Issue Date September 15, 2000 Audit Case Number 00-AT-222-1009 TO: Charles E. Gardner, Director, Homeownership Center, 4AHH FROM: Nancy H. Cooper District Inspector General for Audit-Southeast/Caribbean, 4AGA SUBJECT: Southeast Alliance of Foreclosure Specialists, LLC. We completed an audit of Southeast Alliance of Foreclosure Specialists, LLC., a Management and Marketing (M&M) contractor. This report presents the results of our audit of Southeast Alliance’s ability to manage and market FHA’s single family properties. Southeast Alliance’s comments to the two findings and associated recommendations are included as Appendix A with excerpts and the Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) response incorporated into the Findings and Recommendations section of the report. Within 60 days, please provide us, for each recommendation in this report, a status report on: (1) the corrective action taken; (2) the proposed corrective action and a planned completion date; or (3) why action is considered unnecessary. Also, please furnish us copies of any correspondence or directives issued as a result of the audit. Note that Handbook 2000.06 REV-3 requires management decisions to be reached on all recommendations within 6 months of report issuance. It also provides guidance regarding interim actions and the format and content of your reply. We provided a copy of this report to Southeast Alliance. We appreciate your cooperation during the audit. We would also like to thank Southeast Alliance for its cooperation during the audit and commend the professionalism of its management and staff. Should you or your staff have any questions, please contact me at (404) 331-3369, or Gerald Kirkland, Assistant District Inspector General for Audit, at (865) 545-4368. Management Memorandum (This Page Left Blank Intentionally) 00-AT-222-1009 Page ii Executive Summary Under Secretary Andrew Cuomo, HUD has undergone significant changes in response to the Secretary’s “HUD 2020 Reorganization Plan.” One major change is the outsourcing of FHA’s management and marketing of its single family properties. In March 1999, FHA awarded 7 companies a total of 16 Management and Marketing (M&M) contracts to manage its single family property inventory. Although FHA outsourced these activities, its program mission did not change. The program mission is to reduce this inventory in a manner that: “(1) expands homeownership, (2) strengthens neighborhoods and communities, and (3) ensures a maximum return to the mortgage insurance fund.” This report presents the results of our assessment of Southeast Alliance of Foreclosure Specialists, LLC., a M&M contractor, and its ability to manage and market properties in a manner that enables FHA to accomplish its mission. The contractor demonstrated success in three key areas. The contractor reduced both the number of properties in inventory and the number of properties in inventory over 6 months. It also reduced the average losses from property sales. Despite these accomplishments, improvements are still needed. The contractor demonstrated the willingness to improve its operations. Our audit confirmed what FHA repeatedly reported in its monthly performance assessment reports. As discussed in Finding 1, the contractor did not maintain properties as required. The contractor did not perform timely initial property inspections, did not always identify serious property defects, did not conduct routine inspections as required, and did not correct hazardous conditions within mandatory 24 hours. The poor property conditions decrease marketability; increase FHA’s holding costs; have negative effects on surrounding communities; reflect poorly on the Department’s image; and in some cases, threaten the health and safety of neighbors and potential buyers. Also, as discussed in Finding 2, the contractor did not comply with other contract requirements. For example, the contractor did not review HUD-1 Settlement Statements, did not obtain timely property appraisals, and billed FHA for unauthorized expenses and ineligible expenses. The noncompliance could significantly increase the risk of loss to the insurance fund. We recommend you: • Require the contractor to ensure property inspectors are adequately trained; • Require the contractor to develop and implement procedures to perform timely initial and routine inspections; Page iii 00-AT-222-1009 Executive Summary • Require the contractor to promptly correct hazardous conditions and make necessary repairs to preserve and protect properties; • Closely monitor the contractor’s compliance with maintenance requirements and take necessary actions to ensure requirements are met; and • Ensure the contractor implements other controls to ensure contract requirements are met. Southeast Alliance response to the draft report We provided the draft report to Southeast Alliance on July 28, 2000. Southeast Alliance provided written comments to the draft report on August 9, 2000, which are summarized within each finding and included in their entirety as Appendix A. We also discussed the draft report with Southeast Alliance officials on August 14, 2000. Although they disagreed with some specific deficiencies identified in our property inspections, they generally agreed that improvements are needed. They generally agreed with the recommendations and have implemented, or plan to implement, procedures to address the recommendations. We considered the comments in preparing our final report. 