AJJCS
Products News Help
Client Sign In

RAD First Component - Eligibility, Conversion Requirements, and Financing Considerations

person A.J. Johnson today 09/09/2019

On September 5, 2019, HUD issued Notice H-2019-09, PIH-2019-23 (HA), Rental Assistance Demonstration - Final Implementation, Revision 4. This revised notice provides program instructions for the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) Program, including eligibility and selection criteria.

Background

The RAD program was created by Congress in 2011 and provides the opportunity to test the conversion of public housing and other HUD-assisted properties to long-term, project-based Section 8 rental assistance to achieve certain goals, including the preservation and upgrading of these properties by enabling Public Housing Agencies (PHAs) to access private and public debt and equity to address immediate and long-term capital needs. RAD is also designed to test the extent to which residents have increased housing choices after the conversion, and the overall impact on the properties.

RAD has two components:

  • First Component: The First Component allows projects funded under the public housing (Section 9) program to convert their assistance to long-term, project-based Section 8 rental assistance contracts. PHAs may choose between two forms of Section 8 Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) Contracts: project-based vouchers (PBVs) or project-based rental assistance (PBRA). PHAs will convert assistance at current subsidy levels and there will be no increase in funding. The law authorizes the conversion of up to 455,000 public housing units under this component. Section I of the Notice provides instructions for PHAs applying for conversion under the First Component.
    • While the RAD statute authorizes HUD to convert Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Projects (Mod Rehab) under the First Component, HUD is exercising its discretion to prioritize public housing conversions under the competitive requirements of the First Component. The demand for public housing conversions is extremely high and significantly exceeded the initial limitation on the number of units that could be converted under the First Component.  Consequently, Mod Rehab conversions will be processed exclusively under the Second Component of RAD, which is non-competitive.
  • Second Component: The Second Component allows owners of projects funded under the Rent Supplement (Rent Supp), Rental Assistance Payment (RAP), and Mod Rehab programs to convert to PBV or PBRA contracts upon contract expiration or termination occurring after October 1, 2006. The Second Component further allows owners of projects funded under the Project Rental Assistance Contracts (PRAC) under the Section 202 program to convert to PBV or PBRA contracts.

The purpose of this article is to review the basic RAD elements of the First Component relative to eligibility, conversion requirements, and financing considerations.

As noted above, under the First Component of RAD, PHAs may choose between two forms of Section 8 Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) Contracts; project-based vouchers (PBVs) or project-based rental assistance (PBRA). No incremental funds are authorized for this component. As such, initial contract rents are established based on public housing funding levels and are subject to applicable program rent caps. Applications may be submitted for a specific project or a PHA-defined portfolio of projects. If a PHA applies for a portfolio award, HUD will reserve RAD conversion authority for the number of units covered by the award, and the PHA will be required to submit a RAD application for each individual project. After HUD approval, a project will receive a long-term Section 8 HAP Contract.

PBV Conversions

Where the PHA converts assistance of a public housing project to Section 8 PBVs, the HAP contract will be administered by the agency with which HUD has entered into the applicable Voucher ACC, which is usually the same agency that is converting assistance. Contract rents will be established and will be adjusted annually by HUD’s published OCAF on each anniversary of the HAP Contract subject to appropriations and the rent reasonableness requirement. The initial contract will be for a period of at least 15-years (but may be up to 20-years). At or prior to the expiration of the initial contract and each renewal contract thereafter, the Voucher Agency shall offer, and the Project Owner shall accept, a renewal contract for the prescribed number and mix of units, either at the site of the project subject to the expiring contract, or upon request of the Project Owner and subject to PHA and HUD approval, at another site through a future transfer of assistance.

