U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Inspector General for Investigation
Inspections and Evaluations Division
HUD’s Supportive Housing Program
Survey of Grantee Monitoring of Project Sponsors
February 16, 2011
IED‐11‐002R
.
Executive Summary
The Office of Inspector General (OIG), Inspections and Evaluations Division, conducts
independent, objective examinations of U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) activities, programs, operations, and organizational issues.
We conducted a survey of HUD’s Supportive Housing Program (SHP); specifically, grantee
monitoring of nonprofit subgrantees (project sponsors) that deliver supportive housing and/or
supportive services. OIG investigations of alleged fraudulent activity by employees of project
sponsors raised concerns about oversight on the part of HUD and the grantees. The objective of
the survey was to assess whether SHP grantees followed Federal regulations and HUD guidance
on monitoring project sponsor activities and program expenditures. We also looked at HUD’s
role in grantee monitoring of project sponsors. Questionnaires were sent to all 44 HUD Office of
Community Planning and Development (CPD) regional and field offices and to a sample of 11
SHP grantees and 12 project sponsors.
Survey responses indicated that overall HUD is actively providing monitoring guidance to SHP
grantees and that most grantees reported compliance with Federal regulations related to their
monitoring of project sponsors. Responses to the survey also indicated that improvement is
warranted in certain aspects of HUD’s guidance and the grantees’ monitoring of project sponsor
activities. For example,
3 CPD offices did not assess grantee monitoring of project sponsors in their jurisdictions,
17 CPD offices did not provide specific instructions to SHP grantees on their
responsibility to ensure that project sponsors had not been debarred or suspended from
participating in Federal programs,
7 CPD offices reported that not all grantees in their jurisdiction reviewed project sponsors
to identify possible conflict-of-interest concerns, and
Standards differed among SHP grantees as to what was considered adequate
documentation to support project sponsor expenditures.
HUD and SHP grantees identified staffing and funding as primary barriers in meeting their
oversight and monitoring responsibilities. More than half of the CPD field offices cited
inadequate staffing, insufficient funds to pay for onsite grantee monitoring visits, and the lack of
knowledge and program expertise. Several grantees also expressed concern over insufficient
funding to pay for onsite monitoring visits to project sponsors and inadequate staff levels.
Recent passage of the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act
(HEARTH) in 2009 may help to reduce some of the barriers. For example, HEARTH doubled
the percentage of program funds (from 5 to 10 percent) that grantees may use for administrative
costs such as monitoring. The SHP Director expects that the increase should help grantees meet
their monitoring responsibilities. Further, CPD plans to offer additional technical assistance to
help SHP grantees deal with their staffing difficulties.1
1
At the time of this survey, HUD was preparing proposed regulations and program guidance to codify and
implement the HEARTH Act, including provisions of the Act which incorporates services that were formerly funded
under SHP.
2
Effective oversight and monitoring are crucial to ensuring that SHP funds are properly spent to
assist in the transition of persons out of homelessness. When SHP grantees accept Federal funds,
they also accept the responsibility to manage the program in accordance with all applicable
Federal and HUD regulations. Therefore, monitoring of grantees and project sponsors that
deliver supportive housing services is essential for program success. In this regard, HUD should
reinforce compliance with Federal regulations and monitoring guidance and ensure that its
monitoring reviews include an assessment of SHP grantee project sponsor management.
We provided a draft copy of the report to the Assistant Secretary for CPD on December 16,
2010. The Assistant Secretary in a memorandum dated January 31, 2011, agreed with our
observations and concurred with the recommendations. OIG considers CPD’s planned corrective
actions to be responsive to our three recommendations. However, the recommendations remain
open pending verification of corrective actions taken. The complete text of CPD’s response is
included in Appendix A to this report.
3
Table of Contents
Introduction ......................................................................................................................................5
Scope and Methodology ..................................................................................................................6
Observations
1. Enhancements Needed in Some Areas of HUD and Grantee Monitoring ............................7
2. Barriers to Effective Grantee Monitoring .............................................................................9
Recommendations ..........................................................................................................................10
Comments and OIG Response .......................................................................................................11
Appendixes
A. HUD Office of Community Planning and Development’s Comments..............................12
B. CPD Questionnaire.............................................................................................................13
C. Grantee Questionnaire ........................................................................................................15
D. Project Sponsor Questionnaire ...........................................................................................18
4
Introduction
Supportive Housing Program
The Supportive Housing Program (SHP) is one of several homelessness programs authorized by
Title IV, Subtitle C, of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987 as amended.
