The OIG has determined that the contents of this recommendation would not be appropriate for public disclosure and has therefore limited its distribution to selected officials.
2018-OE-0003 | October 31, 2018
HUD Fiscal Year 2018 Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014 (FISMA) Evaluation Report
Chief Information Officer
- Status2018-OE-0003-23OpenClosedSensitiveSensitive
Sensitive information refers to information that could have a damaging import if released to the public and, therefore, must be restricted from public disclosure.
- Status2018-OE-0003-24OpenClosedSensitiveSensitive
Sensitive information refers to information that could have a damaging import if released to the public and, therefore, must be restricted from public disclosure.
The OIG has determined that the contents of this recommendation would not be appropriate for public disclosure and has therefore limited its distribution to selected officials.
- Status2018-OE-0003-25OpenClosedSensitiveSensitive
Sensitive information refers to information that could have a damaging import if released to the public and, therefore, must be restricted from public disclosure.
The OIG has determined that the contents of this recommendation would not be appropriate for public disclosure and has therefore limited its distribution to selected officials.
- Status2018-OE-0003-26OpenClosedSensitiveSensitive
Sensitive information refers to information that could have a damaging import if released to the public and, therefore, must be restricted from public disclosure.
The OIG has determined that the contents of this recommendation would not be appropriate for public disclosure and has therefore limited its distribution to selected officials.
- Status2018-OE-0003-27OpenClosedSensitiveSensitive
Sensitive information refers to information that could have a damaging import if released to the public and, therefore, must be restricted from public disclosure.
The OIG has determined that the contents of this recommendation would not be appropriate for public disclosure and has therefore limited its distribution to selected officials.
- Status2018-OE-0003-28OpenClosedSensitiveSensitive
Sensitive information refers to information that could have a damaging import if released to the public and, therefore, must be restricted from public disclosure.
The OIG has determined that the contents of this recommendation would not be appropriate for public disclosure and has therefore limited its distribution to selected officials.
- Status2018-OE-0003-29OpenClosedSensitiveSensitive
Sensitive information refers to information that could have a damaging import if released to the public and, therefore, must be restricted from public disclosure.
The OIG has determined that the contents of this recommendation would not be appropriate for public disclosure and has therefore limited its distribution to selected officials.
- Status2018-OE-0003-30OpenClosedSensitiveSensitive
Sensitive information refers to information that could have a damaging import if released to the public and, therefore, must be restricted from public disclosure.
The OIG has determined that the contents of this recommendation would not be appropriate for public disclosure and has therefore limited its distribution to selected officials.
2018-AT-1011 | September 28, 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-AOpenClosed$565,511Questioned 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 City to support $441,202 ($370,729 $20,000 $50,473) or reimburse its program from non-Federal funds for commitments and expenditures not adequately supported.
- Status2018-AT-1011-001-BOpenClosed$33,258Questioned 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 City to reimburse its program $33,258 from non-Federal funds for inappropriate costs incurred before the written agreements were executed.
- Status2018-AT-1011-001-COpenClosed$32,019Funds 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.
Recapture and thereby put $32,019 to better use, which the City did not commit by its 24-month statutory commitment deadline in fiscal year 2015 funding for activity 1464.
- Status2018-AT-1011-001-DOpenClosed
Require the City to develop and implement HOME procedures, including training for the City’s employees, to ensure that (1) commitments are accurately entered into IDIS to maintain data integrity and (2) the HOME program is administered in accordance with HUD’s and its own requirements.
- Status2018-AT-1011-001-EOpenClosed
Verify that the remaining 14 (Footnote 5 - As detailed in the Scope and Methodology section of this report, we reviewed 23 of the 37 commitments entered into IDIS by the City.) commitments made during the period January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2017, were properly supported with written agreements and accurately entered into IDIS.
- Status2018-AT-1011-001-FOpenClosed
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-FW-1007 | September 28, 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.
We 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.
We 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-COpenClosed
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-DOpenClosed
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 28, 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.
Require 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.
Require 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.