Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERA2) - Questioned Cost Finding, State of Florida (Treasury OIG memorandum OIG-27-016, October 20, 2026)
Summary
Treasury Office of Inspector General memorandum OIG-27-016, dated October 20, 2026, to the acting chief program officer of Treasury's Office of Capital Access, reporting a questioned cost finding on Florida's second Emergency Rental Assistance program (ERA2). After looking into three hotline complaints of suspected fraud from February 2023 through January 2024, the OIG found that Florida paid $12,616 in ERA2 funds to three ineligible households. Florida did not dispute the finding and had no further documents. The OIG recommends that Treasury disallow the costs and direct Florida to repay the federal government $12,616.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Full text
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20220
OFFICE OF
INSPECTOR GENERAL
October 20, 2026
OIG-27-016
MEMORANDUM FOR JEFFREY STOUT
ACTING CHIEF PROGRAM OFFICE, OFFICE OF CAPITAL
ACCESS
From: Julie Wong /s/
Acting Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Audit
Subject: Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERA2) – Questioned
Cost Finding, State of Florida
During the coronavirus pandemic, Congress authorized and funded two
Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA) programs administered by the Department of
the Treasury (Treasury) to provide rental assistance to eligible households:
(1) ERA1-Division N, Title V, Subtitle A, § 501 of the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2021 (Pub. L. No. 116-260), Dec. 27, 2020, and codified at 15 USC § 9058a: and
(2) ERA2-Title III, Subtitle B, § 3201 of the American Rescue Plan Act (Pub. L. No.
117-2), Mar. 11, 2021, and codified as 15 USC § 9058c.
From February 2023 through January 2024, the Treasury Office of Inspector
General (OIG) made inquiries to the State of Florida (Florida) regarding three
complaints of suspected fraud related to its ERA2 award program reported to the
OIG Hotline. 1 After reviewing documentation provided by the Our Florida ERA
Program, we determined that Florida paid a total of $12,616 in ERA2 award funds
to three ineligible households in violation of the Use of Funds statute.
Accordingly, we question these costs. In response to a draft of this questioned
cost finding, Florida did not dispute our determinations and had no additional
documentation to provide regarding the three subject cases that resulted in
ineligible payments. We are recommending that Treasury’s Office of Capital
Access disallow these costs and direct Florida to reimburse the Federal
Government $12,616.
Background/Legal Authority
Under the ERA2 statute at 15 U.S.C. § 9058c(d)(1), Use of Funds, an eligible
grantee shall use ERA2 award funds to provide eligible households with financial
1
These inquiries were directed to the Florida Department of Children and Families (DCF), a state
agency tasked to operate the Our Florida Program, Florida’s ERA program.
1
assistance, housing stability services, administrative costs, and as applicable,
other affordable rental housing and eviction prevention activities. The financial
assistance includes the payment of: rent; rent arrears; utilities and home energy
costs; utilities and home energy costs arrears; and other expenses related to
housing, as defined by the Secretary of the Treasury. The aggregate amount of
such assistance an eligible household may receive under an ERA2 award, when
combined with financial assistance provided under an ERA1 award authorized by
15 U.S.C. § 9058a, shall not exceed 18 months. See 15 U.S.C. § 9058(d)(1)(A)(ii).
The ERA2 statute at 15 U.S.C. § 9058c(f)(2) defines eligible household as a
household of one or more individuals who are obligated to pay rent on a
residential dwelling and with respect to which the eligible grantee involved
determines that: (1) one or more individuals within the household has (a) qualified
for unemployment benefits or (b) experienced a reduction in household income,
incurred significant costs, or experienced other financial hardship during or due,
directly or indirectly, to the coronavirus pandemic; (2) one or more individuals
within the household can demonstrate a risk of experiencing homelessness or
housing instability; and (3) the household income is not more than 80 percent of
the area median income for the jurisdiction.
Pursuant to the ERA2 statute at 15 U.S.C. § 9058c(g), the last day of the period of
performance for ERA2 awards was September 30, 2025.
