We audited the City of Las Vegas Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program (HPRP) established by the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). Our review of the City of Las Vegas (City) was in response to the Recovery Act, which mandates that OIG take the responsibility to oversee and audit programs and activities funded by the Recovery Act. The City received a grant of $2.1 million. Our objective was to determine whether the City administered and expended its grant in accordance with program requirements.

We audited Camden County, NJ's administration of its Community Development Block Grant funds that it received under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. We selected the County for an audit because we received two complaints alleging that the County misused Recovery Act funds and because of our mandate to audit Recovery Act activities. Our audit objective was to determine whether the County obligated, expended, and reported its Block Grant funds provided under the Recovery Act according to the Recovery Act and applicable HUD requirements.

We audited Essex County, NJ’s 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 accountability of fiscal responsibilities.

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.

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 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 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 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.

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.

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.