The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Office of Inspector General audited the Peoria Housing Authority's (Authority) Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program (program). The audit was part of the activities in our fiscal year 2007 annual audit plan. We selected the Authority based upon our analysis of risk factors relating to the housing agencies in Region V's jurisdiction. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority administered its program in accordance with HUD's requirements.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Office of Inspector General audited the Housing Choice Voucher program of the Des Moines Municipal Housing Agency (Agency) to determine whether the Agency (1) properly considered family composition and reasonable accommodation requests when applying payment standards and (2) took appropriate action when the tenants' files had indications of unreported income. We found that the Agency allowed 59 of the 148 households we reviewed to have units that were larger than permitted by regular subsidy standards.

HUD OIG performed corrective action verification for an audit recommendation cited in the audit report, Cuthbert Housing Authority, Public Housing Programs (2004-AT-1001) issued January 15, 2004. The purpose of the corrective action verification was to determine whether the selected audit recommendation was implemented and expended its funds in accordance with HUD regulations.

We audited the Housing Authority of the County of Marin's (Authority) Section 8 funds transfer and public housing program (program) tenant rent calculations. Our objectives were to determine (1) whether the transfer of Section 8 operating reserve funds to the public housing program in fiscal year 2006 was made in compliance with HUD regulations and (2) whether the Authority calculated public housing tenant rents in accordance with HUD requirements.

We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Calexico (Authority) in response to a request from our Office of Investigation and the FBI. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority complied with HUD's rules and regulations with respect to its public housing program. We found the Authority improperly used Section 5(h) program funds for the acquisition and operation of the Second Street Apartments.

We reviewed the Housing Authority of the County of San Joaquin's (the Authority) capital fund program to determine whether it used capital funds in accordance with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) rules and regulations. The Authority did not use capital funds in accordance with requirements.

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 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.