Navigate by Using "Page Up" and "Page Down" Keys.
Hyperlinks on Table of Contents (TOC) at the bottom of each page.
AUDIT REPORT
GLENS FALLS HOUSING AUTHORITY
LOW-RENT PUBLIC HOUSING AND SECTION 8
HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER PROGRAMS
GLENS FALLS, NEW YORK
2005-NY-1001
NOVEMBER 10, 2004
OFFICE OF AUDIT
NEW YORK/NEW JERSEY REGION
TOC
Issue Date
November 10, 2004
Audit Case Number
2005-NY-1001
TO: Joan Spilman, Director, Public Housing Division, 2CPH
FROM: Alexander C. Malloy, Regional Inspector General for Audit, 2AGA
SUBJECT: Glens Falls Housing Authority
Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher and Low-Rent Public Housing Programs
Glens Falls, New York
We completed an audit of the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher and Low-Rent Public Housing
Programs of the Glens Falls Housing Authority (hereafter also called the Housing Authority).
Our review focused on tenant selection and continued occupancy activities, and whether such
activities are being carried out in accordance with requirements and regulations of the U. S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Specifically, for the Section 8 Housing
Choice Voucher Program, the audit objectives were to determine whether the Housing Authority
calculated rental assistance payments properly, and ensured that units under the Section 8
program met Housing Quality Standards (HQS). For both the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher
and Low-Rent Public Housing Programs, the audit objectives were to determine whether the
Housing Authority implemented admission policies consistent with HUD requirements and
verified information on program participants’ applications and recertification forms properly.
The review covered the period between January 1, 2003, and March 31, 2004. This report
contains two findings with recommendations.
In accordance with HUD Handbook 2000.06 REV-3, within 60 days please provide us for each
recommendation without a management decision, a status report on: (1) the corrective action
taken; (2) the proposed corrective action and the date to be completed; or (3) why action is
considered unnecessary. Additional status reports are required at 90 days and 120 days after
report issuance for any recommendation without a management decision. Also, please furnish us
copies of any correspondence or directives issued because of the audit.
Should you or your staff have any questions, please contact Garry Clugston, Assistant Regional
Inspector General for Audit, on (716) 551-5755, extension 5901.
TOC
Management Memorandum
THIS PAGE LEFT
BLANK
INTENTIONALLY
2005-NY-1001 Page ii TOC
Executive Summary
We completed an audit of the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher and Low-Rent Public Housing
Programs of the Glens Falls Housing Authority. Our review focused on tenant selection and
continued occupancy activities, and whether such activities are being carried out in accordance
with HUD requirements and regulations. Specifically, for the Section 8 Housing Choice
Voucher Program, the audit objectives were to determine whether the Housing Authority
calculated rental assistance payments properly, and ensured that units under the Section 8
program met Housing Quality Standards (HQS). For both the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher
and Low-Rent Public Housing Programs, the audit objectives were to determine whether the
Housing Authority implemented admission policies consistent with HUD requirements and
verified information on program participants’ applications and recertification forms properly.
The audit covered the period between January 1, 2003, and March 31, 2004.
The results of our review disclosed instances where rental assistance payments under the Section
8 program were not calculated properly, HQS violations in units in the Section 8 program were
either not detected or detected but not reported properly by inspectors of the Housing Authority.
Also we found, for both the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher and Low-Rent Public Housing
Programs, that the Housing Authority’s admission policies are not consistent with certain HUD
requirements; that information on applications and recertification forms were not properly
verified; and that tenants’ income was not properly determined. We attribute these deficiencies to
weaknesses in the Housing Authority’s procedures for verifying and documenting program
participants’ annual income, calculating program participants’ rental assistance payments and
rental amounts, and inspecting units under the Section 8 program. These issues are summarized
below and discussed in detail in the two findings in this report.
Under the Section 8 program, our review disclosed
deficiencies with the Housing Authority’s initial and/or
Program participants’
annual income examinations of six of the 31 cases in our
annual income was not
statistical sample. For four of these participants, we noted
properly determined
that the Housing Authority did not have adequate
and documented
documentation or verification of the participants’ annual
income used in their reexaminations. Regarding the other
two participants, it appears that the Housing Authority
incorrectly calculated their annual income. The errors
occurred because the Housing Authority did not ensure that
the participants’ annual income was properly determined and
documented. As a result, the Housing Authority cannot be
assured that the Housing Assistance Payments for those
participants were accurately calculated. Consequently, the
Housing Authority could be disbursing excess Housing
Assistance Payments. Details of the inadequate
documentation and verification of income were provided to
the Housing Authority staff.