PBRA Conversions

Where the PHA converts assistance of a public housing project to Section 8 PBRA, the HAP Contract will generally be administered by HUD’s Office of Housing, unless later assigned to a PHA that is under ACC with HUD for the purpose of administering project-based Section 8 HAP Contracts. Contract rents will be established and will be adjusted annually by HUD’s published OCAF at each anniversary of the HAP Contract. The initial contract will be for a period of 20 years and will be subject to annual appropriations. At expiration of the initial contract and each renewal contract, HUD shall offer, and the project owner shall accept, a renewal contract for the prescribed number and mix of units, either on the site of the project subject to the expiring contract, or upon request of the Project Owner and subject to HUD approval, at another site through a future transfer of assistance.

Eligibility

To be eligible for RAD, a PHA must:

  1. Have public housing units under an ACC;
  2. Be classified as a Standard or High Performer under the Public Housing Assessment System (PHAS). If classified as "troubled," the PHA may still be eligible if the PHA is making substantial progress under its Recovery Agreement, Action Plan, Corrective Action Plan (CAP) or Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) or proposes a revision to such agreement or plan that incorporates conversion under RAD and that is acceptable to HUD.
  3. Be classified as a Standard or High Performer under the Section 8 Management Assessment Program (SEMAP) if the PHA will be administering the PBV contract under RAD. If classified as Troubled, the PHA must be making substantial progress under the CAP and HUD must have determined that the factors resulting in the PHA’s Troubled status will not affect its capacity to carry out a successful conversion under RAD;
  4. Be in substantial compliance with HUD reporting and programmatic requirements and/or satisfactorily in compliance with any CAP or MOA related to any (1) program finding or (2) failure to carry out, to the satisfaction of HUD, management decisions relating to an audit by the OIG;
  5. Not have a debarment, suspension, or Limited Denial of Participation (LDP) in Federal programs lodged against the applicant, PHA Executive Director, Board members, or affiliates, unless HUD has determined that the RAD conversion is likely to place the property under the control of a more capable entity;
  6. Submit a completed application that complies with all RAD application instructions; and
  7. Resolve to HUD’s satisfaction any outstanding civil rights matters prior to conversion.

Project Conversion Requirements and Financing Considerations

HUD expects that the majority of projects undergoing conversion of assistance through RAD will do at least some rehabilitation or reconstruction. The following include requirements related to conversion plans more broadly, including those involving rehab and construction:

Conversion Planning Requirements

  1. Capital Needs Assessment (CNA). Except as noted below, each project selected for award will be required to perform a detailed physical inspection to determine both short-term rehab needs and long-term capital needs. Short term needs will be included in the RAD scope of work conversion and long-term needs will be addressed through a Reserve for Replacement Account. A CNA must be submitted with the Financing Plan and must have been completed no earlier than 180 days prior to submission of the Financing Plan, unless HUD approves otherwise.
    1. The CNA must be completed by a qualified, independent third-party professional.
    1. HUD may exempt the following transaction types from a CNA:
      1. For non-FHA transactions, neither component of the CNA will be required as long as the annual deposit to the Replacement Reserve is no less than $450 per unit, and the Project:
        1. Has been newly constructed for financed with 9% LIHTC within the last five years, as calculated from the date the final certificate or occupancy was issued, or
        1. Qualifies as new construction of will be financed with 9% LIHTC;
      1. For non-FHA transactions, the narrative will not be required where the transaction will be financed with 4% LIHTC;
      1. For non-FHA transactions, neither component of the CNA will be required where the total assisted units at the project will constitute less than 20% of the total units at the project.
    1. No utility consumption baseline analysis is necessary as part of the CNA conducted for the RAD conversion.
  2. Healthy Housing & Energy Efficiency. For all projects retrofitted under a RAD conversion, if systems and appliances are being replaced as part of the Work identified in the approved Financing Plan, PHAs shall utilize the most energy and water efficient options that are financially feasible and that are found to be cost effective by the CNA. Where a project is planning to use a RAD conversion in conjunction with new construction, projects shall at a minimum meet or exceed the 2009 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) for single family or low-rise multifamily properties or the ASHRAE 90.1-2007 standard for mid- or high-rise multifamily projects.
  3. Environmental Review. Proposed RAD projects are subject to environmental review and environmental documents are required to be submitted no later than the submission of the Financing Plan.
  4. Substantial Conversion of Assistance. Conversions may not result in a reduction of the number of assisted units, except by a de minimis amount. A de minimis reduction of units may include any of the following:
    1. The greater of five units or the number of units (rounded to the nearest whole number) corresponding to five percent of the number of ACC units in the Project immediately prior to conversion;
    1. Any unit that has been vacant for more than 24 months at the time of RAD Application; and
    1. Units that, if removed from assistance, will allow the PHA to more effectively or efficiently serve assisted households through: (1) reconfiguring apartments; or (2) facilitating social service delivery, subject to HUD approval.

