Issue Date November 6, 1998 Audit Case Number 99-FW-202-1002 TO: Judy Wojciechowski Director Troubled Agency Recovery Center, PB2 FROM: D. Michael Beard District Inspector General for Audit, 6AGA SUBJECT: Housing Authority of St. James Parish Public Housing Drug Elimination Program Lutcher, Louisiana As part of a nationwide review of the Public Housing Drug Elimination Program, we performed an audit of the St. James Parish Housing Authority, Lutcher, Louisiana. This report contains one finding. Within 60 days, please give us, for each recommendation made in this report, a status report on: corrective action taken, (2) the proposed corrective action and the date to be completed, or (3) why action is considered unnecessary. Also, please furnish us copies of any correspondence or directives issued related to the audit. If you or your staff have any questions, please contact Darrel M. Vaught, Assistant District Inspector General for Audit, at (817) 978-9309. Management Memorandum THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY 99-FW-202-1002 Page ii Executive Summary We conducted an audit of the Public Housing Drug Elimination Program administered by the St. James Parish Housing Authority, Lutcher, Louisiana (Authority). Our review was to determine whether the Authority, for grant years 1994 through 1996: (1) implemented its drug elimination program awards with satisfactory outcomes and benefits and (2) expended program funds only for eligible activities and in accordance with program requirements. The Authority did not maintain data or have a system to measure the satisfactory outcomes and benefits of its programs. Without this data, neither the Authority nor HUD can determine whether the Drug Elimination Grant Program has provided satisfactory outcomes and benefits. Further, the Authority did not properly administer the Drug Elimination Grant Program. The Authority generally relied on the Sheriff’s Department to prepare the grant applications and prepare periodic reports to HUD. Also the Authority did not maintain appropriate accounting records and source documents to support its drawdown and use of grant funds. As a result, the Authority: (1) did not have documentation to show how it used about $4,000 it drew down from the 1994 and 1995 grants; (2) used $10,400 to reimburse the Sheriff’s Department for purchase of ineligible police equipment; and (3) did not have invoices to support payments of about $1,300 for cameras and travel. HUD designated the Authority as “troubled” based on its Public Housing Management Assessment Program scores for the year ended September 30, 1993. Subsequently, after the Authority hired several different Executive Directors, HUD contracted with a consultant to manage the day-to-day operations of the Authority and assist in the search for a new qualified Executive Director. In March 1998, the Authority hired an experienced person for this position. HUD’s Troubled Agency Recovery Center staff were working with the new Director and her staff to increase the Authority’s capacity to effectively and properly manage the Authority’s programs and operations. We are recommending, in the event HUD awards any future Drug Elimination Grants,1 the Authority: (1) establish an appropriate performance monitoring system; (2) develop strategies for continuation of activities when specific funding is no longer available; and (3) develop the necessary management and financial capacity to carry out the programs before drawing down funds. We are also recommending the Authority repay HUD for any unsupported or ineligible expenditure of Grant funds. We provided a draft copy of the report to the Authority on October 9, 1998. We held an exit conference with the Executive Director on October 20, 1998. We have summarized the Authority’s October 20, 1998 response to the draft report in the finding and included it in its entirety as Appendix C. 1 The Authority initially submitted an application for a 1997 grant, but requested the HUD Louisiana State Office not forward the application to HUD Headquarters for review. Page iii 99-FW-202-1002 Executive Summary THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY 99-FW-202-1002 Page iv Table of Contents Management Memorandum i Executive Summary iii Introduction 1 Findings 1 Authority Has Not Properly Managed its Grant Program 5 Management Controls 13 Follow-Up on Prior Audit Findings 17 Appendices A Schedule of Grant Costs 17 B Schedule of Questioned Costs 19 C Auditee Comments 21 D Distribution 23 Abbreviations Page v 99-FW-202-1002 Table of Contents CFR Code of Federal Regulations HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development OIG Office of Inspector General OMB Office of Management and Budget THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY 99-FW-202-1002 Page vi Introduction St. James