prompt_front: You are given two reports by the government agency.



Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 1.

Report 1: Under SBA’s 7(a) loan program, SBA guarantees loans made by commercial lenders to small businesses for working capital and other general business purposes  These lenders are mostly banks, but some are non-bank lenders, including small business lending companies— lenders whose lending activities are not subject to regulation by any federal or state regulatory agency, but were previously licensed by SBA and authorized to provide 7(a) loans to qualified small businesses  The guarantee assures the lender that if a borrower defaults on a loan, the lender will receive an agreed-upon portion (generally between 50 percent and 85 percent) of the outstanding balance  For a majority of 7(a) loans, SBA relies on lenders with delegated authority to approve and service 7(a) loans and to ensure that borrowers meet the program’s eligibility requirements  To be eligible for the 7(a) program, a business must be an operating for-profit small firm (according to SBA’s size standards) located in the United States and must meet the credit elsewhere requirement  Because the 7(a) program is required to serve borrowers who cannot obtain conventional credit at reasonable terms, lenders making 7(a) loans must take steps to ensure that borrowers meet the program’s credit elsewhere requirement  Because SBA relies on lenders with delegated authority to make these determinations, SBA’s oversight of these lenders is particularly important  However, we found in a 2009 report that SBA’s lack of guidance to lenders on how to document compliance with the credit elsewhere requirement was impeding the agency’s ability to oversee compliance with the credit elsewhere requirement  To improve SBA’s oversight of lenders’ compliance with the credit elsewhere requirement, we recommended in 2009 that SBA issue more detailed guidance to lenders on how to document their compliance with the credit elsewhere requirement  As a result, SBA revised its standard operating procedure to state that each loan file must contain documentation that specifically identifies the factors in the present financing that meet the credit elsewhere test, which we believe met the spirit of our recommendation  SBA’s current credit elsewhere criteria for determining 7(a) loan eligibility include the following factors: 1  the business needs a longer maturity than the lender’s policy permits; 2  the requested loan exceeds the lender’s policy limit regarding the amount that it can lend to one customer; 3  the collateral does not meet the lender’s policy requirements; 4  the lender’s policy normally does not allow loans to new businesses or businesses in the applicant’s industry; or 5  any other factors relating to the credit which, in the lender’s opinion, cannot be overcome except for the guarantee  When the 7(a) program was first implemented, borrowers were generally required to show proof of credit denials from banks that documented, among other things, the reasons for not granting the desired credit  Similar requirements remained in effect until 1985, when SBA amended the rule to permit a lender’s certification made in its application for an SBA guarantee to be sufficient documentation  This certification requirement remained when the rule was rewritten in 1996  SBA stated that it believed requiring proof of loan denials was demoralizing to small businesses and unenforceable by SBA  SBA and lender roles vary among 7(a) program categories—including regular 7(a), the Preferred Lenders Program, and SBA Express  Under the regular (nondelegated) 7(a) program, SBA makes the loan approval decision, including the credit determination  Under the Preferred Lenders Program and SBA Express, SBA delegates to the lender the authority to make loan approval decisions, including credit determinations, without prior review by SBA  For each 7(a) program category, lenders are required to ensure that borrowers meet the credit elsewhere requirement for all 7(a) loans  The maximum loan amount under the SBA Express program is $350,000, as opposed to $5 million for other 7(a) loans  The program allows lenders to utilize, to the maximum extent possible, their own credit analyses and loan underwriting procedures  In return for the expanded authority and autonomy provided by the program, SBA Express lenders agree to accept a maximum SBA guarantee of 50 percent  Other 7(a) loans generally have a maximum guarantee of 75 percent or 85 percent, depending on the loan amount  In fiscal year 2016, 1,991 lenders approved 7(a) loans, of which 1,321 approved at least one loan with some form of delegated authority  SBA’s Office of Credit Risk Management is responsible for overseeing 7(a) lenders, including those with delegated authority  SBA created this office in fiscal year 1999 to help ensure consistent and appropriate supervision of SBA’s lending partners  The office is responsible for managing all activities regarding lender reviews; preparing written reports; evaluating new programs; and recommending changes to existing programs to assess risk potential  Generally, the office oversees SBA lenders to identify unacceptable risk profiles using its risk rating system and enforce loan program requirements  According to SBA’s standard operating procedures, one of the agency’s purposes of its monitoring and oversight activities is to promote responsible lending that supports SBA’s mission to increase access to capital for small businesses  In the federal budget, the 7(a) program is generally required to set fees that it charges to lenders and borrowers at a level to cover the estimated cost of the program associated with borrower defaults (in present value terms)  To offset some of the costs of the program, such as default costs, SBA assesses lenders two fees on each 7(a) loan  First, depending on the term of the loan, the guarantee fee must be paid by the lender within either 90 days of loan approval or 10 business days of the SBA loan number being assigned  This fee is based on the amount of the loan and the level of the guarantee, and lenders can pass the fee on to the borrower  Second, the servicing fee must be paid annually by the lender and is based on the outstanding balance of the guaranteed portion of the loan  The 7(a) program accounts for a small portion of total small business lending  According to a May 2017 report by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the total debt financing available to small businesses was estimated to be $1 4 trillion  Of that amount, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau estimated that about 7 percent was SBA loans, including 7(a) loans  SBA and some other researchers have suggested that there may be disparities in credit access among small businesses, based on characteristics of the borrower and firm  SBA lists as a strategic objective to “ensure inclusive entrepreneurship by expanding access and opportunity to small businesses and entrepreneurs in communities where market gaps remain ” In 2007, we reported that some studies had noted disparities among some races and genders in the conventional lending market, but the studies did not offer conclusive evidence on the reasons for those differences  Much of the research we reviewed in 2007 relied on the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System’s Survey of Small Business Finance, which was last implemented in 2003  Although this survey is no longer available, recently the 12 Federal Reserve Banks conducted the Small Business Credit Survey  In a series of reports based on the more recent survey, researchers found disparities in credit availability based on gender, the age of the firm, and minority status  From fiscal years 2007 through 2016, a majority of loan dollars guaranteed under the 7(a) program went to small businesses that were new, partially or wholly owned by women, or located in a distressed area  As previously mentioned, recent studies we reviewed by the Federal Reserve Banks and other researchers suggest that certain small business borrowers—including businesses that are new or owned by women—have difficulty obtaining conventional small business loans, which may put them at a disadvantage  As shown in figure 1, almost two-thirds of loan dollars guaranteed under the 7(a) program for this period went to small businesses that were in these two categories or located in a distressed area  The remaining 37 percent of 7(a) loan dollars went to businesses that were established, solely male-owned, and not located in economically distressed areas  See appendixes II and III for additional data on 7(a) loans, such as the total volume, percentage of lending provided by year and by state, and other borrower characteristics, including SBA’s loan- and lender-level Small Business Risk Portfolio Solutions score (predictive score) information  In the following figures, we present more detailed data on 7(a) loans to small businesses based on their status as a new business; gender of ownership; location relative to economically distressed areas; and minority ownership for fiscal years 2007 through 2016  New businesses  As shown in figure 2, the percentage of 7(a) loans that went to new businesses decreased from 36 percent in fiscal year 2007 to 23 percent in fiscal year 2011 before increasing to 35 percent by 2016  Gender  From fiscal years 2007 through 2016, the share of the total value of approved 7(a) loans by gender of owner remained fairly consistent (see fig  3)  An average of 70 percent of the total loan value went to male- owned businesses, and the remaining 30 percent went to businesses that were majority (more than 50 percent) or partially (50 percent or less) owned by women  Economically distressed areas  SBA did not provide data on whether 7(a) loans go to businesses located in economically distressed neighborhoods  However, we used data from the American Community Survey for 2011 through 2015, the most recent version available at the time of our analysis, along with zip code information provided by SBA to determine the average poverty rate by zip code (see fig  4)  From fiscal years 2007 through 2016, the proportion of the total value of 7(a) loans approved that went to borrowers in economically distressed areas remained between 23 percent and 26 percent  We defined distressed areas as zip codes where at least 20 percent of the households had incomes below the national poverty line  Minority/Nonminority status of borrower  From fiscal years 2007 through 2016, the proportion of the total value of 7(a) loans approved that went to minority borrowers decreased overall—from 43 percent to 30 percent—with the lowest share at 24 percent in fiscal year 2010 (see fig  5)  The share of approved loan dollars that went to nonminority borrowers varied, increasing to 69 percent in fiscal year 2010 before decreasing to 56 percent in fiscal year 2016  Notably, the share of the total value of loans approved that went to borrowers whose race/ethnicity was categorized as undetermined increased from 5 percent in fiscal year 2007 to 13 percent in fiscal year 2016  This increase does not fully account for the declined share for minority borrowers  However, according to SBA officials, borrowers voluntarily provide self-reported information on race and ethnicity and therefore the associated trend data should be viewed with caution  SBA relies on on-site reviews as its primary mechanism for evaluating lenders’ compliance with the credit elsewhere requirement  The reviews are performed by third-party contractors with SBA staff participation and additional oversight from SBA  According to SBA’s standard operating procedures, these reviews are generally conducted every 12 to 24 months for all 7(a) lenders with outstanding balances on the SBA- guaranteed portions of their loan portfolios of $10 million or more, although SBA may conduct on-site reviews of any SBA lender at any time as it considers necessary  In fiscal year 2016, SBA conducted 40 on-site reviews of 7(a) lenders, representing approximately 35 percent of SBA’s total outstanding 7(a) loan portfolio  As part of SBA’s on-site reviews, reviewers judgmentally selected a sample of approximately 30 to 40 loan files using a risk-based approach  These loan files accounted for approximately 6 percent to 19 percent of each lender’s total gross SBA dollars in fiscal year 2016  For each lender, approximately 70 percent to 90 percent of the loan files in the sample were reviewed to evaluate compliance with the credit elsewhere requirement  According to SBA’s contractors, loans that were selected for other reasons, such as issues related to liquidation, were not required to be reviewed for credit elsewhere compliance  SBA requires lenders to provide a narrative to support the credit elsewhere determination in the credit memorandum included in each loan file  SBA’s standard operating procedures state that lenders must substantiate that credit is not available elsewhere by (1) discussing the criteria that demonstrate an identifiable weakness in a borrower’s credit and (2) including the specific reasons why the borrower does not meet the lender’s conventional loan policy requirements  In keeping with SBA’s documentation requirement, third-party contractors and SBA staff who conduct on-site reviews are supposed to assess whether lenders have adequately documented the credit elsewhere criteria and provided specific reasons supporting the criteria in the credit memorandum  According to SBA’s contractors, adequate documentation of the credit elsewhere determination in the credit memorandum would include not just which of the criteria a borrower met but also a discussion of the basis or justification for the decision  For example, if a lender determined that a borrower needed a longer maturity, the lender should explain in the credit memorandum the reasons why a longer maturity was necessary  SBA’s contractors also told us that they carefully review a lender’s loan policies in preparation for on-site reviews and refer to a lender’s policies throughout the reviews  Reviewers do not attempt to verify the evidence given in support of the credit elsewhere reason beyond the information provided in the credit memorandum  Based on our review of fiscal year 2016 reports, on-site reviews can result in three levels of noncompliance response: Finding: This is the most severe result and is associated with a corrective action for the lender to remedy the issue  Observation: This is a deficiency recorded in the review’s summary but may not warrant a corrective action for the lender  Deficiency Noted: This is the lowest level of response  It is a deficiency noted as part of the review that is not included in the review’s summary