We reviewed the U.S. Department of Housing and Development’s (HUD) process for ensuring that grantee public housing agencies (PHA) receiving American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) Capital Funds complied with Section 152 of the 2005 Energy Act. We reviewed this process because during a recent Recovery Act audit we identified some non-Energy Star compliance and premature replacement purchases and during 2008 grantees paid $1.6 billion for utilities, representing 24 percent of their operating costs.

We audited the monitoring practices that the San Francisco Office of Public Housing (SF OPH) used to monitor American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 supplemental capital formula and competitive grants awarded to public housing agencies in Region IX. The audit was conducted in accordance with a mandate to review the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) monitoring of Recovery Act funds to determine whether there were safeguards to ensure that grantees used funds for their intended purposes.

We initiated a review of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) oversight of the Housing Choice Voucher program’s fee-for-service system because it was included in our annual audit plan, prompted by a prior external audit, during which we noted that a housing agency charged management and bookkeeping fees far in excess of the applicable overhead expense while following HUD’s fee-for-service requirements.

As a spinoff of a prior assignment and as part of our annual audit plan, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General audited the Lafayette Parish Housing Authority’s (Authority) Public Housing Capital Fund Stimulus Recovery Act funded grant. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority followed HUD and American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 requirements.

In response to a congressional and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) request to review allegations of corruption and mismanagement, we audited the Lafayette Parish Housing Authority’s (Authority) operations of its (1) public housing program and (2) Disaster Housing Assistance Program (DHAP). Our objective was to determine whether the Authority operated in accordance with HUD’s and other requirements.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General audited King County Housing Authority to determine whether its expenditures for three Recovery Act Capital Fund Competition Grants were appropriate, eligible, and adequately supported and whether related procurements were made in accordance with 24 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) Part 85 and Recovery Act requirements. We selected the Authority because it received more than $16 million in Recovery Act Capital Fund competitive grant funds.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General audited the Bellingham Whatcom County Housing Authorities to determine whether expenditures for American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Capital Fund Grants were appropriate, eligible, and adequately supported and whether related procurements were made in accordance with 24 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) Part 85 and Recovery Act requirements. We selected the Authorities because they received almost $11 million of these funds.

In accordance with our goal to review funds provided under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, we audited the Public Housing Capital Fund Stimulus (formula) Recovery Act-funded activities of the Corpus Christi Housing Authority in Corpus Christi, TX. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority expended Recovery Act funds in accordance with Recovery Act rules and regulations and submitted timely Recovery Act performance reports. Generally, the Authority complied with Recovery Act requirements.

In accordance with our goal to review funds provided under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), we audited the Housing Authority of the City of Wichita Falls’ Public Housing Capital Fund Stimulus (formula) Recovery Act-funded activities. Specifically, our objectives were to determine whether the Authority followed Recovery Act rules and regulations when obligating and expending its Recovery Act capital funds and reported Recovery Act funds as required. Generally the Authority followed Recovery Act rules and regulations with two minor exceptions.

In accordance with our goal to review funds provided under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), we audited the San Antonio Housing Authority’s (Authority) Public Housing Capital Fund Stimulus Recovery Act-funded activities.