U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government Here’s how you know

The .gov means it’s official.

Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure.

The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

The Housing Authority of the City of San Buenaventura, San Buenaventura, California, Did Not Manage HUD Program Funds in Accordance with HUD Requirements

We audited the Housing Authority of the City of San Buenaventura (Authority) in response to a hotline complaint alleging mismanagement and misuse of U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funding. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority's financial activities, operations, and controls complied with HUD requirements. We found that the Authority did not use program funds in accordance with the requirements of its Annual Contributions Contract and HUD requirements.

The Housing Authority of the County of San Joaquin, Stockton, California, Did Not Administer Capital Funds in Accordance with HUD Requirements

We reviewed the Housing Authority of the County of San Joaquin's (the Authority) capital fund program to determine whether it used capital funds in accordance with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) rules and regulations. The Authority did not use capital funds in accordance with requirements.

The Housing Authority of the County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, Did Not Adequately Administer Its Section 8 Voucher Program

We audited the Housing Authority of the County of Los Angeles’ (Authority) Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority determined tenant eligibility and performed annual reexaminations in accordance with HUD rules and regulations. Although we did not identify any tenants that were not eligible for the program, the Authority did not comply with HUD’s requirements or its own administrative plan in performing reexaminations.

The Anaheim Housing Authority, Anaheim, California, Did Not Always Operate Its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program Effectively

We audited the Anaheim Housing Authority’s (Authority) tenant eligibility and reexamination policies and procedures for its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program (program). The objective of the audit was to determine whether the Authority followed HUD rules and regulations in determining tenant eligibility, rent calculations, and rent reasonableness.

The City of Phoenix Housing Department’s Controls over Section 8 Tenant Eligibility and Rent Determinations Were Not Adequate

We audited the City of Phoenix Housing Department’s (Housing Department) Housing Choice Voucher program. We conducted the audit as part of the Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) annual plan. The Housing Department was selected for review because it is the largest housing authority in the state of Arizona and had not previously been audited by OIG. The objective of the audit was to determine whether the Housing Department supported tenant eligibility and rent determinations in accordance with HUD requirements.

The Housing Authority of the City of Eloy, Arizona Did Not Have Adequate Internal Controls to Safeguard Assets and Ensure Compliance with HUD’s Requirements

We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Eloy (Authority) because the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) had rated the Authority as troubled for five years. In 2007, the Authority had significant financials problems and terminated its executive director. We determined that the Authority did not have adequate internal controls to safeguard assets and reasonably ensure that HUD funds were used in accordance with program requirements.

Corrective Action Verification, Housing Authority of Maricopa County, Mixed-Finance Development Activities, Phoenix, Arizona

We performed a corrective action verification of HUD's actions in implementing recommendation 1F from our audit of the Housing Authority of Maricopa County's Mixed Finance Development Activities (Rose Terrace and Maricopa Revitalization), Audit Report 2005-LA-1002, issued March 14, 2005. The purpose of the corrective action verification was to determine whether HUD officials appropriately closed audit recommendation 1F in accordance with the management decision dated July 12, 2005.

HUD Subsidized an Estimated 2,094 to 3,046 Households That Included Lifetime Registered Sex Offenders

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General audited HUD's requirement prohibiting lifetime registered sex offenders from admission to HUD-subsidized housing. Our audit objective was to determine the extent to which HUD-subsidized housing was occupied by lifetime registered sex offenders. HUD subsidized an estimated 2,094 to 3,046 households that included lifetime registered sex offenders.

HUD Lacks Adequate Oversight to Require Public Housing Agencies to Separately Account for Unrestricted and Restricted Section 8 Program Administrative Fees

We performed a review of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) oversight of public housing agencies’ unrestricted and restricted Section 8 administrative fee reserves. We initiated this review because in our audits of two housing authorities, neither agency was able to clearly account for its administrative fee reserve funds and demonstrate that they were used appropriately.