Parish, Louisiana, established the St. James Parish Housing Authority in 1966 and the Parish President appointed a five-member Board of Commissioners to govern Authority operations. The Board is responsible for hiring an Executive Director to manage the Authority’s day-to-day operations. The Authority keeps its records at its administrative office, located at 2627 King Avenue, Lutcher, Louisiana 70071. The Authority has 318 Low-Rent units located at six different sites on both the east and west banks of the Mississippi River. Chapter 2, Subtitle C, Title V of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 authorized the Public Housing Drug Elimination Program. HUD makes grants to public housing authorities to fund activities directed toward the elimination of drug-related crime in public housing developments. Public housing authorities use the grants to carry out activities, which include increased security and protective services, physical improvements to enhance security, and (c) other permitted activities to reduce drug-related crime. HUD has awarded Drug Elimination Grants to the Authority for fiscal years 1993 through 1996 programs. The following chart shows the funds HUD awarded and the funds the Authority has drawn down from HUD’s Line of Credit Control System as of April 23, 1998: Public Housing Drug Elimination Program Grant Year Funding Drawn Down Balance Available 1993 $159,000 $159,000 $ - 1994 95,000 95,000 - 1995 159,000 159,000 - 1996 158,500 44,918 113,582 Totals $571,500 $457,918 $113,582 Based on its Public Housing Management Assessment Program rating for September 30, 1993, HUD classified the Authority as “troubled.” Also, since, January 1995, the Authority has had five Executive Directors, including one interim and one acting executive director. Because of continued deterioration in management, HUD contracted with a consultant to manage the day-to-day operations of the Authority and conduct a search for a qualified Executive Director. Scope and Methodology We conducted our examination of the St. James Parish Housing Authority to determine whether the Authority for grant years 1994 through 1996: (1) implemented its drug elimination program awards with satisfactory outcomes and Page 1 99-FW-202-1002 Introduction benefits and (2) expended program funds for only eligible activities and in accordance with program requirements. To accomplish these objectives, we obtained background information by: • Reviewing relevant HUD regulations, guidelines, grant agreements, and Notices of Funding Availability; • Examining records and reports maintained by the HUD Louisiana State Office, Public Housing Division, and interviewing Division staff; • Scanning the Authority’s accounting records, financial reports, and policies, and interviewing Authority staff; • Reviewing the minutes of the Board of Commissioners meetings; and • Reviewing independent public accountant audit reports. To determine if the Authority properly followed HUD requirements in monitoring program performance and expending funds, we: • Reviewed the Authority’s grant year 1994 through 1996 grant applications; • Reviewed the Authority’s semiannual performance and financial reports submitted to HUD for the reporting periods occurring between January 1995 through December 1997; • Interviewed Authority, HUD, and Parish Sheriff’s Department staff regarding the Authority’s drug elimination program; • Reviewed the Authority’s supplemental police services contracts with the Parish Sheriff’s Department; • Scanned Public Housing Daily Activity Reports for supplemental police services the Sheriff’s Department maintained for the period January 1, 1994, through September 30, 1997; • Scanned and randomly tested Sheriff’s Department time sheets for officers assigned to the Drug Elimination Grant funded activity, for the period October 1, 1994, through September 30, 1997; • Reviewed the Sheriff’s Department Payroll History Check Register for selected officers for the period October 1, 1995, through September 30, 1997; • Scanned the Sheriff’s Department complaint files for calls for service at Authority developments; 99-FW-202-1002 Page 2 Introduction • Reviewed Sheriff’s Department drug elimination files, invoices, and supporting records for payments received from the Authority; • Reviewed available Authority financial records (general ledgers, check vouchers, invoices, billings, and bank statements) for the period January 1, 1994, through February 6, 1998; • Obtained from the Sheriff’s Department available crime statistics for January 1995 through December 1997; and • Obtained drug elimination program Line of Credit Control System reports, for fiscal years 1993 through 1996 Grants, from the HUD Louisiana State Office. We conducted the audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. The audit period for the Authority’s