The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Office of Inspector General audited the DuPage Housing Authority’s (Authority) Section 8 Project-Based Voucher program (program). The audit was part of the activities in our fiscal year 2009 annual audit plan. We selected the Authority as part of our internal audit of HUD’s oversight of the program and based upon our analysis of risk factors relating to the housing authorities in Region V’s jurisdiction.

We conducted a review of the Guam Housing and Urban Renewal Authority (the authority) because it received more than $1.9 million in Capital Fund Recovery Act Grant (grant) funding as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Our objectives were to determine whether the authority (1) had effective and efficient operations in place to manage its grant-funded projects and (2) had administered its grant funds in accordance with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) rules and regulations.

We audited the Manchester Housing Authority (Authority) in Manchester, CT, because it obligated the majority of its $520,654 Public Housing Capital Fund Stimulus (Formula) Recovery Act Funded grant awarded under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) just before the required obligation deadline.

We audited the Hartford Housing Authority (Authority) because it was awarded a $5 million Public Housing Capital Fund grant under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) and obligated the majority of the grant just before the required obligation deadline.

We audited the State of Connecticut Department of Social Services’ (agency) administration of its housing quality standards program for its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program (Voucher program) as part of our fiscal year 2009 audit plan. The agency was selected based upon our analysis of risk factors relating to rental housing authorities in Region 1.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General, reviewed the Housing Authority of the City of Pueblo, CO (Authority), based on out risk assessment considering the amount of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) capital funds it received and expended along with other evaluative factors.

We conducted a capacity review of the Navajo Housing Authority’s (Authority) operations. The objective of the review was to evaluate the Authority’s capacity to administer its American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act) funds and identify related potential internal control weaknesses that could impact its ability to properly administer the funds. We did not find evidence indicating that the Authority lacked the basic capacity to administer its Recovery Act funding.

We reviewed the Office of Native American Programs' (ONAP) Front-End Risk Assessment (FERA) for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) funding for Native American Block Grant housing programs as part of our annual audit plan. Our objective was to determine whether the FERA complied with the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) guidance for implementation of the Recovery Act, the Recovery Act's streamlined FERA process, and U.S.

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.