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.
2014-ITED-0001 | April 30, 2014
HUD Privacy Program Evaluation Report
Chief Information Officer
2014-ITED-0001-32
SensitiveSensitiveSensitive information refers to information that could have a damaging import if released to the public and, therefore, must be restricted from public disclosure.
2014-FW-1802 | March 31, 2014
The Management of the Housing Authority of the City of Nixon, Nixon, TX, Did Not Exercise Adequate Oversight and Allowed Ineligible and Unsupported Costs
Public and Indian Housing
2014-FW-1802-001-B
$109,861Questioned CostsRecommendations 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 Authority to support or repay its various program accounts $109,861 from nonfederal funds for unsupported payroll, other compensation, bonuses, travel, supplies, contractor payments and petty cash disbursements.
2014-AT-1801 | March 20, 2014
Vieques Sports City Complex, Office of the Commissioner for Municipal Affairs, San Juan, PR, Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program
Community Planning and Development
2014-AT-1801-001-B
$10,838,880Questioned CostsRecommendations 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.
Provide all supporting documentation associated with the $10,838,880 (Footnote 13) Total disbursements of $10,876,095 were adjusted to consider $37,215 questioned in recommendation 1D. in State CDBG, Section 108, and program income proceeds disbursed for the development of the sports complex, if HUD determines the plan to be feasible (recommendation 1A). HUD must determine the eligibility, reasonableness, and allocability of the funds disbursed. OCMA must reimburse its State CDBG program from non-Federal funds any amount determined ineligible.
2014-AT-1801-001-D
$37,215Questioned CostsRecommendations 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.
Submit supporting documentation showing the eligibility and propriety of $37,215 drawn from HUD or reimburse the State CDBG program from non-Federal funds.
2014-NY-0001 | February 18, 2014
HUD Did Not Provide Effective Oversight of Section 202 Multifamily Project Refinances
Housing
2014-NY-0001-001-B
We recommend that the Director, Office of Multifamily Asset Management, require that each Hub or field office review its refinanced Section 202/223(f) projects for debt service savings amounts, utilizing data provided from this audit for possible additional debt service savings. Where legally possible each Hub or field office should identify, account for by project, and use these amounts for current and future opportunities benefiting tenants or to fund reductions in housing assistance payments.
2014-FO-0003 | December 15, 2013
Additional Details To Supplement Our Report on HUD’s Fiscal Years 2013 and 2012 (Restated) Financial Statements
Public and Indian Housing
2014-FO-0003-002-C
Implement a cost-effective method for automating the cash management process to include an electronic interface of transactions to the standard general ledger.
Chief Financial Officer
2014-FO-0003-002-E
Review the cash management process to identify all financial events to be recognized in accordance with GAAP. Establish procedures to account for the cash management activity in a timely manner in compliance with GAAP.
2014-FO-0003-002-G
Ensure that PIH’s automation of its cash management process complies with Federal financial management requirements.
2013-CH-1011 | September 30, 2013
The Michigan State Housing Development Authority, Lansing, MI, Did Not Follow HUD’s Requirements Regarding the Administration of Its Program
Housing
2013-CH-1011-001-A
$31,148,477Funds Put to Better UseRecommendations 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.
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Detroit Office of Multifamily Housing Programs require the Authority to ensure that $31,148,477 in residual receipts for the 15 projects as of May 31, 2013, is used to reduce or offset housing assistance payments in accordance with HUD’s requirements.
2013-CH-1011-002-A
$608,337Questioned CostsRecommendations 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 Director of HUD’s Detroit Office of Multifamily Housing Programs require the Authority to reimburse the U.S. Treasury $608,337 ($77,856 436,759 $93,722) for the three projects with terminated program contracts.
2013-CH-1011-002-C
$12,830Questioned CostsRecommendations 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 Director of HUD’s Detroit Office of Multifamily Housing Programs require the Authority to reimburse the U.S. Treasury $12,830 from non-Federal funds for the lost interest.
