HUD Subsidized an Estimated 2,094 to 3,046 Households That Included Lifetime Registered Sex Offenders
What We Audited and Why:
We audited the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) requirement prohibiting lifetime register ed sex offenders from admission to HUD-subsidized housing. We initiated this audit as part of our national annual audit plan. Our audit objective was to determine the extent to which HUD-subsidized
housing was occupied by lifetime registered sex offenders.
What We Found:
HUD subsidized an estimated 2,094 to 3,046 households that included lifetime registered sex offenders. As a result, it did not accomplish the objective of the statute to prevent admission of dangerous sex offenders, and the same offenders who were deemed too dangerous for admission were allowed to continue living in subsidized housing.
What We Recommend:
We recommend that HUD seek legislative and program rule changes to require denial of continued occupancy and termination of tenancy, or continued subsidy as appropriate, for all lifetime registered sex offenders residing in subsidized housing. If legislative changes are passed, we recommend that HUD develop and
implement a plan to detect lifetime registered sex offenders occupying subsidized housing.
Additionally, we recommend that HUD require projects and housing authorities to revise their admission, screening, and recertification procedures and urge them to aggressively pursue termination of assistance for lifetime sex offenders to the extent currently allowed by law. For each recommendation without a management decision, please respond and provide status reports in accordance with HUD Handbook 2000.06, REV-3. Please furnish us copies of any correspondence or directives issued because of the audit.
We provided the discussion draft to HUD on June 30, 2009, requesting comments within 30 days. We provided a revised draft for comment on July 17, 2009. We received comments from the Office of Public and Indian Housing and the Office of Multifamily Housing dated August 5, 2009, and July 31, 2009, respectively.
While HUD agreed with some recommendations, it generally disagreed with the key recommendations relating to requesting legislative changes and implementing additional requirements and controls. The complete text of the auditee’s response, along with our evaluation of that response, can be found in appendix B of this report. ..Continued.. by Ronald J. Hosking, Regional Inspector General for Audit, 7AGA
No comments:
Post a Comment