TOC
Page iii 2005-NY-1001
Executive Summary
Regarding Housing Quality Standards (HQS), our review
HQS violations were disclosed that during inspections of Section 8 units the
not identified and/or Housing Authority’ inspectors either did not identify
reported certain HQS violations, or identified violations, but fail to
properly report them. Our review disclosed that eleven
units in our statistical sample of 31, or about 35 percent of
the units, had HQS violations. Projecting this result over
the Housing Authority’s 633 Section 8 units indicates that
about 221 units may not meet HQS. Consequently,
Housing Assistance Payments were made for units that did
meet HQS.
The above conditions exist because the Housing Authority
failed to ensure that all Section 8 participants’ housing
assistance were determined in accordance with program
requirements and procedures. The conditions also exist
because the Housing Authority’s inspections were not
adequately performed. As a result, the Housing Authority is
unable to provide HUD with adequate assurance that its
monthly housing assistance payments were used for decent,
safe and sanitary housing for Section 8 participants.
Consequently, an estimated 35 percent, or $745,352, of the
Housing Authority’s $2,129,578 Housing Assistance
Payments for Fiscal Year 2004 may have been spent on
units that did not meet Housing Quality Standards.
Apart from the above, we noted that the Housing Authority
Tenant admission and needs to improve controls over its Low-Rent Housing
continued occupancy Program tenant admissions and continued occupancy
procedures were not activities. Our review disclosed weaknesses in procedures
followed documenting tenants’ social security numbers or
declarations of citizenship, and calculating the amounts of
tenants’ annual income. This occurred because the Housing
Authority did not assure that tenant admission and continue
occupancy procedures were conducted in accordance with
HUD requirements and the Housing Authority’s Admission
and Continued Occupancy Plan. As a result, tenants may
have been admitted to the Housing Authority’s low-rent
housing units that were not eligible and/or may have been
charged incorrect amounts of rent.
As provided under each finding, we recommend that HUD
Recommendations require the Housing Authority to implement procedures and
controls to correct the deficiencies and weaknesses cited in
this report.
2005-NY-1001 Page iv TOC
Executive Summary
The results of our audit were discussed with Housing
Exit conference Authority officials throughout the course of the on-site
audit work and during an exit conference held on October
28, 2004. We provided a draft copy of the report to officials
of the Housing Authority, who generally agreed with the
findings and recommendations. Although we requested
written comments, officials of the Housing Authority chose
not to provide any for inclusion in this report.
TOC
Page v 2005-NY-1001
Executive Summary
THIS PAGE LEFT
BLANK
INTENTIONALLY
2005-NY-1001 Page vi TOC
Table of Contents
Management Memorandum i
Executive Summary iii
Introduction 1
Findings
1. The Housing Authority is not Properly Administering its
Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program 3
2. The Housing Authority is not Properly Following its Low-Rent
Housing Program’s Admission and Continued Occupancy
Procedures 9
Management Controls 13
Appendices
A Schedule of Questioned Costs and Funds Put to Better Use 15
Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
HAP Housing Assistance Payments
HQS Housing Quality Standards
HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
OIG Office of Inspector General
PHA Public Housing Authority
SSN Social Security Number
Page vii TOC
2005-NY-1001
Table of Contents
THIS PAGE LEFT
BLANK
INTENTIONALLY
2005-NY-1001 Page viii TOC
Introduction
A seven member Board of Commissioners governs the Glens Falls Housing Authority. The board
establishes policy and takes official action as required by Federal and State law. The Executive
Director, who is responsible for managing the overall day-to-day operations of the Housing
Authority, is Robert J. Landry. The books and records are maintained at the administration office
located at Stitchman Towers, Jay Street, Glens Falls, New York.
The Housing Authority operates two senior developments. One contains 100 units and the other 75
units. In addition, the Housing Authority administers 131 units of State housing at two
developments. One development contains 81 units of senior housing and the other 50 family units.
Also, the Housing Authority administers 633 units of Section 8 housing.
