Issue Date September 21, 2001 Audit Case Number 2001-FW-1006 TO: Katie Worsham Director Office of Community Planning and Development, 6AD /SIGNED/ FROM: D. Michael Beard District Inspector General for Audit, 6AGA SUBJECT: Dallas Homeless Consortium Continuum of Care Dallas, Texas We audited the Dallas Continuum of Care 1996 and 1997 grants as part of a nationwide review of HUD’s Continuum of Care Program. Our attached audit report contains one finding. Within 60 days please give us, for each recommendation made in this audit report, a status report on: (1) corrective action taken; (2) proposed corrective action and date to be completed; or (3) why action is considered unnecessary. Also, please furnish us copies of any correspondence or directive issued because of this audit. If you have any questions, please call William Nixon, Assistant District Inspector General for Audit, at (817) 978-9309. Management Memorandum THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY 2001-FW-1006 Page ii Executive Summary As a part of a nationwide review of HUD’s Continuum of Care Program, we audited the Dallas Homeless Consortium. Our objectives were to determine whether the Consortium: (1) fairly represented the needs of the community; (2) achieved broad participation; (3) held members accountable for their performance; and (4) tracked the progress of programs and participants. The Continuum of Care Our audit concluded the Consortium has a broad-based applications filed by the membership that provided fair representation of the Homeless Consortium community. However, the Continuum of Care applications contain inaccurate filed by the Homeless Consortium contain inaccurate information and overstate information and overstate its achievements. The peer its achievements. review process, used to determine the priority order of the projects contained in the consolidated application, was ineffective and may have allowed unsuccessful programs to receive higher priority than was appropriate. In addition, the Consortium had no means of tracking or monitoring its participants or programs. We also have concerns that in its role as lead agency of the Consortium, the City of Dallas did not provide the organization with the leadership and guidance necessary for the Consortium to become successful. We recommend HUD: (1) review the existing Continuum Recommendations. of Care strategy of the Consortium to ensure that the strategy accurately represents the efforts and plans of the Consortium; (2) work with the Consortium to strengthen its peer review process; (3) require the Consortium to implement a tracking system; (4) continue to provide technical assistance to the Consortium as it works through the process of choosing a lead agency; and (5) assist the Consortium in formalizing operational requirements for the Consortium, the lead agency, and the Consortium members. Page iii 2001-FW-1006 Executive Summary THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY 2001-FW-1006 Page iv Table of Contents Management Memorandum i Executive Summary iii Introduction 1 Findings 1 The Consortium Misled HUD and Did Not Effectively 9 Evaluate or Provide Meaningful Feedback on Grantee Performance Management Controls 17 Appendices A Auditee Comments 19 B Distribution 23 Page v 2001-FW-1006 Table of Contents Abbreviations HUD U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development NOFA Notice of Funding Availability OIG Office of Inspector General SRO Single Room Occupancy Dwellings Program 2001-FW-1006 Page vi Introduction HUD developed the Continuum of Care concept to address Background the needs of the homeless and was intended to provide for a coordinated, long-term approach for meeting those needs. HUD began implementing the Continuum of Care concept through a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) in 1994. The purpose of the NOFA was to fund projects and activities that created locally developed Continuum of Care systems to assist homeless persons. The Continuum of Care system consists of four basic components: · Outreach and assessment. · Emergency shelter with appropriate supportive services. · Transitional housing with appropriate supportive services. · Permanent housing or permanent supportive housing. While not all homeless individuals will need to access all four of these components, coordination of all four components is necessary for them to be successful. There are three competitively funded programs included within the Continuum of Care: · Supportive Housing Program · Shelter Plus Care Program · Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation for Single Room Occupancy Dwellings (SRO) Program The Supportive Housing Program promotes the development of supportive housing and supportive services to assist homeless persons to transition from homelessness and live as independently as possible.1 The Shelter Plus Care Program provides rental assistance for hard-to-serve homeless persons with disabilities in connection with supportive services funded from sources outside the program.2 Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation for SRO Program provides rental assistance for homeless individuals in rehabilitated SRO housing.3 1 Subtitle C of Title IV of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act. 2 Subtitle F of Title IV of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act. 3 Subpart V of Subtitle F of Title IV of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act. Page 1 2001-FW-1006 Introduction HUD designed the Continuum of Care programs to allow communities the flexibility to determine what worked best for them. In other words, it is up to the community to determine what types of assistance it needs and what priorities to assign to the needs. In order to give communities this flexibility, HUD issued no regulations governing the operation or organization of the individual Continuum of Care organizations.4 Applications for Continuum of Care grants may be submitted using one of three options:5 · Consolidated Application: a single application encompassing a Continuum of Care strategy and containing all the projects within that strategy for which funding is being requested. Individual projects and operators are contained within the one consolidated application. Grant funding may go to one entity, which then administers all funded projects submitted in the application, or grant funding may go to all or any of the projects individually. Communities are encouraged however not required to submit consolidated applications. A consolidated application is an application developed from a single Continuum of Care strategy for a jurisdiction (or a consortium of jurisdictions) and contains funding requests for all of the projects within that strategy. · Associated Application: applicants plan and organize a single Continuum of Care strategy which is adopted by project sponsors or operators who choose to submit separate applications for projects while including the identical Continuum of Care strategy. In this case, project funding would go to each successful applicant individually and each would be responsible to HUD for administering its separate grant. · Solo Application: an applicant applies for a project exclusive of any Continuum of Care strategy. HUD considered consolidated and associated applications equally competitive. However, solo applications, not part 4 1997 Continuum of Care Application. 5 1997 NOFA. 2001-FW-1006 Page 2 Introduction of a Continuum of Care strategy, received few, if any, points under the Continuum of Care rating criteria. In general, applications contain two components.6 The first component is the process and outcome of the community based homeless plan – the Continuum of Care. It contains a description of the community’s Continuum of Care strategy, the process used to create that strategy and a listing of the projects included in the application, in priority order.7 This priority order will mean that if funds are only available to finance eight of ten proposed projects, then funding will be awarded to the first eight projects listed. HUD believes that priority decisions are best made through a locally-driven process and are key to the ultimate goal of reducing homelessness in America. In addition, a community’s Continuum of Care strategy should reflect maximum participation by a range of participants.8 It should also describe a community’s efforts to create, maintain, and build upon a community-wide inventory of housing and services for homeless families and individuals. Instructions direct applicants to pay special attention to this component since HUD places a high priority on coordination among a spectrum of homeless assistance providers. The second component of the application contains the exhibits for the specific program funds contained in the application. These exhibits describe the individual projects contained in the application. They contain details regarding the population to be served, activity for which assistance is requested, proposed participants and their needs, specific costs associated with the project, and supportive services proposed to help participants achieve permanent housing and self-sufficiency. HUD reviewed and rated all applications using the same process. It conducted two types of reviews. HUD first conducted a threshold review of each proposed project for the specific criteria identified in the Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA). HUD eliminated those projects not meeting NOFA requirements from the competition. In the 6 1997 Continuum of Care Application. 7 The priority of projects contained in the application is determined by the local Continuum of Care organization. 