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 County of San Bernardino, CA, Had Questionable Capacity to Administer Neighborhood Stabilization Program Funds

We completed a capacity review of the County of San Bernardino’s (County) Neighborhood Stabilization Program (Program). We performed the audit because Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 reviews are part of the Office of the Inspector General’s annual audit plan and the Program was identified as high risk. In addition, the County was awarded significant Program funds of $22.7 million. Our objective was to determine whether the County had sufficient capacity and the necessary controls to manage and administer the Program.

City of Fresno Generally Had Sufficient Capacity and the Necessary Controls to Manage and Administer Its Neighborhood Stabilization Program

We completed a capacity review of the City of Fresno’s (City) Neighborhood Stabilization Program (Program). We performed the audit because Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 reviews are part of the Office of the Inspector General’s annual audit plan and the program was identified as high risk. In addition, the City was awarded a $10.9 grant. Our objective was to determine whether the City had sufficient capacity and the necessary controls to manage and administer the Program.

Although the County of Riverside Had Sufficient Overall Capacity, It Lacked Necessary Controls To Administer its Neighborhood Stabilization Program

We completed a capacity review of the County of Riverside’s (County) Neighborhood Stabilization Program (Program). We performed the audit because Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 reviews are part of the Office of the Inspector General’s annual audit plan and the program was identified as high risk. In addition, the County was awarded significant Program funds of $48.6 million. Our objective was to determine whether the County had sufficient capacity and the necessary controls to manage and administer the Program.

City of Los Angeles' Community Development Department, Los Angeles, California, Projects Dd Not Comply with Community Development Block Grant Program Requirements

We audited the City of Los Angeles’ Community Development Department (City) as a result of problems noted during a prior audit involving activities administered by the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles (subrecipient). Our objective was to determine whether Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds were administered in accordance with HUD’s requirements for the CDBG program as they relate to a specific subrecipient.

Arizona Department of Housing's Administration of its Recovery Act Grant Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program

We audited the Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program at the State of Arizona Housing Department (Department) because it was the largest single Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program grant awarded within Arizona under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). Our objective was to determine whether the Department administered the grant in compliance with Recovery Act and other applicable regulations.

The State of Arkansas Has the Capacity to Manage Recovery Act Funding

The State of Arkansas (State) is scheduled to receive more than $15.67 million under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). As part of our organization’s commitment to ensure the proper use of Recovery Act funds, we reviewed the State’s controls and operations. Specifically, our objective was to determine whether the State has the capacity to account for Recovery Act funding and the controls to ensure that its recipients expend those funds for eligible program activities.

HUD Evaluated and Selected Applications for the Recovery Act’s Neighborhood Stabilization Program 2 in Accordance With Applicable Requirements

We evaluated the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) award process for the Neighborhood Stabilization Program 2 (NSP2). We initiated the review as part of the activities in our fiscal year 2010 annual audit plan. Our primary objective was to determine whether HUD’s methodology and controls for the evaluation and selection of applications for the $1.93 billion in NSP2 funds were in accordance with applicable requirements. We added a second objective to determine whether HUD included special conditions in the grant agreements of high-risk grantees.

The Office of Block Grant Assistance Lacked Adequate Controls Over the Inclusion of Special Conditions in Neighborhood Stabilization Program Grant Agreements

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Office of Inspector General audited HUD’s Office of Block Grant Assistance’s (Office) controls over special conditions in Neighborhood Stabilization Program grant agreements under Title III of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (Act) as amended. The audit was part of the activities in our fiscal year 2010 annual audit plan.

The Office of Affordable Housing Programs' Oversight of Resale and Recapture Provisions for HOME Investment Partnerships Program-Assisted Homeownership Projects Was Inadequate

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Office of Inspector General audited HUD’s Office of Affordable Housing Programs’ (Office) oversight of resale and recapture provisions for HOME Investment Partnerships Program (Program)-assisted homeownership projects (project). The audit was part of the activities in our fiscal year 2009 annual audit plan to contribute to improving HUD’s execution of and accountability for its fiscal responsibilities and our strategic plan to help HUD resolve its major management challenges.

HUD's Office of Community Planning and Development Had Established and Implemented an Appropriate Risk Assessment Process

We reviewed the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Office of Community Planning and Development’s (CPD) risk assessment process. We initiated the review as part of the activities in our fiscal year 2010 annual audit plan.