The Housing Authority of the City of Mineral Wells, TX, Had Errors in the Administration of Its Recovery Act Public Housing Capital Fund Grant
To meet the Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) objective to review funds provided under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and at HUD's suggestion, we reviewed the Housing Authority of the City of Mineral Wells Public Housing Capital Fund Stimulus (formula) Recovery Act funded activities. Specifically, our objectives were to determine whether the Authority followed the Recovery Act rules and regulations when obligating and…
June 29, 2012
Report
#2012-FW-1010
The City of Seattle, WA, Used Its Recovery Act CDBG-R Funds in Accordance With HUD and Recovery Act Requirements
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General audited the City of Seattle’s Community Development Block Grant-
Recovery (CDBG-R) program to determine whether the City used its CDBG-R funds in accordance with HUD and Recovery Act requirements and subgrantee expenditures were appropriate, eligible, and supported. We selected the City for review because it received $3.26 million in CDBG-R funds, more than…
June 25, 2012
Report
#2012-SE-1004
The City of Philadelphia, PA, Generally Administered Its Neighborhood Stabilization Program 2 Grant in Accordance With Applicable Requirements
We audited the City of Philadelphia, PA’s administration of its Neighborhood Stabilization Program 2 grant that it received under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 as part of our fiscal year 2012 audit plan. Our objective was to determine whether the grantee administered the grant in accordance with Recovery Act and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requirements. We found that the grantee generally…
June 21, 2012
Report
#2012-PH-1009
The Gonzales, TX, Housing Authority Generally Followed Recovery Act Public Housing Capital Fund Requirements
We audited the Gonzales Housing Authority’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Public Housing Capital Fund formula grant because it met the Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) most recent audit plan objective to contribute to the oversight objectives of the Recovery Act and the San Antonio Office of Public Housing recommended it for audit. Our objectives were to determine whether the Authority (1) properly obligated and spent its…
June 18, 2012
Report
#2012-FW-1009
The City of Phoenix, AZ, Did Not Always Comply With Program Requirements When Administering Its NSP1 and NSP2 Grants
We completed a review of the City of Phoenix’s (City) Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) grants NSP1 and NSP2. We performed the review because it supports the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General’s strategic plan to contribute to the oversight objectives of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and the City received a $60 million grant as one of 56 NSP2 grantees. Our objective…
June 15, 2012
Report
#2012-LA-1008
Los Angeles Neighborhood Housing Services, Los Angeles, CA, Did Not Always Properly Administer Its NSP2 Grant
We audited the Los Angeles Neighborhood Housing Services’ Neighborhood Stabilization Program 2 (NSP2). We performed the audit because American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 reviews are part of the Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) annual plan and Neighborhood Housing Services was awarded $60 million in Recovery Act NSP2 funds in a consortium agreement with 12 other organizations on February 11, 2010. Our audit objective was to…
June 05, 2012
Report
#2012-LA-1007
The Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs, Montgomery, AL, Did Not Follow Its Neighborhood Stabilization Program Requirements
HUD OIG performed an audit of the State of Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs, Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP1) in Montgomery, AL, to assess issues raised in a hotline complaint. The complaint alleged that the State of Alabama misused its NSP1 funds by not following the regulations and statutes governing the NSP1 program to ensure that it used program funds for eligible and supported purposes. The State was awarded a…
May 24, 2012
Report
#2012-AT-1010
The Aurora Housing Authority Did Not Always Follow Requirements When Obligating, Expending, and Reporting Information About Its Recovery Act Capital Funds
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Office of Inspector General reviewed the Aurora Housing Authority to determine whether the Authority obligated its funds by the deadline, adequately managed its procurements and contracts, and accurately reported its Recovery Act information in FederalReporting.gov. We determined that the Authority did not obligate $22,018 of its Recovery Act funds by the March 17, 2010, deadline,…
May 04, 2012
Report
#2012-DE-1004
Corrective Action Verification, City of Tulsa – Community Development Block Grant Land Use and Program Income Audit Report 2008-FW-1012
The Director of the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Oklahoma City Office of Community Planning and Development requested that we perform a corrective action verification of recommendation 1B in audit report 2008-FW-1012, The City of Tulsa, OK, Allowed Its Largest Subrecipient To Expend $1.5 Million in Unsupported CDBG Funding. We expanded the review to include recommendation 1C. The purpose of the review was to…
April 10, 2012
Memorandum
#2012-FW-1803
The Manhattan, KS, Housing Authority Improperly Executed a Contract Change Order and Did Not Accurately Report on Its Recovery Act Funds
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General audited the Manhattan, KS Housing Authority’s administration of its Recovery Act capital fund grants. Our objectives were to determine whether the Authority executed a contract change order in compliance with HUD procurement regulations and the Authority’s procurement policy and accurately and completely reported Recovery Act grant information in…
April 09, 2012
Report
#2012-KC-1004
The Topeka, KS, Housing Authority Did Not Always Document Its Procurement Actions and Did Not Accurately Report on Its Recovery Act Funds
