Emergency Solutions Grants CARES Act Program — Office of Community Planning and Development, 2022-LA-0002
Summary
HUD Office of Inspector General audit report 2022-LA-0002, dated August 17, 2022, addressed to Marion McFadden from Kilah S. White, Assistant Inspector General for Audit, on challenges in implementing the Emergency Solutions Grants CARES Act (ESG-CV) program. The OIG used a survey questionnaire of the 362 grant recipients and reports that, when the audit began in July 2021, recipients had spent $563,178,336 of $3.96 billion. It says recipients needed an extension beyond the September 30, 2022 spending deadline, which HUD later extended, and that staff capacity and coordinating with other pandemic funding were top challenges. It recommends that the Office of Community Planning and Development consider recipients' challenges in its risk assessments.
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
Cite this document
“Emergency Solutions Grants CARES Act Program — Office of Community Planning and Development, 2022-LA-0002.”
Original at www.hudoig.gov. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/hud-oig-2022-la-0002-3f155c5bf5/
, SHA-256 ebb1807f2ce345a4169f3bd2ccaa321bb87b2e6fbe6ce59fa0129748f7014f67.Full text
Emergency Solutions Grants
CARES Act Program
Office of Community Planning and Development,
Washington, DC | 2022-LA-0002
August 17, 2022
Office of Audit | Office of Inspector General
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Date: August 17, 2022
To: Marion McFadden
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, D
//signed//
From: Kilah S. White
Assistant Inspector General for Audit, GA
Subject: Emergency Solutions Grants CARES Act Implementation Challenges
Attached are the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector
General’s (OIG) final results of our audit of HUD’s Emergency Solutions Grants Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and
Economic Security Act (CARES Act) program.
HUD Handbook 2000.06, REV-4, sets specific timeframes for management decisions on recommended
corrective actions. For each recommendation without a management decision, please respond and
provide status reports in accordance with the HUD Handbook. Please furnish us copies of any
correspondence or directives issued because of the audit.
The Inspector General Act, Title 5 United States Code, appendix 8M, requires that OIG post its reports on
the OIG website. Accordingly, this report will be posted at https://www.hudoig.gov.
If you have any questions or comments about this report, please do not hesitate to call Tanya Schulze,
Audit Director, at (213) 534-2471.
Office of Inspector General | U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Page | 2
451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410 | P: 202-708-0430 | F: 202-401-2505 | www.hudoig.gov
Highlights
EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS GRANTS CARES ACT IMPLEMENTATION
CHALLENGES | 2022-LA-0002
What We Audited and Why
We audited the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Emergency Solutions
Grants Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) (ESG-CV) program.
Our audit objective was to determine what challenges ESG-CV grant recipients faced in implementing the
program and using grant funds. We used a survey questionnaire to gather feedback and insight directly
from the 362 recipients of ESG-CV grants.
At the time we initiated this audit in July 2021, ESG-CV grant recipients had spent $563,178,336 of
available $3.96 billion grant funds. We performed this audit to assist HUD’s Office of Community
Planning and Development in identifying opportunities to improve the timeliness and use of ESG-CV grant
funds.
What We Found
Our survey questionnaire of the ESG-CV grant recipients found that they faced challenges in
implementing the program and using grant funds. The grant recipients needed an extension beyond the
spending deadline of September 30, 2022, to use a majority or all of their ESG-CV funds. HUD
subsequently extended the spending deadline to help address this issue. The top challenges identified by
the grant recipients included staff capacity and coordinating with other sources of pandemic related
funding. In addition, a majority of the grant recipients that provided ESG-CV funds to subrecipients stated
that the pandemic impacted their ability to effectively monitor their ESG-CV subrecipients. As a result,
while HUD has taken action to help address the spending deadline concerns, the grantees’ challenges
with capacity, multiple funding sources, and monitoring their subgrantees may increase the risk of misuse
of the funds. HUD can use the results of our survey questionnaire to potentially improve the continued
implementation of the ESG-CV program and to inform its risk assessment of ESG-CV grantees.
What We Recommend
We recommend that the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development
consider including grant recipients’ challenges with capacity, multiple sources of funding, and subgrantee
monitoring as part of CPD’s risk assessments.
