Develop and implement a fraud analytics strategy using available data, including but not limited to data and information collected during the grantee risk assessment and monitoring processes, to begin conducting data analyses to identify potential fraud risks for further review.
2022-FO-0801 | October 12, 2021
Fraud Risk Inventory for the CDBG and ESG CARES Act Funds
Community Planning and Development
- Status2022-FO-0801-001-FOpenClosed
2021-FW-1001 | June 02, 2021
Harris County Community Services Department, Houston, TX, Was Inefficient and Ineffective in Operating Its Hurricane Harvey Program
Community Planning and Development
- Status2021-FW-1001-001-COpenClosed
We recommend that the Director of the Office of Block Grant Assistance require the Texas GLO to provide evidence of subrecipient monitoring of Harris County’s capacity to manage its Hurricane Harvey grant funds to address duplicative, inefficient, and cost-prohibitive processes or positions. The evidence should include any corrective actions that have been imposed and Harris County’s response.
- Status2021-FW-1001-001-DOpenClosed
We recommend that the Director of the Office of Block Grant Assistance require the Texas GLO to ensure that Harris County obtains adequate training for its program staff and that the staff continuously demonstrates their understanding of and competence to operate Harris County’s programs within applicable requirements. This would include ensuring that Harris County takes appropriate steps to remedy situations where staff are not operating the program within applicable requirements.
- Status2021-FW-1001-001-EOpenClosed
We recommend that the Director of the Office of Block Grant Assistance require the Texas GLO to review Harris County’s Housing Reimbursement Program policies, including assistance prioritization, to ensure compliance with the Texas GLO’s action plan and amendments. This would include the Texas GLO analyzing the County’s project pipeline to determine whether changes are warranted to ensure that those most in need are prioritized to receive limited Federal assistance. The Texas GLO should provide HUD with an analysis of the County’s project pipeline within 90 days of its review to share the results and demonstrate compliance with its action plan.
2021-LA-1002 | January 05, 2021
Neighborhood Housing Services of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, CA, Did Not Always Follow Program Requirements in Administering Its NSP2
Community Planning and Development
- Status2021-LA-1002-001-COpenClosed$658,261Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Provide documentation to support that $658,261 in loan proceeds was used for an eligible NSP2 activity or property or repay the program from non-Federal funds.
- Status2021-LA-1002-001-DOpenClosed$500,000Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Provide documentation to support that $500,000 in NSP funds transferred to the revolving loan fund was used for an eligible NSP2 activity or property or repay the program from non-Federal funds.
- Status2021-LA-1002-001-GOpenClosed
Amend the NSP2 action plan to include its revolving loan fund.
- Status2021-LA-1002-001-HOpenClosed
Adjust program income calculation methodology to ensure it is in accordance with HUD requirements.
- Status2021-LA-1002-001-IOpenClosed
Submit overdue NSP2 quarterly reports to DRGR and update prior reports that did not accurately report program income activity.
- Status2021-LA-1002-002-AOpenClosed$1,388,545Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Provide adequate documentation to support its administrative and project delivery cost expenditures or repay the program $1,388,545 from non-Federal funds.
- Status2021-LA-1002-002-EOpenClosed
Obtain training to ensure that it understands NSP2 regulations and requirements related to payroll allocation for its administrative and project delivery costs and program income calculation methodology to ensure it properly computes the amount it is allowed to charge for administrative costs.
- Status2021-LA-1002-003-AOpenClosed$856,692Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Support the reasonableness of the South Gate contract or repay NSP2 $856,692 from non-Federal funds.
2021-LA-1001 | October 27, 2020
The City of Compton, Compton, CA, Did Not Always Administer Neighborhood Stabilization Program Funds in Compliance With Procedures and Regulations
Community Planning and Development
- Status2021-LA-1001-002-AOpenClosed$270,656Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Provide the required documents to support $161,131 in NSP1 and $109,525 in NSP3 funds for expenses for acquisition, rehabilitation, and administration. If the City cannot provide the required documents, it should repay the U.S. Treasury from non-Federal funds.
2019-AT-1005 | August 09, 2019
The Municipality of Yauco, PR, Did Not Always Administer Its CDBG Program in Accordance With HUD Requirements
Community Planning and Development
- Status2019-AT-1005-001-BOpenClosed$1,257,555Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Ensure that $1,045,085 in CDBG funds drawn from HUD between July 1, 2015, and October 31, 2018, can be traced to a level, which ensures that such funds have not been used in violation of the restrictions and prohibitions of applicable statutes, or reimburse the CDBG program from non-Federal funds. Footnote 2: Total drawdowns of more than $1.5 million were adjusted to consider $106 questioned in recommendation 1D and $469,974 in recommendation 2A.
2019-AT-1004 | June 14, 2019
The North Carolina Department of Commerce Did Not Administer Its Neighborhood Stabilization Program Grants as Required by HUD
Community Planning and Development
- Status2019-AT-1004-001-AOpenClosed$417,113Funds Put to Better Use
Recommendations that funds be put to better use estimate funds that could be used more efficiently. For example, recommendations that funds be put to better use could result in reductions in spending, deobligation of funds, or avoidance of unnecessary spending.
Put $417,113 in unspent NSP1 funds associated with three activities to better use by reprogramming the funds to other subrecipients using an appropriate method or return the funds to HUD.
- Status2019-AT-1004-001-BOpenClosed$1,300,000Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Support or reimburse its NSP1 grant $1,300,000 from non-Federal funds for the unsupported reallocation of grant funds.
- Status2019-AT-1004-001-DOpenClosed$1,186,105Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Support or reimburse the appropriate NSP grant $1,186,105 from non-Federal funds for the unsupported subrecipient and administrative expenditures.
- Status2019-AT-1004-001-FOpenClosed
Update the NSP program income information in HUD’s grant tracking system and quarterly performance reports and reconcile with the Department’s records.
- Status2019-AT-1004-001-GOpenClosed
Establish and implement written procedures and provide adequate training to staff associated with administering the NSP grant to help ensure accurate reporting of program income.
2019-NY-1002 | May 29, 2019
The State of New York Did Not Ensure That Appraised Values Used by Its Program Were Supported and Appraisal Costs and Services Complied With Requirements
Community Planning and Development
- Status2019-NY-1002-001-AOpenClosed$5,920,097Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
We recommend that HUD’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Grant Programs require the State to provide documentation to support the appraised fair market values of the 14 properties sampled to ensure that $5,920,097 in settlement costs was supported. This recommendation includes but is not limited to providing support to show that appraisals contained accurate and verified information for the subject and comparable properties, time adjustments were supported, and other adjustments were supported. If support cannot be provided, the State should reimburse the unsupported costs from non-Federal funds.