Determine whether the $714,512 paid for 233 signing bonuses under the ESG CARES Act program were reasonable under the program participant’s particular circumstances, and not more than necessary to house the program participants or repay HUD from non-Federal funds.

Develop and implement written policies and procedures that include internal controls for the ESG program to ensure that it, and its subrecipients, prorate the rent amount for the first month for tenant-based rental assistance. Since the City did not prorate rent, there was an estimated overpayment to landlords of $248,572 that could have been put to better use.

Repay HUD from non-Federal funds $51,235 in overpaid rent to landlords because the first month of rent was not prorated.

Develop and implement written policies and procedures that include internal controls to prevent any duplication of benefits for the ESG program participants with other programs, specifically for rapid rehousing and homeless prevention.

Review the rental assistance payments made for the ESG CARES Act program to identify other possible duplication of benefits with other rental assistance programs that the City operates. The $10,100 in duplication of benefits identified during the audit could have been put to better use.

Develop and implement written policies to ensure that any changes to the expenditure and draw deadlines for the ESG program are provided in a formal document, such as a CPD notice. In this case, implementing these controls would provide clear guidelines to the grantee and help prevent the disbursement of $1,933,693 that was drawn after the draw deadline.

Issue clarifying guidance to ensure that ESG grantees that operate tenant-based rental assistance programs, prorate the rent amount for the first month based on the lease agreement start date.

Issue guidance requiring ESG grantees develop and implement internal controls to prevent any duplication of benefits with other Federal rental assistance programs for the ESG program participants, specifically for rapid rehousing and homeless prevention.

Leverage HUD OIG’s fraud risk inventory and continue using the Office of the Chief Risk Officer’s risk catalog to enhance CPD’s fraud risk management process.

Include grantees in the fraud risk identification process and communicate the risks and schemes identified for the disaster recovery program to relevant stakeholders, including, but not limited to, all HUD staff in the CPD Office of  Disaster Recovery, grantees and sub-recipients.

Use CPD’s fraud risk inventory to identify data needs, potential system enhancements, and implement data analysis techniques to improve CPD’s ability to monitor and respond to fraud risks in the Disaster Recovery program.

Evaluate and enhance its fraud risk management activities by incorporating fraud risk management practices that are in alignment with the best practices identified in GAO’s A Framework for Managing Fraud Risks in Federal Programs and Chief Financial Officers Council’s Antifraud Playbook.

Obtain training or technical assistance on the implementation of fraud risk management practices consistent with the Internal Control Integrated Framework, issued by COSO.

Systematically evaluate whether control deficiencies identified by the AIR program have affected the accuracy or completeness of HUD’s financial statements. This assessment should include: 
a) Review relevant financial statement line items, disclosure, and account balances for misstatements attributable to ineffective controls;
b) Document the evaluation results, including the rationale for conclusions regarding the presence or absence of misstatements;
c) Make correcting entries to September 30, 2025 balances, as appropriate;
d) Retain supporting analysis for both internal and external review; and
e) Leverage test of balances results to inform remediation efforts.

Work with program offices through remediation activities to determine the underlying causes of the control deficiencies identified by the AIR program.
 

Based on the causes identified, coordinate with the program offices through remediation activities to develop corrective action plans with defined milestones, responsible parties, and timelines. Progress should be tracked, documented, and periodically reported to senior management.
 

Require targeted, role-specific training for program office staff and managers in areas where deficiencies were identified, including approvals, segregation of duties, recordkeeping, and delegated authority. This training should reinforce the importance of compliance with internal control requirements and include HUD escalation and enforcement mechanisms.

Assess and address barriers to timely and adequate responses from program offices during AIR program internal control testing. This assessment should:
a) Identify recurring causes for delayed or incomplete responses from program offices and implement escalation protocols or incentives to ensure timely fulfillment of AIR program requests;
b) Identify and implement efficiencies in the testing process to optimize the time program offices spend on the AIR program, such as streamlining communication, clarifying expectations, finding alternatives to time consuming tasks, and optimizing scheduling;
c) Provide additional guidance, training, or resources to program offices as needed to improve the quality and timeliness of submissions; and
d) Monitor response rates and timeliness, reporting persistent issues to senior leadership for corrective action.

Re-examine and enhance HUD’s process for evaluating the potential financial impact of control deficiencies identified by the AIR program or other sources to ensure that:
a) Assessments of financial impact are initiated promptly upon identification of control deficiencies;
b) The evaluation process is structured to deliver clear, actionable conclusions in sufficient time to inform any necessary adjustments to financial statements prior to the financial report date; and
c) Documentation of the assessment process and results is maintained to support audit requirements and management’s assertions.
 

Coordinate with the Principal Deputy Assistance Secretary for each Program Office to:
a) Define governance protocols to include reassessing HUD’s escalation protocols and enforcement mechanisms for repeated or willful noncompliance with documented controls, such as additional oversight, retraining, or disciplinary action as appropriate. Based on the assessment, update those protocols and mechanisms, as warranted.
b) Establish and resource a HUD-wide centralized digital repository for artifacts and key supporting documentation to provide consistent documentation retention and accessibility. Based on this initiative, define governance protocols for repository use, including security, version control, timely review/update requirements, and periodic audits to validate compliance.