We audited the Housing Authority of the County of Los Angeles’ (Authority) Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority determined tenant eligibility and performed annual reexaminations in accordance with HUD rules and regulations. Although we did not identify any tenants that were not eligible for the program, the Authority did not comply with HUD’s requirements or its own administrative plan in performing reexaminations.

We audited the Anaheim Housing Authority’s (Authority) tenant eligibility and reexamination policies and procedures for its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program (program). The objective of the audit was to determine whether the Authority followed HUD rules and regulations in determining tenant eligibility, rent calculations, and rent reasonableness.

We audited the City of Phoenix Housing Department’s (Housing Department) Housing Choice Voucher program. We conducted the audit as part of the Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) annual plan. The Housing Department was selected for review because it is the largest housing authority in the state of Arizona and had not previously been audited by OIG. The objective of the audit was to determine whether the Housing Department supported tenant eligibility and rent determinations in accordance with HUD requirements.

We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Eloy (Authority) because the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) had rated the Authority as troubled for five years. In 2007, the Authority had significant financials problems and terminated its executive director. We determined that the Authority did not have adequate internal controls to safeguard assets and reasonably ensure that HUD funds were used in accordance with program requirements.

We audited the Fort Smith Housing Authority (Authority) in response to a request from the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Office of Public Housing.

We performed a corrective action verification of HUD's actions in implementing recommendation 1F from our audit of the Housing Authority of Maricopa County's Mixed Finance Development Activities (Rose Terrace and Maricopa Revitalization), Audit Report 2005-LA-1002, issued March 14, 2005. The purpose of the corrective action verification was to determine whether HUD officials appropriately closed audit recommendation 1F in accordance with the management decision dated July 12, 2005.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General audited HUD's requirement prohibiting lifetime registered sex offenders from admission to HUD-subsidized housing. Our audit objective was to determine the extent to which HUD-subsidized housing was occupied by lifetime registered sex offenders. HUD subsidized an estimated 2,094 to 3,046 households that included lifetime registered sex offenders.

We performed a review of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) oversight of public housing agencies’ unrestricted and restricted Section 8 administrative fee reserves. We initiated this review because in our audits of two housing authorities, neither agency was able to clearly account for its administrative fee reserve funds and demonstrate that they were used appropriately.

At the request of the Office of Public and Indian Housing (PIH), we performed a limited review of a random sample of 112 March and April 2009 Disaster Housing Assistance Program (DHAP) payments for Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita evacuees. The objective was to verify whether the authorized tenants lived in the residences in March and April 2009. Testing identified 20 instances of potentially ineligible payments totaling $9,478 and some other matters that warrant PIH's attention.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Office of the Inspector General reviewed HUD's Front End risk Assessment (FERA) for the Capital Fund Formula and Competitive Grant Programs funded under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). Our objectives were to determine whether HUD’s front-end risk assessment of the programs complied with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance for implementing the Recovery Act, and whether HUD’s risk mitigation activities were adequate in relation to the assessed level of risk.