Recommendations

Open Recommendations by Oversight Area

Housing Assistance

Community Development

Disaster Recovery

Financial Risk and Accountability

Technology and Cybersecurity

Health and Safety

HUD's Operations

Priority Recommendations
Open Recommendations

View data table

Open Recommendations by Oversight Area
Oversight Area	Priority Recommendations	Open Recommendations
Housing Assistance	75	100
Community Development	3	75
Disaster Recovery	3	82
Financial Risk and Accountability	6	130
Technology and Cybersecurity	4	88
Health and Safety	1	53
HUD's Operations	4	100
Total	96	628

Filter search results using the following criteria

399 Results

Clear

We audited the public housing and Housing Choice Voucher programs at the Housing Authority of the City of Hartford, CT, as a result of a hotline complaint alleging potential noncompliance with procurement requirements. The objective of the audit was to determine whether the Authority complied with…

Support that $2,533,377 in costs were reasonable and allowable program expenses in accordance with requirements or repay from non-Federal funds the appropriate programs any amounts they cannot support.

Repay the appropriate programs from non-Federal funds the $1,524,604 in ineligible funds paid when costs exceeded contract terms.

Determine the appropriateness of the remaining balance of $1,242,154 on unsupported contracts to ensure costs were reasonable, reprocure the subject contracts, or reallocate the funds to the appropriate program.

Reprocure expired service contracts to ensure estimated balances of $375,526 are used on eligible contract.

Reprocure any service contracts necessary and ensure that the contracts are properly awarded in accordance with HUD requirements.

Strengthen and implement controls and procedures over procurement, including monitoring consultants, to ensure that procurement activities meet HUD requirements.

Establish and implement an effective system to ensure that payments do not exceed approved contract values.

Establish and implement an effective system to maintain a complete and accurate contract register to ensure proper contract planning and administration.

Provide technical assistance to the Authority to ensure that responsible staff and board members receive necessary procurement training.

We audited the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) oversight of disaster grantee procurement processes. We conducted the audit after prior audits identified procurement issues. Our objective was to determine whether HUD provided sufficient guidance and oversight to ensure…

Oversight Area: Disaster Relief

Clarify that if a State receives a disaster recovery grant and chooses to certify that its procurement process is equivalent to Federal procurement standards, “equivalent” means that its procurement process fully aligns with, or meets the intent of, each of the Federal procurement standards at 2 CFR 200.318 through 200.326.

Improve its controls to ensure that appropriate staff adequately evaluates the proficiency of State grantee procurement processes for States that select the equivalency option. This includes ensuring that staff that specializes in procurement review the documentation to ensure that State processes fully align with, or meet the intent of, each of the Federal procurement standards at 2 CFR 200.318 through 200.326.

Clarify and improve its guidance for State grantees to explain what it means to have a procurement process that fully aligns with, or meets the intent of, each of the Federal procurement standards at 2 CFR 200.318 through 200.326.

Provide procurement training and technical assistance to State grantees to ensure that they understand the intent of each of the Federal procurement standards at 2 CFR 200.318 through 200.326.

We audited Schwenckfeld Manor because it was a high-risk multifamily project on our multifamily risk assessment for projects within our region and we had never audited it. Our audit objectives were to determine whether the project owner (1) disbursed project funds for costs that were reasonable,…

Provide documentation to show that payroll costs totaling $2,019,496 and any payroll costs incurred outside our audit period, including fiscal year 2017, were reasonable and necessary expenses for the operation of the project or repay the project from nonproject funds for any amount that it cannot support.

Provide documentation to show that other direct costs totaling $56,021 and any direct costs incurred outside our audit period, including fiscal year 2017, were reasonable and necessary expenses for the operation of the project or repay the project from nonproject funds for any amount that it cannot support.

Develop and implement controls to ensure that the project complies with the regulatory agreement and applicable HUD requirements.

Provide training and technical assistance to the owner and its management agent to ensure compliance with the terms of its regulatory agreement and applicable HUD requirements.

Submit a project owner’s or management agent’s certification for identity-of-interest agents, a management entity profile, a management plan, and other required documentation for review and approval.

