The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General, audited Adams County, Colorado’s Community Development Block Grant (Block Grant) program to determine whether Adams County’s Community and Economic Opportunity Department (Department) had adequate controls over the administration of its Block Grant funds. The Department did not have adequate controls over its Block Grant funds.

The U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Inspector General audited the City of Thornton (City) to determine whether it used its Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for projects that met a national objective. The City did not maintain sufficient records demonstrating that each CDBG activity met a national objective. Of the 10 CDBG projects reviewed, the City sufficiently documented that five of the projects met a national objective.

The City of Aurora, Colorado will receive more than $1.6 million in Recovery Act funding to carry out its Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program and perform additional activities under its Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. HUD's Office of Inspector General (OIG) evaluated the City's capacity to administer its Recovery Act funds. The OIG did not find evidence to indicate that the City lacked the capacity to adequately administer its Recovery Act funding.

Adams County, Colorado will receive more than $1.3 million in Recovery Act funding to carry out its Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program and to provide additional funding to its Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. HUD's Office of Inspector General (OIG) evaluated the County's capacity to administer its Recovery Act funds. The OIG found weaknesses that could significantly affect the County’s capacity to administer these funds and recommended that HUD require corrective action on the deficiencies.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of the Inspector General, audited the Washington State Department of Commerce (State). Our audit objective was to determine whether the State disbursed Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program (HPRP) grant in accordance with American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 requirements. The State paid for HPRP services for ineligible participants and participants whose eligibility was not supported. In addition, the State made a duplicate payment to one of its subgrantees for HPRP.

In accordance with our goal to review and ensure the proper administration of Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) funds provided under the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA) and/or the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), we conducted a capacity review of the operations of the State of Vermont’s (State) Agency of Commerce and Community Development (Agency), which has responsibility for administering the State’s NSP.

As part of our organization’s commitment to ensure the proper use of recovery funding, we performed a review of the City of Grand Prairie’s (City) operations to evaluate its capacity to administer the $3.2 million received under the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). Specifically, our objective was to review and assess the City’s capacity and risks in the following areas: basic internal controls, financial operations, and procurement.

As part of the Office of the Inspector General’s (OIG) directive to determine whether safeguards exist to ensure that American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) funds are used for their intended purposes, we conducted a capacity review of the City San Antonio, TX (City) operations. Our objective was to determine whether the City had the capacity to account for Recovery Act funds and the controls to ensure that it expends those funds only for eligible program activities. The U.S.

We audited the City of Altoona, Pennsylvania’s (City), Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program based on a citizen complaint. Our audit objective was to determine if the City properly paid a subrecipient for eligible CDBG activities. We found that the City paid a subrecipient $914,335 for CDBG activities that it could not demonstrate were eligible. The City could not demonstrate that it paid a subreicipient for eligible activities that met a national objective under its Blighted Property Maintenance Program.

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.