Require the City to follow its newly developed policy regarding the execution of a written agreement that is signed and dated by all parties before the commitment of any funds in IDIS.
2018-AT-1011 | September 27, 2018
The City of Hattiesburg, MS, Did Not Always Administer Its HOME Investment Partnerships Program in Accordance With HUD’s and Its Own Requirements
Community Planning and Development
- Status2018-AT-1011-001-FOpenClosedClosed on August 10, 2020
2018-FW-1007 | September 27, 2018
The State of Louisiana, Baton Rouge, LA, Did Not Always Maintain Adequate Documentation or Comply With Website Reporting Requirements
Community Planning and Development
- Status2018-FW-1007-001-AOpenClosed$396,905Questioned 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.
Closed on March 29, 2019We recommend that the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Grant Programs require the State to support that seven applicants met the ownership and occupancy requirements or repay $396,905 to its program from non-Federal funds.
- Status2018-FW-1007-001-BOpenClosed$118,244Questioned 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.
Closed on March 29, 2019We recommend that the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Grant Programs require the State to support that it complied with the elevation requirements for two applicants or repay $118,244 to its program from non-Federal funds.
- Status2018-FW-1007-001-COpenClosedClosed on July 30, 2024
We recommend that the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Grant Programs require the State to implement additional controls and revise policies and procedures to ensure that adequate documentation is maintained in its files to support (1) recapture decisions, (2) eligibility related to ownership or occupancy, (3) ineligible decisions, (4) elevation considerations, and (5) mitigation of duplication of benefits issues related to override procedures and incorrect data provided by other agencies.
- Status2018-FW-1007-001-DOpenClosedClosed on March 29, 2019
We recommend that the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Grant Programs require the State to implement additional controls and revise policies and procedures to ensure that the website is maintained and updated in compliance with requirements.
2018-PH-0003 | September 27, 2018
HUD Did Not Have Adequate Oversight of Its Community Compass Technical Assistance and Capacity Building Program
Community Planning and Development
- Status2018-PH-0003-001-AOpenClosed$13,384Questioned 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.
Closed on July 31, 2020Require the four Community Compass providers reviewed to reimburse HUD $13,384 from non-Federal funds for ineligible costs from overcharged labor or travel costs.
- Status2018-PH-0003-001-BOpenClosed$845,497Questioned 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.
Closed on July 31, 2020Require the four Community Compass providers reviewed to either provide documentation to support $845,497 in unsupported labor and travel costs, for personnel not on approved work plans, and for work performed that was not described on the payment request or reimburse HUD from non-Federal funds for any costs that it cannot support.
- Status2018-PH-0003-001-COpenClosed$15,475,981Funds Put to Better Use
Recommendations that funds be put to better use estimate funds that could be used more efficiently. For example, recommendations that funds be put to better use could result in reductions in spending, deobligation of funds, or avoidance of unnecessary spending.
Closed on September 30, 2020Develop and implement policies and procedures for the Community Compass program, to include postaward monitoring, that ensures that providers and provider subcontractors comply with applicable requirements to avoid incurring expenses for unapproved personnel and overcharged labor and travel costs, thereby ensuring that as much as $15,475,981 is put to better use.
- Status2018-PH-0003-001-DOpenClosed$5,060,494Funds Put to Better Use
Recommendations that funds be put to better use estimate funds that could be used more efficiently. For example, recommendations that funds be put to better use could result in reductions in spending, deobligation of funds, or avoidance of unnecessary spending.
Closed on August 10, 2020Develop and implement controls for the Community Compass program to ensure that it uses procurement contracts for services that directly benefit HUD, including the development, maintenance, and operation of the HUD Exchange website and preparation of the Annual Homelessness Assessment Report, thereby ensuring that as much as $5,060,494 is put to better use.
- Status2018-PH-0003-001-EOpenClosedClosed on September 18, 2019
Develop and implement controls for the Community Compass program to ensure that it consistently applies subcontractor wage rates among all providers that use a subcontractor.
2018-AT-0801 | September 27, 2018
HUD’s Improper Approvals Resulted in Invalid Exemptions and an Ineligible Capital Funds Expenditure for the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Housing Authority
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2018-AT-0801-001-AOpenClosed$1,385,791Questioned 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.
Closed on March 18, 2019Ensure that $1,385,791 ($1,229,684 in housing assistance payments and $156,107 in associated administrative fees) used by the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Housing Authority is supported through a valid and retroactive exemption from HUD’s third-party requirements. If a retroactive exemption cannot be issued, HUD should follow recovery procedures prescribed in HUD Handbook 2000.06, REV-4.
- Status2018-AT-0801-001-BOpenClosedClosed on April 24, 2020
Revise the standard MTW agreement for all existing 39 MTW housing agencies to clearly and specifically support which provision(s) waive the third-party inspection requirements.
- Status2018-AT-0801-001-COpenClosedClosed on April 24, 2020
Issue clarifying guidance to all existing 39 MTW housing agencies advising that HUD intended to waive the third-party inspection requirements via attachment C to the standard agreement.
- Status2018-AT-0801-001-DOpenClosedClosed on April 24, 2020
Ensure that reviews of MTW annual plans are thorough by verifying that the MTW plan accurately identifies the appropriate exemptions as authorized in the MTW agreements.
- Status2018-AT-0801-001-EOpenClosedClosed on March 18, 2019
Verify that the Office of Public Housing Investments’ approvals of all MTW public housing agencies’ MTW plans’ exemptions from HUD’s third-party requirements were valid and appropriate.
- Status2018-AT-0801-001-FOpenClosed$38,411Questioned 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.
Closed on April 01, 2020Require the Authority to reimburse its Public Housing Capital Fund program $38,411 from nonproject funds for the inappropriate use of funds for the Section 8 Project-Based Voucher Program units.
- Status2018-AT-0801-001-GOpenClosedClosed on September 23, 2019
Ensure that the Louisville, KY, PIH field office sends to the Office of Recapitalization any requests it receives for approving capital funds expenditures after the RAD conversion is complete.
- Status2018-AT-0801-001-HOpenClosedClosed on September 23, 2019
Require the Authority to ensure that capital funds are used in accordance with the program requirements for any future RAD conversions.
2018-NY-1008 | September 27, 2018
The Newark Housing Authority, Newark, NJ, Did Not Ensure That Units Met Housing Quality Standards and That It Accurately Calculated Abatements
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2018-NY-1008-001-AOpenClosedClosed on September 13, 2019
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Newark Office of Public and Indian Housing require the Authority to certify, along with the owners of the 25 units cited in the finding, that the applicable housing quality standards violations have been corrected.
- Status2018-NY-1008-001-BOpenClosed$111,651Questioned 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.
Closed on November 17, 2023We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Newark Office of Public and Indian Housing require the Authority to reimburse its program $111,651 from non-Federal funds ($110,943 for housing assistance payments and $708 in associated inspection service fees) for the 23 units that materially failed to meet HUD’s housing quality standards.