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.

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.

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.

Issue guidance, including technical assistance, to all disaster recovery grantees that waivers for issues related to a disaster’s impact, like waivers of procurement policies, should be for reasonable and limited time periods after a disaster’s occurrence to ensure full and open competition.
 

Collaborate with ONDCP to determine the necessary adjustments to the CoC reporting methodology that ensures HUD reports annual numeric targets and actuals to ONDCP by the required November 1 due date.

Collaborate with ONDCP to determine the necessary adjustments to the RHP reporting methodology that ensures HUD reports numeric targets to ONDCP by the required November 1 due date.

We recommend that the Director of CPD’s Office of Disaster Recovery require active disaster recovery grantees to report in DRGR other sources of funding used for non-Federal match activities.

We recommend that the Director of CPD’s Office of Disaster Recovery develop and implement internal controls to ensure that grantees completely and accurately report non-Federal match activities in DRGR.

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 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.

Take corrective action for the subrecipient monitoring and agreement issues cited for eight of the ESG-CV grantees reviewed, and provide additional guidance and technical assistance as needed to ensure that they understand requirements.