Issue Date
October 31, 2011
Audit Report Number
2012-PH-0001
TO: Frances W. Bush, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Operations, DO
//signed//
FROM: John P. Buck, Regional Inspector General for Audit, Philadelphia Region,
3AGA
SUBJECT: HUD Needed to Improve Its Use of Its Integrated Disbursement and Information
System To Oversee Its Community Development Block Grant Program
HIGHLIGHTS
What We Audited and Why
We audited the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD)
use of its Integrated Disbursement and Information System to provide oversight
of activities in its Community Development Block Grant program. The audit was
performed based on the Office of the Inspector General’s (OIG) annual audit plan
and its strategic plan to help HUD improve its fiscal responsibilities. The
objective of the audit was to assess the adequacy of HUD’s use of its System to
provide oversight of activities in its Block Grant program.
What We Found
HUD did not adequately use its System to provide oversight of activities under its
Block Grant program. HUD was unaware of how grantees used nearly $67
million that it provided them to fund more than 1,300 activities that grantees later
cancelled in the System. In addition, HUD lacked adequate oversight of almost
$3 billion used to fund more than 20,000 long-standing1 open activities that
grantees had reportedly not completed for up to 11 years.
1
For purposes of this review, OIG defined a long-standing program activity as an activity that remained open for at
least 5 years after it was funded through a grantee’s annual consolidated plan.
What We Recommend
We recommend that HUD implement policies and procedures requiring it to (1)
periodically use the data contained in its System to provide oversight of cancelled
and long-standing open or revised activities and (2) evaluate the adequacy of
actions grantees take regarding cancelled and long-standing open or revised
activities shown in its System. We further recommend that HUD direct
responsible grantees to justify the use of nearly $67 million that it disbursed for
activities that they later cancelled in the System or repay HUD from non-Federal
funds.
For each recommendation in the body of the report without a management
decision, please respond and provide status reports in accordance with HUD
Handbook 2000.06, REV-4. Please furnish us copies of any correspondence or
directives issued because of the audit.
Auditee’s Response
We discussed the report with HUD during the audit and at an exit conference on
September 21, 2011. HUD provided written comments to our draft report on
October 14, 2011. For the most part, HUD agreed with the conclusions in the
report. The complete text of HUD’s response, along with our evaluation of that
response, can be found in appendix B of this report.
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Background and Objective 4
Results of Audit
Finding: HUD Did Not Adequately Use Its System To Provide Oversight of Its 5
Block Grant Program
Scope and Methodology 10
Internal Controls 12
Appendixes
A. Schedule of Questioned Costs 13
B. Auditee Comments and OIG’s Evaluation 14
C. Summary of Cancelled Block Grant Program Activities by Grantee 30
3
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
The Community Development Block Grant program provides annual grants on a formula basis to
entitled cities and counties to develop viable urban communities by providing decent housing
and a suitable living environment and by expanding economic opportunities, principally for low-
and moderate-income persons. The Block Grant program is authorized under Title 1 of the
Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, Public Law 93-383 as amended, 42 U.S.C.
(United States Code) 5301. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
awards grants to entitlement community and State grantees to carry out a wide range of
community development activities directed toward revitalizing neighborhoods, economic
development, and providing improved community facilities and services. Entitlement
communities and States develop their own programs and funding priorities. To be eligible for
funding, every activity, except for program administration and planning, must meet one of the
following national objectives: (1) benefit low- and moderate-income persons, (2) aid in
preventing or eliminating slums or blight, or (3) meet certain community development needs
having a particular urgency.
The Integrated Disbursement and Information System is the drawdown and reporting system for
all of HUD’s Office of Community Planning and Development (CPD) formula grant programs
including the Block Grant program, which is the focus of this audit report. The other CPD
formula grant programs covered by the System are the HOME Investment Partnerships program,
Emergency Shelter Grant, and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS. Grantees also use
the System for tracking American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 CPD programs. As a
nationwide database, the System is intended to provide HUD with current information regarding
CPD activities underway across the Nation, including funding data. The System is used by HUD
in managing the activities of more than 1,200 HUD grantees, including urban counties and
States, which use the System to plan projects and activities, draw down program funds, and
report on accomplishments. HUD also uses the System to generate reports used within and
outside HUD, including the public, participating jurisdictions, and Congress. Grantees are able
to update, change, cancel, reopen, and increase or decrease project funding in the System without
review by HUD. They also self-report the number of families housed by their projects without a
comprehensive review by HUD.
On its public Web site, HUD displays profiles that show program accomplishments for selected
housing, economic development, public improvement, and public service activities in a summary
format. These profiles contain accomplishments reported, by program year, by entitlement
communities and States and are part of HUD’s effort to provide grantees and citizens with
comprehensive information on its programs. These profiles are further intended to help increase the
amount of information that is available about the performance of grantees to stakeholders and
citizens.
