Specifically, HUD’s Office of Public and  Indian Housing (PIH) had total budgetary resources of approximately  $71.2 billion (about 53 percent), the Office of Housing (OH) had about  $32.9 billion (approximately 24 percent), and the Office of Community  Planning and Development (CPD) had about $21.4 billion (approximately  16 percent). In addition, HUD programs are used to deliver funds for activities  associated with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009  (Recovery Act), which is one of the federal government’s key efforts to   The stimulate the economy in response to the recent economic crisis. The Cabinet-level OIGs, including the HUD OIG, were established by the  IG Act which, among other things, requires each OIG to report specific  accomplishments in semiannual reports provided for the Congress. The OIGs also include  investigative accomplishments in their semiannual reports. Comparison of the HUD OIG’s Budgets, Staffing, and Monetary Accomplishments with Other Cabinet- Level OIGs

For the 5-year period from fiscal year 2007 through 2011, the HUD OIG  had total budgetary resources that were consistently fifth highest out of  the 16 Cabinet-level OIGs. In comparison, the  HUD OIG’s budgets increased approximately 19 percent, from about  $121 million to about $144 million, or less than half of the percentage  increase for the total Cabinet-level OIG budgets. When comparing the full-time-equivalent (FTE) staff of the Cabinet-level  OIGs during the same period, the HUD OIG was fifth in fiscal year 2011. In prior years the HUD OIG ranked fourth, immediately ahead of the  Department of Homeland Security OIG during fiscal years 2007 through  2009, and immediately behind the same OIG during fiscal years 2010 and  2011. The HUD OIG increased its level of FTEs by about  13 percent during the 5-year period, a similar but somewhat smaller  increase than the approximately 17 percent average increase in FTEs for  all the Cabinet-level OIGs. During each year of the 5-year period, from fiscal years 2007 through  2011, the HUD OIG’s reported monetary accomplishments compared with  its total budgetary resources resulted in estimated annual returns on each  total budget resource dollar received. In  addition, HUD’s OIG reported that total monetary accomplishments from  audits, inspections, and investigations over the 5-year period were  approximately $9.2 billion. When compared to the HUD OIG’s total  budgetary resources for the entire 5-year period of $675 million, the  estimated average return for each total budgetary resource dollar  received was about $13.62. When compared to the average 5-year return on total budgetary resource  dollars for all 16 Cabinet-level OIGs, HUD OIG’s return was again similar,  but somewhat higher. HUD’s OIG Reported Oversight and Accomplishments in HUD’s Three Largest Program Offices

The HUD OIG reported providing the majority of audits and inspections in  HUD’s three largest program offices during fiscal years 2007 through  2011. Specifically, the OIG reported a total of 905 audit and inspection  reports, which included reviews of the efficiency and effectiveness of  HUD’s management and program operations, and audits of HUD’s  financial statements during the 5-year period. Of these reports, 810— about 90 percent—addressed HUD programs administered by PIH, OH,  and CPD. The HUD OIG also reported opening a total of 6,149 investigative cases,  with most of them providing investigative coverage of HUD’s three largest  program offices during the 5-year period. in potential savings from audit and inspection  Of the almost $6.94 billion in reported potential monetary savings from  audits and inspections, approximately $2.46 billion (about 36 percent),  was in HUD’s three largest program offices. Of the remaining amount,  about $4.45 billion (approximately 64 percent), was mostly from a  financial control deficiency and not directly related to HUD’s large  program offices. Also, over the same period, the HUD OIG reported monetary  accomplishments of about $381.3 million related to OH-administered  programs. Approximately   $1.2 billion (about 86 percent), of these recoveries were from  investigations in OH’s housing programs administered by FHA. For investigative recoveries related to  other HUD offices, the OIG reported about $94.5 million in PIH- administered programs, and investigations of CPD-administered  programs resulted in about $63.4 million in investigative recoveries during  the same 5-year period. With respect to recent increases in HUD oversight responsibilities, the  HUD OIG reported investigative activities that focused on CDBG grants  that included federal funding for hurricane and disaster assistance. As a  result, the OIG reported a total of 308 convictions, pleas, and mistrials  and 200 administrative and civil actions during the 5-year period. Agency Comments

