Issue Date
November 2, 2009
Audit Report Number
2010-BO-1001
TO: Donna J. Ayala, Director, Office of Public Housing, Boston Hub, 1APH
FROM:
John A. Dvorak, Regional Inspector General for Audit, Boston Region, 1AGA
SUBJECT: The State of Connecticut Department of Social Services’ Section 8 Housing
Units Did Not Always Meet HUD’s Housing Quality Standards
HIGHLIGHTS
What We Audited and Why
We audited the State of Connecticut Department of Social Services’ (agency)
administration of its housing quality standards program for its Section 8 Housing
Choice Voucher program (Voucher program) as part of our fiscal year 2009 audit
plan. The agency was selected based upon our analysis of risk factors relating to
rental housing authorities in Region 1. The audit objectives were to determine
whether (1) Section 8 housing units met HUD’s housing quality standards, (2)
housing inspections were performed in a timely manner, (3) housing assistance
payments were properly abated when units did not meet standards, (4) landlords
were notified of failing inspection results, and (5) the quality control reviews of
inspections were adequately performed in support of the agency’s Section Eight
Management Assessment Program (SEMAP) scores. This is the third and final
audit of the agency.
What We Found
The agency did not adequately ensure that its Section 8 housing units met HUD’s
housing quality standards. Of the 67 program units statistically selected for
inspection, 53 failed inspection, and 34 were materially noncompliant with
housing quality standards. In addition, the agency did not always perform its
inspections in a timely manner, properly abate the housing assistance payments
when repairs were not made as required or notify the owners of inspection results
in a timely manner. The agency also did not have an adequate housing quality
standards quality control process.
What We Recommend
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Boston Office of Public Housing
require the agency to strengthen controls to ensure that it follows HUD’s
procedures for conducting inspections and performing Section 8 quality control
inspections to ensure that units meet HUD’s housing quality standards to prevent
$22 million in program funds from being spent annually on units that fail to
materially meet HUD’s housing quality standards. In addition, the agency should
be required to reimburse its program from nonfederal funds $62,459 for units that
remained in noncompliance with housing quality standards and were not properly
abated.
For each recommendation in the body of the report without a management
decision, please respond and provide status reports in accordance with HUD
Handbook 2000.06, REV-3. Please furnish us copies of any correspondence or
directives issued because of the audit.
Auditee’s Response
We provided the agency the draft report on October 15, 2009, and held an exit
conference on October 20, 2009. The agency generally agreed with our findings
and recommendations.
We received the agency’s response on October 28, 2009. The complete text of
the auditee’s response, along with our evaluation of that response, can be found in
appendix B of this report.
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Background and Objectives 4
Results of Audit
Finding 1: The Agency’s Section 8 Housing Units Did Not Always Meet 5
Housing Quality Standards
Scope and Methodology 14
Internal Controls 17
Appendixes
A. Schedule of Questioned Costs and Funds to Be Put to Better Use 19
B. Auditee Comments and OIG’s Evaluation 20
C. HUD Comments and OIG’s Evaluation 25
3
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
The State of Connecticut Department of Social Services (agency) provides a broad range of
services to the elderly; persons with disabilities; families; and individuals who need assistance in
maintaining or achieving their full potential for self-direction, self-reliance, and independent
living. The agency is designated as a public housing agency for the purpose of administering the
Section 8 program under the Federal Housing Act. It is headed by the commissioner of social
services, and there are deputy commissioners for administration and programs. There is a
regional administrator responsible for each of the three service regions. By statute, there is a
statewide advisory council to the commissioner, and each region must have a regional advisory
council. The agency administers most of its programs through offices located throughout the
state.
The agency’s Housing Services Unit oversees the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program
(Voucher program), as well as its Rental Assistance, Transitionary Rental Assistance, and
Security Deposit Guarantee programs. The agency receives Voucher program funding from the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). It received more than $44 million
in Voucher program funding from April 1, 2008, through March 31, 2009. It also earned more
than $4 million in administrative fees for the same period.
