We conducted this limited review to determine the use of landlord incentives to increase landlord participation and retention and expand housing options for program participants outside areas of low-income or minority concentration.
Due to the evolving situation concerning the coronavirus (COVID-19), the HUD OIG mail operations are suspended and we strongly encourage that you file all inquiries and/or complaints electronically to Whistleblower Report Form, Hotline Complaint Form or FOIA Requests.
Use of Landlord Incentives in the Housing Choice Voucher Program
HUD’s Improper Approvals Resulted in Invalid Exemptions and an Ineligible Capital Funds Expenditure for the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Housing Authority
We reviewed the U.S.
The Office of Native American Programs Section 184 Program Continues To Operate Without Adequate Oversight 3 Years After the Prior OIG Audit
We audited the U.S.
HUD’s Office of Public Housing Did Not Clearly Define or Provide Guidance for Public Housing Agency Certifications
While working with the U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Office of Program Enforcement, we noted that the Office of Public Housing did not clearly identify the certifications that public housing agencies were making in the Application for Federal Assistance, SF (standard form)-424. As a result, we reviewed the guidance concerning the Application, with an objective to determine whether the Office of Public Housi
HUD's Office of Public Housing Investments Could Improve Its Oversight of the Chicago Housing Authority's Exception Payment Standards Under Its Moving to Work Housing Choice Voucher Program
We reviewed the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) oversight of the Chicago Housing Authority’s Moving to Work program based on a congressional request from former Congressman Aaron Schock and media attention regarding the Authority’s exception payment standards. Our objective was to determine whether HUD provided adequate oversight of the Authority’s Moving to Work exception payment standards.
Intergovernmental Personnel Act Appointment Created an Inherent Conflict of Interest in the Office of Public and Indian Housing
Based on a hotline complaint and additional work by our Financial Audit Division and Office of Legal Counsel, we reviewed whether a conflict of interest existed within the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Office of Public and Indian Housing (PIH). Specifically, former PIH Assistant Secretary Sandra B.
HUD’s Monitoring and Administration of the Housing Choice Voucher Family Self-Sufficiency Program
We completed a review of HUD’s monitoring and administration of the Housing Choice Voucher Family Self-Sufficiency (HCV FSS) program. The review was included in OIG’s annual audit plan and contributes to OIGs objective of improving HUD’s execution of and accountability for grant funds. The objectives of the review were to determine whether HUD officials sufficiently monitored public housing agencies (PHA) to encourage the use of th
Evaluation of Ginnie Mae’s Managed Data Center Sole-Source Requisition
In response to a hotline complaint, we conducted an evaluation of the Government National Mortgage Association’s (Ginnie Mae) managed data center sole-source requisition.
Healthy Homes Needs To Strengthen Its Controls Over Lead Hazard Control Grant Administrative Costs
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General conducted a limited scope internal review of Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control (Healthy Homes) to determine whether Healthy Homes allowed excessive administrative costs to be charged to the Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control grant program.
Final Civil Action – Public Housing Authority Funds Diverted to Personal Use
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducted a review to determine whether a former Executive Director of the Superior, WI, Housing Authority, Debra Waterman, charged personal items to the housing authority credit card. We identified approximately $100,000 of unsupported or unallowable expenditures made by Ms. Waterman.