The objective of the audit was to assess the adequacy of HUD’s use of its System to provide
oversight of activities in its Block Grant program.
4
RESULTS OF AUDIT
Finding: HUD Did Not Adequately Use Its System To Provide
Oversight of Its Block Grant Program
HUD lacked oversight of nearly $67 million that it disbursed to fund more than 1,300 Block
Grant program activities that grantees later cancelled in the System. In addition, HUD did not
have adequate oversight of almost $3 billion associated with more than 20,000 long-standing
open activities that grantees reportedly failed to complete for up to 11 years. This situation
occurred because HUD (1) did not have policies or procedures requiring it to periodically use the
data contained in its System to provide oversight of cancelled and long-standing open or revised
activities and (2) did not evaluate the adequacy of actions grantees took regarding cancelled and
long-standing open or revised activities shown in its System. As a result, HUD could provide
little assurance that significant amounts of Block Grant program funding it disbursed nationwide
(1) benefited low- and moderate-income persons, (2) aided in preventing or eliminating slums or
blight, or (3) met community development needs having a particular urgency.
Cancelled Activities Totaling
Nearly $67 Million Lacked
Oversight
HUD was unaware of how grantees used nearly $67 million that it disbursed to
fund Block Grant program activities that grantees later cancelled in the System.
Our analysis of System data contained in HUD’s list of activities by program year
and project (PR02 report) showed there were 366 grantees responsible for more
than 1,300 cancelled activities as of May 2011 (see appendix C).
Year Cancelled activities Amount drawn
2001 133 $10,973,923
2002 136 11,814,409
2003 218 9,601,698
2004 233 10,312,224
2005 170 7,622,761
2006 153 7,585,416
2007 118 3,141,137
2008 68 1,631,361
2009 54 3,853,404
2010 21 174,587
2011 1 138,738
Totals 1,305 $66,849,658
5
Responsible officials acknowledged that HUD lacked control of cancelled
activities since grantees were permitted to cancel activities in the System and use
the associated funds for other purposes without HUD oversight or review. In
comparison to HUD’s HOME program, HUD’s controls related to cancelled
activities in its Block Grant program were weak. HUD’s HOME program
required the grantee to repay funds to other open activities before cancelling a
HOME program activity. The System training manual provided specific
instructions for the cancellation of HOME program activities but did not provide
instructions related to the cancellation of Block Grant program activities. HOME
regulations at 24 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 92.503(b)(2) require that
any HOME funds invested in a project that is terminated before completion be
repaid by the participating jurisdiction. Due to the lack of controls relating to
cancelled Block Grant program activities, grantees may have been able to
manipulate the system and inaccurately report program activities.
Regulations at 24 CFR 570.200(a)(2) require that to be eligible for funding, every
Block Grant program activity, except for program administration and planning,
meet one of the following national objectives: (1) benefit low- and moderate-
income persons, (2) aid in preventing or eliminating slums or blight, or (3) meet
certain community development needs having a particular urgency. HUD should
begin using the data already reported and available in its System to improve its
oversight of activities cancelled by grantees to ensure that the grantees use the
funds to meet a national objective. HUD should also direct responsible grantees
to justify the use of nearly $67 million that it disbursed for cancelled activities.
Long-Standing1 Open Activities
Totaling $3 Billion Lacked
Adequate Oversight
The audit identified almost $3 billion in Block Grant funding for long-standing
open activities which grantees reportedly failed to complete for up to 11 years.
Our analysis of data contained in HUD’s PR02 report showed there were 804
grantees responsible for 20,764 long-standing open activities. Of the $3 billion,
HUD had disbursed $2.8 billion to the grantees as of May 2011.
Unlike its HOME program, HUD did not have reports on its public Web site to
identify individual open Block Grant program activities. Under the HOME
program, regulations at 24 CFR 92.500 require HUD to reduce or recapture
HOME funds that are not expended within 5 years. Since a similar requirement
did not exist for the Block Grant program, HUD officials did not focus reviews on
long-standing open Block Grant program activities. Regulations at 24 CFR
570.902 did require HUD to review the performance of each entitlement, HUD-
administered small cities, and insular areas recipient to determine whether each
recipient carried out its assisted activities in a timely manner. However, HUD
only considered corrective action such as reductions in future funding if 60 days
6
before the end of the grantee’s current program year, the amount of entitlement
grant funds available to the recipient, under grant agreements but undisbursed by
the U.S. Treasury, was more than 1.5 times the entitlement grant amount for its
current program year. 2
Recent congressional hearings and media coverage have focused on concerns
regarding HUD’s oversight of long-standing open activities in its HOME
program. With about $3 billion reportedly associated with long-standing open
Block Grant program activities from 2000 to 2005, HUD should focus on
improving its oversight of these activities as well.
