The OIG has determined that the contents of this recommendation would not be appropriate for public disclosure and has therefore limited its distribution to selected officials.
2017-DP-0002 | February 07, 2017
Review of Information Systems Controls Over FHA’s Single Family Premiums Collection Subsystem – Periodic and the Single Family Acquired Asset Management System
Chief Information Officer
- Status2017-DP-0002-006-GOpenClosedSensitiveSensitive
Sensitive information refers to information that could have a damaging import if released to the public and, therefore, must be restricted from public disclosure.
Closed on April 14, 2021
2017-DP-0001 | January 30, 2017
HUD’s Transition to a Federal Shared Service Provider Failed to Meet Expectations
Chief Information Officer
- Status2017-DP-0001-001-HOpenClosedSensitiveSensitive
Sensitive information refers to information that could have a damaging import if released to the public and, therefore, must be restricted from public disclosure.
Closed on December 08, 2017The OIG has determined that the contents of this recommendation would not be appropriate for public disclosure and has therefore limited its distribution to selected officials.
- Status2017-DP-0001-001-IOpenClosedSensitiveSensitive
Sensitive information refers to information that could have a damaging import if released to the public and, therefore, must be restricted from public disclosure.
Closed on November 29, 2017The OIG has determined that the contents of this recommendation would not be appropriate for public disclosure and has therefore limited its distribution to selected officials.
- Status2017-DP-0001-001-JOpenClosedSensitiveSensitive
Sensitive information refers to information that could have a damaging import if released to the public and, therefore, must be restricted from public disclosure.
Closed on December 08, 2017The OIG has determined that the contents of this recommendation would not be appropriate for public disclosure and has therefore limited its distribution to selected officials.
- Status2017-DP-0001-001-KOpenClosedSensitiveSensitive
Sensitive information refers to information that could have a damaging import if released to the public and, therefore, must be restricted from public disclosure.
Closed on December 08, 2017The OIG has determined that the contents of this recommendation would not be appropriate for public disclosure and has therefore limited its distribution to selected officials.
- Status2017-DP-0001-001-LOpenClosedSensitiveSensitive
Sensitive information refers to information that could have a damaging import if released to the public and, therefore, must be restricted from public disclosure.
Closed on June 10, 2021The OIG has determined that the contents of this recommendation would not be appropriate for public disclosure and has therefore limited its distribution to selected officials.
2017-NY-1006 | January 29, 2017
The New Rochelle Municipal Housing Authority, New Rochelle, NY, Did Not Always Administer Its Public Housing Program in Accordance With HUD’s Rules and Regulations
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2017-NY-1006-001-AOpenClosed$15,020Questioned 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.
Closed on March 02, 2020We recommend that the Director of HUD’s New York Office of Public Housing require Authority officials to reimburse the public housing program from non-Federal funds for $15,020 in ineligible expenditures for executive staff travel, food, beverages, and musical entertainment.
- Status2017-NY-1006-001-BOpenClosed$13,329Questioned 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.
Closed on September 21, 2021We recommend that the Director of HUD’s New York Office of Public Housing require Authority officials to provide supporting documentation to justify the $13,329 in unsupported expenditures charged to the public housing program. Any amount determined to be ineligible should be repaid from non-Federal funds to the public housing program’s operating account.
- Status2017-NY-1006-001-COpenClosedClosed on March 26, 2020
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s New York Office of Public Housing require Authority officials to establish and implement procedures and effective financial controls to ensure that costs charged to the public housing program are properly incurred and comply with applicable regulations.
2017-CH-1001 | January 22, 2017
The Port Huron Housing Commission, Port Huron, MI, Did Not Properly Implement Asset Management
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2017-CH-1001-001-AOpenClosed$1,432,222Questioned 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.
Closed on April 04, 2018Support that $1,432,222 in central office cost center expenses allocated to the public housing program projects were eligible, necessary, and reasonable costs of the program. Costs that cannot be supported, or were unnecessary, unreasonable, or for ineligible program costs should be reimbursed to the program from non-Federal funds.
