Reimburse its program $9,715 from non-Federal funds ($9,660 for housing assistance payments and $55 in associated administrative fees) for the unit that materially failed to meet HUD’s housing quality standards.

Provide training to its inspectors on conducting housing quality standards inspections.

Review the issues identified in this audit report and if appropriate, pursue administrative sanctions against the board of directors for the violations cited in this report.

We recommend that HUD’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Housing Investments direct staff to determine whether the nine PHAs that were classified as troubled or physically substandard have public housing developments that are subject to the required conversion requirements to support whether potentially distressed projects should be converted to tenant-based rental assistance. If conversion is required, ensure that it is accomplished timely, thereby ensuring that up to $75,540,916 is used effectively for other projects that are cost effective and have long term viability and ensuring that residents receive other rental assistance. Footnote: The $75 million cited as funds to be put to better use is based on an analysis of available data. We recognize that the 131 PHAs cited in this report, including the 9 PHAs that comprise the $75 million figure, may not have projects with at least 250 units on one or more contiguous sites that have vacancy rates of 12 percent or more. However, the data did not allow us to calculate vacancy rates for each group of contiguous units, and HUD could not provide a reasonable, supported method to identify projects subject to required conversion. To address this recommendation, HUD will need to determine whether these PHAs have projects that are subject to required conversion.

We recommend that HUD’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Housing Investments direct staff to develop and implement policies and procedures with the Office of Field Operations regarding identification of potentially distressed projects and monitoring and enforcement of the required conversion program.

We recommend that the Program Center Coordinator, Office of Public Housing, Oklahoma City, OK, require the Authority to repay $12,739 from non-Federal funds to its Section 8 program for ineligible payments based on incorrect housing assistance payment calculations, incorrect payment standards and utility allowances, and unreported income.

We recommend that the Program Center Coordinator, Office of Public Housing, Oklahoma City, OK, require the Authority to support or repay $28,574 from non-Federal funds to its Section 8 program for unsupported payments based on questionable income calculations.

We recommend that the Program Center Coordinator, Office of Public Housing, Oklahoma City, OK, require the Authority to strengthen its compliance with requirements by implementing a quality control system that would require management to review a sample number of income calculations, ensure staff follow-up on income discrepancies and document their analysis.

We recommend that the Program Center Coordinator, Office of Public Housing, Oklahoma City, OK, require the Authority to implement policies and procedures to monitor the EIV income discrepancy reports each quarter to minimize subsidy payment errors.

Reimburse its program $648 from non-Federal funds and use its internal control procedures to ensure that housing assistance payments are correctly calculated during the certification process to ensure that a $648 overpayment in program funds is appropriately used for future payments.

Reimburse the participants $84 from non-Federal funds for the underpayment of housing assistance.

Develop and implement an internal policy and procedure related to interim certifications to ensure that it obtains EIV reports and maintains those reports in participant files.

Develop and implement controls to minimize instances of overpayment and underpayment of housing assistance.

We recommend that the Director, Departmental Enforcement Center take appropriate administrative sanctions, including suspension, limited denial of participation, or debarment against the executive director.

We recommend that the Director, Departmental Enforcement Center seek civil money penalties, as appropriate, against the executive director.

We recommend that the Associate General Counsel for Program Enforcement determine legal sufficiency and, if legally sufficient, pursue remedies under the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act against the executive director.

Repay from nonfederal funds $27,818 to its Capital Funds program from non-Federal funds for the ineligible purchase of the truck and expenditure of 2013 funds before they were available.

Repay from nonfederal funds its HUD programs $7,446 for the executive director’s personal use of the Authority’s equipment, and amend the executive director’s prior Internal Revenue Forms W-2 to include the annual personal use of $5,888 as income.

Repay from nonfederal funds its HUD programs $4,739 paid to its fee accountant, which had a conflict of interest with the executive director.

Repay from nonfederal funds its HUD programs $1,273 lost on the conflict of interest sale of the Authority’s vehicle to the executive director’s daughter.