Tuscan Homes I and II in Hartford, CT, Was Not Always Managed in Accordance With Its Regulatory Agreement and HUD Requirements
We audited Tuscan Homes I and II, a multifamily project located in Hartford, CT, because our risk assessment ranked the project as the highest risk multifamily project in New England. Our audit objective was to determine whether the owner managed the project in accordance with its regulatory agreement and U.S.
September 09, 2019
The Management Agent for Lake View Towers Apartments, Chicago, IL, Did Not Always Comply With HUD’s Section 8 HAP Program Requirements
We audited the Lake View Towers Apartments’ Section 8 housing assistance payments program based on our analysis of risk factors related to multifamily projects in Region 5’s jurisdiction and the activities included in our fiscal year 2019 annual audit plan. Our audit objective was to determine whether the management agent administered the project’s program in accordance with the owner’s contract with the U.S.
September 03, 2019
The State of Connecticut Did Not Ensure That Its Grantees Properly Administered Their Housing Rehabilitation Programs
We audited the State of Connecticut’s Small Cities Community Development Block Grant program based on an Office of Inspector General risk assessment, which ranked the State as the highest risk grantee in Connecticut. Our audit objective was to determine whether the State ensured that its grantees properly administered their housing rehabilitation programs. We also assessed various complaints made against the program to determine wh
September 19, 2018
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
The City of Birmingham, AL, Did Not Ensure That Adequate Policies and Procedures Were Implemented for Its Internal Audits and Procurement Process
We audited the City of Birmingham, AL’s Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) grant. We selected the City for review based on concerns by the U.S.
July 21, 2017
Clark County, NV, Did Not Always Use Community Development Block Grant Funds in Accordance With HUD Requirements
We audited Clark County, NV’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. We selected Clark County for review due to its large grant size and the U.S.
April 13, 2017
The City of Tuscaloosa, AL, Administered Its Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Funds in Accordance With HUD Requirements
We audited the City of Tuscaloosa, Alabama’s Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) grant. We selected the City for review because it was allocated more than $43 million in funding to recover from the tornadoes of April 2011. Our audit objective was to determine whether the City of Tuscaloosa (1) ensured that only eligible projects were selected into the program, (2) ensured that funds were expended only for
January 17, 2017
The State of Connecticut Did Not Always Comply With Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Assistance Requirements
We audited the Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) assistance grant provided to the State of Connecticut by the U.S.
October 12, 2016
The State of Connecticut Did Not Always Administer Its Neighborhood Stabilization Program in Compliance With HUD Regulations
We audited the State of Connecticut’s Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) based on the amount of NSP1 funding received. The State received more than $25 million in NSP1 funds in program year 2009, making it the second highest funded State in New England, and had not recently been audited by the Office of Inspector General. Our overall audit objective was to determine whether State officials administered the State’s NSP in acco
June 28, 2016