Grantees Transferred Funds to
Other Activities Without HUD
Oversight
The audit identified 3,970 disbursements of Block Grant program funds totaling
$89.8 million that grantees received 90 or more days before the setup of the
activity in the System. To learn why grantees reportedly drew down funds long
before setting up of the activities in the System, we further analyzed data
contained in HUD’s drawdown report by voucher number. Our analysis showed
that this situation occurred primarily because grantees transferred previously
drawn down funds among various other activities without restrictions or HUD
oversight. For example, our detailed analysis of two long-standing open activities
showed that the funds disbursed to the grantees for approved activities were later
split up by the grantee and transferred several times among several other activities
over a 5-year period without explanation or HUD oversight.
Responsible officials acknowledged that HUD lacked control over grantees’
revising activities since they were permitted to revise activities in the System and
use the associated funds for other purposes without HUD oversight or review.
With at least $89.8 million associated with revised Block Grant program
activities, HUD needs to focus on improving its oversight of these revised
activities.
2
24 CFR 570.902 does not cover the States’ Block Grant program and a similar “expenditure timeliness”
requirement did not exist for the States. However, on its public Web site HUD posted a document entitled “State
Community Block Grant Program - Methods for Improving Timely Performance” dated January 2004 which states:
“Although there is no timely expenditure regulatory standard for States, they should realize that such a requirement
is likely to be established in the future. Congress and oversight agencies increasingly judge Block Grant and other
programs by “the bottom line.” Appropriators look at funds allocated in prior years but not yet expended and ask
why additional funds should be appropriated. HUD is concerned that without a serious strategy to reduce the level
of prior year funds unexpended by grantees, the Block Grant program may see its appropriations reduced in the
future.”
7
External OIG Audit Illustrated
Problems With Long-Standing
Open Activities
The importance of the need for improved HUD oversight can be further illustrated
by a recent OIG external audit that reported significant problems with the failure
of a grantee to justify that its Block Grant program activities complied with
Federal requirements. In audit report 2011-PH-1002,3 OIG reported that the City
of Scranton, PA, failed to adequately administer its Block Grant program funds
and could not demonstrate that it used more than $11.7 million in accordance with
applicable HUD requirements. Specifically, it (1) failed to maintain adequate
records identifying the source and application of funds for its HUD-sponsored
activities, (2) did not maintain required documentation and budget controls
demonstrating that its expenditures complied with program requirements, (3) did
not use proper subrecipient agreements, and (4) failed to adequately monitor its
subrecipients. Additionally, it did not ensure that its activities complied with
program requirements and allowed an apparent conflict-of-interest situation to
exist. It is important to note that our analysis of HUD’s PR02 report as of May
2011 showed that the City had 12 long-standing open program activities included
in the audit results that were opened in 2004 and 2005 and were funded at more
than $2.8 million.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Operations
1A. Implement policies and procedures requiring HUD to periodically use the
data contained in its System to provide improved oversight of cancelled
Block Grant program activities.
1B. Direct responsible grantees to justify the use of $66,849,658 that it
disbursed for cancelled Block Grant program activities or repay HUD
from non-Federal funds.
1C. Implement policies and procedures requiring HUD to periodically use the
data contained in its System to provide improved oversight of long-
standing open Block Grant program activities.
3
HUD OIG audit report number 2011-PH-1002, “The City of Scranton, PA, Did Not Administer Its Community
Development Block Grant Program in Accordance With HUD Requirements,” dated November 8, 2010
8
1D. Implement policies and procedures requiring HUD to periodically use the
data contained in its System to provide improved oversight of revised
Block Grant program activities.
1E. Periodically evaluate the adequacy of actions grantees take regarding
cancelled and long-standing open or revised activities shown in its
System.
9
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
We performed the audit from January to July 2011 at HUD headquarters in Washington, DC, and at
the State of Virginia’s offices located in Richmond, VA. The audit generally covered the period
October 2007 through December 2010 but was expanded when necessary to include other periods.
We relied in part on computer-processed data in HUD’s computer system. Although we did not
perform a detailed assessment of the reliability of the data, we did perform a minimal level of
testing and found the data to be adequate for our purposes. To accomplish our objective, we
Interviewed officials from HUD CPD including the Office of Block Grant Assistance and
Office of Affordable Housing.
Interviewed HUD CPD staff located in Richmond, VA, Philadelphia, PA, Pittsburgh, PA,
Baltimore, MD, Chicago, IL, Los Angeles, CA, Houston, TX, and New Orleans, LA.
Interviewed officials from the State of Virginia Department of Housing and Community
Development.
Reviewed HUD headquarters’ CPD key staff and employee listings.
Reviewed position descriptions for key CPD staff in the HUD field offices.
