Federal Reports

We audited the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity’s (FHEO) challenges in completing housing discrimination investigations within 100 days.  We initiated the audit due to the number of investigations reported in FHEO’s annual reports to Congress that exceeded 100 days.  Our objective was to survey and assess the challenges FHEO faces in completing investigations within 100 days for Title VIII complaints in accordance with the Fair Housing Act. Based on our survey, FHEO faces several challenges in completing investigations within 100 days for Title VIII complaints, including (1) limited staffing and training, (2) staff workload, (3) complexity of the case work, (4) uncooperative or unresponsive parties, and (5) inconsistent review processes with the Office of General Counsel (OGC).  Aware of these challenges, FHEO took steps to address its limited staffing and increase the availability of training.  However, FHEO does not have control over the complexity of the cases it receives and whether the parties to each case are cooperative or responsive.  Because of these challenges, 81 percent (122 of 150) of the respondents to our survey stated that completing investigations within 100 days was not attainable.  Due to these challenges, FHEO did not complete 70.2 percent of its investigations within 100 days from 2020 to 2022.  Despite being unable to control all the factors that lead to a timely investigation, FHEO has opportunities to review its investigative processes across regions to make processes more efficient and increase the number of timely outcomes.We recommend that HUD’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (1)  update protocols to promote consistent expectations for timely supervisory, legal, and headquarters reviews of complex cases; (2) review and update the memorandums of understanding with OGC for each region to identify and remove inefficiencies that can lead to longer FHEO investigation times and OGC review times and identify best practices that can be implemented across all regions; and (3) review and update investigative processes followed by each regional office to identify best practices that can be implemented across all regions and identify and remove inefficiencies that can lead to longer investigation times.

Congress provided $5.5 billion for the Emergency Assistance to Nonpublic Schools (EANS) program. The purpose of the EANS programs, authorized under the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act (CRRSA) and American Rescue Plan (ARP), is to provide services or assistance to eligible nonpublic schools to address educational disruptions caused by the COVID-19 emergency. We conducted an audit to determine whether the Florida Department of Education (FDOE) designed and implemented (1) application processes that adequately assessed nonpublic schools’ eligibility for EANS-funded services or assistance and complied with other applicable requirements and (2) oversight processes to ensure that EANS-funded services or assistance were used for allowable purposes. The assistance and comply with other applicable requirements were generally adequate; however, it did not have written procedures for its we found that the application that FDOE developed for nonpublic schools to apply for services and assistance did not ensure that it could use the application data to adequately assess nonpublic schools’ eligibility. The ARP EANS application was not adequate because it included instructions that allowed nonpublic schools to use proportionality data as one of five data source options for estimating the number of students enrolled in their school that were from low-income families. Further, FDOE’s oversight of its CRRSA and ARP EANS expenditure and inventory processes needs strengthening. Specifically, FDOE did not have formal written procedures for its expenditure review and approval processes. Also, FDOE’s processes did not ensure that it obtained prior approval from the Department before funding nonpublic school equipment purchases with a per unit cost of $5,000 or more. Additionally, FDOE did not ensure that it inventoried or tracked items, such as supplies, that were purchased with a per unit cost under $5,000.

We performed this review to determine whether the Des Moines Independent Community School District expended ESSER grant funds for allowable purposes in accordance with applicable requirements. We determined that of the 20 expenditures that we reviewed, 17 were allowable and in accordance with applicable requirements. Two expenditures totaling $164,580 were unallowable because they were for advertising and public relations costs prohibited under the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (2 Code of Federal Regulations part 200), and a portion ($33,326) of the remaining expenditure totaling $666,527 appeared to be allowable but Des Moines either did not pay or adequately support proof of payment for that portion (the other $633,201 of this expenditure was both allowable and supported with documentation). We also identified a cash management issue related to the unsupported amount of $33,326 because Des Moines was reimbursed by the ESSER grant for that amount before it had an immediate need for those funds. Lastly, we found that Des Moines complied with key Federal procurement requirements, including those covering the procurement methods to be followed and contract cost, price, and provisions, when procuring the goods or services associated with each ESSER expenditure we reviewed. We made four recommendations to address the unallowable and unsupported expenditures and the cash management issue that we identified to ensure ESSER funds are used, documented, and managed in accordance with applicable requirements.