HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress (April 1, 2022, to September 30, 2022)
Summary
A Semiannual Report to Congress of the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for the period April 1, 2022, to September 30, 2022. Its contents list a Profile of Performance, a message from the Inspector General, a snapshot and sections on housing, public and Indian housing, and community planning and development. The document is very long, and only its front matter was read.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
- Issuer
- Congressional materials
- Document type
- Gaps D5A1B67Dc4B1
- Case
- Gaps D5A1B67Dc4B1
Cite this document
“HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress (April 1, 2022, to September 30, 2022).”
Original at www.hudoig.gov. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/gaps-d5a1b67dc4b1/
, SHA-256 d5a1b67dc4b19060709ae037a754504926e6edffdbc9e2a042b28bfebd274f16.Full text
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
SEMIANNUAL REPORT
TO CONGRESS
For the period April 1, 2022, to September 30, 2022
HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 1
PROFILE OF PERFORMANCE....................................................................................3
A MESSAGE FROM THE INSPECTOR GENERAL............................................4
SNAPSHOT.............................................................................................................................6
HOUSING. ............................................................................................................................ 10
PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING............................................................................ 15
TABLE of
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT........................................ 19
ADDITIONAL REPORTS............................................................................................. 23
CONTENTS LEGISLATION, REGULATIONS, AND OTHER DIRECTIVES................. 27
REPORT RESOLUTION............................................................................................... 36
WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION COORDINATOR.................................. 47
PEER REVIEW. ................................................................................................................. 49
APPENDIXES..................................................................................................................... 51
Appendix 1 - Reports Issued.............................................................................. 52
Appendix 2 - Tables................................................................................................. 57
Appendix 3 - Inspector General Empowerment Act............................ 80
Appendix 4 - Reporting Requirements........................................................ 86
Appendix 5 - Acronyms and Abbreviations.............................................. 88
Appendix 6 - OIG Directory................................................................................ 90
| HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 2
AUDIT RESULTS This Reporting Period Fiscal Year 2022
Recommended funds put to better use $131,396,220 $7,075,520,237
Questioned costs $5,544,208 $11,969,302
Collections from audits $11,295,572 $18,130,811
Administrative sanctions 1 2
Civil actions 0 0
Subpoenas 0 1
PROFILE of Personnel actions 0 0
PERFORMANCE INVESTIGATIVE RESULTS
Total restitutions and judgments
This Reporting Period
$19,687,745
Fiscal Year 2022
$40,503,582
For the period April 1, 2022, to Total recoveries and receivables to HUD programs $7,578,993 $10,695,971
September 30, 2022
Arrests 27 62
Indictments and informations 45 96
Convictions, pleas, and pretrial diversions 47 96
Civil actions 9 23
Total administrative sanctions 11 34
Suspensions 0 7
Debarments 2 7
Program or professional license-certification 3 4
1
Includes employee actions (reprimands, suspensions, Evictions 2 3
demotions, or terminations of the employees of Federal, Other1 4 13
State or local governments or of Federal contractors and
grantees as the result of OIG activities) and limited denials Search warrants 24 37
of participation
Subpoenas 310 665
Profile of Performance | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 3
A MESSAGE FROM THE
INSPECTOR GENERAL
I am pleased to submit the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General’s (OIG)
Semiannual Report to Congress, which covers the period April 1, 2022, through September 30, 2022. My office has continued to
focus our independent audits, evaluations, and investigations on the most pressing issues facing HUD. We understand the need
to do the right work at the right time and remain steadfast in holding ourselves and the Department accountable for protecting
the integrity of taxpayer-funded programs and those who rely on HUD’s programs for their critical housing needs.
We have taken a forward leaning approach towards helping HUD achieve its mission of providing housing that is decent, safe,
sanitary, and in good repair. During this semiannual reporting period, we have focused our resources on developing high impact
oversight projects directed at protecting HUD beneficiaries from health and safety hazards in HUD-assisted housing.
Our Office of Evaluations produced Risk Indicators of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Public Housing Agencies, identifying nine
indicators of potential risk for lead-based paint hazards in HUD-assisted housing, five of which had not been included in HUD’s
current list of risk indicators. Further, applying these nine risk indicators, the report identified five HUD regions and six states
within those regions with the most potential of having PHAs with lead-based paint hazards. We produced this report to HUD as a
resource in its efforts to reduce lead hazards for its beneficiaries.
Further, we have initiated and are carrying out multiple oversight projects directed at addressing and improving health and safety
conditions for HUD beneficiaries, to include:
• Philadelphia Housing Authority Management of Lead Based Paint in Public Housing
• HUD’s Oversight of the Physical Conditions of PBRA and FHA-insured PBV Units Converted Under the RAD Program
• Carbon-Monoxide in HUD-Assisted Housing
• HUD’s Oversight of the Physical Conditions of Public Housing Agencies’ Developments
• HUD’s Processes for Addressing Cases of Children Residing in Public Housing with Elevated Blood Lead Levels
A Message from the Inspector General | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 4
Finally, in early October, we issued two more work products aimed at Notably, after receiving our draft report, HUD closed all three of our open
protecting HUD beneficiaries from lead hazards: A Management Alert recommendations concerning contaminated sites. We commend HUD
to notify HUD of significant gaps in its program that pose a risk to HUD for its steadfast commitment towards addressing its top management
beneficiaries, and an audit report regarding HUD’s Oversight of Lead- challenges and look forward to continuing to work with the Department
Based Paint Hazard Remediation in Public Housing. Our goal through to address its remaining open recommendations.
this robust oversight is to help HUD ensure that the laws and regulations
that are in place to protect HUD beneficiaries are followed so that our Our team continues to actively collaborate with the Pandemic Response
vulnerable communities who rely on HUD assistance are afforded safe Accountability Committee (PRAC). We recognize that it is our joint
and decent living conditions. responsibility to help protect the billions of dollars in taxpayer funds
appropriated by Congress to support families and communities
Recognizing the need to understand these and other challenges, during throughout the country impacted by the pandemic. This semiannual
this reporting period, we have proactively engaged in listening sessions period, our office collaborated with the PRAC to develop a Fraud Risk
with industry groups, Congress, HUD, and other stakeholders. Our Inventory for the Tenant- and Project-Based Rental Assistance, HOME,
goal was to better understand HUD’s capacity and resource limitations, and Operating Fund Programs’ CARES and ARP Act Funds. This report
which impact its ability to efficiently administer its programs; barriers identified six overall, and three program-specific, fraud risk factors, and
HUD stakeholders face in obtaining and administering HUD program an inventory of 66 potential fraud schemes that HUD had not previously
funds, including disaster relief; and external factors that impact HUD’s identified for funds appropriated by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and
goal of identifying a sufficient supply of decent and affordable housing. Economic Security (CARES) Act, and American Rescue Plan (ARP). These
These listening sessions have been instrumental in helping to inform our fraud schemes could be used to misappropriate emergency funds and
upcoming FY 2023 Top Management Challenges report and strengthen divert them from the intended beneficiaries. We recommended that HUD
our oversight capabilities around emerging issues facing HUD. use the identified fraud risk factors and inventory of potential fraud risk
schemes to enhance its fraud risk assessments to increase HUD’s ability
In addition, we developed and issued our inaugural Priority Open to safeguard its CARES and ARP Act funds from fraud and ensure funds
Recommendations Report, which identifies approximately 25 priority are used as intended by Congress.
open recommendations directly linked to seven key challenges
identified in our FY 2022 Top Management Challenges Report , including Also, in partnership with state, local and Federal law enforcement partners,
eliminating hazards in HUD-assisted housing, administering disaster our Office of Investigation has continued to focus on holding accountable
relief, ensuring access to and availability of affordable housing, and fraud bad actors who seek to exploit HUD programs and its beneficiaries. For
risk management. We issued this product to assist HUD in directing its example, a joint investigation resulted in $10 million in restitution, of which
limited resources towards resolving open recommendations likely to over $6 million is payable to the Federal Housing Administration, and the
have the highest impact on addressing its most significant challenges. We conviction and incarceration of three real estate professionals for bank
recognize the progress HUD has made in many of these priority areas. fraud involving falsified mortgage loan applications. In a separate HUD OIG
A Message from the Inspector General | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 5
investigation, a landlord and owner of over 90 Housing Choice Voucher
Program properties and a management company entered into a $430,000
False Claims Act settlement with the United States to resolve allegations
that they charged HUD-assisted tenants higher rents for Housing Choice
Voucher-funded units compared to non-HUD assisted units, in violation of
their contract with HUD.
HUD beneficiaries deserve to be protected from fraud, misconduct, and
criminal activities that impact their health, safety, and access to affordable
housing. My office is working with HUD to protect its program funds and
beneficiaries from fraud and provide proactive Outreach towards fraud
prevention, protection of recipients, and education about how to report
fraud, waste and abuse, and health and safety violations through our
Hotline. We also recognize the critical role that whistleblowers play in our
ability to protect HUD programs, stakeholders, and beneficiaries and are
seeking ways to enhance our ability to reach those in the best position to
help us conduct the most impactful oversight.
In closing, I want to thank our HUD OIG staff for their commitment,
engagement, and influential oversight. It is my privilege to work alongside
this dedicated group of professionals.
Inspector General
Rae Oliver Davis
A Message from the Inspector General | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 6
SNAPSHOT
In accordance with our 2022-2026 Strategic Plan, OIG seeks to • Ensuring access to affordable housing
Spotlight
influence positive outcomes for HUD programs and operations through • Administering disaster recovery
timely and relevant oversight, and optimize HUD’s program success • Protecting the mortgage insurance fund
by combating fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement. During this • Managing information technology
semiannual reporting period we conducted oversight work intended to • Managing human capital
protect HUD’s most vulnerable beneficiaries from lead hazards, such as • Fraud risk management
Risk Indicators of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Public Housing Agencies,
and protect HUD’s emergency funding from fraud, such as Fraud Risk OIG recognizes the progress HUD has made in many of these areas
Inventory for the Tenant- and Project-Based Rental Assistance, HOME, along with HUD’s steadfast commitment to improve its programs and
and Operating Fund Programs’ CARES and ARP Act Funds. Further, to operations. OIG will continue to monitor HUD’s progress and assist
assist HUD with addressing its FY 2022 Top Management Challenges, HUD’s leadership as they work to resolve and implement OIG’s priority
during this semiannual reporting period, OIG issued a Priority Open recommendations.
Recommendations Report highlighting the most significant open
recommendations, which, if implemented, will have the greatest impact Permanent Authorization of the Community Development Block
on helping HUD achieve its mission to create strong, sustainable, Grant – Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) program
inclusive communities and quality affordable homes for all.
The Community Development Block Grant – Disaster Recovery (CDBG-
DR) grant funds are not provided under a program codified in the Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR). Instead, HUD must issue Federal Register
Priority Open Recommendations notices with additional, disaster-specific program requirements and
waivers for each supplemental appropriation. With each newly issued
OIG issued its inaugural Priority Open Recommendations report to highlight
Federal Register notice, grantees must navigate the various preceding
those open recommendations that, if implemented, will have the greatest
notices, consider their communities’ pressing unmet needs, and develop
impact in helping HUD achieve its mission to create strong, sustainable,
a program that navigates both. These steps are expected to be completed
and inclusive communities and quality affordable homes for all.
during a time of great uncertainty, given that personnel, operations, and
infrastructure may have been impacted following a disaster.
The priority open recommendations fall within several categories that
OIG identified in its FY 2022 Top Management Challenges , highlighting
OIG and GAO have issued multiple oversight reports with
key outstanding recommendations in the following areas:
recommendations to ensure HUD’s disaster recovery funding reaches
• Eliminating hazards in HUD-assisted housing vulnerable communities quickly. OIG has recommended that HUD codify
Snapshot | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 7
the CDBG-DR program through regulations to simplify and standardize Risk Indicators of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Public Housing
the process, and more recently, that HUD pursue codification of the Agencies
CDBG-DR program through regulations or, if necessary, legislative action. OIG conducted an evaluation of HUD’s oversight and monitoring of lead-
HUD has maintained that it does not have the statutory authority based paint hazards in public housing due to the significant challenges
to codify the CDBG-DR program through the regulatory process. HUD faces in controlling and addressing lead-related hazards. This year,
However, HUD has taken consistent, meaningful steps to address OIG’s OIG identified “eliminating hazards in HUD-assisted housing” as a HUD
recommendations to pursue codification through legislative action. top management challenge. Using the best available data collected
Secretary Fudge and former Secretary Carson have both expressed public from both HUD and external sources, OIG identified nine indicators of
support for codification in testimony before Committees of Congress. potential risk for lead-based paint hazards in public housing, Based on
HUD’s Fiscal Year 2023 Congressional Budget Justification expressly the analysis of these nine risk indicators, OIG identified five HUD regions
supports Congressional authorization of the CDBG-DR program, noting: and six States within those regions that have the greatest potential risk
of having public housing agencies (PHA) with lead-based paint hazards.
“Permanent authorization of CDBG-DR would improve the The evaluation found that HUD’s Office of Public and Indian Housing
transparency and predictability of CDBG-DR funds made available (PIH) and Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes (OLHCHH)
to impacted communities. Permanent authorization would also collaborate on lead hazard work, with PIH responsible for oversight
require HUD to establish consistent regulatory requirements of PHA compliance and OLHCHH is responsible for writing policy and
for CDBG-DR across all future disasters, eliminating the current providing guidance. As of March 2022, HUD’s Real Estate Assessment
practice of establishing new requirements in response to each Center, an office within PIH, was establishing the Environmental Shared
supplemental appropriation of CDBG-DR funds.” Services office (ESS) to improve its risk assessment and inspection
capabilities for health and safety hazards, including lead-based paint
HUD has maintained that it needs statutory authority to codify the CDBG- hazards. ESS will provide insight into potential and existing environmental
DR program, and is seeking that authority from Congress. Bipartisan, hazards, compliance issues, and data gaps to improve HUD’s decision
bicameral Congressional support for codification has resulted in bills such making, resource allocation, and hazard management strategies. As part
as the House and Senate versions of The Reforming Disaster Recovery of its strategy, ESS will rank risks related to four environmental hazards—
Act, which are responsive to OIG’s recommendations. carbon monoxide, mold, lead, and radon. ESS identified five indicators for
its lead risk ranking. The report did not include any recommendations;
Legislation codifying the CDBG-DR program would streamline, reform, however, OIG concluded that the results of the analysis may be helpful
and inject greater fiscal responsibility into the program, while also to HUD, as the report identifies risk indicators, which could prove useful
mitigating funding lags and duplicative requirements. OIG believes as ESS continues to identify risk factors and develop its risk-ranking
Congressional efforts to codify the CDBG-DR program will help HUD meet approach.
its mission of timely serving communities struck by natural disasters with
critical housing assistance.
Snapshot | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 8
Fraud Risk Inventory for the Tenant- and Project-Based Rental release, and ordered to pay jointly and severally more than $10 million
Assistance, HOME, and Operating Fund Programs’ CARES and in restitution, of which more than $6 million is payable to the Federal
ARP Act Funds Housing Administration (FHA). For more than 3 years, the conspirators
In coordination with the Pandemic Response Accountability Committee, recruited buyers to purchase multiunit residential properties owned
OIG conducted an audit to identify potential fraud schemes that could by a business entity controlled by one of the subjects and used false
affect HUD’s pandemic funds. OIG reviewed the funds appropriated by information about the buyers’ assets and income to support fraudulent
the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act and the mortgage loan applications to a mortgage company. They falsified
American Rescue Plan (ARP) Act for the Tenant-Based Rental Assistance the buyers’ loan applications by falsely increasing assets. They then
(TBRA), Project-Based Rental Assistance (PBRA), HOME Investment transferred cash from the business entity’s and others’ accounts to the
Partnerships, and Public Housing Operating Fund programs to identify buyers’ bank accounts and falsified documents to hide the transfers.
the fraud risks and potential fraud schemes that these programs face After the loans were approved, the conspirators returned the funds to
when delivering services to the public. OIG’s objective was to develop the business entity. When the transactions were closed, the conspirators
an inventory of fraud risks that HUD had not previously identified for defrauded the mortgage company by hiding that the business entity and
the funds appropriated by the CARES and ARP Acts for the TBRA, PBRA, others, not the buyers, had provided the cash to close the transactions.
HOME, and Operating Fund programs. OIG identified six overall and Ultimately, the buyers were not able to repay the loans, which resulted in
three program-specific fraud risk factors that increase the chance of losses to several financial institutions and FHA.
fraud occurring based on an individual’s increased incentive, opportunity,
and likelihood to commit fraud. OIG used these fraud risk factors, along Housing Choice Voucher Program Landlord Agrees to Pay
with the results of brainstorming sessions; interviews; and reviews of $430,000 to Settle False Claims Act Allegations of Collecting
audit reports, investigations, and press releases from OIG and other Excess Rent
agencies, to develop an inventory of 66 potential fraud schemes that A landlord and owner of more than 90 Housing Choice Voucher
HUD had not previously identified. OIG recommended that HUD use the (HCV) Program properties and a Management company entered into
identified fraud risk factors and inventory of potential fraud risk schemes a $430,000 settlement agreement with the United States to resolve
to enhance its fraud risk assessments, which will increase HUD’s ability allegations that they violated the False Claims Act when they charged
to safeguard its CARES and ARP Act funds from fraud and ensure that the tenants higher rents for HCV Program-funded units compared to non-
funds are used for their intended beneficiaries. HUD-assisted units in violation of their contract with HUD.
Real Estate Professionals Sentenced to More Than 14 Years
Incarceration and More Than $10 Million in Restitution
Three real estate professionals were collectively sentenced in U.S. District
Court to more than 14 years’ incarceration and 15 years supervised
Snapshot | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 9
SNAPSHOT
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), or at risk of being improperly managed. These sites include manufacturing
Making an Impact
Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) oversight work results in facilities, processing plants, landfills, and mining sites. A February 2021
recommendations for improvements in HUD’s programs and OIG report, Contaminated Sites Pose Potential Health Risks to Residents at
operations. This section highlights the connections between OIG’s HUD-Funded Properties, recommended that HUD develop and implement
work and its positive impact on HUD’s programs, operations, mission, strategies to research properties and to determine whether the proximity
and beneficiaries. While there are many factors that may cause to site contamination should be considered in future environmental
programmatic change, OIG’s reviews and other work often play a reviews and then monitor those reviews.
significant role. This section draws attention to recommendations that
have been closed during this semiannual reporting period which made OIG is pleased to share that during this semiannual reporting period, while
a positive impact on HUD’s mission and operations, as well as OIG’s circulating the draft of its priority open recommendations report, HUD’s
proactive efforts to educate its stakeholders and help prevent and Office of Public and Indian Housing and Office of Multifamily took action to
detect fraud, waste, and abuse. close three of OIG’s recommendations:
Recommendation 1:
Develop and implement a strategy to review Multifamily-funded properties
with potential contamination to determine whether site contamination
Recommendations Related to Contaminated Sites should be considered in future environmental reviews.
During this semiannual reporting period, OIG issued a Priority Open Recommendation 3:
Recommendations Report to highlight several open recommendations Develop and implement a strategy to review PIH-funded properties with
that, if implemented, will have the greatest impact on helping HUD achieve potential contamination to determine whether site contamination should
its mission to create strong, sustainable, inclusive communities and quality be considered in future environmental reviews.
affordable homes for all. The recommendations were linked to OIG’s Recommendation 4:
FY 2022 Management Challenges Report, which identified several key Monitor environmental reviews of PIH-funded properties with potential
challenges HUD faces with eliminating hazards in HUD-Assisted Housing. contamination
Previously, OIG expressed its concerns around public housing properties Both program offices collaborated with the U.S. Environmental Protection
located near contaminated sites, including superfund sites, which are areas Agency to improve the accuracy of the contaminated sites proximity
contaminated by hazardous waste that was dumped, left out in the open, analysis, allowing them to better identify which HUD-funded properties
Snapshot | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 10
had the greatest potential for exposure to site contaminants. Their efforts accuracy and truthfulness under penalty of perjury, as well as warnings,
resulted in the identification of 40 superfund sites that had HUD-funded play an important role in promoting accountability and enabling effective
properties within the site boundaries and did not have human exposure prosecution of those who commit fraud.
under control. Since that point, HUD has facilitated getting EPA access
to those HUD-funded properties to collect samples and, if determined Based on the above, OIG recommended that HUD include the following
necessary, will collaborate with EPA to facilitate cleanup. language in multiple policies that we reviewed in this semiannual period:
Recommendations Related to Hiring “I/We, the undersigned, certify under penalty of perjury that the
During the month of July, HUD OIG closed three recommendations information provided above is true and correct.
from the August 2021 Report, Opportunities Exist To Improve the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Hiring Process, WARNING: Anyone who knowingly submits a false claim or makes
that pertained to the top management challenge of Human Capital a false statement is subject to criminal and/or civil penalties,
Management. The recommendations closed included, standardize including confinement for up to 5 years, fines, and civil and
position descriptions and job Analyses for mission-critical occupations, administrative penalties. (18 U.S.C. §§ 287, 1001, 1010, 1012; 31
High-Risk Occupations, and Positions with High-Volume Staffing Needs; U.S.C. §3729, 3802).”
Develop and Share Best practices with HUD’s program offices on how
hiring managers can execute hiring process responsibilities to meet HUD has been receptive to these recommendations and has accepted
timeliness goals; and develop and implement regular training for process and incorporated OIG’s recommended warning and certification language
owners on the hiring process. in several of its policies as set forth in this report, under “Legislation,
Regulations, and other Directives.”
Recommendations to HUD to Include Warnings and Certifications
Fraud Bulletins
Pursuant to section 4(a) of the Inspector General Act, as amended, 5
U.S.C. App., OIG is responsible for providing policy direction for HUD’s As highlighted OIG’s 2022-2026 Strategic Plan, a key goal for OIG is to
programs and operations, recommending policies to promote economy optimize HUD’s program success by combatting fraud, waste, abuse, and
and efficiency in the administration of, and preventing and detecting mismanagement with the specific objectives to improve and expand
fraud and abuse in HUD’s programs and operations, to include the OIG’s outreach and keep the public informed about red flags and
identification and prosecution of participants in such fraud or abuse. common fraud schemes.
HUD OIG regularly makes recommendations to HUD to include standard
warnings and certifications in its policies and forms to protect HUD’s OIG develops fraud bulletins to protect HUD beneficiaries and the public
programs from fraud. Clear warnings on HUD documents put fraudsters from criminal schemes that misuse HUD’s name and programs to victimize
on notice that there can be serious criminal, civil, and administrative HUD’s stakeholders, to encourage the public to report fraud, and to share
consequences to their actions to help discourage fraud. Certifications of information about the OIG’s hotline and other available resources.
Snapshot | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 11
During this semiannual reporting period, OIG issued the following two This fraud bulletin shares red flags and provides multiple resources for
fraud bulletins: individuals who are facing potential foreclosure or who feel that they
have been the victim of a mortgage loan modification scheme.
Section 8 Housing Voucher Fraud Scheme Bulletin
This bulletin advises the public about fraud schemes involving HUD’s HUD OIG Outreach
Section 8 Voucher program, which is the Federal Government’s major Over the past several years, OIG has successfully partnered with HUD,
program for assisting very low-income families, the elderly, and the the Department of Justice, and other entities to provide anti-fraud
disabled afford decent, safe, and sanitary housing in the private market. training to grantees, subrecipients, and contractors, primarily for the
Section 8 vouchers are administered locally by public housing agencies Community Development Block Grant – Disaster Recovery program.
(PHAs) who receive Federal funding from HUD to administer the voucher This ongoing training identifies potential fraud schemes; provides
program. resources for preventing, detecting, and reporting fraud; and outlines the
consequences for committing fraud.
This fraud bulletin shares red flags for Section 8 fraud schemes in
which fraudsters falsely claim to be owners of legitimate participating During this semiannual reporting period, OIG’s Disaster Grantee Fraud
properties, such as “property owners” who want to communicate only by Training became a National Association of State Boards of Accountancy
personal email, require an application fee, or demand payment through certified and sponsored training. Further, HUD OIG, the Department of
third parties, such as a cash app. Justice, and other entities offered Disaster Fraud training to the Virgin
Island Housing Finance Authority, Government of Puerto Rico Office of
Mortgage Loan Modification Fraud Bulletin Inspector General, and the State of Alaska.
This bulletin provides information about scammers who falsely claim
to be from a mortgagee’s mortgage company and reach out to offer
mortgage loan modifications, which are meant to take money by making
false promises of saving victims from foreclosure.
