The OIG has determined that the contents of this recommendation would not be appropriate for public disclosure and has therefore limited its distribution to selected officials.
2017-DP-0001 | January 31, 2017
HUD’s Transition to a Federal Shared Service Provider Failed to Meet Expectations
Chief Financial Officer
- Status2017-DP-0001-001-GOpenClosedSensitiveSensitive
Sensitive information refers to information that could have a damaging import if released to the public and, therefore, must be restricted from public disclosure.
2017-NY-1006 | January 30, 2017
The New Rochelle Municipal Housing Authority, New Rochelle, NY, Did Not Always Administer Its Public Housing Program in Accordance With HUD’s Rules and Regulations
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2017-NY-1006-001-AOpenClosed$15,020Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s New York Office of Public Housing require Authority officials to reimburse the public housing program from non-Federal funds for $15,020 in ineligible expenditures for executive staff travel, food, beverages, and musical entertainment.
- Status2017-NY-1006-001-BOpenClosed$13,329Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s New York Office of Public Housing require Authority officials to provide supporting documentation to justify the $13,329 in unsupported expenditures charged to the public housing program. Any amount determined to be ineligible should be repaid from non-Federal funds to the public housing program’s operating account.
- Status2017-NY-1006-001-COpenClosed
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s New York Office of Public Housing require Authority officials to establish and implement procedures and effective financial controls to ensure that costs charged to the public housing program are properly incurred and comply with applicable regulations.
2017-CH-1001 | January 23, 2017
The Port Huron Housing Commission, Port Huron, MI, Did Not Properly Implement Asset Management
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2017-CH-1001-001-AOpenClosed$1,432,222Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Support that $1,432,222 in central office cost center expenses allocated to the public housing program projects were eligible, necessary, and reasonable costs of the program. Costs that cannot be supported, or were unnecessary, unreasonable, or for ineligible program costs should be reimbursed to the program from non-Federal funds.
- Status2017-CH-1001-001-BOpenClosed
Implement adequate procedures and controls, including but not limited to developing a plan to manage its central office cost center expenses and determining an appropriate fee structure with HUD’s approval that would allow it to operate its program within HUD’s requirements.
- Status2017-CH-1001-001-COpenClosed
Implement adequate procedures and controls, including but not limited to providing training to its staff to ensure that the Commission fully implements asset management and operates its program in accordance with HUD’s requirements.
2017-KC-0002 | January 19, 2017
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Did Not Always Prevent Program Participants From Receiving Multiple Subsidies
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2017-KC-0002-001-AOpenClosed$935,283Funds Put to Better Use
Recommendations that funds be put to better use estimate funds that could be used more efficiently. For example, recommendations that funds be put to better use could result in reductions in spending, deobligation of funds, or avoidance of unnecessary spending.
Require public housing agencies to run the Enterprise Income Verification existing tenant search during the admission process and retain the results in the tenant file, which would avoid unnecessary costs to HUD’s subsidy programs, allowing an estimated $935,283 to be put to better use.
- Status2017-KC-0002-001-BOpenClosed
Require public housing agencies to report the program admission date to any multifamily property listed on the Enterprise Income Verification existing tenant search during the admission process.
- Status2017-KC-0002-001-COpenClosed
Require public housing agencies to maintain support for any communication with a multifamily property listed on the Enterprise Income Verification existing tenant search.
- Status2017-KC-0002-001-DOpenClosed
Require HUD staff to review Enterprise Income Verification reports from the last 12-month period during onsite housing agency reviews to ensure that any multiple subsidies have been resolved.
- Status2017-KC-0002-001-EOpenClosed$2,244,680Funds Put to Better Use
Recommendations that funds be put to better use estimate funds that could be used more efficiently. For example, recommendations that funds be put to better use could result in reductions in spending, deobligation of funds, or avoidance of unnecessary spending.
Implement recommendations 1A through 1D to ensure that $2.24 million in housing assistance funds will be put to better use.
2016-AT-1014 | September 30, 2016
The Broward County Housing Authority, Lauderdale Lakes, FL, Did Not Always Comply With HUD’s and Its Own Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program Requirements
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2016-AT-1014-001-AOpenClosed$28,199Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Reimburse its program $28,199 ($19,771 $7,793 $635) from non-Federal funds for the overpayment of housing assistance and ineligible administrative fees it received for the deficiencies cited in this report.
2016-PH-1006 | August 31, 2016
The Housing Authority of the City of Annapolis, MD, Did Not Always Administer Its Resident Opportunities and Self-Sufficiency Program in Accordance With Applicable Requirements
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2016-PH-1006-001-AOpenClosed$292,611Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Provide documentation to support program accomplishment data related to disbursements totaling $292,611 or repay HUD from non-Federal funds for any amount that it cannot support.
2016-FO-0003 | November 17, 2015
Additional Details To Supplement Our Fiscal Years 2015 and 2014 (Restated) U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Financial Statement Audit
Chief Financial Officer
- Status2016-FO-0003-006-EOpenClosed
Contact all other HUD program offices to determine whether any other programs authorize or are aware of grantees holding funds in advance of their immediate disbursement needs and determine financial statement impact on and compliance with Treasury cash management requirements of any found.
2015-LA-0002 | July 06, 2015
HUD Did Not Provide Adequate Oversight of the Section 184 Indian Home Loan Guarantee Program
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2015-LA-0002-001-AOpenClosed$76,967,618Funds Put to Better Use
Recommendations that funds be put to better use estimate funds that could be used more efficiently. For example, recommendations that funds be put to better use could result in reductions in spending, deobligation of funds, or avoidance of unnecessary spending.
Develop and implement written policies and procedures with an emphasis on increased controls toward the monitoring, tracking, underwriting, and evaluating of the Section 184 program. Implementing these controls would reduce the current high level of risk in the program and result in potentially $76,967,618 in funds to be put to better use (see appendix A).
- Status2015-LA-0002-001-BOpenClosed
Develop and implement policies and procedures for a standardized monthly delinquency report format that lenders must follow when submitting information to OLG.
- Status2015-LA-0002-001-COpenClosed
Develop and implement policies and procedures to deny payments to direct guarantee lenders for claims on loans that have material underwriting deficiencies.
- Status2015-LA-0002-001-DOpenClosed
Develop and implement policies and procedures to ensure that OLG uses enforcement actions available under 12 U.S.C. 1715z-3a(g) for lenders that do not underwrite loans according to the Section 184 processing guidelines.
- Status2015-LA-0002-001-HOpenClosed
Ensure that only underwriters that are approved by OLG are underwriting Section 184 loans.