Issue Date December 21, 2005 Audit Case Number 2006-AT-1001 TO: Karen Cato-Turner, Director, Office of Public Housing, 4DPH FROM: James D. McKay Regional Inspector General for Audit, 4AGA SUBJECT: The Miami Dade Housing Agency, Miami, Florida, Did Not Ensure Section 8-Assisted Units Met Housing Quality Standards HIGHLIGHTS What We Audited and Why As part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of the Inspector General’s (OIG) strategic plan, we conducted an audit of the Miami Dade Housing Agency’s (Agency) inspection of Section 8-assisted units under the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program. We selected the Agency for review based on risk factors associated with a Section 8 risk assessment. Our audit objective was to determine whether Section 8-assisted units met housing quality standards in accordance with HUD requirements. What We Found Our statistical sample of 120 Section 8 units found that 117 units did not meet minimum housing quality standards. Of the 117 units, 38 had significant housing quality standards violations. Projecting the results of the statistical sample to the population indicates at least 12,387 of the Agency’s 13,220 units did not meet minimum housing quality standards. Further, 3,265 units had significant housing quality standards violations. This occurred because Agency management did not Table of Contents place sufficient emphasis on housing quality standards requirements and did not implement adequate internal controls. As a result, tenants lived in units that were not decent, safe, and sanitary, and HUD made housing assistance payments for units that did not meet standards. Based on the sample, we estimate that over the next year, HUD will pay housing assistance payments of more than $25.9 million for units with significant housing quality standards violations. In addition, we estimate that $7,300 in administrative fees should be reduced or offset. What We Recommend We recommend that the director of the Office of Public Housing require the Agency to inspect all of the 117 Section 8 housing choice voucher-assisted units to verify that corrective actions were taken by the landlord and if not, to abate the rents or terminate the tenants’ vouchers. The director should also require the Agency to develop and implement an internal control plan and incorporate it into the Agency’s Section 8 administrative plan to ensure units meet housing quality standards and inspections meet HUD requirements to prevent an estimated $25.9 million from being spent on units with significant violations. Further, HUD should reduce or offset $7,300 of the Agency’s administrative fees for the 38 units with significant housing quality standards violations. Auditee’s Response We discussed our review results with the Agency and HUD officials during the audit. We provided the draft report to the Agency and HUD on November 15, 2005, for their comments and discussed the report with them at the exit conference on December 09, 2005. The Agency provided written comments on December 12, 2005. The Agency generally concurred with recommendation 1A and 1B and has begun to take corrective action. The Agency agreed that housing quality standards violations did occur in the sampled units and some were significant. However, they disagreed with the methodology used and the conclusions of the audit. The Agency disagreed with recommendation 1C indicating no evidence of malfeasance or fraudulent behavior was found to warrant a reduction in fees. The complete text of the Agency’s response, along with our evaluation of that response, can be found in appendix B of this report. The Agency also provided attachments with its response that are available for review upon request. Table of Contents 2 HUD Management Decisions Your December 19, 2005, memorandum indicated agreement with the findings and recommended corrective actions We have accepted HUD’s management decisions for each report recommendation and they will be recorded in the Departmental audit resolution tracking system upon report issuance. In accordance with HUD Handbook 2000.6, REV-3, please advise the audit liaison officer when all final actions have been completed. Also, please furnish us copies of any correspondence or directives issued because of the audit. Table of Contents 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Background and Objectives 5 Results of Audit Finding 1: Section 8 Units Did Not Meet Housing Quality Standards 6 Scope and Methodology 15 Internal Controls 18 Appendixes A. Schedule of Questioned Costs and Funds to Be Put to Better Use 19 B. Auditee Comments and OIG’s Evaluation 20 C. Criteria 31 D. Table of Units with Significant Housing Quality Standards Violations 33 4 BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES The Miami Dade Housing Agency (Agency) is a department of Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Agency reports directly to the county manager, who reports to the mayor and 13-member board of