SHP is designed to develop supportive housing and services that will allow homeless persons to
live as independently as possible. Eligible applicants are State and local governments, public
housing authorities, and private nonprofit entities. As prescribed in 24 CFR (Code of Federal
Regulations) 583.115 and 583.120, program funds may be used for leasing, including paying rent
for entire structures or individual units to provide housing for program participants and/or for
supportive services such as case management and health care. A portion of the grant funds may
also be used by grantees for operations and to cover administrative costs.2 SHP allows grantees
to contract with other organizations, typically nonprofits, to deliver the supportive housing and
services to eligible participants. These nonprofits are referred to as project sponsors.
The following table shows SHP funding by major components for fiscal years (FY) 2008 and
2009.3
FY 2008 No. of FY 2009 No. of
SHP activity (in millions) projects (in millions) projects
Permanent housing for
persons with disabilities $374.1 1,888 $438.9 2,300
Transitional housing $435.5 2,140 $428.8 2,212
Supportive services $129.7 829 $132.1 834
Total $939.3 4,857 $999.8 5,346
SHP is administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD)
Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs (SNAPS) within the Office of Community
Planning and Development (CPD). SHP management is decentralized, with CPD regional and
field offices being responsible for ensuring that the grantees and project sponsors comply with
applicable Federal laws and regulations and HUD policies and procedures.
Applicable Federal Regulations
Federal regulations for monitoring HUD-funded programs are found in 24 CFR 84.51 for
nonprofits and 24 CFR 85.40 for State and local government agencies. These regulations require
grantees to monitor subgrant-supported activities (e.g., project sponsors). Specifically, 24 CFR
84.51 states that grant recipients are responsible for managing and monitoring each project,
program, and subaward, including compliance with Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
Circular A-133, “Audits of States, Local Governments and Non-Profit Organizations.”
Regulations at 24 CFR 85.40 contain similar language that requires grantees to manage the day-
2
Federal statute limits the amount of grant funds that may be used by the grantee for administrative costs, such as
monitoring, to not more than 5 percent of the grant award.
3
FY 2010 SHP funding data were not available at the time of this survey.
5
to-day operations of grant and subgrant-supported activities to ensure compliance with Federal
requirements and that performance goals are achieved. Section 85.40 also mandates that
grantees submit annual performance reports to HUD. Additionally, 24 CFR 583.330 codifies
Federal regulations related to SHP and cites 24 CFR Part 85, which prohibits conflicts of interest
by grantees and subgrantees. These regulations also reference OMB Circulars A-87 and A-122,
which require that costs incurred by subgrantees using Federal program funds be reasonable and
adequately documented.
Scope and Methodology
We conducted a survey of SHP in response to concerns raised about oversight on the part of
HUD and the grantees. The concerns resulted from Office of Inspector General (OIG)
investigations of alleged fraudulent activity by employees of project sponsors. The objective of
the survey was to assess whether SHP grantees followed Federal regulations and HUD guidance
on monitoring project sponsor activities and program expenditures. We also looked at HUD’s
role in grantee monitoring of project sponsors.
We designed three questionnaires to collect the majority of the information for this survey. One
questionnaire (appendix B) was used to collect information from all 44 CPD regional and field
offices nationwide, covering the 10 HUD regions.4 Four of the offices did not complete the
questionnaire because they did not have any grantees that used sponsors to deliver SHP services
in their jurisdiction. Therefore, the data analyzed were based on 40 completed questionnaires.
The questionnaire covered topics related to the CPD offices’ guidance to SHP grantees on
monitoring project sponsors and their assessment of grantee monitoring in the respective
jurisdiction.
We sent two other sets of questionnaires (appendixes C and D) to 9 SHP grantees5 and 9 project
sponsors that delivered SHP services for these grantees covering 9 of the 10 HUD regions. The
survey responses were supplemented by responses to questionnaires that we tested at two other
grantees and three of their sponsors located in HUD Region 2.6 Therefore, the survey obtained
results from a total of 11 grantees and 12 sponsors. The information collected from the grantee
and project sponsor questionnaires covered the monitoring activities of the selected grantees and
relationships with their project sponsors.
