U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government Here’s how you know

The .gov means it’s official.

Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure.

The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Document

We audited the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Office of Community Planning and Development’s administration of Economic Development Initiative – Special Project and Neighborhood Initiative congressional grants.  This review was prompted by our Financial Audit Division’s 2012 review, which reported that HUD did not have effective controls to monitor its obligated congressional grant funds.[1]  Our audit objective was to determine whether HUD administered these congressional grants in accordance with its requirements; specifically, whether HUD ensured that grantees executed funded projects in accordance with applicable agreements and requirements.

HUD did not ensure that congressional grant funds were administered in accordance with HUD requirements.  Specifically, it did not always ensure that the accuracy of obligated grants and spent grant funds was supported in keeping with HUD requirements and internal policies and procedures.  In addition, HUD approved a project that was not eligible for program funding.  This condition occurred because HUD did not always monitor its congressional grants to ensure accurate reporting for compliance with grant agreements, objectives, and its own policies and procedures.  As a result, more than $4.1 million in grant funds was unsupported, and $343,000 in grant funds was spent on an ineligible project.

We recommend that HUD’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Operations (1) support the eligibility of the more than $4.1 million in unsupported costs; (2) require one grantee to repay $343,000 from non-Federal funds for incurred ineligible program costs; and (3) improve its monitoring of congressional grants through closeout to ensure compliance with grant agreements, objectives, and policies and procedures.

Recommendations

Community Planning and Development

  •  
    Status
      Open
      Closed
    2017-LA-0006-001-A
    $4,187,560.00
    Questioned 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.

    Closed on March 28, 2019

    Support the eligibility of more than $4,187,560 in unsupported costs or require the grantees to repay the U.S. Treasury from non-Federal funds.

  •  
    Status
      Open
      Closed
    2017-LA-0006-001-B
    $343,000.00
    Questioned 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.

    Closed on December 21, 2018

    Require one grantee to repay the U.S. Treasury $343,000 from non-Federal funds for ineligible program costs incurred for the project identified in this report.