Massachusetts Audit Reports

Information by State  Print version

Issue Date: September 28, 2009
Audit Memorandum No: 2009-BO-1803
File Size: 282.49KB

Title: The City of Brockton, Massachusetts, Recipient, Building a Better Brockton, Inc., Lacked Sufficient Capacity to Effectively Administer Its Neighborhood Stabilization Program

We conducted a capacity review of the operations of the City of Brockton's (City) grantee, Building a Better Brockton, Inc. (recipient), which has responsibility for administering the City's NSP. Our objective was to determine whether the City and/or its recipient had the capacity to effectively and efficiently administer its NSP under the provisions of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA) and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act).

Our review determined that the recipient did not have the capacity to effectively and efficiently administer its NSP. Specifically, the recipient lacked adequate internal controls over the areas of financial reporting and procurement and adequate staffing to administer the program effectively. In addition, we found potential conflict-of-interest issues among the recipient, its board members, and several of the subrecipients that would receive NSP funding. We are concerned about the recipient's ability to administer potential NSP-2 funding until such time as it can satisfactorily address and demonstrate adequate controls over the areas of financial reporting, procurement, and staffing and the conflicts of interest.

Issue Date: September 23, 2009
Audit Memorandum No: 2009-BO-1802
File Size: 101.06KB

Title: The City of Boston ’s Department of Neighborhood Development, Boston, Massachusetts, Can Develop the Capacity to Administer Its Housing and Economic Recovery Act and American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Programs

We performed an audit of the City of Boston's (City) Department of Neighborhood Development (Department). We selected the City based upon the results of our previous audit of the City's HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) and the significance of the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) funds awarded. Our objective was to determine whether the City had the capacity to effectively and efficiently administer its NSP under the provisions of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA) and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act).

The Department should be able to meet federal requirements for administering the NSP funds under HERA and the Recovery Act. Specifically, the Department can develop sufficient capacity to administer its NSP and ensure that NSP funds are properly administered. However, the Department must revise its cost allocation procedures for allocating costs to federal programs and ensure that it follows proper, fair, and equitable procurement practices as identified in our audit report (2009-BO-1011) on the City's administration of its HOME program. If these discrepancies are corrected, HUD can generally be assured that the City will accurately account for its use of NSP funding under HERA and the Recovery Act and use that funding only for eligible program activities.

Issue Date: August 19, 2009
Audit Report No: 2009-BO-1011
File Size: 677.09KB

Title: The City of Boston ’s Department of Neighborhood Development in Boston, Massachusetts, Did Not Administer Its HOME Program in Compliance with HUD Requirements

We audited the HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) administered by the City of Boston's (City) Department of Neighborhood Development (Department) as part of our annual audit plan. Our objective was to determine whether the Department administered its HOME program in compliance with HUD requirements. Specifically, we wanted to determine whether the Department used community housing development organization (CHDO) qualification requirements in designating its CHDOs and spent CHDO operating expenses on eligible activities. In addition, we wanted to determine if the Department complied with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) procurement policies and procedures. We also wanted to determine if the Department's method of allocating salaries was adequate and supported.

The Department awarded CHDO set-aside funding totaling more than $4.7 million to 18 organizations that did not meet all legal and organizational characteristics of CHDOs or did not have the required capacity to operate as CHDOs. Additionally, the Department provided more than $2.1 million in CHDO operating funds to the 18 ineligible organizations. The Department also did not ensure that proper, fair, and equitable procurement practices were followed for more than $5.1 million in HOME funding expended on construction and development work. Contractors were selected without solicitation of bids, bids were not formally (publicly) advertised, independent cost analyses were not performed before the bidding process, and supporting documentation related to the history of procurement actions was not maintained.

In addition, the Department could not ensure that payroll costs of more than $1.7 million charged to the HOME program for fiscal years 2007 and 2008 were accurate because it did not have a reliable system/method to record the actual time spent on its various programs. The Department did not maintain a cost allocation plan and used an allocation method based, for the most part, on estimates or past experience. As a result, some of its programs may have incurred a disproportionate share of staffing costs, while some local City programs were not charged.

