We completed a corrective action verification of a recommendation made to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Office of Public and Indian Housing (PIH) pertaining to our review of the City of Hawthorne, CA’s Section 8 program, Audit Report 2011-LA-1008, which was issued March 28, 2011. The purpose of the corrective action verification was to determine whether HUD officials appropriately closed audit recommendation 1A.

We conducted a limited scope review of the Philadelphia Housing Authority based on questions surrounding the abrupt departure of the Authority’s executive director in June 2012. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority’s executive director improperly used U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funds by providing improper gifts or unsupported promotions to a senior staff member with whom he had an improper relationship.

We audited the Hoboken, NJ, Housing Authority’s administration of its Recovery Act Capital Fund program in support of HUD OIG’s audit plan goals to oversee Recovery Act-funded activity and improve HUD’s execution of and accountability for its fiscal responsibilities. We selected the Authority based on a risk assessment, which considered the Authority’s funding, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) risk analysis, and prior OIG audits.

The U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General audited the Wichita, KS, Housing Authority’s Housing Choice Voucher program. We selected the Authority for review because it received more than $12 million in Section 8 funding in both 2011 and 2010. Also, it is one of the largest housing authorities in Kansas and had not been reviewed by HUD OIG.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of the Inspector General (OIG) audited HUD’s Public Housing Capital Fund program and American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act) Capital Fund program monitoring procedures because it was included in our annual audit plan and was prompted by a prior external audit (OIG audit report 2011-LA-1802, issued May 5, 2011).

The U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General audited HUD’s Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC) to determine whether it ensured that independent auditors followed Statement on Auditing Standards (SAS) 99 audit requirements. REAC did not always ensure that independent auditors followed SAS 99 requirements. It did not identify deficiencies in 10 of the 11 deficient engagements we reviewed. For the one other engagement, REAC identified a SAS 99 deficiency but did not include it in its report.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of the Inspector General (OIG) audited the Stark Metropolitan Housing Authority’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Public Housing Capital Fund stimulus formula grant as part of the activities in our fiscal year 2012 annual audit plan. We selected the Authority based upon risk factors related to the housing agencies in Region 5’s Region 5 includes the States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin. jurisdiction.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of the Inspector General (OIG) audited the Saginaw Housing Commission’s Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program. The audit was part of the activities in our fiscal year 2012 annual audit plan. We selected the Commission based upon our previous audits of its use of Federal funds and a request from HUD management to perform a comprehensive review of its programs. Our objective was to determine whether the Commission operated its program in accordance with HUD’s and its own requirements.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General audited the Flint Housing Commission’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Public Housing Capital Fund competitive grants. We selected the Commission based upon our analysis of risk factors relating to the housing agencies in Region 5’s jurisdiction. Our objective was to determine whether the Commission administered its grants in accordance with Recovery Act, HUD’s, and its own requirements. This is the first of two planned audit reports on the Commission’s Recovery Act grants.

We audited the Allegheny County Housing Authority’s Housing Choice Voucher program because (1) the Authority received more than $27.3 million in Housing Choice Voucher funding in fiscal year 2011, (2) an article in the October 22, 2011, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette described housing quality standards problems with a housing unit participating in the Authority’s program, and (3) we had never audited the Authority’s Housing Choice Voucher program. The audit objective was to determine whether the Authority ensured that its Housing Choice Voucher program units met the U.S.