Office of Inspector General | U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Page | 3
451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410 | P: 202-708-0430 | F: 202-401-2505 | www.hudoig.gov
Table of Contents
Background and Objective ........................................................................................ 5
Results of Audit ............................................................................................................. 7
Finding: ESG-CV Grant Recipients Faced Challenges in Implementing the Program and Using Grant
Funds.......................................................................................................................................................7
Scope and Methodology ........................................................................................... 12
Appendixes ................................................................................................................... 13
Appendix A - Auditee Comments and OIG’s Evaluation ...................................................................... 13
Appendix B - Survey Questionnaire Results ........................................................................................ 14
Background and Objective
Congress provided $4 billion 1 in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) for
the Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG) program with two rounds of funding, referred to as “ESG-CV”
grants, as follows:
1. Round 1. $1 billion allocated under the annual ESG formula to grant recipients.
2. Round 2. $2.96 billion allocated under a formula “for the benefit of unsheltered homeless,
sheltered homeless, and those at risk of homelessness, to geographical areas with the greatest
need based on factors to be determined by the [HUD] Secretary, such as risk of transmission of
coronavirus, high numbers or rates of sheltered and unsheltered homeless, and economic and
housing market conditions as determined by the Secretary.”
As of April 1, 2022, ESG-CV recipients had drawn nearly $1.65 billion, or 42 percent, of the $3.96 billion
ESG-CV amount. Please refer to the table below.
ESG CARES Total allocated 2 Obligated 3 in Funded 5 Drawn 6
funding by HUD IDIS 4 activities amount
$3,960,000,000 $3,960,000,000 $3,960,000,000 $3,683,016,994 $1,651,352,820
The CARES Act required that ESG-CV funds be used to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus
among individuals and families who are homeless or receiving homeless assistance and to support
additional homeless assistance and homelessness prevention activities to mitigate the impacts created by
coronavirus. The CARES Act also authorized HUD to waive, or specify alternative requirements for, any
provision of any statute or regulation that the Secretary administers in connection with the obligation by
the Secretary or the use by the recipients of these amounts, except for requirements related to fair
housing, nondiscrimination, labor standards, and the environment. The CARES Act also established that
ESG-CV funds remain available until September 30, 2022. The ESG-CV funding represented a 1,379
percent increase to the regular 2020 annual ESG appropriation. To ensure that ESG-CV funds are spent
quickly on eligible activities to address the public health and economic crises caused by coronavirus, HUD
1
HUD committed $40 million of the appropriated funds to technical assistance to recipients of ESG-CV to build
capacity and facilitate speedy implementation.
2
HUD awarded $3.96 billion in funds to 362 grant recipients.
3
HUD signed grant agreements and made funds available for disbursement.
4
The Integrated Disbursement and Information System (IDIS) provides HUD with current information regarding
the program activities underway across the Nation, including funding data. HUD uses this information to report
to Congress and to monitor grant recipients.
5
Grant recipients must fund a grant activity in IDIS before funds may be drawn.
6
Grant recipients have drawn funds to pay for grant-specific activities.
Emergency Solutions Grants CARES Act Program Page | 5
Office of Inspector General | U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
published Office of Community Planning and Development (CPD) Notice CPD-20-08 and established
progressive expenditure deadlines and recapture provisions as follows:
1. HUD may recapture up to 20 percent of a recipient’s total award, including first and second
allocation amounts, if the recipient has not spent at least 20 percent of that award by September
30, 2021.
2. HUD may recapture up to 80 percent of a recipient’s total award, including first and second
allocation amounts, if the recipient has not spent at least 80 percent of that award by March 31,
2022.
3. Before recapturing funds as described above, HUD will follow the enforcement process in 24 CFR
(Code of Federal Regulations) 576.501 and provide the recipient with an opportunity to provide a
spending plan demonstrating to HUD’s satisfaction that all of the recipient’s ESG-CV funds from
the first and second allocations will be spent by September 30, 2022.
The ESG-CV funding provided through the CARES Act is expected to mitigate the health and economic
impact of COVID-19 among some of the Nation’s most vulnerable individuals and families. These funds
will help communities implement infection control protocols to limit the spread of the virus among
people experiencing homelessness, especially those in unsheltered and congregate shelter settings. The
funds will also provide resources to housing programs that will most certainly see an increase in requests
for assistance because of the economic downturn created by the pandemic response.
Eligible ESG recipients generally consist of States, metropolitan cities, urban counties, and territories, as
defined in 24 CFR 576.2. ESG subrecipients may include units of general-purpose local government or
private nonprofit organizations. Local governments (whether recipients or subrecipients) may also
subgrant ESG funds to public housing agencies and local redevelopment authorities. HUD encourages
eligible subrecipients to contact their local government for information about applying for ESG-CV
funding.
Our audit objective was to determine what challenges ESG-CV grant recipients faced in implementing the
program and using grant funds.