The de minimis allowance may be calculated across portfolio conversions but the number of de minimis units allowed must be calculated based on the RAD conversions closed prior to or simultaneous with the execution of the de minimis reduction. For example, a PHA that is converting 200 units across three properties is permitted to replace 190 RAD-assisted units (i.e., 95% of 200) across its portfolio and apply the unit reduction to a single property.

However, the property that would have ten fewer units assisted under a RAD HAP Contract must convert simultaneous with or after the first two properties - not before.

A PHA must demonstrate that any reduction in units better serves residents, the Covered Project, or the operating viability of the PHA’s RAD or public housing portfolio, will not result in the involuntary  permanent displacement of any tenant family, and will not result in discrimination based on federally protected characteristics.

  • Relocation Requirements. The RAD Fair Housing, Civil Rights, and Relocation Notice provides guidance on relocation planning, resident right to return, relocation assistance, resident notification, initiation of relocation, and the fair housing and civil rights requirements applicable to these activities.
    • Right to Return. Any resident that may need to be temporarily relocated to facilitate rehab or construction has a right to return to an assisted unit at the Covered Project once rehab or construction is completed. Permanent involuntary displacement of residents may not occur as a result of a project’s conversion, including, but not limited to, as a result of a change in bedroom distribution, a de minimis reduction of units, the reconfiguration of efficiency apartments, or the repurposing of dwelling units in order to facilitate social service delivery. Where the transfer of assistance to a new site is warranted and approved, residents of the Converting Project will have the right to reside in an assisted unit at the new site once rehab or construction is complete.
    • Ineligibility of Tenant Protection Vouchers. Conversion of assistance is not an event that triggers the issuance of Tenant Protection Vouchers to residents of public housing projects going through a RAD conversion.
  • Accessibility Requirements. Federal accessibility requirements apply to all conversions, whether they entail new construction, alterations, or existing facilities. Compliance with Section 504, the ADA, and the Fair Housing Act is required.
  • Demolition. Conversion plans may include the partial or complete demolition of a project and replacement of assistance either on - site or off - site. A PHA may not demolish and/or dispose of units until after the closing of construction financing for the new project.
  • Change in Unit Configuration. If a PHA is proposing to change the unit configuration as part of the conversion, the PHA must demonstrate that the change in bedroom distribution will not result in the involuntary displacement of any resident. For example, if three and four-bedroom units are replaced with one and two-bedroom units, the conversion may, but not in all cases, result in discrimination against families with children. HUD will perform an up-front review when a PHA proposes to change the unit configuration of a project.
  • Ownership & Control. Except where permitted to facilitate the use of tax credits, during both the initial term and all renewal terms of the HAP Contract, HUD will require ownership or control of the project by a public or non-profit entity. HUD may allow ownership of a project to be transferred to a tax credit entity controlled by a for-profit to facilitate the use of the tax credits, but only if HUD determines that the PHA or a non-profit entity preserves an interest in the property.
  • Transfer of Assistance. Approvals of a PHA or owner’s request to transfer assistance will be determined in HUD’s sole discretion considering the condition and needs of the Converting Project, the nature of the proposed Project, and the impact on the project residents. The transfer shall not place housing in neighborhoods with highly concentrated poverty based on the criteria formulated for transfers under Section 8(bb) of the Housing Act. The project to which assistance is transferred will be subject to all of the contract terms as described in the HAP Contract, RAD Conversion Commitment (RCC), and RAD Use Agreement.
  • RAD Use Agreement. Pursuant to the RAD Statute, a Covered Project must have a RAD Use Agreement that will be in a form prescribed by HUD, including, but not limited to the following:
    • Be recorded in a superior position to all other liens on the property;
    • Run until the conclusion of the initial term of the HAP Contract, automatically renew upon extension or renewal of the HAP Contract for a term that coincides with the renewal term of the HAP Contract, and remain in effect even in the case of abatement or termination of the HAP Contract;
    • Provide that in the event the HAP Contract is removed due to breach, non-compliance or insufficiency of Appropriations, for all units previously covered under the HAP Contract new tenants must have incomes at or below 80% of the area median income (AMI) at the time of admission and rents may not exceed 30% of 80% of AMI for an appropriate-size unit for the remainder of the term of the RAD Use Agreement; and
    • Require compliance with all applicable fair housing and civil rights requirements, including the obligation to affirmatively further fair housing.
  • Davis-Bacon Prevailing Wages. The Davis-Bacon Prevailing Wage requirements apply to all work, including any new construction, that is identified in the Financing Plan and RCC to the extent that such work qualifies as development. This includes remodeling that alters the nature or type of housing units, reconstruction, or substantial improvement and is initiated within 18 months following the effective date of the HAP Contract. Davis-Bacon applies only to projects with nine or more assisted units.
  • Lead Based Paint Hazards. PHAs are required to conduct lead-based paint inspections and lead risk assessments on any pre-1978 public housing properties.