Facts and Analysis
Beginning February 2023 through January 2024, we made inquiries to Florida
regarding three complaints of suspected fraud related to its ERA2 award reported
to the OIG Hotline. Tenants reported two of the complaints and Our Florida ERA
Program reported the third. 2 Based on Florida’s response to our inquiries and
documentation provided, we determined that Florida failed to comply with the
Use of Funds requirements in the ERA2 statute (15 U.S.C. § 9058c(d)) when it paid
out ERA2 assistance totaling $12,616 for the three cases, as described below:
1. (Tenant-reported complaint) For application (b) (6) Florida paid
$8,686 in rental assistance with $2,850 in ERA1 award funds and $5,836 in
ERA2 award funds to a landlord. Florida responded to our inquiry that it
had previously determined that rental assistance was incorrectly paid to the
wrong landlord. As a result, Florida sent the payee “Notices of
Overpayment” on May 6, 2022, June 5, 2022, and July 5, 2022, seeking
repayment of the $8,686. As of February 7, 2025, Florida stated that the
funds have not been repaid. Accordingly, we determined that the rental
2
Although the complainant filed its complaint anonymously with the OIG hotline, we determined
that the information reported originated from the Our Florida ERA Program. The complaint
contains detailed information including application data, award details, case summary, and
contact information for a DCF employee who did provide further information.
2
assistance paid, in the amount of $5,836, is an ineligible ERA2 expenditure
that failed to comply with the requirements of the ERA2 statute because the
payment was sent to the wrong payee. 3
2. (Tenant-reported complaint) For application (b) (6) Florida paid
$7,500 in rental assistance with $3,750 in ERA1 award funds and $3,750 in
ERA2 award funds to a landlord. Florida responded to our inquiry that it
had previously identified “Invalid Lease/Landlord Documentation in File –
Inconsistency between documents.” Florida sent a letter to the landlord on
July 29, 2022, seeking valid copies of the documents and advising funds
would be required to be returned for failure to respond. Florida did not
receive a response and sent the landlord a ”Notice of Overpayment and
Recoupment” on August 9, 2022, asking for repayment of the $7,500. As of
February 7, 2025, Florida stated that the funds have not been repaid. Florida
paid ERA2 assistance on an application that lacked valid lease/landlord
documentation to establish an obligation to pay rent; therefore, Florida
cannot establish that this expenditure is an eligible use of funds.
Accordingly, we determined that the rental assistance paid, in the amount
of $3,750, was an ineligible ERA2 expenditure that failed to comply with the
requirements of the ERA2 statute. 4
3. (Florida-reported complaint) For application (b) (6) Florida paid
$8,380 in rental assistance with $5,350 in ERA1 award funds and $3,030 in
ERA2 award funds to a landlord. After the payment, Florida identified
“Invalid Lease/Landlord Documentation in File – Inconsistency between
documents.” Florida sent a letter to the landlord on July 29, 2022, seeking
valid copies of the documents and advising funds would be required to be
returned for failure to respond. Florida did not receive a response and sent
the landlord a “Notice of Overpayment and Recoupment” on August 9,
2022, asking for repayment of the $8,380. As of February 7, 2025, Florida
stated that the funds have not been repaid. Florida paid ERA2 assistance on
an application that lacked valid lease/landlord documentation to establish
an obligation to pay rent; therefore, Florida cannot establish that this
expenditure is an eligible use of funds. Accordingly, we determined that the
rental assistance paid, in the amount of $3,030, was an ineligible ERA2
3
Pursuant to the Inspector General authorities under 15 U.S.C. § 9058a(i), Inspector General
Oversight; Recoupment, we issued a Notice of Recoupment for the ERA1 award funds, in the
amount of $2,850, that were sent to the wrong payee, and was ineligible under the ERA1 statute
at 15 U.S.C. § 9058a(c), Use of Funds. See Treasury OIG, Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA 1)
Program Notice of Recoupment - State of Florida (OIG-CA-25-056; August 25, 2025)
4
Pursuant to the Inspector General authorities under 15 U.S.C. § 9058a(i), Inspector General
Oversight; Recoupment, we issued a Notice of Recoupment for the ERA1 award funds, in the
amount of $3,750, that we determined was ineligible under the ERA1 statute at 15 U.S.C. §
9058a(c), Use of Funds. See Treasury OIG, Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA 1) Program
Notice of Recoupment - State of Florida (OIG-CA-25-056; August 25, 2025)
3
expenditure that failed to comply with the requirements of the ERA2
statute. 5
This table lists the total questioned cost identified for the 3 cases.
Ineligible ERA2
State of Florida Financial Assistance
Case Application No. Payments
1 $5,836
2 (b) (6) 3,750
3 3,030
Total $12,616
Based on the information provided, we determined that Florida failed to comply
with the use of funds requirement in the ERA2 statute when it paid out ERA2
award funds totaling $12,616 to ineligible households. Accordingly, OIG is
questioning these costs.
Grantee Response
We provided Florida an opportunity to respond to our Questioned Cost Findings.
On May 23, 2025, the Assistant Secretary, Office of Economic Self Sufficiency,
Florida Department of Children and Families, provided its written response by
email, which is included verbatim as follows:
The Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA) program was originally
authorized under the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 and
continued under the American Rescue Plan of 2021.
