We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Little Rock’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 funding. The Authority received more than $6.5 million in Recovery Act funds through three grants: one formula and two competitive. Our objectives were to determine whether the Authority (1) obligated and expended its Recovery Act funding in accordance with HUD rules and regulations and (2) followed Recovery Act reporting requirements. The Authority generally complied with Recovery Act requirements.

We audited the Gonzales Housing Authority’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Public Housing Capital Fund formula grant because it met the Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) most recent audit plan objective to contribute to the oversight objectives of the Recovery Act and the San Antonio Office of Public Housing recommended it for audit.

We conducted an audit of the Irvington Housing Authority’s (Authority) Capital Fund programs. The audit objectives were to determine whether Authority officials (1) obligated and expended its Capital Funds in accordance with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations, (2) had a financial management system in place that complied with program requirements and (3) whether the allegations in an anonymous complaint could be substantiated.

We audited the Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority (Authority) administration of its housing assistance payments for leased housing. This is the last of three audit reports we plan to issue on the Authority's program.

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.

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.