Final Civil Action – Borrower Settled Allegations of Making a False Certification to HUD Regarding a Home Purchase Under the Federal Housing Administration Program
We reviewed an alleged loan origination fraud scheme involving a borrower purchasing a home in which the loan was insured under the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Federal Housing Administration (FHA) program. The alleged scheme involved submitting a false loan application to obtain an FHA-insured loan on a home in Brentwood, CA. Based in part on our review, HUD filed a complaint against the borrower under…
August 10, 2014
Memorandum
#2014-CF-1805
HUD Did Not Always Recover FHA Single-Family Indemnification Losses and Ensure That Indemnification Agreements Were Extended
We audited HUD’s controls over its Federal Housing Administration (FHA) loan indemnification recovery process based on the OIG’s analysis of HUD data that indicated indemnification losses were not always recovered for FHA single-family loans. Our objective was to determine whether HUD had adequate controls in place to monitor indemnification agreements and recover losses on FHA single-family loans.
HUD did not always bill lenders for FHA…
August 07, 2014
Report
#2014-LA-0005
The Municipality of Carolina Did Not Properly Administer Its HOME Program
We audited the Municipality of Carolina’s HOME Investment Partnerships Program as part of our strategic plan, based on the amount of HOME funds approved. The objectives of the audit were to determine whether HOME-funded activities met program objectives, home buyers complied with HOME’s primary residency requirement for the duration of the period of affordability, and the Municipality maintained a financial management system in compliance…
August 07, 2014
Report
#2014-AT-1007
King County Did Not Meet Shelter Plus Care Matching Requirements
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General audited King County, WA’s Shelter Plus Care program to determine whether King County met the matching requirements for its Shelter Plus Care grants. We selected King County because it received the most Shelter Plus Care funding in HUD’s Region 10 (Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington).
While it was able to provide the necessary service match support…
July 27, 2014
Report
#2014-SE-1005
Palladia, Inc., New York, NY, Did Not Administer Its Supportive Housing Program in Accordance with HUD Requirements
We completed a review of Palladia, Inc.’s administration of its Supportive Housing Program. We selected Palladia for review based on a request from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) New York City Office of Community Planning and Development. The objectives of the audit were to determine whether Palladia officials (1) carried out program-assisted activities with the appropriate beneficiaries, (2) expended…
July 24, 2014
Report
#2014-NY-1008
Pierce County Claimed Ineligible and Unsupported HOME Matching Funds
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development – Office of Inspector General audited Pierce County because it received almost $9 million in total funding in Washington State for its community planning and development grants under the 2011 and 2012 notices of funding availability.
The County claimed nearly $242,000 in ineligible matching funds for three HOME projects. Since these three projects had already received HOME funding and…
July 16, 2014
Report
#2014-SE-1003
The Cumberland Plateau Regional Housing Authority, Lebanon, VA, Did Not Procure Services in Accordance With HUD Requirements
We audited the Cumberland Plateau Regional Housing Authority’s HOME Investment Partnerships program because a Russell County, VA, special grand jury investigation resulted in the indictment of four people involved with the Authority’s HOME program. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority procured services in accordance with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations and other applicable…
July 14, 2014
Report
#2014-PH-1007
Hillsborough County, FL Did Not Properly Administer Its Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program
We audited the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program administered by Hillsborough County, FL, as part of the activities in our 2013 fiscal year annual audit plan. We selected the County for review based on a complaint referral from the Office of Inspector General’s Office of Investigation on a public complaint alleging the County’s misuse of CDBG funds for the County’s cleanup events. Our audit objective was to determine…
July 08, 2014
Report
#2014-AT-1006
Monmouth County, NJ Expended Community Development Block Grant Funds for Eligible Activities, But Control Weaknesses Need To Be Strengthened.