We recommend that the Director of the Office of Community Planning and Development require the Department to cease spending set-aside and operating expense funding until it can be determined whether the organizations can achieve CHDO status in accordance with HUD regulations. The Department should be required to assist the organizations in achieving CHDO status as deemed necessary. We also recommend that the City: (1) deobligate unexpended set-aside funding of more than $3.9 million and provide funding to organizations that are eligible to receive the funding or reimburse funds to the HOME program, (2) reimburse approximately $800,000 expended from set-aside funds from nonfederal funds to the HOME program. (3) deobligate unexpended operating funds of approximately $1 million and reimburse these funds to the HOME program, and (4) reimburse expended operating funds of more than $1 million from nonfederal funds to the HOME program.

In addition, we recommend that the Director of the Office of Community Planning and Development require the Department to conduct an independent cost analysis for each of the procurements to ensure that more than $5.1 million in HOME program expenditures were reasonable and supported. For amounts not supported, the Department should reimburse the HOME program from nonfederal funds. Also, the Department must monitor and provide technical assistance to ensure that developers follow HUD procurement regulations, including ensuring that (1) independent cost analyses are performed before bids are received, (2) bids are formally (publicly) advertised, (3) bids are solicited from an adequate number of contractors and awards are made to the lowest responsive bidder, and (4) supporting documentation is maintained for each procurement. Finally, we recommend that the Director of the Office of Community Planning and Development require the Department to implement a cost allocation plan which adequately describes the process for personnel who work on multiple programs. The Department must also revise its job descriptions so that they are consistent with the allocation plan. We also recommend that the Department provide supporting documentation for payroll costs of more than $1.7 million charged to the HOME program in fiscal years 2007 and 2008 and submit documentation to the HUD Office of Community Planning and Development for approval. If proper supporting documentation is not provided, the Department should reimburse the HOME program from nonfederal funds.

Title: The Office of Community Development, City of Holyoke, Massachusetts, Did Not Award HOME Set-Aside Funds to a Qualified Community Housing Development Organization

We initiated an audit of the City of Holyoke, Massachusetts, Office of Community Development's (City) award and use of HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) program set-aside funds as part of our annual audit plan. Our objective was to determine whether the City ensured that Contemporary Apartments, Inc. (Contemporary Apartments), met community development housing organization (CHDO) qualification requirements and whether the related CHDO project activities carried out by Contemporary Apartments and Olde Holyoke Development Corporation met the HUD eligibility requirements for CHDOs.

This is the first of two planned audit reports on the City's HOME program and other housing-related activities.

The City awarded more than $1.7 million in HOME program CHDO set-aside funds to Contemporary Apartments, which was not eligible to receive set-aside funds. This occurred because the City did not ensure that Contemporary Apartments was qualified to be designated as a CHDO or that the related CHDO projects met key requirements for this designation and project eligibility. Despite these deficiencies, the City certified Contemporary Apartments as a CHDO, and provided set-aside funds for three homeownership projects.

As a result, the City significantly overstated the HOME set-aside funds recorded in HUD's financial reporting systems for fiscal years 2006, 2007, and 2008. Also, due to the overstatement of reserved and expended set-aside funds, the City (through its partnership in a Regional Consortium) will not meet the statutory 15 percent spending requirement, totaling $501,000, for set-aside funds unless other qualifying projects can be identified and funded.

We recommend that the Director of the Office of Community Planning and Development in Boston require the City to (1) deobligate the $1,768,071 in HOME set-aside funds awarded to Contemporary Apartments for the three ineligible projects, and reduce the amount of set-aside funds reported in HUD financial systems accordingly, (2) ensure that the Consortium, of which the City of Holyoke is a member, has designated development projects for fiscal years 2006 through 2008 sufficient to meet the statutory requirement of $500,754 in HOME set-aside funds for CHDOs, and (3) develop and implement controls to ensure that only eligible entities as certified as CHDOs and related HOME set-aside spending amounts are appropriately awarded and reported in the future.

