We audited the Buffalo Municipal Housing Authority’s management of its Commodore Perry Homes development. We selected the Authority based on congressional interest. Half of the development’s buildings were demolished more than 20 years ago, and the majority of the remaining buildings and units have been vacant for years without redevelopment activity.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General (OIG), audited the Nampa Housing Authority’s public housing program in response to a local OIG, Office of Investigation, referral. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority followed U.S.
October 05, 2020
The Municipality of Yauco, PR, Did Not Always Administer Its CDBG Program in Accordance With HUD Requirements
We audited the Municipality of Yauco’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program as part of our strategic plan. We selected this auditee because the U.S.
August 09, 2019
New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development, New York, NY, Did Not Always Ensure That Units Met Housing Quality Standards but Generally Abated Payments When Required
We audited the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development’s (HPD) Housing Choice Voucher Program. We selected HPD for review based on its size and because we had not conducted an audit of its Housing Choice Voucher Program. The objective of the audit was to determine whether HPD ensured tha
August 02, 2019
The Little Rock Housing Authority, Little Rock, AR, Did Not Fully Meet Rental Assistance Demonstration Program Requirements
We audited the Little Rock Housing Authority’s Rental Assistance Demonstration Program (RAD program). We initiated this assignment due to the U.S.
April 23, 2019
The State of New York Did Not Ensure That Properties Purchased Under the Acquisition Component of Its Program Were Eligible
We audited the State of New York’s Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery-funded New York Rising Buyout and Acquisition program. We initiated this audit due to concerns related to whether properties purchased were substantially damaged. The objective of this audit was to determine whether the State ensured that properties purchased under the acquisition component of the program
March 29, 2019
The City of New York, NY, Did Not Always Use Disaster Recovery Funds Under Its Program for Eligible and Supported Costs
We audited the City of New York’s Infrastructure Rehabilitation and Reconstruction of Public Facilities Program. We selected this program for review because the City had allocated nearly $91 million to the program and disbursed more than $59.6 million as of October 31, 2017, and as part of our ongoing oversight of the U.S.
September 27, 2018
The Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, New York, NY, Generally Administered Its Disaster Recovery-Funded Programs in Accordance With Applicable Requirements
We performed the 22nd review of the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation’s (LMDC) administration of the $2.783 billion in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Disaster Recovery funds awarded to the State of New York in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City. The objective of the audit was to determine whether LMDC administered its Disaster Recovery-funded Lower Ma
May 23, 2018
The Municipality of San Juan, PR, Did Not Always Administer Its Emergency Solutions Grants Program in Accordance With HUD Requirements
We audited the Municipality of San Juan’s Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) program. We selected the Municipality for review as part of our strategic plan based on the large amount of ESG funds approved and because the U.S.
December 28, 2017
DuPage County, IL, Did Not Always Comply With Federal Requirements Regarding the Administration of Its Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Program
We audited DuPage County’s Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery program. The audit was part of the activities in our fiscal year 2017 annual audit plan. We selected the County’s program for review because the County had spent the most program funds authorized under the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013 in Region 5’s jurisdiction. Our objective was to determine whether the County administered its program
September 30, 2017