The review focused on tenant selection and continued
Audit objectives occupancy activities, and whether such activities are being
carried out in accordance with requirements and regulations
of HUD. Specifically, for the Section 8 Housing Choice
Voucher Program, the audit objectives were to determine
whether the Housing Authority calculated rental assistance
payments properly, and ensured that units under the Section
8 program met Housing Quality Standards (HQS). For both
the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher and Low-Rent
Public Housing Programs, the audit objectives were to
determine whether the Housing Authority implemented
admission policies consistent with HUD requirements and
verified information on program participants’ applications
and recertification forms properly.
To accomplish the audit objectives, the following audit
Audit scope
Scope and
and procedures were performed:
Methodology
methodology
• Interviewed HUD and Housing Authority officials and
employees.
• Examined reports and information the Housing Authority
maintained on HUD’s Public and Indian Housing
Information Center.
• Reviewed applicable Federal and Housing Authority
policies and procedures to gain an understanding of their
requirements.
• Used Audit Command Language software to select a
statistical sample of the Housing Authority’s Low-Rent
and Section 8 tenant files for review.
TOC
Page 1 2005-NY-1001
Introduction
• Inspected the Section 8 units included in our statistical
sample to determine whether the units met Housing
Quality Standards.
The audit covered the period from January 1, 2003 to
Audit period March 31, 2004. However, activity prior and subsequent to
the audit period was reviewed, as we deemed necessary.
We conducted our review at the administrative offices of
the Housing Authority between April 2004 and August
2004.
The audit was conducted in accordance with Generally
Accepted Governmental Auditing Standards.
2005-NY-1001 Page 2 TOC
Finding 1
The Housing Authority is not Properly
Administering its Section 8 Housing Choice
Voucher Program
Under the Section 8 program, our review disclosed deficiencies with the Housing Authority’s
procedures for documenting and verifying program participants’ initial and/or annual income,
and for ensuring that units meet Housing Quantity Standards (HQS). These conditions exist
because the Housing Authority failed to ensure that housing assistance payments for all Section
8 units was determined in accordance with program requirements and procedures, and that all
participating units meet HQS. As a result, the Housing Authority is unable to provide HUD
with adequate assurance that its monthly housing assistance payments were accurately
calculated and used for decent, safe and sanitary housing for all Section 8 participants. In this
regard, we estimated that 35 percent, or $745,352, of the Housing Authority’s $2,129,578
housing assistance payments for Fiscal Year 2004 may have been spent on units that did not
meet HUD’s Housing Quantity Standards. Moreover, since we noted numerous deficiencies
with the Housing Authority’s administration of its Section 8 program, we question whether the
Housing Authority earned the $384,085 in Section 8 administrative fees it was paid during
Fiscal Year 2004. Accordingly, we consider those fees unsupported pending an eligibility
determination by HUD.
We selected a statistical sample of 31 units from the
Scope Housing Authority’s 633 units administered under its
Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program. We reviewed
the participants’ files to determine whether recertification
occurred in accordance with HUD requirements. We
examined the files to determine whether participants’
annual income and expenses were adequately documented
and verified, and whether the Housing Authority correctly
computed each participant’s annual income, rental
payment, and housing assistance payments. Additionally,
we inspected each unit in our sample to determine whether
HQS violations exit.
Criteria 24 CFR Part 5.240(c) states the responsible entity must
verify the accuracy of the income information received
from the family and change the amount of the total tenant
payment as appropriate, based on such information.
24 CFR Part 982.516(a) states the Public Housing
Authority (PHA) must conduct a reexamination of family
income and composition at least annually. The PHA must
obtain and document in the tenant file third party
Page 3 2005-NY-1001 TOC
Finding 1
verification, or must document in the tenant file why third
party verification was not available.
From our statistical sample of 31 units, we found six cases
Six cases with (19 percent) with deficiencies in the Housing Authority’s
deficiencies initial and/or annual income examinations process. As
such, we project that 19 percent of the Housing Authority’s
633 Section 8 units (120 units) may have deficiencies
pertaining to the income examination process.
Specifically, for four participants, our review disclosed that
the Housing Authority did not have adequate
documentation or verification of the participants’ annual
income. For two participants it appears that the Housing
Authority incorrectly calculated the participants’ annual
income. This occurred because the Housing Authority Staff
failed to identify or follow up on discrepancies in income
documentation and therefore did not ensure that the
participants’ annual income was properly determined,
verified, and documented. As a result, the Housing
Authority cannot be assured that the housing assistance
payments for those participants were accurately calculated.
The results of our review were provided to the Housing
Authority staff.