Request retroactive approval of the fees paid to the identity-of-interest entity totaling $402,975 and any fees incurred outside our audit period, including fiscal year 2017, when submitting the project owner’s or management agent’s certification for identity-of-interest agents in response to recommendation 2A. If the request is not approved retroactively, the owner should repay the project from nonproject funds for the amount that was not approved.

Evaluate the owner’s capability to effectively manage the project and consider whether independent professional management services are needed.

Pursue civil money penalties and administrative sanctions, as appropriate, against the owner and its parent company and their principals for their part in the violations cited in this report.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General audited Majestic Management, LLC’s management agent activities for the public housing program at the East St. Louis Housing Authority. Our objective was to determine whether Majestic Management made only…

Oversight Area: Rental Assistance

Require the Authority to require Majestic Management to develop and implement a process to ensure that it makes any needed adjustments to employee payroll and transfers accurate amounts from the project accounts for payroll.

Require the Authority to require Majestic Management to design and implement a process to ensure that actual staff hours are accurately tracked and only dedicated employees are paid from project funds.

Require the Authority and Majestic Management to support $568,023 spent on payroll allocated to the projects or repay the projects from non-Federal funds.

Require the Authority and Majestic Management to reimburse from non-Federal funds the $109,665 in ineligible expenses that Majestic Management charged to the projects.

Require the Authority and Majestic Management to repay any excessive annual leave that Majestic Management paid to its employees from project funds when its contract terminated in 2017.

Require the Authority to provide training on procurement requirements in public housing to all Majestic Management employees working at the projects.

Require the Authority and Majestic Management to support that the $487,422 spent on goods and services for the projects was a reasonable cost and the goods and services were procured from eligible vendors or repay the projects from non-Federal funds.

Require the Authority to review all other payments to the sampled vendors to confirm that the costs were reasonable and the goods and services were procured from eligible vendors or repay the projects from non-Federal funds.

Require the Authority to monitor Majestic Management to ensure that the recent training was effective and the new checklist is in use and effective.

Require the Authority to recompute the rents for the households noted above and as necessary for errors made by Majestic Management, reimburse tenants for overcharged rent from operating funds or rent credit, and enter into repayment agreements with tenants if they were undercharged based on nondisclosure of income.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General audited the HUD’s travel and purchase card programs for fiscal year 2016 based on (1) our annual risk assessment of these programs and (2) our requirement under the Charge Card Abuse Prevention Act of 2012 to…

Oversight Area: HUD Business Functions

Develop and implement adequate written policies to ensure that cardholders obtain appropriate authorizations to support charges to their government travel cards and establish a process for submitting a written request to OCFO for a merchant code unblock.

Develop and implement written policies to ensure that program offices adequately follow up on identified questionable charges and inform OCFO of significant travel card violations when they are identified.

Review the identified 3,160 transactions totaling $555,337 to determine whether they were for official government travel. If they were not for official travel, OCFO should determine whether the cardholders paid the credit bill for the improper charges, request reimbursement when applicable, and take all other appropriate actions.

Strengthen current purchase card controls to ensure that purchases are supported by all required approvals before the purchase is made.

Review the four cardholders with incomplete approvals and determine whether the purchases were allowable and proper. If they were not for official government use, OCPO should determine whether the cardholders paid the credit bill for the improper charges, request reimbursement when applicable, and ensure that appropriate administrative sanctions are taken.

We audited the Chester Housing Authority’s Housing Choice Voucher program because (1) it recently regained control of its operations after 20 years in receivership, (2) it had 1,566 vouchers and received more than $14.9 million in fiscal year 2016, and (3) we had not audited its program. Our audit…

Certify, along with the owners of the 61 units cited in the finding, that the applicable housing quality standards violations have been corrected.

Reimburse its program $46,605 from non-Federal funds ($44,214 for housing assistance payments and $2,391 in associated administrative fees) for the 22 units that materially failed to meet HUD’s housing quality standards.

Develop and implement procedures and controls to monitor the inspection process to ensure that program units meet housing quality standards, thereby ensuring that an estimated $2,668,680 in program funds is spent for units that are decent, safe, and sanitary.

We audited the functionality of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) New Core Financial Management Solution as part of the internal control assessments required for the fiscal year 2017 financial statement audit under the Chief Financial Officer’s Act of 1990. Our objective…

Oversight Area: HUD Business Functions

The OIG has determined that the contents of this recommendation would not be appropriate for public disclosure and has therefore limited its distribution to selected officials.

