The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Office of Inspector General audited HUD's Enterprise Income Verification (EIV) system. HUD implemented the EIV system nationwide for public housing authorities to use to identify and reduce tenant income and subsidy errors within the Section 8 and public housing programs. Our objective was to determine whether HUD provided adequate guidance and training to its EIV coordinators and housing authority users. We found that HUD provided adequate guidance and training to its EIV coordinators and housing authority users.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Office of Inspector General audited HUD's community service and self-sufficiency requirement (the requirement) as a result of news media reports that the requirement is rarely enforced. Our audit objective was to determine whether HUD ensured that housing authorities properly administered the requirement. We found that HUD did not have adequate controls to ensure that housing authorities properly administered the requirement.

HUD OIG performed a corrective action verification of audit recommendations cited in the audit report, Opelika Housing Authority, Public Housing Programs (2004-AT-1011) issued July 23, 2004. The purpose of the corrective action verification was to determine whether the selected audit recommendations were implemented and the deficiencies cited in the report were corrected. The Authority implemented the necessary corrective action for the recommendations.

HUD OIG performed a corrective action verification of the audit recommendations cited in the audit report, Miami-Dade Housing Agency (Agency) Did Not Ensure Section 8-Assisted Units Met Housing Quality Standards (2006-AT-1001) issued December 21, 2005. The purpose of the corrective action verification was to determine if the selected audit recommendations were implemented and the deficiencies reported in the audit report corrected. The Agency disregarded the management decisions and did not implement the promised corrective action.

As part of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of the Inspector General's (OIG) strategic plan, we audited HUD's controls over the physical condition of Section 8 housing stock for the Housing Choice Voucher program. Our objective was to determine whether HUD had adequate controls to ensure that its Section 8 housing stock was in material compliance with housing quality standards. We found that HUD did not have adequate controls to ensure that its Section 8 housing stock was in material compliance with housing quality standards.

HUD-OIG audited the Miami Dade Housing Agency (Agency) capital fund program. The objective of the audit was to determine whether the Agency had adequate controls to ensure that contracts were awarded in accordance with regulations and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requirements. The Agency did not have adequate controls to ensure that contracts were awarded in accordance with regulations and HUD requirements. It did not maintain documentation supporting that contracts were awarded with full and open competition.

As part of HUD OIG's strategic plan, an audit was conducted of HUD's Atlanta Office of Public and Indian Housing oversight of the Housing Authority of DeKalb County's compliance with its memorandum of agreement. The primary objective was to determine whether Public Housing adequately monitored the Authority's implementation of operating improvements required in the agreement.

At the request of two United States Senators, we initiated an audit of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) administration of the Housing Authority of New Orleans (Authority). Our audit objective was to determine whether HUD's receiver provided adequate management oversight to ensure the Authority complied with HUD's requirements.

We audited Oneida Housing Authority (Authority) to determine whether the Authority calculated program income for NAHASDA-assisted 1937 Act properties in accordance with applicable U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) guidance, regulations, and requirements and to observe uses of revenue from NAHASDA-assisted 1937 Act properties. The Authority failed to track Block Grant rehabilitation or capital expenses for each property and restrict nonprogram income from its Mutual Help program.

At HUD's request, we audited the Housing Choice Voucher program of the Richland Housing Authority (Authority). HUD was concerned about the results of an audit of the Authority performed by the Washington State Auditor's Office. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority made ineligible purchases with program funds. We found that the Authority did not track its program expenses. Also, it charged more than $57,000 in unsupported and ineligible costs to the program.