We used data provided by SNAPS to select the 11 SHP grantees for survey. SNAPS provided
information on all SHP grantees that used project sponsors to provide rental assistance and/or
supportive services during the review period, January 2008 through August 2010. They also
provided a list of SHP grantees that were designated as high risk for FY 2010. We also obtained
project expenditure data from HUD’s Line of Credit Control System.
4
The 50 States, the District of Columbia, and five U.S. territories are divided among 10 HUD regional offices.
5
In accordance with restrictions placed on Federal agencies by the Federal Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
(United States Code) 35), we were limited to the number of grantees and sponsors that were sent questionnaires.
6
HUD Region 2 covers the States of New York and New Jersey. The regional office is located in New York City,
with field offices in Buffalo and Newark.
6
The factors considered in the selection of the 11 SHP grantees were as follows:
Grantee representation in all 10 HUD regions,
Grantees that were designated as high-risk grantees in 2010 by CPD based on an annual
risk assessment conducted by CPD regional and field offices,
Grantees that had an agreement with a nonprofit sponsor to deliver housing assistance
and/or supportive services to eligible project participants, and
SHP funds expenditures between January 2008 and August 2010.
We received a 100 percent response rate from the CPD offices as well as from SHP grantees and
project sponsors. CPD’s Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Operations and the SHP Director
assisted in coordinating the transmission of the questionnaire to the 44 CPD regional and field
offices in the country.
We conducted the survey in accordance with the Quality Standards for Inspections adopted by
the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency.
Observations
Observation 1: Enhancements Needed in Some Areas of HUD and Grantee Monitoring
Survey results showed that CPD regional and field offices play an important and active role in
educating, instructing, and providing guidance to SHP grantees on their federally required
monitoring responsibilities. While the survey indicated that 10 of the 11 selected grantees (with
the exception of one located in New York, HUD Region 2) monitored their project sponsors and
generally complied with the Federal monitoring regulations, it also identified some areas of
grantee monitoring that can be improved.
HUD Guidance Provided to Grantees
HUD fulfills its monitoring role through various means. Responses to the survey indicated that
most of the CPD field offices participate in annual live video startup conferences for new and
existing grantees. These conferences are sponsored by CPD field offices, and the training is
provided by CPD field staff and HUD contractors. The conference curriculum covers topics that
are germane to monitoring, such as SHP project sponsor management, annual progress reports,
eligibility checklists, and financial management. Federal regulations such as 24 CFR Parts 84
and 85 are distributed to the grantees, or the grantees are given Internet links to the material.
Other conference topics include compliance with OMB Circular A-133, conflict-of-interest
issues, and the need for written agreements between the grantee and the project sponsor.
The CPD respondents reported that instructions provided at the annual startup conferences were
continuously supplemented, enforced, and updated through technical assistance provided by
CPD staff or contractors, periodic workshops for grantees and sponsors, and feedback on
grantees’ technical submissions, which is part of the grant application. Additionally, CPD
provides printed material (either hardcopy or via the HUD Web site) to help grantees. The
respondents predominately cited the SHP Desk Guide and the SHP Self-Monitoring Tools as
7
sources that grantees can rely on for guidance on how and what to monitor. In particular, the
Self-Monitoring Tool guide book provides grantees and project sponsors with forms to enable
staff to assess its project operations against the standards set by HUD rules and Federal
regulations. It includes material on how to track eligible activities and expenses and how to
determine and document participant eligibility. Further, this guide book references the Federal
requirements for accounting records and source documents found in 24 CFR 84.21 and 85.20.
These regulations also require that expenditures be supported by source documents such as
cancelled checks, paid bills, payrolls, time and attendance records, contracts, etc.
Exhibit 13-6 of HUD Handbook 6509.2, REV-6 (Community Planning and Development
Monitoring Handbook), includes work steps for CPD offices to assess an SHP grantee’s project
sponsor management, including oversight of the day-to-day operations of project sponsor
activities. Survey results indicated that not all CPD offices followed these work steps when
monitoring SHP grantees for compliance with Federal requirements and the achievement of
performance goals identified in a grantee’s homeless assistance approved application. Three
surveyed respondents reported that they did not perform an assessment of grantee project
sponsor management. By not performing this assessment, they forfeit the opportunity to identify
potential weaknesses with a grantee’s monitoring of project sponsors and to provide needed
corrective assistance. This issue is especially important since the CPD offices focus their
monitoring resources on grantees that are considered high risk and typically conduct onsite
monitoring visits to grantees only once every 2 to 3 years.