implementation of its drug elimination program covered the 1994 through 1996 grant awards. For the Authority’s use of program funds we reviewed expenditures from October 1, 1994, through February 6, 1998, which included 1993 through 1996 Drug Elimination Program Grant activities. The Authority did not have complete and comprehensive records for financial transactions, which limited the scope of our review. As a result, the Authority could have additional eligible expenditures and supporting documentation, which we were unable to locate. We performed our review from January through June 1998. We provided a copy of this report to the Executive Director of the Housing Authority of St. James Parish. Page 3 99-FW-202-1002 Introduction THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY 99-FW-202-1002 Page 4 Finding 1 Authority Has Not Properly Managed its Grant Program The Authority: (a) cannot demonstrate the effectiveness of its program in reducing drug activity and crime; (b) has not developed a strategy to ensure that its activities are sustainable for future periods; and (c) cannot support the propriety of about $15,700 of the $457,918 in total Drug Elimination grant funds obtained from HUD. This occurred because the Authority relied almost totally on the St. James Parish Sheriff’s Department to prepare its Drug Elimination Grant application, carryout the program, and prepare reports to HUD.2 Neither the Authority nor the Sheriff’s Department met regulatory requirements for measuring and reporting on the beneficial impact of its grant-funded activities or took action to develop a strategy for sustaining drug elimination and prevention initiatives over a period of years. Further, the Authority did not meet HUD requirements for maintaining appropriate and essential accounting records to support its grant costs. HUD regulations note that the purpose of the Public HUD Requirements Housing Drug Elimination Program is to: (a) eliminate drug-related crime and problems associated with it in and around the premises of low-income housing and (b) encourage Public Housing Authorities to develop a plan that includes initiatives that can be sustained over a period of several years for addressing drug-related crime and its problems in and around their premises.3 Further, these regulations4 note grantees are responsible for managing the day-to-day operations of the grant and must monitor each grant-funded program, function, or activity to assure compliance with federal requirements and achievement of performance goals and are required to maintain records which adequately identify the source and application of funds provided for financially assisted activities. These records must: (a) contain information pertaining to grant or subgrant awards and authorizations, obligations, unobligated balances, assets, liabilities, outlays or expenditures, and income, (b) be supported by source 2 Although HUD’s Louisiana State Office rated the Authority’s capacity to carry out the grant program low and the application did not include baseline crime information for the Authority’s developments, HUD Headquarters approved and funded the applications. 3 HUD regulations at 24 CFR §961.1 (applicable to 1994 and 1995 Grants) and 761.1 (applicable to 1996 Grant). 4 HUD regulation at 24 CFR §85.20(b) and §85.40(a). Page 5 99-FW-202-1002 Finding 1 documentation; and (c) provide accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results for any required reporting. HUD regulations also require grantees to provide semiannual reports to HUD setting forth actual accomplishments in comparison to the objectives established for the reporting period, including any change in crime statistics, successful completion of strategy components, problems encountered, and evaluation of the rate of progress5. Further, HUD requires grantees to provide a financial status report semiannually for periods ending June 30 and December 31. The grantee must submit the reports to the local HUD office by July 30 and January 31 of each year.6 Representatives of the Parish Sheriff's Department stated Authority was not that after learning of the grant program, they approached actively involved in the Authority’s Executive Director about getting the carrying out the Authority to apply for the 1993 grant to help rid the program. Authority developments of drug-related crime. They further stated that: (a) the Executive Director was not interested in the grant; (b) the Executive Director told them to prepare the application if they wanted the program; (c) they prepared the 1993 and subsequent applications; and (d) they prepared the semiannual performance reports for submission to HUD. They further noted that any questions or help the Sheriff's Department needed came from the local HUD office, and not the Authority. Further, they stated the Sheriff's Department assigned staff and prepared the work schedules for the additional police services at the developments without Authority oversight. These statements were generally confirmed by HUD’s August 3, 1994 monitoring report of the Authority’s 1993 Drug Elimination Grant, which stated: The St. James Parish Sheriff’s Department is to be commended for taking the lead in implementing the PHDEP in the Authority. The level of ongoing resident involvement in implementing the program is 5 HUD regulations at 24 CFR §961.28 (applicable to 1994 and 1995 Grants) and §761.35 (applicable to 1996 Grant). 