We are conducting an audit of the City of Jersey City’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program based upon an Office of Inspector General (OIG) hotline complaint containing several allegations, one of which was that the City’s Division of Community Development’s lead risk assessor was not qualified or producing monitoring reports for rehabilitation work funded under the City’s Homeowner Rehabilitation Program. The objective
Village of Spring Valley, NY, Hotline Complaint, Federal Housing Finance Agency Complaint Number Z-12-0445-1
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.
September 28, 2012
Corrective Action Verification, City of Newburgh, NY, Section 108 Loan Guarantee program, Audit Report 2009-NY-1001
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.
September 21, 2012
The City of San Antonio, TX, Did Not Administer Its Neighborhood Stabilization Program Grant in Accordance With Requirements
In accordance with our goal to review Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 grantees and because of weaknesses identified by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) initiated a review of the City of San Antonio’s activities funded by its Neighborhood Stabilization Program 1 grant.
August 06, 2012
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.
April 10, 2012
The City of Dunkirk, NY, Used Community Development Block Grant Recovery Act Funding for an Ineligible Activity
We conducted a review of the City of Dunkirk, NY (City), pertaining to its Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds received under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). We selected this auditee based on a congressional interest inquiry received by the Recovery Act Transparency and Accountability Board and forwarded to the U.S.
July 14, 2011
As part of the Office of Inspector General’s commitment to ensure the proper use of America Recovery and Reinvestment Act and Housing and Economic Recovery Act funds, we assessed the City of Oklahoma City’s capacity and risks in three areas: internal controls, financial operations, and procurement. Our review did not disclose any reportable conditions or control deficiencies.
June 03, 2010
The City of Saginaw, MI, Needs To Improve Its Capacity To Effectively and Efficiently Administer Its Community Development Block Grant Program Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's Office of Inspector General reviewed the City of Saginaw’s (City) Community Development Block Grant (Block Grant) program under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Act). The review was part of the activities in our fiscal year 2010 annual audit plan.
March 31, 2010
The State of Indiana’s Administrator Awarded Neighborhood Stabilization Program Funds for an Inappropriate Project
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Office of Inspector General reviewed the State of Indiana’s (State) Neighborhood Stabilization Program (Program). The review was part of the activities in our fiscal year 2010 annual audit plan. We selected the State based upon a citizen’s complaint to our office. Our objective was to determine whether the State awarded Program funds to eligible projects.
February 24, 2010