8 Examples: non-profit providers of housing and services, homeless and formerly homeless persons, state and local governments and agencies, the private sector, housing developers, foundations, and other community organizations. Page 3 2001-FW-1006 Introduction second review, HUD assigned up to 40 points for the community’s fundamental need to provide housing and services for homeless persons and up to 60 points for the community’s Continuum of Care strategy.9 The Homeless Consortium of Dallas was organized in Homeless Consortium of 1995. However, prior to 1997 the Consortium only met to Dallas. discuss grant applications. According to Consortium members, in 1997 they sought to place more emphasis on the homeless and less on discussing funding issues. They elected officers, established committees, broadened their base, hired consultants and formed focus groups. The Consortium is a combination of different types of organizations and individuals. It consists of public entities, service providers, private not-for-profit organizations, business groups, and formerly homeless individuals. The Consortium’s application contained components for emergency shelter, transitional and permanent housing, and service resources to address the needs of the homeless. The City of Dallas took a lead role in the Continuum of Care process. The City prepared and submitted the Consolidated Application for the Consortium. This included preparing Exhibit 1, which included the Continuum of Care narrative. The City also paid for and gathered the information necessary to determine “gaps” in homeless services.10 Further, the City provided a staff member who facilitated the ongoing activities of the consortium and provided funding for mailings, consultants, and other administrative matters. The Consortium utilized a peer review process in order to evaluate the individual Consortium members. According to a Consortium official, any organization that applied for Continuum of Care grant funds11 underwent a peer review. The peer review results influenced the priority given to the projects in the application.12 The peer review team13 relied upon the Annual Progress Reports to determine if the member met their goals. They also discussed with HUD 9 1997 Continuum of Care Application. 10 A “Gap Analysis” compares the existing services with the demands for those services. The difference between the existing services and the demand for the services is considered a gap. 11 Including renewal grants. 12 1999 was the first time that the peer reviews were used in any way to determine funding priority. 13 Volunteers from the Consortium comprised the peer review team. 2001-FW-1006 Page 4 Introduction whether the member spent their grant funds timely. However, in reviewing the Annual Progress Report, the review team did not look at any supporting documentation. Our audit objectives were to determine if the Consortium: Audit Objectives, Scope, (1) fairly represented the needs of the community; (2) and Methodology achieved broad participation; (3) held members accountable for their performance; and (4) tracked the progress of programs and participants. We audited a judgmental sample of seven grants awarded to members of the Consortium during 1996 and 1997 and utilized the results in our evaluation of the Consortium. The tables below show the grants awarded to the Consortium members during 1996 and 1997.14 1996 GRANTS/DALLAS HOMELESS CONSORTIUM City of Dallas15 Shelter Plus Care Grant $1,488,600 Dallas Jewish Coalition16 Supportive Housing Grant 555,660 Housing Crisis Center17 Supportive Housing Grant 533,130 Promise House Inc. Supportive Housing Grant 777,281 PWA Coalition of Dallas Supportive Housing Grant 1,970,320 TOTAL $5,324,991 1997 GRANTS/DALLAS HOMELESS CONSORTIUM City of Dallas18 Supportive Housing Grant $ 749,670 DCCCD Supportive Housing Grant 379,733 Family Gateway Supportive Housing Grant 337,364 Family Gateway Supportive Housing Grant 98,116 GDCADA19 Supportive Housing Grant 400,181 Housing Crisis Center20 Supportive Housing Grant 211,358 Housing Crisis Center21 Supportive Housing Grant 546,361 Legal Services of North Supportive Housing Grant 135,000 Texas LifeNet Supportive Housing Grant 870,178 Rainbow Days Supportive Housing Grant 558,257 TOTAL $4,286,218 Our objectives in auditing the individuals grants were to determine if: (1) the individual grants were implemented in 14 Shaded grants indicate those included in the sample of audits. 15 Audit Report number 01-FW-251-1002. 16 Audit Memorandum number 00-FW-251-1801. 17 Audit Memorandum number 00-FW-251-1804. 18 Audit Report number 01-FW-251-1002. 19 Audit Memorandum number 2001-FW-1802. 20 Audit Memorandum number 00-FW-251-1804. 21 Ibid. Page 5 2001-FW-1006 Introduction accordance with federal regulations and grant agreements; (2) funds were expended for eligible activities under federal regulations and applicable costs principles; (3) accurate and adequate evidence of measurable results was maintained; (4) programs were sustainable; and (5) grant funds were expended timely. The findings of those audits are summarized below. Greater Dallas Council on Alcohol and Drug Abuse Overall, the Council’s activities were consistent with its application. However, the Council: · Included $28,892 in ineligible and unsupported salary and benefit costs in grant drawdowns; · Was behind projected spending by $166,531; and · Did not achieve its goals, which we determined was due to the lack of cooperation of the