and also may not warrant a corrective action  According to SBA officials, SBA’s policy has been that any noncompliance with SBA loan program requirements results in a finding  However, according to SBA officials and our review of the fiscal year 2016 on-site review reports, if a single instance of noncompliance was identified in fiscal year 2016, SBA generally would not issue a finding  Instead, SBA’s contractors said they would attempt to determine whether that instance was an inadvertent error, such as by examining additional loan files  Lenders that are subject to corrective actions are generally required to submit a response to SBA within 30 days to document how they have addressed or plan to address the identified issues  SBA subsequently asks for documentation to show that the lender has remedied the issue, and in some cases will conduct another review that usually includes an assessment of 5 to 10 additional loan files to determine whether the credit elsewhere reason has been adequately documented  According to SBA officials, SBA may also review lenders’ compliance with corrective actions from recent on-site reviews during targeted reviews (discussed below) and delegated authority renewal reviews (for lenders with delegated authority)  In addition to on-site reviews, SBA also monitors lenders’ compliance with the credit elsewhere requirement through targeted reviews (performed on- or off-site)  Targeted reviews of a specific process or issue may be conducted for a variety of reasons at SBA’s discretion, including assessing a lender’s compliance with the credit elsewhere requirement  In fiscal year 2016, SBA conducted 24 targeted reviews that included an examination of lenders’ compliance with the credit elsewhere documentation requirement  For these reviews, SBA examined loan files for 5 judgmentally selected loans that were provided to SBA electronically, as well as copies of the credit elsewhere reasoning (among other underwriting documentation) for 10 additional recently-approved loans  SBA also conducts periodic off-site reviews that use loan- and lender- level portfolio metrics to evaluate the risk level of lenders’ 7(a) portfolios  According to agency officials, SBA also began using off-site reviews to evaluate lenders’ compliance with the credit elsewhere requirement in fiscal year 2016  In that year, SBA conducted off-site reviews of 250 lenders and required these lenders to report the credit elsewhere justification for a sample of 10 loans per lender that were identified by SBA’s selection process  Lenders were not required to provide supporting documentation, and SBA did not follow up with lenders or review loan files to ensure the validity of the self-reported reasons  According to SBA, off-site reviews followed the same procedures in fiscal year 2017 as in 2016 and that the agency planned to use the same procedures for these reviews in the future  According to the agency, it also routinely evaluates and revises its review processes and procedures  In addition, SBA’s Loan Guaranty Processing Center and National Guaranty Purchase Center conduct Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act and quality control reviews at the time of loan approval and at the time of guaranty purchase, respectively  These reviews examine the credit elsewhere requirement, among other issues  Lastly, since 2014 SBA’s Office of Inspector General has also examined whether high-dollar or early-defaulted 7(a) loans were made in accordance with rules; regulations; policies; and procedures, including the credit elsewhere requirement  Our review of the on-site reviews conducted in fiscal year 2016 found that 17 of the 40 reviews—more than 40 percent—identified compliance issues with the credit elsewhere documentation requirement  Of those 17 reviews, 10 reviews resulted in a Finding (all with associated corrective 3 reviews resulted in an Observation (none with associated corrective actions or requirements), and 4 reviews resulted in a Deficiency Noted (one with an associated requirement)  For all of the 17 on-site reviews that identified an instance of noncompliance, the issue was related to the lender’s documentation of the credit elsewhere criteria or justification  For example, one review found that the lender’s “regulatory practices demonstrate material noncompliance with SBA Loan Program requirements regarding documentation of the Credit Elsewhere Test ” Another review found that the lender “failed to demonstrate with adequate documentation that credit was not available elsewhere on reasonable terms and conditions ” For 2 of the 17 reviews, the issue was partly related to a discrepancy between the credit elsewhere justification used for some of the sample loan files and the lender’s own loan policy limits  With regard to SBA’s targeted reviews, 7 of 24 reviews (29 percent) conducted in fiscal year 2016 found a compliance issue with the credit elsewhere requirement  Of those 7 reviews, 6 reviews resulted in a Finding (all with associated corrective actions), 1 review resulted in an Observation (without an associated corrective no reviews resulted in a Deficiency Noted  For all of the 7 targeted reviews that identified a compliance issue, the issue was wholly related to the lender’s documentation of the credit elsewhere reason or justification  For example, 4 reviews found that for at least one loan reviewed, “the Lender failed to document justification that credit was unavailable elsewhere ” Another review found that for “three SBA Express loans and one Small Loan Advantage loan reported “other factors relating to the credit that in the lender’s opinion cannot be overcome except for the guaranty’ without specific identification of the factors ” Based on our review of on-site review reports and an interview with one reviewer, the key factors underlying lenders’ high rate of noncompliance with the credit elsewhere documentation requirement were lenders’ lack of proper internal controls and procedures and lack of awareness of the credit elsewhere documentation requirement  In fiscal year 2016, SBA’s corrective actions related to the credit elsewhere requirement required the lenders to establish or strengthen their policies; procedures; underwriting processes; or internal controls  In addition, contractors conducting the on- site reviews with whom we spoke stated that some lenders appeared to be unfamiliar with SBA’s standard operating procedures or were unclear on how to interpret them  For the 11 on-site reviews conducted in 2016 that included corrective actions, SBA generally required lenders to improve controls or procedures  For example, one lender was required to “correct its policy, modify its procedure, and amend its internal controls to ensure that its consideration and documentation of credit unavailable elsewhere identifies the specific fact(s) which are applicable to the specific loan and the determination is rendered and accurate for each individual SBA loan that it originates ” Another lender was required to “improve underwriting processes and controls to ensure that the borrower meets the [credit elsewhere] requirement” and to “document the loan file with the reasons for the determination ” Similarly, for the six targeted reviews in 2016 that included corrective actions, SBA issued a general requirement for the lender to “identify the causes for the Findings and implement corrective actions ” Based on our review of these targeted reviews, lenders generally remedied or intended to remedy the issue by amending their internal controls or procedures  For example, one lender stated that the “Credit Elsewhere test will be incorporated into the Credit Department process ” Another lender stated that it would “centralize all SBA underwriting and has developed an SBA addendum that will be utilized for all SBA-guaranteed loans ” Although some of SBA’s on-site reviews for fiscal year 2016 identified factors leading to noncompliance, they generally did not document reviewers’ assessment of lenders’ policies and practices for complying with the credit elsewhere documentation requirement  SBA’s standard operating procedures state that the on-site reviewers should determine whether or not lenders’ policies and practices adhere to the requirement, but they do not require them to document their assessment of these policies and practices  Only 4 of the 40 fiscal year 2016 review reports that we examined included such an assessment  As a result, although SBA required corrective actions by the lender to address deficiencies, there usually was no record of the underlying factors that resulted in the lender’s noncompliance  Federal internal control standards state that management should design control activities to achieve objectives and respond to risks, including appropriate documentation of transactions and internal control  Because SBA does not require reviewers to document their assessment of lenders’ policies and practices for complying with the credit elsewhere documentation requirement, the agency does not have good information to help explain why so many lenders are not in compliance  This hinders SBA’s ability to take informed and effective actions to improve lender compliance with the requirement and ensure that the program is reaching its intended population  SBA does not routinely collect information on the criteria lenders use in their credit elsewhere justifications  As previously discussed, lenders are required to maintain documentation of borrower eligibility (including the credit elsewhere justification) in each loan file for loans approved through lenders’ delegated authority  However, SBA cannot readily aggregate information on lenders’ credit elsewhere justifications for both delegated and nondelegated loans: For delegated loans, lenders are required to certify the loan’s credit elsewhere eligibility on E-Tran, SBA’s online portal for origination of delegated and nondelegated loans  However, lenders are only required to check a box to certify that the loan file contains the required credit elsewhere justification and are not required to submit any additional information, including which of the criteria was used to make the determination  According to SBA officials, delegated loans account for loans approved by approximately 70 percent of lenders  For nondelegated loans, lenders are required to submit credit elsewhere documentation to be reviewed by SBA’s Loan Guaranty Processing Center  For these loans, which comprise loans approved by the remaining 30 percent of lenders, SBA might maintain paper records of data on borrowers’ eligibility but does not compile such data electronically and thus cannot readily aggregate the data for analysis  Instead, SBA relies on on-site reviews or lender-reported information to review lenders’ credit elsewhere justifications and collects limited data from these reviews  For its on-site reviews, SBA does not collect sample data on lenders’ use of the credit elsewhere criteria  For its off-site reviews, SBA collected sample data on lenders’ use of the credit elsewhere criteria based on 250 such reviews conducted in fiscal year 2016  For these reviews, SBA asked lenders to self-report a short description of the credit elsewhere justifications used for an SBA-selected sample of 10 loans  However, as discussed earlier, SBA did not request or examine loan files as part of these off-site reviews and did not follow up with lenders or review loan files to ensure the validity of the self- reported reasons  One reason why SBA does not routinely collect complete information on lenders’ use of the credit elsewhere criteria is that SBA’s loan origination system, E-Tran, is not equipped to record or tabulate this information  In addition, according to an SBA official, on-site reviews do not collect data on the credit elsewhere criteria because the loans reviewed are judgmentally selected and would not accurately represent the larger population  Federal internal control standards state that management should use quality information to achieve the entity’s objectives  To do so, management should identify the information needed to achieve the objectives and address the risks, obtain relevant data from reliable internal and external sources in a timely manner, and process the obtained data into quality information  More robust information on lenders’ credit elsewhere justifications, including the credit elsewhere criteria, would allow SBA to evaluate patterns in lender practices related to the credit elsewhere requirement and, in turn, help the agency ensure compliance with the requirement  In this context, generalizable data, which can be collected through random sampling, or complete data through required reporting for every loan would allow SBA to better understand patterns in lender practices across the 7(a) program  Further, nongeneralizable data, which are available through SBA’s current off- and on-site review processes, would allow SBA to examine specific groups of lenders and could help SBA determine if it is necessary to collect additional data  SBA does not analyze the limited data it collects to help it monitor lenders’ compliance with the credit elsewhere requirement  According to agency officials, SBA has not performed lender-level analyses of the criteria lenders use for their credit elsewhere justifications  Additionally, SBA has not analyzed 7(a) lenders’ use of the “other factors” criterion— that is, factors not specified in the other criteria that, in the lender’s opinion, cannot be overcome except for the guarantee—for example, by collecting data on the frequency of its use or examining why lenders rely on it  While some 7(a) lenders told us they avoided relying on the “other factors” criterion because it was vague and open to interpretation, some lenders have used it when a borrower’s profile did not meet any of the other criteria  For example, one lender stated that this criterion was used for a borrower who was no longer a start-up but had experienced fluctuations in cash flow due to relocation or change in ownership  Another lender stated that the criterion was used more frequently during the 2007-2009 financial recession to extend financing to borrowers whose owners had experienced a home foreclosure but were otherwise sound  Federal internal control standards state that management should establish and operate monitoring activities to monitor the internal control system and evaluate the results  Analyzing data on lenders’ use of the credit elsewhere criteria as part of its monitoring procedures could help SBA determine whether there are patterns in lender practices related to the criteria that could predict lender noncompliance  For example, SBA could analyze lenders’ use of the criteria along with lender review results and other data