00-AT-222-1009 Page iv Table of Contents Management Memorandum i Executive Summary iii Introduction 1 Findings 1 The Contractor Did Not Properly Maintain Properties 5 2 The Contractor Violated Contract Requirements 15 Follow-Up on Prior Audits 19 Appendices A Southeast Alliance Comments 21 B Distributions 33 Abbreviations FHA Federal Housing Administration HOC Homeownership Center HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development M&M Management and Marketing OIG Office of Inspector General REO Real Estate Owned Page v 00-AT-222-1009 Table of Contents (This Page Left Blank Intentionally) 00-AT-222-1009 Page vi Introduction Background FHA’s Single Family Mortgage Insurance Program helps low and moderate income families become homeowners by reducing downpayments and limiting lender fees. Every year, however, thousands of borrowers default on their FHA-insured loans. When they default, FHA encourages lenders to work with them to bring their payments current. When they cannot do this, their homes may be sold to third parties, voluntarily conveyed to the lenders, or surrendered to lenders through foreclosure. Once lenders obtain the properties, they generally convey title to the Secretary of HUD in exchange for payment of their insurance claim. The National Housing Act (Act) of 1934 confers on the Secretary the authority to manage, rehabilitate, rent, and dispose of its acquired single family properties. Section 204(g) of the Act governs the management and disposition of single family properties acquired by FHA. Title 24, Code of Federal Regulations, part 291 implements this statutory authority. Handbook 4310.5 REV-2, dated May 17, 1994, Property Disposition Handbook - One to Four Family Properties, supplements the regulations. FHA disposes of properties through its Property Disposition Program. FHA’s mission is to reduce the property inventory in a manner that expands homeownership opportunities, strengthens neighborhoods and communities and ensures a maximum return to the insurance fund. FHA’s Asset Management Division, is responsible for developing property disposition policies and procedures governing program administration. Each of FHA’s four homeownership centers (HOCs) is responsible for program operations within its geographical jurisdiction. In March 1997, as part of HUD’s continuing reinvention efforts, FHA issued its 2020 Field Consolidation Plan for Single Family Housing. In March 1999, FHA put the final phase of its reorganization efforts into effect. It awarded 7 companies a total of 16 M&M contracts to manage and market its properties nationwide. FHA awarded the contract for the Atlanta HOC Area-3 to Southeast Alliance. The 5-year contract has an estimated value of $79 million. Area-3 consists of properties located in Florida and Puerto Rico. The primary contract objectives are to ensure: (1) properties are protected and preserved, properly managed, evaluated, and marketed in a manner which produces the highest possible return to the insurance fund; (2) average losses on sales and the average time properties remain in inventory are reduced; and (3) the overall program and the image of properties is positive. Page 1 00-AT-222-1009 Introduction Southeast Alliance is a limited liability company that was formed by and between First Preston Management, Inc., and Just Valuation, Inc., in response to the request for proposal to manage and market FHA single family properties. Just Valuation, Inc., has the majority membership interest and Mr. Ron L. Nation is its president. Southeast Alliance’s main office is located in Norcross, Georgia. During the audit period, the contractor was responsible for managing and marketing an average inventory of over 3,600 properties. This represents about 8 percent of the national inventory. As of May 31, 2000, FHA had paid the contractor about $22.5 million for its services. On March 31, 2000, we issued Audit Related Memorandum 00-AT-123-0803 which identified weaknesses in the contractor’s operations. The memorandum was based on survey results from our nationwide assessment of the performance and success of the M&M contracting initiative. The purpose of the memorandum