Consortium. City of Dallas Overall, the City did not implement its grants in compliance with grant agreements and federal regulations. Specifically, the City: · Failed to provide $250,980 in supportive services required by its Shelter Plus Care grant or adequately document the services it did provide; · Was behind projected spending for its Shelter Plus Care grant by $259,295, and $39,572 for its Supportive Housing grant; · Submitted inaccurate and inconsistent Annual Progress Reports; · Included $53,977 in ineligible and $2,261 in unsupported costs in grant drawdowns; · Did not monitor the participants and their supportive service needs sufficiently; and · Did not perform yearly Housing Quality Standards inspections for apartments inhabited 1 year or more. 2001-FW-1006 Page 6 Introduction Housing Crisis Center Overall, the Center’s activities were consistent with its application. However the Center: · Included $48,720 in ineligible costs in grant drawdowns; · Submitted inaccurate Annual Progress Reports; · Was behind projected spending; and · Overdrew its grants by $6,995. Dallas Jewish Coalition The Coalition’s activities were consistent with its application. However, the Coalition: · Included $91,948 in ineligible costs in grant drawdowns and · Submitted inaccurate Annual Progress Reports. To achieve our audit objectives in auditing the Consortium we: · Reviewed audit reports and memorandums issued on grants awarded to Consortium members; · Reviewed minutes from Consortium meetings; · Interviewed City staff responsible for facilitating the Consortium; · Interviewed HUD staff; · Reviewed peer reviews performed by members of the Consortium; · Interviewed Consortium members; and · Reviewed consolidated applications for 1997, 1998, and 1999 filed by the Consortium. We conducted our audit at the following offices: · Dallas Jewish Coalition · Housing Crisis Center · City of Dallas City Hall and Day Resource Center · Greater Dallas Council on Alcohol and Drug Abuse · HUD Fort Worth Office Page 7 2001-FW-1006 Introduction Audit Period and Sites During our audit, we obtained computer-generated data from both HUD and the grantees. However, we did not perform any tests on the validity or reliability of such data except as noted in the findings and management controls. We performed fieldwork from June 1999 through April 2001.22 We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 22 This includes fieldwork in performing the grantee audits as well as the Continuum audit. 2001-FW-1006 Page 8 Finding 1 The Consortium Misled HUD and Did Not Effectively Evaluate or Provide Meaningful Feedback on Grantee Performance The Consortium submitted inaccurate applications to HUD and did not take appropriate measures to ensure its members met the goals of the Continuum of Care concept. Specifically, the Consortium’s applications contained inaccurate information and overstated its achievements. Contrary to what the Consortium stated it would do, the Consortium did not establish a tracking system that would monitor participants; nor did it distribute monthly reports, highlighting individual client referrals and progress, to its members. In addition, the Consortium did not have an effective peer review process. Therefore, it did not uncover the errors or aid members in setting and achieving their goals. HUD should review the existing Continuum of Care strategy of the Consortium to ensure that the strategy accurately represents the efforts and plans of the Consortium; work with the Consortium to strengthen its peer review process; require the Consortium to implement a tracking system; continue to provide technical assistance to the Consortium as it works through the process of choosing a lead agency; and assist the Consortium in formalizing operational requirements for the Consortium, the lead agency, and the Consortium members. The Consortium submitted Due to the Consortium supplying inaccurate information inaccurate information to and overstating its accomplishments, it provided HUD a HUD. distorted view of the administration of the Consortium. HUD placed a high priority on a community’s Continuum of Care strategy. In fact, the ranking of the consolidated application was based on the description of the strategy. Therefore, HUD relied upon applicants to provide an accurate picture of their efforts to organize and maintain the Continuum. The applications filed by the Consortium contained inaccurate information and overstated its achievements. For instance, each Consortium application since 1996 referred to a tracking system. According to the applications, the Consortium would track options available to individuals with respect to specific services available, as well as provide a record of which agencies the individual Page 9 2001-FW-1006 Finding 1 had contacted previously. The applications filed from 1996 through 1999 contained the following statements: 1996 Homeless service providers in the city of Dallas are working toward supplying a range of other services. Central among these plans is the development of a