The agency’s Voucher program is a statewide program. The agency contracts the administration
of its Voucher program to J. D’Amelia & Associates, LLC. J. D’Amelia & Associates, LLC,
subcontracts operation of the Voucher program throughout Connecticut to seven local public
housing authorities and one community action agency. J. D’Amelia and Associates, LLC, also
subcontracts inspections to two inspection companies (Kelson Associates, Inc., and Daystar
Housing Inspections, LLC).
The agency must operate its Voucher program according to rules and regulations prescribed by
HUD in accordance with the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended, its annual
contributions contract, and follow its Section 8 administrative plan.
Our objectives were to determine whether (1) Section 8 housing units met HUD’s housing
quality standards, (2) housing inspections were performed in a timely manner, (3) housing
assistance payments were properly abated when units did not meet standards, (4) landlords were
notified of failing inspection results, and (5) the quality control reviews of inspections were
adequately performed in support of the agency’s Section Eight Management Assessment
Program (SEMAP) scores.
4
RESULTS OF AUDIT
Finding 1: The Agency’s Section 8 Housing Units Did Not Always
Meet Housing Quality Standards
The agency did not adequately ensure that its Section 8 housing units met HUD’s housing
quality standards. Of the 67 Section 8 housing units statistically selected for inspection, 53
failed inspection, and 34 were materially noncompliant with housing quality standards. In
addition, 20 of 671 inspections were not performed in a timely manner. The agency also did not
ensure that its contractor properly abated housing assistance payments when repairs were not
completed in a timely manner or always notify landlords of failed units in a timely manner.
Finally, the agency’s housing quality standards quality control program was inadequate, and its
contractor could not adequately support housing quality standards SEMAP scores for indicators
5 and 6. These conditions occurred because the agency failed to adequately monitor its
contractor and subcontractors and implement an effective quality control program. As a result,
the agency housed families in units that did not meet HUD’s standards for decent, safe, and
sanitary housing and paid $62,459 in housing assistance for units that did not meet housing
quality standards and were not abated as necessary.2 If the agency does not establish effective
management controls, we estimate that over the next year, it will pay more than $22 million in
Section 8 housing assistance for units with material housing quality standards violations.
The Agency’s Section 8 Units
Did Not Meet HUD’s Standards
From the agency’s 6,174 units, we statistically selected 67 Section 8 housing units
for inspection. The 67 units were inspected to determine whether the agency
ensured that its program units met HUD’s housing quality standards. The
inspections took place between April 14 and June 16, 2009.
Of the 67 units inspected, 53 (79 percent) had 353 housing quality standards
violations. Additionally, 34 of the 67 units (51 percent) were considered to be
materially noncompliant because they had 190 significant health and safety
violations that predated the agency’s last inspection and were not identified by the
agency’s inspectors. HUD regulations at 24 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations)
982.401 require that all program housing meet HUD’s housing quality standards
at the beginning of assisted occupancy and throughout the tenancy.
1
These 67 files were the original sample prior to replacements needed during the inspections process.
2
This was a separate nonrepresentative sample of 82 failed inspections reviewed to determine whether the agency
properly abated rents when owners did not repair deficiencies in accordance with the its administrative plan.
5
The following table categorizes the 353 housing quality standards violations in
the 53 units that failed the housing quality standards inspections.
Category of violations Number of violations Number of units
Electrical 110 40
Smoke detectors 35 22
Other interior hazards 31 19
Windows 28 15
Handrails 25 20
Security 21 13
Doors 10 7
Interior paint 9 2
Garbage and debris 8 8
Floor conditions 7 6
Plumbing 7 6
Exterior surfaces 6 5
Walls 6 4
Fire exits 6 6
Kitchen appliances 5 5
Ceiling conditions 5 3
Water heaters 5 5
Sinks, cabinets, and 4 2
countertops
Toilets 4 4
Exterior paint 4 4
Ventilation 3 3
Stairs 3 3
Site and neighborhood 3 3
Mold/mildew 2 2
Porches 2 2
Infestation 2 2
Tub or shower 1 1
Heating equipment 1 1
Total 353
We presented the results of the housing quality standards inspections to the
agency and to the Public Housing Director of HUD’s Hartford Program Center.
The agency’s contractor notified the owners of the deficiencies and started to
follow up to ensure that the repairs were made as necessary or it abated the
housing assistance payments.