Issue Date: April 9, 2009
Audit Report No: 2009-BO-1006
File Size: 216.89KB

Title: Quincy Housing Authority, Quincy, Massachusetts, Housing Choice Voucher Program Needs to Improve Controls over Its Interprogram Fund Transactions, Porcurement, and Travel

We audited the Housing Choice Voucher program (Voucher program) at the Quincy Housing Authority (Authority) as part of our annual audit plan. Our efforts focused on whether the Authority (1) ensured that its Section 8 administrative plan met the requirements of 24 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 982.54, (2) adequately accounted for its indirect cost charges, (3) used Voucher program funds only for the administration of the program and whether interprogram fund transactions were properly accounted for and reported, (4) followed its procurement practices, and (5) ensured that travel incurred for the Voucher program was in accordance with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) guidance.

The Authority generally administered the Voucher program efficiently and effectively and in compliance with its annual contributions contract and HUD regulations. Our review disclosed (1) that the Authority's Section 8 administrative plan met the requirements of 24 CFR 982.54, and (2) the Authority maintained proper support for its indirect allocation of administrative expenses. However, it did not (3) properly account for and report interprogram fund transactions between its federal and state programs, resulting in nearly $4.6 million in unsupported transactions being recorded in its program accounts; (4) provide support and justification for $426,052 in contracts to show that the contracts were properly documented; and (5) establish a reasonable travel policy to ensure that travelers submitted detailed travel expense vouchers.

We recommend that the Director of the Office of Public Housing, Boston hub, require the Authority to (1) provide support for nearly $4.6 million in interprogram fund transactions that are out of balance between federal and state programs and implement procedures for recording and reconciling interprogram transactions and correcting imbalances; (2) provide support and justification for $426,052 in contracts for financial advisory services, a fee accountant, inspection services, legal services, and payroll and landlord payment services or reimburse its operating funds from nonfederal funds for the applicable amounts; and (3) revise its travel policy and obtain approval of the policy from the Authority's board of commissioners.

Title: The Taunton Housing Authority, Taunton, Massachusetts, Needs to Improve Accounting for Its Interprogram Funds

We audited the Housing Choice Voucher (Voucher) program at the Taunton Housing Authority (Authority) as part of our annual audit plan. The overall audit objective was to determine whether the Authority efficiently administered its Voucher program in compliance with its annual contributions contract and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations. Our specific objectives were to determine whether the Authority used Voucher program funds only for the administration of the program and whether interprogram fund transactions were properly accounted for and reported.

The Authority generally administered the Voucher program efficiently and effectively and in compliance with its annual contributions contract and HUD regulations. However, it could not readily identify whether Voucher program funds were used only for the administration of the program because it did not properly account for and report interprogram fund transactions. The Authority did not properly account for and report interprogram fund transactions between its federal and state programs, resulting in $593,418 in unsupported transactions recorded in its program accounts.

We recommend that HUD require the Authority to provide support for $593,418 in interprogram fund transactions that were out of balance between federal and state programs and implement procedures for recording and reconciling interprogram transactions and correcting imbalances. We also recommend that HUD require the Authority to establish controls to ensure that all interprogram transactions are recorded and reconciled monthly.

Issue Date: November 26, 2007
Audit Report No: 2008-BO-1002
File Size: 442.32KB

Title: Holyoke Housing Authority's, Holyoke, Massachusetts, Lack of Management Controls Resulted in Section 8 Units Not Meeting Housing Quality Standards

Attached is the report on our audit of the Holyoke Housing Authority’s (Authority) Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8) program , Audit Report Number 2008-BO-1002, dated November 26, 2007. We audited the Holyoke Housing Authority’s (Authority) Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8) program as part of our fiscal year 2007 audit plan. Our objectives were to determine whether the Authority’s Section 8 housing units met housing quality standards (HQS) in accordance with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requirements and whether the Authority’s inspections of the housing units were timely and sufficient to detect HQS violations.

The Authority did not adequately ensure that its Section 8 housing units met HUD’s housing quality standards. Of the 63 program units statistically selected for inspection, 43 failed inspection, and 26 were materially noncompliant with housing quality standards. The Authority did not always perform its inspections in a timely manner; notify the owners of inspection results in a timely manner; or abate the housing assistance payments when repairs were not made as required. The Authority also did not have an adequate quality control process in place to ensure that inspections detected HQS violations or were properly performed and in compliance with HUD’s and the Authority’s requirements. Based on our statistical sample, we estimate that over the next year, the Authority would use more than $1.6 million in Section 8 housing assistance for units with material housing quality standards violations, if the Authority does not establish effective management controls.