Financing Requirements & Considerations

If a PHA lacks recent experience in accessing various forms of debt and/or equity capital, it may wish to consider engaging technical assistance offered by local or national development intermediaries, professional financing advisors, consultants, and/or development partners to augment its capacities. HUD will assess the capacity of the development team.

Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTCs), Historic Tax Credits (HTCs), and Opportunity Zones

Applicants are encouraged to use LIHTCs and, if eligible, historic preservation tax credits, opportunity zones and state or local tax incentive structures, to support capitalization. Applicants are also encouraged to assess local demand and supply considerations if proposing to utilize LIHTCs and to discuss their interest in applying for LIHTCs as soon as possible with state or local tax credit issuing agencies to obtain guidance on how to compete for awards most effectively.

While the applicant must indicate in its application if it intends to use tax credits, there is no requirement to have secured those credits prior to submitting an application.

This article has dealt with the RAD project conversion basic requirements and financing considerations. The next article on the RAD Notice will focus on waivers, alternatives, and other public housing requirements.

Latest Articles

RD to Implement HOTMA Income and Certification Rules on July 1, 2025

Although HUD has postponed implementation of HOTMA for its Multifamily Housing Programs until January 1, 2026, the USDA Rural Housing Service (RHS) Office of Multifamily Housing has announced that the Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act (HOTMA) will take effect on July 1, 2025, bringing significant changes to income calculation rules for multifamily housing programs. Key Implementation Details To accommodate the federally mandated HOTMA requirements, Rural Development published comprehensive updates to Chapter 6 of Handbook 2-3560 on June 13, 2025. All multifamily housing tenant certifications effective on or after July 1, 2025, must comply with the new HOTMA requirements. Recognizing the challenges of the transition period, Rural Development has announced a six-month grace period. Between July 1, 2025, and January 1, 2026, the agency will not penalize multifamily housing owners for HOTMA-related tenant file errors discovered during supervisory reviews. Legislative Background HOTMA was signed into law on July 29, 2016, directing the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to modernize income calculation rules established initially under the Housing Act of 1937. After years of development, HUD published the Final Rule on February 14, 2023, updating critical regulations found in 24 CFR Part 5, Subpart A, Sections 5.609 and 5.611. The HOTMA changes specifically affecting the RHS Multifamily Housing portfolio are contained in 24 CFR 5.609(a) and (b) and 24 CFR 5.611, which standardize income calculation methods across federal housing programs. Notable Policy Changes Unborn Child Consideration One of the most significant changes involves how unborn children are counted for household eligibility purposes. Under the new rules, pregnant women will be considered as part of two-person households for income qualification purposes, aligning Rural Development policies with other affordable housing programs, including HUD and the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) programs. However, the household will not receive the $480 dependent deduction until after the child is born, maintaining consistency in benefit distribution timing. Updated Certification Forms Rural Development has released an updated Form RD 3560-8 Tenant Certification, which was initially published on December 6, 2024, and revised on April 18, 2025. The form is available on the eForms Website for immediate use. The previous version of the form has been renumbered as RD 3560-8A and should be used for all tenant certifications effective before July 1, 2025. Implementation Timeline The HOTMA implementation has experienced some delays. Originally scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2025, the Rural Housing Service announced on October 3, 2024, that implementation would be postponed to July 1, 2025, to allow additional time for property owners and managers to prepare. Rural Development initially implemented HOTMA through an unnumbered letter dated August 19, 2024, which outlined the overview and projected timeline for implementation. Industry Impact The HOTMA changes represent the most significant update to federal housing income calculation rules in decades, affecting thousands of multifamily housing properties across rural America. Property owners and managers have been working to update their systems and train staff on the new requirements. The six-month penalty-free transition period demonstrates Rural Development s commitment to supporting property owners through this complex regulatory change while ensuring long-term compliance with federal requirements. Moving Forward Multifamily housing stakeholders are encouraged to review the updated Chapter 6 of Handbook 2-3560 and ensure their staff is adequately trained on the new HOTMA requirements. Property owners should also verify they have access to the updated Form RD 3560-8 and understand the timing requirements for its use. For ongoing updates and additional resources, stakeholders can subscribe to USDA Rural Development updates through the GovDelivery subscriber page. The implementation of HOTMA represents a significant step toward modernizing and standardizing income calculation methods across federal housing programs, ultimately improving consistency and fairness in affordable housing administration.

Read full story

HUD’s Proposed Rule to Eliminate Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plans: A Critical Analysis