county commissioners. Its primary objective is to provide low- and moderate-income residents with quality affordable housing opportunities. The Agency administers approximately 13,220 housing choice vouchers. The annual housing assistance payments for fiscal year 2004 were more than $103 million. Our audit objective was to determine whether Section 8-assisted units met housing quality standards in accordance with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requirements. Table of Contents 5 RESULTS OF AUDIT Finding 1: Section 8 Units Did Not Meet Housing Quality Standards Our inspection of 120 units showed that 117 units did not meet minimum housing quality standards. Of the 117 units not meeting standards, 38 had significant housing quality standards violations. Projecting the results of the statistical sample to the population indicates at least 12,387 of the Agency’s 13,220 units did not meet minimum housing quality standards. Further, 3,265 units had significant housing quality standards violations. This occurred because Agency management did not place sufficient emphasis on housing quality standards requirements and did not implement adequate internal controls. As a result, tenants lived in units that were not decent, safe, and sanitary, and HUD made housing assistance payments for units that did not meet standards. Based on the sample, we estimate that over the next year, HUD will pay housing assistance payments of more than $25.9 million for units with significant housing quality standards violations. In addition, we estimate that $7,300 in administrative fees should be reduced or offset. Units Had Significant Housing Quality Standards Violations We estimate that over the next year, HUD will pay housing assistance payments of more than $25.9 million for units with significant housing quality standards violations if the Agency does not institute better controls. We inspected a statistical sample of 120 units with an OIG housing inspector and the Agency’s inspectors. We found that 117 units failed to meet minimum housing quality standards. Additionally, 38 of the 117 units had significant housing quality standards violations. Appendix D provides details on the 38 units. The following table lists the most frequently occurring and serious violations. Number of units Percentage Type of violation Frequency with violation of units Electrical hazards 114 31 82 Security 60 29 76 Ventilation 52 28 74 Water heater 43 30 79 Sewer 5 5 13 The Agency either did not identify many of the violations from our inspections or did identify violations but reported them as having been corrected. We believe the violations existed when the Agency conducted their most recent inspection. Table of Contents 6 Safety Hazards The most predominant violation was electrical hazards, including exposed wiring, improper installation of electrical wires, and the use of extension cords as permanent wiring. On August 30, 2005, we found exposed electrical wires to an air conditioner unit. The Agency did not report this violation during its inspection on August 15, 2005. Other safety hazards include security issues such as missing door locks, excessive damage to exterior doors, and unsecured windows. Exposed electrical wires Exterior door missing door lock Table of Contents 7 Ventilation We found several violations involving the air conditioner unit not being properly sealed, resulting in exposed ceilings and unsecured windows. Other violations involved leaking air conditioner units. Window unit not properly sealed Inoperative drain pump line Table of Contents 8 Water Heater We also found several units containing a water heater with a pressure relief valve that did not fully discharge to a safe place of disposal. In addition, the water heater in one unit did not have a pressure relief valve. We inspected this unit on August 29, 2005. The Agency passed the unit on August 4, 2005. The tenant said the Agency inspector never looked at the water heater. In other units, the water heater was so severely corroded that it needed to be replaced. Missing pressure relief valve Missing pressure relief drain line Table of Contents 9 Corroded water heater Health Hazards Our inspections disclosed sewer leaks due to an improperly sealed toilet, an uncovered septic tank, and washing machines not properly connected to a sewer line. These violations pose health hazards to the tenants in these units. We Table of Contents 10 inspected a unit on August 24, 2005, and found a sewer leak caused by an improperly sealed toilet. The Agency conducted an inspection on August 15, 2005, without reporting this violation. Unsecured toilet Table of Contents 11 Washer not properly connected to a sewer line; water drained to backyard The Agency Did Not Have Adequate Internal Controls The Agency’s management did not place sufficient emphasis on housing quality standards requirements. Management failed to implement an effective internal control plan that ensured units met minimum housing quality