centralized intake system…23 1997 Commitment to implement a centralized, integrated electronic system to link agencies providing housing and services to homeless families through a computerized client referral, tracking, and information system…24 A key part of this year’s Continuum of Care strategy is to implement a centralized integrated electronic system to link agencies providing housing and services to homeless families through a computerized client referral, tracking, and information system.25 1998 This Continuum comes forth with a structured system of client referrals and client tracking through the Continuum of Care.26 1999 This Continuum comes forth with a structured system of client referrals and client tracking through the Continuum of Care (same statement as in 1998).27 The 1998 and 1999 applications indicated the Consortium had implemented a tracking system. However, even though the Consortium indicated it had been working on implementing a tracking system for over 4 years, the Consortium did not have such a system in place. A system of coordinating services and tracking participants’ progress was essential to the success and evaluation of these programs. Without some way of demonstrating the success of the programs and their participants, the 23 Dallas Homeless Consortium 1996 Consolidated Application, The Continuum of Care Strategy. 24 Dallas Homeless Consortium 1997 Consolidated Application, Continuum of Care System Under Development. 25 Dallas Homeless Consortium 1997 Consolidated Application, Actions For The Future. 26 Dallas Homeless Consortium 1998 Consolidated Application, Abstract Dallas Continuum of Care. 27 Dallas Homeless Consortium 1999 Consolidated Application, Abstract Dallas Continuum of Care. 2001-FW-1006 Page 10 Finding 1 Consortium and HUD could not objectively evaluate the effectiveness of its programs. The overall goal of the Continuum of Care strategy was to assist homeless individuals and families to make the critical transition from living on the streets to working and independent living. During 1996 and 1997, the Consortium received almost $10 million in Continuum of Care grants. However, since neither the individual grantees nor the Consortium had a system or process in place to coordinate housing and services, or to track participant or program success, HUD did not know if the Consortium and its members utilized the funds on programs to achieve their basic goal. We recommend HUD require the Consortium to implement a tracking system. Further, the Consortium should utilize any historical data gathered to date. The City of Dallas Did Not Provide Materials to Members. While the Consortium developed a common referral and intake form, the City did not fulfill its statements of coordinating and providing information to its members. In addition, while the consolidated applications filed by the City of Dallas on behalf of the Consortium exhibit efforts to coordinate and bring together homeless providers, the City of Dallas could not provide sufficient evidence to support much of the information in the applications. The 1998 Consolidated application stated: “The members of the Collaborative have all signed a Memorandum of Understanding committing to move people through the Continuum by formal referrals to each other, by tracking clients as they go through the system, and by having ongoing discussions about client progress. In September, the City of Dallas will start to collect client information from each agency and provide a formal report on client referrals and progress at the end of the month. This system will avoid duplication of services, highlight individual client progress, and allow for broad input from a variety of agencies. Agencies with limited service capacity will provide a weekly report on their ability to accept new clients. The report will be provided to all members who will then be able to make referrals to Page 11 2001-FW-1006 Finding 1 agencies with open service slots. All Collaborative Agencies will use common referral forms, release of information forms, and intake forms. When clients are referred, a copy of their intake is sent to the agency with a signed release to share information. Therefore, the client has one record that details his or her movement through the components of the Continuum of Care. The components are linked through the Collaborative, through the uniform referral and intake process, and through the data collection and sharing by the City of Dallas.” 