Introduction The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has proposed eliminating the requirement for Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plans (AFHMPs), a cornerstone of fair housing enforcement for decades. This proposed rule, published on June 3, 2025, represents a significant departure from established fair housing practices and raises serious concerns about the federal government s commitment to ensuring equal housing opportunities for all Americans. HUD s justification for this elimination rests on six primary arguments, each of which fails to withstand careful scrutiny and analysis. Background on Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plans AFHMPs have long served as essential tools in combating housing discrimination by requiring property owners and managers to actively market housing opportunities to groups that are least likely to apply. These plans ensure that information about available housing reaches all segments of the community, not just those who traditionally have had better access to housing information networks. Analysis of HUD s Justifications 1. Claims of Inconsistency with Fair Housing Act Authority HUD argues that its authority under the Fair Housing Act and Executive Order 11063 is limited to the "prevention of discrimination, claiming that AFHM regulations go beyond this scope by requiring outreach to minority communities through targeted publications and outlets. The agency characterizes this as impermissible "racial sorting. This argument fundamentally misunderstands both the nature of discrimination and the historical context of fair housing enforcement. Information disparities have long been one of the most prevalent and effective forms of housing discrimination. When certain groups systematically lack access to information about housing opportunities, the discriminatory effect is equivalent to being explicitly excluded. The failure to provide equal access to housing information is, in itself, a discriminatory act, not merely a neutral information gap. AFHMPs address this reality by ensuring that housing information reaches all communities, particularly those that have been historically excluded from traditional marketing channels. 2. Constitutional Challenges Under Equal Protection HUD contends that AFHM regulations violate the Equal Protection Clause by requiring applicants to favor some racial groups over others. This characterization is both inaccurate and misleading. AFHMPs do not create preferences or favor any particular group. Instead, they ensure equitable access to information by targeting outreach to communities that are "least likely to apply for specific housing opportunities. This principle applies regardless of the racial or ethnic composition of those communities. For instance, housing developments located in predominantly minority neighborhoods are required to conduct affirmative marketing in white communities since white residents would be least likely to apply for housing in those areas. The regulation is race-neutral in its application it focuses on reaching underrepresented groups regardless of their racial identity. This approach promotes inclusion rather than exclusion and advances the constitutional principle of equal protection under the law. 3. Delegation of Legislative Power Concerns HUD s third argument that the Fair Housing Act s authorization of AFHM regulations constitutes an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power represents perhaps the weakest aspect of their legal reasoning. Congress explicitly mandated that affirmative efforts be made to eliminate housing discrimination. As the administrative agency responsible for implementing congressional intent in this area, HUD possesses both the authority and the responsibility to determine the most effective means of carrying out this mandate. The development of specific regulatory mechanisms to achieve Congress s stated goals falls squarely within HUD s legitimate administrative authority and represents appropriate implementation of legislative intent rather than overreach. 4. The "Color Blind Policy Justification HUD frames its opposition to AFHMPs as part of a "color-blind policy approach, arguing that it is "immoral to treat racial groups differently and that the agency should not engage in "racial sorting. This argument mischaracterizes the function and operation of AFHMPs. These plans do not sort individuals by race or treat different racial groups unequally. Rather, they ensure that all groups have equal access to housing information by specifically reaching out to those who are least likely to receive such information through conventional marketing channels. Critically, AFHMPs require marketing to the general community in addition to targeted outreach. This comprehensive approach ensures broad access to housing information while addressing historical information disparities that have contributed to ongoing patterns of segregation. 