We audited the city of Dallas’ management of its community housing development organizations (CHDO). We performed this audit because of our previous audit work on the City’s Home Investment Partnerships program. During that audit, we concluded that the City did not follow HOME regulations and its own policies and procedures in its reconstruction program or the administration of its match contributions,
Final Civil Action: The Former Executive Director of the Housing Authority of the City of Beeville, TX, Et Al, Settled False Claims Allegations in the Housing Choice Voucher Program
In violation of the housing assistance payment contract’s conflict-of-interest requirements, the former executive director of the Housing Authority of the City of Beeville, TX, executed housing assistance payment contracts on behalf of the Authority with her brother and sister. The former executive director did not fully disclose the conflicts-of-interest and had not sought a waiver from HUD’s Office of Public and Indian Housing unt
August 21, 2018
The City of Dallas, TX, HOME Investment Partnerships Program Was Not Always Administered in Accordance With Requirements
We audited the City of Dallas’ HOME Investment Partnerships program, specifically, its reconstruction program. A City auditor’s report, multiple news articles, and U.S.
May 08, 2018
The Fort Bend County Community Development Department, Richmond, TX, Did Not Always Comply With Office of Community Planning and Development Program Requirements
We audited the Fort Bend County Community Development Department based on our risk analysis and as part of our annual audit plan to review Office of Community Planning and Development (CPD) funds. The audit objective was to determine whether the Department (1) properly carried out its activities as shown in its submission to the U.S.
September 14, 2017
The Harris County Community Services Department Needs to Improve Procurement and Subrecipient Oversight in Its CDBG Program Activities
We audited the Harris County Community Services Department’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program based on our risk analysis and as part of our annual audit plan to review community planning and development funds. The audit objective was to determine whether the Department properly administered and adequately documented its CDBG program activities in accordance with U.S.
September 27, 2016
Final Civil Action: The City of Malakoff Housing Authority’s Prior Executive Director Improperly Hired and Contracted With Family Members
We reviewed the Malakoff Housing Authority, Malakoff, TX. The review was part of a joint initiative between the HUD Office of Inspector General’s Office of Audit and Office of Investigation.
September 13, 2016
The State of Maryland Could Not Show That Replacement Homes Complied With the Green Building Standard
We audited the State of Maryland’s Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery-funded Housing Recovery program. We conducted the audit because the program was the largest funded program in the State’s first action plan. Our objectives were to determine whether the State (1) assisted eligible applicants, (2) avoided duplicating assistance, (3) incurred eligible expenses that were properly supported, (4) procured services and
September 25, 2015
The Department of Housing and Community Development, Montpelier, VT, Did Not Always Operate Its Disaster Recovery Programs Effectively and Efficiently
We audited the State of Vermont, Department of Housing and Community Development’s disaster recovery programs. We initiated this audit because of the significant funding awarded and the Boston Office of Community Planning and Development’s concerns about the State’s capacity to administer this funding. Our audit objective was to determine whether the State administered its disaster recovery programs effectively and efficiently in a
September 29, 2014
The City of Baltimore, MD, Did Not Administer Its Homelessness Prevention andRapid Re-Housing Program Grant According to Recovery Act Requirements
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.
November 08, 2012