Section 10 of the Consolidated Annual Contribution
Criteria
Contract requires the Housing Authority to comply with all
applicable HUD regulations and requirements. Further,
Section 9 requires each requisition for periodic payments to
contain a certification that housing assistance payments
were made in accordance with HUD requirements and that
units were inspected by the Housing Authority in
accordance with HUD requirements.
Title 24 Part 982.401 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) established Housing Quality Standards for the
Section 8 Tenant Based Assistance Program. All program
housing must meet the HQS requirements throughout the
tenancy period. Further, Part 982.405 requires housing
authorities to inspect each leased unit at least annually to
determine if HUD’s standards are met. Housing Authorities
must conduct supervisory quality control inspections.
From our statistical sample of 31 units we found 11 units
35 Percent of units do (35 percent) with HQS violations. As such, we project that
not meet HQS 35 percent of the Housing Authority’s 633 Section 8 units
may not meet Housing Quality Standards. Consequently,
2005-NY-1001 Page 4 TOC
Finding 1
35 percent, or $745,352, of the Housing Authority’s
$2,129,578 housing assistance payments for Fiscal Year
2004 may have been for units that would not meet HUD’s
Housing Quality Standards. Furthermore, the Housing
Quality Standards violations identified during our review
pose a serious concern for the well being of the Section 8
participants. The following pictures illustrate this.
Tenant ID # 6100325
Large Hole in Ceiling and Exposed Electrical Wiring
Tenant ID # 620512
Entry Way Door Not Secure
Page 5 2005-NY-1001 TOC
Finding 1
Tenant ID # 6810826
Unsafe Kitchen Floor
Tenant ID # 6810826
Potential Lead-Based Paint Hazard
The inspection process used by the Housing Authority does
Inspection process is
not assure HUD that its Section 8 units meet Housing
inadequate
Quality Standards. We noted that the Housing Authority’s
inspectors (a) did not identify all violations, (b) passed
units with HQS violations, and (c) did not properly ensure
that reported violations were corrected. In accordance with
2005-NY-1001 Page 6 TOC
Finding 1
program requirements, the Housing Authority is to ensure
that participating Section 8 units meet HQS. In this regard,
we believe that once the units with violations are brought
into compliance with Housing Quality Standards, the
associated housing assistance payments of $745,352 for
those units will result in funds put to better use.
A comparison of our inspections to the Housing
Inspectors did not Authority’s most recent inspections showed that the
identify violations and inspectors either failed to note any Housing Quality
passed units with Standards violations, or noted violations and provided
violations comments indicating violations, but allowed the unit to
pass the inspection. Each of those units should have failed
the inspection and the Housing Authority should have
required the landlords to take corrective action.
Furthermore, the Housing Authority did not re-inspect the
Units not re-inspected units where the inspectors noted violations, and did not
ensure that the landlord corrected the violations. The
Housing Authority’s Section 8 staff told us that they did not
have the manpower or time to perform the re-inspections.
In this regard, we noted that the Housing Authority has
only two employees assigned to the Section 8 Housing
Choice Voucher Program to perform all the initial, annual
and interim certifications, and to conduct all the initial and
annual HQS inspections and re-inspections. In our opinion,
the Housing Authority does not have sufficient staff
assigned to the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher
Program to assure its proper administration.
In summary, it is our position that the Housing Authority is
Summary not properly managing its Section 8 Program in accordance
with HUD requirements since the Housing Authority does
not have adequate management controls to provide HUD
with assurances that its annual housing assistance payments
under it Section 8 program are accurately calculated and only
used for decent, safe and sanitary housing. Consequently, we
question whether the Glens Falls Housing Authority has
earned the $384,085 Section 8 administrative fees it was paid
in Fiscal Year 2004. Accordingly, we consider the amount of
those fees unsupported pending an eligibility determination
by HUD.
Recommendations
TOC
Page 7 2005-NY-1001
Finding 1
We recommend that the Director, Public Housing Division
of HUD’s Buffalo Field Office, require the Housing
Authority to:
1A. Implement procedures and controls to ensure that
Section 8 participants’ annual income is properly
determined, verified, and documented. For the two
participants identified with incorrectly calculated
annual income, determine the correct housing
assistance payments and take appropriate actions
to correct any over or under payments.
1B. Implement procedures and controls to ensure that
management monitors the Section 8 certification
and recertification process.
1C. Ensure that it has sufficient staff to properly
perform the inspection process for all its Section 8
units.