2013-NY-1010 | September 26, 2013
The City of Auburn, NY Community Development Block Grant Program
Community Planning and Development
2013-NY-1010-001-A
$2,451,645Funds Put to Better UseRecommendations 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.
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Buffalo Office of Community Planning and Development instruct City officials to expend or reprogram to other eligible program activities the $2,451,645 in CDBG program income maintained in the City’s community development bank accounts as of June 30, 2013, so the City can assure HUD that these funds have been put to better use.
2013-NY-1010-001-D
$177,923Questioned CostsRecommendations 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 Director of HUD’s Buffalo Office of Community Planning and Development instruct City officials to Provide documentation to justify the $177,923 unsupported difference between the City’s CDBG program income balance in IDIS and its bank account balances as of June 30, 2013. Any portion of the unsupported difference determined to be ineligible should be reimbursed from non-Federal funds.
2013-LA-1010 | September 20, 2013
The City of Hawthorne, CA, Did Not Administer Its Community Development Block Grant Program Cost Allocations in Accordance With HUD Rules and Requirements
Community Planning and Development
2013-LA-1010-001-A
$1,628,130Questioned CostsRecommendations 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.
Provide adequate supporting documentation for the $1,628,130 in unsupported salary and benefit costs or repay the CDBG program from non-Federal funds.
2013-LA-1009 | September 13, 2013
The City of Hawthorne, CA, Inappropriately Used Nearly $1.6 Million in HOME Funds for Section 8 Tenants
Community Planning and Development
2013-LA-1009-001-A
$1,595,113Questioned CostsRecommendations 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.
Reimburse its HOME program $1,595,113 from non-Federal funds for HOME funds that were inappropriately used on Section 8 housing assistance payments.
2013-CH-1004 | August 01, 2013
The Inkster Housing Commission, Inkster, MI, Did Not Follow HUD’s Requirements and Its Own Policies Regarding the Administration of Its Programs
Public and Indian Housing
2013-CH-1004-001-C
$425,193Questioned CostsRecommendations 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 Director of HUD’s Detroit Office of Public Housing require the Commission to support or reimburse its program $425,193 ($19,924 $384,755 in housing assistance payments $46 in utility allowances $20,468 in associated administrative fees) from non-Federal funds for the unsupported overpayment of housing assistance and utility allowances due to unsupported calculations, missing eligibility documentations, and discrepancies in the housing assistance payments register.
2013-NY-1006 | May 13, 2013
Nassau County, NY, Did Not Administer It’s HOME Investment Partnerships Program in Accordance With HUD Requirements
Community Planning and Development
2013-NY-1006-001-A
$189,322Questioned CostsRecommendations 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 Director of HUD’s New York Office of Community Planning and Development instruct County officials to provide documentation to justify the $189,322 in unsupported administrative and planning costs that was disbursed for employee salaries and fringe benefits. Any unsupported costs determined to be ineligible should be reimbursed from non-Federal funds.
2013-NY-1006-001-B
$78,530Questioned CostsRecommendations 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 Director of HUD’s New York Office of Community Planning and Development instruct County officials to reimburse from non-Federal funds $78,530 for ineligible home-buyer rehabilitation and demolition costs charged to the HOME program.
2013-NY-1006-001-C
$31,470Funds Put to Better UseRecommendations 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.
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s New York Office of Community Planning and Development instruct County officials to terminate the contract between the County and the Village of Freeport to rehabilitate and construct single-family public housing units to be sold to low-income residents. The remaining contract balance of $31,470 should be put to better use by reprogramming it for other eligible purposes.
2013-NY-1006-001-D
$1,264Questioned CostsRecommendations 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 Director of HUD’s New York Office of Community Planning and Development instruct County officials to provide documentation to justify the $1,264 in unsupported project delivery costs. Any unsupported costs determined to be ineligible should be reimbursed from non-Federal funds.