We audited the Puerto Rico Department of Housing’s multifamily special escrow funds. This audit was the result of a referral from the San Juan Office of Multifamily Housing Programs. The objectives of the audit were to determine whether the Department administered and disbursed its escrow funds…

Submit a plan showing how it will use the $7,984,429 in unspent escrow funds to meet program objectives and increase the supply of low- and moderate-income housing for the residents of Puerto Rico, including a schedule HUD can track to ensure the expenditure.

Submit supporting documentation so HUD can reevaluate the feasibility of the three activities and determine the eligibility of the $2,432,271 in escrow funds already disbursed. If HUD determines that an activity has been canceled or is not feasible, the Department must reimburse the escrow account from non-Federal funds.

Submit a plan showing how it will proceed regarding the Yabucoa, Juncos, and Barceloneta housing projects, including a schedule that HUD can track to ensure their completion.

Submit supporting documentation showing the reasonableness and allowability of $2,176,733 disbursed or reimburse its escrow account from non-Federal funds.

Develop and implement written policies detailing procedures and responsibilities related to program administration and monitoring of the escrow program.

Transfer all escrow funds to a financial institution that is supervised by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the National Credit Union Administration and ensure that all deposits are secured by the Federal Government. Any amount not recovered from the Development Bank must be reimbursed to the escrow account from non-Federal funds.

Submit required certifications and supporting documentation showing that residents of escrow-funded activities met the established income limit requirements. Any amounts determined ineligible must be reimbursed to the escrow account from non-Federal funds.

We audited the Housing Authority of the Township of Irvington, NJ, regarding the administration of its public housing program because it was classified as a troubled public housing agency and based on a complaint from the union representing its maintenance and clerical employees. The complaint…

Oversight Area: Rental Assistance

We recommend that the Acting Director of HUD’s Newark Office of Public Housing instruct Authority officials to provide supporting documentation to justify the $88,534 in unsupported travel and training costs related to out-of-State trainings, meetings, and conferences. Any amount determined to be ineligible should be repaid from non-Federal funds to the Operating Fund.

We recommend that the Acting Director of HUD’s Newark Office of Public Housing instruct Authority officials to provide supporting documentation to justify the $27,599 in unsupported training travel and per diem expenses related to quarterly meetings and trainings offered by HAI. Any amount determined to be ineligible should be repaid from non-Federal funds to the Operating Fund.

We recommend that the Acting Director of HUD’s Newark Office of Public Housing instruct Authority officials to provide supporting documentation to justify the $27,487 reimbursed to Authority officials for various costs, such as health coverage waiver incentives, supplies, food, and decorations. Any amount determined to be ineligible should be repaid from non-Federal funds to the Operating Fund.

We recommend that the Acting Director of HUD’s Newark Office of Public Housing instruct Authority officials to implement policies and procedures to ensure accountability for travel and training costs and require the Authority to maintain adequate supporting documents for travel, training, health coverage waiver incentives, supplies, food, decorations, and any other costs charged to the Capital Fund and Operating Fund to ensure that costs were actually incurred, necessary, reasonable and allowable.

We recommend that the Acting Director of HUD’s Newark Office of Public Housing instruct Authority officials to reimburse the Operating Fund from non-Federal funds for $61,145 in ineligible expenditures for personal expenses, such as meals, grocery items, gift cards, flowers, golf, an award dinner, Costco and AAA memberships, and a church deduction.

We recommend that the Acting Director of HUD’s Newark Office of Public Housing instruct Authority officials to reimburse the Operating Fund from non-Federal funds for $8,190 in ineligible salary advance.

We recommend that the Acting Director of HUD’s Newark Office of Public Housing instruct Authority officials to reimburse the Operating Fund from non-Federal funds for the $4,048 in ineligible civil service fines.

We recommend that the Acting Director of HUD’s Newark Office of Public Housing instruct Authority officials to obtain retroactive approval from HUD for the $90,000 lawsuit settlement related to a former employee. If approval is not obtained, the Authority should reimburse $90,000 to the Operating Fund from non-Federal funds.

We recommend that the Acting Director of HUD’s Newark Office of Public Housing instruct Authority officials to obtain retroactive approval from HUD for the pending litigation related to issues with the elevators. If approval is not obtained, the Authority should withdraw the lawsuit.