1D. Re-inspect its Section 8 housing units and ensure
that all Housing Quality Standards violations are
identified and corrected within required
timeframes.
1E. Discontinue requests of Housing Assistance
Payments on units we identified as not meeting
Housing Quality Standards as well as those units
identified during the implementation of
Recommendation 1D.
We also recommend that the Director, Public Housing
Division.
1F. Determine whether the Glens Falls Housing
Authority earned the $384,085 Section 8
administrative fee paid to it during Fiscal Year
2004. If any of the fees are determined to be
ineligible, that amount is to be reimbursed to HUD
from non-Federal funds.
2005-NY-1001 Page 8 TOC
Finding 2
The Housing Authority is not Properly
Following its Low-Rent Housing Program’s
Admission and Continued Occupancy
Procedures
Under the Low-Rent Housing Program, our review disclosed weaknesses in the Housing
Authority’s admission and continued occupancy procedures pertaining to documenting tenants’
social security numbers or declarations of citizenship, and calculating the amounts of tenants’
annual income. This occurred because the Housing Authority did not assure that the tenant
selection and continue occupancy procedures were carried out in accordance with HUD
requirements and the Housing Authority’s Admission and Continued Occupancy Plan. As a
result, applicants may have been admitted to units under the Housing Authority’s Low-Rent
Housing Program that were not eligible and/or charged inappropriate amounts of rent.
We selected a sample of eight units from the Housing
Scope Authority’s 175 Low-Rent Public Housing units to review
the tenants’ files. We reviewed the tenant files to determine
whether the Housing Authority is conducting its tenant
selection and continued occupancy activities as required by
HUD regulations and its own Admission and Continued
Occupancy Plan.
24 CFR Part 5.216 requires each assisted applicant to
Criteria submit their complete and accurate social security number
for all household members who are at least six years of age.
In addition, each family member is to submit a written
declaration asserting the individual family member is a
United States citizen or a non-citizen with immigration
status. The regulations also provide that the documentation
necessary to verify the social security number should be a
valid Social Security card issued by the Social Security
Administration.
Section 12 of the Glens Falls Housing Authority Admission
and Continued Occupancy Plan states that age, relationship,
U.S. citizenship, and social security numbers will generally
be verified with documentation provided by the family. It
further notes that photocopies of the documents provided by
the family will be maintained in the file.
TOC
Page 9 2005-NY-1001
Finding 2
24 CFR Part 5.240(c) states the responsible entity must
verify the accuracy of the income information received
from the family and change the amount of the total tenant
payment as appropriate, based on such information.
24 CFR Part 960.257(a) requires the PHA to conduct a
reexamination of family income and composition at least
annually and must make appropriate adjustments in the
rent. Further 24 CFR Part 960.259(c) requires the PHA to
obtain and document in the family file third party
verification of reported family income and expenses related
to deductions from family income, or must document in the
file why third party verification was not available.
Our review disclosed that for all eight units in our sample
Documentation of the Housing Authority did not document family members’
citizenship and SSN not social security numbers or declarations of citizenship in the
in files tenant files. The only evidence of citizenship and social
security number were annotations made by the staff on the
required verification forms that were contained in the
tenant files. The files did not contain any photocopies or
other documentation referring to the tenants’ Social
Security Number. Nor did the files have the required
declaration statement identifying each family member’s
citizenship or eligible immigration status. Without proper
documentation the Housing Authority is unable to
demonstrate that its tenants and individual family members
are eligible to participate in the HUD funded Low-Rent
Housing Program.
For six of the eight cases in our sample we found deficiencies
Deficiencies in tenant with the Housing Authority’s tenant selection and continued
admissions and occupancy process. Specifically, the Housing Authority
occupancy process. incorrectly calculated the tenants’ income in two cases
resulting in the amount of tenants’ rent being overstated. The
Housing Authority overstated one tenant’s monthly rent by
$7 and the other tenant’s monthly rent by $20. Regarding the
other four cases, the tenant files did not contain adequate
documentation or verification of the tenants’ income and/or
medical expenses. Details regarding the above deficiencies
were provided to the Low-Rent Housing Program staff for
their review.
As previously stated, the Housing Authority did not ensure
that all tenants’ annual income was properly verified and
documented. Without proper verification and documentation
2005-NY-1001 Page 10 TOC
Finding 2
the Housing Authority cannot be assured that the amounts of
the tenants’ rents are accurately calculated. This can cause
the tenant’s share of the rent to be either overstated or
understated. This occurred because the Housing Authority
staff relied on prior year’s documentation and/or information
provided by the tenants, as well as, management’s failure to
provide proper oversight.