on loan characteristics and performance to determine whether certain patterns indicate that a lender might be applying the requirement inconsistently  Additionally, such analysis could inform SBA’s selection of which lenders to review by improving its ability to identify lenders at risk of noncompliance with the credit elsewhere requirement  Better selection criteria for its lender reviews could, in turn, improve identification and remediation of such noncompliance, helping ensure that the 7(a) program serves its target population  Representatives at 8 of the 11 lenders that we contacted said they believed that SBA’s current credit elsewhere criteria are adequate in targeting small business borrowers who cannot obtain credit at reasonable terms  Representatives of these lenders also agreed that the criteria generally serve the types of small businesses that would otherwise have trouble obtaining conventional credit, such as new businesses or those with a shortage of collateral  One lender representative told us its most commonly used criterion related to the overall time in business because of the higher risk of failure  Another lender representative cited the lack of collateral as the most common criterion used  Additionally, representatives at an industry association told us that one of the most commonly used criteria was the one related to loan maturity and many small businesses seek 7(a) loans because they offer repayment terms of up to 10 years, compared to 1 to 3 years for conventional loans  Representatives of two other lenders suggested that the credit elsewhere criteria should not be overly prescriptive, which could limit lenders’ ability to make 7(a) loans to some businesses  For example, one representative said the credit elsewhere criteria should remain flexible because banks have different lending policies  In addition, representatives at three lenders indicated that they were hesitant to use the “other factors” criterion  One lender believed the requirement was open to interpretation and could be used inappropriately with lenders determining their own individual conventional loan policies  Another lender commented that the criterion was vague and rarely used by his institution, noting that SBA should provide some additional guidance on its use  Lenders consider multiple factors in determining whether to offer small businesses a conventional loan or a 7(a) loan, according to stakeholders with whom we spoke  For example, representatives at an industry association stated that a bank goes through several analyses to determine what loan product to offer the borrower  These representatives stated that the credit elsewhere requirement is embedded in the analysis a bank performs, such as whether the borrower qualifies for a loan and has a financial need for an SBA loan and whether the 7(a) program is right for that borrower  Representatives at two other lenders also stated that many small businesses have already been turned down for conventional loans before they seek a 7(a) loan  One representative noted that the “reasonable rates and terms” component of the 7(a) program was important as it allows lenders to look more broadly at a borrower’s needs  For instance, the representative explained, lenders can assess whether repayment terms are reasonable given a particular borrower’s situation and the resources the borrower will have to repay the loan  Economic conditions also affect lending policies, including whether borrowers qualify for a conventional loan, according to representatives at seven lenders with whom we spoke  For example, during the recent economic downturn, banks tightened their underwriting standards for small businesses and were less willing to lend without a government guarantee, according to one lender representative  SBA has issued revised primary operational guidance for the 7(a) program, effective January 1, 2018  As discussed previously, lenders are required to make a determination that the desired credit is not available to the applicant from nonfederal sources  Under the previous guidance, the lender had to determine that some or the entire loan was not available from nonfederal sources or the resources of the applicant business  However under the revised guidance, the scope of nonfederal sources a lender must review was further defined to include sources both related and unrelated to the applicant  The updated guidance states that lenders must consider: Nonfederal sources related to the applicant, including the liquidity of owners of 20 percent or more of the equity of the applicant, their spouses and minor children, and the applicant itself; or Nonfederal sources unrelated to the applicant, including conventional lenders or other sources of credit  Representatives of five lenders told us they have been determining how to interpret the new procedures with a few stating they would like additional guidance, including what information to retain in the file  Representatives of two lenders stated that there is some ambiguity in how to determine nonfederal resources and how to assess whether small business owners have too many available liquid resources to qualify for a 7(a) loan  One representative said that lenders can have different interpretations of what constitutes “available resources,” which is not specified in the new SOP  As a result, he said, there may be some confusion about how to assess family members of the borrower who have high net worths and whether the borrower should decline a family member contribution to qualify for an SBA loan  A representative of one lender stated that lenders will not know what SBA expects until loans are approved under the new procedures, default, and are then reviewed  Another lender’s representative suggested additional guidance on documentation, such as whether the bank must obtain a personal financial statement for each owner of the business  A SBA staff told us SBA has provided multiple training presentations to SBA staff, lenders, and trade associations on the statutory changes to the credit elsewhere requirements and standard operating procedure updates  These have included a presentation at a trade association conference, four monthly conference calls for SBA staff, and two conference calls for SBA lenders  SBA staff said SBA also plans to hold monthly training sessions with SBA field offices, quarterly training sessions with the industry, and at least four training sessions in 2018 at lender trade conferences  Additionally, a representative from an industry association told us it is providing industry training on SBA’s revised procedures, including the credit elsewhere liquidity requirement  SBA’s 7(a) loan program is required to serve creditworthy small business borrowers who cannot obtain credit through a conventional lender at reasonable terms, and SBA largely relies on lenders with delegated authority to make credit elsewhere determinations  However, although there is a high rate of lender noncompliance with the credit elsewhere documentation requirement, SBA does not require its reviewers to document their assessment of the policies and procedures lenders use to meet the requirement  Without better information from lender reviews on how lenders are implementing the requirement to document their credit elsewhere decisions, SBA may be limited in its ability to promote compliance with requirements and, in turn, use such information to help ensure that 7(a) loans are reaching their target population  Furthermore, SBA does not routinely collect or analyze information on the criteria used for credit elsewhere justifications to evaluate patterns in lender practices  SBA recently began collecting some information on lenders’ use of the criteria, but this information is limited, and SBA does not analyze the information that it does collect to better understand lenders’ practices  Without more robust information and analysis, SBA may be limited in its ability to understand how lenders are using the credit elsewhere criteria and whether 7(a) loans are reaching borrowers who cannot obtain credit from other sources at reasonable terms  We are making the following three recommendations to SBA  The Administrator of SBA should require reviewers to consistently document their assessments of a lender’s policies and practices  (Recommendation 1) The Administrator of SBA should use its on-site and off-site reviews to routinely collect information on lenders’ use of credit elsewhere criteria as part of its monitoring of lender practices related to the credit elsewhere requirement  (Recommendation 2) The Administrator of SBA should analyze information on lenders’ use of credit elsewhere criteria obtained from its reviews to identify lenders that may be at greater risk of noncompliance and to inform its selection of lenders for further review for credit elsewhere compliance  (Recommendation 3) We provided a draft of this report for review and comment  SBA’s written comments are reprinted in appendix IV  SBA generally agreed with the recommendations  SBA also provided additional comments on certain statements in the draft report, which are summarized below with our responses  SBA noted that the draft Highlights did not discuss how credit elsewhere is determined for nondelegated loans  We have not revised the Highlights in response to this comment because our review focused on delegated lenders  In the body of the report we note that approximately 70 percent of 7(a) loans are approved under delegated authority  We also refer to SBA’s nondelegated loans in the report for additional context  According to SBA, the statement on our draft Highlights did not fully reflect its monitoring of lender compliance  SBA identified a variety of reviews it uses in addition to on-site reviews by third party contractors, which we discuss in the body of the report  We have modified the Highlights to reflect these other reviews  Also in reference to the draft Highlights, SBA stated that it provides oversight on every on-site lender review and that an SBA employee is present as a subject-matter expert on every review  We revised the Highlights by adding that SBA provides oversight to the on-site reviews conducted by third-party contractors  In response to a statement in our draft report that SBA guarantees loans to small businesses for working capital and other general business purposes, SBA commented that working capital generally is not the primary purpose for SBA-guaranteed loans  We did not revise the statement because SBA’s SOP 50 10 5 (version J) specifies that SBA’s 7(a) loan proceeds may be used for permanent working capital and revolving working capital, among other things  In relation to a footnote in our report that mentions two lender reviews for which we did not receive documentation, SBA stated that on February 15, 2018, it provided documentation to us related to the reviews and that we had confirmed its receipt  However, the text in the footnote in question refers to two targeted lender reviews from 2016 that included corrective actions  The information SBA provided to us on February 15, 2018, was related to on-site reviews conducted in 2016  As a result, we did not revise the footnote  SBA’s letter also contained technical comments that we incorporated as appropriate  We are sending copies of this report to congressional committees, agencies, and other interested parties  In addition, this report will be available at no charge on our website at http://www gao gov  If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-8678 or shearw@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report  GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix V  This report discusses (1) 7(a) lending to selected categories of small business borrowers from fiscal years 2007 through 2016; (2) how the Small Business Administration (SBA) monitors lenders’ compliance with the credit elsewhere requirement; (3) the extent to which SBA evaluates trends in lender practices related to the credit elsewhere requirement; and (4) lenders’ views on the criteria used to determine eligibility for 7(a) loans and other issues related to the 7(a) program  For background on the 7(a) program and the credit elsewhere requirement, we reviewed the legislative history of the 7(a) program and our previous reports  We also interviewed officials from SBA’s Office of Credit Risk Management on guidance provided to 7(a) lenders  For background on constraints in the small business credit market, we reviewed recent academic literature on the characteristics of small businesses that historically have had more difficulty accessing credit  In addition, we reviewed recent studies published by the Federal Reserve Banks of Atlanta; Cleveland; Kansas City; and New York  To describe the population of borrowers served by the 7(a) program, we selected characteristics (such as gender, minority status, and percentage of new business) that we used in our 2007 report and that were the subject of the recent studies by Federal Reserve Banks  We obtained and analyzed SBA loan-level data to describe 7(a) loans and borrowers  Specifically, SBA provided us with 581,393 records from its administrative data systems, which contained information on all loans approved and disbursed in fiscal years 2007 through 2016  The SBA data included various types of information describing each loan, including the total gross approval amount; the amount guaranteed by SBA; the loan term; and the interest rate; delivery method; and status of the loan  The SBA data also included information on borrower characteristics: Age of business  Firms were classified as new (less than 2 years in operation) or existing  Gender  Firms were classified as 100 percent male-owned; 50 percent or greater women owned; 50 percent or less women-owned; or “unknown ” Information on gender was voluntarily provided by borrowers  Economically distressed area  We identified borrowers in economically distressed areas by matching borrower zip codes provided by SBA to those in the 2011 through 2015 American Community Survey  We defined distressed areas as zip codes where at least 20 percent of households had incomes below the national poverty line  In about 1 percent of the cases, we were unable to classify a lender because a zip code had changed or had insufficient population to report a poverty rate  We consider 1 percent of unmatched cases to be low by data reliability standards  Race/ethnicity  Borrowers were placed in one of nine categories of race/ethnicity, including an “unknown” category  We aggregated these to create minority, nonminority, and undetermined categories  The minority category included all borrowers who reported being a race/ethnicity other than white  The nonminority category included borrowers who reported being white  