We audited Mountain CAP of WV, Inc.’s administration of its Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program funds. We selected Mountain CAP for audit because of a complaint alleging that controls over its disbursements were weak. Our audit objective was to determine whether Mountain CAP maintained proper financial management of and accountability for its program to ensure that it used the funds according to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and applicable HUD requirements.

We audited the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency (Agency) because it received $95.1 million in Tax Credit Assistance Program (Program) funds under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). The Agency received the largest amount of Program funds awarded in Region III. Our objective was to determine whether the Agency administered its Program in accordance with Recovery Act and applicable U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requirements.

We audited the City of Scranton, PA’s (City) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. We selected the City for audit because of the size of its program, its high U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) risk analysis score, and a citizen’s complaint alleging misuse of HUD funds.

We audited the City of Syracuse, NY, pertaining to its Economic Development Initiative (EDI)-Special Project grants. The audit objective was to determine whether City officials were administering EDI Special Project grants effectively, efficiently, and economically in accordance with applicable rules and regulations. Specifically, we wanted to determine whether City officials expended EDI funds for eligible activities that were fully supported and achieved the grant objective.

The U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Office of Inspector General audited HUD's administration of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) set-aside for colonias (colonia set-aside). We performed the review because of concerns that surfaced during an audit survey of the state of Texas's colonia set-aside funds. That review showed that HUD had not issued regulations or handbooks that required compliance with Section 916 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act of 1990 (Act).

As part of the Office of Inspector General (OIG) annual goals for internal audits, we reviewed U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) policies prohibiting the use of funds from the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program to supplant general government funds.

We audited the Municipality of Carolina's (Municipality) Community Development Block Grant (Block Grant) program. We selected the Municipality for review as part of our strategic plan. The objective of the audit was to determine whether the Municipality complied with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations, procedures, and instructions related to the administration of the Block Grant program. The Municipality generally complied with requirements of the Block Grant program.

We audited the City of Tulsa's (City) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program due to a departmental request. Our initial objective was to determine whether the City expended CDBG funds in accordance with U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) rules and regulations.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Office of Inspector General audited the City of Dayton's (City) Community Development Block Grant program (program). The audit was part of the activities in our fiscal year 2008 annual audit plan. We selected the City based upon our increased emphasis on HUD's Office of Community Planning and Development's programs and a citizen's complaint.

We completed an audit of the City of Newburgh, New York's (City) administration of its Section 108 Loan Guarantee program. The objectives of our audit were to determine whether the City ensured that (1) Section 108 loans and related activities were administered in compliance with CDBG program objectives and (2) subsequent CDBG funds used for Section 108 loan repayments were necessary, reasonable, and in accordance with all applicable contracts, agreements, and federal regulations.