5. Burden Reduction for Property Owners HUD argues that "innocent private actors should not bear the economic burden of preparing marketing plans unless they have actively engaged in discrimination. This position suggests that property owners should be exempt from fair housing obligations unless they can prove intentional discriminatory conduct. This reasoning effectively provides cover for property owners who prefer that certain groups remain unaware of housing opportunities. The "burden of creating inclusive marketing strategies is minimal compared to the societal cost of perpetuating information disparities that maintain segregated housing patterns. The characterization of comprehensive marketing as an undue burden ignores the fundamental principle that equal housing opportunity requires proactive effort, not merely passive non-discrimination. This represents a retreat to a "wink and nod approach to fair housing enforcement that falls far short of the Fair Housing Act s aspirational goals. 6. Prevention vs. Equal Outcomes HUD s final argument contends that AFHM regulations improperly focus on equalizing statistical outcomes rather than preventing discrimination. This argument creates a false dichotomy between prevention and opportunity creation. AFHMPs exist not to guarantee equal outcomes but to ensure equal opportunity by providing equal access to housing information. When information about housing opportunities is not equally available to all segments of the community, the opportunity for fair housing choice is compromised from the outset. True prevention of discrimination requires addressing the structural barriers that limit housing choices, including information disparities. The Broader Implications HUD s proposed elimination of AFHMP requirements represents a concerning retreat from decades of progress in fair housing enforcement. The proposal effectively returns to an era when discrimination, while technically prohibited, was facilitated through information control and selective marketing practices. The reality of housing markets is that access to information varies significantly across communities. Property owners and managers possess considerable discretion in how they market available units. Without regulatory requirements for inclusive outreach, there are few incentives to ensure that information reaches all potential applicants. Anyone with experience in affordable housing development and management understands that information flow can be deliberately targeted and shaped. This targeting can either expand housing opportunities for underserved communities or systematically exclude them. Marketing strategies can be designed to minimize applications from certain groups while maintaining technical compliance with non-discrimination requirements. Conclusion The six justifications offered by HUD for eliminating AFHMP requirements fail to provide compelling reasons for abandoning this critical fair housing tool. The arguments reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of how housing discrimination operates in practice and ignore the crucial role that information access plays in maintaining or dismantling segregated housing patterns. Rather than advancing fair housing goals, the proposed rule exacerbates existing disparities by removing a key mechanism for ensuring that all communities have equal access to housing information. The elimination of AFHMPs would represent a significant step backward in the ongoing effort to achieve the Fair Housing Act s vision of integrated communities and equal housing opportunities for all Americans. The current proposal suggests an agency leadership more committed to reducing the regulatory burden on property owners than to expanding housing opportunities for underserved communities. This represents a troubling departure from HUD s mission and responsibilities under federal fair housing law. Moving forward, policymakers, housing advocates, and community leaders must carefully consider whether this proposed rule serves the public interest or merely provides cover for practices that perpetuate housing segregation through more subtle but equally effective means.