6 HUD regulations at 24 CFR §85.41(b) and (c) and §961.28(c)(1) and (2) for 1994 and 1995 Grants and §761.35(c)(1) and (2)(ii) for the 1996 Grant. 99-FW-202-1002 Page 6 Finding 1 spearheaded by the sheriff’s deputies assigned within the PHAs sites. … In essence, the St. James Parish Sheriff’s Department is in control of the PHDEP at the St. James Parish Housing Authority and are certainly doing a fine job. The report also noted that the Authority needed to establish a system to evaluate the program, as follows: We recommend that the grantee develop a self- evaluation method which will document the progress of the program and problems that have been encountered. This will enable the grantee to analyze additional needs, if any, for future funding requests. Also, this information would be an aid to preparing the semi- annual performance and financial reports. Authority and Sheriff’s Neither the Authority nor the Sheriff’s Office had assembled Department had not data on the extent of drug related crime in the determined the extent of developments. Therefore, the Authority did not have drug-related crime. baseline data to use in measuring the effectiveness of its grant activities in reducing such crime. Further, the Authority had not established well-defined goals or objectives for its planned activities, e.g., to reduce drug activity or crime by a specified percentage. Although the Sheriff's Department had Parish-wide crime statistics and detail records for the number and type of complaints handled by its officers in each development, neither the Sheriff’s Office nor the Authority had established a management information system to compile, summarize, and compare this information to measure the program’s effectiveness in reducing drug activity and related crime. The Authority application budgeted substantially all of its Authority has not grant funding for additional police services provided by the adequately planned for Sheriff’s Department. As of February 1998, the Authority continuation of efforts. had budgeted $412,500 and expended $319,136 of its 1994, 1995, and 1996 Grant funds for the following activities: Page 7 99-FW-202-1002 Finding 1 Amount Percent of Total Budgeted Expended Budgeted Expended Law Enforcement 1994 $ 89,100 $ 89,099 1995 138,660 152,526 1996 106,246 69,166 Subtotals $334,006 $310,791 81.0% 97.4% Physical Improvements 1994 $ 2,000 $2,000 1995 10,000 - 1996 13,291 - Subtotals $25,291 $2,000 6.1% 0.6% Other Costs 1994 $ 3,900 $ 2,525 1995 10,340 3,820 1996 - - Subtotals $ 14,240 $ 6,345 3.5% 2.0% 1996 Additional Categories Voluntary Tenant Patrol 10,540 - Drug Prevention 4,620 - Drug Intervention 23,803 - Subtotals $ 38,963 $ - 9.4% 0.0% Totals $412,500 $319,136 100.0% 100.0% The Sheriff’s Officers assigned to patrol the Authority’s low-rent developments believe that their efforts have made a significant impact toward reducing drug activity and crime. However, the Sheriff's Department bases its use of officers dedicated to patrol the low-rent developments, upon the availability and continuation of Drug Elimination Grant funding. One of HUD’s stated purposes is for grantees to develop a plan with initiatives for addressing drug-related crime and its problems that can be sustained over a period of several years As shown, the Authority’s primary use of 1993 through 1995 Grant funds has been for added police protection.7 Although the Authority included $38,963 for Voluntary Tenant Patrols, Drug Prevention, and Drug Intervention activities in its 1996 Grant application, as of February 1998, 7 The 1993 Grant totaled $159,000 in the following categories - $139,680 for police services, $5,500 for physical improvements, and $13,800 for other program costs. 99-FW-202-1002 Page 8 Finding 1 the Authority had not started or expended any funds on these activities.8 Consequently, the Authority’s primary use of Drug Elimination Grant funding is for added police protection, which the Authority can sustain only by using continued HUD grants. The Authority did not maintain proper accounting records Authority did not keep with source documents to support its use of grant funds for appropriate accounting Drug Elimination Activities and its reporting of financial records to support transactions to HUD. The HUD Louisiana State Office, in Grant drawdown and their August 3, 1994 letter to the Authority regarding the expenditures. 