An official website of the United States government Here’s how you know
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Office of Inspector General reviewed the Aurora Housing Authority to determine whether the Authority obligated its funds by the deadline, adequately managed its procurements and contracts, and accurately reported its Recovery Act information in FederalReporting.gov.
We audited the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Native American Program’s (ONAP) rules regarding calculation of program income under the Native American Housing and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA). Our objectives were to determine whether ONAP’s guidance on calculating program income for the NAHASDA-assisted 1937 Act housing projects was consistent with the generally accepted accounting principles.
We audited the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Office of Public Housing field office in Phoenix, Arizona (Public Housing). The objective of the audit was to determine whether Public Housing’s procedures for monitoring the Nogales Housing Authority (Authority) were effective. The audit was started because Public Housing performed several monitoring reviews at the Authority; however, there were indications that some of the problems found had not been corrected.
We completed a capacity review of the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles’ (Authority) capital fund grant awarded under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) program. We performed the audit because Recovery Act reviews are part of the Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) annual plan and the Authority was awarded a significant amount of program funds.
In response to a hotline complaint, we reviewed the Housing Authority of the City of Napa's (the Authority) Section 8 program. The purpose was to determine whether concerns raised in the complaint relating to misappropriation of Section 8 funds had merit and whether allegations of improper rent increases for the Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy (Mod Rehab) and Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher programs were valid.
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. The Superior Housing Authority filed a complaint against Ms. Waterman in an attempt to recover the misappropriated funds.
We audited Warm Springs Housing Authority (Authority) as part of our review of the Office of Native American Programs' guidance on calculating program income for United States Housing Act of 1937 (1937 Act) housing projects assisted by the Native American Housing Assistance and Self Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA). The objective of the audit was to determine whether the Authority calculated program income for NAHASDA-assisted 1937 Act properties in accordance with applicable U.S.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General audited the East St. Louis Housing Authority’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Public Housing Capital Fund program. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority (1) complied with applicable procurement requirements and properly managed its Recovery Act contracts, (2) properly drew down and expended funds for eligible activities, and (3) properly reported its Recovery Act activities.
We completed a review of the New York City Housing Authority’s use of Federal funds. We selected this auditee based on a hotline complaint, case number HL-2011-0705, which alleged a pattern of waste, overspending, and abuse by the Authority. Specifically, the complaint alleged that the Authority (1) froze its Section 8 vouchers due to lack of available funds, (2) overpaid at least one housing manager with an annual salary of $187,000, (3) paid 51 defense attorneys more than $4 million annually, and (4) used Section 8 Federal funds to inefficiently lease office space.
To meet the Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) objective to review funds provided under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and at HUD's suggestion, we reviewed the Housing Authority of the City of Mineral Wells Public Housing Capital Fund Stimulus (formula) Recovery Act funded activities. Specifically, our objectives were to determine whether the Authority followed the Recovery Act rules and regulations when obligating and expending its Recovery Act capital funds and reported Recovery Act funds, as required.