We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Boston Office of Public Housing require the Authority to implement controls to ensure that its inspection policies and procedures are followed and that all units meet HUD’s housing quality standards to prevent $1.6 million in program funds from being spent on units that are in material noncompliance. The Authority also should be directed to implement controls to ensure that future Section 8 quality control inspections are properly performed and supported by adequate documentation.

Issue Date: November 7, 2007
Audit Report No: 2008-BO-1001
File Size: 1.96MB

Title: The City of Chicopee, Massachusetts, Did Not Properly Administer More Than $4.3 Million in Community Development Block Grant Funds

We audited of the City of Chicopee, Massachusetts (City), Office of Community Development’s administration of its Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. The objectives of the audit were to evaluate the City’s administration of its public facilities and improvement activities funded through the CDBG program and its oversight and monitoring of CDBG funds it provided to the City’s Parks and Recreation Department and Department of Public Works for various public facilities and improvement activities.

The City’s Office of Community Development did not properly administer more than $4.3 million in public facilities and improvement activities funded through its CDBG program. Specifically, conflict-of-interest regulations were violated, which resulted in ineligible projects being funded and the improper use of more than $1.1 million in CDBG funds. The Office of Community Development also did not properly support that more than $4.3 million in CDBG-funded public facilities and improvement activities met the low-to-moderate-income benefit requirements. Further, it did not adequately monitor or provide oversight of CDBG funds provided to the City’s Parks and Recreation Department and Department of Public Works for public works and facilities activities. As a result,

• Contracts funded with CDBG funds included more than $628,000 in prohibited or unsupported maintenance and repair activities,

• Federal requirements for procurement and contracting were not always followed,

• Federal provisions for financial management were not always followed, and

• Davis-Bacon requirements for labor compliance were not always met.

We recommend that the Director of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Boston Office of Community Planning and Development require the City to repay the $1.1 million in ineligible costs from nonfederal sources. We recommend that the Deputy Director of the Departmental Enforcement Center pursue all applicable administrative sanctions against the City, including debarring individuals involved in the decision to expend these funds. We also recommend that the Director of HUD Boston Office of Community Planning and Development (1) ensure that the City provides supporting documentation for the unsupported costs, including adequately documenting the service area, or take administrative action requiring repayment of amounts not adequately supported or determined to be ineligible; (2) require the Office of Community Development to establish written oversight policies and procedures that meet HUD requirements for awarding, administering, and monitoring CDBG program funds; and (3) require the City to repay from nonfederal funds CDBG program funds spent on prohibited or unsupported maintenance and repair activities.

Issue Date: August 29, 2007
Audit Report No: 2007-BO-1008
File Size: 1.43MB

Title: Holyoke Housing Authority, Holyoke, MA Needs to Improve Its Internal Controls over the Voucher Program, Cost Allocations and Transfers

We audited the Housing Choice Voucher program (Voucher program) at the Holyoke Housing Authority (Authority) as part of our fiscal year 2007 annual audit plan. The objective of the audit was to determine whether the Authority administered the Voucher program in accordance with its annual contributions contracts and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requirements. Our efforts focused on whether the Authority properly (1) determined tenant eligibility/HAP payment calculations; (2) made and supported rent reasonableness determinations; (3) determined payments for unused sick leave; and (4) allocated costs and accounting for interfund transfer transactions.

The Authority generally administered the Voucher program according to its administrative plan but not always in accordance with its annual contributions contracts and HUD requirements. It did not (1) ensure that the required documentation was maintained to support the eligibility of each tenant and its housing assistance payments, (2) conduct rent reasonableness determinations according to HUD requirements, (3) follow a prudent personnel practice regarding payment for unused sick leave upon the death or retirement of an employee, and (4) always properly allocate costs or account for interfund transfer transactions.

These conditions occurred because the Authority either had not established adequate internal controls or followed the controls that were in place to ensure compliance with its annual contributions contracts and HUD regulations.