In the state of Florida, the Florida Department of Children and
Families (Department) oversaw the statewide ERA program and
was successful in providing more than $1.4 billion in ERA benefits
to Floridians through implementation and completion of the
program in September 2022.
During the rollout and implementation of ERA during the Biden
Administration, the program was operated through federal
regulation and “Frequently Asked Questions” that evolved
throughout the program and lacked important specificities, and
provided inadequate requirements that did not consider the
overall integrity of the program. Specifically, guidance regarding
the verification of individual’s eligibility included self-attestations.
5
Pursuant to the Inspector General authorities under 15 U.S.C. § 9058a(i), Inspector General
Oversight; Recoupment, we issued a Notice of Recoupment for the ERA1 award funds, in the
amount of $5,350, that we determined was ineligible under the ERA1 statute at 15 U.S.C. §
9058a(c), Use of Funds. See Treasury OIG, Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA 1) Program
Notice of Recoupment - State of Florida (OIG-CA-25-056; August 25, 2025)
4
Communication from federal partners was to obligate and spend
the funds as quickly as possible, while under continuous threat of
funds being removed if certain benchmarks were not met.
Additionally, the Department hired a vendor to amplify the
administration of the program to ensure eligible Floridians who
were impacted were able to access the funds. The Department
took a methodical approach utilizing federal guidance available at
the time to develop requirements, ensure and enforce integrity
within the program, and implement additional steps in the
eligibility process to rectify the otherwise lax guidance provided
by the Biden Administration that did not require landlord
participation and relied on self-attestations.
With a proven performance record in Florida of prioritizing both
timeliness and integrity, the Department went a step further and
developed a multi-step eligibility determination process which
included a higher-level quality assurance review process, and an
additional post-payment review to monitor and track eligibility
determinations. The implementation of both the second-level
quality assurance review process prior to the eligibility
determination and payment coupled with the post payment
review ensured the program upheld the State’s commitment to
effective and efficient service delivery and conservative
stewardship of taxpayer dollars. Moreover, if at any point in the
Department-implemented post-payment review process it was
determined that a payment was made in error, either by the
applicant or staff, the process required that attempts be made to
recover the funds through recoupment letters.
Florida’s quality assurance review process on both the front and
back end of the eligibility determination was developed and
executed as a leading practice when the program was
implemented in 2021. Three years later and after the last ERA
payment in the State of Florida was made in September 2022, the
U.S. Department of Treasury provided updated guidance in
November 2024 stating “Treasury recognizes the unique
emergency circumstances in which the ERA programs were
implemented and that attempts to recoup non-fraudulent
improper payments from ERA beneficiaries could undermine the
purpose of the ERA program if collection efforts place tenants at
risk of eviction or housing instability…”
Florida has a demonstrated track record of delivery for the people
we serve which includes safeguarding taxpayer dollars for the
5
people who need it most. Again, providing efficient service
delivery that keeps program integrity at the forefront and
demanding government run effectively. Florida far surpassed the
provided federal guidelines and developed integrity and
recoupment processes that prevented potential errors. However,
in these identified 3 applications out of the 224,266 total approved
applications (.001%), and despite utilizing the self-imposed
eligibility determination and post-payment review processes, the
Department was unable to recoup the identified funds, due to lack
of response from recipients. The Department went above and
beyond the federal guidance to ensure the safeguarding of funds
and made every attempt to recoup funds when identified.
Therefore, the state of Florida should not be required to repay
funds three years after the conclusion of the program, when every
effort was made to recoup the funds.
OIG Evaluation
We considered Florida’s response in finalizing this memorandum. It should be
noted that Florida characterized these application payments as “invalid” in its
recapture letters to beneficiaries. Florida’s response did not provide any additional
evidence to demonstrate that the financial assistance provided for the subject
applications was eligible.
In its written response, Florida makes certain references to Treasury’s ERA FAQs
and guidance that are not contextually accurate or applicable. According to
Florida, this guidance “lacked important specificities and provided inadequate
requirements that did not consider the overall integrity of the program.
Specifically, guidance regarding the verification of individual’s eligibility included
self-attestations.” The implication here is that Treasury’s FAQs did not provide
adequate instructions on how grantees were to establish eligibility using
self-attestations. We reject this implication.