Mortgage loan modification scammers target the most vulnerable and
struggling homeowners, which are often senior citizens. The fraudsters
may offer lower mortgage rates using phony loan modifications, and
sometimes threaten foreclosure if the borrower does not agree to the
loan modification. Victims then send their mortgage payments to the
fraudsters, believing they are paying their actual mortgage companies. In
a recent related investigation, over 1,000 victims lost approximately $3.8
million to this scheme.
Snapshot | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 12
HOUSING
The Office of Housing plays a vital role for the Nation’s home buyers, homeowners,
renters, and communities through its nationally administered programs. It includes the
Offices of Single Family Housing and Multifamily Housing Programs and the Federal
Housing Administration (FHA), the largest mortgage insurer in the world. FHA single-
family programs provide mortgage insurance to mortgage lenders that, in turn, provide
financing that enables individuals and families to purchase, rehabilitate, or construct
homes. The Office of Multifamily Housing Programs’ mortgage insurance programs
facilitate the construction, substantial rehabilitation, purchase, and refinancing of
multifamily properties. The office also administers subsidized housing programs that
provide rental assistance to low-income families, the elderly, and those with disabilities,
as well as the preservation of assisted affordable housing.
INVESTIGATION
9 24 $16,738,137
administrative- convictions-pleas- financial recoveries
civil actions pretrial diversions
Housing | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 13
Office of Investigation of subject 1’s companies sold a property. The U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD OIG), FHFA OIG, and the Federal Bureau of
Real Estate Professionals Sentenced to More Than 14 Years Investigation conducted this investigation.
Incarceration and More Than $10 Million in Restitution (New Jersey)
Three real estate professionals were collectively sentenced in U.S. District
Court to more than 14 years incarceration and 15 years supervised Money Mules Ordered To Pay More Than $1.2 Million in
release and ordered to pay jointly and severally more than $10 million Restitution
in restitution, of which more than $6 million is payable to FHA. Subject 1 Money mules John Fuss, Jeremy Christopher, Tracey Brookshier, Mary
was ordered to pay more than $10 million in restitution, of which more Booth, Ronnie Booth, and Perry Crenshaw were collectively sentenced
than $981,000 was to be paid jointly and severally with subjects 2 and in U.S. District Court to 64 months incarceration, 6 years supervised
3. Subject 1 was sentenced in connection with an earlier guilty plea to release, and 13 years probation and ordered to pay more than $1.2
bank fraud and securities fraud, and subjects 2 and 3 were sentenced million in restitution to various victims. Ronnie Booth, Mary Booth, and
in connection with their earlier guilty pleas to bank fraud. For more Brookshier were sentenced in connection with their earlier guilty pleas to
than 3 years, the conspirators recruited buyers to purchase multiunit aiding and abetting the operation of an unlicensed money-transmitting
residential properties owned by a business entity controlled by subject business. Fuss, Jones, and Crenshaw were sentenced in connection with
1. The conspirators used false information about the buyers’ assets and their earlier guilty pleas to conspiracy to commit money laundering. For
income to support fraudulent mortgage loan applications to a mortgage more than 7 years, the conspirators participated in a money-laundering
company. They falsified the buyers’ loan applications by falsely increasing operation involving multiple fraud schemes in which victims were
assets. They then transferred cash from the business entity’s and others’ instructed to send funds to the conspirators through intimidation or
accounts to the buyers’ bank accounts and falsified documents to hide the promise of receiving a service or product in return. Victims of the
the transfers. After the loans were approved, the conspirators returned mortgage modification scheme included FHA-insured borrowers, who
the funds to the business entity. When the transactions were closed, were solicited by individuals purporting to be with the victims’ mortgage
the conspirators defrauded the mortgage company by hiding that the companies and falsely promised lower interest rates and monthly
business entity and others, not the buyers, had provided the cash to mortgage payments. More than 1,000 victims were impacted by the
close the transactions. Ultimately, the buyers were not able to repay various schemes. HUD OIG, The U.S. Secret Service, Internal Revenue
the loans, which resulted in losses to several financial institutions and Service Criminal Investigation, and U.S. Department of the Treasury’s
FHA. Additionally, for nearly 1 year, subject 1 deceived an individual into Inspector General for Tax Administration conducted this investigation.
investing in subject 1’s real estate companies. Subject 1 told the victim (Tyler, TX)
that subject 1 would invest money in companies that subject 1 owned
and that were in the business of buying foreclosed-on homes, renovating
the homes, and then reselling the properties. Subject 1 falsely promised
the victim a 12 percent return on investment and $10,000 each time one
Housing | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 14
Direct Endorsement Lender Agrees To Pay More Than $1 Million Conspiracy To Undervalue Broker Price Opinions Results in 24
To Resolve False Claims Act Violations Months Incarceration
American Financial Network, an FHA direct endorsement lender, Stacy Hall, a real estate agent, and David Litman, a business owner and
entered into a settlement agreement with the United States to resolve real estate investor, were collectively sentenced in U.S. District Court
allegations that the company approved mortgages that did not meet FHA in connection with their earlier guilty pleas to conspiracy to commit
requirements. American Financial Network agreed to pay more than $1 bank fraud and bank fraud. Hall and Litman were collectively sentenced
million, of which $518,572 is payable to FHA. For nearly 8 years, American to 24 months incarceration and 36 months supervised release, and
Financial Network knowingly failed to perform required quality control Litman was ordered to pay $279,900 in restitution to various financial
reviews and approved loans that did not qualify for FHA insurance. HUD institutions. For nearly 2 years, Hall and Litman caused false broker price
OIG conducted this investigation. opinions undervaluing residential properties to be submitted to financial
(Spokane, WA) institutions holding the mortgages of the properties, including FHA-
insured mortgages, which Litman intended to purchase via a short sale.
Litman submitted additional false documents to the financial institutions
to induce them to approve requested short sales, including falsified
listing agreements and proof-of-funds letters. The financial institutions,
relying on the false broker price options, false real estate commission
expenses, false listing agreements, and other false documentation,
approved short sales of properties to Litman. HUD OIG, the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service conducted
this investigation.
(Champaign, IL)
Housing | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 15
PUBLIC AND INDIAN
HOUSING
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides grants and subsidies
to more than 3,100 public housing agencies (PHA) nationwide. Many PHAs administer both
public housing and Section 8 programs. HUD also provides direct assistance to PHAs’ resident
organizations to encourage increased resident management entities and resident skills programs.
Programs administered by PHAs are designed to enable low-income families, the elderly, and
persons with disabilities to obtain and reside in housing that is safe, decent, sanitary, and in good
repair. Some of the highlights from this semiannual period are noted in this chapter.
AUDIT INVESTIGATION
1 11
report administrative-
civil actions
$697,912 16
recommended funds convictions-pleas-
put to better use pretrial diversions
$2,598,312 $2,051,535
questioned costs financial recoveries
Public and Indian Housing | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 16
Office of Audit Office of Investigation
Long Branch Housing Authority, Long Branch, NJ, Did Not Former Mayor and Public Officials Collectively Sentenced to
Properly Handle Income and Expenses Related to Agreements More Than 7 Years Incarceration
With Other Housing Agencies Jose Salinas, the former mayor of the City of La Joya and former
The Office of Inspector General (OIG) audited the Long Branch Housing president of an economic development corporation; Frances Salinas
Authority to determine whether Long Branch properly handled income De Leon, the daughter of Salinas and former interim executive director
and expenses associated with its agreements with the Asbury Park and of a local PHA; Ramiro Alaniz, a former maintenance director of a local
Red Bank Housing Authorities in accordance with requirements. Long PHA; and Mike Alaniz, a former city administrator, were collectively
Branch did not properly handle income and expenses related to services sentenced in U.S. District Court to more than 7 years incarceration and
provided under agreements with two other PHAs. Additionally, it did 11 years supervised release and ordered to pay more than $326,000 in
not properly allocate and support base payroll expenses and maintain restitution to the City, PHA, and economic development corporation.
adequate documentation to substantiate incentive payments. As a result, Sylvia Valdez, a former PHA board member, was sentenced in Hidalgo
HUD did not have assurance that $1.5 million in incentives paid from County State Court in connection with her earlier guilty plea to
agreement income was eligible and reasonable, and nearly $700,000 improper influence. Valdez was sentenced to 24 months community
in unspent agreement income that had not been used continued to service and ordered to pay $22,000 in restitution to the City. For
improperly reside in a Long Branch account. OIG recommended that HUD more than 1 year, Salinas, De Leon, and Ramiro Alaniz orchestrated
require Long Branch to (1) provide support to show the reasonableness a scheme to award a municipal contract worth $22,000 to Valdez.
and eligibility of the $1.5 million in employee incentives paid from Valdez then awarded a contract for De Leon to be improperly paid for
agreement income or reimburse its program for any amount it cannot working as the interim executive director of the PHA. Due to conflict-
support, (2) provide support for a reasonable estimate of employee time of-interest rules, De Leon could not receive a salary because of her
used to perform services for the two agencies and reimburse its program familial relationship with Salinas. Additionally, De Leon and Ramiro
for any program funds improperly used for those expenses, and (3) Alaniz conspired to create a nonprofit, for which Ramiro Alaniz served
implement adequate controls to ensure that it properly classifies income as a general contractor for the sole purpose of providing monetary
received under any future agreements or activities and to ensure future kickbacks to De Leon with non-HUD funds obtained from the economic
compliance with applicable cost principle requirements. Additionally, development corporation. In 2018, Mike Alaniz overinflated the
OIG recommended that HUD make a determination regarding nearly value of a tract of land he owned and then used his position with the
$700,000 in outstanding agreement income, including whether those City to cause the City to purchase the land using HUD Community
unspent funds should be returned to the PHAs. Development Block Grant funds. Salinas, De Leon, and Ramiro Alaniz
(Long Branch, NJ, Audit Report: 2022-NY-1003) were sentenced in connection with their earlier guilty pleas to wire
fraud, and Mike Alaniz was sentenced in connection with his earlier
guilty plea to theft from a program receiving Federal funds. HUD OIG,
Public and Indian Housing | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 17
the U.S. Department of Agriculture OIG, and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation conducted this investigation.
(La Joya, TX)
Housing Choice Voucher Program Landlord Agrees To Pay HUD
and the U.S. Department of Justice $430,000 To Resolve False
Claims Act Violations
Christopher Lukacs, a landlord and owner of more than 90 Housing
Choice Voucher (HCV) Program properties, and Goodfish Enterprises and
Reliant Property Management, companies controlled by Lukacs, entered
into a settlement agreement with the United States to resolve allegations
that they violated the False Claims Act when they charged tenants higher
rents for HCV Program-funded units compared to non-HUD-assisted units
in violation of their contract with HUD. Lukacs agreed to pay $430,000,
of which $215,000 is payable to HUD and $215,000 in penalties and
damages will be paid to the U.S. Department of Justice. HUD OIG
conducted this investigation.
(New Castle, DE)
Public and Indian Housing | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 18
COMMUNITY PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT
The Office of Community Planning and Development (CPD) works in conjunction with all levels of government
and the private sector to develop viable communities by promoting integrated approaches that provide decent
housing, suitable living environments, and expanded economic opportunities for low- and moderate-income
persons. Some of the highlights from this semiannual period are outlined in this chapter. Additionally, in
response to disasters, Congress may appropriate additional funding to Community Development Block Grant
Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) grants to rebuild the affected areas and provide crucial seed money to start the
recovery process. Since fiscal year 2001, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has
allocated $94.8 billion in CDBG-DR and CDBG Mitigation grants to help cities, counties, and States recover from
presidentially declared disasters. Of the $94.8 billion in disaster allocations nationwide, nearly $87.4 billion has
been obligated, and more than $50.09 billion had been disbursed as of the end of the period.2
AUDIT INVESTIGATION
4 0
reports administrative-
civil actions
$0 7
recommended funds convictions-pleas-
put to better use pretrial diversions
$2,588,362 $883,047
questioned costs financial recoveries
2
In prior SARs the allocated amount of funds was presented as $95.5 billion however, HUD’s Disaster Recovery and Special Issues Division recently underwent financial updates in the
Disaster Recovery Grant Reporting system, during which HUD discovered approximately $730 million in 2020 disaster numbers were overstated between January and April 2022. The
current balance of $94.8 billion reflects the reconciliation.
Community Planning and Development | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 19
Office of Audit The State of North Carolina Generally Had Capacity and Mostly
Followed Disbursement Requirements, but Its Procurement
Emergency Solutions Grants CARES Act Implementation Process Needs Improvement
Challenges
OIG audited the State of North Carolina’s CDBG-DR funds as part of OIG’s
The Office of Inspector General (OIG) audited the HUD Emergency commitment to helping HUD address its top management challenges
Solutions Grants (ESG) Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic and to support HUD’s strategic objective to support effectiveness and
Security Act (CARES Act) (ESG-CV) program. The audit objective accountability in long-term disaster recovery. The audit objective was
was to determine what challenges ESG-CV grant recipients faced in to determine whether the State had sufficient capacity to administer
implementing the program and using grant funds. OIG used a survey its CDBG-DR funds and followed disbursement and procurement
questionnaire to gather feedback and insight directly from the 362 requirements related to those funds. The State generally had capacity.
recipients of ESG-CV grants. The survey questionnaire found that It had staffing capacity, maintained an internal auditor position, and had
ESG-CV recipients faced challenges in implementing the program and policies in place for administering CDBG-DR funds. The State also mostly
using grant funds. The grant recipients needed an extension beyond followed disbursement requirements. However, the State’s procurement
the spending deadline of September 30, 2022, to use a majority or process needs improvement. As a result, the State could not provide
all of their ESG-CV funds. HUD later extended the spending deadline reasonable assurance to HUD that more than $2.5 million of $5.4 million
to help address this issue. The top challenges identified by the grant in CDBG-DR funds reviewed was spent properly. OIG recommended
recipients included staff capacity and coordinating with other sources that HUD require the State to (1) provide adequate documentation
of pandemic-related funding. In addition, most of the grant recipients to support that more than $2.5 million in CDBG-DR funds was spent
that provided ESG-CV funds to subrecipients stated that the pandemic for necessary and reasonable costs or repay the funds, (2) update
impacted their ability to effectively monitor their ESG-CV subrecipients. its procurement policy, and (3) provide training to its staff to ensure
As a result, while HUD has taken action to help address the spending that it understands and follows requirements to maintain adequate
deadline concerns, the grantees’ challenges with capacity, multiple documentation to support program disbursements that are eligible
funding sources, and monitoring their subgrantees may increase the and reasonable and procurement requirements, including completing
risk of misuse of the funds. OIG recommended that HUD consider independent cost estimates and cost analyses.
including grant recipients’ challenges with capacity, multiple sources of (The State of North Carolina, Audit Report: 2022-AT-1002)
funding, and subgrantee monitoring as part of CPD’s risk assessments.
(Agencywide, Audit Report: 2022-LA-0002)
Community Planning and Development | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 20
Community Development Block Grant CARES Act and three program-specific fraud risk factors that increase the chance
Implementation Challenges of fraud occurring by increasing an individual’s incentive, opportunity,
OIG audited HUD’s CDBG CARES Act program. OIG’s audit objective was and likelihood for committing fraud. OIG used these fraud risk factors,
to determine what challenges grantees faced in using program funds along with the results of brainstorming sessions; interviews; and reviews
for activities that prepare for, prevent, or respond to the coronavirus of audit reports, investigations, and press releases from OIG and other
and its impact. OIG used a survey questionnaire to gather feedback and agencies, to develop an inventory of 66 potential fraud schemes that
insight directly from 1,047 program grantees. Grantees responding to HUD had not previously identified. OIG recommended that HUD use the
the survey questionnaire reported facing challenges in (1) managing identified fraud risk factors and inventory of potential fraud risk schemes
multiple funding sources, (2) spending program funds within required to enhance its fraud risk assessments, which will increase HUD’s ability
timeframes, and (3) meeting program objectives and requirements. to safeguard its CARES and ARP Act funds from fraud and ensure that the
Grantees attributed these conditions to capacity issues, HUD’s program funds are used for their intended beneficiaries.
rules and regulations, and other competing CARES Act application and (Agencywide, Audit Report: 2022-FO-0007)
expenditure deadlines. OIG recommended that HUD consider looking
into (1) extending the spending deadline and (2) streamlining program
requirements. Office of Investigation
(Agencywide, Audit Report: 2022-LA-0003) Conspirators Sentenced for Scheme To Defraud Local Housing
Programs
Fraud Risk Inventory for the Tenant- and Project-Based Rental Leopoldo Bitte, Jr., housing specialist, and Realene Rodrigues, Gregory
Assistance, HOME, and Operating Fund Programs’ CARES and Lau, and Kalani Lopez, associates of Bitte, were collectively sentenced
ARP Act Funds in U.S. District Court to 51 months and 1 day incarceration, 8 years
supervised release, and 3 years probation. For more than 2 years, Bitte
In coordination with the Pandemic Response Accountability Committee,
defrauded his employer, a nonprofit corporation funded in part through
OIG conducted an audit to identify potential fraud schemes that could
HUD’s HOME Investment Partnerships and ESG programs, by falsely
affect HUD’s pandemic funds. OIG reviewed the funds appropriated by
representing that Rodrigues, Lau, and Lopez were landlords eligible
the CARES Act and the American Rescue Plan (ARP) Act for the Tenant-
to receive funds dedicated to the nonprofit’s Homeless Prevention
Based Rental Assistance (TBRA), Project-Based Rental Assistance (PBRA),
and Rapid Rehousing and Clean and Sober programs. The nonprofit
HOME Investment Partnerships, and Public Housing Operating Fund
is a human services organization that provides financial assistance
programs to identify the fraud risks and potential fraud schemes that
to individuals and families at risk of homelessness. Bitte created
they face while delivering services to the public. OIG’s objective was to
fake rental agreements by using the names and personal identifying
develop an inventory of fraud risks that HUD had not previously identified
information of other individuals, who had applied legitimately for
for the funds appropriated by the CARES and ARP Acts for the TBRA,
services with the nonprofit, and falsely identified Rodrigues, Lau, and
PBRA, HOME, and Operating Fund programs. OIG identified six overall
Community Planning and Development | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 21
Lopez as the landlords. Bitte used these fake rental agreements and Landlord Sentenced in Disaster-Related Mortgage Fraud Scheme
other documentation to cause the nonprofit to generate 34 checks Theodore Kurz, a CDBG-DR grant recipient, was sentenced in U.S.
payable to Rodrigues, Lau, and Lopez, who then cashed the checks and District Court in connection with his earlier guilty plea to making
split the proceeds with Bitte. Bitte was sentenced in connection with his false statements to a lending institution. Kurz was sentenced to 1 day
earlier guilty plea to conspiracy to commit wire fraud and aggravated incarceration and 5 years probation and ordered to pay $751,900 in
identity theft and was ordered to pay jointly and severally with restitution, of which $423,000 will be paid to a State authority and
Rodrigues, Lau, and Lopez $101,053 in restitution to the nonprofit and $328,900 will be paid to a lending institution. In February 2016, Kurz
an insurance company. Rodrigues, Lau, and Lopez previously pleaded received multiple grants in the form of forgivable loans through a State
guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud, and Rodrigues also pleaded entity to repair eight damaged rental housing properties for low-
guilty to wire fraud. HUD OIG conducted this investigation. income tenants. The forgivable loan is a nonrecourse loan, secured by
(Honolulu, HI) a mortgage on the property held by the State. Kurz forged mortgage
cancellations, which he filed with the local clerk of court office to falsely
make it appear that the loans had been satisfied. Kurz then obtained
mortgages through a different lender, falsely claiming that there were
no outstanding mortgages or liens on the properties, in an effort to
obtain additional funds through conventional loans. The State used
HUD CDBG-DR funds to administer its rental property repair program
to assist small-scale landlords whose rental properties were damaged
by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. HUD OIG and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation conducted this investigation.
(New Orleans, LA)
Community Planning and Development | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 22
ADDITIONAL REPORTS
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector
General’s (OIG) additional significant reports are highlighted in this chapter.
Priority Open Recommendations general to perform an annual review of the agency’s compliance with
PIIA. OIG’s objectives were to assess (1) whether HUD had met all
OIG issued its inaugural Priority Open Recommendations report to highlight requirements of PIIA and OMB Circular A-123, Appendix C-Requirements
those open recommendations that, if implemented, will have the greatest for Payment Integrity Improvement, and (2) HUD’s efforts to prevent
impact on helping HUD achieve its mission to create strong, sustainable, and reduce improper and unknown payments. OIG found that HUD was
inclusive communities and quality affordable homes for all. These priority noncompliant with PIIA in FY 2021. While HUD made some progress
open recommendations fall within several areas identified in OIG’s FY 2022 in FY 2021, significant efforts are needed to bring the Office of Public
Top Management Challenges. and Indian Housing’s Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (PIH-TBRA) and
Office of Multifamily Housing Programs’ Rental Subsidy programs into
OIG recognizes the forward progress HUD has made in many of these areas compliance. For HUD’s noncompliant programs, OIG recommended
and HUD’s steadfast commitment to improve its programs and operations. that HUD (1) develop and implement a sampling methodology that
OIG will continue to monitor HUD’s progress and provide assistance to allows for the timely testing of the full payment cycle and (2) consult
HUD’s leadership as they work towards resolution and implementation of with OMB on the appropriate reporting for untested portions of the
OIG’s priority recommendations. payment cycle. OIG recommended that HUD develop and implement a
plan that ensures adequate internal controls over the PIH-TBRA program
to detect and prevent improper payments, which can be implemented
Office of Audit in a virtual environment. OIG also recommended that HUD work with
HUD Compliance With the Payment Integrity Information Act of grantees to better identify the risks of improper and unknown payments
2019 throughout the payment cycle in its Office of Community Planning and
Development programs and ensure that its risk assessments and improper
OIG audited HUD’s fiscal year (FY) 2021 compliance with the Payment
and unknown payment estimates fully consider these risks. Finally, OIG
Integrity Information Act of 2019 (PIIA) and implementation of Office of
recommended that HUD coordinate with OMB to ensure that its data on
Management and Budget (OMB) guidance. PIIA was enacted to prevent
PaymentAccuracy.gov are accurate.
and reduce improper payments and require each agency’s inspector
(Agencywide, Audit Report: 2022-FO-0005)
Additional Reports | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 23
Corrective Action Verification of Government Purchase public and private sector. OIG’s audit objective was to determine whether
Card Program and Government Travel Card Program Audit HUD met the 13 responsibilities stated in the Act regarding its collection,
Recommendations production, acquisition, maintenance, distribution, use, and preservation
OIG completed a corrective action verification (CAV) of recommendations of geospatial data. The Act also generally requires covered agencies to
from prior audit reports on HUD government purchase cards and provide access to geospatial data and metadata to the public and enhance
government travel cards, both issued January 31, 2020. During the CAV, reporting to Congress. HUD met 11 of the 13 responsibilities stated in the
OIG followed up on all 10 recommendations from OIG audit report 2020- Act but did not meet 2 of the responsibilities. HUD’s lapse in its contract
KC-0001 and all 13 recommendations from OIG audit report 2020-KC- for services to manage its Geocode Services Center created challenges
0002. OIG’s CAV objective was to determine whether HUD implemented in meeting the responsibilities stated in the Act. As a result, HUD risks
adequate corrective actions in response to the recommendations. not having accurate and open access to geospatial data available for use
Corrective actions were not fully implemented or completed for 2 of by Federal, State, local, and tribal governments; the public; and other
10 recommendations from audit report 2020-KC-0001 and 3 of 13 interested stakeholders to make decisions. OIG recommended that HUD
recommendations from audit report 2020-KC-0002. The Office of the provide adequate resources for the further development of geocoding
Chief Procurement Officer and the Office of the Chief Financial Officer did services through the reactivation of the lapsed Geocode Service Center
not fully implement the agreed-upon corrective action plans but closed contract. In addition, OIG will reopen recommendation 1A from OIG audit
the recommendations without revising the management decisions or report 2020-LA-0002, issued on September 24, 2020, so that HUD can
fully implementing or completing the corrective actions. As a result, HUD implement the agreed-upon action to meet the responsibility stated in 43
lacked assurance that the agency used efficient and effective techniques U.S.C. (United States Code) 2808(a)(5).
to prevent or detect inappropriate use of government purchase and (Agencywide, Audit Report: 2022-LA-0004)
travel cards. OIG recommended that HUD submit a revised management
decision to address the recommendation and fully implement those Office of Evaluation
actions for two recommendations from OIG audit report 2020-KC-0001
(2020-KC-0001-001A and 002A) and three recommendations from OIG Fiscal Year 2022 Federal Information Security Modernization Act
audit report 2020-KC-0002 (2020-KC-0002-001A, 001D, and 002C). (FISMA) Evaluation Report
(Agencywide, Audit Report: 2022-FO-0006) OIG assessed HUD’s information security (IS) program for effectiveness in
accordance with the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of
Geospatial Data Act of 2018, Fiscal Year 2022 2014 (FISMA), which directs OIGs to conduct an evaluation using the OIG
OIG audited HUD’s efforts to comply with the Geospatial Data Act of FISMA metrics. The metrics consist of eight domains aligned with the five
2018. The Act formalizes governance processes related to geospatial functional areas (identify, protect, detect, respond, and recover) from the
data, provides policy and guidance to empower the use of geospatial National Institute of Standards and Technology Framework for Improving
data and technology, and facilitates broad cooperation between the Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity.