standards and inspections complied with requirements. The Agency’s internal control plan should include written policies and procedures that provide detailed daily guidance and a quality control plan that ensures policies and procedures are followed. The internal control plan, at a minimum, should provide guidance on how to properly conduct inspections to meet housing quality standards and identify corrective measures for inspectors who perform Table of Contents 12 poorly (i.e., training or disciplinary action). The plan must be sufficient to ensure the Agency complies with HUD regulations and other requirements. An Agency official stated that the quality of the inspections was sacrificed due to the volume of inspections. The Agency reported that in fiscal year 2005, 13 inspectors were responsible for inspecting about 18,500 Section 8 units, resulting in 38,200 scheduled inspections. The inspection staff was responsible for all inspections, reinspections, emergency and complaint inspections, and the delivery of violation notices to landlords. Despite the volume of inspections, the Agency did not perform an analysis to determine whether it employed adequate inspection staff to perform all required inspections to a level that ensured violations were identified. According to the Agency’s Section 8 administrative plan, quality control inspections will be conducted to ensure that inspections are in conformance with housing quality standards, to verify the accuracy and efficiency of inspection personnel, and to monitor and document program performance. The plan also states that quality control inspections will re-inspect a minimum of 5 percent of the total units inspected each month. The Agency did not meet this 5 percent goal in fiscal year 2005 and only performed inspections in that fiscal year from October through December 2004 and September 2005. Without performing regular inspections throughout the year, the Agency cannot identify issues as they arise. Also, as shown by the results in this finding, the quality control inspections that were completed did not identify the deficiencies in the inspection process. Had the Agency developed and implemented specific written procedures to meet these objectives, it could have effectively accomplished its 5 percent inspection goal and would have been able to identify deficiencies and implement corrective actions to prevent further violations. In addition to not meeting its goal in the administrative plan, the Agency did not conduct the number of quality control inspections required by HUD. According to the HUD Section 8 Management Assessment Program, the Agency was required to conduct 89 quality control inspections for fiscal year 2005. It only conducted 62. The Agency Has Begun to Take Corrective Actions The Agency has requested landlords and tenants to correct deficiencies on the 117 units, and inspectors have conducted reinspections. Agency management has begun to randomly review inspection results each week and has required inspectors to report when inspections were started and completed. Table of Contents 13 Conclusion Because Agency management did not place sufficient emphasis on housing quality standards requirements and did not implement adequate internal controls, HUD made housing assistance payments and provided administrative fees to the Agency for units that did not meet standards. The Agency did not maintain adequate controls to ensure that inspections meet HUD requirements. It conducted quality control inspections, but it did not use them as a tool to enhance inspector performance and identify whether inspections were performed properly. While the Agency has made some improvements, additional improvements are needed. Management must emphasize the importance of housing quality standards and implement policies and procedures that ensures it complies with HUD requirements and gives tenants the opportunity to live in decent, safe, and sanitary conditions. By continuing to make necessary improvements, the Agency will ensure that at least $25.9 million in Section 8 funds are put to better use. In addition, HUD provided the Agency with administrative fees to perform administrative duties under the Section 8 program. Based on our results, the Agency failed to adequately perform its administrative duties in that Section 8 units did not meet housing quality standards. Accordingly, we believe the administrative fee associated with 38 units should be reduced or offset. We generally computed the administrative fee for the 38 units with significant violations from the date of the most recent Agency annual inspection to the date of our inspection. We estimate that $7,300 in administrative fees should be reduced or offset. Recommendations We recommend that the director of the Office of Public Housing require the Agency to 1A. Inspect the 117 Section 8 housing choice voucher-assisted units to verify that corrective actions were taken by the landlord and if not, to abate the rents or terminate the tenants’ vouchers. 