Issue Date: August 24, 2007
Audit Report No: 2007-BO-1007
File Size: 221.37KB

Title: The City of Fall River, MA, Generally Administered Its Block Grant and HOME Programs in Accordance with HUD Requirements

We reviewed the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) programs administered by the Community Development Agency, City of Fall River, Massachusetts (City) as part of our annual audit plan.

Our audit objective was to determine whether the City administered its CDBG and HOME programs in compliance with U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requirements. We focused on whether the City: (1) had adequate internal controls over its management process, accounting, and data processing; (2) used CDBG funds for national objectives; (3) used CDBG and HOME program funds for eligible activities and were adequately supported; and (4) properly accounted for CDBG and HOME program income.

The City generally administered its CDBG and HOME programs in compliance with HUD requirements. The City’s (1) internal controls over its management process, accounting, and data processing were adequate, (2) CDBG funds were used for national objectives, (3) CDBG and HOME program funds were used for eligible activities and were adequately supported, and (4) CDBG and HOME program income was properly accounted for. Thus, the report contains no formal recommendations and no further action is necessary. However, the City has more than $3 million in unobligated HOME funds and could benefit by developing partnerships with additional Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDOs) to use these funds to develop additional housing for low to moderate income families.

Issue Date: April 23, 2007
Audit Report No: 2007-BO-1005
File Size: 1.10MB

Title: The City of New Bedford, Massachusetts, Did Not Meet Certain Requirements of HUD’s Community Development Block Grant Program

As part of our annual plan, we audited the Office of Housing and Community Development, City of New Bedford, Massachusetts’ (City) administration of its Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)) and HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) programs. Our audit objective was to determine whether the City complied with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations in administering its CDBG and HOME programs.

The City generally administered its CDBG and HOME programs in accordance with HUD regulations. However, it did not always ensure that its subrecipients followed HUD requirements or met the program objectives of the subrecipent agreements. The City failed to ensure that two of its subrecipients followed HUD requirements for full and open competition regarding procurements for construction work. It also did not ensure that another subrecipient attained its program objectives of issuing the required number of loans and creating the required number of new jobs. In addition, the City did not ensure that this subrecipient properly collateralized CDBG funds on deposit in the same bank, or made loans that did not involve conflicts of interest. These problems occurred because the City did not always adequately monitor subrecipient activities or failed to ensure that its subrecipents always took corrective action. As a result, there is a lack of assurance that subrecipient procurements were fair and equitable and that the most favorable contract prices were obtained for $750,000 in construction funding. Also, more than $1 million in CDBG funding for loans and job creation may not have been the best use of HUD funds, CDBG funds totaling $188,177 were not adequately safeguarded against loss, and a subrecipient approved two loans that created apparent conflicts of interest.

We recommend that the director of the Office of Community Planning and Development in Boston require the City to (1) obtain a cost analysis for each subrecipient to support the $750,000 in CDBG funding provided for construction contracts, (2) ensure that the future use of CDBG funds creates the number of new jobs necessary to fulfill the requirements of past and current agreements to put current funding of $285,000 to better use, (3) obtain and provide evidence that CDBG funds in excess of Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) limits for the subrecipient are fully collateralized, and (4) ensure that the subrecipient establishes adequate policies addressing conflicts of interest including requirements for providing full disclosure.

Issue Date: March 21, 2007
Audit Report No: 2007-BO-1003
File Size: 550.37KB

Title: The Office of Community Development, City of Chicopee, Massachusetts, Did Not Properly Award and Administer Community Development Block Grant and HOME Funds Used for its Housing Activities

As part of our annual plan, we audited the Office of Community Development, City of Chicopee, Massachusetts’ (City) administration of its Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME programs. The objective of the audit was to evaluate the City’s administration of its housing rehabilitation contracts funded through the CDBG or HOME programs and its oversight and monitoring of various for-profit developers (developers) involved in the rehabilitation activities. We also evaluated whether $700,000 in HOME set-aside funds was committed for an eligible project.