Additional Reports | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 24
OMB modified the FISMA evaluation methodology in FY 2022, asking IG’s evaluation found that HUD’s Office of Public and Indian Housing (PIH) and
to evaluate 20 core metrics instead of approximately 60 FISMA metric Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes (OLHCHH) collaborate
that had been assessed in previous years. While HUD continued to take on lead hazard work. PIH is responsible for oversight of PHA compliance,
positive steps to improve its information technology (IT) security posture, and OLHCHH is responsible for writing policy and providing guidance. As
based on the FY 2022 FISMA Core IG [Inspector General] Metrics issued of March 2022, HUD’s Real Estate Assessment Center, an office within PIH,
by OMB, HUD’s IS program was evaluated as not effective. Significant was in the process of establishing the Environmental Shared Services office
limitations and challenges continue to impact the Office of the Chief (ESS) to improve its risk assessment and inspection capabilities for health
Information Officer’s ability to establish an effective IS program. The and safety hazards, including lead-based paint hazards. ESS will provide
longstanding inability to modernize key IT systems and consistently insight into potential and existing environmental hazards, compliance
implement enterprise efforts and budget and resource constraints in FY issues, and data gaps to improve HUD’s decision making, resource
2022 affected HUD’s ability to mature. This outcome is despite HUD’s allocation, and hazard management strategies. As part of its strategy, ESS
increasing maturity in 3 of the 20 core metrics, while remaining at will rank risks related to four environmental hazards—carbon monoxide,
the same maturity level for 16 of the 20 core metrics and dropping in mold, lead, and radon. In establishing its risk-ranking model, ESS identified
maturity for 1 core metric. HUD continued to make significant progress five indicators for its lead risk ranking. The report did not include any
in addressing OIG’s prior-years’ recommendations. During FY 2022, HUD recommendations; however, OIG concluded that the results of the analysis
closed 21 prior FISMA recommendations. In this report, OIG issued five may be helpful to HUD, as the report identifies risk indicators, which could
new recommendations and offered opportunities for improvement for prove useful as ESS continues to identify risk factors and develop its risk-
the enterprise and the program offices. ranking approach.
(Agencywide, Evaluation Report: 2022-OE-0001) (Agencywide, Evaluation Report: 2021-OE-0011a)
Risk Indicators of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Public Housing
Agencies
OIG conducted an evaluation of HUD’s oversight and monitoring of lead-
based paint hazards in public housing, in large part due to the significant
challenges HUD faces in controlling and addressing lead-related hazards.
OIG identified “eliminating hazards in HUD-assisted housing” in 2022
as a HUD top management challenge. OIG identified nine indicators of
potential risk for lead-based paint hazards in public housing using the best
available data collected from both HUD and external sources. Based on
the analysis of these nine risk indicators, OIG identified five HUD regions
and six States within those regions that have the greatest potential risk of
having public housing agencies (PHA) with lead-based paint hazards. The
Additional Reports | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 25
LEGISLATION,
REGULATIONS, AND
OTHER DIRECTIVES
Reviewing and making recommendations on legislation, regulations, and policy issues is a critical part of the Office of Inspector General’s (OIG)
responsibilities under the Inspector General Act. During this 6-month reporting period, OIG has committed more than 460 hours to reviewing 163
issuances. The draft directives consisted of 125 notices, 10 mortgagee letters, and 28 other directives. OIG provided comments on 54 (or 33 percent)
of the issuances and nonconcurred on 14 (or 9 percent) but lifted 10 nonconcurrences. Of the 28 other directives, OIG reviewed 2 final rules and 9
proposed rules, took no position on 7, and commented on 4; 12 handbooks-guidebooks; 3 research reports; one notice of Delegation of Authority; and
one set of frequently asked questions related to Community Health Worker Placed-based Approach to Health initiative, which was a 3-year pilot project
(2019-2022) that assessed the feasibility and effectiveness of hiring and embedding public housing residents within their own communities to address
population-level health and social needs. Below is a summary of selected reviews for this 6-month period.
163 TOTAL ISSUANCES OF THE 28 OTHER DIRECTIvES
17%
28 other directives
6%
10 mortgagee letters
77%
125 notices
final proposed handbooks and research delegation of frequently asked
rules rules guidebooks reports authority questions
Legislation, Regulations, and Other Directives | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 26
Legislative transparency and predictability of CDBG-DR funds made available
to impacted communities. Permanent authorization would also
Permanent Authorization of the Community Development Block Grant require HUD to establish consistent regulatory requirements
– Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) program – Community Development for CDBG-DR across all future disasters, eliminating the current
Block Grant – Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) grant funds are not provided practice of establishing new requirements in response to each
under a program codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). supplemental appropriation of CDBG-DR funds.”
Although the CDBG program requirements provide a framework, HUD
must issue Federal Register (FR) notices with additional, disaster-specific HUD has maintained that it needs statutory authority to codify the
program requirements and waivers for each supplemental appropriation. CDBG-DR program and sought that authority from Congress. Bipartisan,
With each newly issued FR notice, grantees must navigate the various bicameral Congressional support for codification has resulted in bills,
notices, consider their communities’ pressing unmet needs, and develop such as the House and Senate versions of The Reforming Disaster
a program that navigates both. These steps are expected to be completed Recovery Act, which are responsive to HUD OIG’s recommendations.
during a time of great uncertainty, given that personnel, operations, and
infrastructure may have been impacted following a disaster. Legislation codifying the CDBG-DR program would streamline, reform,
and inject greater fiscal responsibility into the program, while also
OIG and GAO have issued multiple oversight reports with mitigating funding lags and duplicative requirements. HUD OIG believes
recommendations to ensure HUD’s disaster recovery funding reaches Congressional efforts to codify the CDBG-DR program will help HUD meet
vulnerable communities quickly. HUD OIG has recommended that its mission of timely serving communities struck by natural disasters with
HUD codify the CDBG-DR program through regulations to simplify critical housing assistance.
and standardize the process, and more recently that HUD pursue
codification of the CDBG-DR program through regulations or, if necessary,
legislative action. HUD has consistently maintained that it does not
Notices, Mortgagee Letters, and Other
have the statutory authority to codify the CDBG-DR program through
the regulatory process. However, HUD has taken consistent, meaningful Directives
steps to address OIG’s recommendations to pursue codification through
legislative action. Secretary Fudge and former Secretary Carson Single Family Housing
have both expressed public support for codification in testimony Calculating effective income after a reduction or loss of income for
before Committees of Congress. Importantly, HUD’s Fiscal Year 2023 borrowers affected by the presidentially declared COVID-19 national
Congressional Budget Justification expressly supports Congressional emergency – On July 7, 2022, the U.S. Department of Housing and
authorization of the CDBG-DR program, noting: Urban Development (HUD) issued Mortgagee Letter 2022-09, which
instructs lenders on how to calculate effective income for borrowers
“Permanent authorization of CDBG-DR would improve the who were affected by gaps in employment, which led to reductions
Legislation, Regulations, and Other Directives | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 27
in or loss of income due to COVID-19-related economic events. This and Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014. OIG provided a
policy allows industry partners additional opportunities to use flexible no position response to this notice.
underwriting guidance to help borrowers qualify for home ownership.
OIG provided a no position response to this mortgagee letter. Update to HECM program requirements for notice of due and payable
status – On August 31, 2022, HUD issued Mortgagee Letter 2022-15,
Revised appraisal validity periods – On July 12, 2022, HUD issued which modifies the requirements for lenders to provide notice to a
Mortgagee Letter 2022-11, which increases the Federal Housing borrower’s estate after a HECM becomes due and payable due to the
Administration (FHA) initial appraisal validity period to 180 days from death of the last surviving borrower. OIG provided a no position response
the effective date of the appraisal. This mortgagee letter also extends regarding this mortgagee letter.
the appraisal update validity period to 1 year from the effective date of
the initial appraisal report, which is being updated. OIG provided a no New construction subterranean termite protection for new homes –
position response to this mortgagee letter. On August 31, 2022, HUD issued a notice, FR-7056-N-27, which seeks
approval from OMB regarding subterranean termite protection for new
Unique entity identifier for FHA-approved lenders, mortgagees, and homes. HUD regulations at 24 CFR 200.926d(b)(3) require that the sites
institutions seeking FHA approval – On August 23, 2022, HUD issued for HUD-insured structures be free of termite hazards. The form HUD-
Mortgagee Letter 2022-14, which requires all FHA-approved lenders, NPMA-99-A requires the builder to certify that all required treatment
mortgagees, and institutions seeking FHA approval to provide an active for termites was performed by an authorized pest control company with
unique entity identifier (UEI) as part of their institution data in the the builder’s guarantee of the treated area against infestation for 1 year.
Lender Electronic Assessment Portal or application for FHA approval. OIG The form HUD-NPMA-99-B requires a licensed pest control company
provided a no position response to this mortgagee letter. to provide to the builder a record of specific treatment information for
the prevention of termites. When applicable, the form HUD-NPMA-99-B
FHA lender approval, annual renewal, periodic updates, and required must accompany the form HUD-NPMA-99-A. If the requested data are
reports by FHA-approved lenders – On August 29, 2022, HUD issued a not collected, HUD risks insuring a mortgage loan for a home that is
notice, Federal Register (FR)-7056-N-28, which seeks approval from the infested by termites. OIG nonconcurred on this clearance item because
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the revised requirements form HUD-NPMA-99-A and form HUD-NPMA-99-B both state “Warning:
for FHA lenders to follow when providing annual renewals, periodic HUD will prosecute false claims and statements. Conviction may result
updates, and reports to HUD. Specifically, the revision incorporates the in criminal and/or civil penalties. (18 U.S.C. [United States Code]
requirements of 2 C.F.R. §§ 25 and 170, requiring all entities currently 1001, 1010, 1012; 31 U.S.C. 3729, 3802).” HUD does not prosecute.
conducting or seeking to do business with the Federal Government to U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), State, or local prosecutorial offices
have a UEI registered in the General Services Administration’s System of prosecute these matters. The language should be changed to a statement
Award Management. Collection of the UEI is vital to HUD’s compliance similar to the following: “I/We, the undersigned, certify under penalty
with the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 of perjury that the information provided above is true and correct.
Legislation, Regulations, and Other Directives | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 28
WARNING: Anyone who knowingly submits a false claim or makes a submissions; therefore, PHAs spend widely varying amounts of time and
false statement is subject to criminal and/or civil penalties, including effort compiling information that may or may not facilitate HUD’s review
confinement for up to 5 years, fines, and civil and administrative of their request. OIG provided a no position response on this notice.
penalties. (18 U.S.C. §§ 287, 1001, 1010, 1012, 1014; 31 U.S.C. §3729,
3802).” The forms should be modified to include a statement similar Remote video inspection – On April 29, 2022, HUD issued a notice, FR-
to the one suggested above. Including certifications under penalty 7061-N-07, which seeks approval from OMB for information collection
of perjury and fraud warnings helps to discourage fraud and helps regarding remote video inspection (RVI). The information collection
to effectively prosecute those who commit fraud. HUD modified the is required to continuously apply the RVI criteria for Uniform Physical
warning language, and the nonconcurrence was lifted. Condition Standards, National Standards for the Physical Inspection of
Real Estate, Remote Video Collaborative Quality Assurance, and any
Consideration of positive rental payment history for first time other Real Estate Assessment Center inspections. OIG nonconcurred on
homebuyers in forward mortgage purchase transactions – this clearance item because there was no warning statement listed on
On September 27, 2022, HUD issued Mortgagee Letter 2022-17, which a disclosure form in which the individual acknowledges the statement
provides guidance to lenders regarding the introduction of positive rental to be true. OIG recommended adding the following statement above
history for first time home buyers on forward purchase transactions in the signature section: “I/We, the undersigned, certify under penalty
FHA’s Technology Open To Approved Lenders Mortgage Scorecard. OIG of perjury that the information provided above is true and correct.
provided a no position response regarding this mortgagee letter. WARNING: Anyone who knowingly submits a false claim or makes a
false statement is subject to criminal and/or civil penalties, including
Public and Indian Housing confinement for up to 5 years, fines, and civil and administrative
penalties. (18 U.S.C. §§ 287, 1001, 1010, 1012, 1014; 31 U.S.C. §3729,
Public housing flat rent exception request market analysis – On April
3802).” The form should be modified to include a statement similar to the
29, 2022, HUD issued a notice, FR-7061-N-06, which seeks approval
one suggested above. Including certifications under penalty of perjury
from OMB for information collection on market analysis. A form will
and fraud warnings helps to discourage fraud and helps to effectively
be used to streamline the process and reduce the burden on public
prosecute those who commit fraud. HUD added the warning statement
housing agencies (PHA) when submitting a market analysis as part of a
to the disclosure form, and the nonconcurrence was lifted.
flat rent exception request in accordance with Office of Public and Indian
Housing (PIH) Notice PIH 2015-13(HA), which implements Section 238
Notice of reallocation of unaccepted Indian Housing Block
of Title II of Public Law 113-235, the Department of Housing and Urban
Grant American Rescue Plan Act funds to the Indian Community
Development Appropriations Act of 2015. Notice PIH 2015-13(HA) allows
Development Block Grant Imminent Threat – American Rescue Plan
PHAs to request flat rents that are based on the local rental market
Act program – On May 6, 2022, HUD issued a notice, PIH-2022-13, which
conditions, when the PHAs can demonstrate through a market analysis
provides Indian tribes and tribally designated housing entities (TDHE)
that the fair market rents (FMR) are not reflective of the local market.
with notice that the deadline to submit their abbreviated Indian housing
The current submission process does not stipulate a template for PHA
Legislation, Regulations, and Other Directives | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 29
plan to receive their Indian Housing Block Grant American Rescue Plan the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022. The notice apportions
Act (IHBG-ARP) grant funding is July 5, 2022. OIG commented that this the expected percentage change in national per unit cost for the HCV
notice stated, “On February 18, 2022, the Office of Native American Program, 4.68 percent, to each PHA based on the change in FMRs
Programs (ONAP) issued a ‘Dear Tribal Leader Letter’ suspending for their operating area to produce the FY 2022 RFIFs. HUD’s FY 2022
acceptance of applications for Indian Community Development Block methodology is the same as that used in FY 2021. OIG provided a
Grant Imminent Threat – American Rescue Plan Act (ICDBG-ARP) grants comment, which was for HUD to correct a weblink error.
on March 1, 2022.” Since it was anticipated that additional funds were
being reallocated to ICDBG-ARP, the proposed notice might be clearer if Total development cost for affordable housing under NAHASDA – On
HUD stated, “it is anticipated that the suspension will be lifted.” June 9, 2022, HUD issued a notice, PIH 2022-16, which transmits the
updated schedule for the maximum amount of funds that may be used
Implementation of the Federal fiscal year funding provisions for the for affordable housing under the Native American Housing Assistance
Housing Choice Voucher Program – On May 19, 2022, HUD issued a and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA) (25 U.S.C. § 4101 et
notice, PIH 2022-14, which implements the Housing Choice Voucher seq.), based on Marshall Valuation Service, Marshall & Swift/Boeckh,
(HCV) Program funding provisions of the Consolidated Appropriations LLC, and RSMeans Residential Cost Data for 2022. The requirement
Act, 2022 (Public Law 117-103), referred to hereafter as “the 2022 Act,” for the development and implementation of these limits is found at
enacted on March 15, 2022. The 2022 Act establishes the allocation 24 CFR 1000.156 through 1000.162 of IHBG regulations. This notice
methodology for calculating housing assistance payments renewal funds, also preserves previously provided regulatory relief with respect to the
new incremental vouchers, and administrative fees. OIG suggested total development cost limits for the IHBG Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and
that “under penalty of perjury” wording be added to the certification- Economic Security (CARES) Act and IHBG-ARP programs. This notice
warning statement in appendixes C, F, G, H, I, J, and K of this notice. supersedes Notice PIH 2010-47, dated November 19, 2010, and all
The sentence in which the signer states that he or she certifies that the notices extending that notice, up to and including Notice PIH 2019-19,
information is true and accurate should read as follows: “I hereby certify, dated July 18, 2019. OIG provided a comment regarding the date error
under penalty of perjury, that all the information stated herein, as well under the “Applicability” section of the notice.
as any information provided in the accompaniment herewith, is true
and accurate.” Including certifications under penalty of perjury helps to Implementation of Public Housing Operating Fund shortfall funding
discourage fraud. from Federal FY 2022 appropriations – On June 13, 2022, HUD issued a
notice, PIH-2022-17, which implements a provision in the Federal Fiscal
Section 8 housing assistance payments program for FY 2022 inflation Year 2022 Consolidated Appropriations Act (Public Law 117-103), which
factors for public housing agency renewal funding – On May 25, provides for a $25 million set-aside in the Public Housing Operating Fund
2022, HUD issued a notice, FR-6329-N-01, which establishes the to assist PHAs experiencing or at risk of financial shortfalls. Specifically,
renewal funding inflation factors (RFIF) to adjust fiscal year (FY) 2022
renewal funding for the HCV Program of each PHA, as required by
Legislation, Regulations, and Other Directives | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 30
this notice provides guidance regarding eligibility, the process for of budget receipts and expenditures by the PHA and HUD. The related
applying, and other requirements for the set-aside. OIG provided a no form provides a record of PHA board approval of how the amount shown
position response to this notice. on the operating budget was arrived at, as well as justification of certain
specified amounts. The information is reviewed by HUD to determine
Use of HCV and mainstream voucher administrative fees for other whether the plan of operation adopted by the PHA and amounts
expenses to assist families to lease units – On June 13, 2022, HUD included in it are reasonable for the efficient and economical operation
issued a notice, PIH 2022-18 (HA), which provides guidance on the use of of the development(s) and the PHA follows HUD procedures to ensure
HCV and mainstream voucher ongoing administrative fees for expenses that sound management practices will be followed in the operation of the
related to assisting HCV and mainstream voucher families to lease units, development. PHAs are still required to prepare their operating budgets
including the costs of security deposit assistance and landlord incentive and submit them to their boards for approval before their Operating
and retention payments. Also, this notice supersedes section 3 of Notice Fund grant is approved by HUD. OIG nonconcurred on this clearance
PIH 2015-17 with respect to the description of the restricted use of item because the warning language on form HUD 52574 indicated that
administrative fees. OIG provided a no position response to this notice. HUD would prosecute. HUD does not prosecute. DOJ, State, or local
prosecutorial offices prosecute these matters. The language should be
Family Self-Sufficiency Program: establishment of the escrow account changed to a statement similar to the following: “I/We, the undersigned,
and use of forfeited program escrow – On July 27, 2022, HUD issued certify under penalty of perjury that the information provided above
a notice, PIH-2022-20 (HA), which clarifies a few sections of the new is true and correct. WARNING: Anyone who knowingly submits a false
rule (24 CFR part 984) related to the establishment of the Family Self- claim or makes a false statement is subject to criminal and/or civil
Sufficiency (FSS) escrow account, the use of forfeited FSS escrow, and penalties, including confinement for up to 5 years, fines, and civil and
the reporting of FSS escrows in the Financial Assessment Sub-System for administrative penalties. (18 U.S.C. §§ 287, 1001, 1010, 1012; 31 U.S.C.
Public Housing Authorities. OIG commented that there were subsections §3729, 3802).” The form should be modified to include a statement
that were not included in 24 CFR § 984.305(a)(2). OIG recommended similar to the one suggested above. Including certifications under penalty
revising the sentence; for example, “For convenience, some regulatory of perjury and fraud warnings helps to discourage fraud and helps
language of 24 CFR § 984.305 (a)(1) and (a)(2) is provided below.” to effectively prosecute those who commit fraud. HUD modified the
warning language, and the nonconcurrence was lifted.
Public Housing Operating Fund program: operating budget and related
form – On July 28, 2022, HUD issued a notice, FR-7061-N-10, which Public-private partnerships for the mixed-finance development of
seeks approval from OMB for information collection regarding the public housing units – On July 28, 2022, HUD issued a notice, FR-
public housing operating budget and a related form that are required 7061-N-09, which seeks approval from OMB for information collection
to be submitted by PHAs for the low-income housing program. The regarding public-private partnerships for the mixed-finance development
operating budget provides a summary of proposed budget receipts and of public housing units. The Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act
expenditures by major category, as well as blocks for indicating approval of 1998 (Public Law 195-276, approved October 21, 1998), also known as
Legislation, Regulations, and Other Directives | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 31
the Public Housing Reform Act, created Section 35 of the U.S. Housing Act CARES Act funding reconciliation and closeout – On August 3, 2022,
of 1937, 42 U.S.C. 1437z-7.1437. Section 35 allows PHAs to own, operate, HUD issued a notice, PIH 2022-21, which describes the closeout
assist, or otherwise participate in the development and operation of mixed- procedures under 2 CFR 200.344 (Closeout) for funds awarded
finance projects. Mixed-finance development refers to the development to PHAs under the CARES Act (Public Law 116-136) to prevent,
or rehabilitation of public housing in which the public housing units are prepare for, and respond to the coronavirus. The CARES Act provided
owned in whole or in part by an entity other than a PHA. Before this, supplemental housing assistance payments and administrative fees
all public housing had to be developed and owned by a PHA. However, to PHAs administering the HCV Program and mainstream vouchers
Section 35 allows PHAs to provide Section 9 capital funds and operating and supplemental housing assistance payments to the Moderate
funds to mixed-finance projects, which are also financially assisted by Rehabilitation program. The period of availability (also known as period
private financing and other resources, including tax credit equity; private of performance) for this notice for the CARES Act supplemental funding
mortgages; and other Federal, State, or local funds. Section 35 also allows ended on December 31, 2021; therefore, HUD is providing instructions
non-PHA owner entities to own and operate mixed-finance projects that PHAs must follow to complete and submit the OMB Form SF-425, Federal
contain only public housing units or both public housing and nonpublic Financial Report, to HUD. This submission will include all CARES Act
housing units. Mixed-finance real estate development or rehabilitation financial activity certified by the PHA’s executive director or designee,
transactions also help to extend public housing appropriations for stating that the information on the SF-425 is true and accurate. OIG
housing development and to support the development of mixed-income provided a no position response regarding this notice.
housing in which public housing residents are anonymously mixed in with
affordable and market rate housing residents. OIG nonconcurred on this Revocation and reallocation of emergency housing voucher awards
clearance item because the warning statement on forms HUD 50158, – On August 11, 2022, HUD issued a notice, PIH 2022-22 (HA), which
HUD-50160, and HUD-50161 stated that HUD would prosecute. HUD does explains HUD’s process for revocation and reallocation of emergency
not prosecute. DOJ, State, or local prosecutorial offices prosecute these housing voucher awards. As part of this process, the notice updates
matters. The language should be changed to a statement similar to the the award allocation formula found in section 4 of notice PIH 2021-15
following: “I/We, the undersigned, certify under penalty of perjury that in connection with the reallocation of these awards. OIG provided a no
the information provided above is true and correct. WARNING: Anyone position response regarding this notice.
who knowingly submits a false claim or makes a false statement is subject
to criminal and/or civil penalties, including confinement for up to 5 years, Administrative requirements for investing IHBG funds – On August 15,
fines, and civil and administrative penalties. (18 U.S.C. §§ 287, 1001, 1010, 2022, HUD issued a notice, PIH 2022-23, which describes the requirements
1012; 31 U.S.C. §3729, 3802).” The forms should be modified to include for investing IHBG funds and establishes the basis upon which HUD will
a statement similar to the one suggested above. Including certifications determine whether a recipient of IHBG funds has the administrative
under penalty of perjury and fraud warnings helps to discourage fraud and capacity to draw down those funds for investment purposes as authorized
helps to effectively prosecute those who commit fraud. HUD modified the under section 204(b) of NAHASDA. Also, this notice replaces Notice PIH
warning statement on the forms, and the nonconcurrence was lifted. 2019-16. OIG provided a no position response regarding this notice.
