We recommend that HUD work with Connecticut and Shelby County to fully realize the program benefits by (1) assessing whether any of the current project activities need to be replaced with more viable project activities, thereby ensuring that any modifications to the project activities will lessen the susceptibility of rain and flood events; (2) assessing whether administrative funds have been properly allocated and charged to identify any possible cost savings; (3) determining whether enough administrative funds or other available funds exist to complete the administration of the grant project activities; and (4) developing and implementing a written plan of action that will assist with expediting the project activities that could reasonably be expected to be completed by the September 30, 2029, deadline.

We recommend that HUD conduct onsite or remote monitoring for the City of Minot and Tennessee, which have not had any monitoring since grant inception, to ensure that these grantees are on track to meet their program goals.

We recommend that HUD for grantees with delayed project activities (California, Connecticut, Louisiana, Tennessee, Virginia, New York City, Minot, and Shelby County), require each grantee to provide a detailed timeline with milestone dates of when projects should be completed and provide updates to ensure that grantees stay on schedule.

We recommend that HUD for its disaster-related program wide activities, revise the action plan and quarterly performance review checklists to a format that more specifically and directly addresses the subject program.

We recommend that HUD for its disaster-related program wide activities, require grantees to provide documentation showing that they have upfront collaboration with partnering entities in executing the grant program. If the grantee plans to hire contractors, HUD should ensure that grantees have a plan to quickly onboard contractors early in the program.

Require Carrington to remedy HUD and the 27 borrowers in our sample with improper foreclosure filings and take administrative actions if appropriate.

Require Carrington to perform a review of loans affected by the system errors and when appropriate, remedy the borrowers or HUD.

Require Carrington to update its policies and procedures to comply with HUD requirements by reviewing eligible borrowers for streamlined options without unnecessary documents, notifying borrowers if they are ineligible for any loss mitigation options, and using best efforts to review borrowers for loss mitigation within 37 days of the foreclosure sale date.

Require Carrington to implement improved controls to prevent manual errors by performing additional review of all foreclosure actions and performing timely review of all documentation provided by the borrowers and third parties.

Require MidFirst to remedy the 24 borrowers in our sample with improper foreclosure filings or take administrative actions if appropriate.

Analyze MidFirst’s resolution of the manual process issues identified during its 2022 quality control review to verify that it remedied the borrowers or HUD and corrected the issues identified related to manual processing.

Require MidFirst to update its policies and procedures to comply with HUD requirements by placing foreclosure holds for loss mitigation requests made before the first legal filing.

Review the non-life-threatening health and safety and other deficiencies observed by the audit team and ensure that property owners and agents make the necessary corrections to the deficiencies as appropriate.

Determine the appropriate timeframe for when initial MORs should be completed for all properties that convert under RAD and issue updated guidance that includes a system to track the timeliness of initial MORs.

Complete the initial MORs for RAD properties that have not had an initial MOR.

Develop and implement a plan to determine how to implement the risk-based approach to review the RAD properties that have not had subsequent MORs in more than 3 years and to require periodic MORs going forward.

Provide training to field staff members to ensure that they have the skills necessary to complete MORs of converted properties.

Review the reserve for replacement account balances for the 13 properties (11 underfunded and 2 overfunded) to determine whether the balances are maintained in accordance with the applicable HUD requirements and executed HUD business documents and require owners to fully fund any underfunded reserves and determine whether any overfunded accounts should have the deposits suspended for a specified period.

Review the HUD business documents, such as the RAD conversion commitment, HAP contract, and regulatory agreement, for the four properties that did not contain consistent reserve for replacement information and update the documents to be consistent as appropriate.

Issue guidance to RAD property owners clarifying that the owner is responsible to follow both the HUD business documents and the property’s business documents and that the most restrictive document indicates the amount and timing of the annual deposits into the reserve for replacement account.