The City did not adequately administer more than $2.2 million in housing rehabilitation contracts funded through its CDBG and HOME programs. It did not perform the required independent analysis of cost estimates submitted by developers before awarding rehabilitation contracts, did not always enforce procurement and financial management contract provisions included in written agreements with developers, did not adequately address performance problems on the part of developers identified during reviews performed by it, and approved final payments for unfinished projects. In addition, it approved more than $1.2 million in unreasonable and unsupported rehabilitation contract costs The $1.2 million is part of the overall $2.2 million., and its use of a $700,000 community housing development organization set-aside (set-aside) from the HOME program was an ineligible use of these funds.

We recommend that the director of the Office of Community Planning and Development in Boston require the City to establish written policies and procedures for both the HOME and CDBG programs that meet HUD requirements for awarding, administering, and monitoring program funds. We also recommend that the City provide supporting documentation for the $1.2 million in unsupported costs, including establishing the reasonableness of the costs, or repay the funds and be directed not to use set-asides on the ineligible project, which will allow $700,000 to be put to better use on other eligible projects.

Issue Date: November 3, 2006
Audit Report No: 2007-BO-1001
File Size: 76.41KB

Title: Lynn Housing Authority & Neighborhood Development, Lynn, Massachusetts, Generally Administered its Section 8 Voucher Program in Accordance with HUD Requirements

We reviewed the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program (Section 8 program) at the Lynn Housing Authority and Neighborhood Development (Authority) as part of our fiscal year 2006 annual audit plan. Our audit objectives were to determine whether the Authority effectively and efficiently administered its Section 8 program in compliance with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requirements and its annual contributions contracts.

Our audit of the Authority’s Section 8 program did not disclose anything that indicated that it was not administering its Section 8 program in accordance with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development requirements and its annual contributions contracts. The audit also did not disclose anything that would cause us to believe that the Authority’s internal control structure, over its management processes, accounting and data processing, did not adequately ensure that the Section 8 program was effectively and efficiently managed.

Based on our audit, we did not identify any reportable conditions or deficiencies; therefore, we are not making any recommendations.

Issue Date: July 26, 2006
Audit Report No.: 2006-BO-1010
File Size: 1.09MB

Title: Boston Housing Authority, Boston, Massachusetts, Used Voucher Program Funds to Pay State Housing Assistance Program Expenses and Needs to Improve Its Reasonableness Process

We reviewed the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program (Voucher program) at the Boston Housing Authority (Authority) as part of our fiscal year 2006 annual audit plan. Our audit objectives were to determine whether the Authority properly used Voucher program funds as required by U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) annual contributions contracts and to evaluate whether rent reasonableness determinations were conducted as required by HUD regulations.

The Authority generally administered the Voucher program according to its administrative plan but did not always comply with its annual contributions contracts and HUD requirements. The Authority used Voucher program funds to subsidize state housing programs. It also did not conduct rent reasonableness determinations according to requirements cited in its administration plan and HUD regulations. These conditions occurred because the Authority had not established or always followed its internal controls to ensure compliance with its annual contributions contracts and HUD regulations.

We recommend that the director of the Office of Public Housing require the Authority to stop using Voucher program funds to pay for nonprogram costs, implement changes to separate its federal and state leased housing data into two databases, and improve its rent reasonability determinations procedures and the accuracy of unit data in its databases

.Issue Date: January 23, 2006
Audit Report No.: 2006-BO-1003
File Size: 145.68KB

Title: The City of Malden, Massachusetts, Working to Ensure Appropriate Use of Community Development Block Grant and HOME Investment Partnerships Program Administrative Funds

At the request of the Office of Community Planning and Development, we reviewed the City of Malden (City) and the Malden Redevelopment Authority (Authority) to determine whether Community Development Block Grant (Block Grant) and HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME Program) administrative funds were used in compliance with U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requirements.

We found that the City and the Authority were working to strengthen internal controls to ensure compliance with HUD requirements. The City and Authority needed to strengthen the controls by ensuring that all job descriptions related duties to the Block Grant and HOME programs, and allocations of salaries and travel expenditures were proper and adequately supported. While some funds had not been used in compliance with HUD requirements, the City and the Authority had commenced strengthening the controls, and these changes should ensure compliance. Additionally, the City and the Authority repaid $14,766 that had not been used in compliance with the Block Grant.