As discussed in this finding, the Housing Authority’s Low-
Summary Rent Housing Program has weaknesses in its tenant
selection and continued occupancy procedures that need to
be addressed. Proper corrective actions are needed to obtain
adequate assurances that applicants meet the initial
program requirements, as well as all program requirements
applicable to continued occupancy. Corrective actions are
also need to ensure that tenants are charged the appropriate
amount of rent.
Recommendations We recommend that the Director, Public Housing Division
of HUD’s Buffalo Field Office require the Housing
Authority to:
2A. Obtain and photocopy each family member’s Social
Security Card and/or related documents.
2B. Ensure that all necessary citizen eligibility forms
are obtained for all applicable family members.
2C. Obtain and properly verify each tenant’s annual
income and medical expenses during annual
reexaminations.
2D. Recalculate tenant rents for all tenants to ensure that
the amount of each tenant’s annual rent is properly
calculated.
2E. Make adjustments to correct the overcharged rent
for the two tenants noted in the finding.
2F. Implement management controls and procedures to
ensure proper and consistent implementation of the
Admission and Occupancy plan and HUD
regulations.
TOC
Page 11 2005-NY-1001
Finding 2
2G. Implement a quality control program whereby
management oversight is provided to ensure that all
applicable documentation is maintained and that the
amount of each tenant’s rent is properly calculated.
2005-NY-1001 Page 12 TOC
Management Controls
In planning and performing our audit, we considered the management controls of the Glens Falls
Housing Authority to determine our auditing procedures, not to provide assurance on the
controls. Management controls include the plan of organization, methods and procedures
adopted by management to ensure that its goals are met. Management controls include the
processes for planning, organizing, directing, and controlling program operations. Management
controls include the systems for measuring, reporting, and monitoring program performance.
We determined that the following management controls were
Relevant management relevant to our audit objectives:
controls
• Program Operations – Policies and procedures that
management has implemented to reasonably ensure that a
program meets its objectives.
• Compliance with Laws and Regulations – Policies and
procedures that management has implemented to
reasonably ensure that resource use is consistent with
laws and regulations.
• Safeguarding Resources – Policies and procedures that
management has implemented to reasonably ensure that
resources are safeguarded against waste, loss, and misuse.
• Validity and Reliability of Data – Policies and procedures
that management has implemented to reasonably ensure
that valid and reliable data are obtained, maintained, and
fairly disclosed in reports.
We assessed all the relevant controls identified above.
It is a significant weakness if management controls do not
provide reasonable assurance that the process for planning,
organizing, directing, and controlling program operations
will meet an organization’s objectives.
Based on our review, we believe that significant weaknesses
Significant weaknesses exist in the following management controls. These
weaknesses are described in the findings section of this
report and summarized below.
• The Housing Authority did not ensure its Section 8
housing units met HUD’s Housing Quality Standards,
or that tenant initial certifications and /or
Page 13 2005-NY-1001 TOC
Management Controls
recertifications were performed in accordance with
program requirements (Finding 1, Program Operations,
Compliance with Laws and Regulations. Safeguarding
Resources and Validity and Reliability of Data).
• The Housing Authority did not ensure that tenant
selection and continued occupancy activities were
carried out in accordance with its own procedures and
HUD requirements (Finding 2, Program Operations,
Compliance with Laws and Regulations, Safeguarding
Resources and Validity and Reliability of Data).
2005-NY-1001 Page 14 TOC
Appendix A
Schedule of Questioned Costs and Funds Put to Better Use
Type of Questioned Costs
Finding Unsupported Funds Put to
Number Costs 1/ Better Use 2/
1 $384,085 $745,352
Total $384,085 $745,352
1/ Unsupported costs are costs whose eligibility cannot be clearly determined during the
audit since such costs were not supported by adequate documentation. A legal opinion or
administrative determination may be needed on these costs.
2/ Funds put to better use are costs that will not be expended in the future if our
recommendations are implemented, for example, costs not incurred, de-obligation of
funds, withdrawal of interest, reductions in outlays, avoidance of unnecessary
expenditures, loans and guarantees not made, and other savings.
TOC
Page 15 2005-NY-1001
Glens Fall Housing Authority, Low-Rent Public Housing and Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program, Glens Falls, New York
Published by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General on 2004-11-10.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)