As part of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of the Inspector General's (OIG) strategic plan, we audited the Municipality of Caguas (authority) Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program. Our audit objectives were to determine whether Section 8 units met housing quality standards in accordance with HUD requirements and whether the authority properly determined housing assistance subsidies. Of the 10 units inspected, eight (80 percent) did not meet minimum housing quality standards, and three of those were in material noncompliance.

As part of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of the Inspector General's (OIG) strategic plan, we audited the Municipality of Ponce (authority) Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General audited the Manhattan, KS Housing Authority’s administration of its Recovery Act capital fund grants. Our objectives were to determine whether the Authority executed a contract change order in compliance with HUD procurement regulations and the Authority’s procurement policy and accurately and completely reported Recovery Act grant information in FederalReporting.gov. The Authority improperly executed a contract change order.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General audited the Topeka, KS Housing Authority’s administration of its Recovery Act competitive capital fund grants. We selected the Authority for review because it spent a large amount of Recovery Act funds.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Office of Inspector General reviewed the Aurora Housing Authority to determine whether the Authority obligated its funds by the deadline, adequately managed its procurements and contracts, and accurately reported its Recovery Act information in FederalReporting.gov.

We audited the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Office of Public Housing field office in Phoenix, Arizona (Public Housing). The objective of the audit was to determine whether Public Housing’s procedures for monitoring the Nogales Housing Authority (Authority) were effective. The audit was started because Public Housing performed several monitoring reviews at the Authority; however, there were indications that some of the problems found had not been corrected.

We completed a capacity review of the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles’ (Authority) capital fund grant awarded under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) program. We performed the audit because Recovery Act reviews are part of the Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) annual plan and the Authority was awarded a significant amount of program funds.

In response to a hotline complaint, we reviewed the Housing Authority of the City of Napa's (the Authority) Section 8 program. The purpose was to determine whether concerns raised in the complaint relating to misappropriation of Section 8 funds had merit and whether allegations of improper rent increases for the Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy (Mod Rehab) and Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher programs were valid.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducted a review to determine whether a former Executive Director of the Superior, WI, Housing Authority, Debra Waterman, charged personal items to the housing authority credit card. We identified approximately $100,000 of unsupported or unallowable expenditures made by Ms. Waterman. The Superior Housing Authority filed a complaint against Ms. Waterman in an attempt to recover the misappropriated funds.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General audited the East St. Louis Housing Authority’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Public Housing Capital Fund program. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority (1) complied with applicable procurement requirements and properly managed its Recovery Act contracts, (2) properly drew down and expended funds for eligible activities, and (3) properly reported its Recovery Act activities.