Information on race was voluntarily provided by borrowers  Industry  Firms were assigned a North American Industrial Classification code  These six-digit codes begin with a two-digit sector code that we used to draw more general conclusions about industries  Geographic information  The data provided the state where the borrower is located  In addition, we obtained information from SBA on loan- and lender-level Small Business Risk Portfolio Solution scores (predictive scores) provided by Dunn & Bradstreet and Fair Isaac Company, for loans approved in fiscal year 2016, the latest available  We were able to obtain predictive scores for approximately 81 percent of the loans for which SBA had provided other information  According to SBA, some loans may not have been disbursed at the time we obtained the predictive scores and, as a result, we do not have scores associated with these loans  We analyzed the information to determine the range of predictive scores and the range of average predictive scores by lender  To assess the reliability of loan-level data on borrower and loan characteristics and predictive scores we received from SBA, we interviewed agency officials knowledgeable about the data and reviewed related documentation  We also conducted electronic testing, including checks for outliers, missing data, and erroneous values  We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of describing the characteristics of borrowers who received 7(a) loans and the distribution of predictive scores  To assess how SBA monitors lenders’ compliance with the credit elsewhere requirement and criteria, we reviewed SBA’s standard operating procedures and other guidance on 7(a) program regulations and lender oversight  Specifically, we reviewed SOP 50 10 5 (versions I and J) on Lender and Development Company Loan Programs, SOP 50 53(A) on Lender Supervision and Enforcement, and SOP 51 00, On-Site Lender Reviews/Examinations, as well as information and policy notices related to the credit elsewhere requirement  Additionally, we interviewed representatives including those at SBA’s Office of Capital Access and Office of Credit Risk Management on lender oversight and lender review processes  We reviewed all the on-site lender review reports (40 reviews), including corrective actions or requirements related to the credit elsewhere requirement (documentation for 11 lenders), and targeted review reports that had credit elsewhere findings (7 reviews) that SBA conducted in fiscal year 2016  We also interviewed officials and reviewed recent reports from SBA’s Office of Inspector General  To assess the extent to which SBA evaluates trends in lender practices related to the credit elsewhere requirement, we interviewed SBA officials and reviewed documentation for SBA’s online portal for loan origination  We also incorporated information from interviews with a nongeneralizable, nonrepresentative sample of 7(a) lenders, which we discuss below  To obtain lenders’ views on the criteria used to determine eligibility for 7(a) loans and other program-related issues, we interviewed SBA staff including from the Office of Capital Access, and representatives of the National Association of Government Guaranteed Lenders; American Bankers Association; Independent Community Bankers Association; and National Federation of Independent Businesses  We also interviewed 11 banks (one bank provided written responses) in order to obtain the lender perspective of credit elsewhere  Nine of the banks were selected by us using a random process that concentrated on larger lenders  These nine lenders selected by us represent about 13 percent of the loans approved and 16 percent of the dollars approved in 2016  In addition, we interviewed two additional banks that represented an industry group – one larger bank and one small bank  Although we partially selected at random, the lenders we interviewed should not be considered generalizable because of the small number  We conducted this performance audit from August 2017 to June 2018 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 audit objectives  We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives  In this appendix, we provide information on the total amount and number of approved 7(a) loans and the top eight industry sectors receiving 7(a) loans  Data are also presented on fiscal year 2016 loan volume by state and per capita  As shown in figure 6 below, the total amount of approved 7(a) loans decreased during the period associated with the Great Recession (2007 through 2009)  From fiscal year 2009 on, the total amount of approved 7(a) loans increased until a decline in fiscal year 2012  During this timeframe, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 provided fee relief and higher guaranties  The Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 also provided a temporary increase in Small Business Administration (SBA) Express loan limits to $1 million (instead of $350,000)  These programs have since expired  7(a) Loans by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code  Table 1 shows the largest eight industrial sectors by proportion of the total amount of 7(a) loans approved, using the NAICS code  The combined share of the top eight sectors declined slightly from 85 percent to 80 percent of the total lending from fiscal years 2007 through 2016, with an average of 82 percent  During this period, the Accommodation and Food Services sector had the largest average share of total loan amount at 17 percent, followed by the Retail Trade sector at 15 percent  Approved loan amount and per capita dollars by state  As shown in figure 7, California; Texas; Florida; Georgia; and New York received the highest total of approved loan dollars in fiscal year 2016  The average approval amount across all loans was $380,619  Georgia and Arkansas had the largest average approval amount in 2016  Also, during this period, Utah; Colorado; Georgia; California; and Washington received the highest per capita approved loan dollars  In fiscal-year 2016, creditworthiness varied widely among 7(a) program borrowers  We analyzed creditworthiness using the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Small Business Risk Portfolio Solution score (predictive score), which ranges from 70 to 300, with 300 indicating the least risky loan  According to SBA, loans with scores above 180 are considered “lower risk,” scores between 140 and 179 are considered “moderate risk,” and scores 139 and lower are considered “higher risk ” There did not appear be differences in score based on the gender of the borrower or the age of the business  While SBA relies on the Predictive Score data to identify lenders that may pose excessive risk to the SBA 7(a) portfolio, the data also provide potential insights related to lender implementation of the credit elsewhere requirement  Variation  We found that some 7(a) borrowers were much more creditworthy than others  In 2016, the only year for which we obtained data, the predictive score at origination varied widely among borrowers  In 2016, the scores of borrowers ranged from a low of 91 to a high of 246  However, most scores were between 171 and 203, and the median score was 188  Race/ethnicity  We found that there were slight differences in creditworthiness by race/ethnicity, with median scores ranging from 180 to 189 depending on the category  Specifically, loans to African Americans in 2016 had a median score of 180, and loans to Hispanics had a median score of 183  In contrast, loans to whites had a median score of 188, and loans to Asian and Pacific Islanders had a median score of 189  Lender size  We found that lenders with larger numbers of SBA loans tended to have slightly more creditworthy borrowers  The top 5 percent of lenders had a median average score of 187, whereas the bottom 75 percent of lenders had a median average score of 182 5  Among the top 5 percent of lenders (with 374 loans per lender on average, collectively representing about 70 percent of the loans approved), the average score ranged from 171 to 195  Among all lenders, the average score ranged from 116 to 233  However, because many lenders only approved one or two loans in 2016, the average may reflect very few borrowers for that lender, making it difficult to tell whether the scores reflect a real difference between lenders  In addition to the contact named above, Harry Medina (Assistant Director); Janet Fong (Analyst in Charge); Benjamin A  Bolitzer; Gita DeVaney; David S  Dornisch; Amanda D  Gallear (intern); Marc W  Molino; Jennifer W  Schwartz; and Tyler L  Spunaugle made key contributions to this report 


Report 2: Implementing Telework: The Telework Enhancement Act of 2010 (the Act) establishes telework implementation requirements for agencies, including, for example, that each agency designate a Telework Managing Officer and that each agency incorporate telework into its continuity of operations plans  The Act does not mention telework specifically in the context of space planning  The Act also requires the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to assess whether agencies have met agency- established telework outcome goals such as real estate savings  It also requires OPM to submit reports that include executive agencies’ goals for increasing telework participation to the extent practicable, assist each agency with developing qualitative- and quantitative- teleworking measures and goals, and track telework eligibility and participation rates across the government  According to OPM telework information from fiscal year 2012 through fiscal year 2015, the percentage of federal workers eligible to telework remained stable at about 45 percent, on average  However, during the same period, the percentage of eligible employees who participated in telework increased from 29 percent to 46 percent  Figure 1 shows the frequency of telework across the federal government from fiscal years 2012 through 2015 by type of telework  Reducing Space: OMB issued the National Strategy for the Efficient Use of Real Property and the Reduce the Footprint policy in 2015, which require all CFO Act agencies to improve the efficiency of real property use, control costs, and reduce holdings  These OMB initiatives also required agencies to develop Five-Year Real Property Efficiency Plans annually; develop office space standards that specify maximum square footage identify reduction targets for office space in square feet; and freeze the footprint (i e , not increase square footage of office space)  OMB’s National Strategy noted that employee telework has changed the dynamic of the federal real property portfolio and resulted in a need for less space  OMB’s Reduce the Footprint guidance memo states that agencies’ 5-year plans should include an explanation of actions the agency is taking to increase space efficiency, including cost-effective alternatives to acquisition of additional office space, such as consolidation, colocation, teleworking, and “hoteling ” Federal statute also requires that agencies consider whether space needs can be met using alternative workplace arrangements when deciding whether to acquire new space  GSA defines mobility as an overarching term describing the ability of employees, enabled by information technology (IT) and workplace policies to perform work both within and outside the agency worksite  Under this definition, mobility includes telework, desk-sharing, site work, and travel  Agencies can strategically use telework—one form of mobility—combined with desk-sharing and hoteling to reduce space needs and increase efficiency  This allows agencies to plan for fewer workstations than the number of employees  Other space efficiency strategies such as smaller workstations (e g , reduced space standards), reconfigured office space (e g , open-office plans instead of private offices), and mobile technology (e g , laptops, Wi-Fi throughout the office, and smart phones) can be combined with telework and used as planning tools to reduce office space, use space more efficiently, and potentially cut costs  GSA, in a 2010 publication, described a continuum of three different scenarios for the ways agencies may use mobility, including telework  These scenarios range from limited mobility not leveraged for space planning to extensive mobility leveraged for space planning to reduce and use office space more efficiently: (1) No space changes: Some employees telework at least 2 scheduled days per week but retain assigned workstations with no changes to the existing space configuration  (2) No space reduction but different space allocation: Most employees telework at least 2 scheduled days per week and keep assigned workstations  Workstations are smaller and more densely organized; and space freed up by smaller workstations can be used for collaborative work spaces  (3) Space reduction and different space allocation: Nearly all employees telework at least 3 scheduled days per week and participate in hoteling (i e , unassigned workstations), and workstations are also smaller and more densely organized  In this scenario, according to GSA, an agency can redesign its office and potentially reduce space by up to 30 percent  The key factors in distinguishing these scenarios illustrated in figure 2 below include the: level of employee participation in telework; changes to physical office spaces (e g , smaller and more densely organized workstations and more emphasis on collaborative workspaces); and extent to which employees have assigned workstations or participate in desk-sharing  Under federal statute, GSA has a role in promulgating rules and developing guidance promoting the efficient use of real property  For example, the GSA Administrator may provide guidance, assistance, and oversight to client agencies regarding the establishment and operation of alternative workplace arrangements, which include leveraging telework to reduce space needs  GSA also directly assists client agencies with identifying and prioritizing opportunities to improve and implement real- property efficiency measures  In reviewing planning documents, policies, and survey data, we found that the 23 civilian CFO Act agencies reported using telework to reduce or use space more efficiently  Specifically, our analysis of (1) agency-wide space-planning policies and procedures and (2) Real Property Efficiency Plans found that all of the agencies discussed telework in the context of space planning and achieving greater space efficiencies  Agencies also provided examples in survey responses of how they have used telework to increase operational effectiveness while optimizing their use of space  Fifteen agencies’ space-planning policies and procedures included provisions for using telework and other mobility strategies, such