Legislation, Regulations, and Other Directives | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 32
Notice of annual factors for determining administrative fees for the Voluntary reallocation or recapture of HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive
Section 8 HCV, mainstream, and Moderate Rehabilitation programs Housing vouchers – On August 16, 2022, HUD issued a notice, PIH
for calendar year 2021 – On August 15, 2022, HUD issued a notice, 2022-25 (HA), which establishes the processes under which a HUD-
FR-6327-N-01, which provides the per unit, monthly fee rates used to Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH) PHA may be approved
determine the ongoing administrative fees for PHAs administering the to voluntarily (1) reallocate all or a portion of its HUD-VASH vouchers
HCV, mainstream, and Moderate Rehabilitation programs, including and any associated funding to another HUD-VASH PHA within the same
the Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy program, for Veterans Affairs Medical Center catchment area or (2) if reallocation
calendar year 2021. This is required by section 8(q) of the U.S. Housing is not an option, have all or a portion of its HUD-VASH vouchers and
Act of 1937. PHAs use administrative fees to cover costs associated with associated funding recaptured and returned to HUD. All HUD-VASH
administering the HCV Program. Publishing the calendar year 2021 fees vouchers and associated funding returned to HUD will be awarded
allows PHAs to budget appropriately and is important for PHA record- as part of a future HUD-VASH national allocation process, based on
keeping purposes. Additionally, publishing this notice retroactively allows need and any other congressionally mandated factors. OIG provided a
PHAs to continue portability billing for families that ported in calendar comment for HUD to update the number and date of this notice.
year 2021. This notice follows HUD’s previous publication of the rates on
HUD’s website and makes no changes to those rates. OIG provided a no Registration of interest for HUD-VASH vouchers – On August 16, 2022,
position response regarding this notice. HUD issued a notice, PIH 2022-26 (HA), which announces the availability
of approximately $79 million in HUD-VASH. Based on average costs, HUD
Stability Voucher program – On August 16, 2022, HUD issued a notice, anticipates that this funding will support approximately 8,500 new HUD-
PIH 2022-24 (HA), which explains HUD’s noncompetitive allocation strategy VASH vouchers. These vouchers are administered in partnership with the
and program requirements for the new Stability Voucher program. HUD U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and enable homeless veterans and
is awarding up to $43.4 million to support approximately 4,000 new their families to access affordable housing with an array of supportive
incremental vouchers. This funding opportunity is designed to encourage services. HUD-VASH vouchers are authorized under section 8(o)(19) of the
a communitywide commitment to the goal of ending homelessness. United States Housing Act of 1937, as modified by the requirements in
Stabillity vouchers may assist households that are homeless, as defined in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (Public Law 117-103, approved
section 103(a) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. March 15, 2022). The Act provides $50 million in funding for the vouchers
11302(a)), or at-risk of homelessness; those fleeing or attempting to flee made available under this notice. The additional $29 million in funding
domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, or human is available from prior-year appropriations. OIG provided a no position
trafficking; and veterans and families that include a veteran family member response to this notice.
that meet one of the preceding criteria. Also, HUD clarifies that persons
who are fleeing or attempting to flee human trafficking are an eligible Determining and using program income under NAHASDA – On August
category for stability vouchers and adds the definition of “homeless” in 23, 2022, HUD issued a notice, PIH 2022-28, which provides guidance
section 9 of this notice. OIG provided a no position response to this notice. for determining and using program income generated by the use or
Legislation, Regulations, and Other Directives | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 33
disbursement of IHBG funds under NAHASDA. Also, this notice replaces must submit an annual report on two specific data points: (1) the number
Notice PIH 2019-07. OIG provided a no position response to this notice. of overincome families residing in public housing and (2) the number of
families on the public housing waiting lists. OIG provided a no position
Notice of annual factors for determining administrative fees for the response regarding this notice.
Section 8 HCV, Mainstream, and Moderate Rehabilitation programs
for calendar year 2022 – On August 25, 2022, HUD issued a notice, Public Housing Reform Act: changes to admission and occupancy
FR-6328-N-01, which announces the per unit, monthly fee rates to requirements – On August 31, 2022, HUD issued a notice, FR-7061-N-12,
determine the ongoing administrative fees for PHAs administering the which seeks approval from OMB for information collection that will
HCV, Mainstream, and Moderate Rehabilitation programs, including implement changes to the admission and occupancy requirements for
Single Room Occupancy, during calendar year 2022. PHAs use the public housing program made by the Quality Housing and Work
administrative fees to cover costs associated with administering the HCV Responsibility Act of 1998 (Title V of the FY 1999 HUD Appropriations
Program. Publishing the calendar year 2022 administrative fees allows Act, Public Law 105-276, 112 Stat. 2518, approved October 21, 1998) and
PHAs to budget appropriately and is important for PHA record-keeping HOTMA, Section 103, which amends the United States Housing Act of
purposes. This notice follows HUD’s previous publication of the rates on 1937. OIG provided a no position response to this notice.
HUD’s website and makes no changes to those rates. OIG provided a no
position response to this notice. FMRs for the HCV Program, Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room
Occupancy Program, and other programs, FY 2023 – On September
Public housing waiting list data collection tool – On August 31, 2022, 1, 2022, HUD issued a notice, FR-6343-N-01, which announces the
HUD issued a notice, FR-7061-N-11, which seeks approval from OMB for availability of FY 2023 FMRs; describes the methods used to calculate
its proposed information collection regarding a public housing waiting the FY 2023 FMRs; responds to comments submitted on the notice,
list collection tool. This collection of information implements a statutory entitled Proposed Changes to the Methodology Used for Calculating
requirement made by Section 103 of the Housing Opportunity Through Fair Market Rents; and enumerates the procedures for PHAs and other
Modernization Act of 2016 (HOTMA). HOTMA was signed into law on interested parties to request reevaluations of their FMRs as required by
July 29, 2016 (Public Law 114-201, 130 Stat. 782). Section 103 of HOTMA HOTMA. OIG provided comments on this clearance item. Specifically,
amends section 16(a) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. OIG suggested that HUD edit the contradicting sentences on margin
1437n(a)). Section 103 of HOTMA states that after a public housing of error because the margin of error should be simultaneously less
family has been overincome for 2 consecutive years, a PHA must either: than half but greater than 50 percent. In addition, OIG suggested that
(1) charge the overincome family a monthly rent that is the higher of HUD reexamine the contradiction regarding whether or not to use the
FMR under section 8(c) for the dwelling unit or the monthly amount of American Community Survey data or a local survey to establish the
public housing subsidy provided for the dwelling unit or (2) terminate the base rent. Further, the notice did not identify how third parties needing
tenancy of the overincome family no later than 6 months after the end to use the adjusted FMRs would know that the areas have adjusted
of the 2-year period. Additionally, under section 103 of HOTMA, PHAs FMRs; therefore, OIG suggested that HUD consider adding a website or
Legislation, Regulations, and Other Directives | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 34
publication through which third parties (such as PHAs) can easily identify ONAP training and technical assistance evaluation – On September
the correct FMRs for the areas or locations. 28, 2022, HUD issued a notice, FR-7061-N-13, which seeks approval
from OMB for information collection regarding its ONAP training and
Extension of certain regulatory waivers for the HCV, including technical assistance. ONAP administers the IHBG program and offers
mainstream program and streamlined review process – On September contracted training and technical assistance to IHBG recipients on
26, 2022, HUD issued a notice, PIH 2022-30, which provides for the program requirements. ONAP’s Notice of Funding Opportunity for
extension of currently approved regulatory waivers for (1) increasing training and technical assistance services includes the requirement for
the payment standard during the housing assistance payments contract the contractor(s) to use an OMB-approved evaluation form at all ONAP-
term and (2) new payment standard amounts through December 31, sponsored events. At the end of each training and technical assistance
2023. This notice includes regulatory waivers specifically related to event, participants are invited to voluntarily complete the Training and
assisting PHAs in responding to ongoing fluctuations and disruptions Technical Assistance Evaluation Form (form HUD-5879) to assess training
in the rental market by providing more flexibility with establishing and and technical assistance effectiveness and solicit ideas for improvement.
applying payment standards. OIG provided a no position response OIG provided a no position response regarding this notice.
regarding this notice.
Mainstream Vouchers – noncompetitive opportunity for additional
Public housing mortgage program and Section 30 – On September 27, vouchers authorized by the CARES Act and extraordinary
2022, HUD issued a notice, FR-7061-N-14, which seeks approval from administrative funding update – On September 30, 2022, HUD issued
OMB for information collection related to public housing mortgage a notice, PIH 2022-31, in which HUD increases the available funding for
program. Section 516 of the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility new mainstream vouchers from $40 million to $48 million after additional
Act of 1998 added Section 30, Public Housing Mortgages and Security funding has been identified. There will be no new Mainstream vouchers
Interest, to the United States Housing Act of 1937. Section 30 authorizes being received through this notice. In a previous notice, PIH 2022-07, HUD
the Secretary of HUD to approve a PHA’s request to mortgage public used its authority provided by the CARES Act to use Mainstream carryover
housing real property or grant a security interest in other tangible forms funding from previous appropriations Acts to noncompetitively award up
of personal property if the proceeds of the loan resulting from the to $35 million in new mainstream vouchers. Notice PIH 2022-19 increased
mortgage or security interest are used for low-income housing uses. the available funding for new mainstream vouchers from $35 million to $40
PHAs must provide information to HUD for approval to allow PHAs to million. OIG provided a no position response regarding this notice.
grant a mortgage in public housing real estate or a security interest
in some tangible form of personal property owned by the PHA for
the purposes of securing loans or other financing for modernization
or development of low-income housing. OIG provided a no position
response regarding this notice.
Legislation, Regulations, and Other Directives | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 35
Multifamily Housing “Supporting Statement A” shows an average of 8 hours per response.
OIG recommended that HUD make a correction regarding the conflicting
Personal financial and credit statement – On July 13, 2022, HUD average hours per response.
issued a notice, FR-7056-N-25, which seeks approval from OMB for
information collection regarding project participants’ personal financial Increase in frequency of the distribution of surplus cash for
and credit statements. The financial analysis of the project’s principal nonassisted HUD-insured properties – On September 7, 2022, HUD
participants is an integral part of the underwriting process. Thus, HUD, issued Mortgagee Letter 2022-16, which permits modification of
in accordance with regulations cited in 24 CFR 207.1, is legally required section 13 of the regulatory agreement (form HUD-92466M) to allow
to collect information to evaluate the character, ability, and capital of distributions from surplus cash as frequently as monthly for eligible
the sponsor, borrower, and general contractor for mortgage insurance. borrowers. This policy is limited to FHA-insured multifamily properties
OIG provided a no position response to this notice. not subject to a Section 8 project-based rental assistance payments
contract or a HUD-held mortgage note. This policy aligns HUD’s
Standards for success reporting – On July 20, 2022, HUD issued a multifamily insurance for unassisted projects with industry standards and
notice, FR-7051-N-01, which seeks approval from OMB for information increases its competitive standing in the lending industry. OIG provided a
collection regarding its standards for success reporting. This request is for no position response to this mortgagee letter.
the continued clearance of data collection and reporting requirements
to enable HUD’s Office of the Chief Financial Officer to better assess Multifamily Accelerated Processing – On September 12, 2022, HUD
the effectiveness of discretionary-funded programs included in this issued a notice, FR-7056-N-35, which seeks approval from OMB for
information collection request. The discretionary-funded programs information collection regarding the Multifamily Accelerated Processing
included in this information collection request are the Multifamily (MAP) Guide 4430.G, which applies only to FHA multifamily mortgage
Housing Service Coordinator Grant program, the Multifamily Housing insurance programs. The MAP Guide is designed to establish uniform
Budget-Based Service Coordinator program, and the Resident national standards for FHA-approved lenders to prepare, process, and
Opportunity and Self Sufficiency Service Coordinator Grant program. OIG submit loan applications for multifamily mortgage insurance. The MAP
provided a no position response regarding this notice. Guide has been updated to reflect various organizational, policy, and
processing changes implemented since the last edition was published in
HUD multifamily energy assessment – On August 30, 2022, HUD issued 2016. Two new chapters have been added to this edition of the Guide:
a notice, FR-7056-N-22, which seeks approval from OMB to extend The “Water and Energy Conservation” chapter and the “Closing Guide.”
currently approved information collection with the purpose of assisting All MAP-eligible projects must be submitted using MAP processing unless
owners of multifamily housing projects with assessing energy needs in a waiver is granted to process under traditional application processing.
an effort to reduce energy costs and improve energy conservation. OIG OIG provided a no position response to this notice.
provided a comment regarding this notice. Specifically, the form HUD-
9614 states that it takes an average of 4 hours per response, while the
Legislation, Regulations, and Other Directives | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 36
Multifamily coinsurance claims package, section 223(f) – On September recovery. HUD modified the warning language on both forms, and the
16, 2022, HUD issued a notice, FR-7056-N-39, which seeks approval nonconcurrence was lifted.
from OMB for information collection regarding multifamily coinsurance
claims. The request is about the reinstatement, with change, of a Green and Resilient Retrofit Program – On September 27, 2022, HUD
previously approved collection for which approval has expired. A lender issued a notice, FR-6350-N-01, which was a request for information (RFI).
with an insured multifamily mortgage pays an annual insurance premium The purpose of this RFI is to solicit information regarding the design and
to HUD. When and if the mortgage goes into default, the lender may implementation of the Green and Resilient Retrofit Program to support the
elect to file a claim for FHA multifamily insurance benefits with HUD. improvement of energy and water efficiency retrofits and climate resilience
HUD needs this information to determine whether FHA multifamily of HUD-assisted multifamily properties. HUD expects to make multiple
insurance claims submitted to HUD are accurate and valid and support rounds of funding available to support energy and water efficiency retrofits
payment of an FHA multifamily insurance claim. OIG nonconcurred on and climate resilience of HUD-assisted multifamily properties. OIG provided
this clearance item because both forms HUD-27008 and HUD-27009-F a no position response regarding this notice.
state, “HUD will prosecute…” and do not give warnings of penalties
for violating the referenced criminal and civil violations. HUD does not Renewal of expiring project rental assistance contracts for projects
prosecute. DOJ, State, or local prosecutorial offices prosecute these under the Section 202 program of Supportive Housing for the Elderly
matters. The language should be changed to a statement similar to and the Section 811 program of Supportive Housing for Persons with
the following: “I/We, the undersigned, certify under penalty of perjury Disabilities – On September 29, 2022, HUD issued Notice H 2022-05,
that the information provided above is true and correct. WARNING: which updates the contract renewal procedures and standard renewal
Anyone who knowingly submits a false claim or makes a false statement contract language for project rental assistance contracts (PRAC) under the
is subject to criminal and/or civil penalties, including confinement for Section 202 program of Supportive Housing for the Elderly and Section 811
up to 5 years, fines, and civil and administrative penalties. (18 U.S.C. §§ program of Supportive Housing for Persons With Disabilities. The notice
287, 1001, 1010, 1012; 31 U.S.C. §3729, 3802).” The forms should be also establishes a process to move all Section 202 PRAC properties into
modified to include a statement similar to the one suggested above. contracts with a 5-year term. This change will reduce paperwork associated
Including certifications under penalty of perjury and fraud warnings helps with annual renewals and streamline the annual funding process. To assist
to discourage fraud and helps to effectively prosecute those who commit in balancing HUD’s workload and improve the timely completion of all
fraud. Additionally, form HUD-27009-F does not require a signature. If renewals going forward, the conversion from annual to 5-year terms will
it has warning statements, as it currently does, consideration should be phased in over the next 3 years. OIG provided the following comments
be given to requiring a signature like form HUD-27008, if applicable. regarding this notice.
Requiring a signature ensures that the authorizer of the report on
proceeds can and should be held responsible for any criminal or civil In section III.D, the proposed notice states, “The calculation of new
violations. Acknowledging the responsibility aids in protecting HUD funding increments will consider undisbursed balances from prior year
funds and allows for reclamation through administrative, civil, or criminal allocations to the contract.” The notice does not say how HUD would
Legislation, Regulations, and Other Directives | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 37
consider the undisbursed balances. When undisbursed funds are tied says no to a PRAC due to its workload considerations.
to a specific contract, HUD does not have the opportunity to resource
those funds for another contract. Instead, HUD should consider spelling In section IV.B, the proposed notice assigns PRACs to cohorts by the last
out in this notice that HUD will use up any undisbursed balances before digit of their project number. The project number can be the FHA insurance
allocating additional funds. number (for example, 063-EExxx) or the Real Estate Management System
(REMS) project ID (for example, 8000xxxxx). Most PRACs have both an
In section III.E, the proposed notice states, “Any rent adjustments for FHA insurance number and a REMS project ID. The examples used in the
either Section 202 PRACs or Section 811 PRACs proposed to be effective proposed notice identify that HUD is using the FHA insurance number. To
at a point-in-time other than renewal or in the month of the renewal avoid potential confusion, HUD could replace the term “project number”
contract anniversary date will be subject to secondary funding reviews by with “FHA insurance number” and keep its examples. This change could
HUD.” It does not describe the secondary funding review process. HUD avoid confusion on the part of its stakeholders.
should consider adding a statement about the secondary funding review
process that either spells out the process or links to the criteria in which In section IV.B, the proposed notice authorizes the multifamily regional
it spelled out this process. directors to approve requests for cohort changes. A cohort change will
affect multiple years of a PRAC’s operations and how HUD employees
In section IV.A, the proposed notice states, “No more than 40 percent monitor an operation. The proposed notice does not identify how and
of renewals administered within an individual Regional or Satellite office where the directors should document that they authorized a change.
that expire within each month may be approved for a 5-year term during HUD should consider adding statements to the notice identifying how the
this initial opt-in period.” This sentence is confusing as it contains multiple directors should document that they authorized a change. HUD should also
ideas. It appears to mean that HUD is limiting the number of properties consider adding statements to the notice to identify a consistent location
eligible to change to 5-year renewals to maintain operating efficiency. It in its computer systems (for example, specific screens in its Integrated Real
may mean that HUD is limiting the number of properties to 40 percent of Estate Management System) where the directors should document that
an individual regional or satellite office’s monthly workload of renewals. they authorized a change. Having a consistent location for this information
Maintaining operating efficiency while ensuring that renewals are accurate could help HUD employees better understand that PRAC and better
is important. HUD could split these ideas to limit confusion on the part monitor its operations.
of stakeholders (owners, management agents, operators, etc.). This
procedure may create challenges at certain times of the year when there Community Planning and Development
are large numbers of renewals coming due at the same time. Renewals are
not evenly distributed across all 12 months. The notice does not explain Small Cities program performance assessment report – On May 6,
what happens when HUD says no to an owner because of its workload 2022, HUD issued a notice, FR-7052-N-04, which seeks an extension
considerations. For example, when would the PRAC be eligible to convert without change of a currently OMB-approved collection regarding the
to 5-year renewals? HUD should consider identifying the next steps when it annual performance assessment reports that are submitted by the
Legislation, Regulations, and Other Directives | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 38
grantees under the Small Cities program. Such information will enable rental assistance programs. The rent standard is used in conjunction with
HUD to track the progress of the program. Section 104(e) of the Housing “rent reasonableness” and the “resident rent payment” to determine
and Community Development Act of 1974 requires that each grantee the maximum subsidy for a family receiving HOPWA rental assistance.
submit a performance and evaluation report to HUD. OIG provided a no Under 24 CFR 574.320(a)(2), the rent standard may be no more than
position response regarding this notice. the published Section 8 FMR or the HUD-approved communitywide
exception rent for the unit size. In addition, on a unit-by-unit basis,
Procedural guidance for FY 2022 Housing Opportunities for Persons the grantee may increase that amount by up to 10 percent for up
With AIDS permanent supportive housing renewal and replacement to 20 percent of the units assisted. OIG suggested that HUD cite the
grant applications – On June 13, 2022, HUD’s Office of Community appropriate subpart of 24 CFR 574.320 regarding maximum subsidy
Planning and Development (CPD) issued a notice, CPD-22-08, which and rent reasonableness. In addition, regarding the two standards
announces the renewal grant application and replacement grant (comparable units in the private market and not-in-excess-of rents
application requirements for eligible expiring Housing Opportunities for charged of other comparable unassisted units by the same landlord), OIG
Persons With AIDS (HOPWA) Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) grants. recommended that HUD make a clarification at the front of the section
Under the renewal authority provided by the Consolidated Appropriations and include the specific CFR citation.