Read full story

HUD Inspector General Reports Major Financial Recoveries and Oversight Improvements

Federal watchdog agency identifies nearly $500 million in recoveries while addressing critical housing challenges across America. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development s Office of Inspector General (HUD OIG) has published its semiannual report to Congress, highlighting significant financial recoveries and systemic improvements across federal housing programs during the six-month period that ended on March 31, 2025. Record Financial Impact and Enforcement Actions The HUD OIG s oversight activities generated significant financial returns for taxpayers, with audit and investigative efforts yielding nearly half a billion dollars in recoveries and recommendations. Audit activities alone led to collections of $387.4 million, while identifying an additional $42.3 million in funds that could be better utilized and questioning $8.1 million in costs. Investigative efforts produced equally impressive outcomes, with over $61 million in recoveries and receivables. The enforcement actions were thorough, leading to 36 arrests, 58 indictments, and 92 administrative sanctions, including 60 debarments from federal programs. Among the most notable prosecutions, a landlord received a 17-year prison sentence for fraudulently obtaining federal rental assistance while violating the Fair Housing Act. Similarly, a businessman was sentenced to 17 years for orchestrating a reverse mortgage fraud scheme that specifically targeted elderly homeowners. Addressing Systemic Housing Quality Concerns The report highlights ongoing challenges in maintaining adequate housing conditions within HUD-assisted properties. Inspections revealed that 65% of the observed housing units had deficiencies, with 63 life-threatening issues identified. These findings underscore the continued struggle to ensure that federally subsidized housing meets basic safety and health standards. Under the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program, initial inspections of converted properties experienced significant delays, with 50% lacking timely management and occupancy reviews. The OIG has recommended improvements to the timing and completion processes of inspections to address these critical gaps. One investigation led to a civil lawsuit against a management company for lead paint safety violations impacting over 2,500 apartments, highlighting the serious health risks faced by residents in certain assisted housing properties. Fraud Risk Management Needs Enhancement The report highlights fraud risk management as a vital area needing attention, especially within large public housing authorities. An audit of the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) showed a lack of a comprehensive fraud risk strategy, despite some existing anti-fraud measures. The authority s approach was described as mainly reactive instead of proactive. This finding has led the OIG to recommend evaluating fraud risk management practices at other large public housing authorities across the country, indicating that NYCHA s challenges may reflect broader systemic issues. Progress in Resolving Past Recommendations Collaboration between HUD and the OIG has produced positive outcomes in addressing previously identified issues. During the reporting period, HUD resolved 135 open recommendations, bringing the total number of outstanding recommendations down to 693. This trend shows a consistent decrease in unresolved audit findings. However, although not part of the report, it should be noted that the recent and planned cuts to HUD staff may slow the pace of corrective activity. Since October 2022, the OIG has identified 283 non-monetary benefits resulting from its recommendations, including 77 guidance enhancements, 64 process improvements, 112 increases in program effectiveness, and 30 enhanced accuracies. These improvements highlight the broader impact of oversight activities beyond direct financial recoveries. Challenges in FHA Program Oversight The Federal Housing Administration continues to face challenges in managing counterparty risks with mortgage lenders and servicers. The OIG found that Carrington Mortgage and MidFirst Bank misapplied FHA foreclosure requirements in over 18% and 14% of cases, respectively. Additionally, other lenders, including CMG Mortgage and loanDepot.com, demonstrated deficiencies in their quality control programs for FHA-insured loans. These findings underscore the necessity for improved oversight of the private entities on which HUD depends to effectively deliver housing assistance programs. Disaster Recovery and Grants Management HUD s administration of disaster recovery grants continues to encounter monitoring challenges. Although grantees under the National Disaster Resilience Program faced delays in completing activities, they remain on track to achieve their overall goals. The OIG has recommended enhanced action plans and improved documentation of collaboration with partners. In broader grants management, the OIG identified compliance issues with federal transparency requirements, noting that prime award recipients did not consistently report subawards as mandated by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act. Technology and Cybersecurity Improvements HUD s information security program has achieved maturity level 3, but it has not yet reached full effectiveness. Penetration testing uncovered significant weaknesses in data protection and website security, prompting recommendations for comprehensive enhancements to safeguard sensitive information and systems. Whistleblower Protections and Transparency The OIG continues to underscore the significance of whistleblower protections in ensuring program integrity. During the reporting period, 10,214 hotline intakes were processed, with 6,631 referred to HUD program offices for action. The Public and Indian Housing office received the highest number of referrals at 5,250, highlighting ongoing concerns in this program area. Notably, the report found no attempts by HUD to interfere with OIG independence, and no instances of whistleblower retaliation were reported, indicating a healthy oversight environment. Looking Forward The semiannual report illustrates both the ongoing challenges that federal housing programs face and the effectiveness of independent oversight in addressing these issues. With nearly $500 million in financial impact and numerous process improvements, the HUD OIG s work continues to yield substantial returns on taxpayer investment while ensuring that federal housing assistance reaches those who need it most safely and effectively. The findings emphasize the crucial role of strong oversight in preserving the integrity of programs that offer housing assistance to millions of Americans while pointing out areas where ongoing attention and enhancement are vital for program success.