Reviewed organization charts for HUD CPD headquarters, the HUD CPD Richmond field
office, and the State of Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development.
Analyzed System selected data tables and preformatted reports.
Reviewed pertinent System manuals, the Code of Federal Regulations, HUD handbooks,
Block Grant notices and training manuals, and a HUD memorandum.
Reviewed HUD monitoring reports of selected grantees.
Reviewed the State of Virginia’s action plan, consolidated action plan evaluation report, and
performance and evaluation report.
Reviewed the HUD CPD Richmond field office’s risk analysis; disaster grant files for the
State of Virginia; and approval letters for the State of Virginia’s action plan, consolidated
action plan evaluation report, and performance evaluation report.
Reviewed supporting documents relating to activities for the five selected Block Grant
program draws made by the State of Virginia.
Reviewed Washington Post articles concerning delayed HOME projects and congressional
testimony that included HUD’s response to the Washington Post articles.
10
Evaluated System data by using Audit Command Language software to determine a
universe of 690,620 draws. We filtered the universe to determine 8,078 draws for CPD
activities set up on or after October 1, 2007, that were submitted 90 or more days before the
setup of the activity. Also, there was a universe of 168,165 activities associated with the
690,620 draw transactions.
We conducted the audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate
evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objective(s). We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings
and conclusions based on our audit objective.
11
INTERNAL CONTROLS
Internal control is a process adopted by those charged with governance and management,
designed to provide reasonable assurance about the achievement of the organization’s mission,
goals, and objectives with regard to
Effectiveness and efficiency of operations,
Reliability of financial reporting, and
Compliance with applicable laws and regulations.
Internal controls comprise the plans, policies, methods, and procedures used to meet the
organization’s mission, goals, and objectives. Internal controls include the processes and
procedures for planning, organizing, directing, and controlling program operations as well as the
systems for measuring, reporting, and monitoring program performance.
Relevant Internal Controls
We determined that the following internal controls were relevant to our audit
objective:
HUD’s monitoring of its Block Grant program – Policies and procedures that
management has implemented regarding open program activities, voucher
revisions, cancelled program activities, and repayment for ineligible program
activities.
We assessed the relevant controls identified above.
A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does
not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their
assigned functions, the reasonable opportunity to prevent, detect, or correct (1)
impairments to effectiveness or efficiency of operations, (2) misstatements in
financial or performance information, or (3) violations of laws and regulations on a
timely basis.
Significant Deficiency
Based on our review, we believe that the following item is a significant deficiency:
HUD did not adequately use its System to provide oversight of activities
under its Block Grant program.
12
APPENDIXES
Appendix A
SCHEDULE OF QUESTIONED COSTS
Recommendation Unsupported 1/
number
1B $66,849,658
1/ Unsupported costs are those costs charged to a HUD-financed or HUD-insured program
or activity when we cannot determine eligibility at the time of the audit. Unsupported
costs require a decision by HUD program officials. This decision, in addition to
obtaining supporting documentation, might involve a legal interpretation or clarification
of departmental policies and procedures.
13
Appendix B
AUDITEE COMMENTS AND OIG’S EVALUATION
Ref to OIG Evaluation Auditee Comments
Comment 1
14
Comment 2
Comment 3
15
Comment 4
Comment 5
Comment 6
Comment 7
Comment 8
16
Comment 5
Comment 9
Comment 5
Comment 5
Comment 5
17
Comment 5
Comment 5
Comment 5
18
Comment 10
Comment 10
Comment 11
Comment 5
19
Comment 5
20
Comment 5
Comment 5
21
Comment 9
Comment 5
22
Comment 5
23
Comment 9
Comment 5
24
Comment 5
25
Comment 10
26
Comment 10
27
OIG Evaluation of Auditee Comments
Comment 1 We are encouraged that HUD has initiated a broad set of comprehensive actions
to respond to our audit recommendations. While we agree that the issues in the
three recommendations cited by HUD are related, important concerns associated
with each recommendation warranted presenting them separately in our audit
report.
Comment 2 We are encouraged that HUD plans to issue updated, consolidated guidance to
help it correct the problems the audit identified.
Comment 3 We are encouraged that HUD has begun to review every long-standing and
cancelled activity indentified in the audit report and that it plans to resolve any
questionable costs associated with these activities.
Comment 4 HUD states that its goal is to have System enhancements in place by the end of
fiscal year 2012, assuming funding availability. These enhancements are critical
because the audit showed current System controls provided little assurance that
significant amounts of Block Grant program funding disbursed nationwide were
used as required. HUD also uses the System to generate reports showing program
accomplishments used by the public, participating jurisdictions, and Congress.