was to give FHA an opportunity to address deficiencies prior to issuance of the final audit report. The weaknesses identified were: decreased revenues, decreased sales to owner occupants, properties not maintained according to requirements, untimely property inspections, and other violations of contract requirements. In your response to the memorandum you disagreed with our assessment regarding decreased revenues and sales to owner occupants. You agreed with our assessment that the other areas needed improvement. Contractor operations improved in some areas since issuance of the memorandum. The audit objectives were to determine if: (1) the contractor Audit objectives and managed properties according to HUD policies, procedures scope and regulations and with the terms and conditions of its M&M contract; (2) the contractor had adequate controls to ensure FHA’s assets are adequately protected; and (3) contractor operations resulted in FHA accomplishing its mission and performance goals. To meet our objectives, we: • Interviewed Southeast Alliance and HOC officials; • Reviewed monthly Performance Assessment Reports and related correspondence; • Reviewed a judgmental sample of 20 active and 15 closed property cases files; • Inspected a judgmental sample of 23 properties; • Reviewed a judgmental sample of contractor payment vouchers; 00-AT-222-1009 Page 2 Introduction • Reviewed the contractor’s policies and procedures and observed its operations; and • Analyzed inventory and sales trends1. We assessed management controls over: (1) property preservation and protection; (2) billings to FHA for services; (3) property sales; (4) property appraisals; (5) review of sales closing documents; and (6) subcontracting. The audit is one in a series of audits OIG is performing regarding M&M contractor operations. Each audit is part of our nationwide assessment of FHA’s ability to meet its program mission and goals while outsourcing its management and marketing activities. Our audit was performed from February through May 2000 and generally covered the activities from contract inception on March 29, 1999, through May 31, 2000. We expanded our scope to other periods as necessary to accomplish the audit objectives. We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 1 We excluded April and May 1999 from our analysis because data during those initial months of the contract are not representative of overall contractor performance. Page 3 00-AT-222-1009 Introduction (This Page Left Blank Intentionally) 00-AT-222-1009 Page 4 Finding 1 The Contractor Did Not Properly Maintain Properties The contractor did not maintain properties according to contract requirements. The contractor did not: (1) perform timely initial property inspections; (2) ensure property inspectors accurately reported property conditions; (3) perform routine property inspections; (4) correct hazardous conditions; or (5) make repairs or perform routine maintenance to preserve and protect properties. This occurred because the contractor did not have adequate controls to ensure requirements were met. The poor property conditions decreased marketability; increased FHA’s holding costs; negatively affected surrounding communities; reflected poorly on the Department’s image; and in some cases, threatened the health and safety of neighbors and potential buyers. Section C-2 of the M&M contract requires the contractor to: Contract requirements perform an initial inspection of newly acquired properties to secure and maintain within 24 hours of assignment; secure properties to prevent properties unauthorized entry; protect properties from damage from the elements; remove and properly dispose of all interior and exterior debris; maintain the lawn and shrubbery; properly secure pools and spas; correct any condition that presents a health or safety hazard to the public within 24 hours of discovery; and patch roof leaks or other factors which may cause deterioration of condition of the property. Our review of property files for 16 newly acquired The contractor did not properties found the contractor did not inspect 14 of the perform timely properties within 24 hours of assignment. Delays ranged property inspections from 1 to 20 days. Properties which are not inspected and secured timely are subject to further deterioration and vandalism and potential reduced return to the insurance fund. Deteriorated and vandalized properties also have negative effects on the surrounding community and reflect poorly on the Department. Page 5 00-AT-222-1009 Finding 1 The contractor’s property inspections did not identify The contractor did not serious property deficiencies. In December 1999, we perform adequate inspected 23 acquired properties in central Florida to property inspections determine if the contractor properly reported property