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General audited the Topeka, KS Housing Authority’s administration of its Recovery Act competitive capital fund grants. We selected the Authority for review because it spent a large amount of Recovery Act funds. Our objectives were to determine whether the Authority expended Recovery Act grant funds in accordance with Recovery Act requirements and applicable HUD…
April 05, 2012
Report
#2012-KC-1003
The State of Michigan Lacked Adequate Controls Over Its Use of Neighborhood Stabilization Program Funds Under the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 for a Project
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General audited the State of Michigan’s Neighborhood Stabilization Program administered by the Michigan State Housing Development Authority. The audit was part of the activities in our fiscal year 2011 annual audit plan. We selected the State based upon our designation of the Program as high risk and citizens’ complaints to our office. Our objective was to determine…
March 30, 2012
Report
#2012-CH-1007
Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority, Cleveland, OH, Did Not Operate Its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program According to HUD’s Requirements
We audited the Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority’s Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program. The audit was part of the activities in our fiscal year 2012 annual audit plan. We selected the Authority based upon our analysis of risk factors relating to the housing agencies in Region V’s jurisdiction. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority administered its program in accordance with applicable U.S. Department of Housing and…
March 29, 2012
Report
#2012-CH-1006
A Hotline Complaint Against Colorado Coalition for the Homeless, Denver, CO, Regarding Weaknesses in Its Controls Over the Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program Could Not Be Supported
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General, audited the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless in response to a hotline complaint. The complaint contained allegations regarding control weaknesses, resulting in noncompliance with Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program (HPRP) requirements. The objective of our review was to determine whether the allegations of weaknesses in the Coalition’s…
March 22, 2012
Report
#2012-DE-1003
Mountain CAP of WV, Inc., Buckhannon, WV, Did Not Administer Its Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program in Accordance With Applicable Recovery Act and HUD Requirements
We audited Mountain CAP of WV, Inc.’s administration of its Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program funds. We selected Mountain CAP for audit because of a complaint alleging that controls over its disbursements were weak. Our audit objective was to determine whether Mountain CAP maintained proper financial management of and accountability for its program to ensure that it used the funds according to the American Recovery and…
March 15, 2012
Report
#2012-PH-1008
The City of Los Angeles, CA, Did Not Expend Brownfields Economic Development Initiative and Section 108 Funds for the Goodyear Industrial Tract Project in Accordance With HUD Requirements
The City did not expend Brownfields and Section 108 funds awarded for the development of the project in accordance with HUD requirements. Specifically, the City used loan and grant funds for an ineligible project and expended grant funds after the grant deadline. As a result, it expended (1) $3.8 million in loan funds on an ineligible project, (2) $625,000 in grant funds on an ineligible project after the grant expenditure deadline, and (3) an…
March 13, 2012
Report
#2012-LA-1005
The East St. Louis Housing Authority Did Not Properly Manage or Report on Recovery Act Capital Funds
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General audited the East St. Louis Housing Authority’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Public Housing Capital Fund program. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority (1) complied with applicable procurement requirements and properly managed its Recovery Act contracts, (2) properly drew down and expended funds for eligible activities, and (3…
March 01, 2012
Report
#2012-KC-1002
The Springfield Housing Authority, Springfield, IL, Needs To Improve Its American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Contract Administration Procedures
We audited the Springfield Housing Authority’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Public Housing Capital Fund Stimulus formula grant. The audit was part of the activities in our fiscal year 2011 annual audit plan. We selected the Authority based upon our analysis of risk factors relating to the housing agencies in Region V’s jurisdiction. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority administered its grant in accordance with…
February 22, 2012
Report
#2012-CH-1003
Opelousas Housing Authority, Opelousas, LA, Did Not Always Comply With Recovery Act and Federal Obligation, Procurement, and Reporting Requirements
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General initiated an audit of the Opelousas Housing Authority’s Public Housing Capital Fund Stimulus Recovery Act-funded grant as part of our annual audit plan. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority (1) followed the requirements of the Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 when obligating its Recovery Act capital funds and when procuring contracts for goods…
February 22, 2012
Report
#2012-AO-1001
The City of Syracuse, NY, Did Not Always Administer Its Economic Development Initiative Program in Accordance With HUD Requirements
We audited the City of Syracuse, NY, pertaining to its Economic Development Initiative (EDI)-Special Project grants. The audit objective was to determine whether City officials were administering EDI Special Project grants effectively, efficiently, and economically in accordance with applicable rules and regulations. Specifically, we wanted to determine whether City officials expended EDI funds for eligible activities that were fully supported…
February 20, 2012
Report
#2012-NY-1007