1993 Drug Elimination Program noted the need to improve financial accounting: …“The financial records must contain accurate, complete and up-to-date information on all of the grant funds. From the records, the reviewer should be able to determine how much was spent and how much money is left…” …”The accounting records must contain complete information about the receipt and disbursements of grant funds…” However, the Authority did not correct these accounting and other management problems.9 The contract consultant provided OIG with available records. These records did not include an accurate general ledger, disbursements journal, or a proper filing system for supporting invoices and documents. However, based on various files at either the Authority or Sheriff’s Department, OIG was able to identify a total of $319,136 expended through February 8, 1998, from the 1994 through 1996 Grants. Appendix A shows the amount of identified expenditures for the 1994, 1995, and 1996 Grants as of February 28, 1998. The following shows the amount of grant funds the Authority drew down compared to the OIG identified expenditures: 8 HUD has extended the grant through November 30, 1998. 9 As noted in the Background Section, the Authority experienced turnover in its top management position and, because of continued ineffective management, HUD contracted with a consultant to take over management of the Authority. Page 9 99-FW-202-1002 Finding 1 Grant Grant Funds Year10 Award Drawn Expended Over (Under) 1994 $ 95,000 $ 95,000 $ 93,624 $ 1,376 1995 159,000 159,000 156,346 2,654 1996 158,500 44,918 69,166 (24,248) Totals $412,500 $298,918 $319,136 $(20,218) Authority cannot The Authority did not have documentation to show support all expenditures expenditure of $4,030 it drew down for 1994 or 1995 Grant for 1994 and 1995 activity. HUD closed the 1994 Grant on March 10, 1997, Grants and used funds based on the Authority’s Financial Status Report showing a for ineligible police total of $95,000 expended for grant activities. However, equipment. the Authority’s documentation showing expenditures attributable to the 1994 Grant year totaled $93,624. Therefore, the Authority does not have support for $1,376 in 1994 Grant funds drawn down in excess of OIG identified expenditures. Further, the Authority has drawn down all $159,000 of 1995 Grant funds, but had documentation to support only $156,346 in expenditures, or $2,654 less than the Grant funds drawn down. The Authority and Sheriff’s Department had adequate documentation to support the use of $152,526 of 1995 Grant funds for law enforcement salaries.11 The Authority’s 1994 expenditures for law enforcement and 1995 expenditures for other costs included $4,760 of questionable or ineligible cost, as follows: Date Check No. Description Expended 3/29/95 017724 Two radar units $2,500.00 3/29/96 019341 Police radio microphone speakers 998.26 3/29/96 019342 Travel for 2 Police Officers 641.00 Southern Camera Shop 620.76 Total $4,760.02 10 The 1994 Grant expired on September 30, 1995, and the 1995 Grant expired on January 31, 1998. 11 OIG classified all payments to the Sheriff’s Department for salaries based on the time period worked within the 1995 Grant period up to the total authorized budget amount of $138,660 plus $13,866 (10% modification HUD regulations allow without obtaining prior HUD approval. OIG classified all subsequent payments for salaries to the 1996 Grant). 99-FW-202-1002 Page 10 Finding 1 The radar units and radio microphones are police equipment and therefore not eligible for grant funding.12 The Authority’s records did not contain supporting documents for the travel and camera shop purchases. In addition, the Authority did not have property records for any of the equipment as required by HUD regulations.13 Sheriff’s Department staff stated the radar units and police radios are being used by the Sheriff’s Department. However, neither Authority staff nor Sheriff’s Department personnel knew where the camera equipment was located. In addition, OIG inquiries regarding the police radio microphones and radar units disclosed that the Authority used $6,900 of 1993 Grant funds to purchase four police radios. Therefore, OIG is also questioning the Authority’s use of $6,900 to reimburse the Sheriff’s Department for this ineligible police equipment. Authority was HUD requires Drug Elimination Grant recipients to provide consistently late in a financial report to HUD every 6 months for each active submission of its grant.14 Although the Authority submitted the required semiannual financial reports, they were not based on any underlying accounting reports. records and were consistently late. As previously noted, the Authority did not maintain proper accounting records to support Grant financial activity. Further, of the ten reports due during the audit period, the Authority submitted only one by the due date. The remaining reports varied between 7 and 145 days late. The Executive Director’s October 20, 1998 written Auditee Comments response did not disagree with the findings and recommendations. The Executive Director noted the Authority has made significant improvements in its management practices to eliminate future findings. 