The OIG has determined that the contents of this recommendation would not be appropriate for public disclosure and has therefore limited its distribution to selected officials.
2019-OE-0002 | June 25, 2020
HUD Fiscal Year 2019 Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014 (FISMA) Evaluation Report
Chief Information Officer
- Status2019-OE-0002-17OpenClosedSensitiveSensitive
Sensitive information refers to information that could have a damaging import if released to the public and, therefore, must be restricted from public disclosure.
- Status2019-OE-0002-18OpenClosedSensitiveSensitive
Sensitive information refers to information that could have a damaging import if released to the public and, therefore, must be restricted from public disclosure.
The OIG has determined that the contents of this recommendation would not be appropriate for public disclosure and has therefore limited its distribution to selected officials.
- Status2019-OE-0002-19OpenClosedSensitiveSensitive
Sensitive information refers to information that could have a damaging import if released to the public and, therefore, must be restricted from public disclosure.
The OIG has determined that the contents of this recommendation would not be appropriate for public disclosure and has therefore limited its distribution to selected officials.
- Status2019-OE-0002-20OpenClosedSensitiveSensitive
Sensitive information refers to information that could have a damaging import if released to the public and, therefore, must be restricted from public disclosure.
The OIG has determined that the contents of this recommendation would not be appropriate for public disclosure and has therefore limited its distribution to selected officials.
- Status2019-OE-0002-21OpenClosedSensitiveSensitive
Sensitive information refers to information that could have a damaging import if released to the public and, therefore, must be restricted from public disclosure.
The OIG has determined that the contents of this recommendation would not be appropriate for public disclosure and has therefore limited its distribution to selected officials.
- Status2019-OE-0002-22OpenClosedSensitiveSensitive
Sensitive information refers to information that could have a damaging import if released to the public and, therefore, must be restricted from public disclosure.
The OIG has determined that the contents of this recommendation would not be appropriate for public disclosure and has therefore limited its distribution to selected officials.
- Status2019-OE-0002-23OpenClosedSensitiveSensitive
Sensitive information refers to information that could have a damaging import if released to the public and, therefore, must be restricted from public disclosure.
The OIG has determined that the contents of this recommendation would not be appropriate for public disclosure and has therefore limited its distribution to selected officials.
- Status2019-OE-0002-24OpenClosedSensitiveSensitive
Sensitive information refers to information that could have a damaging import if released to the public and, therefore, must be restricted from public disclosure.
The OIG has determined that the contents of this recommendation would not be appropriate for public disclosure and has therefore limited its distribution to selected officials.
- Status2019-OE-0002-25OpenClosedSensitiveSensitive
Sensitive information refers to information that could have a damaging import if released to the public and, therefore, must be restricted from public disclosure.
The OIG has determined that the contents of this recommendation would not be appropriate for public disclosure and has therefore limited its distribution to selected officials.
- Status2019-OE-0002-26OpenClosedSensitiveSensitive
Sensitive information refers to information that could have a damaging import if released to the public and, therefore, must be restricted from public disclosure.
The OIG has determined that the contents of this recommendation would not be appropriate for public disclosure and has therefore limited its distribution to selected officials.
2020-LA-1003 | April 13, 2020
The City of Mesa, AZ, Did Not Administer Its Community Development Block Grant in Accordance With HUD Requirements
Community Planning and Development
- Status2020-LA-1003-001-AOpenClosed$300,000Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Support the Child Crisis of Arizona campus creation project phase one met a national objective and was necessary and reasonable or repay its program $300,000 from non-Federal funds.
- Status2020-LA-1003-001-BOpenClosed
Improve and implement stronger policies and procedures for reviewing potential activities for funding, which include ensuring that they are necessary and reasonable, that the service area for the low- and moderate-income area benefit national objective includes the entire area served by the activity, and that the City has addressed concerns from those reviewing the application.
- Status2020-LA-1003-001-COpenClosed$1,150,000Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Support that the Eagles Park activity met an eligible CDBG national objective or repay its program $1,150,000 from non-Federal funds.
- Status2020-LA-1003-001-DOpenClosed$981,779Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Support that the Save the Family Community Conference Center activity met a national objective or repay its program $981,779 from non-Federal funds.
- Status2020-LA-1003-001-EOpenClosed$249,300Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Support that the Kleinman Park activity met a national objective or repay its program $249,300 from non-Federal funds and correct the installation of the playground fossils or repay the program from non-Federal funds.
- Status2020-LA-1003-001-FOpenClosed$175,975Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Support that the West Mesa CDC special economic development activities for fiscal years 2016 and 2017 met a national objective and that expenses were adequately supported and for eligible activities or repay its program $175,975 from non-Federal funds.
- Status2020-LA-1003-001-GOpenClosed$65,000Funds Put to Better Use
Recommendations that funds be put to better use estimate funds that could be used more efficiently. For example, recommendations that funds be put to better use could result in reductions in spending, deobligation of funds, or avoidance of unnecessary spending.
Ensure that the $65,000 microenterprise activity awarded to West Mesa CDC for fiscal year 2019 meets CDBG requirements or amend the use of funding to another CDBG-eligible activity.
- Status2020-LA-1003-001-HOpenClosed$192,563Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Support that the Ability360 Mesa Home Accessibility activity for fiscal years 2015, 2016, and 2017 followed HUD requirements and its subrecipient agreement or repay its program $192,563 from non-Federal funds. This includes supporting that all activities met the national objective requirements and were for rental properties, contracts were properly procured, the 10 percent match subrecipient agreement requirement was met ($4,293) and properly accounted for, and contract expenses were adequately supported ($228).
- Status2020-LA-1003-001-IOpenClosed$6,809Funds Put to Better Use
Recommendations that funds be put to better use estimate funds that could be used more efficiently. For example, recommendations that funds be put to better use could result in reductions in spending, deobligation of funds, or avoidance of unnecessary spending.
Ensure that the $6,809 allocated for the Mesa Home Accessibility activity for fiscal year 2017 meets HUD requirements or amend the use of funding to another CDBG-eligible activity.
- Status2020-LA-1003-001-JOpenClosed
Implement and reinforce its policies and procedures that require the City and its subrecipients to maintain adequate documentation to support the City’s CDBG program activities and maintain adequate documentation of subrecipient monitoring reviews. This includes tracking the status of monitoring reviews, communicating findings to subrecipients, and adequately resolving findings in a timely manner.