The following pictures illustrate some of the violations noted while conducting
housing quality standards inspections at the agency’s leased units.
6
The electrical panel on the basement wall was missing seven breakers, exposing
electrical contacts.
The missing lock hook from the patio doorframe did not allow the door to be
properly secured.
7
The interior hall staircase from the first to second floor had no handrail.
The tub, tile, and walls had excessive mildew buildup.
8
The wiring was exposed at the junction box and the taped wire was also not
encased in the junction box.
Annual Inspections Were Not
Performed in a Timely Manner
The agency did not perform inspections in a timely manner or within 12 months
of the previous inspection for 20 of 67 units (30 percent). Annual inspections
must be scheduled so that all units are inspected every 12 months. Further, the
agency's administrative plan required that annual inspections were conducted at
least 30 days prior to the anniversary date. Neither the agency nor its contractor
monitored or tracked the scheduling of inspections to ensure that they were
performed in a timely manner. The inspection process was handled entirely by
subcontractors (public housing authorities and inspection companies). In some
instances, the lack of timeliness was due to the public housing authorities’ not
requesting the inspection in a timely manner before the due date. In other
instances, the public housing authorities requested the inspection in a timely
manner, but it was not scheduled by the inspection company until up to two
months later. There were also instances, in which the inspection was requested
and scheduled in a timely manner, but the tenant did not show up for the
inspection, and the inspection was not rescheduled in a timely manner. The table
below shows the number of days the 20 inspections were late.
9
No. of days late No. of inspections
Less than 30 9
30 to 60 4
61 to 90 5
91 to 120 0
121 to 150 1
More than 150 1
Based on the number of late inspections, we project that at least 1,280 of the
agency’s inspections were not performed in a timely manner.
Payments Were Not Abated and
Landlords Were Not Notified in
a Timely Manner
We selected a nonrepresentative sample of 82 failed inspections to determine
whether housing assistance payments were abated as necessary. Of the 82 units
that failed inspections, the agency paid $62,459 in housing assistance for 46 units
that should have been abated had the agency followed its inspection process and
abated the housing assistance payments on the first day of the month following
the correction period.
This problem occurred because the agency did not follow its inspection process
policies and procedures. Specifically, it did not ensure that its contractor always
• Abated or properly abated housing assistance payments when repairs were
not made in a timely manner. If the inspection found life-threatening 24-
hour deficiencies and also 30-day deficiencies, the agency generally did
not abate the rents on the first day of the following month. The abatement
date used was generally the first of the month following the date that 30-
day deficiencies should have been corrected instead of the first of the
month following the inspection. In addition, even when 30-day
deficiencies were not corrected in a timely manner and the housing
assistance payment should have been abated, payments were not always
abated or properly abated.
• Notified the owners of life-threatening health and safety issues in a timely
manner and ensured that deficiencies were repaired within 24 hours. The
agency notified owners of life-threatening deficiencies by letter, which
was mailed to the owner. Therefore, it took several days for owners to
learn of the life-threatening deficiencies, so they were unable to correct
them within the required 24 hours. The agency also did not reinspect for
life-threatening deficiencies until it performed a reinspection for all
deficiencies (usually at least 30 days after the inspection). Therefore, the
10
agency had no assurance that life-threatening deficiencies were mitigated
in a timely manner.
The Agency Did Not Implement
Adequate Quality Control or
Adequately Support Its SEMAP
Scores
The agency did not implement adequate quality controls related to its housing
inspections. Specifically, it did not adequately perform or document its quality
control inspections and had no assurance its inspectors performed adequate
inspections, identified all deficiencies, and followed its inspection policies and
procedures. In addition, the agency’s quality control process was inadequate,
which resulted in SEMAP indicators 5 and 6 being unsupported.
Indicator 5, Housing Quality Standards Quality Control Inspections
In addition to monitoring SEMAP compliance, quality control inspections provide
feedback on inspectors’ work, which can be used to determine whether individual
performance or general housing quality standards training issues need to be
addressed. The quality control inspections were treated as routine inspections of
the unit.
• The inspection company performing the quality control inspection did not
have the original inspection results and did not compare the two inspections.
This activity was also not performed by the agency or the contractor.
