Determine whether the $714,512 paid for 233 signing bonuses under the ESG CARES Act program were reasonable under the program participant’s particular circumstances, and not more than necessary to house the program participants or repay HUD from non-Federal funds.

Develop and implement written policies and procedures that include internal controls for the ESG program to ensure that it, and its subrecipients, prorate the rent amount for the first month for tenant-based rental assistance. Since the City did not prorate rent, there was an estimated overpayment to landlords of $248,572 that could have been put to better use.

Repay HUD from non-Federal funds $51,235 in overpaid rent to landlords because the first month of rent was not prorated.

Develop and implement written policies and procedures that include internal controls to prevent any duplication of benefits for the ESG program participants with other programs, specifically for rapid rehousing and homeless prevention.

Review the rental assistance payments made for the ESG CARES Act program to identify other possible duplication of benefits with other rental assistance programs that the City operates. The $10,100 in duplication of benefits identified during the audit could have been put to better use.

Develop and implement written policies to ensure that any changes to the expenditure and draw deadlines for the ESG program are provided in a formal document, such as a CPD notice. In this case, implementing these controls would provide clear guidelines to the grantee and help prevent the disbursement of $1,933,693 that was drawn after the draw deadline.

Issue clarifying guidance to ensure that ESG grantees that operate tenant-based rental assistance programs, prorate the rent amount for the first month based on the lease agreement start date.

Issue guidance requiring ESG grantees develop and implement internal controls to prevent any duplication of benefits with other Federal rental assistance programs for the ESG program participants, specifically for rapid rehousing and homeless prevention.

Provide support to show that the performance history element was factored as part of the grantees’ capacity to manage the grants awarded through the 2025 NOFO.

Reevaluate ‘High Risk’ designation criteria as part of the SOP update and reimplement its updated ‘High Risk’ criteria to reflect how grantees will be designated as ‘High Risk’ within the program. In addition, train OLHCHH staff on the new ‘High Risk’ designation criteria stated in the SOP.

Notify grantees of HUD’s updated ‘High Risk’ designation criteria and HUD’s expectations when designated as ‘High Risk.’

Provide assistance to the nine identified ‘High Risk’ grantees that will help meet established performance benchmarks to be completed by the end of the respective grants in 2026.

Recapture $3,775,916 in undisbursed grant funds not used to meet agreed-upon performance benchmarks for the two identified ‘High Risk’ grantees whose period of performance ended in June and July 2025, respectively. In addition, identify those grantees that received 2020 through 2022 LBPHC and LHRD grants with a period of performance that ended on or before December 31, 2025, to determine whether agreed-upon performance benchmarks were met by that date, and take appropriate actions that include recapturing undisbursed grant funds.

Consider grantees’ suggestions to improve training sessions, technical assistance, and communication of information that grantees can use to help meet agreed-upon performance benchmarks. In addition, provide documentation to support the guidance OLHCHH plans to share with grantees to ensure agreed-upon performance benchmarks are met.

Reassess, establish, and incorporate a maximum review period of grantee-submitted QPRs into an SOP. Inform staff of the review period to ensure consistency and understanding of HUD’s expectations of the time to review grantee-submitted QPRs. In addition, establish formal guidance and implement internal controls to monitor and track the timely review of QPRs.

Leverage HUD OIG’s fraud risk inventory and continue using the Office of the Chief Risk Officer’s risk catalog to enhance CPD’s fraud risk management process.

Include grantees in the fraud risk identification process and communicate the risks and schemes identified for the disaster recovery program to relevant stakeholders, including, but not limited to, all HUD staff in the CPD Office of  Disaster Recovery, grantees and sub-recipients.

Use CPD’s fraud risk inventory to identify data needs, potential system enhancements, and implement data analysis techniques to improve CPD’s ability to monitor and respond to fraud risks in the Disaster Recovery program.

Evaluate and enhance its fraud risk management activities by incorporating fraud risk management practices that are in alignment with the best practices identified in GAO’s A Framework for Managing Fraud Risks in Federal Programs and Chief Financial Officers Council’s Antifraud Playbook.

Obtain training or technical assistance on the implementation of fraud risk management practices consistent with the Internal Control Integrated Framework, issued by COSO.