Implement a plan to annually survey all HUD program offices to identify nondisclosure policies, forms, and agreements issued and to determine whether they include the anti-gag provision as required by WPEA and, as necessary, to take corrective action to ensure that they include the anti-gag provision.
2024-OE-0007 | Diciembre 13, 2024
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Nondisclosure Agreements’ Incorporation of Whistleblower Protections
General Counsel
- Status2024-OE-0007-04OpenClosed
- Status2024-OE-0007-05OpenClosed
Communicate across HUD that (a) HUD employees are required to include the anti-gag provision in nondisclosure policies, forms, and agreements applicable to HUD employees and (b) program offices should consider requiring their employees to request OGC assistance when implementing and enforcing nondisclosure policies, forms, and agreements applicable to HUD employees.
2024-IG-0001 | Enero 23, 2024
Management Alert: Action Is Needed From HUD Leadership To Resolve Systemic Challenges With Improper Payments
Deputy Secretary
- Status2024-IG-0001-001-AOpenClosedPrioridadPriority
We believe these open recommendations, if implemented, will have the greatest impact on helping HUD achieve its mission to create strong, sustainable, inclusive communities and quality affordable homes for all.
We recommend that the Deputy Secretary Develop and execute a detailed plan and timeline for both testing and reporting estimates of improper payments in the PIH-TBRA and PBRA programs in compliance with Federal law and OMB guidance.
Status
In response to the Management Alert, the Deputy Secretary stated that she would provide a plan in 30 days. On April 10, 2024, the Chief Financial Officer, Assistant Secretary for Housing, and Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing (PIH) stated their respective executives have been working together to develop a plan to accelerate HUD’s ability to produce statistically valid estimates. With respect to project-based rental assistance (PBRA), HUD plans to use ongoing data collection for fiscal year (FY) 2023 tier 1 and tier 2 payments to develop a statistical estimate in FY 2024. With respect to PIH-TBRA, in lieu of pursuing an estimate for the FY 2024 reporting cycle, PIH will focus on “its existing efforts to enhance PIH [IT] systems”, which HUD considers to be a more strategic use of resources. It is not clear from HUD’s response what PIH will do differently than it already had planned prior to the management alert as HUD did not provide a detailed plan or timeline for OIG review. As of June 21, 2024, a detailed plan or timeline has not been provided.
Analysis
As of June 21, 2024, HUD has not provided a detailed plan or timeline for OIG review. It remains unclear how HUD will produce an estimate in the PBRA programs in 2024 and when it will be able to produce an estimate for PIH-TBRA.
For HUD to close this recommendation, it must finish testing the full life cycle of payments in these programs and publicly report estimates of the improper payments in them. Merely producing a plan with future action target dates is not sufficient to meet the spirit of this recommendation.
PBRA and PIH-TBRA are the two largest program expenditures in HUD's portfolio, totaling $45.3 billion in FY 23, or 67.5 percent of HUD's total expenditures. HUD has been challenged with developing a compliant sampling methodology that can test the full payment cycle and that can be executed within the required timeframes. HUD’s sampling methodology did not test the full payment cycle. Further, the associated sample testing and statistical estimation of improper payments could not be completed in time for the required annual reporting of improper payment estimates in the Agency Financial Report (AFR), normally issued in November. To fully address this recommendation, the sampling methodology should test the full payment cycle, and the associated sample testing and statistical estimation must be completed in time to be included in the AFR.
Implementation of this recommendation will result in HUD better safeguarding taxpayer dollars and decrease improper payments.
2020-KC-1001 | Junio 08, 2020
Englewood Apartments Did Not Comply With Tenant Eligibility and Recertification Requirements
General Counsel
- Status2020-KC-1001-001-GOpenClosed
Take appropriate administrative action, up to and including debarment, against the owner for the violations cited in this report including, amongst others, failure to perform the required inspections to ensure that the units the owner were billing for assistance were decent, safe, and sanitary.
2020-AT-1001 | Noviembre 04, 2019
The Christian Church Homes, Oakland, CA, Did Not Ensure That the Rental Assistance Demonstration Program Conversion Was Accurate and Supported for Vineville Christian Towers
General Counsel
- Status2020-AT-1001-001-EOpenClosed
Take appropriate enforcement actions against the responsible parties and pursue civil action against the owner for improperly certifying to the eligibility of the project residents.
- Status2020-AT-1001-001-FOpenClosed
Pursue administrative actions, as appropriate, against the responsible parties for the improper certification included in form HUD-50059 and the Section 8 project-based voucher housing assistance payments contract.
2019-CF-1803 | Septiembre 30, 2019
Final Civil Action: Pacific Horizon Bancorp, Inc., and Two Loan Officers Settled Allegations of Failing To Comply With HUD’s Federal Housing Administration Loan Requirements
General Counsel
- Status2019-CF-1803-001-AOpenClosed$325,000Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Acknowledge that the attached settlement agreement of $325,000 represents an amount due HUD from Pacific Horizon.