Comment 5 We evaluated data that was in HUD’s System at the time of the audit. This
evaluation showed that HUD lacked oversight of nearly $67 million that it
disbursed to fund more than 1,300 Block Grant program activities that grantees
later cancelled in the System. In addition, HUD did not have adequate oversight
of almost $3 billion associated with more than 20,000 long-standing open
activities that grantees reportedly failed to complete for up to 11 years. After the
audit, HUD undertook an extensive nationwide effort to review its system data.
The results of HUD’s review to date are shown in its Appendixes 1, 2, 3, and 4 of
its comments. While we did not verify the results of HUD’s ongoing review we
are encouraged that it is now reviewing its System data closely and has increased
its remote monitoring to include activities with outdated, insufficient or
questionable data. By using data already available in its System to focus on
reviewing questionable activities, HUD can more effectively monitor its Block
Grant program and concentrate more fully on its broader challenges.
Comment 6 HUD states it agrees that grantees should not cancel activities after drawing down
funds without sufficient justification (and should reimburse the program if HUD
determines the justification to be unacceptable). However, HUD states that the
problem is small in relation to the total number of activities initiated. We did not
verify any of the statistics or percentages in HUD’s comments to this audit report.
However it is important to note that many of activities comprising the nearly $67
million had been canceled since 2001 and HUD is only now attempting to obtain
justification from grantees of how they used the funds. This funding was required
to be used to (1) benefit low- and moderate-income persons, (2) aid in preventing
28
or eliminating slums or blight, or (3) meet community development needs having
a particular urgency.
Comment 7 The narrative field mentioned did not provide enough information for us to
determine whether the grantee provided adequate justification to support its
cancellation or revision of a program activity. Additionally, we provided
responsible HUD officials a comprehensive listing of the cancelled activities on
two separate occasions during the audit and asked them for an explanation or
justification for the cancelled activities and they failed to provide it.
Comment 8 We revised the data to remove the nine duplicates and revised the audit report
accordingly. HUD asserts that data provided during the audit showed long-
standing activities totaling 20,763. Based on our review of data provided to HUD
during the audit, the data always showed the number of long-standing activities as
20,764.
Comment 9 We evaluated data in HUD’s System at the time we performed the audit and did
not overstate the problem with long-standing open activities. We analyzed data
contained in HUD’s list of activities by program year and project (PR02 report)
which displayed the activity status, amount funded, and amount disbursed for the
grantee’s activities. After the audit, HUD undertook a nationwide effort to
review the detailed System data. We did not verify the results of the review HUD
undertook after the audit. However, to address HUD’s concern we further
clarified our definition of a long-standing program activity as an activity that
remained open for at least 5 years after it was funded through a grantee’s annual
consolidated plan.
Comment 10 We did not misinterpret the CDBG timely expenditure requirements and we did
not assert that the programs are identical. As stated in the report, since similar
timely expenditure requirements did not exist for the Block Grant program, HUD
officials did not focus reviews on long-standing open Block Grant program
activities. We made the comparison because with about $3 billion reportedly
associated with long-standing open Block Grant program activities from 2000 to
2005, we believe HUD needed to focus on improving its oversight of these
activities as well. HUD could potentially use similar System controls and
techniques as it currently has in its HOME program.
Comment 11 HUD asserts that the nearly $67 million in reported cancelled activities are a
result of revisions to program activities but has yet to provide support for its
assertion. It is important to note that we were conservative in our reported
questioned costs because the audit identified an additional 3,970 disbursements of
Block Grant program funds totaling an additional $89.8 million that grantees
received 90 or more days before the setup of the activity in the System. Our
analysis showed that this occurred primarily because grantees transferred
previously drawn down funds among various other activities without restrictions
or HUD oversight.