28 Again, HUD wanted this type of coordination between Consortium members. Because the City never accomplished its goal, the Consortium did not have “one record that details [the participant’s] movement through the components of the Continuum of Care.” HUD should review the existing Continuum of Care strategy to ensure the strategy accurately represents the efforts and plans of the Consortium. The Consortium Had an Ineffective Peer Review Process. The peer review process utilized by the Consortium did not effectively assess members’ performance. However, according to a Consortium official, the peer review affected the priority given to an individual application. During a peer review the review team examined Annual Progress Reports of each agency under review, met with program managers and bookkeepers at City Hall, toured the various programs, and spoke to participants. The review team prepared a summary of results for each review. However, in performing the review, the peer review team did not inspect supporting documentation when reviewing progress reported by members. As a result of not inspecting supporting documentation, the peer review of these grantees did not detect any inaccuracies with the Annual Progress Reports. As we previously reported, each grantee submitted inaccurate and unsupported Annual Progress Reports. It appeared the peer review team echoed management assertions without attempting to verify them. As a result, members who inflated results or progress may 28 Dallas Homeless Consortium 1998 Consolidated Application, How the System Facilitates Movement of Homeless Persons From One Component of the System to Another, and How the Components are Linked. 2001-FW-1006 Page 12 Finding 1 have received a higher ranking than those who reported accurate information. Since no agreements exist between the Consortium and its members, and HUD did not have any regulations governing the Consortium, the Consortium did not have direct authority over the members. Therefore, the Consortium had limited ability to coordinate and direct its members. However, the Consortium determined the priority of the individual applications within the consolidated application. Since HUD awarded grants based on the priority placed on the programs by the Consortium, under the existing system it was possible that ineffective and unsuccessful programs received priority status in the consolidated applications filed by the Consortium. We recommend that HUD work with the Consortium to strengthen its peer review process. The Consortium Lacked Effective Leadership. Our audit of the City of Dallas concluded the City of Dallas failed to administer its homeless grants in accordance with its grant agreements and federal regulations.29 Specifically, the City did not: (1) provide and document the matching supportive services required by the Shelter Plus Care program; (2) expend its funds timely; (3) file accurate and consistent Annual Progress Reports; (4) include only eligible and supported costs in its grant drawdowns; (5) monitor the participants and their supportive service needs sufficiently; and (6) perform yearly Housing Quality Standards inspections for apartments inhabited 1 year or more. The report recommended HUD discontinue funding Continuum of Care grants to the City until the City could demonstrate that it can administer the funds appropriately. In spite of the problems faced by the City of Dallas in managing its own grants, it took on a leadership role in the Consortium as the “lead agency.” As such, the City of Dallas was responsible for drafting the Continuum of Care strategy for the Consortium, facilitating the Consortium, and packaging the actual consolidated application. The City of Dallas also provided a staff person to act as a liaison 29 Audit Report number 01-FW-251-1002, dated December 13, 2000. Page 13 2001-FW-1006 Finding 1 and provided funding for mailings, consultants, and other administrative matters. Due to the conditions noted in this finding and with the City of Dallas’ administration of its grants, HUD should continue to provide technical assistance to the Consortium in order to assist in choosing a lead agency. Once a lead agency has been determined, its roles and responsibilities should be formalized. We recommend HUD provide additional technical assistance to the Consortium in order to document and implement the operational requirements for the Consortium and its members. On September 5, 2001, we held an exit conference with Auditee Comments HUD, and they provided their written response (Appendix A). HUD agreed the Dallas Homeless Consortium’s applications included inaccurate information and overstated achievements. However, they believed the use of the word misled was harsh. HUD did not believe the City or the Consortium tried to intentionally deceive them. HUD did not dispute the issues raised in the finding. However, they did request modifications to the recommendations. HUD has not issued any regulations governing the Continuum of Care organizations. Consequently, HUD has no authority to direct the Consortium or to determine the lead agency. In HUD’s opinion, the Consortium needs to make that determination. Instead of playing an active role in the removal of the City as the lead agency, HUD proposed continuing to provide technical assistance to the Consortium as it works through the process of choosing a lead agency. OIG Evaluation of Considering the evidence, the use of the word misled was appropriate. The applications were prepared in order to Comments make the Dallas Homeless Consortium appear as a well-run organization that had made significant strides in its efforts to help the homeless. However, there was little evidence to support this. 2001-FW-1006 Page 14 Finding 1 The draft report included the recommendation that HUD work with the Consortium to remove the City of Dallas as the lead agency of the Consortium. However, based on HUD’s response we revised our recommendation. As HUD correctly pointed out, they did not issue regulations governing Continuum of Care organizations. Therefore, it has no official authority to dictate the lead agency or how the organization operates. As a result we modified our recommendation. Recommendations We recommend HUD: 1A. Review the existing Continuum of Care strategy of the Consortium to ensure that the strategy accurately represents the efforts and plans of the Consortium. 