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,
Louisville Metro, Louisville, KY, Did Not Always Administer the TBRA Activity in Its HOME and CoC Programs in Accordance With Program Requirements
We audited the Louisville-Jefferson County Metropolitan Government’s tenant-based rental assistance (TBRA) activity in its HOME Investment Partnerships and Continuum of Care (CoC) programs, based on a hotline complaint alleging inappropriate administration of TBRA. In addition, we selected Louisville Metro for review in accordance with the Office of Inspector General’s annual audit plan. Our audit objective was to
March 18, 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
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 Commonwealth of Kentucky Generally Administered Its Neighborhood Stabilization Program in Accordance With HUD Requirements
We audited the Commonwealth of Kentucky’s (Commonwealth) administration of the U.S.
December 20, 2017
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
Louisville Metro, Louisville, KY, Did Not Always Administer Its HOPWA Program in Accordance With HUD’s and Its Own Requirements
We audited the Louisville-Jefferson County Metropolitan Government’s Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA) program. We selected Louisville Metro for review based on a management referral from the U.S.
July 21, 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 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
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