In written comments on a draft of this report, the HUD IG generally  concurred with the report contents.
Why GAO Did This Study

The joint explanatory statement for the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, called for GAO to report on the resources of the HUD OIG in light of HUDs recently expanded roles and responsibilities. In response, GAO (1) compared the budgets, staffing levels, and monetary accomplishments of the HUD OIG to that of comparable OIGs during recent years, and (2) described the results of the HUD OIGs oversight of HUDs programs.
GAO compared the budget and staff resources of the HUD OIG with that of other Cabinet-level department OIGs for the 5-year period from fiscal year 2007 through 2011. GAO also summarized the monetary accomplishments of the HUD OIG and other OIGs as reported in their semiannual reports to the Congress, and compared the results with their total budgetary resources to obtain a return on each budget dollar received.
In addition, GAO summarized and described the HUD OIGs reported oversight coverage and monetary and nonmonetary accomplishments from audit and inspection reports and investigative cases that addressed HUDs largest program offices from fiscal year 2007 through 2011.

What GAO Found

During the 5-year period from fiscal year 2007 through 2011, the Department of Housing and Urban Developments (HUD) Office of Inspector General (OIG) had budget and staffing resources that were consistent with other OIGs, and a monetary return for each budget dollar which exceeded the average return for Cabinet-level OIGs. During the 5-year period, the HUD OIG had total budgetary resources ranging from $121 million to $144 million, consistently ranking it fifth among all Cabinet-level OIGs. However, while the total budgetary resources for all Cabinet-level OIGs increased by about 45 percent over the 5-year period, the HUD OIGs total budgetary resources increased by 19 percent. In terms of staffing, the HUD OIGs full-time-equivalent staff (FTE) consistently ranked in the top four or five of the Cabinet-level OIGs. Also, the HUD OIGs FTEs increased by about 13 percent during the 5-year period, as compared to about a 17 percent average increase for all Cabinet-level OIGs. During the same 5-year period, the HUD OIG reported an estimated average dollar return of about $13.62 for each HUD OIG total budgetary dollar received, while the 16 OIGs in the Cabinet-level departments reported an estimated average dollar return of about $11.12 for each OIG total budget dollar received over the same period.
The HUD OIG reported the majority of its audit, inspection, and investigative coverage in the three largest HUD program offices during fiscal years 2007 through 2011. Specifically, of the OIGs reported 905 total audit and inspection reports completed over the 5-year period, 90 percent addressed programs in HUDs Offices of Public and Indian Housing, Housing, and Community Planning and Development, which comprised about 93 percent of HUDs fiscal year 2011 total budgetary resources. Also, of the 6149 investigative cases opened during this same period, almost 95 percent involved programs in these same offices. In addition, the OIGs reports and investigative cases focused on HUDs responsibilities related to recent increases in hurricane and disaster relief funds and HUDs implementation of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), administered through these HUD program offices. Also, of the almost $6.94 billion in reported potential monetary savings from the OIGs audits and inspections, approximately $2.46 billion (about 36 percent), were in the three largest HUD program offices. Of the remaining amount, approximately $4.45 billion (about 64 percent), was mostly from a financial control deficiency not directly related to the three large program offices, and an additional $28.4 million resulted from audits and inspections of hurricane relief and disaster assistance not reported as part of a specific HUD program. Of the OIGs reported $1.39 billion in investigative recoveries during the 5-year period, approximately $1.2 billion (about 86 percent), was related to mortgage fraud investigations in programs administered by HUDs Office of Housing. The OIG also reported an additional $866 million in potential savings from other investigative efforts throughout HUDs programs during the 5-year period. In addition, the OIG reported nonmonetary accomplishments primarily from investigations in HUDs three largest program offices, which resulted in 4,759 convictions, pleas, and mistrials, and 5,761 administrative and civil actions during the 5-year period.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is not making any recommendations in this report. The HUD Inspector General concurred with the contents of the draft report.