Establish a reasonable timeframe for grantees to resolve DRGR flags or at a minimum, if a flag cannot be resolved within the established timeframe, have the grantee provide a remediating comment explaining why the flag could not be resolved and a proposed timeline for resolution.

Complete a program-specific fraud risk assessment and risk profile for the CDBG and ESG programs, with emphasis on CARES Act funding, and replicate this process to create program-specific fraud assessments and risk profiles for other CPD programs.

Consider OIG’s fraud risk inventory to improve CPD’s own fraud risk assessments and develop a program-specific fraud risk map and compendium.

Develop and implement a fraud risk checklist or other instrument as part of CPD’s monitoring oversight requirements, to be completed as part of each remote and onsite monitoring review.

Develop and implement a fraud analytics strategy using available data, including but not limited to data and information collected during the grantee risk assessment and monitoring processes, to begin conducting data analyses to identify potential fraud risks for further review.

We recommend that the Director of the Office of Block Grant Assistance require the Texas GLO to provide its plan to continuously monitor Harris County’s pace and performance in its remaining Hurricane Harvey CDBG-DR program and take appropriate action to ensure that program goals are met. The plan should include a process for repurposing additional grant funds, if necessary, to avoid potential recapture due to Harris County’s inability to meet the expenditure deadline established under its subrecipient agreement with the Texas GLO, and to allow the Texas GLO to meet the expenditure deadline for its grant award.

We recommend that the Director of the Office of Block Grant Assistance require the Texas GLO to set performance and financial milestones, including approval of Harris County’s projects and obligation and expenditure of funds, for all programs and activities funded under the Harris County subrecipient agreement through the remainder of the contract and deadlines for Harris County to achieve those milestones. This would include the Texas GLO (1) providing its plan to continually assess whether Harris County is meeting the established milestones within the prescribed time period; (2) taking appropriate action as outlined in the subrecipient agreement for any missed deadlines; and (3) , if necessary, determining whether additional programs need to be combined or eliminated from the subrecipient agreement.

We recommend that the Director of the Office of Block Grant Assistance require the Texas GLO to provide evidence of subrecipient monitoring of Harris County’s capacity to manage its Hurricane Harvey grant funds to address duplicative, inefficient, and cost-prohibitive processes or positions. The evidence should include any corrective actions that have been imposed and Harris County’s response.

We recommend that the Director of the Office of Block Grant Assistance require the Texas GLO to ensure that Harris County obtains adequate training for its program staff and that the staff continuously demonstrates their understanding of and competence to operate Harris County’s programs within applicable requirements. This would include ensuring that Harris County takes appropriate steps to remedy situations where staff are not operating the program within applicable requirements.

We recommend that the Director of the Office of Block Grant Assistance require the Texas GLO to review Harris County’s Housing Reimbursement Program policies, including assistance prioritization, to ensure compliance with the Texas GLO’s action plan and amendments. This would include the Texas GLO analyzing the County’s project pipeline to determine whether changes are warranted to ensure that those most in need are prioritized to receive limited Federal assistance. The Texas GLO should provide HUD with an analysis of the County’s project pipeline within 90 days of its review to share the results and demonstrate compliance with its action plan.

Provide documentation to support that program activities within NHSLA’s interfund were for eligible NSP2 activities or repay the program $3,425,679 from non-Federal funds.

Return the outstanding balance of $529,745 owed to NSP2. In addition, cease the practice of depositing NSP2 funds in non-NSP2 accounts and making them available to be used or borrowed for non-NSP2 activities.

Provide documentation to support that $658,261 in loan proceeds was used for an eligible NSP2 activity or property or repay the program from non-Federal funds.

Provide documentation to support that $500,000 in NSP funds transferred to the revolving loan fund was used for an eligible NSP2 activity or property or repay the program from non-Federal funds.

Amend the NSP2 action plan to include its revolving loan fund.

Adjust program income calculation methodology to ensure it is in accordance with HUD requirements.

Submit overdue NSP2 quarterly reports to DRGR and update prior reports that did not accurately report program income activity.

Provide adequate documentation to support its administrative and project delivery cost expenditures or repay the program $1,388,545 from non-Federal funds.

Provide supporting documentation to show whether the outstanding liability of $324,478 is correctly classified as an NSP2 liability. If not, HUD should ensure that NHSLA corrects its NSP2 cost reimbursement summary for the 12 months ending June 30, 2018, to reclassify the expenses to a non-NSP2 program. Such funds would be considered funds to be put to better use.

Obtain training to ensure that it understands NSP2 regulations and requirements related to payroll allocation for its administrative and project delivery costs and program income calculation methodology to ensure it properly computes the amount it is allowed to charge for administrative costs.