1B. Develop and implement an internal control plan and incorporate it into the Agency’s Section 8 administrative plan to ensure units meet housing quality standards and inspections meet HUD requirements to prevent an estimated $25.9 million from being spent on units with significant violations. 1C. Reduce or offset $7,300 in the Section 8 administrative fees for the 38 units with significant housing quality standards violations. Table of Contents 14 SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY Our audit objective was to determine whether Section 8-assisted units met housing quality standards in accordance with HUD requirements. To accomplish our audit objective, we • Reviewed applicable laws, regulations, and other HUD program requirements. • Reviewed the Agency’s Section 8 policies and procedures and administrative plan. • Interviewed HUD and Agency program staff. • Reviewed the Agency’s latest independent public accountant report and HUD program monitoring reviews, • Obtained a download of the Agency’s Section 8 housing stock for the Housing Choice Voucher program as of March 2005. We then performed limited tests of the reliability of the data, such as the tenant information, housing assistance payments, and inspection results. Based on the tests, we assessed the data as sufficiently reliable, given our objective and intended use. • Selected a statistical sample of units for inspection from the Agency’s Section 8 housing stock for the Housing Choice Voucher program as of March 2005. • Reviewed previous Agency inspection reports. • Inspected 120 units with an OIG housing inspector and Agency inspectors to determine whether the units met housing quality standards. We performed the inspections April 11-15, 2005, and August 15-September 22, 2005. HUD provided the Agency with administrative fees to perform administrative duties under the Section 8 program. Based on our audit results, we believe the Agency failed to adequately perform its administrative duties, and the administrative fee associated with 38 units should be reduced or offset. We generally computed the administrative fee for the 38 units with significant violations from the date of the most recent Agency annual inspection to the date of our inspection. We computed the administrative fee to be $14,601, which is 100 percent of the administrative fee for the 38 units in the months between the Agency inspection and our inspections. To be conservative, we estimate that $7,300 (50 percent) should be reduced or offset since the Agency also used the $14,601 for other administrative purposes. Table of Contents 15 Statistical Sample Selection and Methodology The download of the Agency’s Section 8 housing stock for the Housing Choice Voucher program resulted in 13,220 active units. We used a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet designed to calculate sample sizes. Based on a confidence level of 90 percent, a precision level of 7.3 percent, and an assumed error rate of 39 percent, the spreadsheet returned a sample size of 120 units. We then used the Defense Contract Audit Agency’s EZ-Quant software to select a simple random statistical sample of 120 from the 13,220 units. We also used the software to generate 50 additional samples for replacements if we could not gain access to a unit. We used statistical sampling because each sampling unit is selected without bias from the audit population, thereby allowing the results to be projected to the population. Projecting the results of the 117 failed units in our statistical sample to the population yields the following: • The lower limit is 93.7 percent * 13,220 units = 12,387 units not meeting housing quality standards. • The point estimate is 97.5 percent * 13,220 units = 12,890 units not meeting housing quality standards. • The upper limit is 99.3 percent * 13,220 units = 13,127 units not meeting housing quality standards. Of the 117 failed units, we determined that 38 units have significant housing quality standards violations. We defined these units as being in extremely poor condition, resulting from (1) a deficiency that existed for an extended period of time, (2) a deficiency noted in a prior inspection but not corrected, and/or (3) deferred maintenance that consistently fails the unit. We based our assessment on prior Agency inspection reports, tenant comments, and our observation and judgment of the condition of the unit during the inspection. Projecting the results of the 38 units that have significant housing quality standards violations to the population yields the following: • The lower limit is 24.7 percent * 13,220 units = 3,265 units with significant housing quality standards violations. • The point estimate is 31.7 percent * 13,220 units = 4,187 units with significant housing quality standards violations. • The upper limit is 39.3 percent * 13,220 units = 5,195 units with significant housing quality standards violations. Table of Contents 16 To be conservative, we