conditions and properly maintained the properties. We compared our inspection results to the most recent contractor inspection reports. For 12 of the 23 properties sampled, the contractor’s reports did not disclose many property deficiencies even though the conditions were easily identifiable. The deficiencies included, for example, broken glass in windows, vandalized HVAC units, an unsecured gate, and interior and exterior debris. The contractor generally agreed with our assessment and took immediate steps to correct deficiencies noted in our inspections. Although the contractor was aware of requirements, it contended that initially its inspectors were not properly trained to identify and report property conditions. Although the contractor knew its inspectors were not properly trained, it did not take timely action to provide training. The contractor provided training in January 2000, 4 months after HUD’s Atlanta, GA Contracting Division issued a “Letter of Concern” to the contractor because of the poor property conditions. The contractor must ensure its inspectors are properly trained to identify and report property deficiencies. Otherwise, the contractor may not be aware of conditions which need correction, including potential health and safety hazards. 00-AT-222-1009 Page 6 Finding 1 Following are examples of conditions the contractor’s inspectors did not report. FHA Case Number 094-184531 Orlando, Florida OIG Inspection December 14, 1999 Broken glass presents a safety hazard. FHA Case Number 094-358716 Orlando, Florida OIG Inspection December 14, 1999 Exterior debris and a vandalized HVAC unit. Page 7 00-AT-222-1009 Finding 1 (This Page Left Blank Intentionally) 00-AT-222-1009 Page 8 Finding 1 The contractor is required by its contract to perform routine Lack of routine property inspections. The contractor’s procedures are to inspections inspect properties every 14 days. Forty percent of the properties we inspected did not show evidence of routine inspections. For example, the property located at 7728 Fernbrook Way, Winter Park, Florida, was inspected only one half the required number of times from July 29, 1999, through December 14, 1999. When we performed our inspection on December 15, 1999, we noted the contractor had not visited the property since November 2, 1999. FHA’s monthly performance assessments also identified deficiencies in the contractor’s routine inspections. Routine inspections are essential to alert the contractor to property conditions that may need immediate attention. Failure to perform the inspections increases the risk of property damage. The contractor did not correct health and safety hazards Hazardous property within 24 hours as required. We found hazardous conditions conditions, such as missing balusters from a balcony, a porch held up by a broken tree limb, and an improperly covered swimming pool. It appeared these conditions had existed for some time. FHA Case Number 094-214300 Sanford, Florida OIG Inspection December 14, 1999 Tree limbs holding up the porch roof. Page 9 00-AT-222-1009 Finding 1 On December 15, 1999, we inspected the property located at 2992 Chantilly Avenue, Winter Park, Florida. A swimming pool on the property was not properly covered and needed to be drained. Also, the fence around the pool was heavily damaged allowing easy access to the pool. There was nothing to prevent children from entering the pool area and falling into the pool. The contractor’s November 23, 1999, inspection report showed the pool was unsecured and needed to be drained. The report did not identify the damaged fence. Since the conditions still existed at the time of our inspection, 22 days later, the contractor clearly had not complied with the contract requirement. The contractor must identify and correct all health and safety hazards within 24 hours to reduce the risk of harm to the public and liability. FHA’s monthly assessment reports repeatedly showed the History of contractor was not complying with property maintenance maintenance problems requirements. A September 1999 Letter of Concern stated in part, “This letter is to express our serious concerns with the inadequate progress of Southeast Alliance of Foreclosure Specialists in maintaining properties in presentable conditions at all times. We have brought this to your attention repeatedly in our monthly Performance Assessments, without satisfactory improvement. Although you have offered a variety of explanations for the conditions of specific properties, the pattern of findings continues to be far below our expectations.” Our property inspections confirmed what FHA reported in its assessment reports. Seventeen of the 23 properties, 74 percent, we inspected were in “poor” condition. In addition to hazardous conditions, we found the contractor did not make needed repairs or perform routine maintenance to preserve and protect properties. We found deteriorated stucco on the exterior of one property that allowed water damage to the interior, excessive yard growth, interior and exterior debris and various other conditions. 