Federal Reports

We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Easton, PA’s Housing Choice Voucher Program because (1) we received a complaint alleging that the Authority made improper payments to program participants and a consultant to the Authority inappropriately placed herself on the program waiting list and (2) we had never audited the Authority. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority administered its program in accordance with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requirements. We focused the audit on evaluating the allegations in the complaint and reviewing (1) participant eligibility and selection from the waiting list and (2) the accuracy of and support for housing assistance payments. The two allegations in the complaint did not have merit. However, the Authority did not (1) properly administer its waiting list and select tenants from it and (2) perform quarterly interim recertifications for families reporting zero income. These conditions occurred because the Authority was unaware of some waiting list requirements, lacked procedures to collect and maintain documentation to show that it properly selected applicants from the waiting list, and lacked procedures for performing quarterly interim recertifications for families reporting zero income. As a result, HUD lacked assurance that applicants were (1) properly placed on the waiting list, (2) fairly awarded preference points, and (3) properly selected from the waiting list. The Authority also made ineligible housing assistance payments totaling $2,463. We recommend that HUD direct the Authority to (1) update its administrative plan to clearly define the weights and rankings in its preference system and ensure compliance with residency preference regulations; (2) develop and implement policies and procedures to ensure that it administers its waiting list according to the requirements in its administrative plan, including maintaining documentation to show that it properly selected applicants from the waiting list; (3) develop and implement procedures for recertifying families reporting zero income; and (4) provide documentation to show that the family that received the benefit of the $2,463 overpayment in housing assistance reimbursed the program or repay its program from non-Federal funds for any amount not reimbursed by the family.

The OIG investigated an allegation that a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) law enforcement supervisor was involved in an outside business venture in violation of Federal ethics regulations and U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) policies. We also investigated whether the law enforcement supervisor and a subordinate special agent participated in the business activity while on duty and whether the law enforcement supervisor showed preferential treatment toward the special agent. We found the law enforcement supervisor participated in outside activity and employment with three entities, one of which was a prohibited source under Federal regulations and did not seek prior approval from his supervisor and an ethics official as required. The law enforcement supervisor also received financial reimbursements and payments for training services he provided for two of the entities, which violated Federal law, and did not report any of that income on his financial disclosure forms as required by Federal ethics regulations.Finally, the law enforcement supervisor claimed official work hours from the BLM on days when he had been providing training to these entities in his personal capacity.We found no evidence that the subordinate special agent participated in outside activity that violated Federal regulations or DOI policy, or that the law enforcement supervisor showed preferential treatment toward the special agent. The law enforcement supervisor left the Department during our investigation. We referred this matter to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, which declined prosecution.

The OIG investigated allegations that a former U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) employee made personal purchases with his Government travel card (GTC) while he was in an absent without leave (AWOL) employment status.We confirmed the former employee used his GTC to pay his rent and car insurance and attempted to use his GTC to withdraw cash and pay his cell phone bill while AWOL. Our investigation also found the BOR lacked policy to ensure AWOL employees’ GTC accounts are suspended or cancelled.The employee was removed from Federal service. The local District Attorney’s Office charged the employee with unauthorized use of a financial transaction device and there is an active warrant for his arrest.