used the lower limit to project to the population. Using the lower limit and the average annual housing assistance payment for our audit period, we estimated the Agency spent at least $25,971,988 for 3,265 units with significant housing quality standards violations. The estimate is not a statistical projection and is used only for determining funds that can be put to better use. We conducted our fieldwork from March through October 2005 at the Agency’s offices in Miami, Florida. Our audit period was from October 1, 2003, through February 28, 2005. We expanded our audit period as needed to accomplish our objective. We conducted the audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Table of Contents 17 INTERNAL CONTROLS Internal control is an integral component of an organization’s management that provides reasonable assurance the following objectives are being achieved: • Effectiveness and efficiency of operations, • Reliability of financial reporting, and • Compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Internal controls relate to the plan of organization, methods, and procedures adopted by management to meet its missions, goals, and objectives. Internal controls include the processes for planning, organizing, directing, and controlling program operations. They include the systems for measuring, reporting, and monitoring program performance. Internal controls also serve as the first line of defense in safeguarding assets and preventing and detecting errors; fraud; and violations of laws, regulations, and provisions of contracts and grant agreements. Relevant Internal Controls We determined the following internal controls were relevant to our audit objective. Controls over program operations Controls over the validity and reliability of data Controls over compliance with laws and regulations Controls over the safeguarding of resources A significant weakness exists if the internal controls do not provide reasonable assurance that housing units meet housing quality standards in accordance with HUD requirements. Significant Weaknesses Based on our review, we believe that the following item was a significant weakness: The Agency did not have adequate internal controls to ensure that Section 8 units met housing quality standards. (see finding 1) Table of Contents 18 APPENDIXES Appendix A SCHEDULE OF QUESTIONED COSTS AND FUNDS TO BE PUT TO BETTER USE Recommendation Questioned costs: Funds to be put number ineligible 1 to better use 2 1B $25,971,988 1C $7,300 Total $7,300 $25,971,988 1/ Questioned costs include ineligible costs, unsupported costs, and unnecessary/unreasonable costs. Ineligible costs are defined as those costs that are questioned because of an alleged violation of a provision of a law, regulation, contract, grant, cooperative agreement, or other agreement or document governing the expenditure of funds. 2/ “Funds to be put to better use” are quantifiable savings that are anticipated to occur if an OIG recommendation is implemented, resulting in reduced expenditures at a later time for the activities in question. This includes costs not incurred, reductions in outlays, avoidance of unnecessary expenditures, de-obligation of funds, withdrawal of interest, loans and guarantees not made, and other savings. Table of Contents 19 Appendix B AUDITEE COMMENTS AND OIG’S EVALUATION Ref to OIG Evaluation Auditee Comments Table of Contents 20 Comment 1 Table of Contents 21 Comment 2 Table of Contents 22 Comment 3 Table of Contents 23 Comment 4 Comment 5 Table of Contents 24 Comment 6 Table of Contents 25 Comment 7 Comment 8 Table of Contents 26 OIG Evaluation of Auditee Comments Date of OIG Inspection Compared to Date of MDHA’s Most Recent Inspection Comment 1 The Agency commented that there are significant gaps of time between the inspection they conducted and our inspection. They cited HUD regulations for housing quality standards quality control inspections, which stipulate that the reinspected sample is to be drawn from recently completed housing quality standards inspections performed during the three months preceding reinspection. We did not use the methodology cited in the HUD regulations because the objective of our review is different than the Agency when they perform quality control reinspections. For our objective, we chose to use statistical sampling to ensure that inspection results were representative of the Agency’s Section 8 housing choice voucher stock. This methodology allows each sampling unit to be selected without bias from the audit population. To select only recent inspections would no longer make the sample statistically valid. The Agency stated that in the months between OIG and their inspections, changes in the physical condition of a unit may and probably have occurred. We recognize that our inspection results reflect a snapshot of the conditions of a unit at a particular point in time. However, 24 CFR 982.401(a)(3) requires that all program housing meet the housing quality standards