Act, 2020 (Public Law 116-94), and the renewal or replacement authority
provided by both the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (Public Law Housing Trust Fund – On July 13, 2022, HUD issued a notice, FR-
117-103), and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116- 7050-N-33, which seeks approval from OMB regarding information
260), HUD will renew or replace all eligible expiring HOPWA PSH grants collection on the Housing Trust Fund (HTF). The information collected
that meet all program requirements and were initially funded under a through the Integrated Disbursement and Information System (IDIS) (24
HUD competition for FY 2010 or earlier FY funds. HUD’s mission is to CFR 93.402) is used by HUD field offices, HUD headquarters, and HTF
create strong, sustainable, inclusive communities and quality, affordable grantees. Specifically, the information on program funds committed and
homes for all. HUD’s FYs 2022-2026 Strategic Plan establishes strategic disbursed is used by HUD to track grantee performance and determine
goals in line with the work supported through the notice of funding for compliance with the statutory 24-month commitment deadline and
HOPWA PSH grants. OIG recommended that HUD change the citations of the regulatory 5-year expenditure deadline (section 93.400(d)). In
the Federal regulations for specificity and accuracy. addition, the project-specific property, tenant, owner, and financial
data are used to make program management decisions about how
Clarification of rent standard requirement for the HOPWA program well program participants are achieving the statutory objectives of the
– On June 29, 2022, HUD issued a notice, CPD-22-10, which clarifies HTF program. Program management reports are generated by IDIS to
HUD’s guidance on applying the program rent standard requirements provide data on the status of program participants’ commitment and
at 24 CFR 574.320(a)(2), while HUD considers potential rulemaking to disbursement of HTF funds. These reports are provided to HUD staff as
update HOPWA rental assistance requirements. Under 24 CFR 574.320(a) well as to HTF grantees. OIG provided comments regarding this notice by
(2), HOPWA grantees are required to establish rent standards for their recommending that HUD review 24 CFR 93.404 to determine whether it
Legislation, Regulations, and Other Directives | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 39
should also cite 24 CFR 93.405 regarding program cost limits; expand the issued a Federal Register notice, FR-6349-N-01, which governs Community
range of 24 CFR 93.201 (d)(1) by including 24 CFR 93.201 (d)(2) through Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) funds awarded
(d)(5); and add 24 CFR 93.302(e)(1), 24 CFR 93.302 (e)(2), 24 CFR under the appropriations acts identified in the table of contents of this
93.350(b)(1), and 24 CFR 93.350(b)(2). notice. Specifically, this notice provides waivers and establishes alternative
requirements for certain CDBG-DR grantees that have submitted waiver
Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program: announcement of fee to cover requests for grants provided under the public laws cited in this notice. OIG
credit subsidy costs for FY 2023 – On September 1, 2022, HUD issued provided a no position response regarding this notice.
a notice, FR-6341-N-01, which announces the fee that HUD will collect
from borrowers of loans guaranteed under HUD’s Section 108 Loan Disaster Funding
Guarantee Program to offset the credit subsidy costs of the guaranteed
loans under commitments awarded in FY 2023 in the event that HUD Allocations for Community Development Block Grant Disaster
is required or authorized by statute to do so, despite subsection (m) of Recovery and implementation of the consolidated waivers and
Section 108 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. alternative requirements – On May 24, 2022, HUD issued a notice,
OIG provided a no position response regarding this notice. FR-6326-N-01, which identifies grant requirements for the nearly $3
billion allocated CDBG-DR funds, including requirements in HUD’s CDBG-
Changes to Home Investment Partnerships program commitment DR Consolidated Notice and some amendments to the Consolidated
requirement – On September 22, 2022, HUD issued a final rule, FR Notice that apply to CDBG-DR grants for disasters occurring in 2020
5792-F-03, which finalizes the December 2, 2016, interim rule without and 2021. The Consolidated Notice, as amended by this allocation
change. The interim rule changed the method by which HUD determines announcement notice, includes waivers and alternative requirements,
participating jurisdictions’ compliance with the statutory 24-month relevant regulatory requirements, the grant award process, criteria for
commitment requirements on the use of Home Investment Partnerships action plan approval, and eligible disaster recovery activities. This notice
program funds, including the set-aside for community housing also includes a modification to the February 3, 2022, notice (87 FR 6364)
development organizations, under the Cranston-Gonzalez National that announced CDBG-DR grants for disasters occurring in 2020. OIG
Affordable Housing Act of 1990. Specifically, it implemented a grant- recommended that HUD replace the warning language to “WARNING:
specific method for determining compliance with such requirements. In Anyone who knowingly submits a false claim or makes a false statement
addition, the interim rule revised the method of administering program is subject to criminal and/or civil penalties, including confinement for
income to prevent participating jurisdictions from losing allocated HOME up to 5 years, fines, and civil and administrative penalties. (18 U.S.C.
funds when they spend program income. OIG provided a no position §§ 287, 1001, 1010, 1012, 1014; 31 U.S.C. §3729, 3802).” In addition,
response regarding this final rule. OIG recommended that HUD modify the certification statement; make
a correction to the uniform guidance citation and the HUD OIG hotline
Waivers and alternative requirements for Community Development information; and make clarifications regarding (1) whether an amended
Block Grant Disaster Recovery grantees – On September 28, 2022, HUD action plan is required for the smaller grantees, (2) the difference
Legislation, Regulations, and Other Directives | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 40
between evaluation of the cost (for example, before issuing for proposals) Administrative and Other Program Areas
and price analysis (for example, after receiving proposals), and (3)
whether the grantees that can rely on their prior financial certifications General applicability waiver of Build America, Buy America provisions
still have to submit an action plan for program administrative costs if as applied to recipients of HUD Federal financial assistance – On May
they want to access funds for such use. Further, OIG suggested that 3, 2022, HUD issued a notice, FR-6331-N-01, which, in accordance with
HUD consider inserting a sentence, under the “Timely Distribution and the Build America, Buy America Act, advises that it is proposing a general
Expenditure of Funds” section that expressly recognizes that HUD has a applicability waiver for 6 months to the Buy America Domestic Content
reversionary interest in any unused and improperly applied funds. Procurement Preference (BAP) to provide the agency with sufficient time
to solicit information from the public relating to the agency’s potential
information collection needs and the associated burdens that would be
Healthcare Programs
placed on recipients arising from compliance and monitoring with the
Additional operator and FHA lender notice requirement for accounts BAP in connection with Federal financial assistance awards made by HUD.
receivable availability reduction – On July 11, 2022, HUD issued In accordance with the Act, HUD has found that this proposed general
Housing Notice 22-03, which implements an additional notice applicability waiver is in the public interest as HUD must complete the
requirement for FHA lenders and operators of Section 232 projects required public comment process under the Paperwork Reduction Act
that receive accounts receivable financing from an accounts receivable to establish an approved collection for the information identified. The
lender. The requirement will allow FHA lenders and HUD to better information collection is necessary to establish compliance with the BAP.
monitor the financial health of such projects and position FHA lenders OIG provided a no position response to this notice.
and HUD to take timely action when necessary. OIG provided a no
position response regarding this notice. General applicability waiver of Build America, Buy America provisions
as applied to tribal recipients of HUD Federal financial assistance
Green Mortgage Insurance Premium program guidance for the – On May 3, 2022, HUD issued a notice, FR-6331-N-02, which, in
Office of Residential Care Facilities – On August 18, 2022, HUD issued accordance with the Build America, Buy America Act, advises that HUD
Mortgagee Letter 2022-13, which provides program guidance and is proposing a general applicability waiver for 1 year to the BAP as applied
reporting requirements for Office of Residential Care Facilities’ (ORCF) to Federal financial assistance provided to tribes, TDHEs, and other tribal
Green Mortgages as announced in ORCF’s Green Mortgage Insurance entities. In accordance with the Act, HUD has found that this general
Premium (MIP) Notice (FR-6302-N-01). This mortgagee letter is effective applicability waiver is in the public interest. Such a waiver provides HUD
upon publication, and it applies to firm commitments issued or reissued with the opportunity to first engage in consultation as described in HUD’s
on or after October 1, 2022. Applications with firm commitments issued or Tribal Government-to-Government Consultation Policy, consistent with
reissued on or before September 30, 2022, are not eligible for the Green President Biden’s Tribal Consultation and Strengthening Nation-to-Nation
MIP rate. OIG provided a comment on this clearance item, correcting the Relationships memorandum, regarding the potential application of the BAP
name of the program office so it would match with the acronym. to such entities. OIG provided a no position response to this notice.
Legislation, Regulations, and Other Directives | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 41
Request for information related to the implementation of the Build Multiple Program Areas
America, Buy America Act – On June 1, 2022, HUD issued a notice,
FR-6331-N-03, which seeks public input on the implementation of the Proposed changes to the methodology used for calculating FMRs – On
Build America, Buy America Act as it applies to HUD’s Federal financial July 13, 2022, HUD issued a notice, FR-6334-N-01, which states that
assistance. In this request for information, HUD is seeking input on section 8(c)(1) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 requires the
several topics relating to the potential information collection burden HUD Secretary to publish FMRs periodically but not less than annually,
on recipients, including existing mechanisms for demonstrating adjusted to be effective on October 1 of each year. The primary uses
compliance with the Act’s BAP, potential costs of compliance for of FMRs are to determine (1) payment standards for the HCV Program,
recipients and contractors, and the potential impact on projects funded (2) initial renewal rents for some expiring project-based Section
by HUD Federal financial assistance. OIG provided comments for HUD 8 contracts, and (3) initial rents for housing assistance payments
to consider, such as a brief description of what “de minimis” is and contracts in the Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy
revising the document number or updating the applicable portal to Program and to serve as rent ceilings for rental units in both the HOME
match the document number. The e-Rulemaking portal listed only FR- Investment Partnerships program and the ESG Program and a primary
6331-N-01 and did not list FR-6331-N-03. rent standard option for the HOPWA program. HUD also uses FMRs
in the calculation of maximum award amounts for Continuum of Care
Standardization of form for race and other demographic data reporting grantees and in the calculation of flat rents for public housing units.
– On September 27, 2022, HUD issued a notice, FR-7051-N-03, which In furtherance of that effort, HUD proposes changes in how FMRs are
seeks approval from OMB for information collection using form HUD- calculated in this notice and seeks public comment on the proposed
27061. HUD program offices use this form when collecting information changes. OIG provided a comment regarding a missing web link in the
concerning the race, ethnicity, and other protected class data of the first paragraph of section III of the notice.
populations intended to benefit from HUD funding as required by
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fair Housing Act, and HUD’s Adjustment of civil monetary penalty amounts: request for comments
regulations. OIG provided a comment regarding this notice. Specifically, – On September 21, 2022, HUD issued a notice, FR-6346-N-01, which
OIG suggested that HUD revise the incomplete statement under the seeks public input on the impact of applying inflation-adjusted penalty
Members of Affected Public section. For example, the incomplete amounts on the date the penalty is assessed rather than the date
sentence can be revised to “Members of the affected public include of the violation. Consistent with the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation
applicants for HUD’s competitively funded financial assistance programs Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended by the Federal Civil Penalties
that are subject to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (2015 Act), HUD
annually publishes a final rule adjusting its civil money penalty amounts
for inflation according to the formula provided by the 2015 Act. In these
Legislation, Regulations, and Other Directives | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 42
rules, HUD does not apply the adjustments retroactively and provides
that the inflation-adjusted penalty amounts apply to violations occurring
on or after the rule’s effective date. HUD is considering revising this
approach, however, and annually applying inflation-adjusted penalty
amounts to violations assessed after the date of inflation, if the violation
occurred after the enactment of the 2015 Act. OIG provided a no position
response regarding this notice.
Legislation, Regulations, and Other Directives | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 43
REPORT RESOLUTION
In the report resolution process, Office of Inspector General (OIG) and U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) management agree upon needed actions and timeframes
for resolving recommendations. Through this process, OIG strives to achieve measurable
improvements in HUD programs and operations. The overall responsibility for ensuring that the
agreed-upon changes are implemented rests with HUD managers. This chapter describes audit and
evaluation reports issued before the start of the period that do not have management decisions,
have significantly revised management decisions, or have significant management decisions with
which OIG disagrees. It also has a status report on HUD’s implementation of the Federal Financial
Management Improvement Act of 1996 (FFMIA). In addition to this chapter on report resolution,
see appendix 3, table B, “Significant Reports for Which Final Action Had Not Been Completed
Within 12 Months After the Date of the Inspector General’s Report.”
Audit Reports Issued Before Start of Period activities reviewed, 7 field offices did not provide adequate oversight of
8 property acquisition and disposition activities totaling more than $26.2
With No Management Decision as of million.
September 30, 2022
The OIG report included a recommendation that the Deputy Assistant
HUD Did Not Always Provide Adequate Oversight of Property Secretary for Grant Programs direct field offices to include property
Acquisition and Disposition Activities | Issue Date: June 30, 2016 acquisition and disposition activities as an area of special emphasis
when assessing grantee risk and establishing their monitoring plans
OIG audited HUD’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and grantee monitoring strategies. The Deputy Assistant Secretary
program’s property acquisition and disposition activities. OIG’s objective for Grant Programs proposed a management decision in December
was to determine whether HUD had adequate oversight of property 2016. OIG rejected the proposed management decision because it
acquisition and disposition activities under its CDBG program. did not specifically address directing field offices to include property
acquisition and disposition activities as an area of special emphasis when
OIG found that HUD did not always provide adequate oversight of assessing grantee risk and establishing its monitoring plans and grantee
property acquisition and disposition activities. Specifically, of the 14 monitoring strategies as recommended. OIG requested clarification
Report Resolution | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 44
and documentation from HUD; however, HUD had not provided the to the referral on February 21, 2017. For all of the recommendations,
requested information and documentation, and OIG referred this the General Deputy Assistant Secretary stated that OIG’s disagreement
recommendation to the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and was closed by the Deputy Secretary in her decision regarding resolution
Development on March 30, 2017. HUD proposed another management of recommendations from OIG’s audit of New Jersey’s Sandy Integrated
decision in April 2017; however, OIG rejected it because it also did not Recovery Operations and Management System.4 The General Deputy
directly address the intent of the recommendation. OIG referred this Assistant Secretary asserted that the legal opinion for the New Jersey
recommendation to the Deputy Secretary on August 23, 2017, and as of audit applied to this audit. Based on this information, the General
September 30, 2022, had not received a decision. Deputy Assistant Secretary believed it was appropriate to close all of
(Audit Report: 2016-PH-0001) the recommendations. OIG disagreed with the General Deputy Assistant
Secretary’s request to close the recommendations in this audit based
on the Deputy Secretary’s decision to resolve recommendations from
HUD Did Not Always Provide Accurate and Supported OIG’s audit of New Jersey’s Sandy Integrated Recovery Operations
Certifications of State Disaster Grantee Procurement Processes | and Management System. OIG disagreed with the Deputy Secretary’s
Issue Date: September 29, 2016 decision to resolve the recommendations from that audit. Further, the
OIG audited HUD’s controls over its certifications of State disaster Deputy Secretary’s decision did not address all of the issues with HUD’s
recovery grantee procurement processes to determine whether HUD’s process for certifying State disaster grantee procurement processes
certifications were accurate and supported. OIG found that HUD did not that were identified in the subject audit report. OIG referred these
always provide accurate and supported certifications of State disaster recommendations to the Deputy Secretary on March 31, 2017, and as of
grantee procurement processes and did not have adequate controls over September 30, 2022, had not received a decision
the certification process. Due to the weaknesses identified, HUD did not (Audit Report: 2016-PH-0005)
have assurance that State grantees had proficient procurement processes
in place, and the HUD Secretary’s certifications did not meet the intent of
the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013.3 HUD Needs To Clarify Whether Illegal-Undocumented Aliens
Are Eligible for Assistance Under the Housing Opportunities for
The report included five recommendations for the Deputy Assistant Persons With AIDS Program | Issue Date: August 21, 2017
Secretary for Grant Programs, who in turn proposed corrective actions OIG assisted the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of New York,
on January 11, 2017. OIG rejected the proposed actions on January in a civil investigation related to illegal-undocumented aliens receiving
27, 2017. OIG referred the recommendations to the General Deputy Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA) assistance.
Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development on Noncitizen or alien ineligibility for federally funded programs is a
February 6, 2017. The General Deputy Assistant Secretary responded recurring issue in Congress. Two laws primarily govern noncitizen or alien
3
Public Law 113-2, dated January 29, 2013 4
2015-PH-1003, dated June 4, 2015
Report Resolution | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 45
eligibility for housing programs: Title IV of the Personal Responsibility and HUD Did Not Provide Sufficient Guidance and Oversight To
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 - 8 U.S.C. (United States Ensure That State Disaster Grantees Followed Proficient
Code) 1611 (PRWORA) and Section 214 of the Housing and Community Procurement Processes | Issue Date: September 22, 2017
Development Act of 1980, as amended. PRWORA states that illegal aliens OIG audited HUD’s oversight of disaster grantee procurement processes
do not meet the definition of qualified aliens and as a result, are ineligible to determine whether HUD provided sufficient guidance and oversight to
for Federal public benefits. However, PRWORA exempted certain Federal ensure that disaster grantees followed proficient procurement processes
public benefits from the alien eligibility restrictions, and the issue of when purchasing products and services. OIG found that HUD did not
nonqualified aliens receiving assistance under HOPWA or other homeless provide sufficient guidance and oversight to ensure that State disaster
assistance programs has not been clearly addressed in HUD regulations grantees followed proficient procurement processes. Since HUD agreed
and guidance. There is a conflict as to whether “housing assistance” and to correct procurement issues from a previous audit,5 OIG has issued 17
“homeless assistance” are synonymous. OIG recommended that HUD’s audit reports on disaster grantees with questioned costs totaling nearly
Office of Community Planning and Development (CPD) (1) clarify whether $391.7 million related to procurement.
assistance provided under its community development programs, such
as HOPWA, are considered “Federal public benefits” and are, therefore, In this audit, OIG made four recommendations to the Deputy Assistant
subject to PRWORA’s noncitizen eligibility restrictions and (2) consult with Secretary for Grant Programs, who in turn proposed corrective actions
the Office of the Attorney General to establish whether HOPWA and other on November 24, 2017. For two of the recommendations, the Deputy
homeless assistance programs are a Federal public benefit that meets the Assistant Secretary stated that the matter of the applicability of the
definition of “providing assistance for the protection of life or safety” and Federal procurement standards at 2 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations)
are, therefore, exempt from PRWORA noncitizen eligibility restrictions. 200.318 through 200.3266 (or 24 CFR 85.36(b) through (i)) and the
requirements of the Federal Register notices on procurement was
CPD submitted management decisions for both recommendations closed by the Deputy Secretary in her decision regarding resolution of
on December 18, 2017, but the management decisions stated that recommendations from OIG’s audit of New Jersey’s Sandy Integrated
CPD was not able to act on the recommendations, and OIG rejected Recovery Operations and Management System.7 In the January 10, 2017,
them. This issue was referred to the Assistant Secretary for Community
Planning and Development on December 19, 2017. In January 2018, 5
Audit Report 2013-FW-0001, Generally, HUD’s Hurricane Disaster Recovery Program
OIG attempted to meet with HUD regarding the recommendations Assisted the Gulf Coast States’ Recovery; However, Some Program Improvements Are
but was unsuccessful. The issue was referred to the Deputy Secretary Needed, issued March 28, 2013
on February 27, 2018. As of September 30, 2022, OIG was awaiting a 6
Before December 26, 2014, the relevant procurement requirements were found at
24 CFR 85.36. HUD has since moved its uniform administrative requirements, cost
decision from the Deputy Secretary.
principles, and audit requirements for Federal awards to 2 CFR part 200.
(Audit Memorandum: 2017-CF-0801) 7
2015-PH-1003, dated June 4, 2015
Report Resolution | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 46
decision, the Deputy Secretary wrote that the State had certified that its HUD Could Improve Its Controls Over the Disposition of Real Properties
procurement standards were equivalent to the standards at 24 CFR 85.36 Assisted With CDBG Funds | Issue Date: September 29, 2017
and HUD had also certified to the proficiency of the State’s policies and OIG audited HUD’s oversight of the disposition of real properties assisted
procedures. with CDBG funds. OIG’s objective was to determine whether HUD had
adequate controls over the disposition of real properties assisted with CDBG
The Deputy Assistant Secretary also noted that the Senate Appropriations funds. OIG found that HUD could improve its oversight of the disposition
Committee report on fiscal year 2018 U.S. Department of Transportation- of real properties assisted with CDBG funds. Although HUD’s drawdown
HUD appropriations legislation8 addressed this issue. In addition, the and reporting system allowed grantees to enter identifying information for
Deputy Assistant Secretary stated that HUD clarified its definition of assisted properties and its field offices performed risk-based monitoring
proficient procurement processes and policies in Federal Register notices of grantees, HUD’s controls were not always sufficient, and HUD did not
that it published for later disasters. Based on this information, the fully implement guidance related to the applicability of change of use
Deputy Assistant Secretary believed it was appropriate to close these two requirements after voluntary grant reductions. As a result, HUD could not
recommendations. OIG disagreed with the Deputy Assistant Secretary’s track and monitor its interest in the properties and did not have assurance
request to close these two recommendations based on the Deputy that grantees properly handled changes in use and properly reported
Secretary’s decision to resolve recommendations from OIG’s audit of program income. OIG recommended that the Deputy Assistant Secretary for
New Jersey’s Sandy Integrated Recovery Operations and Management Grant Programs develop a process to ensure that grantees properly report
System and rejected the Deputy Assistant Secretary’s request to close the the addresses of assisted properties in HUD’s Integrated Disbursement and
recommendations. Information System and properly calculate and report program income from
the disposition of these properties regularly.
OIG also rejected the proposed management decisions for the other
two recommendations because the proposed actions did not address The Deputy Assistant Secretary proposed a management decision in January
States that chose to certify that their procurement processes and 2018, which OIG rejected. OIG referred this recommendation to the Assistant
standards were equivalent to the Federal procurement standards at 2 Secretary for Community Planning and Development on February 6, 2018,
CFR 200.318 through 200.326. OIG referred the recommendations to and to the Deputy Secretary on March 26, 2018. To reach agreement, OIG
the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development on held discussions with CPD officials on February 13 and March 8, 2018. On
January 25, 2018. The Assistant Secretary did not respond. OIG referred March 28, 2018, the Deputy Assistant Secretary submitted a revised proposal;
these recommendations to the Deputy Secretary on March 16, 2018, however, OIG rejected HUD’s proposal. In January 2021, OIG met with HUD
and as of September 30, 2022, had not received a decision. to discuss a possible management decision. On March 8, 2021, CPD indicated
(Audit Report: 2017-PH-0002) that it was working on an updated proposal that would address the concerns
discussed. As of September 30, 2022, OIG continues to work with CPD while
awaiting an updated proposal.
8
Senate Report 1115-138, dated July 27, 2017 (Audit Report: 2017-NY-0002)
Report Resolution | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 47
HUD’s Office of Block Grant Assistance Had Not Codified the whether the State ensured that properties purchased under the
Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery acquisition component of the program met applicable HUD, Federal,
Program | Issue Date: July 23, 2018 and State requirements.
OIG audited the HUD Office of Block Grant Assistance’s (OBGA) CDBG
Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) program and found that although OBGA OIG found that the State did not ensure that properties purchased under
had managed billions in CDBG-DR funds since 2002, it had not codified the acquisition component of its program met eligibility requirements.
the program, because it did not believe it had the authority to do so. Specifically, it did not ensure that properties (1) were substantially
However, OBGA’s use of multiple Federal Register notices to operate the damaged and (2) complied with flood hazard requirements. Further, it
program presented challenges to the grantees. For example, 59 grantees may have improperly purchased properties that did not comply with flood
with 112 active CDBG-DR grants, which totaled more than $47.4 billion as insurance requirements. As a result, the State disbursed more than $3.5
of September 2017, had to follow requirements contained in 61 different million for ineligible properties and incentives and more than $5.9 million
Federal Register notices to manage the program. for properties that it could not show met applicable requirements, and
HUD did not have assurance that CDBG-DR funds were used for their
In April 2019, OBGA acknowledged that the issuance of multiple Federal intended purpose. OIG recommended that HUD require the State to (1)
Register notices created a compliance burden for CDBG-DR grantees, but reimburse more than $3.5 million in settlement costs and incentives paid
it disagreed that codification was necessary. OBGA made the following for properties that did not meet eligibility requirements or should not
statements to support why it will not implement the recommendation: have received incentives; (2) provide documentation showing that 15
(1) codification is not necessary, (2) Federal Register notices are required, properties met requirements related to substantial damage, flood hazards,
and (3) codification has limited or no applicability for future disasters. On and flood insurance or reimburse more than $5.9 million paid to purchase
September 30, 2019, OIG referred the disagreement and recommendation the properties; and (3) conduct a review of the other properties purchased
to the Deputy Secretary for resolution and, as of September 30, 2022, was under its program to ensure that properties were eligible and reimburse
awaiting a decision. While the recommendation is awaiting a decision, the amount paid for any additional properties found to be ineligible.
HUD has sought statutory codification of the CDBG-DR program. For more
information, see page 7 of this report. The Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and
(Audit Report: 2018-FW-0002) Development proposed management decisions on October 8, 2019.
OIG rejected the proposed actions and referred the recommendations
to the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development
The State of New York Did Not Ensure That Properties Purchased on September 30, 2020. As of September 30, 2022, CPD was working to
Under the Acquisition Component of Its Program Were Eligible | update its proposed management decisions in conjunction with its work
Issue Date: March 29, 2019 related to audit report 2019-NY-1002. OIG will continue to communicate
OIG audited the State of New York’s CDBG-DR-funded New York Rising with CPD to attempt to reach an agreement.
Buyout and Acquisition program. OIG’s objective was to determine (Audit Report: 2019-NY-1001)
Report Resolution | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 48
The State of New York Did Not Ensure That Appraised Values Used 2022, OIG was awaiting a decision while continuing to work with CPD.
by Its Program Were Supported and Appraisal Costs and Services (Audit Report: 2019-NY-1002)
Complied With Requirements | Issue Date: May 29, 2019
OIG audited the State of New York’s CDBG-DR-funded New York Rising HUD Paid Rental Subsidies To Benefit Public Housing and
Buyout and Acquisition Program. OIG’s objectives were to determine Voucher Tenants Reported as Excluded From Federal Programs or
whether the State ensured that (1) the appraised fair market values used Deceased | Issue Date: June 25, 2019
to determine award amounts under its program were supported and (2)
OIG audited HUD to determine whether HUD provided public housing
appraisal costs for its program complied with applicable requirements
agencies (PHA) with access to the information contained in the Do Not
and were for services performed in accordance with Federal, State,
Pay system. Do Not Pay is a collection of data sources, one of which is
and industry standards. OIG found that HUD and the State did not have
the General Services Administration’s System for Award Management
assurance that (1) more than $367.3 million paid to purchase properties
(SAM) database of excluded parties. OIG found that HUD paid potentially
was supported; (2) more than $3.4 million disbursed for appraisal
improper rental subsidies to benefit 1,550 tenants who were reported as
services was for costs that were reasonable, necessary, and adequately
excluded from Federal programs.
documented; and (3) appraisal services were properly procured and
performed. OIG provided 10 recommendations to the State to provide
OIG recommended that HUD issue guidance to PHAs to ensure that
support for appraised fair market values, appraisal prices, and other
any applicant for or tenant of public or assisted housing whose name
expenses related to more than $370 million in unsupported costs and
appears on the SAM excluded parties list is reviewed by PHAs to
to improve controls over its program, which can ensure that up to $93.4
determine eligibility, according to the requirements of 2 CFR parts
million not yet disbursed is put to better use.