Emergency Solutions Grants CARES Act Program Page | 6
Office of Inspector General | U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Results of Audit
FINDING: ESG-CV GRANT RECIPIENTS FACED CHALLENGES IN
IMPLEMENTING THE PROGRAM AND USING GRANT FUNDS
ESG-CV grant recipients faced challenges in implementing the program and using grant funds. The survey
questionnaire results 7 found that 39 percent of the grant recipients that responded may need an
extension beyond the spending deadline of September 30, 2022, to use a majority or all of their ESG-CV
funds. 8 The top two challenges experienced by the grant recipients as a result of the pandemic were staff
capacity and coordinating with other sources of funds. Further, the majority of the grant recipients that
provided ESG-CV funds to subrecipients stated that the pandemic impacted their ability to effectively
monitor their ESG-CV subrecipients. We attribute that these conditions occurred because grant recipients
were awarded large amounts of ESG-CV funding with the expectation it would be implemented and used
quickly to address the needs of the homeless during an unprecedented pandemic. As a result, grantee
recipients’ challenges in (1) capacity, (2) multiple funding sources, and (3) monitoring their subgrantees
may increase the risk of misuse of the funds.
Grant Recipients’ Ability to Meet the ESG-CV Spending Deadline
Most grant recipients 9 stated that they expect to use a majority or all of their ESG-CV funds by the
spending deadline of September 30, 2022; however, 39 percent stated that an extension may be needed.
Please refer to the table below for additional responses regarding the ability to spend by the spending
deadline.
7
Eighty-six percent of the grant recipients responded to the survey questionnaire. Refer to Scope and
Methodology section for survey questionnaire methodology and response rate information.
8
Subsequent to our survey questionnaire, on April 18, 2022, HUD extended the spending deadline to September
30, 2023.
9
Of the 362 ESG-CV grant recipients, 313 responded, and 49 did not. The survey questionnaire allowed the 313
respondents to check all that applied to them in regard to the spending deadline of September 30, 2022. As a
result, there were 402 responses (See appendix B, question 16).
Emergency Solutions Grants CARES Act Program Page | 7
Office of Inspector General | U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Spending Deadline
September 30, 2022
180 45%
160 39% 40%
140 35%
120 29% 30%
156
100 24% 25%
80 115 20%
96
60 15%
40 10%
8% 4
20 31 5%
1%
0 0%
Yes, all funding will be Yes, a majority of the Yes, but extensions No, signficant No, significant
used funds will be used may be needed amounts will remain amounts will remain
unused due to various unused due to lack of
challenges need
More than half of the respondents, 56 percent, found it challenging spending their agency’s allocated
ESG-CV funds to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus compared to spending their regular
annual ESG grant funds. (See appendix B, question 4.) In addition, 47 percent believed it was difficult to
implement the ESG-CV program in comparison to the regular annual ESG program. (See appendix B,
question 3.)
As of April 1, 2022, two years after the first tranche of grant funds were awarded, the grant recipients had
drawn $1.65 billion, 10 or 42 percent, of the $3.96 billion in ESG-CV funds. Therefore, grant recipient
concerns that they may not be able to fully spend the remaining $2.31 billion by the September 30, 2022,
spending deadline appear to be warranted.
Subsequent to our questionnaire survey, on April 18, 2022, HUD issued Notice: CPD-22-06, Waivers and
Alternative Requirements for the Emergency Solutions Grants Program Under the CARES Act (ESG-CV);
Amendments and Clarifications. The Notice extended the overall deadline for expending ESG-CV funds. It
stated that the recipients must expend all amounts through the first and second allocations of ESG-CV
funds by September 30, 2023, except for administration and HMIS funds necessary for ESG-CV closeout,
which must be expended by December 31, 2023. HUD determined that the new expenditure deadline
was necessary because the pandemic lasted much longer than initially anticipated and “continues to
cause significant risk to the public health and safety of the Nation.” HUD determined that ESG-CV
activities will still be needed to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus after the original grant
date of September 30, 2022. We believe the extension to the deadline will help alleviate the grant
recipients concerns regarding spending 11 and ensure funds will continue to be made available to address
pandemic related needs of the homeless.
10
Specifically, $1,651,352,820 drawn to pay for grant-specific activities, as of April 1, 2022.
11
HUD extended the spending deadline after the survey questionnaire addressing the grantee recipients’
concerns; therefore, we have not included a recommendation on extensions.