29
Appendix C
SUMMARY OF CANCELLED BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
ACTIVITIES BY GRANTEE
Number of
Grantee State Amount drawn cancelled activities
Chicago IL $5,574,242.64 13
Missouri MO 5,455,944.01 20
Schedectady NY 4,419,826.64 45
Boston MA 3,329,242.02 7
New Hampshire NH 2,453,823.00 23
Salt Lake City UT 1,525,427.78 1
Canton Township MI 1,514,884.28 19
Birmingham AL 1,475,308.22 27
Rogers AR 1,295,821.00 20
Kentucky KY 1,290,000.00 2
Nebraska NE 1,175,127.00 17
Texas TX 1,151,923.90 12
Cleveland OH 1,128,444.00 28
Columbia SC 1,090,875.14 6
Wisconsin WI 1,032,300.00 4
New Orleans LA 999,995.38 1
Sacramento County CA 981,333.80 3
Port Arthur TX 963,160.53 12
Allegheny County PA 928,219.98 4
Mississippi MS 733,403.72 7
Hartford CT 727,808.59 7
Tampa FL 676,537.00 1
Washington DC 659,553.17 1
San Bernardino County CA 602,694.01 10
Vermont VT 601,500.00 2
Anaheim CA 595,949.00 2
Miami Dade County FL 533,389.70 6
California CA 517,036.31 5
Los Angeles County CA 499,362.74 4
Newark NJ 494,499.41 3
Bergen County NJ 494,315.73 5
Columbus OH 481,000.00 4
Maine ME 440,000.00 2
Nassau County NY 426,017.30 12
30
Number of
Grantee State Amount drawn cancelled activities
Lancaster PA 419,613.74 3
Niagra Falls NY 405,269.96 13
Denver CO 395,790.61 3
Hennepin County MN 380,984.57 1
New Jersey NJ 359,269.00 1
Hayward CA 345,000.00 1
Houma LA 335,079.55 14
Utah UT 334,095.68 8
Florida FL 334,092.98 8
Durham NC 320,994.58 5
San Juan PR 319,641.57 1
Vacaville CA 317,900.00 5
New Mexico NM 312,162.54 3
Lynwood CA 309,207.94 1
Henrico County VA 305,350.00 2
College Station TX 294,860.07 1
Pierce County WA 292,265.54 3
Portsmouth VA 292,124.18 2
South Carolina SC 287,977.00 8
Augusta GA 284,800.30 12
Largo FL 282,632.45 28
Los Angeles CA 282,096.29 7
Maui County HI 257,190.03 2
Riverside County CA 236,631.36 5
Buffalo NY 228,825.00 7
Iowa IA 227,873.00 11
Warwick RI 217,181.26 2
Massachusetts MA 216,929.30 2
Kannapolis NC 211,813.00 5
North Carolina NC 205,310.00 4
Santa Maria CA 204,947.36 3
Austin TX 202,774.43 1
West Lafayette IN 196,288.75 2
Santa Clara County CA 195,353.62 1
Anoka County MN 192,082.25 2
Hammond IN 190,740.91 1
Muskegon Heights MI 187,176.00 2
Hampton VA 186,348.72 23
Louisiana LA 185,369.78 9
Springdale AR 184,305.56 3
Pompano Beach FL 168,684.26 3
31
Number of
Grantee State Amount drawn cancelled activities
Prince George’s County MD 166,661.86 2
Lancaster CA 164,323.00 2
Bayone NJ 161,000.00 6
Wyoming WY 158,992.00 5
Akron OH 158,826.24 2
Oakland CA 158,516.00 4
Lynn MA 150,000.00 1
Yakima WA 143,442.00 5
Hamden CT 139,112.27 2
Sonoma County CA 133,919.10 5
Bethlehem PA 130,000.00 1
Rockland County NY 125,337.42 2
North Dakota ND 125,000.00 1
Orange County FL 123,659.75 3
Essex County NJ 121,795.44 4
Rochester NH 118,347.93 5
Myrtle Beach SC 114,338.00 2
Montgomery County TX 112,427.58 2
Bridgeton NJ 111,439.34 2
New Rochelle NY 111,183.49 2
Hagerstown MD 110,898.88 8
Kern County CA 110,835.06 8
Pennsylvania PA 110,354.27 4
Saginaw MI 110,114.10 1
Milpitas CA 105,000.00 1
Hanford CA 100,000.00 1
Barberton OH 99,779.99 3
Tustin CA 94,904.51 2
Oak Ridge TN 93,265.49 5
Rome NY 93,038.44 2
Lakewood OH 91,875.85 3
Ventura County CA 89,394.00 2
Cleveland Heights OH 88,774.50 1
Johnson City TN 87,981.67 9
Lakewood Township NJ 84,919.16 1
Manchester NH 83,075.00 1
Oklahoma OK 82,075.00 2
Cook County IL 81,747.34 4
Fort Pierce FL 81,624.55 4
Vallejo CA 80,854.00 5
St. Petersburg FL 80,657.04 1
Monroe LA 78,328.03 1
32
Number of
