The City of Mesa, AZ, Did Not Administer Its Community Development Block Grant in Accordance With HUD Requirements
We audited the City of Mesa’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program based on (1) a hotline complaint alleging CDBG noncompliance; (2) a prior U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General, audit (2011-LA-1006), which determined that the City needed to improve how it administered its Neighborhood Stabilization Program 1 funds; and (3) our objective to promote fiscal responsibility and financial…
April 13, 2020
Report
#2020-LA-1003
The City of Joplin, MO, Did Not Always Comply With the Requirements of Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 for Its Disaster Recovery Program
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General, audited the City of Joplin, MO’s Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) program because the City was awarded more than $45 million in
CDBG-DR funds in April 2012 and received an additional $113 million in May 2013. We previously audited the City’s CDBG-DR program in 2013 and issued audit report 2014-KC-
1002. At that time, the City…
September 28, 2016
Report
#2016-KC-1006
The State of Missouri Did Not Correctly Allocate Salaries to Its Disaster Recovery Grants
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General, audited the State of Missouri’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Disaster Recovery program because it was initially awarded more than $103 million in two CDBG Disaster Recovery grants for storms and flooding that occurred in 2008 and we had not previously audited the State’s activities regarding these funds. Our audit objective was to…
February 21, 2016
Report
#2016-KC-1001
The City of Kansas City, MO, Did Not Properly Obligate Its NSP1 Grant Funds and Allowed Its Subrecipient To Enter Into Contracts Without the Required Provisions
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General, audited the City of Kansas City, MO’s Neighborhood Stabilization Program I (NSP I) based on previous problems in the City’s Community Development Block Grant program and the amount of funding it received. During fiscal year 2008, the City received more than $7.3 million in NSP1 funding. Our audit objectives were to determine whether the City…
February 04, 2014
Report
#2014-KC-1003
The City of Joplin, MO, Complied With CDBG Disaster Recovery Regulations
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development – Office of Inspector General selected the City of Joplin, MO’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Disaster Recovery program for audit because the City was awarded more than $45 million in CDBG Disaster Recovery funds in April 2012 and an additional $113 million in May 2013. In addition, we had not audited the City’s activities for at least 10 years. Our audit objective was…
January 28, 2014
Report
#2014-KC-1002
The City of St. Louis, MO, Did Not Effectively Manage Its Recovery Act Funding
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…
September 27, 2012
Report
#2012-KC-1006
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
Housing Our Communities, Mesa, AZ, Did Not Administer Its Neighborhood Stabilization Program in Accordance with HUD Requirements
We audited Housing Our Communities’ (subrecipient) Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP1) subgrant from the City of Avondale. The audit was started primarily because the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General’s (HUD OIG) audit plan includes objectives to review Housing and Economic Recovery Act grantees and because a previous HUD OIG audit of the City of Mesa found indications that the subrecipient did…
December 07, 2011
Report
#2012-LA-1001
Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc., Did Not Always Administer its Neighborhood Stabilization Program 2 Grant as Required
We audited Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.’s (grantee) Neighborhood Stabilization Program 2 (NSP2) grant to determine whether the grantee administered its NSP2 grant in accordance with HUD’s program requirements. We conducted the audit as part of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) fiscal year 2011 annual audit plan and to support HUD OIG’s fiscal year 2011 strategic goal to contribute to…
July 22, 2011
Report
#2011-LA-1015
The Missouri Housing Development Commission Did Not Always Disburse Its Tax Credit Assistance Program Funds in Accordance With Recovery Act Requirements
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Office of Inspector General audited the Missouri Housing Development Commission’s (Commission) Recovery Act funded Tax Credit Assistance Program (TCAP). Our audit objective was to determine whether the Commission expended Recovery Act grant funds in accordance with Recovery Act requirements and applicable U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) rules. We concluded…
April 01, 2011
Report
#2011-KC-1003
The City of Mesa, AZ, Needs To Improve Its Procedures for Administering Its Neighborhood Stabilization Program Grant
We audited the City of Mesa’s (grantee) Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP1) grant to determine whether the grantee administered the grant in accordance with HUD’s program requirements. The audit was started primarily because the Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) audit plan includes objectives to review Housing and Economic Recovery Act grantees and because staff from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Office of…
February 07, 2011
Report
#2011-LA-1006
The Missouri Housing Development Commission Did Not Always Obtain Required Documents and Properly Report on the Tax Credit Assistance Program Funded Under the Recovery Act
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Office of Inspector General audited the Missouri Housing Development Commission’s (Commission) Recovery Act funded Tax Credit Assistance Program (TCAP). Our audit objectives were to determine whether the Commission obtained wage reports and lobbying certifications required by Federal law and accurately reported job creation to Recovery.gov. We concluded that the Commission did…
September 10, 2010
Report
#2010-KC-1007
Arizona Department of Housing's Administration of its Recovery Act Grant Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program
We audited the Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program at the State of Arizona Housing Department (Department) because it was the largest single Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program grant awarded within Arizona under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). Our objective was to determine whether the Department administered the grant in compliance with Recovery Act and other applicable…
May 07, 2010
Report
#2010-LA-1010
Grace Hill Used Neighborhood Initiative Grant Funds to Pay Unsupported Payroll Expenses and Duplicated Computer Support Costs
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General, audited Grace Hill Neighborhood Health Centers (Grace Hill). Our audit objective was to determine whether Grace Hill properly charged payroll and support expenses to the grants. We concluded that Grace Hill charged unsupported salary and benefit costs to the grants because it did not require grant staff to properly track their time. Additionally, Grace Hill…
July 24, 2009
Report
#2009-KC-1008