• The quality control inspection results did not indicate whether the deficiency
was noted at the time of the original inspection or occurred/could have
occurred after the original inspection. A quality control inspection is designed
to ensure that the inspectors perform quality inspections and do not overlook
violations.
• Based on our comparison of the original inspection report to the quality
control inspections, we found that the inspectors missed deficiencies during
their inspections. Deficiencies identified on the quality control inspections
included non–ground fault circuit interrupter (GFCI) outlets by the kitchen
sink, reverse ground on GFCI, outlets in bedrooms with no ground wires,
crumbling concrete steps, exposed wires, a missing hallway handrail, and
windows not staying up.
• There were eight units for which the quality control inspection occurred more
than 90 days after the original inspection (passed inspection). Quality control
11
inspections should be performed within 90 days of the original inspection.
• The SEMAP summary/tracking sheets did not always include the original
inspection information (date of original inspection, original inspector, and
inspection results). The original inspection was also not included with the
SEMAP support.
Indicator 6, Housing Quality Standards Enforcement
SEMAP indicator 6 states that the agency must have a system to promptly
identify units for which deficiencies have not been corrected within the required
timeframes to indicate abatement of rent and/or termination of assistance to the
family. The agency should monitor housing quality standards enforcement on a
regular basis (daily, weekly or monthly) to guarantee that reinspections occur
within the proper timeframes.
The agency used abatement lists provided by the subcontractors as support for
indicator 6. It should have used a list of all failed units during the fiscal year and
selected a sample of approximately 55 units to ensure that deficiencies were
corrected within the proper timeframes (24 hours or 30 days) and that rents were
abated when deficiencies were not corrected in a timely manner. The contractor
stated that it used all of the units included in the abatement lists as support and no
further review was performed. This process did not provide adequate support for
this indicator. The inspection companies tracked failed inspections. Neither the
agency nor its contractor monitored and performed oversight of the inspection
companies to ensure that they reinspected within the required timeframes and
properly followed up when landlords did not correct deficiencies in a timely
manner. Additionally, the inspection companies notified the housing authorities
when units needed to be abated, but there was no monitoring and oversight by the
contractor or agency to ensure that units were abated when necessary.
Conclusion
The agency did not ensure that its contractor effectively inspected and monitored
the condition of its Section 8 units. As a result, tenants were subjected to health-
and safety-related violations. If the agency strengthens its controls to ensure that
its policies and procedures for housing inspections are consistently followed, we
estimate that more than $22 million in future housing assistance payments will be
spent for units that are decent, safe and sanitary. Our methodology for this
estimate is explained in the Scope and Methodology section of this report.
Further, the agency needs to implement procedures and controls regarding its
inspection quality control and abatement processes to ensure that they are
performed in accordance with HUD requirements.
12
Recommendations
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Boston Office of Public Housing require
the agency to
1A. Strengthen controls to ensure that units meet HUD’s housing quality
standards to prevent $22,002,284 in program funds from being spent on
units that are in material noncompliance with HUD standards.
1B. Verify that the owners of the 53 program units cited in this finding have
repaired the units containing housing quality standards violations.
1C. Strengthen controls to ensure that housing inspections are performed in a
timely manner.
1D. Strengthen controls to ensure that landlords of failing units are notified in
a timely manner.
1E. Revise its administrative plan to explain how it will verify that 24-hour
emergency deficiencies are mitigated in a timely manner.
1F. Strengthen controls over the abatement process for failed units.
1G. Repay $62,459 from nonfederal funds for units that remained in
noncompliance with housing quality standards and were not properly
abated.
1H. Implement adequate controls for its quality control process for performing
Section 8 quality control inspections and to ensure support of its SEMAP
indicators 5 and 6.
13
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
We conducted our audit between March and September 2009. We completed our fieldwork at the
agency located at 25 Sigourney Street, Hartford, Connecticut; its contractor, J. D’Amelia &
Associates, LLC’s main office located in Waterbury, Connecticut; and the various housing units
selected for review. Our audit covered the period April 1, 2008, through March 31, 2009, and was
extended when necessary to meet our audit objectives.
To accomplish our audit objectives, we
• Reviewed relevant HUD regulations, including 24 CFR Part 982 and the Housing Choice
Voucher Guidebook 7420.10.G.