performance requirements both at commencement of assisted occupancy, and throughout the assisted tenancy. The Agency stated that two hurricanes caused widespread damage to units that did not have pre-existing violations. During our inspections, we distinguished between those violations related to hurricane damage. In addition, we excluded those damages in our determination on whether a unit failed with significant violations. Assumption that HQS Violations Would Not Have Been Corrected Within USHUD Prescribed Timeframes Comment 2 The Agency stated that the OIG conclusion that 117 of the 120 inspected units did not meet minimum housing quality standards is an assumption without consideration that MDHA acted or would act in accordance with HUD regulations and allow the landlord or family time to cure the violations. The Agency also commented that the audit report did not specify the number of OIG Table of Contents 27 inspected units that subsequently passed a compliance inspection or were abated. We disagree that our conclusion is an assumption. Our conclusion was based on the factual results of our inspections. We also did not state that the Agency would not ensure the future compliance of the unit in accordance with regulations. Furthermore, our audit objective was to determine whether Section 8-assisted units met housing quality standards in accordance with HUD requirements and not to verify or determine whether the Agency complied with abatement and termination policies and procedures. Types of Violations Cited by the OIG Comment 3 The Agency acknowledged and generally concurred with most of our concerns regarding electrical hazards, security, ventilation, and sewer violations. The Agency disagreed with our violations related to the water heater’s pressure relief valve. They mentioned that a County building official informed OIG and the Agency that there is no problem in using an approved conduit to reduce the pressure relief line to ½ inch for existing construction when expelled to the exterior of the property. Our recollection of the meeting with the County building official was that the County would not approve a relief valve to go from ¾ inch to ½ inch. The County will not require the owner to change all plumbing in old buildings. However, the relief valve should discharge full size to the floor to meet County building code requirements. If the Agency is to adopt County building code requirements for water heaters, we recommend that clarification be obtained from the County on this matter. Applying the Flawed Sample Results to the Entire MDHA Portfolio Comment 4 The Agency stated that the OIG report asserts that violations occurred historically and were systematically ignored. The Agency disputes this allegation. We compared our inspections with Agency inspections to determine whether violations had been previously identified. We found that certain violations identified by the Agency were later signed off as being corrected when our inspection of the unit revealed that the violation was still present. In addition, we did not indicate that the Agency systematically ignored violations. Table of Contents 28 Comment 5 The Agency disagrees with our projected results, the $25.9 million in housing assistance payments issued for units not passing housing quality standards, and $7,300 in administrative fees that should be reduced or offset. As indicated above, we used statistical sampling that allows our audit results to be projected to the population. To be conservative, we used the lower limit to determine our projected results. The $25.9 million in housing assistance payments is an estimate and not a statistical projection and is used only for the purpose of determining the annual amount of Section 8 funds that could be put to better use if the Agency implements the suggested recommendations. We also maintain that the Agency failed to adequately perform its administrative duties in that Section 8 units did not meet housing quality standards. Accordingly, we believe the $7,300 in administrative fees associated with the 38 units with significant housing quality standards violations should be reduced or offset. The Agency also stated that assumptions should not be made regarding future Section 8 funds not being put to good use without fairly looking at their enforcement of housing quality standards requirements through abatement or termination of HAP contracts. As indicated above, our audit objective was to determine whether Section 8-assisted units met housing quality standards in accordance with HUD requirements and not to verify or determine whether the Agency complied with abatement and termination policies and procedures. Internal Controls Comment 6 The Agency concurred with recommendation 1B and has begun to take corrective action. OIG Recommendations Comment 7 The Agency concurred with recommendation 1A and has begun to take corrective action. Comment 8 The Agency disagreed with recommendation 1C and stated that no