- Status2019-CF-1803-001-BOpenClosed$15,000Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Acknowledge that the attached settlement agreement for $15,000 represents an amount due HUD from the two loan officers.
2019-CF-1804 | Septiembre 30, 2019
Final Civil Action: PrimeLending, a PlainsCapital Company, Settled Allegations of Failing To Comply With HUD’s Federal Housing Administration Loan Requirements
General Counsel
- Status2019-CF-1804-001-AOpenClosed$3,375,163Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Acknowledge that $3,375,163 in the attached settlement agreement represents an amount due HUD, less DOJ’s civil debt collection fees
- Status2019-CF-1804-001-BOpenClosed$6,749,673Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Acknowledge that the $6,749,673 in the attached indemnification agreement represents an amount due HUD.
2019-CF-1805 | Septiembre 30, 2019
Final Civil Action: Quicken Loans, Inc., Settled Allegations of Failing To Comply With HUD’s Federal Housing Administration Loan Requirements
General Counsel
- Status2019-CF-1805-001-AOpenClosed$32,500,000Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Acknowledge that $32,500,000 in the attached settlement agreement represents an amount due HUD, less DOJ’s civil debt collection fees.
2019-CF-1802 | Marzo 19, 2019
Final Civil Action - Gateway Funding Diversified Mortgage Services, LP, Now Known as Finance of America Mortgage, LLC, Settled Allegations of Failing To Comply With HUD’s Federal Housing Administration Loan Requirements
General Counsel
- Status2019-CF-1802-001-AOpenClosed$7,230,000Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Acknowledge that $7.23 million of the $14.5 million in the attached settlement agreement represents an amount due HUD, less DOJ’s civil debt collection fees.
2019-CF-1801 | Diciembre 21, 2018
Final Civil Action: Universal American Mortgage Company, LLC, Settled Allegations of Failing To Comply With HUD’s Federal Housing Administration Loan Requirements
General Counsel
- Status2019-CF-1801-001-AOpenClosed$6,076,741Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Acknowledge that $6,076,741 of the $13,200,000 in the attached settlement agreement represents an amount due HUD, less DOJ’s civil debt collection fees.
2018-NY-1006 | Septiembre 26, 2018
The Buffalo Municipal Housing Authority, Buffalo, NY, Did Not Administer Its Operating Funds in Accordance With Requirements
General Counsel
- Status2018-NY-1006-001-EOpenClosed
We also recommend that the Director of HUD’s Departmental Enforcement Center evaluate the apparent conflict-of-interest situations in this report and pursue administrative sanctions if warranted.
2018-PH-1007 | Septiembre 25, 2018
The Crisfield Housing Authority, Crisfield, MD, Did Not Properly Administer Its Public Housing Program Operating and Capital Funds
General Counsel
- Status2018-PH-1007-002-DOpenClosed
Evaluate the apparent conflict-of-interest situations in this report and pursue administrative sanctions if warranted.
2018-FO-1802 | Agosto 27, 2018
Final Civil Action: Deloitte & Touché, LLP, Settled Allegations That It Failed To Conduct Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Corporation’s Audits in Conformance With Generally Accepted Auditing Standards
General Counsel
- Status2018-FO-1802-001-AOpenClosed$115,000,000Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Acknowledge the settlement amount of $149,500,000 and that $115,000,000 of the settlement represents restitution due HUD less DOJ’s civil debt collection fees.
2018-FW-1802 | Agosto 21, 2018
Final Civil Action: The Former Executive Director of the Housing Authority of the City of Beeville, TX, Et Al, Settled False Claims Allegations in the Housing Choice Voucher Program
General Counsel
- Status2018-FW-1802-001-AOpenClosed$40,000Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
We recommend that HUD’s Office of General Counsel, Office of Program Enforcement, acknowledge that the $40,000 in the settlement agreement represents an amount due HUD.
2018-AT-1005 | Mayo 29, 2018
The City of Margate, FL, Did Not Properly Administer Its Neighborhood Stabilization Program Grants 1 and 3 in Compliance With HUD Regulations
General Counsel
- Status2018-AT-1005-001-JOpenClosed
Initiate appropriate administrative actions and debarments against parties, including the former grants manager and contractors, who contributed to the mismanagement of program funds.
2018-FW-1801 | Mayo 21, 2018
Final Civil Action: BSR Trust, LLC, Settled Allegations of Making False Claims Related to Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments
General Counsel
- Status2018-FW-1801-001-AOpenClosed$30,000Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
We recommend that HUD’s Office of General Counsel, Office of Program Enforcement, acknowledge that $30,000 in the settlement agreement represents an amount due HUD.
2018-CF-1803 | Marzo 30, 2018
Final Civil Action: Southern Blvd I, L.P., Settled Allegations of Making False Certifications Related to Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments
General Counsel
- Status2018-CF-1803-001-AOpenClosed$40,000Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Acknowledge that $40,000 in the attached settlement represents an amount due HUD.