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.

HUD Did Not Ensure Public Housing Agencies' Use of Property Insurance Recoveries Met Program Requirements

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of the Inspector General (OIG) audited HUD’s Public Housing Capital Fund program and American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act) Capital Fund program monitoring procedures because it was included in our annual audit plan and was prompted by a prior external audit (OIG audit report 2011-LA-1802, issued May 5, 2011).

HUD’s Office of Native American Programs Did Not Provide Adequate Oversight To Ensure Grantee Compliance With Annual Audit Report Submission Requirements

We completed a review of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Office of Native American Programs’ (ONAP) annual audit reporting process primarily in response to complaints that ONAP did not take appropriate enforcement action for two grantees that failed to submit required annual audits. Our objective was to determine whether ONAP provided adequate oversight of its grantees nationwide to ensure grantee compliance with the annual audit report submission requirements.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Real Estate Assessment Center Did Not Always Ensure That Independent Public Accountants Followed Statement on Auditing Standards 99 Requirements

The U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General audited HUD’s Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC) to determine whether it ensured that independent auditors followed Statement on Auditing Standards (SAS) 99 audit requirements. REAC did not always ensure that independent auditors followed SAS 99 requirements. It did not identify deficiencies in 10 of the 11 deficient engagements we reviewed. For the one other engagement, REAC identified a SAS 99 deficiency but did not include it in its report.

The Stark Metropolitan Housing Authority, Canton, OH, Did Not Always Administer Its Grant in Accordance With Recovery Act, HUD’s, and Its Own Requirements

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of the Inspector General (OIG) audited the Stark Metropolitan Housing Authority’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Public Housing Capital Fund stimulus formula grant as part of the activities in our fiscal year 2012 annual audit plan. We selected the Authority based upon risk factors related to the housing agencies in Region 5’s Region 5 includes the States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin. jurisdiction.

The Saginaw Housing Commission, Saginaw, MI, Did Not Always Administer Its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program in Accordance With HUD’s and Its Own Requirements

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of the Inspector General (OIG) audited the Saginaw Housing Commission’s Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program. The audit was part of the activities in our fiscal year 2012 annual audit plan. We selected the Commission based upon our previous audits of its use of Federal funds and a request from HUD management to perform a comprehensive review of its programs. Our objective was to determine whether the Commission operated its program in accordance with HUD’s and its own requirements.

The Flint Housing Commission, Flint, MI, Did Not Always Administer Its Grants in Accordance With Recovery Act, HUD's, and Its Own Requirements

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General audited the Flint Housing Commission’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Public Housing Capital Fund competitive grants. We selected the Commission based upon our analysis of risk factors relating to the housing agencies in Region 5’s jurisdiction. Our objective was to determine whether the Commission administered its grants in accordance with Recovery Act, HUD’s, and its own requirements. This is the first of two planned audit reports on the Commission’s Recovery Act grants.

The Allegheny County Housing Authority, Pittsburgh, PA, Needs To Improve Its Inspections To Ensure That All Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Units Meet Housing Quality Standards

We audited the Allegheny County Housing Authority’s Housing Choice Voucher program because (1) the Authority received more than $27.3 million in Housing Choice Voucher funding in fiscal year 2011, (2) an article in the October 22, 2011, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette described housing quality standards problems with a housing unit participating in the Authority’s program, and (3) we had never audited the Authority’s Housing Choice Voucher program. The audit objective was to determine whether the Authority ensured that its Housing Choice Voucher program units met the U.S.

The Aurora Housing Authority, Aurora, IL, Did Not Administer Its Grant in

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General audited the Aurora Housing Authority’s Recovery Act formula grant. The audit was part of the activities in our fiscal year 2012 annual audit plan. We selected the Authority based upon our analysis of risk factors related to the housing agencies in Region V’s (see footnote) jurisdiction.

The Buffalo, NY, Municipal Housing Authority Did Not Always Administer Its Recovery Act Capital Fund Program in Accordance With HUD Requirements

We audited the Buffalo Municipal Housing Authority’s Public Housing Capital Fund Stimulus (Formula) program funded under the Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 based on an Office of Inspector General risk analysis and the amount of funding the Authority received. The objectives of the audit were to determine whether Authority officials (1) procured contracts in accordance with U.S.

HUD Did Not Effectively Oversee and Manage the Receivership of the East St. Louis Housing Authority

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD), Office of Inspector General reviewed HUD’s receivership of the East St. Louis Housing Authority based on the length of receivership and issues identified during recent external audits. Our objective was to determine whether HUD effectively oversaw and managed the recovery and turnaround of the Authority during the three-year period ending in September 2011. HUD did not effectively oversee and manage the recovery and turnaround of the Authority.