as hoteling and desk-sharing, as a strategic space-planning tool  Three of the agencies mentioned these strategies only in the context of space planning, and five agencies did not mention them at all (see table 1)  For the fifteen agencies with space planning policies that incorporated telework, the documents either expressly directed agency planners to include telework, hoteling, or desk-sharing in space planning; provided instructions and guidance for using these in space planning; or issued space allocation standards for their implementation  Several agency-wide space plans identify space reduction goals based on using telework strategically  For example, the Department of Transportation (DOT) documents identify a goal of at least a 10 percent workspace reduction in new acquisitions as a result of compressed work schedules and telework, and specifically state that employees who telework six or more days per pay period should not have a permanent workspace  Agency-wide space planning documents from three civilian CFO Act agencies mentioned telework, hoteling or desk-sharing as strategies in the context of space planning  For example, DOJ’s agency-wide policy notes that telework and hoteling could increase the efficient use of space and directs each sub-agency to maintain its own space design guidelines within agency-wide policy office space standards  The other two agencies, the Department of State and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, either had a short provisional agency-wide space planning document that laid out space standards or mentioned telework, hoteling and desk-sharing as a tool for creating sustainable space  Five agencies’ space planning documents made no reference to telework; however, one agency, OPM, developed a maximum office space utilization rate and criteria for determining which positions require a private office  As noted above, OMB’s Reduce the Footprint policy (2015) requires agencies to establish Real Property Efficiency Plans  In our analysis of the agencies’ fiscal year 2016 or 2017 plans, we found that 19 of the 23 civilian CFO Act agencies discussed telework in the context of space planning  A few agencies’ Real Property Efficiency Plans explicitly stated that the agency reduced space as a result of telework  For example, GSA used telework to reduce space in its Heartland, Rocky Mountain, and National Capital Region offices  Some (5 of 23) Real Property Efficiency Plans discussed the telework pilot programs agencies have initiated  For example, the Department of Education’s plans reported using a pilot program to acclimate employees to teleworking and desk-sharing; as a result, the agency intends to incorporate hoteling or space-sharing opportunities into proposed space designs in future projects  The Social Security Administration (SSA) plans also reported initiating a pilot program to experiment with smaller “hoteling” workspaces  Similarly, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s plan reported conducting a pilot program at its headquarters offices to identify challenges, better understand telework, and evaluate the potential of shared workspaces  In response to our survey, about three-quarters of agencies reported space-planning policies that use telework to reduce office space, lower real estate costs, or reduce the size of individual workstations  Agencies reported accomplishing this by using desk-sharing and hoteling for employees who have relinquished permanent workspaces  For example, several agencies discussed strategies to reduce space in their responses to our survey  The Department of Labor reported using telework to close some small offices resulting in overall space reductions of about 16,000 square feet  OPM reported that it both reduced space and created space efficiencies by transitioning staff in its Eastern Management Development Center to full-time telework and terminating the lease, resulting in a space reduction of about 32,000 square feet  OPM’s Human Resource Solutions Program also achieved a 47 percent space reduction when it instituted desk-sharing and freed the vacated space for use by another program office  The Department of the Treasury reported that its sub-agency, the Internal Revenue Service, has aggressively used telework to help reduce its real property portfolio, while other Treasury units have leveraged telework to achieve significant space reductions  At the end of fiscal year 2016, Treasury reported agency-wide reductions of about 484,000 square feet at a cost savings of about $10 million  Two agencies––Department of Homeland Security, and the National Science Foundation––reported using telework to increase the efficiency of existing office space in sub-agencies by increasing staff without increasing the size of offices, for example: The Department of Homeland Security reported that one of its sub- agencies used telework in the planning and design of a new office, resulting in both a space reduction and more efficient use of the space  The new office is 57,573 square feet smaller than the prior office while personnel assigned to the office increased from 315 to 394  The National Science Foundation reported that it used teleworking, among other workspace strategies such as new space standards and virtual technologies, to increase staff numbers without increasing its real estate footprint  Among the agencies we reviewed in detail—GSA, OJP, CDC, and the Fiscal Service—the use of telework in office space planning varied from emerging consideration to extensive implementation  GSA and OJP have used telework extensively to both reduce space and increase space efficiency in their office spaces  CDC has leveraged telework to reduce space or use space more efficiently in more limited cases while the Fiscal Service has begun to consider telework in future space planning  Appendix II provides additional details on office spaces where these agencies reduced space or used space more efficiently, including the role of telework, if any  GSA has leveraged telework to reduce space by implementing unassigned workstations in nearly all of its regional and headquarters offices, along with other forms of “employee mobility,” complementary IT, and smaller space standards  GSA adopted telework as early as 1999 and by fiscal year 2015, more than 90 percent of all eligible GSA employees teleworked, and nearly half of all employees teleworked 3 or more days per pay period, according to OPM data  GSA’s space policy cites desk-sharing (e g , hoteling, “hot-desking,” or other arrangements) as one strategy to help meet its space standard of 136 useable square feet (USF) per person  GSA employees may telework full-time, but may be required to give up dedicated workstations if they are on site 2 or fewer days per week  GSA has gradually transitioned to unassigned workstations at headquarters and in its regional offices, allowing the agency to implement desk-sharing and calculate space needs at less than one desk per employee  The agency also assigned laptops and mobile or soft phones to employees to further maximize mobility  The three GSA sites we visited used space-planning strategies to achieve, or nearly achieve, GSA’s space standard of 136 USF per person  For example, at its Philadelphia Regional Office, GSA leveraged existing telework levels to meet reduced space standards and move to a smaller leased space by accommodating about 600 employees in fewer than 500 workstations  According to GSA, this allowed the office to achieve a utilization rate of 139 USF per person and realize a reported annual rent cost savings of about $2 million  Similarly, at its New York Regional Office, GSA also leveraged existing telework levels to meet reduced space standards and move to a smaller leased space  This step allowed the office to achieve a utilization rate of 119 USF per person and realize a reported total rent cost savings of nearly $11 million  GSA also leveraged telework as part of its headquarters consolidation  GSA reports that it was able to move approximately 1,000 additional employees to the headquarters building by implementing a hoteling system and planning for less than one workstation per employee  This allowed GSA to achieve a utilization rate of 138 USF per person at its headquarters and realize a reported annual rent-cost savings of approximately $24 million  Similar to GSA, OJP used telework, along with complementary tools, to reduce space and use space more efficiently at its consolidated office  More than 90 percent of eligible employees teleworked in fiscal year 2015, and nearly half of all employees teleworked 3 or more days per pay period, according to OPM data  More recently, OJP reported that around 70 percent of its employees teleworked in August 2017, with just less than 40 percent doing so three or more days per pay period  At the departmental level, DOJ’s plans to improve space utilization include reduced space requirements, and, in some cases, alternative workplace strategies  DOJ’s space utilization policy mentions telework with hoteling as one way to increase efficient use of space, and DOJ’s telework policy mentions the potential of telework to create cost savings by decreasing space needs  While most OJP employees are eligible to telework, a few federal staff occupying administrative positions are not eligible  OJP took the opportunity to examine and improve its space use as three of its leases approached expiration in 2013  It leased space in two adjacent buildings under three separate leases  OJP worked with GSA to analyze space-planning options, contracting a study of the office that recommended ways to improve space utilization  This study included a survey of all employees, a complete physical space survey, and interviews with leadership  The results of this study not only indicated OJP employees’ openness to more mobility but also that they had concerns such as loss of privacy and social connectedness  For example, more than 80 percent of survey respondents said they could work off-site more often with proper tools and support, and almost half said they would give up dedicated space to work remotely more often  Furthermore, interviews with the leadership of several OJP units indicated a willingness to support increased mobility but also a need to maintain privacy and improve mobile IT  According to OJP, it alleviated these concerns by encouraging participation in the planning process, highlighting opportunities for positive changes, and maintaining open communication (e g , communicating changes and expected benefits)  Based on the analysis of space-planning options, OJP retained one of the three previous leases and leveraged telework to accommodate all employees into less space overall in one building  OJP achieved this objective by targeting 25 percent employee mobility and implementing hoteling  Concurrently, OJP officials explained that they introduced smaller workstations and used tenant-improvement allowance funds to reconfigure space for more flexible use  Physical reconfigurations included changing hard-walled office spaces with dedicated workstations to a primarily open office with few walls or dedicated workstations  According to OJP, it complemented these changes with investments in mobile IT for individual employees, improved IT capabilities in conference rooms and other collaborative spaces, and an emphasis on training employees to work well in a mobile office environment  For example, OJP officials said they installed Wi-Fi throughout the space, issued laptops and smart phones to employees, upgraded video-conferencing capabilities in conference rooms and collaborative spaces, and expanded tools for informal employee communication  According to OJP officials, through the consolidation, they said they achieved a utilization rate of 190 USF per person—a decrease of 30 USF per person from the prior 220 utilization rate  This rate remained higher than DOJ’s overall target and housed the same total number of employees—about 1,000—in about 50,000 fewer USF  OJP reports that the consolidation resulted in an estimated $3 million annual lease- cost savings  OJP also estimates additional savings from reduced transit subsidies, carbon emissions, and continuity of operations  Relative to GSA and OJP, CDC has made more limited use of telework in office space-planning  CDC officials told us that they have leveraged telework as a space-planning tool in many locations, but they have only documented doing so in one case  HHS expects each sub-agency to comply with its 170 USF per-person utilization-rate policy, and this policy suggests that planned space reductions should take telework into account  As a component of HHS, CDC has its own space policy, which states that telework, desk-sharing, and hoteling can help CDC’s units meet HHS’s utilization rate policy of 170 USF per person  CDC’s telework policy requires employees who telework frequently to agree to participate in desk-sharing, but according to CDC officials, how and to what extent this portion of the broader policy is implemented is up to the discretion of management  CDC officials cited two limitations to further implementing space sharing techniques: (1) the large number of employees’ who may be unable to telework on certain days based upon their job responsibilities and (2) the voluntary nature of telework  Some CDC employees cannot work off-site at least some of the time due to confidential data or lab-based work  Approximately 60 percent of eligible CDC employees teleworked in fiscal year 2015 and about one-quarter of all employees teleworked 3 or more days per pay period, according to OPM data  CDC officials told us that telework participation ranges from 49 to 86 percent across CDC units  CDC’s National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion’s office in Chamblee, GA, provides the most clearly documented case of CDC’s leveraging telework for space efficiency  According to CDC officials, this unit accommodated more than 300 additional employees within its existing space by implementing hoteling for employees who telework 4 or more days per pay period, and it continues to use hoteling as part of its space management strategy  In contrast, CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics’ (NCHS) office in Hyattsville, MD, reduced space without leveraging telework by reconfiguring the space with smaller, soft-walled workstations  CDC officials told us that NCHS reduced its office space from seven floors to three and three-quarters floors, resulting in a reported space reduction of more than 40 percent and allowing it to achieve a 170 USF per person utilization rate  CDC officials reported that this space reduction resulted in annual rent cost savings of approximately $1 million  Hoteling was not feasible