We audited the Compton Housing Authority’s (Authority) Section 8 program as the result of the Los Angeles Office of Public Housing’s concerns regarding its program administration. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority used Section 8 program funds in accordance with HUD rules and regulations. The Authority did not use Section 8 program funds in accordance with HUD rules and regulations as it did not fully comply with portability procedures and responsibilities. It was not fully reimbursed for housing assistance payments made for its portability tenants.

We audited the Housing Authority of the City and County of San Francisco’s (Authority) Section 8 housing quality standards inspections of Housing Choice Voucher program (voucher)-funded housing units. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority conducted its housing quality standards inspections in accordance with HUD rules and regulations. We found that the Authority did not conduct its housing quality standards inspections of voucher-funded housing units in accordance with HUD rules and regulations.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Office of Inspector General audited the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program of the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC). We wanted to determine whether AHFC admitted and housed tenants properly, calculated tenant rents correctly, and maintained an effective quality control program. We also wanted to determine whether AHFC properly administered its HUD Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing program (VASH).

As part of the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Office of Inspector General's obligation to ensure accountability and transparency in use of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) funds, we performed a review to assess the Housing Authority of New Orleans' (Authority) capacity to administer $34.5 million in ARRA funding. Our objective was to evaluate the Authority's capacity and risks in the following areas: basic internal controls, financial operations, procurement, and outputs/outcomes.

We audited the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) controls over Housing Choice Voucher program payments for deceased tenants and invalid Social Security numbers as part of the regional audit plan. In previous audits of public housing agencies (agencies), we identified problems with excess housing assistance payments for deceased tenants.

We audited the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) compliance with obligation, recapture, and reallocation requirements for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) Public Housing Capital Fund program. Specifically, its plans to recapture unobligated Recovery Act Public Housing Capital Fund formula grants by the March 17, 2010 obligation deadline and to reallocate the recaptured funds.

We reviewed the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s) guidance on using American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) capital funding for physical needs assessments. Our objective was to determine whether HUD’s guidance to grantees on using Recovery Act capital funds for physical needs assessments was sufficient to ensure grantees had the information needed to avoid missing the grant obligation deadline of March 17, 2010. HUD took actions in a timely manner to address concerns raised during the review.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Office of Inspector General audited HUD's Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs to determine whether HUD reasonably ensured that public housing agencies properly managed their housing choice voucher net restricted assets and to determine whether HUD appropriately awarded 2009 set-aside fund awards for unforeseen circumstances and higher than average leasing.

We initiated the audit of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) efforts to recover the City of New London, CT, Housing Authority (Authority) due to its longstanding troubled status. The Authority has had significant management deficiencies for more than 10 years, and HUD identified the Authority as “overall troubled” in May of 2004.

We completed a corrective action verification review of the audit recommendations for findings 1 and 2 of Audit Report Number 2006-NY-1005, issued February 21, 2006 pertaining to the general operations of the Utica Municipal Housing Authority, Utica, New York (Authority). 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.