00-AT-222-1009 Page 10 Finding 1 The following table provides examples of our inspection results. Percent Deficiency Noncompliant Interior or Exterior Debris 52 Health and Safety Hazards 39 Roof Leaks 30 Vandalism 26 Lawn Not Maintained 12 The following chart shows the results of FHA’s monthly performance assessment reports. The percentage of properties found to be in “poor” condition from May 1999 through March 2000 ranged from a high of about 62 percent in July 1999 to a low of about 37 percent in February 2000. Property Inspection Results 80 60 Percent 40 20 - POOR May-99 FAIR Jun-99 Jul-99 Aug-99 Sep-99 Oct-99 GOOD Nov-99 Dec-99 Jan-00 Feb-00 Mar-00 The chart also indicates the contractor’s performance improved substantially from December 1999 through February 2000. However, we believe additional improvements are needed. Page 11 00-AT-222-1009 Finding 1 (This Page Left Blank Intentionally) 00-AT-222-1009 Page 12 Finding 1 The following pictures show examples of the contractor’s failure to perform needed repairs and routine maintenance. FHA Case Number 094-331712 Orlando, Florida OIG Inspection December 15, 1999 Damaged stucco allowed water damage to interior walls. FHA Case Number 094-272346 Apopka, Florida OIG Inspection December 13, 1999 Overgrown grass, shrubs, and trees. Page 13 00-AT-222-1009 Finding 1 Southeast Alliance The contractor disagreed with some of the specific comments deficiencies identified in our property inspections and provided explanations for the conditions. However, it agreed that its property maintenance procedures need improvement. The contractor generally agreed with the recommendations and has, or plans to implement procedures to address the recommendations. It held additional training for its property inspectors and other personnel and will continue intense training. It also implemented additional procedures to ensure properties are inspected timely and implemented an oversight division to review compliance and contract procedures. OIG response to We commend the contractor’s efforts to improve its comments maintenance procedures. We reviewed the contractor’s explanations for the property conditions and do not believe the explanations justify the conditions we identified. For example, the contractor stated some conditions were due to recent vandalism. However, the property files and our visual observations of property conditions did not support the statements. Thus, we did not revise the finding. Recommendations We recommend 1A. Require the contractor to ensure property inspectors are adequately trained to perform inspections and accurately report conditions. 1B. Require the contractor to develop and implement procedures to perform timely initial and routine inspections. 1C. Require the contractor to promptly correct hazardous conditions and make necessary repairs to preserve and protect properties. 1D. Closely monitor the contractor’s compliance with maintenance requirements and take necessary actions to ensure requirements are met. 00-AT-222-1009 Page 14 Finding 2 The Contractor Violated Contract Requirements The contractor violated several contract requirements. This occurred because the contractor’s internal controls were not adequate. The noncompliance could significantly increase the risk of loss to the insurance fund. Specifically, the contractor: • Did not review HUD-1 Settlement Statements; • Did not obtain timely property appraisals; • Billed FHA for unauthorized expenses and ineligible expenses; and • Did not follow prescribed procedures for submitting vouchers for payment. Section 8 of the contract requires the contractor to review The contractor did not the form HUD-1, Settlement Statement, to ensure only review HUD-1 eligible expenses are charged to FHA and to ensure the form settlement statements is accurately completed. The contract provides specific instructions for reviewing the form. None of the 15 closed case files we reviewed showed evidence the contractor reviewed the form HUD-1. The contractor stated it did not review the forms because it was the closing agents’ responsibility. Following our discussions, the contractor attempted to require the closing agents to submit the closing package for review prior to closing. The closing agents did not comply with the request because it would delay loan closings. The contract specifically requires the contractor to review, correct and certify the closing documents within 5 days after receipt. In order to perform the required review, it must be performed after the loan closing. Although our review did not identify significant