For fiscal year 2011, HUD’s three largest offices administered programs that accounted for about 93 percent of HUD’s total budgetary resources of approximately $134.3 billion. 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). (See fig. 1.) The remaining 7 percent of HUD’s total budgetary resources included the Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae); the Offices of Policy Development and Research, Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, and Lead-Based Paint and Poisoning Prevention; and HUD’s management and administration including financial operations across all of HUD’s programs. PIH-administered programs are intended to ensure safe, decent, and affordable housing for low-income families; create opportunities for self- sufficiency and economic independence; reduce improper payments; and support mixed income developments to replace distressed public housing. These programs include grants and subsidies to public housing authorities (PHA) nationwide to provide affordable housing opportunities for about 3.3 million low-income families. Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended, includes programs for tenant-based vouchers and project-based rental assistance. During fiscal years 2007 through 2011, the number of PHAs increased from 3,100 to 4,150. The OH-administered programs include FHA, which insures mortgages and loans made by FHA-approved lenders for single and multifamily housing units intended to serve borrowers who are not being adequately served by the conventional market, including first-time homebuyers, minorities, low-income families and residents of underserved communities. During the recent mortgage crisis, larger segments of the market began using FHA-insured loans, resulting in the more than doubling of the dollar amount of these mortgage loans from about $439 billion in fiscal year 2007 to over $1 trillion in fiscal year 2011. (See fig. 2.) CPD provides funding mainly through the Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) Program, which is the most widely available source of federal assistance to state and local governments for neighborhood revitalization, housing rehabilitation activities, and economic development. Because of the funding mechanism that the CDBG Program already has in place to provide federal funds to states and localities, the program is widely viewed as a convenient tool for disbursing large amounts of federal funds to address emergencies. Over the past two decades, CDBG has repeatedly been adapted as a vehicle to respond to federal disasters, such as floods, hurricanes, and terrorist attacks—including being used to facilitate disaster relief funds in the wakes of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2006 and 2007. 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. goals of the Recovery Act include helping preserve and create jobs, promoting economic recovery from the recent economic recession, providing investments to increase economic efficiency by spurring technological advances, and investing in infrastructure to provide long- term economic benefits. Under the Recovery Act, HUD received $13.6 billion in appropriations to be used to fund several housing program areas, and the OIG received an additional $15 million to its annual appropriation for the oversight and audit of HUD programs, grants, and activities funded by the act. 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. This includes the number of audit reports issued and the questioned costs, unsupported costs, and funds to be put to better use, identified by the OIGs’ audits. As defined by the IG Act, questioned costs include either alleged violations of laws, regulations, contracts, grants, or agreements governing the expenditure of funds; costs not supported by adequate supporting documentation; or the expenditure of funds for an intended purpose that was unnecessary or unreasonable. In addition, unsupported costs are defined as costs that do not have adequate supporting documentation, and funds to be put to better use are inefficiencies identified by the OIG in the use of agency funds. The OIGs also include investigative accomplishments in their semiannual reports. These can include monetary accomplishments such as fines and restitutions resulting from settlements or court-ordered actions resulting from illegal activities investigated by the OIGs, and nonmonetary accomplishments such as cases opened, convictions, and administrative actions. 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. (See table 1.) Over the same 5-year period, the total budgetary resources for all16 OIGs increased from about $1.5 billion to almost $2.2 billion, or about 45 percent. 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. (See table 2.) 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. These returns ranged from a low of $10.73 in fiscal year 2010 to a high of $18.70 in fiscal year 2009. 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. (See table 3.) 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. Specifically, the 16 Cabinet-level OIGs reported monetary accomplishments in their semiannual reports that totaled about $106.2 billion over the same period. When compared to their combined total budgetary resources of approximately $9.547 billion, these OIGs had an overall estimated average return on investment of about $11.12 for each total budgetary resource dollar received. (See table 4). The OIGs’ combined estimated average return on total budgetary resource dollars during this 5-year period ranged from a low of $7.54 in fiscal year 2007 to a high of $14.33 in fiscal year 2011. 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 OIG reported coverage of PIH-administered programs with a total of 339 audit and inspection reports, which was the greatest number of reports in any of HUD’s program offices. (See fig. 3.) The emphasis on the PIH programs is a result of the OIG’s concerns with the overpayment of housing assistance in the Section 8 programs. The OIG addressed CPD-administered programs through 270 reports with an emphasis on the oversight of funding that goes to nonprofit organizations that have historically not participated in federal programs and may lack the capacity to comply with all grant requirements. Also, according to OIG officials, the OIG’s 201 audit and inspection reports of OH-administered programs are a result of the OIG’s recognition that FHA’s share of mortgage originations has been at an all-time high over the past few years. 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. Specifically, of these cases, 5,841 (about 95 percent), were in programs administered by PIH, OH, and CPD. The OIG opened 2,944 investigative cases to address alleged fraud in PIH-administered programs, which included rental assistance programs and the administration of public housing authorities. (See fig. 4.) In addition, through expanded mortgage fraud initiatives to address the unprecedented increase in the number of new and refinanced FHA loans, the OIG reported opening 2,018 investigative cases in OH- administered programs.