Read full story

HOTMA Compliance Deadline Extended to January 1, 2026 for HUD Multifamily Housing Programs

On May 30, 2025, the Office of Multifamily Housing Programs issued a new Housing Notice extending the mandatory compliance date for the Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act of 2016 (HOTMA). The previous deadline of July 1, 2025, has now been extended to January 1, 2026, for all owners participating in HUD multifamily project-based rental assistance programs. What This Means for Owners and Agents Full HOTMA compliance is required for all tenant certifications dated on or after January 1, 2026. This includes adherence to both the mandatory provisions and any discretionary policies implemented by owners. Owners and agents may voluntarily adopt HOTMA compliance earlier by utilizing the rent override function in the Tenant Rental Assistance Certification System (TRACS). Interim Compliance Guidance Until a property fully implements HOTMA, HUD advises the following: Continue to follow your current Tenant Selection Plan (TSP) as approved by HUD or your Contract Administrator. Maintain adherence to existing Enterprise Income Verification (EIV) policies and procedures. Ensure any early implementation steps are consistent with TRACS capabilities and accurately documented in tenant files. Key Takeaways New HOTMA compliance deadline: January 1, 2026 Optional early adoption is available through TRACS Existing policies remain in effect until full HOTMA compliance is achieved LIHTC Impact Owners and operators of LIHTC projects should contact the relevant Housing Finance Agency (HFA) for information on the effective date in their respective states. If you have any questions regarding the HOTMA implementation timeline, updating your policies, or the use of TRACS features, please contact our office. We are here to help ensure a smooth transition to full HOTMA compliance.

Read full story

Want news delivered to your inbox?

Subscribe to our news articles to stay up to date.

We care about the protection of your data. Read our Privacy Policy.