We audited Morris County, NJ’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program based on a risk assessment, which considered the size of the program, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) risk analysis, and prior audit coverage. The objectives of the audit were to determine whether County officials established adequate controls to ensure that CDBG funds were expended for eligible activities and that the program was…

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) – Office of Inspector General audited the Idaho Housing and Finance Association’s HOME Investment Partnerships Program because it received approximately $6 million in HOME grants from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in each of fiscal years 2008 through 2010. The objective of our review was to determine whether Idaho Housing complied with HOME match fund and…

We audited the City of Baltimore, MD's Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program grant because (1) its $9.5 million grant was the largest grant in the State of Maryland, (2) it had disbursed $6.6 million of its grant funds as of December 2011, and (3) we have a mandate to audit American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 activities. The audit objective was to determine whether the City properly obligated and expended grant funds…

We audited Luzerne County, PA’s $6 million loan of Community Development Block Grant funds to CityVest that was expected to be used to revitalize the historic Hotel Sterling and surrounding properties. We did the audit because HUD Office of Inspector General audit report 2012-PH-0001 identified this long standing open Block Grant activity and because we received a citizen complaint alleging possible misappropriation of these funds. Our…

We reviewed HUD’s monitoring of the Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program (HPRP) in support of HUD OIG’s audit plan goals to oversee Recovery Act-funded activity and improve HUD’s execution of and accountability for fiscal responsibilities. The objective of the audit was to determine whether HUD had established adequate controls to (1) ensure that grantees complied with Recovery Act expenditure and performance reporting…

We completed a review of the Village of Spring Valley, NY, a subrecipient of Rockland County, NY. We selected this auditee based on a hotline complaint that was referred from the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) OIG, Complaint Number Z-12-0445-1, received on February 14, 2012. The complaint alleged that the Village (1) used eminent domain and Federal funds to seize property, (2) transferred ownership of properties to a developer to be…

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD), Office of Inspector General reviewed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG-R) Program of the City of St. Louis, MO. Our audit objectives were to determine whether the City complied with applicable Recovery Act requirements for CDBG-R funds and properly reported its Recovery Act activities. We found that the City did not comply with…

We conducted an audit of the City of Long Beach because it was awarded more than $22.2 million in Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Neighborhood Stabilization Program 2 (NSP2) funds on February 11, 2010 as the lead agency in a consortium with Habitat for Humanity of Greater Los Angeles (Habitat), making it one of the largest NSP2 fund recipients in the Los Angeles area. Our objective was to determine whether the City of Long Beach…

We completed a corrective action verification of the recommendations made to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Office of Community Planning and Development (CPD) pertaining to our review of The City of Newburgh, NY’s Section 108 Loan Guarantee program, Audit Report 2009-NY-1001, which was issued November 7, 2008. The purpose of the corrective action verification was to determine whether the audit recommendations…

Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program. Our objectives were to determine whether the State ensured that (1) Recovery Act disbursements to local governments were eligible and supported and (2) Program participants were eligible to receive assistance in accordance with Program requirements. The State generally ensured that its Recovery Act disbursements to local governments were eligible. However, some of the disbursements were…