1B. Work with the Consortium to strengthen its peer review process. 1C. Require the Consortium to implement a tracking system. 1D. Continue to provide technical assistance to the Consortium as it works through the process of choosing a lead agency. 1E. Provide technical assistance to the Consortium in order to document and implement the operational requirements for the Consortium, the lead agency, and its members. Page 15 2001-FW-1006 Finding 1 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY 2001-FW-1006 Page 16 Management Controls In planning and performing our audit, we obtained an understanding of the management controls that were relevant to our audit. Management is responsible for establishing effective management controls. Management controls, in the broadest sense, include the plan of organization, methods, and procedures adopted by management to ensure that the goals are met. Management controls include the processes for planning, organizing, directing, and controlling program operations. They include the systems for measuring, reporting, and monitoring program performance. Significant Controls. We determined the following management controls were relevant to our audit objectives: · Fair representation of the needs of the community · Broad participation · A fair funding process · Accountability for performance · Tracking of program progress and participants Significant Weaknesses. It is a significant weakness if management controls do not give reasonable assurance that resource use is consistent with laws, regulations, and policies; that resources are safeguarded against waste, loss, and misuse; and that reliable data is obtained, maintained, and fairly disclosed in reports. As discussed in our finding, we believe the following items are significant weaknesses in that the Dallas Homeless Consortium lacks sufficient controls to ensure: · A fair funding process · Accountability for performance · Tracking of program progress and participants Page 17 2001-FW-1006 Management Controls THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY 2001-FW-1006 Page 18 Appendix A Auditee Comments Page 19 2001-FW-1006 Appendix A 2001-FW-1006 Page 20 Appendix A Page 21 2001-FW-1006 Appendix A 2001-FW-1006 Page 22 Appendix B Distribution Dallas City Manager Director, Environmental and Health Services, City of Dallas Dallas City Auditor Dallas Homeless Consortium Principal Staff Secretary's Representative, 6AS CFO, 6AF Director, Accounting, 6AAF Director, Office of Community Planning & Development, 6FD Fort Worth ALO, 6AF (2) CPD ALO, DOT (Room 7220) Department ALO, FM (Room 2206) Acquisitions Librarian, Library, AS (Room 8141) Armando Falcon Director, Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight 1700 G Street, NW, Room 4011, Washington, D.C. 20515 Sharon Pinkerton Sr. Advisor, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy & Human Resources B373 Rayburn House Ofc. Bldg., Washington, D.C. 20515 Cindy Fogleman Subcommittee on General Oversight & Investigations, Room 212 O'Neill House Ofc. Bldg., Washington, D.C. 20515 Stanley Czerwinski Associate Director, Housing. & Telecommunications Issues US GAO, 441 G St. NW, Room 2T23, Washington, DC 20548 Steve Redburn Chief, Housing Branch, OMB 725 17th Street, NW, Room 9226, New Exec. Ofc. Bldg., Washington, D.C. 20503 The Honorable Fred Thompson Chairman, Committee on Govt Affairs, 340 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg. U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510 The Honorable Joseph Lieberman Ranking Member, Committee on Govt Affairs, 706 Hart Senate Office Bldg. U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510 Page 23 2001-FW-1006 Appendix B The Honorable Dan Burton Chairman, Committee on Govt Reform, 2185 Rayburn Building House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. 20515-6143 Henry A. Waxman Ranking Member, Committee on Govt Reform, 2204 Rayburn Bldg. House of Rep., Washington, D.C. 20515-4305 Andrew R. Cochran Sr. Counsel, Committee on Financial Services 2129 Rayburn, HOB House of Rep., Washington, D.C. 20510 2001-FW-1006 Page 24
Dallas Homeless Consortium Continuum of Care Dallas, Texas
Published by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General on 2001-09-21.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)