12 HUD regulations at 24 CFR §961.10(c) and Notice of Funding Availability (Federal Register, Volume 59, No. 63, and Volume 60, No. 3). 13 HUD regulations at 24 CFR §85.32(d). 14 HUD regulations at 24 CFR §85.41(b) and (b)(4) require grantees to use Standard Form 269 or 269A, to report the status of funds for all non-construction grants. The reports are due 30 days after the reporting period, which for Drug Elimination Grants was for the 6-month periods ending June 30th and December 31st. Page 11 99-FW-202-1002 Finding 1 Recommendations We recommend that the HUD Troubled Agency Recovery Center: 1A. Require the Authority, if it receives any additional Drug Elimination Grants, to establish a system that will identify baseline crime and drug activity statistics, set forth goals and objectives for its activities, and will measure activity performance in accomplishing those goals and objectives; 1B. Instruct the Authority, if it receives any additional Drug Elimination Grants, to work to develop a strategy for continuing drug elimination and prevention activities in future years; 1C. Continue to assist the Authority to develop management capacity to carry out its operations and, in the event of future Drug Elimination Grant funding, require the Authority to demonstrate such capacity prior to releasing funds; 1D. Require the Authority to repay HUD for the $10,398 used to purchase police equipment; 1E. Require the Authority to either provide proper supporting documentation or repay HUD for the $1,262 used for purchase of cameras and travel; 1F. Afford the Authority a reasonable period to identify other proper 1994 and 1995 Grant expenditures made within respective grant periods and, if not provided, require repayment to HUD of $4,030 in excess drawdown of funds; and 1G. Require the Authority to prepare, maintain, and submit timely financial reports on open grant activities. 99-FW-202-1002 Page 12 Management Controls In planning and performing our audit, we obtained an understanding of the management controls that were relevant to our audit. Management is responsible for establishing effective management controls. Management controls, in the broadest sense, 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. They include the systems for measuring, reporting, and monitoring program performance. Relevant Management We determined the following management controls were Controls relevant to our audit objectives: • Performance evaluation system • Reporting program performance • Activity and cost eligibility • Fiscal management system We assessed all of the relevant control categories identified above, to the extent they impacted on our audit objectives. Significant Weaknesses A significant weakness exists if management controls do not give reasonable assurance that resource use is consistent with laws, regulations, and policies; that resources are safeguarded against waste, loss, and misuse; and that reliable data are obtained, maintained, and fairly disclosed in reports. Based on our review, we believe the following items are significant weaknesses as discussed in the finding: • The Authority has not established well-defined goals or objectives for its activities or implemented a system to measure their effectiveness and • The Authority did not have a system to ensure proper financial transactions were eligible and properly recorded. Page 13 99-FW-202-1002 Management Controls THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY 99-FW-202-1002 Page 14 Follow-Up on Prior Audit Findings William Daniel McCaskill, Certified Public Accountant, whose report is dated February 25, 1997, performed the independent financial audit for the fiscal year ended September 30, 1996. He disclaimed an opinion on the Authority’s financial statements because, in part, the inability to confirm account balances including the Drug Elimination Program. The Auditor included the following comment in his findings: The PHA has inadequate controls over it’s Modernization and PHDEP Programs and HUD Grants relative to those programs . . . the general ledger is not reconciled to the costs and grant funds. We could not tie the general ledger costs and grant costs to HUD documents. OIG comments on these conditions relative to the Drug Elimination Grant Program in the report finding. Page 15 99-FW-202-1002 