The OIG has determined that the contents of this recommendation would not be appropriate for public disclosure and has therefore limited its distribution to selected officials.
2017-OE-0007 | October 31, 2017
HUD Fiscal Year 2017 Federal Information Security Modernization Act Of 2014 (FISMA) Evaluation Report
Chief Information Officer
- Status2017-OE-0007-07OpenClosedSensitiveSensitive
Sensitive information refers to information that could have a damaging import if released to the public and, therefore, must be restricted from public disclosure.
- Status2017-OE-0007-08OpenClosedSensitiveSensitive
Sensitive information refers to information that could have a damaging import if released to the public and, therefore, must be restricted from public disclosure.
The OIG has determined that the contents of this recommendation would not be appropriate for public disclosure and has therefore limited its distribution to selected officials.
- Status2017-OE-0007-09OpenClosedSensitiveSensitive
Sensitive information refers to information that could have a damaging import if released to the public and, therefore, must be restricted from public disclosure.
The OIG has determined that the contents of this recommendation would not be appropriate for public disclosure and has therefore limited its distribution to selected officials.
- Status2017-OE-0007-10OpenClosedSensitiveSensitive
Sensitive information refers to information that could have a damaging import if released to the public and, therefore, must be restricted from public disclosure.
The OIG has determined that the contents of this recommendation would not be appropriate for public disclosure and has therefore limited its distribution to selected officials.
- Status2017-OE-0007-11OpenClosedSensitiveSensitive
Sensitive information refers to information that could have a damaging import if released to the public and, therefore, must be restricted from public disclosure.
The OIG has determined that the contents of this recommendation would not be appropriate for public disclosure and has therefore limited its distribution to selected officials.
- Status2017-OE-0007-12OpenClosedSensitiveSensitive
Sensitive information refers to information that could have a damaging import if released to the public and, therefore, must be restricted from public disclosure.
The OIG has determined that the contents of this recommendation would not be appropriate for public disclosure and has therefore limited its distribution to selected officials.
- Status2017-OE-0007-13OpenClosedSensitiveSensitive
Sensitive information refers to information that could have a damaging import if released to the public and, therefore, must be restricted from public disclosure.
The OIG has determined that the contents of this recommendation would not be appropriate for public disclosure and has therefore limited its distribution to selected officials.
- Status2017-OE-0007-14OpenClosedSensitiveSensitive
Sensitive information refers to information that could have a damaging import if released to the public and, therefore, must be restricted from public disclosure.
The OIG has determined that the contents of this recommendation would not be appropriate for public disclosure and has therefore limited its distribution to selected officials.
- Status2017-OE-0007-15OpenClosedSensitiveSensitive
Sensitive information refers to information that could have a damaging import if released to the public and, therefore, must be restricted from public disclosure.
The OIG has determined that the contents of this recommendation would not be appropriate for public disclosure and has therefore limited its distribution to selected officials.
- Status2017-OE-0007-16OpenClosedSensitiveSensitive
Sensitive information refers to information that could have a damaging import if released to the public and, therefore, must be restricted from public disclosure.
The OIG has determined that the contents of this recommendation would not be appropriate for public disclosure and has therefore limited its distribution to selected officials.
- Status2017-OE-0007-17OpenClosedSensitiveSensitive
Sensitive information refers to information that could have a damaging import if released to the public and, therefore, must be restricted from public disclosure.
The OIG has determined that the contents of this recommendation would not be appropriate for public disclosure and has therefore limited its distribution to selected officials.
- Status2017-OE-0007-18OpenClosedSensitiveSensitive
Sensitive information refers to information that could have a damaging import if released to the public and, therefore, must be restricted from public disclosure.
The OIG has determined that the contents of this recommendation would not be appropriate for public disclosure and has therefore limited its distribution to selected officials.
- Status2017-OE-0007-19OpenClosedSensitiveSensitive
Sensitive information refers to information that could have a damaging import if released to the public and, therefore, must be restricted from public disclosure.
The OIG has determined that the contents of this recommendation would not be appropriate for public disclosure and has therefore limited its distribution to selected officials.
2017-SE-1002 | September 29, 2017
The Housing Authority of Snohomish County, Everett, WA, Did Not Always Administer Its Section 8 Project-Based Voucher Program in Accordance With HUD Requirements
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2017-SE-1002-001-AOpenClosed
Review the Authority’s non-Sound Families Initiative project-based voucher projects to determine whether it executed the agreement with the owners of new construction projects.
- Status2017-SE-1002-001-BOpenClosed
Assist the Authority in obtaining any training needs identified by the review in recommendation 1A.
- Status2017-SE-1002-001-COpenClosed
Require the Authority to submit evidence and its board of directors to certify to the Director of the Seattle Office of Public Housing that it has complied with regulatory requirements for each step of the project-based voucher process for each new project-based voucher project until such time as the Director of the Seattle Office of Public Housing believes the Authority understands and is consistently complying with the requirements.
2017-CH-1007 | September 28, 2017
The Menard County Housing Authority, Petersburg, IL, Did Not Comply With HUD’s and Its Own Requirements Regarding the Administration of Its Housing Choice Voucher Program
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2017-CH-1007-001-AOpenClosed$373,860Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Reimburse its program $373,860 ($302,638 in ineligible housing assistance payments $63,643 in associated administrative fees $7,579 in program funds paid to the contractor) from non-Federal funds for the inappropriate payments cited in this finding.
- Status2017-CH-1007-001-BOpenClosed$358,237Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Seek retroactive approval or reimburse its program $358,237 ($339,908 in housing assistance payments $18,329 in program funds paid to the contractor) for the housing quality standards inspections of units owned by entities substantially controlled by the Authority, completed by contractors that were not approved by HUD.
- Status2017-CH-1007-001-COpenClosed
Implement adequate procedures and controls to ensure that the Authority complies with HUD’s requirements for program conflicts of interest, including but not limited to ensuring that (1) its staff does not complete inspections for units owned by entities substantially controlled by the Authority, (2) its staff is appropriately trained and familiar with HUD’s requirements for units owned by entities it substantially controls, and (3) future contracts to perform housing quality standards inspections for program units owned by entities substantially controlled by the Authority are with a HUD-approved independent third party.
- Status2017-CH-1007-002-AOpenClosed$163,316Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Reimburse its program $163,316 from non-Federal funds ($29,074 in housing assistance due to calculation errors 74,957 due to inappropriate voucher sizes, payment standards, and utility allowances $18,141 $41,144 in administrative fees) for the inappropriate payments cited in this finding.