Emergency Solutions Grants CARES Act Program Page | 8
Office of Inspector General | U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Top ESG-CV Challenges Identified by Grant Recipients
Nearly half of the grant recipients, 49 percent, experienced challenges as a result of the COVID-19
pandemic that prevented their agency from meeting the goals of the ESG-CV program; specifically, to
prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus to help individuals and families who are homeless. (See
appendix B, question 5.) According to the survey questionnaire results, staff capacity and challenges
coordinating with other sources of funds were among the top two challenges that prevented their
agencies from meeting the ESG-CV objective. 12 (See appendix B, question 6.) Please refer to the
Challenges table 13 below for the number of grant recipient responses to each of the challenges.
Challenges
140 30%
120 25%
24%
100 119
20%
80
14% 14% 15% 15%
60 69 71 73
10% 10% 10%
40 9% 52 52
45
20 5%
17 3%
0 0%
Planning challenges (for Challenges coordinating
Travel restrictions
Capacity needs (for
Systems-technology issues Project delays and
Fear of possible COVID-19
Other
example, action plan, with other sources of
and communication additional costs
example, staff shortage)
activity setup, reporting
and case resurgance
funds (for example, CDBG,
problems
requirements)
HOPWA)
Forty two percent stated that they anticipated future challenges in administering the ESG-CV program.
(See appendix B, question 10.) The grant recipients that anticipated future challenges specified that
continued staff capacity was the highest anticipated challenge at 24 percent. (See appendix B, question
11).
Most grant recipients, 63 percent, stated they received other source(s) of non-HUD funding, such as
Federal Emergency Management Agency, state, and local sources, to address homelessness. As detailed
in the Impact of non-HUD funding table, 14 64 percent, 15 of these grant recipients stated that the non-
HUD funds have either moderately or significantly impacted their ESG-CV funds. (See appendix B,
12
We did not validate the grant recipients’ concerns, as it was outside the scope of the audit. (See Scope and
Methodology.)
13
As noted in the table, CDBG is the Community Development Block Grant program and HOPWA is the Housing
Opportunities for Persons with AIDS program. There was also a 1 percent difference in the table’s combined
total percentage due to rounding.
14
There was a 1 percent difference in the table’s combined total percentage due to rounding.
15
We combined the 68 respondents, 35 percent, and 57 grant recipients, 29 percent, that stated moderate or
significant impediment.
Emergency Solutions Grants CARES Act Program Page | 9
Office of Inspector General | U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
questions 12 and 13.) As noted in the chart above, the grant recipients as a whole identified coordinating
with other sources of funds as the second highest challenges (15 percent). (See appendix B, question 11).
Impact of non-HUD funding
No effect 39 grant recipients (20%)
Significant 57 grant recipients (29%)
Moderate 68 grant recipients (35%)
Minor 33 grant recipients (17%)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Subrecipient Monitoring
The majority of grant recipients, 87 percent, stated they provided ESG-CV funds to subrecipients to
administer. (See appendix B, questions 14 and 15.) As detailed in the chart below, 84 percent 16 of those
grant recipients stated that the pandemic impacted their ability to effectively monitor subrecipients, and
ultimately the program. 17
Impact on monitoring subrecipients
No effect 45 grant recipients (16%)
Significant 57 grant recipients (21%)
Moderate 114 grant recipients (42%)
Minor 57 grant recipients (21%)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
16
We combined the top three categories 1) 114 respondents, 42 percent, that stated moderate; 2) 57 grant
recipients, 21 percent, that stated significant; and 3) 57 grant recipients, 21 percent that stated minor impact on
monitoring subrecipients.
17
We did not verify funds provided to subrecipients or the pandemic’s impact on monitoring as it was outside the
scope of this audit. (See Scope and Methodology.)
Emergency Solutions Grants CARES Act Program Page | 10
Office of Inspector General | U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
HUD stated that it did not collect subrecipient contact information and subgrantee information would not
necessarily be entered by the grant recipients into HUD’s IDIS data system 18. In addition, HUD relies on
the grant recipients to monitor their own subrecipients; therefore, the risk to the program increases if the
ESG-CV grant recipients ability to effectively monitor their subrecipients has been impacted by the
pandemic.
Conclusion
Many grant recipients have faced difficulty in spending a majority or all of their ESG-CV funds and needed
an extension beyond the spending deadline of September 30, 2022. Subsequent to our survey
questionnaire, HUD extended the spending deadline to September 30, 2023, which we believe will help
alleviate the grant recipients concerns and allow the funding to remain available to address the pandemic
related needs of the homeless. The top two challenges experienced by grant recipients due to the
pandemic were staff capacity (24 percent) and coordinating with other sources of funds (15 percent). In
addition, a majority of grant recipients that provided ESG-CV funds to subrecipients stated that the
pandemic impacted their ability to effectively monitor their ESG-CV subrecipients. We attribute that
these conditions occurred because grant recipients were awarded large amounts of ESG-CV funding with
the expectation it would be implemented and used quickly to address the needs of the homeless during
an unprecedented pandemic. As a result, the grant recipients’ challenges with capacity, multiple funding
sources, and monitoring may increase the risk of misuse of the funds.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development
1A. Consider grant recipients’ feedback on challenges with (1) capacity, (2) multiple other sources
of funding, and (3) subrecipient monitoring as part of CPD’s risk assessments.
