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.
HUD OIG is reviewing a housing authority in New York. The authority has more than two dozen housing developments including one that has been mostly vacant for years. The review objective is to determine whether the authority properly managed the vacant development.
HUD OIG is reviewing a housing authority in New Jersey. The authority owns and manages public housing units to serve low-income families and was designated as high risk by HUD in 2017. The review objective is to determine whether the Authority administered its Public Housing program in accordance with applicable requirements.
HUD OIG is conducting a limited review of HUD's administration of supplemental operating funds under the CARES Act. The CARES Act authorized an additional $685 million in public housing operating funds to prevent, prepare for, and respond to COVID-19. The review objective is to assess Public Housing Agencies' (PHA) experiences and challenges and HUD's efforts in providing guidance related to the administration of supplemental operating funds under the CARES Act.
HUD OIG is researching Public and Indian Housing and Multifamily use of vacant units during previously Presidentially Declared Disasters and the COVID-19 declared Disaster, as well as PIH and Multifamily’s ability to place a waitlist preference for the homeless and how many homeless individuals had a 50058 or 50059 new move-in during the COVID pandemic. Since the introduction of the CARES act, there has been an emphasis to review how HUD has reacted to the COVID-19 disaster. HUD allocated $1 billion to keep America's homeless population safe.
HUD OIG is conducting an audit to assess the Department's assurance of public housing agencies processing of reasonable accommodation requests. Reasonable accommodations are an essential tool to protect the housing rights of tenants with disabilities. The audit objective is to determine whether HUD’s Office of Public and Indian Housing had adequate policies and procedures for ensuring that its public housing agencies properly addressed, assessed, and fulfilled requests for reasonable accommodations, including COVID-19 related requests.
We audited the Philadelphia, PA, Housing Authority’s use of public housing program operating funds because we received a complaint alleging that the Authority misused U.S.
We audited the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority’s use of public housing operating and capital funds because (1) we received a hotline complaint alleging that the Authority mismanaged its procurement activities and improperly awarded an internet services contract for more than $200,000 without receiving competitive bids and (2) we had never audited the Authority. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority procured products and services using U.S.
The OIG investigation focused on the Cairo, IL, based Alexander County Housing Authority's (ACHA) improper usage of HUD subsidized Asset Management Project (AMP) funds with prosecutorial consideration being given to 18 USC 666 (Theft, Intentional Misapplication of Funds), 18 USC 1001, (False Statements) and 18 USC 371 (Conspiracy). These funds (also referred to as operating funds and low rent housing project funds) and Capital funds are governed by 24 CFR 9908 and OMB Circular A-133. Specifically, the allegations were:
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Office of Inspector General audited the Benkelman Housing Authority based on a request from the U.S.
We audited the Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority’s public housing program based on an anonymous complaint to our hotline. Our objective was specific to the allegations in the complaint and was to determine whether the Authority (1) engaged in nepotism when hiring staff, (2) used program funds for inappropriate or unreasonable travel expenses, (3) failed to comply with the U.S.
