation: The Authority should provide ongoing staff training on accurate data entry and documentation requirements for preference points assigned to applicants on the waiting list. In addition, the Authority should implement a quality control review process to ensure preference points are appropriately assigned. This could involve a second staff member reviewing a sample of applicant entries for accuracy of preference point awarded. Views of Responsible Officials of the Auditee: The Authority concurs with this finding. The Authority has an established review, oversight and training process for all of its staff and will continue to improve its review, oversight, and training process to ensure proper procedures are being followed.

Corrective Action Plan

2024-004 Housing Choice Voucher Waiting List: Special Tests and Provisions Program: U.S. Department of HUD: Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers (ALN #14.871) Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance, Other Matters Statement of Condition: Out of a total population of approximately 258 applicants, 25 applicants were selected for testing, and the following errors were discovered. • 1 applicant file had the following error: o The applicant was incorrectly awarded local preference points. Removing these points would drop their waiting list rank from #54 to #258. However, this issue would have likely been identified and corrected during the routine verification of preference points, which occurs when an applicant is pulled from the waiting list. • 1 applicant file had the following error: o The applicant was incorrectly awarded working preference points. Removing these points would drop their waiting list rank from #64 to #245. However, this issue would have likely been identified and corrected during the routine verification of preference points, which occurs when an applicant is pulled from the waiting list. • 1 applicant file had the following error: o The applicant selected the local preference point, but was not awarded the local preference point. Correcting this issue would change the applicant’s ranking on the waiting list from #114 to #6. Nonetheless, it’s likely that the applicant would have been pulled from the waiting list at the correct time regardless of whether the applicant is ranked #114 or #6, since the Authority selects a large pool of applicants. • 1 tenant file had the following error: o The applicant selected the victim of domestic violence preference point, but was not awarded the preference point. Correcting this issue would change the applicant’s ranking on the waiting list from #124 to #2. Nonetheless, it’s likely that the applicant would have been pulled from the waiting list at the correct time regardless of whether the applicant is ranked #124 or #2, since the Authority selects a large pool of applicants. • 1 tenant file had the following error: o The applicant selected the local preference point, but was not awarded the local preference point. Correcting this issue would change the applicant’s ranking on the waiting list from #174 to #10. Nonetheless, it’s likely that the applicant would have been pulled from the waiting list at the correct time regardless of whether the applicant is ranked #174 or #10, since the Authority selects a large pool of applicants. Recommendation: The Authority should provide ongoing staff training on accurate data entry and documentation requirements for preference points assigned to applicants on the waiting list. In addition, the Authority should implement a quality control review process to ensure preference points are appropriately assigned. This could involve a second staff member reviewing a sample of applicant entries for accuracy of preference point awarded. Action Taken: The Authority concurs with this finding. The Authority has an established review, oversight and training process and will continue to improve its review, oversight, and training process to ensure proper procedures are being followed. All audit findings of the files tested have been corrected. The Authority has implemented a quality control system so that every file receives a quality review for appropriate third-party verification and upfront income, and assistance is determined. The agency has created a Family Worksheet and an HCV Computation Worksheet to help staff identify errors in calculations and to check for accuracy prior to completing Annual Reexaminations and Interim Recertifications. The agency has changed its filing system to enable staff to thoroughly review all forms prior to admission and during regular recertification and interim adjustment processing. The agency created an “Other Adult” packet to ensure 214 forms and other pertinent are completed for all adult household members. The HCV Counselor caseloads have been distributed equitably amongst Counselors to promote efficiency and accuracy while working on each HCV participant's file. The Counselor's caseload is divided alphabetically and assigned by multifamily developments to track and monitor counselors' strength and weaknesses and to determine if additional training and/or monitoring is needed. A Counselor has been assigned to only handle specialty vouchers (EHV, VASH, Homeownership, and FUP). The FSS Coordinator is responsible for the full management of HCV FSS participants. The Authority has hired an Intake Housing Counselor/Portability Specialist to focus on determining eligibility of new applicants pulled from the waitlist and to manage the waitlist. This Counselor also determines eligibility and compiles document packet for portability clients. Internal file reviews are being completed and management will continue to conduct a 10% review for each Counselor's processing of annual recertifications. This percentage may increase if work product indicates a need for more stringent review. To further ensure compliance and accuracy, the HCV Program Manager will review at least 1 out of every 5 intake files. All new admissions move-in files are now being sent to the Compliance Director for review prior to approval. A sample size of 15% is now being reviewed at the end of month by the Compliance Director and Housing Programs Director for compliance. The Authority has had a significant turnover in the HCV department over the past 24 months. All HCV Counselors, except the Counselor handling specialty vouchers, will attend Voucher Specialist training and Nan McKay HCV Rental Calculation Certification training and successfully passed the certification exam during the next 24 months, as budget permits. Effective Date: June 19, 2025 Contact Information Gwendolyn B. Dawson, CEO Ocala Housing Authority 1629 NW 4th Street Ocala, Florida 34475 (352) 369-2636

Categories

HUD Housing Programs Special Tests & Provisions Significant Deficiency Internal Control / Segregation of Duties

Other Findings in this Audit

  • 566965 2024-002
    Significant Deficiency
  • 566966 2024-003
    Significant Deficiency Repeat
  • 566967 2024-003
    Significant Deficiency Repeat
  • 566969 2024-004
    Significant Deficiency
  • 1143407 2024-002
    Significant Deficiency
  • 1143408 2024-003
    Significant Deficiency Repeat
  • 1143409 2024-003
    Significant Deficiency Repeat
  • 1143410 2024-004
    Significant Deficiency
  • 1143411 2024-004
    Significant Deficiency

Programs in Audit

ALN Program Name Expenditures
14.850 Public Housing Operating Fund $993,271
14.871 Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers $637,658
14.872 Public Housing Capital Fund $620,312
14.896 Family Self-Sufficiency Program $150,190
14.169 Housing Counseling Assistance Program $66,859
14.870 Resident Opportunity and Supportive Services - Service Coordinators $49,345
14.267 Continuum of Care Program $37,144
93.558 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families $12,446