The exact page text, read by your browser's voice.
Fiscal years 2016, 2018 and 2024 — the audit record whole
The test: The pattern case is a housing authority under a fraud finding — money taken, an official charged or removed. No fraud finding, no embezzlement, no questioned costs and no charge against any officer of the Authority stands in any of them. The fraud test is negative, and it is printed as a tested negative — with what the audits did find printed at its true size directly below, because an audit record with real findings is not a clean record, only an honest one.
Fiscal 2016 — a paperwork finding, no questioned costs: The audit for the year ended 30 June 2016 (Henderson & DeJohn, independent CPAs; State Board of Accounts review letter 11 May 2017) carries one finding: management had failed to require its bank to enter a HUD-approved depository agreement before federal funds were deposited. The schedule states it plainly — "Amount of Questioned Costs: None."
Fiscal 2018 — a significant deficiency, acknowledged: The audit for the year ended 30 June 2018 (auditor's report 8 March 2019; the State Board's letter of 31 July 2019 calling attention to the finding) carries Finding 2018-001, a Significant Deficiency in Internal Controls over Financial Reporting: the Authority's cost-recovery methodology failed to properly identify costs directly charged to its projects and programs, double-counting front-line expenses between them, artificially inflating the central office's cost recovery and overstating expenses, so that the financial statements required significant current-year adjustments. The federal-awards section of the same audit reads "None Noted." Management had changed after the year-end; the new Executive Director acknowledged the finding and committed to the auditor's recommendations, with a corrective action plan following page 32 of the report. One trap in the record is worth disarming in print: the financial data schedule's line "Fraud Recovery — $1,465" is a tenant fraud-recovery receivable, money the Authority recovers from tenants — it is not a finding against the Authority, and this history does not print it as one.
Fiscal 2024 — a clean audit: The audit for the year ended 30 June 2024 (Henderson & Pilleteri; report 20 January 2025) returns a Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs reading None in both its financial-statement and federal-awards sections, unmodified opinions, low-risk auditee status, and net position of $10,441,717 at 30 June 2024. The Authority also appears in the federal reports as a defendant in Wright v. Mishawaka Housing Authority (N.D. Ind. 2016) — a disability and Fair Housing case about an eviction during a bedbug infestation, in which the court let the reasonable-accommodation claims stand and dismissed the due-process and equal-protection claims; it is not a money case and is context here only.
The three tests, printed working: (1) Documented — yes, three official audit cycles. (2) Genuinely contested — no: the one substantive finding was acknowledged by new management, not fought. (3) City-significant — the 2018 control failure touched the books of a city authority but changed no office, policy or building on this record. The verdict is the test's own: no housing-authority fraud case exists in Mishawaka's record reached, and the nearest thing to it is an acknowledged accounting-method failure, corrected on the record, followed by a clean audit.
Sources:
- Housing Authority of the City of Mishawaka audits, filed with the Indiana State Board of Accounts — fiscal 2016 (report B48107), fiscal 2018 (report B53126, Finding 2018-001), fiscal 2024 (report 29670A).
- Wright v. Mishawaka Housing Authority, N.D. Ind. 2016 — the accommodation litigation, context only.