at this location because work on confidential data limits the ability of employees to work off-site, and NCHS employees also prefer dedicated workstations  CDC officials said that there is limited documentation of any additional cases of CDC’s leveraging telework as a space- planning tool because, prior to our review, there had been no formal request to connect telework and space utilization data  In contrast to GSA, OJP, and CDC, telework as a space-planning tool is an emerging consideration at the Fiscal Service  At the departmental level, Treasury has space standards that aim for efficient and effective offices that use increased telework and shared workstations to minimize the number of dedicated workstations  Similarly, objectives of the Fiscal Service telework policy include cost savings from reduced office space needs  Treasury’s space standards specify a planned maximum utilization rate of 200 USF per person for facilities with general office space, and the Fiscal Service reported that its average office space-utilization rate was 183 USF per person at the time of our review  Treasury policy also recommends hoteling for employees who are out of the office 80 or more hours per month, but the Fiscal Service told us that it would like to conduct additional desk-sharing pilots to assess their impact before negotiating broader desk-sharing with the union  At the Fiscal Service, approximately 80 percent of eligible employees teleworked in fiscal year 2015, and about one-quarter of all employees teleworked 3 or more days per pay period, according to OPM data  The Fiscal Service reported that approximately 80 percent of Fiscal Service employees telework at its Washington, D C , Maryland, and West Virginia locations  At the time of our review, the Fiscal Service officials said the agency had reduced space without leveraging telework or implementing hoteling, instead relying on smaller space standards (i e , fewer square feet per workstation) to lease smaller offices  For example, the Fiscal Service reduced space by giving up several floors at its Hyattsville, MD, office starting in 2012  According to Fiscal Service officials, they accomplished these reductions by consolidating data centers to other locations, conducting targeted buyouts of employees, and, most recently, by implementing a new space standard of 183 USF per person through smaller workstations  The officials said that the most recent space reduction at this location resulted in savings in annual rent costs not attributable to telework  Looking forward, the Fiscal Service reported that it has started taking preliminary steps to promote efficient space utilization through telework  These steps have included: creating an Executive Space Management Council that discussed incorporating telework and desk-sharing into space management guidelines; implementing a voluntary, informal desk-sharing pilot in one program area for employees who already telework 50 percent or more of the time; and seeking information from GSA, including discussing and visiting GSA offices that have implemented hoteling as part of their space planning model  In addition, the Fiscal Service officials told us that the agency plans to negotiate the impact and implementation of desk-sharing and hoteling for telework employees with its union, but the Fiscal Service has not yet begun this effort  Our analysis of the survey responses from the 23 civilian CFO Act agencies identified three major planning challenges agencies face with using telework to reduce space: human capital issues such as negotiating workspace changes with collective bargaining units and managing organizational change; the suitability of telework to mission work requirements; and difficulty measuring cost savings that might result from space reductions attributable to telework  This measuring difficulty may include both gross savings as well as savings net of costs, such as for renovations or IT investments  See table 3 for examples of space-planning challenges related to telework reported by the 23 agencies  To address these challenges, nearly two thirds of the agencies we surveyed reported they would like guidance on using telework programs or other alternatives to meet the federal goals of reducing space or using space more efficiently  Our review of agency survey responses, Real Property Efficiency Plans, and other agency space-planning documents, found that human capital challenges to using telework in space planning generally fell into two categories: (1) requirements to negotiate space allocation changes with collective-bargaining units; and (2) managing department workforces in adapting to new workspace designs and altered workspace allocations  Collective-bargaining challenges: Of the 23 civilian CFO Act agencies, 7 of 23 noted that changes to telework policy or workspace arrangements required negotiation with collective bargaining units, for example, The Small Business Administration (SBA) reported its greatest challenge to incorporating telework in office space planning has been with negotiating and securing agreement from all parties, including management and its union, on establishing space standards  HUD reported that it could not implement hoteling or desk-sharing as its collective-bargaining agreements require that each employee retain an assigned workstation regardless of an employee’s type of telework agreement  SSA reported that changing floor plans required negotiation with its three collective-bargaining units, which could extend the time needed for construction and relocation  DOT reported that collective-bargaining agreements posed a challenge to incorporating workforce mobility options, including telework  In addition, the collective-bargaining agreements we reviewed from the four agencies we reviewed in detail––GSA, OJP, CDC and Fiscal Service––required negotiations or the opportunity to negotiate changes to matters relating to workspace arrangements and in some cases, to telework policy  Managing change: Using telework as a strategic space-planning tool, particularly in conjunction with complementary space-saving efforts such as desk-sharing, hoteling, or open-space designs, generally involves a cultural change  Nine of the 23 agencies we surveyed reported challenges associated with managing change  For example, three agencies reported employees’ discomfort or apprehension about desk-sharing and hoteling  In 2013, we reported that organizations may also encounter concerns from agency leaders, managers, employees, or employee organizations when introducing physical space changes associated with increased workforce mobility (telework)  More recently, we reported that management concerns remain the most frequently reported barrier to expanding telework  Two private sector experts we met with underscored the importance of management “buy-in” saying it was imperative that senior executives fully support the initiative to facilitate the necessary cultural change for agencies to use telework in space planning  One noted that management needed to make the business case to employees so that each layer of the organization could understand the importance of the initiative and its potential benefits  Another suggested a change management plan tailored to the work performed within a unit  This individual said that key components of such a plan might include studying existing work practices and program requirements, surveying employee preferences, and including employees in the planning process  Further, a GSA document circulated in response to the Telework Enhancement Act of 2010 mentions obtaining supervisory “buy-in” or support as key to facilitating change  According to survey responses, within agencies there are sub-agencies that have individual mission requirements that may or may not be suitable for telework  This makes it difficult for agencies to implement overarching telework and space planning policies that apply department-wide  Sub- agencies and units within sub-agencies must individually determine if telework is appropriate given their particular mission requirements  For example, the Veterans Administration reported that although it developed an agency-wide telework policy, each sub-agency and supervisor has the flexibility to implement telework based on operational needs  Moreover, because the agency’s core mission involves direct services to veterans, about 83 percent of agency staff positions are not suitable for telework  The Telework Enhancement Act of 2010 outlines two broad exceptions to telework participation for employees: (1) directly handling secure materials determined to be inappropriate for telework by the agency head and (2) on-site activity that cannot be handled remotely or at an alternative worksite  In cases where telework does not support an agency’s mission or where a particular mission may require increases or decreases in personnel, telework as a strategic space-planning tool may not work  About half (12 of 23) of the agencies we surveyed reported that office space reductions resulting from using telework in space planning led to real estate cost savings while the other half reported either that cost savings did not result or they did not know  GSA officials told us that calculating cost savings attributable to a particular aspect of space planning is complicated as several factors contribute to savings  In particular, in survey responses, the Departments of Education, Energy, and Agriculture reiterated this point  OMB’s National Strategy for the Efficient Use of Real Property and its Reduce the Footprint policy encourage agencies to increase and maximize efficiencies in office space by implementing cost-effective strategies such as telework  For example, the National Strategy outlines a framework that aims to measure real property costs and utilization to improve the efficient use of federal real property  The Reduce the Footprint policy requires agencies to measure cost savings that result from reducing space through disposals  However, neither document offers guidance or methodologies on how to measure the costs or savings that may result from using telework  We previously reported that GSA works with client agencies to develop tools to measure office space utilization and, in 2013, was developing an Excel-based tool to help agencies quantify the benefits and costs of using telework to achieve greater office space efficiencies  This tool—the Workplace Investment and Feasibility Tool—is aimed at helping agencies quantify the benefits and costs of increased telework participation and implementing other alternative-work arrangements  When completed, the tool will enable users to quickly develop rough estimates of cost and space impacts resulting from workplace changes, particularly relating to desk-sharing, workspace reconfiguration, and consolidation  Key features include the ability to compare up to three scenarios, which in turn may be used to inform a more detailed design program  As of January 2018, GSA had not yet completed the tool  GSA officials said mission needs, resource constraints, and developmental adjustments have contributed to delays in the time frame for completing the tool  They added that during this time, GSA has diverted resources to space calculation tools for individual agencies  For example, GSA worked with DHS on its Space Calculation Tool as a way to help determine workplace space requirements in a manner consistent with DHS space policies  In January 2018, GSA officials told us that they plan to make the Workplace Investment and Feasibility Tool available to GSA staff in March 2018 along with training on how to use it  However, GSA officials have not decided whether to make the tool available to other federal agencies to use as a space-planning tool  Instead, the officials plan to assess GSA’s use of the tool and then determine in late 2018 if and how it should be released to other agencies for independent use  Given the absence of a government-wide tool, in our review, we found that some agencies had used their own resources to purchase similar tools for their space-planning needs from the private sector  Without such a government-wide resource, agencies may not be able to determine how best to reduce space or use it more efficiently  In responses to our survey, nearly two-thirds of agencies reported that they would find it helpful to have additional information, assistance, or resources to assist them in using telework as a space-planning tool  As noted above, a key element of GSA’s mission is to provide guidance and services that enable agencies to improve space utilization, reduce costs, and better achieve their missions  Moreover, under federal statute, GSA may provide guidance to executive agencies on the implementation of alternative workplace arrangements, which includes telework  Federal standards for internal control also call for agencies to communicate necessary quality information such as guidance with external parties  In reviewing GSA’s websites, we found that GSA last developed formal guidance on alternative workplace arrangements in 2006 and maintains several separate informational websites on implementing telework and optimizing space utilization  Our review of this guidance and these websites found that they do not provide specific guidance for using telework as a strategic space-planning tool  For example, the 2006 guidance is generally limited to defining the factors agency heads must contemplate when considering alternative workplace arrangements along with the equipment and technical services agencies may provide for alternative worksites  However, this guidance does not address in detail the impact of such arrangements on agency office space and resulting planning issues  Similarly, our review of GSA’s teleworking and space- planning websites found that although they separately offered documented case studies along with information such as tips for implementing telework and managing a mobile workforce, GSA did not provide documents consolidating the concept of using telework as a strategic space-planning tool  For example, information on GSA’s Total Workplace Program website––intended to assist agencies in using workforce mobility (including telework) to increase space efficiencies––is generally limited  Although this website includes high-level information that describes the potential benefits of using telework with office space planning and design, it lacks a practical outline of the process agencies might use to achieve them  Because the information in the 2006 guidance and the telework and space-planning websites is neither specific nor detailed, it is of limited assistance for agencies that would like to use telework as a strategic space-planning tool to meet the goals of a more efficient