Follow-Up on Prior Audit Findings THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY 99-FW-202-1002 Page 16 Appendix A Schedule of Grant Costs For the Period October 1, 1994, through February 6, 1998 Budget Expended Ineligible Unsupported Allowable Grant Year 1994 Law Enforcement $ 89,100 $ 89,099 $ 89,099 Physical Improvement 2,000 2,000 2,000 Other Costs 3,900 2,525 $2,500 25 Grant Totals $ 95,000 $ 93,624 $2,500 $ - $ 91,124 Grant Year 1995 Law Enforcement $138,660 $152,526 $152,526 Physical Improvement 10,000 - - Other Costs 10,340 3,820 998 1,262 1,561 Grant Totals $159,000 $156,346 $ 998 $1,262 $154,087 Grant Year 1996 Law Enforcement $106,246 $ 69,166 $ - $ 69,166 Physical Improvement 13,291 - - - Voluntary Tenant Patrol 10,540 - - - Drug Prevention 4,620 - - - Drug Intervention 23,803 - - - Other Costs - - - - Grant Totals $158,500 $ 69,166 $ - $ - $ 69,166 Totals for all 3 years $412,500 $319,136 $3,4981 $1,262 $314,377 1 OIG also identified another $6,900 of 1993 Grant funds used to purchase police equipment, making total of $10,398 in Grant funds used to purchase police equipment. Page 17 99-FW-202-1002 Appendix A THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY 99-FW-202-1002 Page 18 Appendix B Schedule of Questioned Costs Recommendation Number Ineligible 1 Unsupported 2 1D $10,398 1E $1,262 1F 4,030 TOTALS $10,398 $5,292 1 Ineligible costs are costs charged to a HUD-financed or insured program or activity that the auditor believes are not allowable by law, contract, or federal, state, or local policies or regulations. 2 Unsupported costs are costs charged to a HUD-financed or insured program or activity and eligibility cannot be determined at the time of audit. The costs are not supported by adequate documentation or there is a need for a legal or administrative determination on the eligibility of the cost. Unsupported costs require a future decision by HUD program officials. This decision, in addition to obtaining supporting documentation, might involve a legal interpretation or clarification of Departmental policies and procedures. Page 19 99-FW-202-1002 Appendix B THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY 99-FW-202-1002 Page 20 Appendix C Auditee Comments Page 21 99-FW-202-1002 Appendix C THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY 99-FW-202-1002 Page 22 Appendix D Distribution Secretary's Representative, 6AS State Coordinator, 6HS Comptroller, 6AF Director, Troubled Agency Recovery Center, PB2 (4) Director, Accounting, 6AAF Director, Public Housing, 6HPH Saul N. Ramirez, Jr., Deputy Secretary, SD (Room 10100) Hal C. DeCell III, A/S for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations, J (Room 10120) Karen Hinton, A/S for Public Affairs, W (Room 10132) Jon Cowan, Chief of Staff, S (Room 10000) Jacquie Lawing, Deputy Chief of Staff for Programs & Policy, S (Room 10226) Robert Hickmott, Counselor to the Secretary, S (Room 10234) Patricia Enright, Sr Advisor to the Secretary for Communication Policy, S (Room 10222) Gail W. Laster, General Counsel, C (Room 10214) Saul N. Ramirez, Jr., Acting Assistant Secretary for CPD, D (Room 7100) Joseph Smith, Acting Assistant Secretary for Administration, A (Room 10110) David Gibbons, Director, Office of Budget, ARB (Room 3270) Art Agnos, Acting Assistant Secretary for Housing, H (Room 9100) Director, HUD Enforcement Center, 1240 Maryland Ave., Ste. 200, Wash.D.C. 20024 Deborah Vincent, Acting General A/S for Public & Indian Housing, P (Room 4100) Assistant to the Deputy Secretary for Field Management, SDF (Room 7106) Assistant to the Secretary for Labor Relations (Acting), SL (Room 7118) Public Housing ALO, PF (Room 5156) (3) Acquisitions Librarian, Library, AS (Room 8141) Chief Financial Officer, F (Room 10164) (2) Deputy Chief Financial Officer for Operations, FF (Room 10166) (2) Director, Hsg. & Comm. Devel. Issues, US GAO, 441 G St. NW, Room 2474 Washington, DC 20548 Attn: Judy England-Joseph Mr. Pete Sessions, Govt Reform & Oversight Comm., U.S. Congress, House of Rep., Washington, D.C. 20510-6250 The Honorable Fred Thompson, Chairman, Comm. on Govt Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. 20515-4305 The Honorable John Glenn, Ranking Member, Comm. on Govt Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. 20515-4305 Cindy Sprunger, Subcomm. on Gen. Oversight & Invest., Room 212, O'Neill House Ofc. Bldg., Washington, D.C. 20515 The Honorable Dan Burton, Chairman, Comm. on Govt Reform & Oversight, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. 20515-6143 Inspector General, G Housing Authority of St. James Parish Page 23 99-FW-202-1002
HA of St. James Parish Public Housing Drug Elimination Program, Lutcher, LA
Published by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General on 1998-11-06.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)