HUD's Oversight of Housing Agencies Should Focus More on Inappropriate Use of Program Funds
GAO-09-33, Jun 11, 2009
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provided over $6.7 billion in fiscal year 2008 to housing agencies to operate, modernize, and develop about 1.2 million public housing units. It is important that HUD exercise sufficient oversight of housing agencies to help ensure that public housing funds are being used as intended and properly managed. In this report, GAO examines HUD's oversight processes for detecting housing agencies at risk of inappropriate use and mismanagement of public housing funds. GAO analyzed HUD financial data on about 3,300 housing agencies, compared HUD's oversight policies with program and agency objectives, and interviewed agency officials.
Key HUD oversight processes could be more focused on identifying potential inappropriate use or mismanagement of public housing funds. HUD primarily relies on single audits to identify such problems, although HUD, its Office of Inspector General (OIG), and the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency (now known as the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency) have identified weaknesses with some audits. Further, even when these audits do identify issues, HUD does not systematically summarize audit findings to identify and understand emerging and persistent issues to better monitor housing agencies for inappropriate use and mismanagement of public housing funds. Understanding these problems could be useful for identifying housing agencies that are at greater risk of inappropriately using or mismanaging public housing funds. HUD uses the Public Housing Assessment System (PHAS) to monitor and rate the overall condition and financial health of public housing agencies. However, PHAS is not intended to identify inappropriate uses of public housing funds and is limited in its ability to detect potential mismanagement. HUD also analyzes the financial data of public housing agencies, but its review focuses on the accuracy and completeness of the information used to calculate PHAS scores. GAO analyzed financial data from the housing agencies and found many housing agencies showed indicators that they were at risk of potential inappropriate use and mismanagement of public housing funds--while most received passing PHAS scores. For example, GAO found that from 2002 to 2006, 200 housing agencies had written checks for more than the funds available in their bank accounts (bank overdrafts) on average of $25,000 or more. However, 75 percent of these agencies received passing PHAS scores. Such overdrafts raise questions about these agencies' cash management. But HUD does not use these and similar measures to identify housing agencies at greater risk of inappropriately using or mismanaging public housing funds. Without fully leveraging the audit and financial information it collects, the department limits its ability to identify housing agencies that are at greater risk of inappropriately using or mismanaging program funds.
- Closed - implemented
- Closed - not implemented
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: In order to strengthen its oversight of housing agencies administering the public housing program and better leverage information that it already collects, the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development should regularly summarize and systematically evaluate the results of OIG and single audits of public housing agencies to allow program managers to identify and understand problems of potential inappropriate use and mismanagement of public housing funds, identify emerging issues, and evaluate overall monitoring and oversight processes. Summarized results of audits should be disseminated to field offices, housing agencies, and their auditors to help make them aware of emerging or persistent problems and assist them in monitoring and administering HUD's public housing programs.
Agency Affected: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Closed - Implemented
Comments: In a June 24, 2011 letter, HUD stated that it agreed with our recommendation to regularly summarize and systematically evaluate the results of HUD's Office of Inspector General and single audits of public housing agencies to allow program managers to identify and understand potential problems. Specifically, HUD implemented a change to its "Monthly Audit Status Report" that includes a trend analysis report. The analysis includes the status of recommendations by types of findings (e.g. findings of deficient policies/procedures or unsubstantiated payments) over a six month period. HUD stated that it believes that providing this trend analysis information is an enhancement to the existing oversight mechanisms. The trend analysis report is distributed to relevant HUD staff.
Recommendation: In order to strengthen its oversight of housing agencies administering the public housing program and better leverage information that it already collects, the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development should develop mechanisms--such as financial indicators--to identify housing agencies that are at greater risk of inappropriately using or mismanaging public housing funds. Such mechanisms may be developed based on the department's evaluation of commonly occurring and emerging issues identified in OIG and single audits of housing agencies and developed by leveraging financial information that the department currently collects. Once such indicators are developed, the department should use them as part of its ongoing monitoring and review of housing agencies' use of public housing funds.
Agency Affected: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Comments: In its June 24, 2011 letter, HUD stated implementing GAO's recommendation would involve modifications to its Financial Assessment Subsystem, which hosts the public housing agencies' financial information, and other audit tracking systems. HUD stated that at the present time, HUD does not receive adequate funding to modernize its system even for its current needs; thus a modification project to address the recommendation would not be a departmental priority.