- Status2017-CH-1001-001-BOpenClosedClosed on April 12, 2018
Implement adequate procedures and controls, including but not limited to developing a plan to manage its central office cost center expenses and determining an appropriate fee structure with HUD’s approval that would allow it to operate its program within HUD’s requirements.
- Status2017-CH-1001-001-COpenClosedClosed on March 26, 2018
Implement adequate procedures and controls, including but not limited to providing training to its staff to ensure that the Commission fully implements asset management and operates its program in accordance with HUD’s requirements.
2017-KC-0002 | January 18, 2017
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Did Not Always Prevent Program Participants From Receiving Multiple Subsidies
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2017-KC-0002-001-AOpenClosed$935,283Funds Put to Better Use
Recommendations that funds be put to better use estimate funds that could be used more efficiently. For example, recommendations that funds be put to better use could result in reductions in spending, deobligation of funds, or avoidance of unnecessary spending.
Closed on March 14, 2019Require public housing agencies to run the Enterprise Income Verification existing tenant search during the admission process and retain the results in the tenant file, which would avoid unnecessary costs to HUD’s subsidy programs, allowing an estimated $935,283 to be put to better use.
- Status2017-KC-0002-001-BOpenClosedClosed on February 06, 2018
Require public housing agencies to report the program admission date to any multifamily property listed on the Enterprise Income Verification existing tenant search during the admission process.
- Status2017-KC-0002-001-COpenClosedClosed on February 06, 2018
Require public housing agencies to maintain support for any communication with a multifamily property listed on the Enterprise Income Verification existing tenant search.
- Status2017-KC-0002-001-DOpenClosedClosed on February 26, 2019
Require HUD staff to review Enterprise Income Verification reports from the last 12-month period during onsite housing agency reviews to ensure that any multiple subsidies have been resolved.
- Status2017-KC-0002-001-EOpenClosed$2,244,680Funds Put to Better Use
Recommendations that funds be put to better use estimate funds that could be used more efficiently. For example, recommendations that funds be put to better use could result in reductions in spending, deobligation of funds, or avoidance of unnecessary spending.
Closed on March 14, 2019Implement recommendations 1A through 1D to ensure that $2.24 million in housing assistance funds will be put to better use.
2016-AT-1014 | September 29, 2016
The Broward County Housing Authority, Lauderdale Lakes, FL, Did Not Always Comply With HUD’s and Its Own Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program Requirements
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2016-AT-1014-001-AOpenClosed$28,199Questioned 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.
Reimburse its program $28,199 ($19,771 $7,793 $635) from non-Federal funds for the overpayment of housing assistance and ineligible administrative fees it received for the deficiencies cited in this report.
2016-PH-1006 | August 30, 2016
The Housing Authority of the City of Annapolis, MD, Did Not Always Administer Its Resident Opportunities and Self-Sufficiency Program in Accordance With Applicable Requirements
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2016-PH-1006-001-AOpenClosed$292,611Questioned 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.
Provide documentation to support program accomplishment data related to disbursements totaling $292,611 or repay HUD from non-Federal funds for any amount that it cannot support.
2015-LA-0002 | July 05, 2015
HUD Did Not Provide Adequate Oversight of the Section 184 Indian Home Loan Guarantee Program
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2015-LA-0002-001-AOpenClosed$76,967,618Funds Put to Better Use
Recommendations that funds be put to better use estimate funds that could be used more efficiently. For example, recommendations that funds be put to better use could result in reductions in spending, deobligation of funds, or avoidance of unnecessary spending.
Develop and implement written policies and procedures with an emphasis on increased controls toward the monitoring, tracking, underwriting, and evaluating of the Section 184 program. Implementing these controls would reduce the current high level of risk in the program and result in potentially $76,967,618 in funds to be put to better use (see appendix A).