18
HUD’s IDIS data system had information on ESG-CV subrecipient commitment and draw activity. However, there
was no subrecipient contact or performance related information. We did not verify the accuracy or
completeness of the subrecipient information as it was not within the audit’s scope and objective.
Emergency Solutions Grants CARES Act Program Page | 11
Office of Inspector General | U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Scope and Methodology
We conducted the audit remotely from July 23 through October 18, 2021. Our audit covered the period
March 27, 2020, to July 31, 2021. To accomplish our audit, we developed a questionnaire and sent it to
all participating ESG-CV grant recipients.
The audit universe consisted of 362 grant recipients that received a combined total of $3.96 billion for the
first and second allocation of ESG-CV funds. We used Microsoft Forms to create the questionnaire for
ESG-CV grant recipients to complete. HUD headquarters provided the contact information 19 generated
from Sage 20. We sent an email with a hyperlink for the ESG-CV recipients to access to our questionnaire
online. During the 3-week response period, 21 we received 313 responses from the 362 ESG-CV grant
recipients contacted, or an 86 percent (313 divided by 362) response rate. We included the survey
questionnaire results 22 in appendix B for additional reference.
ESG-CV designated points of contact answered questions in the two categories: (1) the ESG-CV program
focusing on general questions related to the implementation of the program and (2) ESG-CV program
challenges and experiences. These questions were closed ended, and the questionnaire generally used a
descriptive rating scale for tracking and evaluation purposes and optional comment boxes. We
determined that a 100 percent selection method was appropriate since the online survey questionnaire is
an effective and efficient method of data collection. Specifically, we relied on the information obtained
through Microsoft Forms to collect responses from the designated points of contact. As a result, we
determined that the information from the program was sufficient to meet the objective of our audit.
We conducted the audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to
provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our objective(s). We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our conclusions based on our objective.
19
In instances such as when emails were undeliverable, we obtained alternate email addresses from field office
directors and CPD staff emails or the IDIS PR 32 Grantee Contact Information Report.
20
The Sage Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) Reporting Repository is a web-based reporting
portal that allows ESG homeless assistance grant recipients to submit their ESG-Consolidated Annual
Performance and Evaluation Report and ESG-CV Quarterly reports to HUD.
21
We extended the survey questionnaire deadline an additional week, to October 5, 2021, to help meet the
minimum 80 percent submission rate for the survey questionnaire.
22
In addition to the results documented in appendix B, respondents had the opportunity to submit optional
written comments as part of the survey questionnaire. Examples of the comments have been included in the
applicable sections of the finding.
Emergency Solutions Grants CARES Act Program Page | 12
Office of Inspector General | U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Appendixes
APPENDIX A - AUDITEE COMMENTS AND OIG’S EVALUATION
CPD chose not to provide comments for inclusion in the final report.
Emergency Solutions Grants CARES Act Program Page | 13
Office of Inspector General | U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
APPENDIX B - SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS
Questions and selection choices Total Percentage
1. How would you rate how easy it was for your agency to find
or be made aware when HUD issued its ESG-CV program notices
guidance and waivers? For example: A notice was published on
April 14, 2021: Notice CPD-21-05: Waiver and Alternative
Requirements for the Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG)
Program Under the CARES Act.
Easy 201 64%
Neutral 99 32%
Difficult 12 4%
Not aware of the program notices and waivers 1 0% 23
Total 313 100%
Ease of locating HUD-issued
ESG-CV program notices, guidance, and waivers
Not aware - 1 grant
Difficult - 12 grant
recipient (0.3%)
recipients (4%)
Neutral - 99 grant
recipients (32%)
Easy - 201 grant
recipients (64%)
2. How would you rate the ease in understanding program
notices and waivers issued in response to the COVID-19
pandemic to help your agency meet the ESG-CV program’s goals
and objective?
Easy 101 32%
Neutral 155 50%
23
Rounded down because number was less than a full percent. Specifically, it was 0.3 percent.