The survey results also indicated that CPD offices had not consistently provided guidance on the
Federal regulations prescribed at 24 CFR 84.13 and 85.35, which state that grantees must not
make any award or permit any award to any party which is debarred or suspended. Seventeen
CPD offices reported that they did not provide specific guidance to the grantees on their
responsibility to comply with these regulations. Many of the surveyed respondents stated that
their guidance was accomplished by referring SHP grantees to the applicable regulations.
Further, three surveyed SHP grantees reported that they did not determine whether their project
sponsors had been debarred or suspended. The SHP Director stated that CPD relies on grantees
to verify that project sponsors are not debarred or suspended. The HUD monitoring handbook
does not include a work step for CPD to confirm grantee compliance in this area.
Grantee Monitoring of Project Sponsors
Survey results indicated that the majority of CPD offices (24 of the 40) were basically satisfied
with the monitoring that SHP grantees performed. Overall, grantees have a management system
for oversight and written agreements with their project sponsors. SHP grantees also perform
monitoring steps such as determining whether costs submitted for reimbursement are for eligible
activities and checking rent calculations for payment of subsidies. The results also disclosed that
1 of the 11 surveyed SHP grantees (located in New York, HUD Region 2) reported that it did not
follow HUD guidance on monitoring of project sponsors. The CPD field office recently
conducted a monitoring visit to this grantee and confirmed that the grantee did not comply with
Federal requirements involving the monitoring of project sponsors.
8
Three SHP grantees attributed their monitoring efforts to uncovering instances in which project
sponsors submitted reimbursement claims for ineligible costs such as personal long distance
phone charges and coffee service for the staff. One of the three grantees terminated the contract
with the responsible project sponsor, and the other two grantees did not reimburse the project
sponsors for the ineligible cost. A fourth grantee determined that two project sponsors were
unable to perform their responsibilities and transferred the projects to other project sponsors.
However, survey results also identified inconsistencies among SHP grantees regarding
compliance with Federal and HUD monitoring requirements. Seven CPD offices reported that
not all grantees in their jurisdiction checked for conflicts of interests. Additionally, results
indicated that not all grantees
Required written agreements with sponsors,
Reviewed rent calculations for subsidized living units, and/or
Verified that project participants lived at the addresses subsidized with program funds.
Further, survey results disclosed inconsistencies in documentation that SHP grantees accepted as
support for project expenses. Six CPD offices reported that SHP grantees accepted nonsource
documents for expenses such as project sponsor-generated vouchers and other accounting
records. One CPD office responded that grantees accepted unverified data reported by project
sponsors in their annual performance reports. While a majority of grantees reported that they
required source documentation from project sponsors such as cancelled checks, paid bills, and
payroll registers, some SHP grantees reported that they accepted nonsource documents including
payroll summaries and cash disbursement journals. Regulations at 24 CFR 84.21 and 85.20
require that expenditures be supported by source documents such as cancelled checks, paid bills,
payrolls, time and attendance records, contracts, etc.
Observation 2: Barriers to Effective Grantee Monitoring
Of the 40 CPD offices surveyed, 16 reported that they were either not satisfied with SHP
grantees or concerned that they might not be doing a satisfactory job of monitoring their project
sponsors. Further, 12 CPD offices indicated that they found instances in which program funds
were used for ineligible costs or unsupported expenditures.
Twenty-one CPD offices identified barriers which they believed hindered a grantee’s ability to
perform effective monitoring of its project sponsors; specifically,
Insufficient funds to pay for adequate staff and conduct onsite monitoring,
Staff turnover,
Lack of knowledge and program expertise, and
Limited experience in performing monitoring.
Three grantees also expressed concern over insufficient funding to pay for onsite monitoring
visits to project sponsors and inadequate staff levels.
9
Additionally, while 9 of the 11 grantees reported that they conducted onsite monitoring visits to
project sponsors, the monitoring was neither performed on a regular basis, nor were all project
sponsors visited. In particular, project sponsors that are located in large rural areas may not be
visited because of insufficient staffing and lack of travel funds.
Recent Legislation
In 2009, Congress passed the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing
Act (HEARTH), which reauthorized the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987.
The legislation in part consolidates three of the separate homeless assistance programs
administered by HUD under the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act into a single grant
program.
The eligible activities of the SHP will be combined with the Shelter Plus Care and Single Room
Occupancy Programs’ program activities and services. The primary goal of these programs is to
provide funds to State and local governments and non-profit organizations to offer housing and
supportive services for homeless individuals and families.