discrepancies, the risk to FHA and the insurance fund is increased because of the contractor’s failure to perform the reviews. Considering the contractor sold an average of about 660 homes a month during the audit period, the risk could be significant. The contractor did not obtain property appraisals timely. The contractor did not Contract section C-2 requires the contractor to obtain an obtain property appraisal within 10 business days of assignment. Our appraisals timely review of 17 applicable cases showed the contractor did not meet the 10-day requirement for 10 cases. The delays ranged from 1 to 26 days. Page 15 00-AT-222-1009 Finding 2 The contractor cannot list properties for sale without an appraisal. Delayed listings may result in delayed sales, thus increasing holding costs and reducing the return to the insurance fund. The contractor charged FHA for unauthorized termite Unauthorized and inspection expenses and ineligible late fees and costs ineligible expenses associated with property liens. These expenses were incurred after the respective properties were assigned to the contractor. Under certain conditions, FHA will reimburse the contractor for termite inspection fees. However, the contractor must obtain prior approval from FHA’s responsible Government Technical Representative prior to incurring the cost. The contract specifies that costs for late fees and property liens incurred after assignment are to be borne by the contractor. We reviewed a judgmental sample of charges on the contractor’s March and April 2000 vouchers. We found the contractor improperly billed FHA $875 for initial termite inspections. The contractor did not obtain prior approval for the costs. According to the contractor, FHA had not paid the $875. We did not verify whether FHA made the payment. The contractor also charged for late fees (administrative collection fees) associated with homeowner association monthly property maintenance fees. The late fees occurred because the contractor failed to timely pay the fees. Thus, these costs should be borne by the contractor. In some cases, vouchers included both FHA and contractor costs. Rather than pro-rating the costs, the contractor billed FHA for the entire costs. Other ineligible costs included filing fees and interest resulting from a property lien. Although the unauthorized and ineligible expenses identified in our sample were minimal, this demonstrates a systemic control weakness that allowed the contractor to either knowingly or inadvertently charge ineligible costs to FHA. 00-AT-222-1009 Page 16 Finding 2 Section G of the contract requires the contractor to submit a The contractor single monthly voucher for payment of pass-through submitted multiple expenses. However, the contractor continued to submit vouchers each month multiple vouchers for pass-through expenses each month. For example, in October 1999 the contractor submitted 16 separate vouchers. This requires additional FHA staff resources to review the vouchers, thus increasing costs. The contractor stated that termite inspection costs on Southeast Alliance uninsured properties are eligible for reimbursement comments provided proper approval is provided by the Government Technical Representative. The contractor provided documentation to support that such costs are eligible. However, the contractor did not obtain approval for $875 of termite inspection costs. FHA did not pay the $875. Also, the contractor is working with Atlanta HOC towards a solution regarding the review of HUD-1, Settlement Statements, and has implemented a checklist for reviewing the forms. The contractor has provided appraisal training seminars and has retained new appraisers. It does not believe it is realistic to submit pass-through vouchers once a month and suggested a contract modification to permit weekly or daily submittals. We made appropriate changes to the finding and OIG response to recommendations regarding termite inspection costs and comments revised the recommendation regarding submission of vouchers. Recommendations We recommend that you ensure the contractor: 2A. Properly reviews HUD-1, Settlement Statements. 2B. Obtains property appraisals within prescribed time limits. 2C. Ensure all pass-through expenses are eligible and properly approved. 