Emergency Solutions Grants CARES Act Program Page | 14
Office of Inspector General | U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Questions and selection choices Total Percentage
Difficult 56 18%
Total 312 24 100%
Ease in understanding HUD-issued
ESG-CV program notices, guidance, and waivers
Difficult - 56 grant
recipients (18%) Easy - 101 grant
recipients (32%)
Neutral - 155 grant
recipients (50%)
3. How would you rate the ease of implementing the ESG-CV
program compared to your agency’s regular annual ESG
program?
Easy 53 17%
Neutral 113 36%
Difficult 147 47%
Total 313 100%
24
A grant recipient indicated that it was not aware of the program notices and waivers. Therefore, the survey
questionnaire did not branch out to this sub question for that particular respondent. As a result, there were only
312 respondents for this question.
Emergency Solutions Grants CARES Act Program Page | 15
Office of Inspector General | U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Questions and selection choices Total Percentage
Ease in implementing the ESG-CV program
Easy - 53 grant
recipients (17%)
Difficult - 147 grant
recipients (47%)
Neutral- 113 grant
recipients (36%)
4. How would you rate the challenge of spending your agency’s
allocated ESG-CV funds to prevent, prepare for, and respond to
coronavirus, compared to spending your regular annual ESG
grant funds?
Easy 27 9%
Neutral 110 35%
Difficult 176 56%
Total 313 100%
Challenge of spending allocated
ESG-CV funds
Easy - 27 grant
recipients (9%)
Difficult - 176 grant
recipients (56%)
Neutral - 110 grant
recipients (35%)
Emergency Solutions Grants CARES Act Program Page | 16
Office of Inspector General | U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Questions and selection choices Total Percentage
5. Has your agency experienced challenges as a result of the
COVID-19 pandemic that have not allowed your agency to meet
the goals of ESG-CV funds; specifically, to prevent, prepare for,
and respond to coronavirus to help individuals and families who
are homeless?
Yes 153 49%
No 160 51%
Total 313 100%
Challenges as a result of the
COVID-19 pandemic
Yes - 153 grant
recipients (49%)
No - 160 grant
recipients (51%)
6. If Yes, what are the specific challenges that are not allowing
your agency to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus
to help individuals and families who are homeless. Check all
that apply.
Fear of possible COVID-19 and case resurgence 45 9%
Systems-technology issues and communication problems 52 10%
Project delays and additional costs 69 14%
Capacity needs (e.g. staff shortage) 119 24%
Planning challenges (e.g. action plan, activity setup, reporting 71 14%
requirements)
Challenges coordinating with other sources of funds (e.g. CDBG, 73 15%
HOPWA)
Emergency Solutions Grants CARES Act Program Page | 17
Office of Inspector General | U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Questions and selection choices Total Percentage
Travel restrictions 17 3%
Other 25: 1) Eviction moratorium/rent moratorium, 2) Shortage of 52 10%
housing, 3) Spending threshold deadlines, 4) IDIS and HMIS issues
5) Processing internal approvals, executing agreements and State
Board of Accounts 6) Amount of funding sources of available, 7)
Not having enough service providers with the capacity to utilize
the funds, 8) Potential duplication of services and identifying more
subrecipients willing to participate in the program, 9) COVID-19
infections in staff, 10) Inability to shelter individuals in congregate
settings during the coldest months to avoid spreading coronavirus,
11) Lengthy environmental reviews, 12) Limited affordable
housing inventory/resources, 13) Staff turnover and quarantine
throughout the last fiscal year that’s caused delays in our
processes, 14) Issues related to land use issues in developing a
shelter, 15) Increased bureaucracy, 16) Jurisdiction coordinating
challenges, 17) Limited housing to place homeless under Rapid
Rehousing, 18) Quarterly reporting, 19) Other funding available
offering same service, 20) Income limits for homeless preventions
are too low, 21) Earthquake sequence in the area, 22) Having to
work remotely due to COVID-19, 23) Required to report through
the Continuum of Care but not consult on activities, 24)
Reluctance to do site-based reviews/monitoring, 25) Occupancy
restrictions due to social distancing, 26) Guidelines around the use
of Rapid Rehousing (RRH) and Housing Prevention
Total 498 26 100% 27
25
Listed by most to least common.
26
The survey questionnaire allowed the 153 respondents that stated that they experienced challenges to check all
of the challenges that applied to their agencies. As a result, there were 498 responses, as detailed in the
Challenges table.
27
There was a 1 percent difference due to rounding.
