U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government Here’s how you know

The .gov means it’s official.

Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure.

The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

The City of Long Beach, CA, Did Not Fully Comply With Federal Regulations When Administering Its NSP2 Grant

We conducted an audit of the City of Long Beach because it was awarded more than $22.2 million in Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Neighborhood Stabilization Program 2 (NSP2) funds on February 11, 2010 as the lead agency in a consortium with Habitat for Humanity of Greater Los Angeles (Habitat), making it one of the largest NSP2 fund recipients in the Los Angeles area. Our objective was to determine whether the City of Long Beach administered its NSP2 grant in accordance with Federal regulations.

The City of St. Louis, MO, Did Not Effectively Manage Its Recovery Act Funding

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD), Office of Inspector General reviewed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG-R) Program of the City of St. Louis, MO. Our audit objectives were to determine whether the City complied with applicable Recovery Act requirements for CDBG-R funds and properly reported its Recovery Act activities. We found that the City did not comply with applicable Recovery Act requirements for CDBG-R funds and did not properly report its Recovery Act activities.

State of Louisiana Department of Children and Family Services, Recovery Act Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program

Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program. Our objectives were to determine whether the State ensured that (1) Recovery Act disbursements to local governments were eligible and supported and (2) Program participants were eligible to receive assistance in accordance with Program requirements. The State generally ensured that its Recovery Act disbursements to local governments were eligible. However, some of the disbursements were not adequately supported.

Little Haiti in Miami, FL, Did Not Fully Comply With Federal Rules When Administering NSP2

We audited Little Haiti Housing Association as a result of a complaint received regarding its administration of the multifamily activity funded under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program 2 (NSP2). Our objective was to determine whether Little Haiti used NSP2 funds in compliance with Federal regulations.

The Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs, Austin, TX, Did Not Always Comply with Neighborhood Stabilization Program Requirements

We audited the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP1) administered by the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs. We selected the Department based upon the large amount of NSP1 funding that it received, more than $101 million. Our objective was to determine whether the Department complied with NSP1 requirements for obligations, expenditures, program income, monitoring, and reporting. The Department improperly obligated $42,182.

The City of Elizabeth, NJ, Did Not Always Administer Its Community

We audited the City of Elizabeth, NJ’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program in support of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) goal to contribute to improving HUD’s execution of and accountability for its fiscal responsibilities. We selected the City after completing a risk analysis of CDBG grantees administered by the HUD Newark, NJ, field office.

The City of Newark, NJ, Generally Obligated and Expended NSP1 Funds in Accordance With Regulations, but Had Weaknesses in Administrative Controls

We audited the City of Newark, NJ’s administration of its Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP1), funded under Title III of Division B of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, in support of the Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) goal to improve the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) execution of and accountability for its fiscal responsibilities.

The City of San Antonio, TX, Did Not Administer Its Neighborhood Stabilization Program Grant in Accordance With Requirements

In accordance with our goal to review Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 grantees and because of weaknesses identified by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) initiated a review of the City of San Antonio’s activities funded by its Neighborhood Stabilization Program 1 grant. The objective was to determine whether the City administered its grant in accordance with program requirements.

The City of Phoenix, AZ, Did Not Always Comply With Program Requirements When Administering Its NSP1 and NSP2 Grants

We completed a review of the City of Phoenix’s (City) Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) grants NSP1 and NSP2. We performed the review because it supports the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General’s strategic plan to contribute to the oversight objectives of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and the City received a $60 million grant as one of 56 NSP2 grantees. Our objective was to determine whether the City administered its NSP2 grant in accordance with HUD requirements.

The Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs, Montgomery, AL, Did Not Follow Its Neighborhood Stabilization Program Requirements

HUD OIG performed an audit of the State of Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs, Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP1) in Montgomery, AL, to assess issues raised in a hotline complaint. The complaint alleged that the State of Alabama misused its NSP1 funds by not following the regulations and statutes governing the NSP1 program to ensure that it used program funds for eligible and supported purposes. The State was awarded a $37 million grant authorized under the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008.