180 and 2424. By doing so, ineligible applicants or tenants would
not be admitted or recertified, which could result in $13.7 million in
The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Grant Programs did not propose
annual rental subsidies being put to better use. In its October 8, 2019,
management decisions to address the 10 recommendations contained
management decision, the Office of Public and Indian Housing (PIH)
in the audit report. OIG held discussions with CPD officials on June 17,
disagreed with this recommendation and submitted a legal opinion
2019, September 10, 2019, and September 24, 2019, but did not reach
from HUD’s Office of General Counsel (OGC) in support of its position.
an agreement. As a result, OIG referred the 10 recommendations to
OIG rejected this management decision because it does not resolve
the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development on
the recommendation. OIG continues to recommend that HUD issue
October 3, 2019, and held a discussion with CPD officials on November
guidance to PHAs to ensure that any applicant for or tenant of public or
21, 2019, but when an agreement was not reached, OIG referred the
assisted housing whose name appears on the SAM excluded parties list
recommendations to the Deputy Secretary on February 20, 2020. In
is reviewed by PHAs to determine eligibility. Because OIG did not reach
June 2021, OIG provided CPD with requested documentation to assist
agreement with the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Housing and
with preparation of the management decisions. As of September 30,
Voucher Programs, on February 19, 2020, OIG referred its disagreement
Report Resolution | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 49
to the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing. However, Single Audit Act Analytics Dashboard that could be used to implement
OIG did not reach agreement with the Assistant Secretary on the the controls required by 2 CRF 200. However, because HUD’s operations
corrective actions identified in the report. Therefore, OIG referred the are decentralized, fully implementing this dashboard at the enterprise-
recommendation to the official serving as Deputy Secretary on March wide level is difficult and will take considerable time. Consequently,
31, 2020, for his final decision as the Departmental Audit Resolution HUD has entered interim solutions as management decisions that
Official. HUD began scheduling regular meetings with OIG during 2021 are not comprehensive and do not explain how HUD will implement
to attempt to reach a resolution. As of September 30, 2022, OIG had an enterprise-wide solution that allows the Single Audit Accountable
not received a decision from the Deputy Secretary. Official to perform the duties outlined in 2 CFR 200. Although OIG
(Audit Report: 2019-KC-0002) can appreciate the challenges that HUD faces in implementing this
enterprise-wide solution, OIG cannot accept management decisions that
do not fully address the recommendations. OIG will continue to work
Independent Public Accountant’s Audit Report on the U.S. with HUD to reach an agreeable decision.
Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Fiscal Years (Audit Report: 2022-FO-0004)
2021 and 2022 Consolidated Financial Statements | Issue Date:
December 09, 2021
OIG contracted with CliftonLarsonAllen LLP (CLA) to audit the financial Opportunities Exist To Improve CPD’s Oversight of and
statements of HUD as of and for the fiscal years ended September 30, Monitoring Tools for Slow-Spending Grantees | Issue Date:
2021 and 2020,1 and to provide reports on HUD’s 1) internal control over January 5, 2022
financial reporting; and 2) compliance with laws, regulations, contracts, OIG audited HUD CPD’s oversight and monitoring of its CDBG-DR slow-
and grant agreements and other matters. During the audit, CLA found spending grantees. OIG’s objective was to assess CPD’s monitoring and
that HUD did not comply with the Single Audit Act and the implementing oversight tools related to the progress of grant expenditures and determine
guidance issued by OMB in CFR Title 2 Grants and Agreements, Part the status of the grants and impacts of COVID-19 on grantee spending.
200 – Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit
Requirements for Federal Awards (2 CRF 200). OIG found that, although CPD has tools available for the oversight and
monitoring of its grantees, opportunities exist to improve its oversight
CLA recommended that HUD establish controls to fulfill the and monitoring, specifically for slow-spending CDBG-DR grantees.
responsibilities outlined for federal agencies in 2 CFR 200. However, OIG identified opportunities for CPD to enhance its (1) monthly
OIG has not been able to reach management decision on two of the five CDBG-DR grant financial report, (2) use of Disaster Recovery Grant
recommendations. OIG referred these recommendations to the CFO on Reporting system flags, (3) use of grantee expenditure projections,
August 15, 2022. Since then, the OCFO has provided a second version (4) documentation for quarterly performance report reviews, and (5)
of proposed management decisions, but OIG still does not agree. Based documentation for monitoring reviews and updating the related exhibit
on conversations with HUD, it seems that HUD is trying to implement a (questionnaire). Enhancing these tools may allow CPD to provide more
Report Resolution | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 50
effective oversight of grant expenditures, better assist its grantees with access and compromise. Of particular concern was the discovery of
the progress of their spending, and assist in preventing the recapture of multiple operating web applications unknown to the Office of the Chief
funds from communities with needs that can benefit from these funds. Information Officer (OCIO).
OIG recommended that CPD update its policies and procedures (1B) for
tracking expenditures related to slow-spending grantees, including steps On June 2, 2017, HUD concurred with all recommendations and agreed
for assisting the grantees to expedite spending; identifying the reasons to work with OIG to assign responsibility and complete resolution. OIG
for the delays with the grant; documenting the outcome of its efforts; concurred to close five recommendations based on HUD OCIO closure
and (1F) requiring grantees to identify the reason for variances between requests and associated evidence during the previous semiannual
the actual and projected expenditures to enhance CPD’s oversight. reporting period, leaving four open recommendations. OIG had not
received management decisions for these four recommendations. OIG
The Deputy Assistant Secretary proposed a management decision on March obtained a recommendation status update on August 30, 2022, and
16, 2022, which OIG rejected. On April 14, 2022, OIG held a meeting with one of the open recommendations has been identified by HUD OIG as a
CPD to discuss the disagreements but was unable to reach a resolution. OIG priority recommendation.
will continue to work with CPD to reach an agreeable decision. (Evaluation Report: 2016-OE-0002)
(Audit Report: 2022-AT-0001)
HUD IT System Management and Oversight of the Section 184
Program | Issue Date: August 13, 2018
Evaluation Reports Issued Before Start of
OIG evaluated the IT systems supporting the Office of Native American
Period with No Managment Decision as of Programs (ONAP), Indian Home Loan Guarantee Program (Section
September 30, 2022 184 program), following concerns that HUD did not use its resources
to address shortcomings in internal controls and lacked the ability to
HUD Web Application Security Evaluation | Issue Date: June 6, deploy a reliable IT system. OIG observed that (1) a newly developed
2018 IT system, called the Loan Origination System (LOS), had significant
OIG completed a targeted web application security evaluation of HUD in limitations, requiring lenders and program officials to continue to use
support of a Counsel of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency a HUD legacy IT system and manual processes for maintaining files,
(CIGIE) Federal cross-cutting project, making nine recommendations servicing loans, and managing claims; (2) only 1 of 38 lenders was able
for improvement to HUD. OIG assessed HUD’s capability to identify to access and use LOS due to HUD’s inability to resolve and implement a
and mitigate critical IT vulnerabilities in its publicly accessible web user access solution; (3) LOS had no capability to conduct loan servicing
applications. OIG identified key deficiencies in HUD’s practices that and claims, which were still conducted using Excel spreadsheets; and
put HUD’s extensive collection of sensitive data, including personal (4) LOS lacked critical management reporting capabilities. Despite
information of private citizens, at increased risk of unauthorized HUD’s investing $4 million into the development of LOS, the system did
Report Resolution | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 51
not satisfy all management and oversight objectives. identification of questioned costs and the City’s not executing loan
agreements and repayment schedules for loans issued to the Agency.
OIG made five recommendations. HUD and ONAP concurred with all OIG, therefore, recommended that HUD require the City to support
five recommendations in August 2018 with a suspense of November or repay almost $13 million in questioned costs and execute loan
26, 2018, to provide OIG with management decisions. In addition, agreements with the Agency for more than $139 million in principal and
two recommendations were closed during the previous semiannual interest, including terms of repayment.
reporting period due to the progress of OCIO’s implementing electronic
document capabilities and resolving the lender access issue using the HUD’s March 2009 management decisions required the City to support
FHA Catalyst IT system. Three recommendations remained open, with or repay the questioned costs and execute loan agreements with specific
HUD providing closure requests for all three. As of September 21, 2021, loan terms for repayment. HUD reached an agreement with the City
three recommendations remain open and HUD had closure requests for in 2010 to have the Agency repay the CDBG program more than $78.7
those. Despite the closure requests, OIG determined additional evidence million under a 10-year repayment plan. Final action on this decision was
was needed to support the closure. delayed by the State of California’s 2012 dissolution of redevelopment
(Evaluation Report: 2018-OE-0004) agencies and the subsequent establishment of the City of San Diego’s
Successor Agency, to manage and complete the contractual obligations of
the City’s former Redevelopment Agency. Effective September 28, 2022,
Significantly Revised Management Decisions HUD revised the open management decision to recognize additional
Section 5(a)(11) of the Inspector General Act, as amended, requires returns to the CDBG program, thereby increasing the amounts recovered
that OIG report information concerning the reasons for any significantly to more than $145.4 million.
revised management decisions made during the reporting period. During (Audit Report: 2009-LA-1005)
the current reporting period, there were three significantly revised
management decisions. HUD Did Not Have Effective Controls To Ensure That Lenders
Reported Defaults Accurately and in a Timely Manner | Issue
The City of San Diego, California, Did Not Administer Its Date: September 10, 2013
Community Development Block Grant Program in Accordance OIG audited HUD’s Office of Single Family Housing to determine whether
with HUD Requirements When Funding the City’s Redevelopment it had effective controls in place to ensure that lenders reported default
Agency Projects | Issue Date: December 30, 2008 information on FHA-insured loans accurately and in a timely manner.
OIG audited the City of San Diego’s CDBG program to determine whether Lenders report default information to HUD’s Single Family Default
the City administered CDBG loans issued to the City’s Redevelopment Monitoring System (SFDMS). This system collects and tracks the key
Agency in accordance with HUD rules and regulations. OIG found that significant events that occur during a default episode.
the City did not properly administer its CDBG funds, including the
Report Resolution | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 52
OIG determined that HUD did not have effective controls to ensure that Fiscal Year 2019 Review of Information Systems Controls in Support
lenders reported default information accurately and in a timely manner. of the Financial Statements Audit | Issue Date: December 17, 2020
HUD’s controls included only minimal system error codes; basic monitoring OIG audited the information systems controls over HUD’s computing
of error code rates, nonreporting, and underreporting; and lender servicing environment as part of its audit of HUD’s financial statements for fiscal year
reviews examining a sample of default information at selected lenders. 2019 under the Chief Financial Officer’s Act of 1990. OIG’s objective was to
HUD also did not have an adequate penalty process to deter future issues. assess general controls over HUD’s computing environment for compliance
As a result, the default data were not always accurate and timely. with departmental IT policies and Federal information system security and
financial management requirements. OIG focused its assessment on the
OIG recommended that HUD develop and implement a data general controls over HUD’s IBM mainframe general support system.
management policy; resume reviews of SFDMS reporting; and implement
a progressive penalty process for pursuing administrative action OIG reported 4 findings and 11 recommendations. One of the findings was
against lenders that fail to report, underreport, and submit inaccurate that OCIO allowed the use of two outdated software products on the IBM
or unsupported data. HUD agreed with these recommendations and mainframe. OIG recommended that the Chief Information Officer establish
completed the corresponding actions in July 2014 and July 2015. and implement a policy specific to upgrading software that requires OCIO
to (1) establish a timeframe for completion of upgrades, (2) document the
OIG also recommended that HUD implement additional system error specific reasons why fully upgrading software or upgrading software in a
checks to identify potential reporting issues. In its original management timely manner is not feasible, and (3) require that a waiver be obtained
decision, HUD agreed to modify SFDMS to create additional system error accepting the risks associated with using the outdated software. OIG
checks, subject to budgetary constraints. In August 2018, HUD submitted specified that the policy should require that the waiver be approved by the
a revised management decision, stating that due to funding constraints, Chief Information Officer or his or her designee.
it had not been able to enhance the system. Instead, HUD planned to
implement its 4-year roadmap plan, which included retiring SFDMS In its original management decision, OCIO planned to provide an updated
and replacing it with a more modern and robust system. HUD planned Software Configuration Management Policy Handbook to include
to submit a subsequent revised management decision upon budget enterprise software configuration management requirements, defined
approval. Accordingly, in May 2022, HUD submitted the subsequent roles and responsibilities, and a formal waiver process. On July 18, 2022,
revised management decision, which showed that FHA had moved to OCIO submitted a revised management decision with additional actions,
the new default reporting system in FHA Catalyst in March 2022 and to include (1) issuing a memorandum to the program offices on the new
expanded the list of fatal error codes. policy, waiver template, and process; (2) providing training to the program
offices on the new requirements; and (3) initiating meetings with the
On May 25, 2022, OIG agreed with the significantly revised management appropriate program offices. On July 20, 2022, OIG concurred with the
decision. revised management decision.
(Audit Report: 2013-KC-0003) Audit Report: 2021-DP-0001
Report Resolution | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 53
Significant Management Decision With Modernization Act of 2016 Final Rule and Requirements, and there have
been delays in this process.
Which OIG Disagrees
Section 5(a)(12) of the Inspector General Act, as amended, requires that
OIG report information concerning any significant management decision
with which OIG disagrees.
During the reporting period, there were no reports in which OIG
disagreed with the significant management decisions.
Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996
Section 803(a) of FFMIA requires that each agency establish and maintain
financial management systems that comply with (1) Federal financial
management system requirements, (2) Federal accounting standards, and
(3) the United States Standard General Ledger at the transaction level.
Section 803(c) of FFMIA requires an agency to establish a remediation
plan if it is determined that the agency’s financial management systems
do not comply with the requirements of section 803(a). Section 804(b)
of FFMIA requires OIG to report in its semiannual reports to Congress
instances and reasons when an agency has not met the intermediate
target dates established in its remediation plans.
As of September 30, 2022, OIG and HUD had identified noncompliance
with the three section 803(a) elements of FFMIA. Specifically, there
was one financial system, the Tenant Rental Assistance Certification
System (TRACS), that was noncompliant with the three section 803(a)
requirements. While the Office of Housing expected to complete TRACS
remediation activities in fiscal year 2022 (March 21, 2021), the timeline
to address TRACS’ FFMIA noncompliance was pushed back to fiscal year
2023 (first December 31, 2022, and most recently July 2023). This delay
is because the new TRACS release needs to address the Office of Asset
Management and Portfolio Oversight’s Housing Opportunity Through
Report Resolution | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 54
WHISTLEBLOWER
PROTECTION
COORDINATOR
Whistleblowers play a critical role in keeping Government programs honest, efficient, and
accountable. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of
Inspector General (OIG), continues to ensure that HUD and OIG employees are aware of their
rights to disclose misconduct, waste, or abuse in HUD programs without reprisal and to assist
HUD and OIG employees in seeking redress when employees believe that they have been subject
to retaliation for whistleblowing. OIG also investigates complaints of whistleblower retaliation by
HUD contractors and grantees.
OIG’s Whistleblower Protection Coordinator works with HUD and OIG The Whistleblower Protection Coordinator also provides training to OIG
employees to provide information on personnel on whistleblower-related issues. OIG’s mandatory whistleblower
training for OIG personnel is an interactive, virtual training experience
• options for disclosing misconduct, waste, or abuse in HUD about whistleblower rights and protections, making protected disclosures,
programs; and making disclosures about investigative agencies, such as OIGs.
• statutory protections for Federal employees who make such
disclosures; and OIG received several complaints filed under 41 U.S.C. (United States Code)
• how to file a complaint when an employee believes he or she has 4712, which extends whistleblower protection to employees of Federal
been retaliated against for making protected disclosures. contractors, subcontractors, grantees, and subgrantees. If the employee of
a HUD grantee or contractor believes he or she has been retaliated against
The OIG Whistleblower Protection Coordinator may meet with HUD for whistleblowing, he or she may file a complaint with OIG, which will
employees individually, upon request. Generally, OIG will refer HUD review the complaint and, if necessary, investigate the matter and provide
employees with whistleblower retaliation complaints to the U.S. Office of a report of findings to the HUD Secretary for a determination as to whether
Special Counsel. unlawful reprisal occurred.
Whistleblower Protection Coordinator | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 55
The chart below provides further information on whistleblower retaliation
complaints received by OIG.
Number of complainants alleging
54
whistleblower retaliation
Complaints meeting threshold requirements
3
for investigation
Reports of finding transmitted to HUD for
determination (pertaining to matters opened 2
during previous reporting periods)
Whistleblower Protection Coordinator | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 56
PEER REVIEW
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Public Law No. 111-203), section
989C, requires inspectors general to report the latest peer review results in their semiannual reports
to Congress. The purpose in doing so is to enhance transparency within the Government. Both the
Office of Audit and Office of Investigation are required to undergo a peer review of their individual
organizations every 3 years. The purpose of the review is to ensure that the work completed by
the respective organizations meets the applicable requirements and standards. The following is a
summary of the status of the latest round of peer reviews:
Table 1. Peer Reviews Conducted of HUD OIG
Type of Review Date of Peer Review Reviewing OIG Rating Outstanding Recommendations
Audits December 17, 2021 USAID OIG Pass None
Evaluation May 12, 2020 CIGIE In Compliance None
Investigation July 3, 20179 DHS OIG Pass None
Table 2. Peer Reviews Conducted by HUD OIG
Type of Review Date of Peer Review OIG Reviewed Rating Outstanding Recommendations
Audits June 24, 2022 DOE OIG Pass None
Evaluation September 10, 2019 FHFA OIG In Compliance None
Investigation June 5, 2020 DHS OIG Pass None
9
The scheduled peer review for the Office of Investigation was delayed due to the pandemic. SSA OIG began a peer review during this semiannual period and the results will be reported
out in the next semiannual report.
Peer Review | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 57
APPENDIXES
APPENDIX 1: Reports Issued
APPENDIX 2: Tables
APPENDIX 3: Inspector General Empowerment Act
APPENDIX 4: Reporting Requirements
APPENDIX 5: Acronyms and Abbreviations
APPENDIX 6: OIG Directory
Appendixes | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 58
Appendix 1 - Reports Issued
Internal Audit Reports Issued
Chief Financial Officer
2022-FO-0005 HUD Did Not Comply With the Payment Integrity Information Act of 2019, 06/27/2022.
Chief Procurement Officer
Corrective Action Verification Government Purchase Card Program and Government Travel Card Program Audit
2022-FO-0006
Recommendations, 08/24/2022.
Community Planning and Development
Potential Fraud Schemes That Could Affect Tenant- and Project-Based Rental Assistance, HOME, and Operating Fund Programs’
2022-FO-0007
CARES and ARP Act Funds, 09/29/2022.
2022-LA-0002 Emergency Solutions Grants CARES Act Implementation Challenges, 08/17/2022.
Community Planning and Development, Washington, DC, Community Development Block Grant CARES Act Grantees Faced
2022-LA-0003
Challenges Using Program Funds, 09/28/2022.
Policy Development and Research
Office of Policy Development and Research, Washington, DC, HUD Met 11 of 13 Responsibilities Stated in the Geospatial Data Act
2022-LA-0004
of 2018 for Fiscal Year 2022, 09/30/2022.
Appendix 1: reports Issued | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 59
External Audit Reports
Community Planning and Development
The State of North Carolina Generally Had Capacity and Mostly Followed Disbursement Requirements, but Its Procurement
2022-AT-1002
Process Needs Improvement, 09/16/2022. Questioned: $2,588,362. Unsupported: $2,588,362.
Public and Indian Housing
Long Branch Housing Authority, Long Branch, NJ, Did Not Properly Handle Income and Expenses Related to Agreements With
2022-NY-1003
Other Housing Agencies, 08/24/2022. Questioned: $2,598,312. Unsupported: $2,598,312. Better use: $697,912.
Internal Evaluation Reports Issued
Information Technology
2022-OE-0001 Fiscal Year 2022 Federal Information Security Modernization Act (FISMA) Evaluation, 09/30/2022.
Public and Indian Housing
2021-OE-0011a Risk Indicators of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Public Housing Agencies, 09/28/2022.