In FAQ1, Treasury states that “grantees may be flexible as to the particular form
of documentation they require to determine eligibility, including by permitting
photocopies or digital photographs of documents, e-mails, or attestations from
employers, landlords, caseworkers, or others with knowledge of the household’s
circumstances.” Treasury also directs that grantees “must require all applications
for assistance to include an attestation from the applicant that all the information
included is correct and complete.” In short, this FAQ provides specific instructions
that require eligibility to be documented, with attestations as to the veracity of the
information provided. We do note that FAQ1 does not require grantees to
6
document a household’s eligibility for the provision of housing stability services. 6
Also, Treasury’s FAQ4 does provide for grantees to rely on written
self-attestations of a household’s income if the household is unable to provide
income documentation; however, Treasury directs in this situation that the
grantee must reassess the household’s income every 3 months, by obtaining
appropriate documentation or a new self-attestation. These FAQs explicitly state
the requirements when using self-attestations to establish eligibility.
Despite Treasury’s self-attestation requirements, Florida determined these
applications were invalid based on the applicants’ inadequate lease/landlord
documentation or payment to the incorrect landlord, not self-attestations for
eligibility.
Florida also asserts that per Treasury guidance “attempts to recoup
non-fraudulent improper payments from ERA beneficiaries could undermine the
purpose of the ERA program if collection efforts place tenants at risk of eviction or
housing instability.” This statement is from Treasury’s ERA FAQ49. While
accurate, it has no bearing on Florida’s obligation to return funds in the amount of
the ineligible payments made with ERA2 award funds to the federal government.
As Treasury’s ERA FAQ49 also states “… grantees are responsible for improper
payments made with ERA funds, including those that were not the result of fraud
or deliberate misrepresentations ...”
Based on our evaluation of Florida’s response to OIG’s Draft Questioned Cost
Findings, Florida has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the
financial assistance provided for the subject applications were for eligible
households. Accordingly, OIG questions the cost of $12,616 for the ERA2 financial
assistance paid for these applications.
Recommendation
We recommend that Treasury’s Office of Capital Access disallow the questioned
cost amount of $12,616 and instruct Florida to return this amount to the federal
government.
Methodology
We conducted our review of these ERA cases from February 2023 to August 2025.
We inquired of the grantee and other relevant parties, reviewed related
documentation, and performed other appropriate procedures. We believe the
6
According to Treasury’s FAQ1: “the ERA2 statute does not restrict the provision of housing stability
services to “eligible households.” As a result, grantees are not required to document a household’s
eligibility if the grantee provides the household with no assistance other than housing stability services
paid with ERA2 award funds.”
7
evidence obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions in this memorandum.
In conducting our review, we followed the OIG’s system of quality management
for ensuring that the information in this Notice is accurate. We also followed the
Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency Quality Standards for
Federal Offices of Inspector General which require that our work adheres to its
general standards for integrity to include objectivity, independence, professional
judgment, and confidentiality as well as its general standard for receiving and
reviewing allegations.
8
Appendix
Schedule of Monetary Benefits
According to the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit
Requirements for Federal Awards at Title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations
§ 200.1 a “questioned cost” is an amount, expended or received from a Federal
award, that in the auditor's judgment:
(i) is noncompliant or suspected noncompliant with Federal statutes,
regulations, or the terms and conditions of the Federal award;
(ii) at the time of the audit, lacked adequate documentation to support
compliance; or
(iii) appeared unreasonable and did not reflect the actions a prudent person
would take in the circumstances.
Questioned costs will be recorded in Treasury’s Joint Audit Management
Enterprise System. The amount will also be included in the OIG Semiannual
Report to Congress. It is Treasury management’s responsibility to report to
Congress on the status of the agreed to recommendations with monetary benefits
in accordance with 5 USC § 405(c) of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as
amended.
Recommendation Questioned Costs
Recommendation No. 1 $12,616.00
The questioned costs represent ERA2 award amounts provided by Treasury under
the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 that were paid by Florida to ineligible
households in violation of the ERA2 statute at 15 U.S.C. § 9058c(d), Use of Funds.
9
Distribution
Department of the Treasury
Jeffrey W. Stout, Chief Program Officer, Office of Capital Access
Kendra N. Young-Freeman, Director, Housing Programs, Office of Capital
Access
Michelle Dickerman, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, Office of the
General Counsel
Carolyn Appel, Attorney-Advisor, Office of the General Counsel
Blossom Butcher-Sumner, Attorney-Advisor, Office of the General Counsel
State of Florida
10
File and source
- File
- treasury-oig-27-016-era2-questioned-cost-florida-2026-10-20.pdf
- Size
- 218,902 bytes
- SHA-256
- b286fd9c9f22baff86e4da4ae71e084211f87b97eab38982c798efa2fbda92c5
- Original
- oig.treasury.gov