The current administration cap for SHP is five percent of the total grant amount. To pay for
additional administrative requirements under HEARTH, such as monitoring, Congress doubled
the percentage from 5 to 10 percent.
The SHP Director acknowledged that limited administrative dollars may present a barrier to
facilitating monitoring responsibilities for many organizations and believes that the increase in
administrative funds through this new legislation should help grantees fulfill their monitoring
responsibilities. The Director is hopeful that grantees will be able to hire additional staff to
manage their funded projects and pay for more regular onsite monitoring. Recognizing that a
number of grantees also have staff capacity problems, CPD plans to offer technical assistance to
grantees that need to enhance their staff, organizational, and financial capacity.
At the time of the survey, HUD was drafting proposed regulations and program guidance to
codify and implement the HEARTH Act, including specific provisions related to Subtitle C –
Continuum of Care Program; which incorporates services that were formerly funded under SHP.
Recommendations
Effective oversight and monitoring are crucial to ensuring that SHP funds are properly spent to
assist in the transition of persons out of homelessness. When SHP grantees accept Federal funds,
they also accept the responsibility to manage the program in accordance with all applicable
Federal and HUD regulations. Therefore, monitoring of grantees and project sponsors that
deliver supportive housing services is essential for program success.
In this regard, we recommend that HUD’s Office of Community Planning and Development
1. Reinforce compliance with Federal regulations and HUD monitoring guidance;
specifically, to ensure that SHP grantees
10
A. Confirm that prospective project sponsors are not debarred or suspended from
participating in Federal programs before making an award.
B. Check for any possible conflict-of-interest issues.
C. Conduct onsite monitoring visits to project sponsors.
D. Require project sponsors to provide adequate source documentation to support the
expenditure of SHP funds as prescribed in 24 CFR 84.21 and 85.20.
2. Ensure that monitoring reviews of SHP grantees include an assessment of grantee project
sponsor management.
3. Provide SHP grantees technical assistance and guidance as needed.
Comments and OIG Response
We provided a draft copy of the report to the Assistant Secretary for CPD on December 16,
2010. The Assistant Secretary agreed with our observations and concurred with the related
recommendations (Appendix A). We recognize CPD’s efforts to reinforce and improve
compliance with federal regulations and SHP monitoring guidance and consider the planned
corrective actions to be responsive to recommendations 1 through 3. However, the
recommendations remain open pending verification of corrective actions. OIG will follow-up
with CPD to determine the status of the corrective actions taken.
11
Appendix A – HUD Office of Community Planning and Development’s Comments
12
13
14
Appendix B – CPD Questionnaire
CPD Regional/Field Office Questionnaire
Point of contact with your office for possible follow‐up questions.
Name and position of Regional/field office Telephone No. Email address
POC location – city/state
Question What type of guidance and/or technical support does your office provide to SHP grantees
# 1 under your jurisdiction on the grantees’ responsibility to monitor sponsors that they have
agreements with to provide leasing and supportive services to project participants?
Answer
Question Identify for the following areas that your office provides guidance or instructions to the
#2 grantee as it relates to their relationship with their sponsors.
Non‐federal audits in Conflict of interest Written agreements Determining whether
compliance with OMB between employees between grantee project sponsors were
Circular A‐133. and individuals and (recipient) and sponsor debarred or suspended
entities conducting (sub‐recipients) from participating in
business with. detailing a project federal programs.
sponsor’s
responsibilities and
obligations.
Question Does your office provide the SHP grantees with guidance on the type of documentation
#3 they should require the sponsor to provide them to support the eligibility of participants
and the expenditures of SHP grant funds? Describe.
Answer
Question As standard procedure, does your office provide to the SHP grantees copies of the
#4 Supportive Housing Program Desk Guide and/or the Supportive Housing Program Self‐
Monitoring Tools?
Answer
Question Does your office’s monitoring of SHP grantees include steps to assess grantee’s
#5 monitoring of the sponsors? Describe.
Answer
Question As part of your grantee monitoring, do you also monitor the sponsors?
#5a
Answer
Question # Since 2008, has your office, through its SHP grantee monitoring, found any instances of
6 material misuse of SHP funds by the sponsor and/or possible fraudulent activities by the
sponsor? Describe the circumstances.
