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.

Bergen County, NJ, Generally Administered Its Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program in Accordance With HUD Regulations

We audited Bergen County, NJ’s administration of its Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program (HPRP) in support of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) goal to review the expenditure of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds and contribute to improving HUD’s execution and accoutability of fiscal responsibilites.

Mecklenburg County, NC, Mismanaged Its Shelter Plus Care Program

At the request of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Greensboro, NC, Director of Community Planning and Development, we reviewed Mecklenburg County’s (County) administration of its Shelter Plus Care program (program). Our objectives were to determine whether the County paid for only eligible program administrative expenses; housed its participants in decent, safe, and sanitary units; and properly documented its program participant files. The County mismanaged its program.

The State of Montana Generally Used Its CDBG-R Funds in Compliance With Requirements but Improperly Negotiated and Serviced Loans

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General, reviewed the State of Montana’s Community Development Block Grant-Recovery (CDBG-R) program, based on HUD’s concern with the State directly loaning CDBG-R funds to entities and because of our focus on the administration of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds. The objective of our review was to determine whether the State used its CDBG-R funds in accordance with the Recovery Act rules and regulations.

The Missouri Housing Development Commission Did Not Always Disburse Its Tax Credit Assistance Program Funds in Accordance With Recovery Act Requirements

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Office of Inspector General audited the Missouri Housing Development Commission’s (Commission) Recovery Act funded Tax Credit Assistance Program (TCAP). Our audit objective was to determine whether the Commission expended Recovery Act grant funds in accordance with Recovery Act requirements and applicable U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) rules. We concluded that the Commission did not always disburse TCAP funds in accordance with Recovery Act requirements and applicable HUD rules.

The State of Michigan Lacked Adequate Controls Over Its Neighborhood Stabilization Program Regarding Awards, Obligations, Subgrantees' Administrative Expenses and Procurement, and Reporting Accomplishments

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Office of Inspector General audited the State of Michigan’s (State) Neighborhood Stabilization Program (Program) administered by the Michigan State Housing Development Authority (Authority). The audit was part of the activities in our fiscal year 2010 annual audit plan. We selected the State based upon our designation of the Program as high risk and a citizen’s complaint to our office.

Healthy Neighborhoods, Inc., Baltimore, MD, Generally Ensured That Its Consortium Members Met Recovery Act Requirements

We audited Healthy Neighborhoods, Inc.’s Neighborhood Stabilization Program 2 based on a complaint received by our office and as part of our annual audit plan to review activities funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The grantee received $26 million in Program funds under the Recovery Act. Our objective was to determine whether the grantee ensured that its consortium members properly awarded Program contracts and resold homes according to the requirements of the Recovery Act and applicable HUD regulations.

City of Brockton, MA, Did Not Implement an Adequate Cost Allocation Plan for Administrative Expenses and Paid Unreasonable Costs for Its Fiscal Year 2010 Community Development Block Grant Audit

We reviewed the administration expenses charged to the City of Brockton’s Community Development Block Grant in response to a complaint alleging that the City was charging the Community Development Block Grant program for City expenses. The objectives of our review were to determine whether the City (1) properly accounted for and reported its planning and administrative expenses for its Community Development Block Grant and (2) prepared accurate consolidated annual performance and evaluation reports that were adequately supported by operational results.

The Community Builders Expected To Expend Funding Within the Deadline and Meet Its Goals for the Neighborhood Stabilization Program 2

We reviewed The Community Builders, a nonprofit development and asset management firm that received a $78.6 million grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Congress established the Neighborhood Stabilization Program 2 to grant funds to States, local governments, nonprofits, and a consortium of nonprofit entities for the purpose of stabilizing communities that have suffered from property foreclosures and abandonment.

The New Orleans Redevelopment Authority, LA, Had Not Administered Its Recovery Act Neighborhood Stabilization Program 2 in Accordance With Federal Regulations

We audited the New Orleans Redevelopment Authority (Authority), a $29.7 million U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Neighborhood Stabilization Program 2 (NSP 2) grantee. We initiated the audit as part of the HUD Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) annual audit plan to review programs funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act).

Louisville-Jefferson County Metropolitan Government Generally Complied With Recovery Act Requirements for Its Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing and Community Development Block Grant-Recovery Programs

We reviewed the Louisville-Jefferson County Metropolitan Government’s administration of its Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program (HPRP) and Community Development Block Grant-Recovery (CDBG-R) program. We selected Louisville Metro for review because it received the largest grants in Kentucky with the exception of the State of Kentucky, and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) had not conducted monitoring of either grant.