• Reviewed the agency’s administrative plan approved for use during our audit period.
• Inspected a statistical sample of 67 housing units and recorded and summarized the
inspection results.
• Reviewed the agency’s completed quality control reviews for the fiscal year ending June
30, 2008, to determine whether the reviews were adequate.
• Selected a nonrepresentative sample of failed units to determine whether the agency
adequately followed up and whether abatements were performed as necessary.
• Reviewed the last two annual inspections for the 67 statistically selected units to
determine whether the inspections were performed in a timely manner.
We relied in part on computer-processed data from the agency contractor’s database. We
assessed the reliability of the data by (1) reviewing existing information about the data and the
system that produced them, (2) interviewing officials knowledgeable about the data, and (3)
tracing tenant information, unit address, and housing assistance payments to source documents.
We determined that the data we used were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.
Projection of Inspection Results
We statistically selected a sample of 67 of the agency’s program units to determine whether the
agency ensured that its units met housing quality standards. The sample was based on the
agency’s Voucher program database as of March 1, 2009. Our universe was 6,174. We obtained
the sample based on a confidence level of 90 percent, a precision rate of 10 percent, and an
expected error rate of 50 percent. Twenty-three additional sample units were selected to be used
as replacements as necessary. We used seven of the 23 replacement units.
Our sampling results indicated that 53 of the 67 program units selected for inspection did not
meet HUD’s housing quality standards. We ranked all the failed units based on the significance
of the violations, from the most serious health and safety violation that predated the agency’s
14
most recent most inspection to the least serious, and determined that 34 units materially failed to
meet HUD’s housing quality standards. Materially failed units were those with more than one
health and safety violation or at least one exigent (24 hour) health and safety violation that
predated the agency’s previous inspections. We used auditor judgment to determine the material
cutoff line.
Projecting the results of the 34 units that were in material noncompliance with housing quality
standards to the universe indicates that 3,133 or 50.75 percent of the universe contained the
attributes tested. The sampling error is plus or minus 9.96 percent. In other words, we are 90
percent confident that the frequency of occurrence of the attributes tested lies between 40.78 and
60.71 percent of the universe. This equates to an occurrence of between 2,518 and 3,748 units of
the 6,174 units in the universe.
• The lower limit is 40.78 percent of 6,174 units = 2,518 units in material noncompliance
with minimum housing quality standards.
• The point estimate is 50.75 percent of 6,174 units = 3,133 units in material
noncompliance with minimum housing quality standards.
• The upper limit is 60.71 percent of 6,174 units = 3,748 units in material noncompliance
with minimum housing quality standards.
Using the lower limit and the average annual housing assistance payments for the universe based
on the agency’s housing assistance payments register, dated March 2009, we estimate that the
agency will spend at least $22,002,284 (2,518 units x $8,738 average annual housing assistance
payment3) for units that are in material noncompliance with housing quality standards. This
estimate is presented solely to demonstrate the annual amount of Section 8 program funds that
could be put to better use on decent, safe, and sanitary housing if the Authority implements our
recommendations.
Projection of File Review Results (Timeliness of Inspections)
We reviewed the sample of 67 units and determined that 20 units were not inspected in a timely
manner. The 67 units reviewed were the original sample prior to replacements. Projecting the
results of the 20 units to the universe indicates that 1,843 or 29.85 percent of the universe
contained the attributes tested. The sampling error is plus or minus 9.12 percent. In other words,
we are 90 percent confident that the frequency of occurrence of the attributes tested lies between
20.73 and 38.97 percent of the universe. This equates to an occurrence of between 1,280 and
2,406 units of the 6,174 units in the universe.
3
From the agency’s housing assistance payments register, dated March 2009, $4,495,806 was the total housing
assistance for the month. We annualized this amount to come up with $53,949,672. The total number of units in
our universe and on the housing assistance roll, dated March 2009, was 6,174. Therefore, the average annual
housing assistance payment per household was $8,738 ($53,949,672/6,174).
15
• The lower limit is 20.73 percent of 6,174 units = 1,280 units that were not inspected in a
timely manner.
• The point estimate is 29.85 percent of 6,174 units = 1,843 units that were not inspected in
a timely manner.