2D. Submit monthly vouchers for pass-through expenses unless FHA agrees to revised submission procedures. Page 17 00-AT-222-1009 Finding 2 (This Page Left Blank Intentionally) 00-AT-222-1009 Page 18 Follow-Up on Prior Audits This is the first OIG audit of Southeast Alliance of Foreclosure Specialists. No financial statement or other audit reports have been issued pertaining to its operations. Page 19 00-AT-222-1009 Follow-Up on Prior Audits (This Page Left Blank Intentionally) 00-AT-222-1009 Page 20 Appendix A Southeast Alliance Comments Page 21 00-AT-222-1009 Southeast Alliance Comments 00-AT-222-1009 Page 22 Southeast Alliance Comments Page 23 00-AT-222-1009 Southeast Alliance Comments 00-AT-222-1009 Page 24 Southeast Alliance Comments Page 25 00-AT-222-1009 Southeast Alliance Comments 00-AT-222-1009 Page 26 Southeast Alliance Comments Page 27 00-AT-222-1009 Southeast Alliance Comments 00-AT-222-1009 Page 28 Southeast Alliance Comments Page 29 00-AT-222-1009 Southeast Alliance Comments 00-AT-222-1009 Page 30 Southeast Alliance Comments Page 31 00-AT-222-1009 Southeast Alliance Comments 00-AT-222-1009 Page 32 Appendix B Distribution Southeast Alliance of Foreclosure Specialists, LLC. Deputy Secretary, SD (Room 10100) Chief of Staff, S (Room 10000) Special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary for Project Management, SD (Room 10100) Acting Assistant Secretary for Administration, S (Room 10110) Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations, J (Room 10120) Senior Advisor to the Secretary, Office of Public Affairs, S, (Room 10132) Deputy Assistant Secretary of Administrative Services/Director of Executive Secretariat, AX (Room 10139) Director of Scheduling and Advance, AL (Room 10158) Counselor to the Secretary, S (Room 10234) Deputy Chief of Staff, S (Room 10226) Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, S (Room 10226) Deputy Chief of Staff for Programs and Policy, S (Room 10226) Director, Office of Special Actions, AK (Room 10226) Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, W (Room 10222) Special Assistant for Inter-Faith Community Outreach, S (Room 10222) Executive Officer for Administrative Operations and Management, S (Room 10220) Senior Advisor to the Secretary for Pine Ridge Project, W, (Room 10216) General Counsel, C (Room 10214) Director, Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, O (9th Floor Mailroom) Assistant Secretary for Housing/Federal Housing Commissioner, H (Room 9100) Office of Policy Development and Research, R (Room 8100) Inspector General, G (Room 8256) Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, D (Room 7100) Assistant Deputy Secretary for Field Policy and Management, SDF (Room 7108) Government National Mortgage Association, T (Room 6100) Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, E (Room 5100) Chief Procurement Officer, N (Room 5184) Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, P (Room 4100) Chief Information Officer, Q (Room 3152) Director, Office of Departmental Equal Employment Opportunity, U (Room 5128) Director, Office of Departmental Operations and Coordination, I (Room 2124) Chief Financial Officer, F (Room 2202) Director, HUD Enforcement Center, X, 1250 Maryland Avenue, SW, Suite 200 Director, Real Estate Assessment Center, X, 1280 Maryland Avenue, SW, Suite 800 Director, Office of Multifamily Assistance Restructuring, Y, 1280 Maryland Avenue, SW, Suite 4000 Page 33 00-AT-222-1009 Distribution Deputy Chief Financial Officer for Finance, FF (Room 2202) (2) Director, Office of Budget, FO (Room 3270) Secretary's Representative, 4AS Director, Homeownership Center, 4AHH Audit Liaison Officer, 3AFI Audit Liaison Officer, Office of Public and Indian Housing, PF (Room P8202) Departmental Audit Liaison Officer, FM (Room 2206) Acquisitions Librarian, Library, AS (Room 8141) Counsel to the IG, GC (Room 8260) HUD OIG Webmanager-Electronic Format Via Notes Mail (Cliff Jones@hud.gov) Public Affairs Officer, G (Room 8256) Director, Housing and Community Development Issue Area, U.S. GAO, 441 G Street N.W., Room 2474, Washington DC 20548 ATTN: Judy England-Joseph The Honorable Fred Thompson, Chairman, Committee on Governmental Affairs, United States Senate, Washington DC 20510-6250 The Honorable Joseph Lieberman, Ranking Member, Committee on Governmental Affairs, United States Senate, Washington DC 20510-6250 The Honorable Dan Burton, Chairman, Committee on Government Reform, United States House of Representatives, Washington DC 20515-6143 The Honorable Henry A. Waxman, Ranking Member, Committee on Government Reform, United States House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515-4305 Ms. Cindy Fogleman, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Room 212, O'Neil House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515-6143 Steve Redburn, Chief, Housing Branch, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Room 9226, New Executive Office Bldg., Washington, DC 20503 Sharon Pinkerton, Deputy Staff Director, Counsel, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, B373 Rayburn House Office Bldg., Washington, DC 20515 00-AT-222-1009 Page 34 Page 35 00-AT-222-1009
Southeast Alliance of Foreclosure Specialists, LLC.
Published by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General on 2000-09-15.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)