The City of Richmond, CA, Did Not Adequately Support Its Use of HUD-Funded Expenses for Its Filbert Phase 1 and Filbert Phase 2 Activities
We reviewed the City of Richmond’s Filbert Phase 1 and Filbert Phase 2 activities in response to the U.S.
September 30, 2015
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
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
HUD Region 1 Community Planning and Development Offices' Monitoring of Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program Grants Funded Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Was Appropriately Targeted to Higher Risk Grantees
We reviewed the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Office of Community Planning and Development’s (CPD) risk assessment process. We initiated the review as part of the activities in our fiscal year 2010 annual audit plan.
April 16, 2010
The City of East Cleveland, OH, Had Sufficient Capacity To Effectively and Efficiently Administer Its Recovery Act Block Grant Program
In accordance with our goal to review funds provided under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Office of Inspector General conducted a capacity review of the City of East Cleveland’s (City) operations.
January 11, 2010
The City of Brockton, Massachusetts, Recipient, Building a Better Brockton, Inc., Lacked Sufficient Capacity to Effectively Administer Its Neighborhood Stabilization Program
We conducted a capacity review of the operations of the City of Brockton’s (City) grantee, Building a Better Brockton, Inc. (recipient), which has responsibility for administering the City’s NSP.
September 28, 2009