• The upper limit is 38.97 percent of 6,174 units = 2,406 units that were not inspected in a
timely manner.
We used the lower limit to project the number of units that were not inspected in a timely manner
to be conservative.
We conducted the audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate
evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings
and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
16
INTERNAL CONTROLS
Internal control is an integral component of an organization’s management that provides
reasonable assurance that the following controls are achieved:
• Program operations,
• Relevance and reliability of information,
• Compliance with applicable laws and regulations, and
• Safeguarding of assets and resources.
Internal controls relate to management’s plans, methods, and procedures used to meet its
mission, goals, and objectives. They include the processes and procedures for planning,
organizing, directing, and controlling program operations as well as the systems for measuring,
reporting, and monitoring program performance.
Relevant Internal Controls
We determined that the following internal controls were relevant to our audit
objectives:
• Program operations – Policies and procedures that management has
implemented to reasonably ensure that a program meets its objectives.
• 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.
• Compliance with laws and regulations – Policies and procedures that
management has implemented to reasonably ensure that resource use is
consistent with laws and regulations.
We assessed the relevant controls identified above.
A significant weakness exists if management controls do not provide reasonable
assurance that the process for planning, organizing, directing, and controlling
program operations will meet the organization’s objectives.
17
Significant Weaknesses
Based on our review, we believe that the following items are significant weaknesses
(see finding 1):
• The agency lacked effective management controls over its Inspection
process to ensure that its units complied with HUD’s requirements and
met minimum housing quality standards, housing inspections to ensure
they were performed in a timely manner, notification to landlords to
ensure they were notified of the inspection results in a timely manner,
abatement procedures to ensure housing assistance payments were
properly abated for units that did not meet housing quality standards, and
quality control reviews performed for housing quality standards to ensure
SEMAP scores were adequately supported.
18
APPENDIXES
Appendix A
SCHEDULE OF QUESTIONED COSTS
AND FUNDS TO BE PUT TO BETTER USE
Recommendation Ineligible 1/ Funds to be put
number to better use 2/
1A $22,002,284
1G $62,459
1/ Ineligible costs are costs charged to a HUD-financed or HUD-insured program or activity
that the auditor believes are not allowable by law; contract; or federal, state, or local
policies or regulations.
2/ Recommendations that funds be put to better use are estimates of amounts that could be
used more efficiently if an OIG recommendation is implemented. These amounts include
reductions in outlays, deobligation of funds, withdrawal of interest, costs not incurred by
implementing recommended improvements, avoidance of unnecessary expenditures
noted in preaward reviews, and any other savings that are specifically identified. In this
instance, if the agency implements our recommendation, it will cease to further incur
program costs for units that are not decent, safe, and sanitary and, instead, will expend
those funds for units that meet HUD’s standards, thereby putting approximately $22
million in program funds to better use. Once the agency successfully implements our
recommendation, this will be a recurring benefit. Our estimate reflects only the initial
year of this benefit.
19
Appendix B
AUDITEE COMMENTS AND OIG’S EVALUATION
Ref to OIG Evaluation Auditee Comments
Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Comment 4
20
Appendix B
AUDITEE COMMENTS AND OIG’S EVALUATION
Ref to OIG Evaluation Auditee Comments
Comment 5
Comment 6
21
Appendix B
AUDITEE COMMENTS AND OIG’S EVALUATION
Ref to OIG Evaluation Auditee Comments
22
OIG Evaluation of Auditee Comments
Comment 1 Whether deficiencies were identified in the unit itself or basement, they are still
considered health and safety violations because the tenants had access. We agree
that the agency needs to strengthen its inspection process in basements.
Comment 2 In Voucher Guidebook 7420.10G, section 10.3 Illumination and Electricity, it
states that the PHA must be satisfied that the electrical system is free of hazardous
conditions, including exposed, uninsulated or frayed wires; improper connections;
improper insulation or grounding of any component of the system; overloading of
capacity; or wires lying in or located near standing water or other unsafe places.
The draft HUD notice clarifies that ungrounded outlets are an HQS violation.