Answer
15
Question Based on your office’s monitoring of SHP grantees, do the grantees generally have or
#7 conduct the following monitoring steps?
Management system for oversight
of its sponsors?
Execute written agreements with
sponsor?
Review sponsors for evidence of
conflict of interest?
Review sponsors’ documentation
supporting expenditures of SHP
funds?
Review sponsors’ system for
determining the eligibility of
participants, calculating rent, and
tracking the participants to ensure
that they are residing in the SHP
funded living units?
Question Based on your office’s contacts with the SHP grantees and sponsors, have you identified
#8 any possible barriers or impediments to the grantees’ oversight and monitoring of the
sponsors? If yes, describe.
Answer
Question Based on your office’s oversight of the SHP grantees, are you satisfied that the grantees
#9 are doing a satisfactory job of monitoring their sponsors?
Answer
Question If not, please explain reasons why.
#9a
Answer
Question Provide any further comments on SHP grantee monitoring of sponsors that you may like
#10 to add.
Answer
16
Appendix C – Grantee Questionnaire
SHP Grantee Questionnaire
Please provide responses to the following set of questions for your monitoring of sponsors for the SHP
project(s) identified below in Question #1 for the period covered by fiscal year (or program year) 2008
through to the present.
Question # 1 Please provide the following information for each SHP project shown.
HUD/SHP Project Name of Point of Telephone and Email Type of Services
Number Sponsor Contact for Contact for Sponsor Provided
Sponsor
Question Describe your management system for the oversight and monitoring of your sponsor(s).
#2
Answer
Question Do you monitor sponsor activities and expenses, as found in HUD’s SHP Desk Guide and
#2a the SHP Self‐Monitoring Tools? Describe how you accomplish this.
Answer
Question Do you maintain a separate project monitoring file, as suggested in the HUD/SHP Desk
#2b Guide, for each SHP project? List the documents included in the project monitoring file.
Answer
Question As part of your oversight, do you determine whether a prospective sponsor had been
#3 debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded from or ineligible for participation in Federal
assistance programs or activities? Describe how you determine this.
Answer
Question Do you review sponsors to determine whether there is any evidence of conflict of
#4 interest, either between grantee and sponsor and the sponsor and any contractors or
employees?
Answer
Question As recommended in HUD’s SHP Desk Guide, do you have a “sub‐recipient agreement,”
#5 which sets out the duties and responsibilities of the sponsor?
If there is a sub‐recipient agreement, please provide a copy
Answer
Question Do you conduct monitoring on‐site visits to the sponsor’s place of business and/or
#6 location(s) where project participants reside and/or receive supportive services to review
SHP funded program activities and records? Describe.
Answer
Question How often do you make site visits? Did you make any monitoring site visits during the
#6a period 2008 to present? Provide date(s) of these monitoring site visits and identify which
sponsor visited.
Answer
Question If you did not make any on‐site monitoring visits to the sponsor(s) from 2008 to the
#6b present, explain why?
Answer
Question Do you review how sponsor(s) determined that project participants are eligible to receive
#7 SHP funded assistance? Describe how.
Answer
Question What documentation do you require from the sponsor to support the homeless status of
#7a each participant?
17
Answer
Question Do you verify that project participants who are receiving rental assistance from the
#8 sponsor actually live in the living units being subsidized with SHP funds? Describe how.
Answer
Question Do you track the sponsors’ termination of housing and/or supportive services provided to
#9 specific project participants?
Answer
Question In accordance with 24 CFR 583.300 (b) (11) (d); do you assure that the sponsor providing
#9a supportive services to project participants conducts ongoing assessments of the
participants’ needs and the availability of such services?
Answer
Question Do you review calculations made by the sponsor to determine if the rental amount
#10 subsidized with SHP funds are correct and reasonable? Describe how.
Answer
Question In processing monthly (periodic) claims from sponsor for costs, either advance or
#11 reimbursement payments, what documentation do you require from the sponsor to
process payments through HUD’s LOCCS?
Answer
Question Do you independently verify the data reported on the sponsor’s Annual Progress Report
#12 (APR)?
Answer
Question # How do you assure that sponsors are in compliance with the audit requirements
13 contained in the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 (31 U.S.C. 7501‐7507) and the
revised OMB Circular A‐133, “Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non‐Profit
Organizations.”
Answer
Question If the sponsor is not required to submit an A‐133 audit, do you require an annual
#13a independent audit of the sponsor?