Grantee State Amount drawn cancelled activities
Kansas City MO 76,458.24 2
Prescott AZ 74,034.05 2
Atlanta GA 74,000.00 1
Puerto Rico PR 73,853.00 3
St. Louis MO 72,000.00 2
Attleboro MA 69,436.49 1
Baltimore MD 68,060.00 3
Jersey City NJ 67,375.99 4
Fort Worth TX 65,950.77 1
Haverhill MA 65,765.00 3
Perth Amboy NJ 65,749.76 3
Eugene OR 65,000.00 2
Paterson NJ 64,545.00 2
Grand Forks ND 61,849.25 2
Bowling Green OH 60,000.00 1
Jefferson City MO 60,000.00 1
Georgia GA 58,750.00 3
New York NY 56,254.00 3
Cuyahoga County OH 56,000.00 1
Irondequoit NY 55,882.62 3
Greenville County SC 54,056.69 29
Richmond VA 51,450.00 2
San Diego CA 50,628.69 5
Dunkirk NY 50,149.00 1
Altoona PA 50,000.00 1
Baton Rouge LA 50,000.00 1
Bessemer AL 50,000.00 2
Luzerne County PA 50,000.00 1
Tulare CA 50,000.00 1
Milwaukee WI 49,937.50 1
La Crosse WI 49,377.15 2
Shawnee OK 48,976.00 3
Sandusky OH 48,649.50 1
Pensacola FL 47,716.00 10
Rio Rancho NM 47,100.00 2
Chesterfield County VA 45,244.09 1
Lansing MI 45,000.00 1
North Little Rock AR 44,961.16 3
Michigan MI 43,900.00 1
Harrisburg PA 43,692.26 17
San Joaquin County CA 43,665.64 4
Clackamas County OR 43,411.62 8
33
Number of
Grantee State Amount drawn cancelled activities
Stockton CA 43,149.72 2
Chula Vista CA 43,136.80 2
Reno NV 42,500.00 1
Atlantic City NJ 40,927.00 3
West Des Moines IA 39,600.00 1
Rockford IL 39,447.18 75
Hattiesburg MS 38,764.40 2
Shreveport LA 37,902.37 5
Elyria OH 37,207.43 1
Normal IL 36,702.00 1
North Bergen County NJ 36,024.86 2
Yuma AZ 35,201.14 2
Hudson County NJ 35,000.00 1
Saratoga Springs NY 35,000.00 1
Miramar FL 34,913.66 1
Ashland KY 34,701.01 10
Virgin Islands VI 32,870.26 1
Palm Beach County FL 32,278.80 14
Colorado CO 30,640.10 1
Provo UT 30,600.00 3
Baltimore County MD 30,000.00 1
Indianapolis IN 30,000.00 1
Escondido CA 29,775.10 1
Orlando FL 27,357.39 1
Jackson MS 26,889.63 1
Pharr TX 26,746.58 2
Fresno County CA 25,974.50 1
Santa Fe NM 25,853.00 1
Philadelphia PA 25,113.29 2
Fullerton CA 25,000.00 1
Norwalk CT 24,715.15 2
Clifton NJ 23,169.37 1
Framingham MA 22,852.57 3
Antioch CA 22,660.55 3
Michigan City IN 22,514.51 1
Cambridge MA 22,187.74 10
Middlesex County NJ 22,177.00 2
Rocky Mount NC 22,000.00 1
St. Louis County MO 22,000.00 1
Portsmouth NH 21,639.85 3
Livonia MI 20,809.08 1
Syracuse NY 20,689.42 1
34
Number of
Grantee State Amount drawn cancelled activities
Tyler TX 20,686.33 1
Marietta OH 20,437.80 2
Spartanburg SC 20,000.00 1
American Samoa AS 19,999.90 1
Oakland County MI 19,973.30 2
Dubuque IA 19,128.00 1
Portland OR 18,871.43 4
Bentonville AR 18,273.06 1
Willaimsport PA 18,103.87 4
Waltham MA 17,993.11 3
South Gate CA 17,940.00 1
Kent Counth MI 17,860.10 2
Bensalem Township PA 17,500.00 1
Prince William County VA 17,224.04 2
Hillsborough County FL 16,847.50 1
Berks County PA 16,773.09 3
Bloomfield Township NJ 16,729.50 1
Manantee County FL 16,612.00 1
Evanston IL 16,000.00 1
Cedar Falls IA 15,963.42 2
Richmond CA 15,644.38 2
Simi Valley CA 15,484.57 2
Hazleton PA 15,104.52 1
Rhode Island RI 15,000.00 1
Savannah GA 14,967.22 2
Contra Costa County CA 14,715.00 2
Long Branch NJ 14,405.50 2
Palatine IL 13,832.91 3
Seattle WA 13,793.44 1
Des Moines IA 13,750.00 1
Cumberland County ME 13,699.12 1
Long Beach CA 13,328.64 1
Flint MI 13,040.79 2
Burlington County NJ 12,961.00 1
Greece NY 12,952.45 1
Bowie MD 11,630.05 1
Elizabeth NJ 11,612.00 1
Miami Gardens FL 11,333.68 13
York County PA 11,192.36 40
Anacortes WA 11,173.00 1
Moss Point MS 10,565.61 4
Albuquerque NM 10,321.79 1
35
Number of
