South Dakota Audit Reports

Information by State  Print version

Issue Date: October 8, 2002
Audit Report Number 2003-DE-1001
File Size: 1417KB

Title: HUD Indian Housing Block Grant Program, Sicangu Wicoti Awanyakape Corporation, Rosebud, South Dakota

We completed a review of the HUD Indian Housing Block Grant Program administered by the Sicangu Wicoti Awanyakape Corporation. The objective of the review was to focus on the Sicangu Wicoti Awanyakape Corporation's management controls over its HUD funded Block Grant Program operations and financial systems and compliance with HUD program requirements.

The Sicangu Wicoti Awanyakape Corporation has policies related to admission, occupancy, collection, procurement, subleasing, delinquency, and drug elimination, etc. Although the Sicangu Wicoti Awanyakape Corporation has these policies, our review disclosed that management controls were not satisfactorily established to ensure the Sicangu Wicoti Awanyakape Corporation:

Had adequate cash management policies to assure availability of funds to meet expenditures, safeguarding cash and deposits, and accuracy of reporting and recording financial transactions;

Followed occupancy policies and procedures; Effectively used collection policies and procedures to maintain control over tenant accounts receivable;

Followed procurement policies and procedures in procuring goods and services; Effectively administered the maintenance program;

Maintained housing units in good repair, order, and condition; Effectively managed inventories of materials and supplies, and;

Effectively administered the Indian Housing Block Grant Program.

In connection with these management control weaknesses, we found deficient controls over tenant occupancy and related activities. The Sicangu Wicoti Awanyakape Corporation either ignores their own policies in these areas or decides to selectively enforce those requirements. There was inadequate administration of supplemental housing programs. In implementing their supplemental housing programs, the Sicangu Wicoti Awanyakape Corporation did not establish adequate administrative procedures to ensure HUD requirements were met. In addition, the Sicangu Wicoti Awanyakape Corporation did not follow its own procurement and maintenance policies in implementing the supplemental housing programs. There was an inadequate contract administration system in place to ensure contractors perform according to the terms of their contracts as specified in the Procurement Policy of the Sicangu Wicoti Awanyakape Corporation. There was inadequate controls over materials inventory. The Sicangu Wicoti Awanyakape Corporation is not maintaining adequate perpetual inventory records in support of its construction and renovation projects. There was improper payment of penalties and fees. Contrary to Federal regulations, the Sicangu Wicoti Awanyakape Corporation has used Indian Housing Block Grant Program monies to pay for unallowable penalties and fees totaling $100,010.80. Finally, there were deficient controls over travel and related costs. Contrary to HUD requirements, the Sicangu Wicoti Awanyakape Corporation has not implemented sufficient management controls over its travel and related expenses to ensure that its adopted Travel Policy is followed and adhered to.

HUD needs to require the Sicangu Wicoti Awanyakape Corporation establish the necessary management controls over its operations and financial systems to ensure its functions are in accordance with HUD requirements and within the Sicangu Wicoti Awanyakape Corporation's adopted policies.

Issue Date: March 30, 2000
Audit Report Number 00-DE-207-1002
File Size: 482KB

Title: Review of Construction Contractor’s Claim for Project SD 1-36, Oglala Sioux HA, Pine Ridge, SD

We have concluded a review of the Construction Contractor’s additional cost and payment claim of $534,152 for the Oglala Sioux Housing Authority development project, SD 1-36. Our review dealt with the basis and related facts concerning the additional cost and payment claim by the Construction Contractor, Western Tricon, Inc., of LaPush, Washington, under their construction contract with the Housing Authority.

The Construction Contractor submitted their additional payment claim of $534,152 to the Authority on February 28, 1999 for additional work and related costs the contractor considered due under their contract with the Authority. The Housing Authority did not review the Contractor’s additional cost and payment request because the Contractor did not submit their additional claim within time.

Issue Date: May 20, 1996
Audit Report Number 96-DE-202-1005
File Size: 68KB

Title: Sioux Falls Housing and Redevelopment Comm., Sioux Falls, SD

We found the Housing Commission's controls over cash receipts and disbursements were inadequate. From August 1990 through January 1996 the Housing Commission incurred a cash shortage of approximately $18,000. The shortage occurred through an apparent embezzlement scheme of taking cash from Housing Commission receipts. The Housing Commission had failed to implement adequate controls and administrative safeguards over the collection and deposit of cash receipts. In particular, both functions of handling Housing Commission cash and recording cash transactions were controlled by the same Housing Commission employee.

Issue Date: February 9, 1996
Audit Report Number 96-DE-207-1002
File Size: 41KB

Title: Yankton Sioux Tribal HA, Wagner, SD

We found the Housing Authority's controls over cash receipts need to be strengthened. Comprehensive Grant and Comprehensive Improvement Assistance Programs funds, totaling $26,490.34, were misappropriated in an apparent check forgery scheme and thus expended on ineligible costs. This scheme was discovered by a Northern Plains Office of Native American Programs Finance and Budget Specialist during a Finance Review site visit. Other deficiencies are: no separation of duties for the Programs cash functions were implemented; direct deposit receipts are not being recorded in a timely manner; inappropriate methods of providing change to tenants are being used; and the travel documentation policies and procedures are not being followed, which has allowed for the overpayment of travel expenses.