Emergency Solutions Grants CARES Act Program Page | 18
Office of Inspector General | U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Questions and selection choices Total Percentage
Challenges
140 30%
120 25%
24%
100 119
20%
80
14% 14% 15% 15%
60 69 71 73
10% 10% 10%
40 9% 52 52
45
20 5%
17 3%
0 0%
Travel restrictions
Challenges coordinating
Project delays and
Systems-technology
Capacity needs (for
Planning challenges (for
Fear of possible COVID-
Other
issues and
example, action plan, with other sources of
additional costs
communication
19 and case resurgance example, staff shortage)
activity setup, reporting funds (for example,
problems
requirements) CDBG, HOPWA)
7. If Yes, how would you rate HUD’s program notices and
waivers intended to help address the challenges listed in the
prior question? For instance, HUD waived the requirement of
having to submit the Consolidated Annual Performance and
Evaluation Report (CAPER) within 90 days and extended it to
180 days. Due to this waiver, it helped make it easier for your
agency to be able to address one of its challenges if that
challenge was capacity needs, because it allowed more time for
your agency to complete the CAPER.
Very helpful 45 29%
Helpful 82 54%
Not helpful 26 17%
Total 153 100%
Emergency Solutions Grants CARES Act Program Page | 19
Office of Inspector General | U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Questions and selection choices Total Percentage
HUD's program notices and waivers
Not helpful - 26 grant
recipients (17%)
Helpful - 82 grant
recipients (54%)
Very helpful - 45
grant recipients
(29%)
8. Does your agency need additional support from HUD to
effectively administer the ESG-CV program during the COVID-19
pandemic?
Yes 99 32%
No 214 68%
Total 313 100%
Additional support from HUD
Yes - 99 grant
recipients (32%)
No - 214 grant
recipients (68%)
Emergency Solutions Grants CARES Act Program Page | 20
Office of Inspector General | U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Questions and selection choices Total Percentage
9. If Yes, what additional support is needed to effectively
administer the ESG-CV program during the COVID-19 pandemic?
Check all that apply.
More training 42 27%
More HUD assistance (such as HUD meetings to answer questions 60 39%
or concerns or providing remote technical assistance to address
issues that were not anticipated from the pandemic)
Other 28: 1) More time to build subrecipients’ capacity, 2) Maintain 51 33%
and more detailed HUD Technical Assistance, 3) More waivers, 4)
Meeting quarterly reporting requirements and closer alignment
with regular ESG reporting and tracking, 5) Make waivers and
flexibilities automatic, 6) Continued evaluation of the ESG-CV
program, 7) More training and detailed guidance, 8) Quicker
response on AAQ and clear answers, 9) Waivers on the homeless
definition, 10) Training that indicates how funds can be used in
addition to rental payments, major renovation projects, 11) Less
reporting via email, surveys, CAPER, IDIS, Sage, HMIS, and other
mediums, 12) Direct assistance from HUD in explaining best
practices and utilization of ESG-CV, 13) More time to spend funds
and extend deadline, 14) A policy of some lenience in future
monitoring during this time period, as long as agencies
demonstrate good-faith and reasonable efforts to comply with
rules
Total 153 29 100% 30
10. Does your agency anticipate future challenges in
administering the ESG-CV program as a result of the COVID-19
pandemic and its impact on program operations?
Yes 130 42%
No 183 58%
Total 313 100%
28
Listed by most to least common.
29
The survey questionnaire allowed the 99 respondents that needed additional support from HUD to check all
types of support needed. As a result, there were 153 responses.
30
There was a 1 percent difference due to rounding.
Emergency Solutions Grants CARES Act Program Page | 21
Office of Inspector General | U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Questions and selection choices Total Percentage
Anticipating future challenges
Yes - 130 grant
No - 183 grant recipients (42%)
recipients (58%)
11. If Yes, what are the anticipated future challenges in
administering the ESG-CV program that your agency anticipates
as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on program
operations?
Continued fear of possible COVID-19 and case resurgence 48 12%
Continued systems-technology issues and communication 24 6%
problems
Continued project delays and additional costs 59 15%
Continued capacity needs (e.g. staff shortage) 95 24%
Continued planning challenges (e.g. action plan, activity set up, 59 15%
reporting requirements)
Continued challenges coordinating with other sources of funds 59 15%
(e.g. CDBG, HOPWA)
Continued travel restrictions 10 2%
Other 31: 1) State of the housing market due to COVID-19 such as 48 12%
extension of eviction moratorium, eligibility tenant protections,
landlord participation with Rapid Rehousing programs, building
occupancy restrictions due to social-distancing, inspecting sites for
rental activities, 2) Lack of affordable housing, 3) Expenditure
deadline, 4) Coordination or competing with similar services of
other funds such as FEMA funds, Treasury EGA funding,
31
Listed by most to least common.