Answer
Question Through your monitoring activities, have you identified any instances of the sponsor using
#14 SHP funds for ineligible costs and/or found instances of sponsor misuse or possible
fraudulent activity? Please describe.
Answer
Question If the misuse of SHP funds and/or possible fraudulent activity was found during your
#14a monitoring, was it reported to your local HUD CPD office or directly to the HUD Office of
Inspector General?
Answer
Question # Are there any barriers or impediments to your ability to satisfactorily perform oversight
15 and monitoring of your sponsor(s)? Indentify any.
Answer
Question # Provide any further comments or observations about monitoring conducted by SHP
16 grantees and other related topics, such as HUD guidance for grantee monitoring.
Answer
Please provide all monitoring reports (desk reviews and on‐site) prepared by your organization on the
identified project sponsors, from fiscal (program) years 2008 to the present.
18
Appendix D – Project Sponsor Questionnaire
SHP Sponsor Questionnaire
Please provide responses to the following set of questions as it relates to the grantee monitoring of the
supportive housing services that your organization provides as a sponsor for the following SHP grantee,
for the period covered by calendar years (or fiscal year) 2008 through to the present.
SHP project number Name of grantee
SHP sponsor Name, position, and telephone# of sponsor point‐of‐contact
Name of landlord(s) if SHP funds are used to lease living units, and telephone number
Question Is your organization a not‐for‐profit or other type of entity?
#1
Answer
Question What type of SHP funded supportive housing services is your organization providing to the
#2 project participants at any time during the period of 2008 to present?
Answer Housing assistance (lease/pay rent) Supportive services
Entire structure Individual units
Question Show the amount of SHP funds the grantee actually paid your organization for the years
#3 (calendar or fiscal) shown for the supportive housing services you provided to project
participants.
Answer 2008 2009 2010 (to present)
Leasing
structure
for
participant
residences
Rental
assistance
for
individual
living units
Supportive
services
Question Has your organization ever been debarred and/or suspended from participating in
#4 Federally funded programs or activities? If yes, when and was it terminated prior to your
participation as a sponsor in the SHP?
Answer
Question Has the grantee provided you with Federal/HUD regulations on potential conflicts of
#5 interest?
Answer
Question What guidance has the grantee provided on the types of eligible costs that are covered by
#6 SHP funding and the required documentation to support the expenditures?
Answer
Question What documentation do you provide to the SHP grantee to support requests for payment
#7 for the services you provide?
19
Answer Leasing structure or individual living units Supportive services
for project participants
Question During the period 2008 to present, did the grantee make monitoring site visits to either
#8 your place of business and/or the locations where the project participants reside and/or
receive supportive services? If yes, when?
Answer
Question Has your SHP grantee ever found possible misuse of SHP funds and/or fraudulent
#9 activities during its monitoring of your organization?
Answer
Question Has HUD/CPD ever visited your site and found instances of misuse or fraud involving SHP
#9a funds?
Answer
Question Has your organization ever found any misuse or fraud by internal review/audit?
#9b
Answer
Question Do you provide the grantee with documentation to support the eligibility of your project
#10 participants? If yes, describe the documentation provided to the grantee.
Answer
Question Do you provide the grantee with documentation to support the calculation on the
#11 appropriate rental assistance funded with SHP grant funds? If yes, describe the
documentation provided to the grantee.
Answer
Question Do you verify that project participants are actually residing at the address that is
#12 subsidized with SHP funds?
Answer
Question Does the grantee verify that the project participants reside at the address subsidized with
#12a SHP funds?
Answer
Question Has the grantee ever asked for documentation to support the data included in your
#13 Annual Progress Report (APR)?
Answer
Question Has your organization filed an annual audit report per the audit requirements in the
#14 revised OMB Circular A‐133, “Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non‐Profit
Organizations?” Or other independent annual audit report to the grantee?
Answer
Question Identify any problems that the SHP grantee has or may encounter with its oversight and
#15 monitoring of the project sponsors.
Answer
Questions Provide any further comments or observations about monitoring conducted by SHP
#16 grantees and other related topics to your participation as a sponsor in the SHP.
Answer
Please provide all correspondence your organization has received from the SHP grantee since fiscal
(program) years 2008 to the present relating to its monitoring of your SHP activities.
20
HUD's Supportive Housing Program, Survey of Grantee Monitoring of Project Sponsors
Published by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General on 2011-02-16.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)