Comment 3 Some of these units had several violations and one or more of them may have
been tenant caused. The majority of the deficiencies were not considered tenant
caused with the exception of one or two units. Regardless of whether the
violation is tenant caused or not, the unit is required to meet HQS and these
deficiencies should be identified by the inspectors. The difference is that the
tenant, not the landlord, needs to be held responsible for mitigating the issues or
in accordance with HUD guidance, they can be terminated. The agency needs to
make sure that even if it is a tenant caused failure the item still fails HQS and
needs to be properly repaired. According to 24 CFR 982.404(a)(4), the owner is
not responsible for a breach of the HQS that is not caused by the owner, and for
which the family is responsible (as provided in §982.404(b) and §982.551(c)). As
stated in 24 CFR 982.404(b)(2), if an HQS breach caused by the family is life
threatening, the family must correct the defect within no more than 24 hours. For
other family-caused defects, the family must correct the defect within no more
than 30 calendar days (or any PHA-approved extension). (3) If the family has
caused a breach of the HQS, the PHA must take prompt and vigorous action to
enforce the family obligations. The PHA may terminate assistance for the family
in accordance with §982.552.
Comment 4 These two units may have only had one or 2 violations, but they are serious HQS
violations that predated the last inspection. Unit A has a door that did not lock
since the initial inspection (9 months prior to our inspection), which is a lack of
security for the tenant. Unit B was reclassified as not being a materially
noncompliant unit. As the agency stated, most of the units had more than 2
deficiencies.
Comment 5 The agency may be inspecting the units within 30 days of the recertification in
accordance with their administrative plan; however, we did not review that. In
accordance with the HUD guidebook, annual inspections must be scheduled so
that all units are inspected within 12 months of the previous inspection. Our
review determined that inspections were not performed timely with regard to the
HUD guidebook requirements.
23
Comment 6 The agency did not abate all 46 housing assistance payments in accordance with
HUD policy. Several of them were due to 24 hour failures. However, in
accordance with the HUD guidebook the PHA must abate housing assistance
payments to the owner for failure to correct an HQS violation under the following
circumstances: (1) an emergency (life-threatening) violation is not corrected
within 24 hours of inspection and (2) the PHA did not extend the time for
compliance. Abatements must begin on the first of the month following the
failure to comply. It cannot wait until the first of the following month following
the 30 days deficiency deadline to begin the abatement, which is what the agency
did. Further, according to 24 CFR 982.404(a)(3) the PHA must not make any
housing assistance payments for a dwelling unit that fails to meet the HQS, unless
the owner corrects the defect within the period specified by the PHA and the PHA
verifies the correction. If a deficiency is life threatening, the owner must correct
the deficiency within no more than 24 hours.
24
Appendix C
HUD COMMENTS AND OIG’S EVALUATION
Ref to OIG Evaluation HUD Comments
Comment 1
Comment 2
25
OIG Evaluation of HUD Comments
Comment 1 While we agree that the agency had made changes to improve their support and
documentation of SEMAP indicators 5 and 6, these changes were the direct result
of our audit work. We previously identified concerns with the SEMAP HQS
quality control indicators, as well as, the other HQS issues discussed in this report
during our first audit of the agency that was performed from February to June
2008. We had informed HUD of our preliminary findings with HQS and the
SEMAP indicators at that time and advised that we would be reviewing these
issues in detail in a separate audit of the agency. HUD performed their tier 1
consolidated review in March 2009 during our audit of the agency’s HQS
program and came to the same conclusions, that the SEMAP indicators 5 and 6
were not adequately performed and unsupported. Through both HUD and OIG
guidance, the agency has improved their SEMAP review process; however, HUD
needs to confirm the changes made (corrective action verification) to ensure that
they are adequate to support SEMAP indicators 5 and 6. Therefore, our
recommendation remains unchanged.
Comment 2 OIG’s projection was based on results from actual file reviews during the
timeframes indicated. The results of those file reviews show that 30 percent of
the inspections were not performed in a timely manner, regardless of what is
indicted in HUD’s electronic system. Based on previous experience with PIC
data, it has been found that the system has not always been accurate due to data
entry errors and other problems. Therefore, our recommendation remains
unchanged.
26
State of Connecticut Department of Social Services' Section 8 Housing Units Did Not Always Meet HUD's Housing Quality Standards
Published by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General on 2009-11-02.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)