evidence of malfeasance or fraudulent behavior was found to warrant a reduction in fees. The Agency also commented that the fees support all aspects of the Section 8 Table of Contents 29 operations. According to 24 CFR 982.152(d), HUD may reduce or offset any administrative fee to the public housing authority if it fails to perform its administrative responsibilities correctly or adequately under the program, such as failure to enforce housing quality standards requirements. We maintain that the Agency failed to adequately perform its administrative duties in not ensuring Section 8 units met housing quality standards. In addition, to be conservative, we estimate that $7,300 or 50 percent in Section 8 administrative fees for the 38 units should be reduced or offset since the Agency used the fees for other administrative purposes. Table of Contents 30 Appendix C CRITERIA 24 CFR [Code of Federal Regulations] 982.52(a) requires the public housing authority to comply with HUD regulations and other HUD requirements for the program. 24 CFR 982.54(a) and (d)(22) require the public housing authority to adopt a written administrative plan that establishes local policies for administration of the program in accordance with HUD requirements. The public housing authority must administer the program in accordance with the PHA administrative plan. Among other subjects, the plan must include procedural guidelines and performance standards for conducting required HQS inspections. 24 CFR 982.401(a)(3) states that all program housing must meet the housing quality standards performance requirements both at commencement of assisted occupancy and throughout the assisted tenancy. 24 CFR 982.152(d) states that HUD may reduce or offset any administrative fee to the public housing authority if it fails to perform its administrative responsibilities correctly or adequately under the program (such as failure to enforce housing quality standards requirements). 24 CFR 982.405(b) requires the public housing authority to conduct supervisory quality control housing quality standards inspections. HUD Housing Choice Voucher Guidebook. Chapter 10.9 of the guidebook provides that Indicator 5, “HQS Quality Control Inspections,” of the Section 8 Management Assessment Program requires a public housing authority supervisor or other qualified person to re-inspect a sample of units under contract during the last fiscal year. If the number of units under contract exceeds 2,000, the minimum number of units to be sampled is 30 plus 1 for each 200 (or part of 200) over 2,000. This is also stated in 24 CFR 985.2 and 24 CFR 985.3 (e). Agency Section 8 Administrative Plan: Purpose. One of the objectives of the plan is to provide decent, safe, and sanitary housing for eligible program participants. Agency Section 8 Administrative Plan: Housing Quality Standards and Inspections. Quality control inspections are conducted to ensure that inspections are in conformance with housing quality standards, to verify the accuracy and efficiency of inspection personnel, and to monitor and document program performance. It is the intent that these inspections and the keeping of records will assist in identification and prevention of repeat violations. In addition, Table of Contents 31 quality control inspections will re-inspect a minimum of 5 percent of the total units inspected each month. The number of units selected for quality control inspections is based on the total number of approved Section 8 certificate and housing vouchers. The selection is done randomly by the quality control inspector, using a computer listing of all scheduled annual inspections. Table of Contents 32 Appendix D TABLE OF UNITS WITH SIGNIFICANT HOUSING QUALITY STANDARDS VIOLATIONS Types of violation** Electrical Air Water # Sample # hazard Security conditioner heater Sewer 1 1 7 1 2 3 0 2 6 1 1 0 1 0 3 11 11 2 3 2 0 4 13 4 1 0 1 0 5 17 7 0 1 1 0 6 21 4 3 3 1 0 7 24 2 2 4 0 0 8 29 4 4 1 4 0 9 33 2 1 0 1 0 10 39 0 0 1 1 0 11 41 3 2 0 3 0 12 42 3 0 1 1 1 13 44 0 1 1 1 0 14 45 7 1 2 1 0 15 60 3 2 3 0 0 16 62 4 0 1 1 0 17 68 2 3 2 2 0 18 71 3 4 2 0 0 19 73 2 2 2 0 0 20 74 0 1 1 1 0 21 77 2 2 1 1 0 22 78 0 0 0 1 0 23 85 0 0 1 1 0 24 86 5 0 0 1 0 25 90 4 0 0 2 0 26 98 2 5 3 1 0 27 99 4 2 3 0 1 28 102 0 1 0 1 1 29 104 10 0 2 0 0 30 106 1 1 2 1 0 31 111 2 3 2 1 0 32 113 6 2 0 0 0 33 122 3 1 2 2 1 34 126 0 1 0 2 0 Table of Contents 33 Types of violation** Electrical Air Water # Sample # hazard Security Conditioner heater Sewer 35 129 3 6 1 1 0 36 144 1 1 1 2 0 37 152 1 3 1 0 0 38 154 1 1 3 1 1 Total 114 60 52 43 5 ** The table does not indicate all violations we found in the unit. We only included the most frequently occurring and serious violations. Table of Contents 34
The Miami Dade Housing Agency, Miami, Florida Did Not Ensure Section 8-Assisted Units Met Housing Quality Standards
Published by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General on 2005-12-21.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)