Grantee State Amount drawn cancelled activities
Newburgh NY 10,095.00 2
Gulfport MS 10,000.00 1
Hopewell VA 10,000.00 1
Jacksonville NC 10,000.00 1
Lake County FL 9,774.00 2
Lake County OH 9,300.00 1
West Valley City UT 8,759.78 2
Bismark ND 8,715.36 3
Cheektowaga Township NY 8,369.23 1
Lancaster County PA 8,110.50 1
Plymouth MN 7,924.70 1
Cobb County GA 7,649.00 2
Illinois IL 7,448.00 2
Bellingham WA 7,221.48 2
Taylor MI 7,130.03 1
East Providence RI 7,000.00 1
Milwaukee County WI 6,895.00 1
Iowa City IA 6,864.00 2
White Plains NY 6,860.00 1
El Paso TX 6,814.85 1
St. Joseph MO 6,524.60 1
Peabody MA 6,500.00 1
Corpus Christi TX 6,154.00 1
Newton MA 6,057.50 3
Arkansas AR 5,813.22 1
Evansville IN 5,625.00 1
Knoxville TN 5,346.39 3
Madera CA 5,327.39 2
Madison County IL 5,170.55 1
Albany NY 5,000.00 1
Green Bay WI 5,000.00 1
Hinesville GA 5,000.00 1
Montebello CA 4,947.00 2
Youngstown OH 4,829.13 14
Mobile AL 4,763.96 1
Tucson AZ 4,758.07 3
Mobile County AL 4,709.55 2
San Mateo County CA 4,558.28 3
Anderson IN 4,107.34 1
Montgomery County MD 4,098.00 3
Compton CA 4,000.00 1
Longmont CO 3,867.06 1
36
Number of
Grantee State Amount drawn cancelled activities
Lee County FL 3,690.70 5
Dearborn Heights MI 3,660.15 3
Oregon OR 3,500.00 1
Las Vegas NV 3,470.97 1
Lee’s Summit MO 3,463.91 1
Danbury CT 3,424.44 1
Sacremento CA 3,407.38 1
Franklin County OH 3,404.24 1
Little Rock AR 3,403.03 1
Muskegon MI 3,330.00 1
Orange County CA 3,324.69 2
Penn Hills PA 3,290.00 1
East Cleveland OH 3,250.00 1
Union Township (Union County) NJ 3,171.00 7
East Lansing MI 3,135.00 1
Kokomo IN 3,060.00 1
Gaithersburg MD 3,007.00 1
Arizona AZ 3,000.00 1
Southfield MI 3,000.00 1
Rochester NY 2,977.88 4
Fairfield CT 2,940.50 1
Easton PA 2,900.00 2
East St. Louis IL 2,750.00 2
Stanislaus County CA 2,635.79 1
La Mesa CA 2,543.12 1
Lebanon PA 2,503.50 1
Anchorage AK 2,459.20 1
Ontario CA 2,336.58 1
Suffolk County NY 2,325.00 1
Johnstown PA 2,088.33 1
Pomona CA 2,081.44 3
Billings MT 2,000.00 1
San Bernadino CA 1,735.90 1
Montgomery AL 1,678.75 1
San Benito TX 1,672.70 1
Clearfield UT 1,612.77 1
Milford CT 1,605.66 2
Onondaga County NY 1,535.00 1
Bristol Township PA 1,500.00 1
Minnesota MN 1,350.00 1
Fort Myers FL 1,250.00 2
Alameda County CA 1,151.06 1
37
Number of
Grantee State Amount drawn cancelled activities
Rantoul IL 1,100.06 5
Salem MA 1,021.11 3
Anderson SC 994.09 3
Knox County TN 900.00 1
Polk County FL 886.09 1
Frederick MD 847.30 1
San Jose CA 834.22 2
Blacksburg VA 830.00 1
Collier County FL 780.00 1
Delaware County PA 750.00 1
Fargo ND 745.97 1
Wenatchee WA 727.90 1
Lake County IN 720.00 2
Lompoc CA 649.16 1
Pascagoula MS 630.00 1
Hidalgo County TX 586.35 1
Santa Monica CA 543.22 1
Chino CA 535.00 1
Clearwater FL 504.50 1
Middletown NY 500.00 1
Downey CA 424.61 1
Ketterine OH 408.91 1
Hawthorne CA 355.00 1
Petersburg VA 331.60 1
Montgomery County PA 313.03 1
Lafayette IN 301.00 1
Chester County PA 281.20 3
Ventura/San Buena Ventura CA 264.12 1
Cary NC 250.00 1
Cicero IL 250.00 2
Gadsden AL 240.00 1
Owensboro KY 185.00 1
Tonawanda NY 125.00 1
La Habra CA 81.46 1
Dover Township NJ 75.87 1
Maricopa County AZ 67.30 1
Pekin IL 54.30 4
Rock Hill SC 37.56 1
Suffolk VA 0.68 1
Totals $66,849,658.12 1,305
38
HUD Needed to Improve Its Use of Its Integrated Disbursement and Information System To Oversee Its Community Development Block Grant Program
Published by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General on 2011-10-31.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)