Appendix 1: reports Issued | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 60
Appendix 2 - Tables
Table A
Audit Reports Issued Before Start of Period With No Management Decision as of 09/30/2022
*Significant Audit Reports Described in Previous Semiannual Reports
Report number Report title Issue date
HUD Did Not Always Provide Adequate Oversight of Property Acquisition and Disposition
* 2016-PH-0001 06/30/2016
Activities
HUD Did Not Always Provide Accurate and Supported Certifications of State Disaster Grantee
* 2016-PH-0005 09/29/2016
Procurement Processes
HUD Needs To Clarify Whether Illegal-Undocumented Aliens Are Eligible for Assistance Under
2017-CF-0801 08/21/2017
the Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS Program
HUD Did Not Provide Sufficient Guidance and Oversight To Ensure That State Disaster Grantees
* 2017-PH-0002 09/22/2017
Followed Proficient Procurement Processes
HUD Could Improve Its Controls Over the Disposition of Real Properties Assisted With
* 2017-NY-0002 09/29/2017
Community Development Block Grant Funds
HUD’s Office of Block Grant Assistance Had Not Codified the Community Development Block
* 2018-FW-0002 07/23/2018
Grant Disaster Recovery Program
The State of New York Did Not Ensure That Properties Purchased Under the Acquisition
* 2019-NY-1001 03/29/2019
Component of Its Program Were Eligible
Appendix 1: reports Issued | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 61
Report number Report title Issue date
The State of New York Did Not Ensure That Appraised Values Used by Its Program Were
* 2019-NY-1002 05/29/2019
Supported and Appraisal Costs and Services Complied With Requirements
HUD Paid Rental Subsidies To Benefit Public Housing and Voucher Tenants Reported as
* 2019-KC-0002 06/25/2019
Excluded From Federal Programs or Deceased
Independent Public Accountant’s Audit Report on the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
* 2022-FO-0004 12/09/2021
Development’s Fiscal Years 2021 and 2020 Consolidated Financial Statements
Opportunities Exist To Improve CPD’s Oversight of and Monitoring Tools for Slow-Spending
* 2022-AT-0001 01/05/2022
Grantees
Evaluation Reports Issued Before Start of Period With No Management Decision as of 09/30/2022
Report number Report title Issue date
2016-OE-0002 HUD Web Application Security Evaluation 06/06/2018
2018-OE-0004 HUD IT System Management and Oversight of the Section 184 Program 08/13/2018
Appendix 1: reports Issued | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 62
Table B
Significant Audit Reports for Which Final Action Had Not Been Completed Within 12 Months After the Date of
the Inspector General’s Report
Decision Final action
Report number Report title Issue date
date target date
Corporacion para el Fomento Economico de la Ciudad Capital, San Juan,
2005-AT-1013 Puerto Rico, Did Not Administer Its Independent Capital Fund in Accordance 09/15/2005 01/11/2006 Note 2
with HUD Requirements
Housing Authority of the County of Cook, Chicago, Illinois, Had Weak Controls
2006-CH-1021 09/30/2006 01/26/2007 09/30/2037
over Its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program
The Housing Authority of Whitesburg Mismanaged Its Operations,
2010-AT-1003 04/28/2010 08/26/2010 11/29/2035
Whitesburg, KY
The District of Columbia Did Not Administer Its HOME Program in Accordance
2011-PH-1005 12/23/2010 04/22/2011 Note 2
With Federal Requirements, Washington, DC
The City of Buffalo Did Not Always Administer Its CDBG Program in
2011-NY-1010 04/15/2011 01/25/2012 Note 2
Accordance With HUD Requirements, Buffalo, NY
The Municipality of San Juan, PR, Did Not Properly Manage Its HOME
2011-AT-1018 09/28/2011 01/12/2012 Note 2
Investment Partnerships Program
The City of New York Charged Questionable Expenditures to Its HPRP, New
2012-NY-1002 10/18/2011 02/16/2012 Note 2
York, NY
Appendix 1: reports Issued | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 63
Decision Final action
Report number Report title Issue date
date target date
HUD Needed To Improve Its Use of Its Integrated Disbursement and
2012-PH-0001 10/31/2011 02/28/2012 Note 1
Information System To Oversee Its CDBG Program
HUD Did Not Adequately Support the Reasonableness of the Fee-for-Service
2012-LA-0001 11/16/2011 03/27/2012 Note 2
Amounts or Monitor the Amounts Charged
Luzerne County Did Not Properly Evaluate, Underwrite, and Monitor a High-
2013-PH-1001 10/31/2012 01/31/2013 Note 1
Risk Loan, Wilkes-Barre, PA
HUD Policies Did Not Always Ensure That Borrowers Complied With Program
2013-PH-0002 12/20/2012 04/19/2013 02/28/2023
Residency Requirements
Nassau County Did Not Administer Its HOME Investment Partnerships
2013-NY-1006 05/13/2013 09/06/2013 Note 2
Program in Accordance With HUD Requirements, Nassau County, NY
The City of Hawthorne Inappropriately Used Nearly $1.6 Million in HOME
2013-LA-1009 09/13/2013 01/06/2014 Note 1
Funds for Section 8 Tenants, Hawthorne, CA
The City of Hawthorne Did Not Administer Its CDBG Program Cost Allocations
2013-LA-1010 09/20/2013 01/06/2014 Note 1
in Accordance With HUD Rules and Requirements, Hawthorne, CA
The City of Auburn Did Not Always Administer Its CDBG Program in
2013-NY-1010 09/26/2013 01/24/2014 Note 2
Accordance With HUD Requirements, Auburn, NY
The Michigan State Housing Development Authority Did Not Follow HUD’s
2013-CH-1011 09/30/2013 01/15/2014 02/23/2023
Requirements Regarding the Administration of Its Program, Lansing, MI
2014-AT-1001 The Municipality of Arecibo Did Not Properly Administer Its HOME Program 12/03/2013 01/24/2014 Note 2
Appendix 2: Tables | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 64
Decision Final action
Report number Report title Issue date
date target date
Additional Details To Supplement Our Report on HUD's Fiscal Years 2013 and
2014-FO-0003 12/16/2013 07/09/2014 Note 2
2012 (Restated) Financial Statements
The State of Mississippi Did Not Ensure That Its Subrecipient and Appraisers
2014-AT-1004 Complied With Requirements, and It Did Not Fully Implement Adequate 12/30/2013 04/15/2014 Note 2
Procedures for Its Disaster Infrastructure Program, Jackson, MS
HUD Did Not Provide Effective Oversight of Section 202 Multifamily Project
2014-NY-0001 02/19/2014 06/10/2014 Note 2
Refinances
HUD Could Not Support the Reasonableness of the Operating and Capital
2014-LA-0004 Fund Programs’ Fees and Did Not Adequately Monitor Central Office Cost 06/30/2014 10/20/2014 Note 2
Centers
The Data in CAIVRS Did Not Agree With the Data in FHA’s Default and Claims
2014-KC-0002 07/02/2014 10/27/2014 Note 1
Systems
Palladia, Inc., Did Not Administer Its Supportive Housing Program in
2014-NY-1008 07/25/2014 11/21/2014 Note 2
Accordance With HUD Requirements, New York, NY
The State of New Jersey Did Not Fully Comply With Federal Procurement and
2014-PH-1008 08/29/2014 09/02/2015 Note 1
Cost Principle Requirements in Implementing Its Tourism Marketing Program
HUD Policies Did Not Always Ensure That HECM Borrowers Complied With
2014-PH-0001 09/30/2014 01/28/2015 02/28/2023
Residency Requirements
Appendix 2: Tables | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 65
Decision Final action
Report number Report title Issue date
date target date
The City of New York Did Not Always Disburse CDBG Disaster Recovery
2015-NY-1001 Assistance Funds to Its Subrecipient in Accordance With Federal Regulations, 11/24/2014 03/23/2015 Note 2
New York, NY
HUD’s Office of Community Planning and Development Did Not Always
2015-AT-0001 Pursue Remedial Actions but Generally Implemented Sufficient Controls for 03/31/2015 08/28/2015 Note 2
Administering Its Neighborhood Stabilization Program
The Housing Authority of the County of San Bernardino, San Bernardino,
2015-LA-1004 CA, Used Shelter Plus Care Program Funds for Ineligible and Unsupported 05/29/2015 09/16/2015 Note 2
Participants
The State of New Jersey Did Not Comply With Federal Procurement and Cost
2015-PH-1003 06/04/2015 10/02/2015 Note 1
Principle Requirements in Implementing Its Disaster Management System
HUD Did Not Adequately Implement or Provide Adequate Oversight To Ensure
2015-FW-0001 06/16/2015 10/07/2015 Note 2
Compliance With Environmental Requirements
NOVA Financial & Investment Corporation’s FHA-Insured Loans With
2015-LA-1005 07/09/2015 09/11/2015 Note 1
Downpayment Assistance Gifts Did Not Always Meet HUD Requirements
HUD Did Not Always Provide Adequate Oversight of Its Section 203(k)
2015-CH-0001 07/31/2015 11/27/2015 Note 2
Rehabilitation Loan Mortgage Insurance Program
The Office of Community Planning and Development’s Reviews of Matching
2015-KC-0002 Contributions Were Ineffective, and Its Application of Match Reductions Was 08/11/2015 12/09/2015 Note 1
Not Always Correct
Appendix 2: Tables | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 66
Decision Final action
Report number Report title Issue date
date target date
HUD’s Office of Multifamily Asset Management and Portfolio Oversight Did
2015-AT-0002 08/21/2015 12/16/2015 Note 2
Not Comply With Its Requirements for Monitoring Management Agents' Costs
HUD Policies Did Not Always Ensure That HECM Borrowers Complied With
2015-PH-0004 08/21/2015 12/18/2015 02/28/2023
Residency Requirements
New York State Did Not Always Administer Its Rising Home Enhanced Buyout
2015-NY-1010 09/17/2015 03/01/2016 Note 2
Program in Accordance With Federal and State Regulations
Program Control Weaknesses Lessened Assurance That New York Rising
2015-NY-1011 09/17/2015 03/18/2016 Note 2
Housing Recovery Program Funds Were Always Disbursed for Eligible Costs
loanDepot’s FHA-Insured Loans With Downpayment Assistance Funds Did Not
2015-LA-1009 09/30/2015 01/12/2016 Note 1
Always Meet HUD Requirements
loanDepot’s FHA-Insured Loans With Golden State Finance Authority
2015-LA-1010 09/30/2015 01/12/2016 Note 1
Downpayment Assistance Gifts Did Not Always Meet HUD Requirements
2016-FO-0001 Audit of Fiscal Years 2015 and 2014 (Restated) Financial Statements 11/13/2015 03/24/2016 Note 2
Additional Details To Supplement Our Fiscal Years 2015 and 2014 (Restated)
2016-FO-0003 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Financial Statement 11/18/2015 03/22/2016 Note 2
Audit
Review of Information System Controls Over the Government National
2016-DP-0801 11/30/2015 03/30/2016 Note 2
Mortgage Association
The City of Rochester, NY, Did Not Always Administer Its Community
2016-NY-1003 02/05/2016 06/17/2016 Note 2
Development Block Grant Program in Accordance With HUD Requirements
Appendix 2: Tables | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 67
Decision Final action
Report number Report title Issue date
date target date
New York State Did Not Always Disburse Community Development Block
2016-NY-1006 Grant Disaster Recovery Funds in Accordance With Federal and State 03/29/2016 07/27/2016 Note 2
Regulations
The City of Jersey City, NJ's Community Development Block Grant Program
2016-NY-1007 03/30/2016 06/08/2016 Note 2
Had Administrative and Financial Control Weaknesses
HUD Did Not Always Provide Adequate Oversight of Property Acquisition and
2016-PH-0001 06/30/2016 02/16/2017 Note 3
Disposition Activities
2016-NY-0001 Operating Fund Calculations Were Not Always Adequately Verified 09/12/2016 12/22/2016 04/01/2025
The State of Oklahoma Did Not Obligate and Spend Its Community
2016-FW-1010 Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Funds in Accordance With 09/30/2016 01/17/2017 Note 2
Requirements
The State of New Jersey Did Not Disburse Disaster Funds to Its Contractor in
2016-PH-1009 09/30/2016 01/27/2017 Note 1
Accordance With HUD, Federal, and Other Applicable Requirements
FHA Paid Claims for an Estimated 239,000 Properties That Servicers Did Not
2017-KC-0001 10/14/2016 02/28/2017 Note 2
Foreclose Upon or Convey on Time
The City of New York, NY, Implemented Policies That Did Not Always Ensure
2017-NY-1001 That CDBG Disaster Recovery Funds Were Disbursed in Accordance With Its 11/02/2016 05/08/2017 Note 1
Action Plan and Federal Requirements
Additional Details To Supplement Our Fiscal Years 2016 and 2015 (Restated)
2017-FO-0003 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Financial Statement 11/15/2016 09/13/2017 Note 2
Audit
Appendix 2: Tables | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 68
Decision Final action
Report number Report title Issue date
date target date
The City of New York, NY, Lacked Adequate Controls To Ensure That the Use of
2017-NY-1004 CDBG-DR Funds Was Always Consistent With the Action Plan and Applicable 12/21/2016 04/17/2017 Note 1
Federal and State Requirements
Union County, NJ'S HOME Investment Partnerships Program Was Not Always
2017-NY-1005 01/13/2017 05/11/2017 Note 2
Administered in Compliance With Program Requirements
HUD Failed To Follow Departmental Clearance Protocols for FHA Programs,
2017-LA-0002 01/25/2017 09/22/2017 Note 2
Policies, and Operations
Final Action Memorandum: Purchaser of HUD-Insured Single-Family Property
2017-KC-1801 02/23/2017 02/23/2017 Note 2
Settled Allegations of Causing the Submission of a False Claim
HUD Failed To Adequately Oversee FHA-Insured Loans With Borrower-
2017-LA-0003 03/03/2017 06/22/2017 Note 1
Financed Downpayment Assistance
The City of Pittsburgh, PA, Did Not Always Administer Its CDBG Program in
2017-PH-1001 03/22/2017 07/19/2017 Note 2
Accordance With HUD and Federal Requirements
United Shore Financial Services, LLC, Settled Allegations of Failing To Comply
2017-CF-1803 03/29/2017 03/29/2017 Note 2
With HUD’s Federal Housing Administration Loan Requirements
2017-NY-0001 HUD PIH's Required Conversion Program Was Not Adequately Implemented 05/18/2017 09/15/2017 12/31/2023
The Yorkville Cooperative, Fairfax, VA, Did Not Administer Its HUD-Insured
2017-PH-1003 Property and Housing Assistance Contract According to Applicable 05/22/2017 09/19/2017 Note 2
Requirements
Owners of Cooperative Housing Properties Generally Charged More for Their
2017-KC-0005 06/12/2017 10/06/2017 Note 2
Section 8 Units Than for Their Non-Section 8 Units
Appendix 2: Tables | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 69
Decision Final action
Report number Report title Issue date
date target date
The City of Huntington Park, CA, Did Not Administer Its Community
2017-LA-1005 06/16/2017 10/17/2017 Note 2
Development Block Grant Program in Accordance With Requirements
HUD Did Not Conduct Rulemaking or Develop Formal Procedures for Its
2017-KC-0006 07/14/2017 10/19/2017 Note 2
Single-Family Note Sales Program
BLM Companies LLC Failed To Ensure That It Protected and Preserved HUD
2017-FW-1011 08/29/2017 12/26/2017 11/18/2022
Properties Under Its Field Service Manager Contract for Area 1D
HUD Did Not Have Adequate Controls To Ensure That Servicers Properly
2017-LA-0004 09/14/2017 01/11/2018 Note 2
Engaged in Loss Mitigation
The State of New York Did Not Show That Disaster Recovery Funds Under
2017-NY-1010 Its Non-Federal Share Match Program Were Used for Eligible and Supported 09/15/2017 01/12/2018 Note 2
Costs
The Owner of Schwenckfeld Manor, Lansdale, PA, Did Not Always Manage Its
2017-PH-1006 09/25/2017 01/23/2018 02/01/2030
HUD-Insured Property in Accordance With Applicable HUD Requirements
Residential Home Funding Corp. Settled Allegations of Failing To Comply With
2017-CF-1807 09/28/2017 09/28/2017 Note 2
HUD’s Federal Housing Administration Loan Requirements
HUD Could Improve Its Controls Over the Disposition of Real Properties
2017-NY-0002 09/29/2017 01/26/2018 Note 3
Assisted With Community Development Block Grant Funds
2018-FO-0003 Fiscal Years 2017 and 2016 (Restated) Financial Statements Audit 11/15/2017 04/03/2018 Note 1
Additional Details To Supplement Our Fiscal Years 2017 and 2016 (Restated)
2018-FO-0004 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Financial Statement 11/15/2017 07/02/2018 Note 1
Audit
Appendix 2: Tables | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 70
Decision Final action
Report number Report title Issue date
date target date
Yabucoa Housing Project, Yabucoa Volunteers of America Elderly Housing,
2018-AT-1802 12/29/2017 04/20/2018 Note 2
Inc., Yabucoa, PR, Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly Program
Jefferson Parish, Jefferson, LA, Did Not Always Properly Administer Its
2018-FW-1001 01/29/2018 05/22/2018 12/31/2022
Rehabilitation Program
The Housing Authority of the City of Asbury Park, NJ, Did Not Always
2018-NY-1003 02/08/2018 06/07/2018 01/28/2050
Administer Its Operating and Capital Funds in Accordance With Requirements
MetLife Home Loans, LLC, and a Borrower’s Son Settled Allegations of
2018-CF-1801 Failing To Comply With HUD’s Federal Housing Administration HECM Loan 03/23/2018 08/09/2018 Note 2
Requirements
FHA Insured $1.9 Billion in Loans to Borrowers Barred by Federal
2018-KC-0001 03/26/2018 07/11/2018 Note 2
Requirements
The City of South Gate, CA, Did Not Administer Its Community Development
2018-LA-1003 03/29/2018 07/25/2018 Note 2
Block Grant Program in Accordance With HUD Requirements
The Office of Native American Programs Section 184 Program Continues To
2018-LA-0801 08/27/2018 12/21/2018 Note 2
Operate Without Adequate Oversight 3 Years After the Prior OIG Audit
HUD’s Office of Residential Care Facilities Did Not Always Have and Use
2018-BO-0001 09/17/2018 03/07/2019 Note 2
Financial Information to Adequately Assess and Monitor Nursing Homes
HUD Did Not Always Identify and Collect Partial Claims Out of Surplus
2018-KC-0004 09/20/2018 04/18/2019 Note 2
Foreclosure Proceeds
HUD Did Not Have Adequate Controls To Ensure That Partial Claim Notes for
2018-LA-0005 09/21/2018 03/08/2019 Note 2
FHA Loans Were Properly Tracked for Future Collection
Appendix 2: Tables | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 71
Decision Final action
Report number Report title Issue date
date target date
2018-NY-0001 HUD Did Not Adequately Administer Its Housing Counseling Program 09/24/2018 02/26/2019 04/01/2023
The Crisfield Housing Authority, Crisfield, MD, Did Not Properly Administer Its
2018-PH-1007 09/25/2018 03/01/2019 03/31/2023
Public Housing Program Operating and Capital Funds
The City of Erie, PA, Did Not Always Administer Its Code Enforcement
2018-PH-1008 and Community Policing Activities in Accordance With HUD and Federal 09/26/2018 03/07/2019 Note 2
Requirements
HUD Paid an Estimated $413 Million for Unnecessary Preforeclosure Claim
2018-LA-0007 09/27/2018 04/03/2019 Note 2
Interest and Other Costs Due to Lender Servicing Delays
The City of New York, NY, Did Not Always Use Disaster Recovery Funds Under
2018-NY-1007 09/27/2018 02/28/2019 Note 2
Its Program for Eligible and Supported Costs
The State of Louisiana, Baton Rouge, LA, Did Not Always Maintain Adequate
2018-FW-1007 09/28/2018 03/29/2019 Note 2
Documentation or Comply With Website Reporting Requirements
Audit of the Federal Housing Administration’s Financial Statements for Fiscal
2019-FO-0002 11/14/2018 05/30/2019 Note 1
Years 2018 and 2017 (Restated)
Additional Details To Supplement Our Fiscal Years 2018 and 2017 (Restated)
2019-FO-0003 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Financial Statement 11/15/2018 07/11/2019 Note 1
Audit
Louisville Metro, Louisville, KY, Did Not Always Administer the TBRA Activity in
2019-AT-1002 03/18/2019 07/16/2019 Note 2
Its HOME and CoC Programs in Accordance With Program Requirements
2019-KC-0001 FHA Improperly Paid Partial Claims That Did Not Reinstate Their Related Loans 04/11/2019 08/02/2019 Note 2
Appendix 2: Tables | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 72
Decision Final action
Report number Report title Issue date
date target date
The Little Rock Housing Authority, Little Rock, AR, Did Not Fully Meet Rental
2019-FW-1001 04/23/2019 09/20/2019 10/31/2022
Assistance Demonstration Program Requirements
2019-BO-1001 The City of Bridgeport, CT, Did Not Properly Administer Its HOME Program 04/25/2019 08/07/2019 10/05/2022
The North Carolina Department of Commerce Did Not Administer Its
2019-AT-1004 06/14/2019 01/14/2020 Note 2
Neighborhood Stabilization Program Grants as Required by HUD
HUD Completed the Agreed-Upon Corrective Actions for One of the Two
2019-LA-0801 Recommendations Reviewed From Prior OIG Audit Report 2015-LA-0001 on 07/15/2019 10/08/2019 Note 2
FHA-HAMP Partial Claims
The Management Agent for Lake View Towers Apartments, Chicago, IL, Did
2019-CH-1003 09/03/2019 12/18/2019 01/31/2023
Not Always Comply With HUD’s Section 8 HAP Program Requirements
FHA Insured at Least $13 Billion in Loans to Ineligible Borrowers With
2019-KC-0003 09/30/2019 01/15/2020 Note 2
Delinquent Federal Tax Debt
HUD’s Purchase Card Program Had Inaccurate Records, Untimely Training, and
2020-KC-0001 01/31/2020 05/18/2020 10/24/2022
Improper Purchases
HUD’s Travel Cards Were Used for Illegal, Improper, or Erroneous Purchases
2020-KC-0002 01/31/2020 05/29/2020 10/24/2022
and Were Not Always Used When Required
HUD Had Not Established Deadlines for Reporting FHA-HAMP Nonincentivized
2020-AT-0801 02/04/2020 06/01/2020 Note 2
Loan Modifications and Filing Nonincentivized Partial Claims
Additional Details To Supplement Our Fiscal Year 2019 U.S. Department of
2020-FO-0003 02/07/2020 09/08/2020 Note 2
Housing and Urban Development Financial Statements Audit
Appendix 2: Tables | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 73
Decision Final action
Report number Report title Issue date
date target date
The Puerto Rico Department of Housing, San Juan, PR, Should Strengthen Its
2020-AT-1002 03/16/2020 07/13/2020 12/30/2022
Capacity To Administer Its Disaster Grants
HUD Lacked Adequate Oversight of Public Housing Agencies’ Compliance
2020-CH-0003 03/18/2020 09/03/2020 04/15/2022
With the Lead Safe Housing Rule
HUD Needs To Improve Its Oversight of Lead in the Water of Multifamily
2020-CH-0005 08/21/2020 01/26/2021 Note 2
Housing Units
Mid America Mortgage, dba 1st Tribal Lending, Pinole, CA, Did Not Always
2020-LA-1005 09/03/2020 12/14/2020 12/31/2022
Follow HUD’s Section 184 Program Requirements
HUD Had Implemented Most of the Required Responsibilities Stated in the
2020-LA-0002 09/24/2020 01/11/2021 11/29/2022
Geospatial Data Act of 2018
The City of Compton, Compton, CA, Did Not Always Administer Neighborhood
2021-LA-1001 10/27/2020 01/26/2021 Note 2
Stabilization Program Funds in Compliance With Procedures and Regulations
Neighborhood Housing Services of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, CA, Did
2021-LA-1002 01/05/2021 04/29/2021 Note 2
Not Always Follow Program Requirements in Administering Its NSP2
HUD Improperly Accounted for and Managed Reimbursements It Received
2021-PH-0002 03/29/2021 05/28/2021 05/26/2022
Through Rent Credits From the General Services Administration
HUD Did Not Fully Comply With the Payment Integrity Information Act of
2021-AT-0002 05/17/2021 06/17/2021 Note 2
2019
Harris County Community Services Department, Houston, TX, Was Inefficient
2021-FW-1001 06/02/2021 09/14/2021 Note 2
and Ineffective in Operating Its Hurricane Harvey Program
Appendix 2: Tables | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 74
Decision Final action
Report number Report title Issue date
date target date
The City of Houston’s Housing and Community Development Department,
2021-FW-1002 Houston, TX, Did Not Always Ensure That Its Program Followed Procurement 06/21/2021 10/06/2021 10/05/2022
Requirements
HUD’s Major Program Offices Can Improve Their Preparedness To Respond to
2021-KC-0003 07/26/2021 11/05/2021 12/31/2022
Upcoming Natural Disasters
HUD’s Office of Multifamily Housing Programs’ Complaint Process Did Not
2021-KC-0004 07/28/2021 09/28/2021 10/01/2024
Ensure That Health and Safety Complaints Were Resolved in a Timely Manner
HUD Remains Challenged To Serve the Maximum Number of Eligible Families
2021-CH-0001 09/15/2021 01/14/2022 01/13/2023
Due to Decreasing Utilization in the Housing Choice Voucher Program
The Bay City Housing Authority, Bay City, TX, Did Not Follow Requirements for
2021-FW-1003 09/29/2021 01/26/2022 12/31/2022
Its Legal Services Contract, Administrative Costs, and Board Meetings
Appendix 2: Tables | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 75
Significant Audit Reports Issued Within the Past 12 Months That Were Described in Previous Semiannual
Reports for Which Final Action Had Not Been Completed as of 09/30/2022
Report number Report title Issue date Decision date Final action
2022-FO-0801 Fraud Risk Inventory for the CDBG and ESG CARES Act Funds 10/12/2021 08/02/2022 09/01/2024
Independent Public Accountant’s Audit Report on the U.S. Department of
2022-FO-0004 Housing and Urban Development’s Fiscal Years 2021 and 2020 Consolidated 12/09/2021 09/13/2022 Note 3
Financial Statements
HUD Did Not Always Implement Corrective Actions To Further Ensure That
2022-PH-0801 12/10/2021 02/22/2022 02/28/2023
HECM Borrowers Complied With Principal Residency Requirements
FHA Borrowers Did Not Always Properly Receive COVID-19 Forbearances
2022-KC-0001 12/15/2021 04/01/2022 03/15/2023
From Their Loan Servicers
The City of Houston, Houston, TX, Faced Challenges in Administering Its
2022-FW-1001 01/04/2022 04/19/2022 12/31/2022
Hurricane Harvey Program and Risked Losing Its Funding
Opportunities Exist To Improve CPD’s Oversight of and Monitoring Tools for
2022-AT-0001 01/05/2022 04/22/2022 Note 3
Slow-Spending Grantees
HUD Did Not Have Adequate Controls in Place To Track, Monitor, and Issue
2022-LA-0001 01/07/2022 04/26/2022 04/26/2023
FHA Refunds Owed to Homeowners
The Buffalo Municipal Housing Authority, Buffalo, NY, Needs To Improve Its
2022-NY-1001 Management of the Commodore Perry Homes Development To Address 01/11/2022 05/11/2022 10/01/2023
Longstanding Concerns
Appendix 2: Tables | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 76
The Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, Los Angeles, CA, Did Not
2022-LA-1001 Always Administer Its Continuum of Care Program in Accordance With HUD 01/20/2022 04/28/2022 04/27/2023
Requirements
HUD Did Not Have Adequate Policies and Procedures for Ensuring That
2022-BO-0001 Public Housing Agencies Properly Processed Requests for Reasonable 02/07/2022 05/26/2022 05/15/2023
Accommodation
HUD Did Not Implement Adequate Grant Closeout and Reporting Processes
2022-NY-0001 03/09/2022 07/07/2022 12/30/2023
To Ensure Consistent Application of GONE Act Requirements
Approximately 31,500 FHA-Insured Loans Did Not Maintain the Required
2022-KC-0002 03/22/2022 06/29/2022 06/20/2023
Flood Insurance Coverage in 2020
The State of Florida Administered Its Housing Repair and Replacement
2022-AT-1001 Program Effectively but Not Always in a Cost-Efficient and Prudent Manner 03/30/2022 09/14/2022 03/31/2023
for the Projects and Activity Delivery Costs Reviewed
The Housing Authority of Plainfield, NJ, Did Not Always Comply With
2022-NY-1002 03/30/2022 07/28/2022 10/31/2023
Requirements When Administering Its Public Housing Programs
Audits Excluded: Notes:
70 audits under repayment plans 1 Management did not meet the target date. Target date is more than 1 year old.