use of space  While using telework to reduce space is not a new challenge, it has become more pressing with OMB’s requirement for federal agencies to explore alternatives to acquiring more office space  Most civilian CFO Act agencies reported having a telework program in place and some reported success with using it in space planning to reduce space or accommodate more employees without increasing space  However, many of the agencies continue to face challenges and do not believe that they have adequate information, assistance, or resources to assist them in using telework as a space-planning tool or assess its costs and benefits  Until agencies have access to detailed guidance and tools to help utilize various space-planning options, they may not be able to effectively identify opportunities to use telework toward the goal of reducing their real property footprint  We are making the following two recommendations to GSA: The Administrator of General Services should ensure that the appropriate GSA offices develop guidance including, but not limited to, how agencies can use telework as a strategic space-planning tool for reducing and optimizing office space efficiency and that the offices make the guidance readily available  (Recommendation 1) The Administrator of General Services should ensure the appropriate GSA offices complete the Workplace Investment and Feasibility Tool and make it available to federal agencies for use in assessing the benefits and costs of telework to achieve office space efficiencies  (Recommendation 2) We provided a draft of this report to GSA, the Department of Justice, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of the Treasury  In its written comments, reproduced in Appendix III, GSA concurred with our recommendations and stated that it is developing a plan to address them  We received technical comments from the Department of Justice and the Department of Health and Human Services, which we incorporated where appropriate  The Department of the Treasury did not have comments on our draft report  We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees; the Administrator of GSA; and the Secretaries of the Department of Health and Human Services and Department of the Treasury, and the Attorney General of the Department of Justice  In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www gao gov  If you or your staff has any questions concerning this report, please contact me at (202) 512-2834 or rectanusl@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report  GAO staff that made key contributions to this report is listed in appendix III  This report addresses: (1) how the 23 civilian Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Act agencies reported using telework in office space planning; (2) the specific ways selected agencies and GSA used telework in their office space planning; and (3) any challenges the 23 civilian CFO Act agencies faced in using telework in office space planning  To determine how the 23 civilian CFO Act agencies reported using telework in office space planning, we surveyed the agencies  The survey asked questions about agency-wide efforts to use telework in the human- capital and space-planning areas; whether agencies had achieved any cost savings as a result; the challenges agencies faced in using telework in space planning; and asked agencies to identify additional information, resources, or guidance that might be helpful  In addition to the survey questions, we asked each agency real property officer to provide copies of agency-wide space-planning documents and the Real Property Efficiency Plans agencies prepared for fiscal years 2016 and 2017 pursuant to the requirements of the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Reduce the Footprint policy  We developed survey questions based on our review of the relevant literature, white papers from federal agencies and private sector entities, and past GAO reports  We pre- tested the survey instrument with three federal agencies to ascertain: (1) the clarity of survey questions; (2) the precision of language; and 3) the availability of information queried  As a result of the pre-tests we made changes to the content and format of the survey where appropriate  We received survey responses from each of the 23 civilian CFO Act agencies in addition to requested space-planning documents and Real Property Efficiency Plans, and thus achieved a 100 percent response rate  We analyzed survey results by calculating the frequency of responses to dichotomous questions (i e , questions requiring a “yes” or “no” answer)  We also conducted a content analysis on the open-ended, narrative-based questions by identifying common themes and tabulating results  We also conducted a content analysis to determine the extent to which agencies referenced telework in their agency-wide space-planning documents and in their Real Property Efficiency Plans  To accomplish these analyses, we developed separate coding schemes for each of the two types of documents  These were based on information obtained in our literature review, interviews with subject matter experts, and our professional judgment  We then identified relevant sections and common themes, and coded and tabulated the results  To validate the coding results, we used a second, independent coder  To determine the specific ways agencies include telework in their office space planning, we selected a non-generalizable sample of three CFO Act agency sub-agencies as illustrative case studies  To select sub- agencies, we analyzed data from the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) Public Use 2014-2015 Telework Data call  First, we applied two selection criteria: (1) agency-wide progress toward a stated goal of using telework to reduce real estate costs, and (2) agency-reported data indicating that more than 25 percent of sub-agency employees teleworked 3 or more days per pay period  Next, we considered variations in sub-agency size and percentage of employees eligible to telework  Finally, we excluded candidates that had recently been selected for related GAO work and we excluded sub-agencies related to agency administration such as Offices of Inspector General or Secretary-level offices  We assessed the reliability of the OPM’s data by interviews with knowledgeable officials and by reviewing prior assessments of the same data, and we found the data reliable for our purposes  As a result of this process, we selected (1) the Department of the Treasury’s Bureau of the Fiscal Service (Fiscal Service); (2) the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); and (3) the Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs (OJP)  For each of the selected agencies, we interviewed agency officials and reviewed their telework and space- planning documents  We also visited four sub-agency office locations to determine if and how telework played a role in any space reductions or efficiencies along with any associated cost savings  In addition to these three sub-agencies, we used the General Services Administration (GSA) as a comparative example since it is responsible for providing space- planning guidance to client agencies and has experience using telework in space planning  We interviewed GSA officials, reviewed relevant documents, and visited three GSA office locations with recent space reductions or efficiencies  In total, we conducted seven site visits including two Fiscal Service locations, one location each for CDC and OJP, and three GSA locations (National Headquarters, Region 2 Office, and Region 3 Office) in Washington, D C ; New York City; and Philadelphia, respectively  To identify any challenges the 23 civilian CFO Act agencies faced in using telework in office space planning, we analyzed results from survey questions addressed to challenges, interviewed sub-agency and GSA officials as detailed above, interviewed two private sector subject matter experts, and representatives from four private-sector entities that had reported using telework to reduce and use office space more efficiently  Statements made by knowledgeable federal officials, outside experts and private sector entities are not generalizable to the universe of civilian CFO Act agencies  We also analyzed the section of each of the 23 civilian CFO Act agencies’ Real Property Efficiency Plans devoted to challenges agency face in reducing space  We selected the two subject matter experts––representatives from Global Workplace Analytics and Fentress Facility Planning and Analytics––based on: (1) their experience working with federal agencies to incorporate telework programs into the space planning process; (2) information compiled in our literature review; (3) prior GAO reports; (4) internal GAO recommendations; and (5) industry recommendations  We selected the four private sector entities (AT&T, Deloitte, Adobe, and CapitalOne) based on our literature review, recommendations from industry experts, and reports of having achieved space efficiencies including space reduction, cost savings, or cost avoidance(s)  To identify what guidance or information on using telework as a space- planning tool GSA makes available through its website, we reviewed the contents of multiple GSA websites including Telework, Total Workplace, Alternative Work, and GSA Telework Resources  We followed links and reviewed webpage contents for information on how agencies might use telework as a strategic tool to reduce space or use space more efficiently  We compared GSA’s guidance and website information to relevant statutory requirements and federal internal controls standards related to external communication  We conducted this performance audit from January 2017 to March 2018 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 audit objectives  We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives  In addition to the contact named above, David J  Wise (Director); Amelia Bates Shachoy (Assistant Director); Lindsay Bach (Analyst-in-Charge); Geoff Hamilton; Malika Rice; Kelly Rubin; Shelia Thorpe; Elise Vaughan Winfrey; and Amelia Michelle Weathers made key contributions to this report 

ground_truth: SBA's 7(a) program is required to serve creditworthy small business borrowers who cannot obtain credit through a conventional lender at reasonable terms. The Joint Explanatory Statement of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 includes a provision for GAO to review the 7(a) program. This report discusses, among other things, (1) how SBA monitors lenders' compliance with the credit elsewhere requirement, (2) the extent to which SBA evaluates trends in lender credit elsewhere practices, and (3) lenders' views on the credit elsewhere criteria for 7(a) loans. GAO analyzed SBA data on 7(a) loans approved for fiscal years 2007–2016, the latest available, and reviewed literature on small business lending; reviewed standard operating procedures, other guidance, and findings from SBA reviews performed in fiscal year 2016; and interviewed lender associations and a nonrepresentative sample of 7(a) lenders selected that concentrated on larger lenders. For its 7(a) loan program, the Small Business Administration (SBA) has largely delegated authority to lenders to make 7(a) loan determinations for those borrowers who cannot obtain conventional credit at reasonable terms elsewhere. To monitor lender compliance with the “credit elsewhere” requirement SBA primarily uses on-site reviews conducted by third-party contractors with SBA participation and oversight, and other reviews. According to SBA guidance, lenders making 7(a) loans must take steps to ensure and document that borrowers meet the program's credit elsewhere requirement. However, GAO noted a number of concerns with SBA's monitoring efforts. Specifically, GAO found the following: Over 40 percent (17 of 40) of the on-site lender reviews performed in fiscal year 2016 identified lender noncompliance with the requirement. On-site reviewers identified several factors, such as weakness in lenders' internal control processes that were the cause for lender noncompliance. Most on-site reviewers did not document their assessment of lenders' policies or procedures, because SBA does not require them to do so. As a result SBA does not have information that could help explain the high noncompliance rate. Federal internal control standards state that management should design control activities, including appropriate documentation, and use quality information to achieve the entity's objectives. Without better information on lenders' procedures for complying with the documentation requirement, SBA may be limited in its ability to promote compliance with requirements designed to help ensure that the 7(a) program reaches its target population. SBA does not routinely collect or analyze information on the criteria used by lenders for credit elsewhere justifications. SBA recently began collecting some information on lenders' use of the criteria, but this information is limited, and SBA does not analyze the information that it does collect to better understand lenders' practices. Federal internal control standards state that management should use quality information to achieve the entity's objectives. Without more robust information and analysis, SBA may be limited in its ability to understand how lenders are using the credit elsewhere criteria and identify patterns of use by certain lenders that place them at a higher risk of not reaching borrowers who cannot obtain credit from other sources at reasonable terms. In general, representatives from 8 of 11 lenders that GAO interviewed stated that SBA's credit elsewhere criteria are adequate for determining small business eligibility for the 7(a) program. These criteria help them target their lending to small businesses that would otherwise have difficulty obtaining conventional credit because they are often new businesses or have a shortage of collateral. However, they also said that other factors—such as lender policies and economic conditions—can affect their decisions to offer 7(a) loans. In January 2018, SBA issued revised guidance for the 7(a) program and has provided training on this new guidance to lenders and trade associations. Lenders told GAO they are still in the process of understanding the new requirements. GAO recommends that SBA (1) require its on-site reviewers to document their assessment of lenders' policies and procedures related to the credit elsewhere documentation requirement, (2) collect information on lenders' use of credit elsewhere criteria, and (3) analyze that information to identify trends. SBA generally agreed with the recommendations.

prompt_front: You are given two reports by the government agency.



Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 2.

