Direct responsible grantees to justify the use of $66,849,658 that it disbursed for cancelled Block Grant program activities or repay HUD from non-Federal funds.
2012-PH-0001 | October 30, 2011
HUD Needed to Improve Its Use of Its Integrated Disbursement and Information System To Oversee Its Community Development Block Grant Program
Community Planning and Development
- Status2012-PH-0001-001-BOpenClosed$66,849,658Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
2012-NY-1002 | October 18, 2011
The City of New York, NY, Charged Questionable Expenditures to Its Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program
Community Planning and Development
- Status2012-NY-1002-001-AOpenClosed$93,436Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s New York City Office of Community Planning and Development instruct City officials to reimburse from non-Federal funds $93,436 for ineligible costs charged to HPRP; specifically, $59,430 related to payments for rental arrears over the 6-month eligibility requirement and $34,006 for payments issued directly to participants.
- Status2012-NY-1002-001-BOpenClosed$329,937Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s New York City Office of Community Planning and Development instruct City officials to provide documentation to justify the $329,937 in unsupported salary costs incurred between June and September 2010. Any unsupported costs determined to be ineligible should be reimbursed from non-Federal funds.
2011-NY-1010 | April 14, 2011
The City of Buffalo Did Not Always Administer Its Community Development Block Grant Program in Accordance With HUD Requirements
Community Planning and Development
- Status2011-NY-1010-001-BOpenClosed$162,923Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Buffalo Office of Community Planning and Development reimburse from non-Federal funds $162,923 ($134,711 $28,212) expended on ineligible costs pertaining to street improvement projects not done and a duplicate reimbursement.
- Status2011-NY-1010-001-COpenClosed$1,982,988Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
We further recommend that the Director of HUD’s Buffalo Office of Community Planning and Development instruct the City to provide documentation to justify the $1,982,988 in unsupported costs associated with street improvement expenditures incurred between June 2007 and October 2009. Any unsupported costs determined to be ineligible should be reimbursed from non-Federal funds.
- Status2011-NY-1010-002-BOpenClosed$20,143,219Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Buffalo Office of Community Planning and Development instruct the City to provide documentation to justify the $20,143,219 ($4,902,754 $15,240,465) in unsupported transactions recorded in the CDBG program income account. Any receipts determined to be unrecorded program income should be returned to the CDBG program, and any expenditures determined to be ineligible should be reimbursed from non-Federal funds.
- Status2011-NY-1010-003-BOpenClosed$609,012Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
We further recommend that the Director of HUD’s Buffalo Office of Community Planning and Development instruct the City to reimburse from non-Federal funds the $304,506 related to ineligible clean and seal code enforcement costs.
- Status2011-NY-1010-003-COpenClosed$716,622Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
We further recommend that the Director of HUD’s Buffalo Office of Community Planning and Development instruct the City to provide documentation to justify the $716,622 ($545,607 $24,069 $146,946) in unsupported clean and seal costs incurred so that HUD can make an eligibility determination. Any costs determined to be ineligible should be reimbursed from non-Federal funds.
2009-AO-1001 | May 04, 2009
Baton Rouge, Louisiana Road Home Program Did Not Ensure that Road HOME Employees Were Eligible to Receive Additional Compensation Grants
Community Planning and Development
- Status2009-AO-1001-001-AOpenClosed$228,930Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Repay $228,930 disbursed for five ineligible grants to its Road Home program.
2009-AO-1002 | May 04, 2009
The State of Louisiana, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Road Home Program, Did Not Ensure That Multiple Disbursements to a Single Damaged Residence Address Were Eligible
Community Planning and Development
- Status2009-AO-1002-001-AOpenClosed$294,060Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Repay $294,060 disbursed for three ineligible grants to its Road Home program.
- Status2009-AO-1002-001-BOpenClosed$441,027Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Either support or repay $441,027 disbursed for five unsupported grants.
2008-AO-1002 | January 28, 2008
State of Louisiana, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Road Home Program, Funded 418 Grants Coded Ineligible or Lacking an Eligibility Determination
Community Planning and Development
- Status2008-AO-1002-001-AOpenClosed$743,344Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Repay $743,344 disbursed for the 17 ineligible grants to its Road Home program.
- Status2008-AO-1002-001-COpenClosed$14,697,812Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Review all of the remaining 392 grants coded ineligible or lacking an eligibility determination and either support or repay $14,697,812 disbursed for them.
2006-PH-1013 | September 18, 2006
The Commonwealth of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, Did not Ensure HOME Funds Were Disbursed and Used in Accordance with Federal Regulations
Community Planning and Development
- Status2006-PH-1013-001-BOpenClosed$150,000Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Require the Commonwealth to provide documentation to substantiate the eligibility of $150,000 provided to Southampton or repay the HOME program from nonfederal funds.
2005-AT-1013 | September 15, 2005
Corporacion para el Fomento EcoNmico de la Ciudad Capital, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Did not Administer Its Independent Capital Fund in Accordance with HUD Requirements.
Community Planning and Development
- Status2005-AT-1013-002-AOpenClosed$1,011,801Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Require the Municipality to obtain and submit all supporting documentation and HUD determine the eligibility and propriety of $1,011,801 in administrative costs the Corporation charged to the Block Grant revolving fund. Any amounts determined ineligible must be reimbursed to the Block Grant program from nonfederal funds.
- Status2005-AT-1013-003-AOpenClosed$631,195Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Require the Municipality to obtain and submit all supporting documentation and HUD determine the eligibility and compliance with national objectives of the $631,195 the Corporation disbursed for the four loans. Any amounts determined ineligible must be reimbursed to the Block Grant program from nonfederal funds.