30 audits under debt claims collection processing, formal judicial review, investigation, 2 Management did not meet the target date. Target date is less than 1 year old.
or legislative solution 3 No management decision
Appendix 2: Tables | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 77
Significant Evaluation Reports for Which Final Action Had Not Been Completed Within 12 Months After the
Date of the Inspector General’s Report
Report number Report title Issue date Decision date Final action
2014-ITED-0001 HUD Privacy Program Evaluation Report 04/30/2014 04/30/2014 Note 1
Federal Information Security Modernization Act (FISMA) Fiscal Year
2015-OE-0001 11/15/2015 11/15/2015 Note 1
2015 Evaluation Report
Federal Information Security Modernization Act (FISMA) Fiscal Year
2015-OE-0001 11/15/2015 11/15/2015 Note 1
2015 Evaluation Report
2015-OE-0002 HUD IT Modernization Evaluation Report 09/29/2015 09/29/2015 Note 1
2016-OE-0002 HUD Web Application Security Evaluation Report 06/07/2017 n/a Note 2
HUD Fiscal Year 2017 Federal Information Security Modernization Act
2017-OE-0007 10/31/2017 08/16/2018 Note 1
of 2014 (FISMA) Evaluation Report
2018-OE-0001 HUD Privacy Program Evaluation Report 09/13/2018 11/27/2019 Note 1
HUD Fiscal Year 2018 Federal Information Security Modernization Act
2018-OE-0003 10/31/2018 05/27/2019 Note 1
of 2014 (FISMA) Evaluation Report
2018-OE-0004 HUD IT System Management and Oversight of the Section 184 Program 08/13/2018 n/a Note 2
HUD Fiscal Year 2019 Federal Information Security Modernization Act
2019-OE-0002 06/24/2020 01/19/2021 Note 1
of 2014 (FISMA) Evaluation Report
Appendix 2: Tables | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 78
Report number Report title Issue date Decision date Final action
HUD Personally Identifiable Information (PII) Records Protection and
2019-OE-0002a 06/25/2020 12/21/2020 Note 1
Management
HUD Fiscal Year 2020 Federal Information Security Modernization Act
2020-OE-0001 11/30/2020 03/30/2021 Note 1
of 2014 (FISMA) Evaluation Report
2021-OE-0003 HUD IT Modernization Roadmap Evaluation Report 06/29/2021 09/28/2021 Note 1
Appendix 2: Tables | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 79
Significant Evaluation Reports Issued Within the Past 12 Months That Were Described in Previous
Semiannual Reports for Which Final Action Had Not Been Completed as of 09/30/2022
Report number Report title Issue date Decision date Final action
2020-OE-0004 HUD's Processes for Managing IT Acquisitions 11/17/2021 05/17/2022 Note 3
Fiscal Year 2021 Federal Information Security Modernization Act (FISMA)
2021-OE-0001 02/15/2022 09/20/2022 Note 3
Evaluation Report
Notes:
1 Management did not meet the target date. Target date is more than 1 year old.
2 No management decision (for one or more recommendations)
3 Management is working to meet the target date. Target date is less than 1 year old.
Appendix 2: Tables | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 80
Table C
Inspector General-Issued Reports With Questioned and Unsupported Costs as of 09/30/2022 (Dollars in
Thousands)
Number of audit Questioned Unsupported
Audit reports
reports costs costs
A1 For which no management decision had been made by the beginning of the reporting period 7 $397,477 $393,911
A2 For which litigation, legislation, or investigation was pending at the beginning of the
0 0 0
reporting period
A3 For which additional costs were added to reports in beginning inventory - 357 86
A4 For which costs were added to noncost reports 0 0 0
B1 Which were issued during the reporting period 2 5,187 5,187
B2 Which were reopened during the reporting period 0 0 0
Subtotals (A+B) 9 403,021 399,184
C For which a management decision was made during the reporting period 310 4,215 3,944
(1) Dollar value of disallowed costs:
Due HUD 0 87 87
Due program participants 3 4,128 3,857
(2) Dollar value of costs not disallowed 0 0 0
D For which a management decision had been made not to determine costs until
0 0 0
completion of litigation, legislation, or investigation
6 398,806 395,240
E For which no management decision had been made by the end of the reporting period
<15>11 <385,535>9 <381,973>9
10
Two audit reports also contain recommendations with funds to be put to better use.
11
The figures in brackets represent data at the recommendation level as compared to the report level. See Explanations of Tables C and D.
Appendix 2: Tables | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 81
Table D
Inspector General-Issued Reports With Recommendations That Funds Be Put to Better Use as of
09/30/2022 (Dollars in Thousands)
Number of
Audit reports Dollar value
audit reports
A1 For which no management decision had been made by the beginning of the reporting period 7 $11,929,164
A2 For which litigation, legislation, or investigation was pending at the beginning of the reporting period 0 0
A3 For which additional costs were added to reports in beginning inventory - 130,698
A4 For which costs were added to noncost reports 0 0
B1 Which were issued during the reporting period 1 698
B2 Which were reopened during the reporting period 0 0
Subtotals (A+B) 8 12,060,560
C For which a management decision was made during the reporting period 412 7,074,692
(1) Dollar value of recommendations that were agreed to by management:
Due HUD 2 6,937,979
Due program participants 2 136,713
(2) Dollar value of recommendations that were not agreed to by management 0 0
D For which a management decision had been made not to determine costs until completion of litigation,
0 0
legislation, or investigation
4 4,985,868
E For which no management decision had made by the end of the reporting period
<4>13 <4,979,774>11
12
Two audit reports also contain recommendations with questioned costs.
13
The figures in brackets represent data at the recommendation level as compared to the report level. See Explanations of Tables C and D.
Appendix 2: Tables | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 82
Explanations of Tables C and D
The Inspector General Act Amendments of 1988 require inspectors general and agency heads to report cost data on management decisions and final
actions on audit reports. The current method of reporting at the “report” level rather than at the individual audit “recommendation” level results in
misleading reporting of cost data. Under the Act, an audit “report” does not have a management decision or final action until all questioned cost items
or other recommendations have a management decision or final action. Under these circumstances, the use of the “report” based rather than the
“recommendation” based method of reporting distorts the actual agency efforts to resolve and complete action on audit recommendations. For example,
certain cost items or recommendations could have a management decision and repayment (final action) in a short period of time. Other cost items or
nonmonetary recommendation issues in the same audit report may be more complex, requiring a longer period of time for management’s decision or
final action. Although management may have taken timely action on all but one of many recommendations in an audit report, the current “all or nothing”
reporting format does not recognize its efforts.
The closing inventory for items with no management decision in tables C and D (line E) reflects figures at the report level as well as the recommendation
level.
Appendix 2: Tables | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 83
Appendix 3 - Inspector Summary of Reports With Open
Recommendations
General Empowerment Act The IGEA requires OIGs to report on each audit and evaluation
report for which there are any outstanding unimplemented
The Inspector General Empowerment Act (Public Law 114-317) (IGEA), recommendations, including the combined potential cost savings of
enacted in December 2016, contains several reporting requirements these recommendations. Summaries for the Office of Audit and Office of
regarding offices of inspectors general’s (OIG) semiannual reports Evaluation (OE) are presented below.
to Congress (SAR). Below are the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development, Office of Inspector General’s (HUD OIG) statutory
requirements as stated in the IGEA, with hyperlinks to the detailed
Office of Audit
information located on its website at www.hudoig.gov. The Department currently has 879 outstanding (open) unimplemented
recommendations with a combined potential cost savings of nearly
$20 billion. The following table and charts reflect the reasons why they
Summary of Reports With No Establishment remain unimplemented:
Comment
1. 819 recommendations have active corrective action plans
IGEA requires OIG to report on each audit and evaluation report for in place or valid repayment plans, but HUD has not finished
which HUD did not return comments within 60 days of OIG’s providing implementing the recommendation.
the report to the Department.
2. 60 recommendations are currently without management
There are no instances of reports with no establishment comment this decisions (agreement between the Department and OIG), 37
semiannual reporting period. of which are beyond the 180-day statutory requirement due
to disagreement and were reported in table A of OIG’s SAR.
The remainder are within the 180-day limit, during which time
management and OIG can arrive at an agreed-upon corrective
action plan.
3. 324 open recommendations have management decisions
in place but are currently under investigative, legislative,
or judicial action or under a valid repayment plan and are,
therefore, suspended pending resolution
Appendix 3 - Inspector General Empowerment Act | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 84
Office of Audit Summary
Cumulative estimated Cumulative estimated
Calendar Number of open Calendar Number of open
cost savings from open cost savings from open
year recommendations year recommendations
recommendations recommendations
Pre-2001 2 $1,688,555 2012 12 10,318,051
2001 1 120,000 2013 42 51,846,583
2002 3 83,604 2014 65 240,556,432
2003 12 1,746,990 2015 66 318,755,612
2004 6 8,044,077 2016 102 7,271,889,327
2005 5 2,999,361 2017 126 629,189,007
2006 12 8,829,704 2018 86 2,834,220,235
2007 14 4,899,125 2019 63 6,660,743,216
2008 26 7,001,295 2020 35 1,296,315
2009 18 4,822,283 2021 52 18,720,503
2010 13 15,796,445 202214 86 1,523,734,945
2011 32 95,551,824 Total 879 19,712,853,489
14
Data as of 9/30/2022 for the calendar year.
Appendix 3 - Inspector General Empowerment Act | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 85
Office of Evaluation
OE conducts evaluations focused on improving departmental operations and programs. OE’s recommendations do not focus on direct cost savings but,
rather, on improving program effectiveness, reducing the likelihood of negative outcomes, and addressing HUD’s top management challenges.
Calendar year Number of open recommendations
2013 0
2014 3
2015 3
2016 0
2017 5
2018 19
2019 0
2020 29
2021 15
2022 27
Total 101
Appendix 3 - Inspector General Empowerment Act | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 86
Statistical Table Showing Investigative Report Metrics
The data used in this statistical table were extracted from OIG’s Case Management System. The Case Management System and its underlying
infrastructure allow for data input and maintain data integrity during the complete investigative case cycle, while ensuring data privacy and
confidentiality. The system was developed in .Net 4.7.2, and the database is SQL 2017. OIG develops queries to extract data from the Case Management
System to meet business requirements, such as the information used to create this statistical table. The footnotes provide additional guidance pertaining
to each requested category of information.
Reporting Period: Fiscal Year (FY) 2022, Period 2 (SAR 88), April 2021 Through September 30, 2022
Measure Total
A. Total number of investigative reports issued during the reporting period15 89
B. Total number of persons referred to the U.S. Department of Justice for
104
criminal prosecution during the reporting period
C. Total number of persons referred to State and local prosecuting authorities
31
for criminal prosecution during the reporting period
D. Total number of indictments and criminal informations during the reporting
45
period that resulted from any prior referral to prosecuting authorities16
15
Includes approved reports of investigation
16
Includes all charging documents reported: criminal complaints, indictments, informations, and superseding indictments
Appendix 3 - Inspector General Empowerment Act | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 87
Investigations of Senior Government her personal phone to conduct official HUD business, and did not
meet her obligation to cooperate fully with HUD OIG’s investigation.
Employees HUD OIG referred these findings to the appropriate U.S. Attorney’s
The IGEA requires OIG to summarize in the SAR each investigation Office for prosecutorial consideration, and no prosecution resulted.
involving a senior government employee when allegations of misconduct HUD OIG also referred its findings in this matter to HUD for any
were substantiated. Listed below are the cases for this reporting period. administrative action it deems appropriate.
• HUD OIG initiated an investigation based on allegations that a GS-15
program analyst formerly employed within HUD’s Office of the Chief
Information Officer may have provided nonpublic HUD information
to representatives of a private firm. The investigation found that the
employee provided a HUD budget portfolio document not authorized
for public release to a senior official of a private firm in violation
of 5 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 2635.702 and 2635.703,
which prohibit the use of public office and nonpublic information for
private gain. HUD OIG referred these findings to the appropriate U.S.
Attorney’s Office for prosecutorial consideration and no prosecution
resulted. HUD OIG also referred its findings in this matter to HUD for
any administrative action it deems appropriate.
• HUD OIG initiated an investigation based on allegations that Lynne
Patton, then HUD Regional Administrator, may have violated various
Federal ethics laws by participating in the production of a video
that aired at a national political convention. The investigation found
that Patton used or allowed the use of her government position to
solicit participation in the video by tenants from a housing authority
she oversaw and created the appearance that she was participating
in the production of the video on behalf of HUD in violation of 5
CFR 2635.702 and 2635.101(b)(14), which prohibit the use of public
office for private gain and creating the appearance of unlawful
conduct. The investigation found further that Patton used the
official time of her subordinates in a questionable manner, used
Appendix 3: Inspector General Empowerement Act | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 88
Instances of Whistleblower Retaliation Reports That Were Closed During the Period
The IGEA requires OIG to include in the SAR a detailed description of That Were Not Disclosed to the Public
any instance of whistleblower retaliation, including information about Section 5(a)(22) of the IGEA, as amended, requires that OIG report on
the official found to have engaged in retaliation and what, if any, each audit, evaluation, and investigation conducted by the office that is
consequences the establishment imposed to hold that official accountable. closed during the reporting period and was not disclosed to the public.
• HUD OIG has no instances of whistleblower retaliation to report for
this period. OSI made two referrals to the Department during this Office of Investigation
reporting period finding that complainants had established a prima • HUD OIG conducted an investigation relating to another OIG at that
facie case of retaliation under Section 4712 but, consistent with HUD OIG’s request.
OIG’s practice during the last reporting period, OSI is not including
summaries of those referrals because Section 4712 requires the • HUD OIG conducted an investigation relating to another OIG in
Department to determine whether retaliation took place and the support of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and
Department has made no such determination in these matters. Efficiency’s Integrity Committee.
OIG Independence • HUD OIG initiated an investigation based on allegations that a
former senior HUD official published a book containing nonpublic
The IGEA requires OIG to include in the SAR a detailed description of HUD information in violation of regulations regarding the use of
any attempt by the establishment to interfere with the independence departmental records. The investigation did not substantiate the
of OIG, including incidents in which the establishment has resisted or allegations, and the matter was neither presented for prosecution
objected to oversight activities or restricted or significantly delayed nor referred to HUD.
access to information.
• HUD OIG initiated an investigation based on allegations referred
OIG has no instances of attempts to interfere with OIG independence to from the Office of Special Counsel that (1) a senior official’s former
report in this SAR period. ownership of a HUD subcontractor created the appearance of
a conflict of interest and (2) three other senior officials may
have engaged in gross mismanagement by underfunding and
mishandling certain HUD contracts or activities. The HUD OIG
investigation did not substantiate either allegation, and HUD OIG
provided its findings in this matter to HUD for transmittal to the
Office of Special Counsel.
Appendix 3: Inspector General Empowerement Act | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 89
Office of Evaluation
Fiscal Year 2022 Federal Information Security Modernization Act
(FISMA) Evaluation Report: September 30, 2022
OIG assessed HUD’s information security (IS) program for effectiveness
in accordance with FISMA, which directs OIGs to conduct an evaluation
using the OIG FISMA metrics. The metrics consist of eight domains
aligned with the five functional areas (identify, protect, detect, respond,
and recover) from the National Institute of Standards and Technology
Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity.
HUD continued to take positive steps to improve its information technology
(IT) security posture. However, OMB modified the FISMA evaluation
methodology in FY 2022, asking IG’s to evaluate 20 core metrics instead of
approximately 60 FISMA metric that had been assessed in previous years.
Based on the FY 2022 FISMA Core IG [Inspector General] Metrics issued by
the Office of Management and Budget, HUD’s IS program was evaluated
as not effective. Significant limitations and challenges continue to impact
the Office of the Chief Information Officer’s ability to establish an effective
IS program. The longstanding inability to modernize key IT systems and
consistently implement enterprise efforts, as well as budget and resource
constraints in FY 2022, affected HUD’s ability to mature. This outcome is
despite HUD’s increasing maturity in 3 of the 20 core metrics, remaining
at the same maturity level for 16 of the 20 core metrics, and dropping in
maturity for 1 core metric.
HUD continued to make significant progress in addressing OIG’s
prior years’ recommendations. During FY 2022, HUD closed 21
prior FISMA recommendations. In this report, OIG issued five new
recommendations and offered opportunities for improvement for the
enterprise and the program offices.
(Agencywide, Evaluation Report: 2022-OE-0001)
Appendix 3: Inspector General Empowerement Act | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 90
Appendix 4 - Reporting Requirements
The specific reporting requirements as prescribed by the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended by the Inspector General Act of 1988, are listed
below.
Source requirement Pages
Section 4(a)(2) - review of existing and proposed legislation and regulations. 26-43
Section 5(a)(1) – description of significant problems, abuses, and deficiencies relating to the
13-22, 55-56
administration of programs and operations of the Department.
Section 5(a)(2) – description of recommendations for corrective action with respect to significant
44-54
problems, abuses, and deficiencies.
Section 5(a)(3) – identification of each significant recommendation described in previous Appendix 2,
Semiannual Reports on which corrective action has not been completed. Table B, 63
Section 5(a)(4) – summary of matters referred to prosecutive authorities and the prosecutions
13-22
and convictions that have resulted.
Section 5(a)(5) – summary of reports made on instances where information or assistance was
no instances
unreasonably refused or not provided, as required by Section 6(b)(2) of the Act.
Section 5(a)(6) – listing of each audit report completed during the reporting period, and for each
Appendix 1,
report, where applicable, the total dollar value of questioned and unsupported costs and dollar
59
value of recommendations that funds be put to better use.
Section 5(a)(7) – summary of each particularly significant report. 13-22
Appendix 4 - Reporting Requirements | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 91
Source requirement Pages
Section 5(a)(8) – statistical tables showing the total number of adult reports and the total dollar Appendix 2,
value of questioned and unsupported costs. Table C, 81
Section 5(a)(9) – statistical tables showing the total number of audit reports and the dollar value Appendix 2,
of recommendations that funds be put to better use by management. Table D, 82
Section 5(a)(10) – summary of each audit report issued before the commencement of the Appendix
reporting period for which no management decision had been made by the end of the period. Table A, 59
Section 5(a)(11) – a description and explanation of the reasons for any significant revised
52-53
management decisions made during the reporting period.
Section 5(a)(12) – information concerning any significant management decision with which the
No instances
Inspector General is in disagreement.
Section 5(a)(13) – the information described under section 05(b) of the Federal Financial
54
Management Improvement Act of 1996.
Appendix 4 - Reporting Requirements | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 92
Appendix 5 - Acronyms and HTF
HUD
Housing Trust Fund
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Abbreviations
HUD-VASH HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing
IDIS Integrated Disbursement and Information System
IG Inspector General
BAP Buy America Domestic Content Procurement Preference IGEA Inspector General Empowerment Act
CARES Act Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act ICDBG Indian Community Development Block Grant
CAV corrective action verification IHBG Indian Housing Block Grant
CDBG Community Development Block Grant IHBG-ARP Indian Housing Block Grant American Rescue Plan Act
CDBG-DR Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery IS information security
CFR Code of Federal Regulations IT information technology
CLA CliftonLarsonAllen LLP LOS Loan Origination System
CIGIE Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and MAP multifamily accelerated processing
Efficiency MIP mortgage insurance premium
CPD Office of Community Planning and Development NAHASDA Native American Housing Assistance and Self-
DHS U.S. Department of Homeland Security Determination Act of 1996
DOE U.S. Department of Energy OBGA Office of Block Grant Assistance
DOJ U.S. Department of Justice OCIO Office of the Chief Information Officer
ESG Emergency Solutions Grant OE Office of Evaluation
ESG-CV Emergency Solutions Grant CARES Act OIG Office of Inspector General
ESS Environmental Shared Services office OLHCHH Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes
FFMIA Federal Financial Management Improvement Act OMB Office of Management and Budget
FHA Federal Housing Administration ONAP Office of Native American Programs
FHFA Federal Housing Finance Agency ORCF Office of Residential Care Facilities
FISMA Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014 PBRA project-based rental assistance
FMR fair market rent PHA public housing agency
FR Federal Register PIH Office of Public and Indian Housing
FSS Family Self-Sufficiency PIH-TBRA Office of Public and Indian Housing, Tenant-Based Rental
FY fiscal year Assistance
HCV Housing Choice Voucher PIIA Payment Integrity Information Act of 2019
HOPWA Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS PRWORA Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
HOTMA Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act of 2016 Reconciliation Act
Appendix 5 - Acronyms and Abbreviations | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 93
PSH Permanent Supportive Housing
RFIF renewal funding inflation factor
RVI remote video inspection
SAM System for Award Management
SAR Semiannual Report to Congress
SFDMS Single Family Default Monitoring System
TBRA tenant-based rental assistance
TDHE tribally designated housing entity
TRACS Tenant Rental Assistance Certification System
UEI unique entity identifier
USAID U.S. Agency for International Development
U.S.C. United States Code
VASH Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing
Appendix 5 - Acronyms and Abbreviations | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 94
Appendix 6 - OIG Directory
Office of Audit
Headquarters Washington, DC 202-708-0364 Disaster Recovery Audit Fort Worth, TX 817-978-9309
Division (West) Baton Rouge, LA 225-448-3975
Fair Housing Audit Boston, MA 617-994-8380 Houston, TX 713-718-3199
Division Hartford, CT 860-240-9739 New Orleans, LA 504-671-3000
Philadelphia, PA 215-656-0500 Oklahoma City, OK 405-609-8606
Baltimore, MD 410-962-2520 San Antonio, TX 210-475-6800
Pittsburgh, PA 412-644-6428
Richmond, VA 800-842-2610 Ginnie Mae-Single Kansas City, KS 913-551-5870
Family Housing Denver, CO 303-672-5471
Single Family Housing New York, NY 212-264-4174 (Servicing) Audit Division
(Originations)-Multifamily Buffalo, NY 716-551-5755
Insurance Audit Division Newark, NJ 973-622-7900 Grants Management Los Angeles, CA 213-894-8016
Phoenix, AZ 602-379-7250
San Francisco, CA 415-489-6400
Disaster Recovery Audit Atlanta, GA 404-331-3369
Division (East) Greensboro, NC 336-547-4001
Miami, FL 305-536-5387
San Juan, PR 787-766-5540
Rental Assistance-Safe Chicago, IL 312-913-8499
Office of Evaluation
and Affordable Housing Columbus, OH 614-280-6138
Audit Division Detroit, MI 313-226-6190 Headquarters Washington, DC evaluations@hudoig.gov
APPENDIX 6: OIG DIRECTORY | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 95
Office of Investigation
Headquarters Washington, DC (202)708-0390 Midwest Region Chicago, IL (312) 353-4196
Detroit, MI (313) 226-7900
Northeast Region Boston, MA (617) 994-8450 Kansas City, KS (913) 551-5866
Buffalo, NY (716) 646-7105 St. Louis, MO (314) 539-6278
Hartford, CT (860) 240-4800
Newark, NJ (973) 776-7342
New York, NY (212) 542-7294 South Central Region Baton Rouge, LA (225) 448-3941
Fort Worth, TX (817) 978-5440
Houston, TX (713) 718-3097
MidAtlantic Region Alexandria, VA (206) 498-6461 New Orleans, LA (504) 671-3700
Baltimore, MD (410) 962-2520
Cleveland, OH (216) 357-7800
Columbus, OH (614) 280-6137 Western Region Denver, CO (303) 672-5350
Indianapolis, IN (317) 226-6303 Los Angeles, CA (213) 894-8000
Philadelphia, PA (215) 430-6758 Phoenix, AZ (602) 379-7251
Pittsburgh, PA (412) 644-6598 San Francisco, CA (415) 489-6400
Richmond, VA (804) 771-2100
Southeast Region Atlanta, GA (404) 331-5001
Birmingham, AL (205) 731-2630
Greensboro, NC (336) 547-4000
Miami, FL (305) 536-3087
San Juan, PR (787) 766-5872
Tampa, FL (813) 596-5764
APPENDIX 6: OIG DIRECTORY | HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 96
Report fraud, waste, and mismanagement
in HUD programs and operations by
Calling the HUD OIG hotline:
1-800-347-3735
Visiting online at
https://www.hudoig.gov/hotline
W W W.H U DO IG .G OV
Scan to report fraud Report #88
HUD OIG Semiannual Report to Congress BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS | PAGE 97
File and source
- File
- gaps-d5a1b67dc4b1.pdf
- Size
- 6,128,068 bytes
- SHA-256
- d5a1b67dc4b19060709ae037a754504926e6edffdbc9e2a042b28bfebd274f16
- Our copy
- gaps-d5a1b67dc4b1.pdf
- Original
- www.hudoig.gov