Emergency Solutions Grants CARES Act Program Page | 22
Office of Inspector General | U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Questions and selection choices Total Percentage
duplication of benefits, 5) Capacity needs such as grantee and
subrecipient staff time due to illness, 6) Stringent program notices
and guidance needing revision and special permission from HUD
on changes to scope outside amending the action plan and
continue to commit funds, 7) Construction delays, 8) Continued
grantee conclusion due to administrative changes and challenges
that have put into place as well between ESG and ESG-CV
identifying more subrecipients willing to participate in the
program, 9) Continued challenges with affordable housing and
needs after funding ends 2022, 10) Not being able to use relief
dollars for marketing to “get the word out”, 11) Quarterly
reporting
Total 402 32 100% 33
12. Did your agency receive other sources of non-HUD funding
(e.g. Federal Emergency Management Agency, state, and local)
to address homelessness?
Yes 197 63%
No 116 37%
Total 313 100%
Non-HUD funding
No - 116 grant
recipients (37%)
Yes - 197 grant
recipients (63%)
32
The survey questionnaire allowed the 130 respondents to check all the applicable anticipated future challenges
in administering the ESG-CV program that their agency anticipated as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and its
impact on program operations. As a result, there were 402 responses.
33
There was a 1 percent difference due to rounding.
Emergency Solutions Grants CARES Act Program Page | 23
Office of Inspector General | U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Questions and selection choices Total Percentage
13. If yes, to what extent has receiving other source of non-HUD
funding impeded your spending of ESG-CV funds?
Minor 39 20%
Moderate 68 35%
Significant 57 29%
No effect 33 17%
Total 197 100% 34
Impact of non-HUD funding
No effect 39 grant recipients (20%)
Significant 57 grant recipients (29%)
Moderate 68 grant recipients (35%)
Minor 33 grant recipients (17%)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
14. Did your agency grant ESG-CV funds to subrecipients to
administer?
Yes 273 87%
No 40 13%
Total 313 100%
34
There was a 1 percent difference due to rounding.
Emergency Solutions Grants CARES Act Program Page | 24
Office of Inspector General | U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Questions and selection choices Total Percentage
Provided ESG-CV funds to subrecipients
No - 40 grant
recipients (13%)
Yes - 273 grant
recipients (87%)
15. If Yes, to what extent has the COVID 19 pandemic impacted
your agency’s ability to effectively monitor the ESG-CV program
being administered by subrecipient(s)?
Minor 57 21%
Moderate 114 42%
Significant 57 21%
No effect 45 16%
Total 273 100%
Emergency Solutions Grants CARES Act Program Page | 25
Office of Inspector General | U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Questions and selection choices Total Percentage
Impact on monitoring subrecipients
No effect 45 grant recipients (16%)
Significant 57 grant recipients (21%)
Moderate 114 grant recipients (42%)
Minor 57 grant recipients (21%)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
16. Does your agency expect to use a majority or all of its ESG-
CV funds by the spending deadline of September 30, 2022?
Check all that apply.
Yes, all funding will be used 96 24%
Yes, a majority of the funds will be used 115 29%
Yes, but extensions may be needed 156 39%
No, significant amounts will remain unused due to various 31 8%
challenges
No, significant amounts will remain unused due to lack of need 4 1%
Total 402 35 100% 36
35
The survey questionnaire allowed the 130 respondents to check all applicable anticipated future challenges in
administering the ESG-CV program that their agency anticipated as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and its
impact on program operations. As a result, there were 402 responses.
36
There was a 1 percent difference due to rounding.
Emergency Solutions Grants CARES Act Program Page | 26
Office of Inspector General | U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Questions and selection choices Total Percentage
Spending Deadline
September 30, 2022
180 45%
39%
160 40%
140 29% 35%
120 156 30%
24%
100 25%
115
80 96 20%
60 15%
40 8% 10%
20 4 5%
31 1%
0 0%
Yes, all funding will Yes, a majority of Yes, but extensions No, signficant No, significant
be used the funds will be may be needed amounts will remain amounts will remain
used unused due to unused due to lack
various challenges of need
Emergency Solutions Grants CARES Act Program Page | 27
Office of Inspector General | U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
File and source
- File
- hud-oig-2022-la-0002.pdf
- Size
- 1,044,713 bytes
- SHA-256
- ebb1807f2ce345a4169f3bd2ccaa321bb87b2e6fbe6ce59fa0129748f7014f67
- Our copy
- hud-oig-2022-la-0002.pdf
- Original
- www.hudoig.gov