We recommend that the Acting Director of HUD’s Newark Office of Public Housing instruct Authority officials to provide documentation to support that $13,340 in rent collected in March 2016 was deposited into an appropriate bank account or repay the Operating Fund from non-Federal funds for any amount not properly deposited.

We recommend that the Acting Director of HUD’s Newark Office of Public Housing instruct Authority officials to provide documentation to justify the $106,971 in unsupported rent that was written off for 52 tenants. Any amount determined to be ineligible should be repaid from non-Federal funds to the Operating Fund.

We recommend that the Acting Director of HUD’s Newark Office of Public Housing instruct Authority officials to collect $7,164 in outstanding rent from the resident commissioner and if past-due rent is not paid, take appropriate legal action.

We recommend that the Acting Director of HUD’s Newark Office of Public Housing instruct Authority officials to reimburse the program income account from non-Federal funds for $21,857 in ineligible expenditures for golf outings, banquets, or dinner shows.

We recommend that the Acting Director of HUD’s Newark Office of Public Housing instruct Authority officials to provide documentation to justify $37,671 that did not have receipts or other support showing how these transactions were used for low-income housing and benefited the residents or repay the program income account from non-Federal funds for any amount not supported.

We recommend that the Acting Director of HUD’s Newark Office of Public Housing instruct Authority officials to develop and implement an appropriate policy for program income, including the proper use, accounting, and reporting of program income in accordance with the Federal definition and treatment of program income.

We recommend that the Acting Director of HUD’s Newark Office of Public Housing instruct Authority officials to provide documentation to show that the $710,721 paid for services procured was for costs that were reasonable or repay from non-Federal funds approximately $500,000 to the Operating Fund and approximately $200,000 to the Capital Fund. Footnote: Regulations at 24 CFR 905.306(f) require that all capital funds be spent within 48 months after the date on which they become available. Funds that have not been properly spent within 48 months have to be recaptured and returned to the U.S. Treasury.

We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Departmental Enforcement Center pursue administrative sanctions against any current or former Authority officials found to have spent public housing program funds for personal or unallowable use.

We audited the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) procurement of major service contracts by the Office of the Chief Procurement Officer (OCPO) as part of our fiscal year 2016 audit plan and due to a hotline complaint regarding a contract for scanning services. Our audit…

Oversight Area: HUD Business Functions

Provide adequate documentation to support the $21,373,462 in unreasonable and unnecessary obligated funds.

Strengthen and implement acquisition controls to ensure that proper cost and price documentation is obtained, adequate monitoring is conducted, adequate market research is conducted and that contractors are evaluated to assess their capability to perform work, and required contract documentation is maintained in the file to ensure that $9,645,864 that is yet to be used will not be spent for unreasonable and unnecessary costs.

Seek reimbursement for $161,718 in ineligible funds disbursed for equipment and support services not specified in a scanning services contract.

Open Recommendations by Oversight Area

Oversight Area

Status

Priority

The Housing Authority of the City of Hartford, CT, Did Not Always Comply With Procurement Requirements

HUD Did Not Provide Sufficient Guidance and Oversight To Ensure That State Disaster Grantees Followed Proficient Procurement Processes

The Owner of Schwenckfeld Manor, Lansdale, PA, Did Not Always Manage Its HUD-Insured Property in Accordance With Applicable HUD Requirements

Majestic Management, LLC, St. Louis, MO, a Management Agent for the East St. Louis Housing Authority, Mismanaged Its Public Housing Program

Some HUD Employees Used Travel Cards for Potentially Improper Purchases and Purchase Cards Without All Required Approvals

The Chester Housing Authority, Chester, PA, Did Not Always Ensure That Its Program Units Met Housing Quality Standards

New Core Project: Although Transaction Processing Had Improved Weaknesses Remained

The Puerto Rico Department of Housing, San Juan, PR, Did Not Properly Administer Its Multifamily Special Escrow Funds

The Irvington, NJ, Housing Authority Did Not Always Administer Its Public Housing Program in Accordance With Program Requirements

HUD’s OCPO Did Not Always Comply With Acquisition Requirements When Planning and Monitoring Service Contracts

Stay Informed