We audited Monmouth County, NJ’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program based on a risk assessment that considered grantee funding, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) risk analysis, and prior Office of Inspector General (OIG) audit coverage. The objective of the audit was to determine whether County officials established and implemented adequate controls to provide assurance that CDBG funds were expended for…
July 01, 2014
Report
#2014-NY-1006
Financial and Administrative Weaknesses Existed in the Middlesex County, NJ, HOME Investment Partnerships Program
We audited Middlesex County, NJ’s HOME Investment Partnerships Program based on a risk analysis that considered funding, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) risk score, and prior Office of Inspector General audits. The audit objective was to determine whether County officials established and implemented adequate controls over their HOME program to ensure that program funds were expended and administered for…
June 09, 2014
Report
#2014-NY-1005
The County of San Bernardino, CA, Adequately Ensured That NSP Developer Fees Met HUD Requirements
We reviewed the developer fees the County of San Bernardino paid to its Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) developers. Our objective was to determine whether the County adequately ensured that NSP developer fees paid to its developers met HUD requirements. We performed our review to address questionable costs identified during a prior Office of Inspector General (OIG) review (audit report 2014-LA-0002). During that…
June 04, 2014
Report
#2014-LA-1003
The City of Huntsville Community Planning and Development Community Development Block Grant and HOME Investment Partnerships Program
We audited the City of Huntsville’s Community Development Department, which administers the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships Program, at the request of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Alabama Office of Community Planning and Development. Our objectives were to determine whether the Department’s commitment to use CDBG and HOME funds for the acquisition and rehabilitation…
May 28, 2014
Report
#2014-AT-1005
The City of Elmira, NY, Did Not Always Administer Its CDBG Program in Accordance with HUD Requirements
We audited the City of Elmira, NY’s administration of its Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program based on our risk analysis and funding received by the City. The objectives of the audit were to determine whether the City (1) ensured that program activities were adequately documented and administered in accordance with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations, and (2) expended CDBG funds for eligible…
May 19, 2014
Report
#2014-NY-1004
The County of Northumberland, Sunbury, PA, Did Not Administer Its Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program Grant According to Recovery Act Requirements
We audited the County of Northumberland, PA’s Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program grant because the chairman of the Northumberland County board of commissioners requested that we audit the program. Our objective was to determine whether the County administered its program grant in accordance with American Recovery and Reinvestment Act requirements.
The County did not administer its program according to Recovery Act…
April 29, 2014
Report
#2014-PH-1004
Summit Bradford Apartments, Tulsa, OK, Did Not Comply With the Requirements of Its Housing Assistance Payments Contract
We audited the Section 8 program administered by Summit Bradford Apartments in Tulsa, OK. We selected Bradford because we were informed that its management agent may have received Section 8 subsidies for vacant units. Our objective was to determine whether Summit Bradford Apartments, LP, the owner, and Summit Housing Partners, LLC, the management agent, administered Bradford’s Section 8 program in compliance with its housing…
April 08, 2014
Report
#2014-FW-1001
Vieques Sports City Complex, Office of the Commissioner for Municipal Affairs, San Juan, PR, Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program
We audited the Office of the Commissioner for Municipal Affairs’ (OCMA) Puerto Rico State Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Section 108 Loan Guarantee program as part of our strategic plan, based on concerns regarding the slow progress of the Vieques sports complex project. The objective of this audit was to determine whether OCMA used Section 108 loan proceeds on a project that met a national objective of the CDBG program and…
March 19, 2014
Memorandum
#2014-AT-1801
Violations Increased the Cost of Housing’s Administration of Its Bond Refund Program
We audited certain portions of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) multifamily housing programs as part of our fiscal year 2013 annual audit plan, based on an auditability study that we conducted, which identified potentially significant risk factors in its McKinney Act bond refund program. The objectives of the audit were to determine whether HUD properly enforced requirements that regulated the application of…
March 13, 2014
Report
#2014-AT-0001
CPD Did Not Monitor NSP Grantees’ Payments of Developer Fees to Developers
We reviewed the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, (HUD) Office of Community Planning and Development’s (CPD) monitoring of its Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) grantees’ incurred developer fees based on a prior external audit, which indicated that CPD field offices may not have provided adequate oversight of NSP grantees to ensure that for-profit developers did not incur questionable developer fees. Our objective…
March 09, 2014
Report
#2014-LA-0002
CPD Did Not Monitor Grantees' CPD-Funded Assets Transferred by Former Redevelopment Agencies To Minimize HUD's Risk
We audited the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) San Francisco and Los Angeles Offices of Community Planning and Development’s (CPD) monitoring of CPD-funded assets transferred by former redevelopment agencies due to concerns that CPD-funded assets may be lost during the State of California’s statewide mandated closure of redevelopment agencies. Our objective was to determine whether the San Francisco and Los…
February 26, 2014
Report
#2014-LA-0001
HUD Did Not Provide Effective Oversight of Section 202 Multifamily Project Refinances
We audited the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) oversight of Section 202 multifamily housing project refinances as part of the Inspector General’s goal of promoting fiscal responsibility and financial accountability. Our objective was to determine whether HUD had adequate controls to ensure that Section 202 refinancing was conducted in an effective and efficient manner.
HUD did not have adequate controls to…
February 17, 2014
Report
#2014-NY-0001