Federal Reports

We audited the city of Dallas’ management of its community housing development organizations (CHDO). We performed this audit because of our previous audit work on the City’s Home Investment Partnerships program. During that audit, we concluded that the City did not follow HOME regulations and its own policies and procedures in its reconstruction program or the administration of its match contributions, resulting in more than $4.2 million in ineligible funds. Our audit objective was to determine whether the City managed its CHDOs in accordance with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations and guidance, including environmental requirements. The City did not follow environmental requirements or effectively manage its CHDOs. The City did not always (1) complete an environmental review or obtain HUD approval before committing funds, (2) maintain environmental review documentation, exercise due diligence or (3) properly administer its CHDO program in accordance with requirements. These conditions occurred because the City did not fully understand or follow HUD environmental or HOME regulations and its own policies, procedures, and contract terms. As a result, it misspent more than $6.6 million and did not account for more than $180,000 in program income. We recommended that the Director of the Fort Worth Office of Community Planning and Development require the City to (1) repay approximately $2.4 million in funds committed before completion of an environmental review or HUD approval; (2) support or repay $424,325 in fund committed to projects without environmental reviews; (3) support or repay more than $3.8 million for unsupported files and draws; (4) support or repay $180,051 in program income; (5) repay $13,055 in ineligible costs; and (6) strengthen its underwriting procedures and implement documentation, homebuyer income verification, and CHDO recertification procedures.

The report title contains sensitive Information and will not posted. This report contains Sensitive Information and will not be posted.

This evaluation focused on the appropriateness of programming, training, and evaluation; the adequacy of Volunteer support; and the effectiveness of post leadership and management. While there are many strengths of the post, this report contains 21 recommendations. We found that an insufficient staffing model for programming and training had contributed to findings in the areas of Volunteer training and site development. In addition, our report contains findings related to the Volunteer Advisory Council and the post's health program.

Emphasis on timely applications, approvals and obligations to reduce year end approvals that could be interpreted as year-end spending and contributes to a workload in balance to review and approve applications.