Report 1: DOJ and its components, as well as the judiciary, play important roles in requesting and collecting restitution  DOJ and select components: Prosecutors in DOJ’s Criminal Division and the Criminal Divisions of the 94 USAOs are responsible for overseeing criminal matters, including identifying and notifying victims, determining their losses as part of a case investigation, prosecuting cases and negotiating the terms of plea agreements, of which restitution may be a part  Within DOJ’s Criminal Division, the Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section manages DOJ’s Asset Forfeiture Program  As previously stated, FLUs within each USAO undertake activities to collect restitution from offenders in their district  Additionally, all USAOs have asset forfeiture staff responsible for forfeiting property seized by law enforcement agencies because the property was used in criminal activities or purchased with the proceeds of criminal activities  According to EOUSA guidance, coordination between the FLU and Asset Forfeiture units is highly encouraged to use forfeited assets as a means to collect on unpaid restitution debts  DOJ requires each USAO to have its own policies and procedures related to debt collection efforts but allows them discretion in developing these policies and procedures to ensure that they are appropriate for local conditions  DOJ also requires USAOs to have policies and procedures to make early, effective, and coordinated asset investigations and recovery a routine part of every case involving victims but allows USAOs to specify these policies and procedures  DOJ’s EOUSA provides USAOs with management assistance, guidance, training, and administrative support  Among other activities, EOUSA provides management assistance to USAOs by administering internal evaluations for each USAO, which are intended to provide on-site management support for that office  Further, EOUSA provides guidance to enhance offices’ efforts to request and collect restitution  Judiciary: Within the judiciary, the 94 federal district courts order restitution, receipt restitution payments, and disburse restitution to victims  Within the federal district where the offender was convicted, a probation officer prepares the presentence investigation report (PSR) for the court, which includes information on the victim’s losses and an offender’s financial information  Probation officers may obtain this information from DOJ, which has the statutory responsibility for the enforcement and collection of criminal debt  The court uses the PSR, among other things, to determine whether to order restitution  If an offender is released to the community by the court and placed on supervision, probation officers are responsible for ensuring the offender abides by the terms of release, including paying any restitution owed to victims  The Clerk of each District Court is responsible for the receipt of restitution from offenders and for disbursing payments to victims  The Judicial Conference is the national policy-making body for the federal courts  The Conference operates through a network of committees created to address and advise courts on a wide variety of subjects such as information technology, personnel, probation and pretrial services, space and facilities, security, judicial salaries and benefits, budget, defender services, court administration, and rules of practice and procedure  The Judicial Conference has taken policy positions on restitution-related issues and has supported legislative proposals to improve the restitution process  AOUSC is the agency within the judiciary that provides a broad range of legislative, legal, financial, technology, management, administrative, and program support services to federal courts  AOUSC is responsible for carrying out Judicial Conference policies and a primary responsibility of AOUSC is to provide staff support and counsel to the Judicial Conference and its committees  USSC is an independent agency within the judiciary which, among other activities, establishes and promulgates detailed sentencing guidelines that judges are to consider in sentencing offenders convicted of federal crimes, including guidelines on when and how to order restitution  Additionally, each district court is required to submit to USSC a report of each offender’s sentence that includes, among other information, details on the offenses for which the offender was convicted; the sentence imposed on the offender; and if the judge departed from the sentencing guidelines, information on reasons why  USSC maintains a database containing sentencing data on federal offenders convicted of felonies or serious misdemeanors, analyzes it and publishes these data on an annual basis  USSC is also statutorily required to annually report to Congress its analysis of sentencing-related documents, including an accounting of districts USSC believes have not submitted appropriate information to the commission, among other things  During the course of a federal criminal investigation, federal prosecutors identify and notify victims, as well as determine their losses in conjunction with the federal agents investigating the case  If a defendant pleads guilty or is found guilty at trial, the prosecutor has the burden of proving the victims’ losses in court  To facilitate this, a Victim-Witness coordinator within the USAO responsible for the case provides victims the opportunity to explain their losses in detail, usually through a Victim Impact Statement  This information is then to be provided to a federal probation officer who uses it to begin a PSR  To develop the PSR, probation officers use information provided by the USAO and may contact victims and verify the loss amounts  Additionally, probation officers will investigate an offender’s economic circumstances— such as if the offender has a job, any assets or any dependents  If a judge determines that restitution is to be ordered, the judge must order restitution for the full amount of a victim’s losses for offenses without consideration of the economic circumstances of the defendant  Judges may decline to order restitution in certain instances, for example, where restitution is discretionary, or in certain cases where the number of identifiable victims makes restitution impracticable or the complexity of calculating restitution would unduly prolong the sentencing process  If the court does not order restitution, or orders only partial restitution, the judge must provide the reason, and judges usually do so in a written Statement of Reasons document  Figure 1 provides an overview of the federal restitution process  Upon imposition of a restitution debt by the court, FLU staff use two mechanisms to determine the collectability of the debt and what collection actions to take  First, FLU staff classify the debt into one of four categories to determine the extent to which the FLU will pursue enforcement actions to collect upon the debt  FLUs classify debts from a Priority Code 1 debt (indicating that FLUs will make collection of this debt the highest priority) to a Priority Code 4 debt (indicating that FLUs will make collection of this debt the lowest priority)  Second, FLUs may suspend collection action on criminal debts, regardless of their categorization, under certain circumstances if they determine the debts are uncollectible  FLU staff may also determine that debts are permanently uncollectible and categorize them as Priority Code 4 debts  If a debtor does not provide payment, FLU staff then use various enforcement actions to collect the restitution debt  These can include, among other actions, filing liens against an offender’s property, coordinating with asset forfeiture staff to use forfeited assets to pay the restitution debt, and garnishing wages an offender may earn  Victims can be compensated for losses with the proceeds of forfeited assets through DOJ’s Asset Forfeiture Program and in accordance with law and regulation  Federal regulations provide that the proceeds from forfeited assets are first used to cover program costs associated with forfeiture-related activities and next to pay valid owners, lien-holders, and federal financial regulatory agencies  Forfeited assets can then be distributed to other victims of crime as compensation for their losses if their loss is a direct result of the commission of the offense underlying forfeiture or a related offense  Any remaining funds from the forfeited asset may be placed into official use, distributed to foreign governments, state or local law enforcement agencies as part of the equitable sharing program to enhance cooperation with federal investigations  When victims are eligible for compensation using forfeited assets, DOJ employs two processes: restoration and remission  The restoration process involves the USAO staff requesting funds on behalf of a victim when there is both an order of forfeiture and an order of restitution  Under the restoration process, USAO staff request DOJ’s Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section to use the forfeited asset to pay a restitution debt  If DOJ approves the request for restoration, the funds from the forfeited property are then transferred to the Clerk of the Court who disburses this money to the victim  The remission process requires a victim of a crime to directly petition DOJ to receive funds from the forfeited property  According to officials in DOJ’s Criminal Division, the courts may not order restitution on behalf of victims who suffered a specific actual loss as a direct result of a crime for a variety of reasons, and therefore the remission process serves as a complement to the restoration process to ensure victims are made whole  For example, these officials stated that, among other reasons, the courts may not order restitution if a defendant dies prior to sentencing or if the case is one in which a court is not required to, and does not, order restitution, but the victim has suffered eligible losses  EOUSA and USAO officials in all six of the offices with whom we spoke told us that prosecutors document requests for restitution in their case files and that their offices employ other internal controls, such as the use of templates and forms, throughout the prosecution process to ensure that prosecutors request restitution as appropriate  EOUSA officials told us that although the agency does not track this information, they believed all USAOs generally document requests for restitution in their offices’ case files  Further, USAO officials in all six offices told us that prosecutors document requests for the court to order restitution in their case files by including this information in a written memorandum  To support prosecutors in documenting this information, all six offices we selected provide prosecutors with a prosecution memorandum template  Of the six templates we reviewed, four explicitly include a section for prosecutors to indicate whether victims have been identified and the extent of any victim losses  In addition to these templates, four of six USAOs we selected had forms that prosecutors could use to identify whether cases have victims and their need for restitution when drafting criminal charging documents  Moreover, officials from two of the six USAOs told us their offices use this form as an internal control to ensure prosecutors have identified all victims and considered their need for restitution, if applicable  All six offices we selected also provided prosecutors templates for drafting plea agreements, and templates we reviewed from all six USAOs included language requesting the offender pay restitution, if applicable  However, prosecutors are not required to use plea agreement templates, nor are they required to request restitution as part of a plea agreement  USAO officials from one office stated that including this language in the plea agreement template served to remind prosecutors of their requirement to consider requesting restitution as stated in the U S  Attorney’s Manual  Select USAO officials also described various forms of management oversight to ensure prosecutors request restitution as appropriate  Specifically, four USAOs we selected require supervisory review of the form that prosecutors fill out when drafting criminal charging documents, which includes information on victims  Additionally, officials in all six USAOs told us that they require supervisory review of plea agreements for every case  For example, officials from two USAOs told us their office requires the Criminal Chief, the supervisor of all criminal cases, to approve documents in the plea agreement, which may include requests for restitution  Federal courts sent information on sentencing decisions to USSC and USSC had information on restitution decisions for 95 percent of all offenders from fiscal years 2014 through 2016  According to our analysis of USSC data, 214,578 federal offenders were sentenced from fiscal years 2014 through 2016 and restitution was ordered for 33,158 of those offenders, or 15 percent  Collectively, courts ordered these offenders to pay $33 9 billion in restitution during this period  Courts did not order restitution for the remaining 181,420 offenders, or 85 percent  Table 1 shows the number of federal offenders sentenced and ordered to pay restitution for fiscal years 2014 through 2016, as well as the total amount of restitution ordered by the courts  The majority of federal offenders were sentenced for immigration or drug- related offenses, and USAO officials in all six offices we selected told us that these types of offenses do not typically have victims with actual losses  For example, from fiscal years 2014 through 2016, USSC data showed that 131,088 offenders, 61 percent of offenders sentenced, were sentenced for immigration or drug-related offenses and courts ordered 999 (or less than 1 percent) of these offenders to pay restitution  USSC data show that courts ordered restitution more often for offenders sentenced for other offenses, such as fraud  For example, courts sentenced 21,551 offenders for fraud offenses from fiscal years 2014 through 2016, and courts ordered restitution for 15,902 of these offenders, or 74 percent  Table 2 shows the number of offenders sentenced and the number ordered to pay restitution by offenses for which restitution was most often and least often ordered by courts from fiscal years 2014 through 2016  The percentage of federal offenders ordered to pay restitution varied across federal court districts; from 2 percent of offenders in one district to 42 percent in another district  USAO officials we interviewed stated that some of this variation may be due to the types of offenses prosecuted within different districts  For example, officials from one USAO stated that their office, which had a high volume of immigration–related offenders, had few cases in which restitution was applicable  Our analysis of USSC data showed that from fiscal year 2014 through fiscal year 2016 and across all districts, districts with a higher than average rate of immigration-related offenders had lower than average rates of restitution ordered  Conversely, districts with above-average rates of offenders convicted of financial offenses such as fraud, embezzlement, money laundering, tax offenses, counterfeiting or bribery had higher than average rates of restitution ordered, as shown in table 3  Judges indicated on documents sent to USSC that restitution was not applicable and thus did not order it for most offenders sentenced from fiscal years 2014 through 2016—167,230 offenders—or 78 percent of all offenders sentenced during this time period  Our analysis of sentencing information for the remaining offenders found that courts ordered restitution at a higher rate as compared to all offenders  Specifically, after excluding offenders for whom restitution was not applicable and were not ordered to pay it, we found that courts ordered restitution for 70 percent of the remaining 47,348 offenders  EOUSA and USAO officials told us that in cases where there are identifiable victims, restitution may not be ordered for other reasons  EOUSA officials told us that restitution may not be ordered for several reasons, such as when victims provide no proof of their losses or when victims recover compensation through other means, such as through civil proceedings  Further, officials from one USAO told us that victims must provide documentation of their losses for restitution and, if victims are not able to provide this documentation, courts may decline to order restitution  Also, in certain cases, courts are not required to order restitution—such as when there is no identifiable victim or, on the other hand, when the number of identifiable victims is so large as to make restitution impractical, among other reasons  Additionally, the court might not order, or order only partial restitution for other reasons, such as when the value of property the defendant returned to the victim was deducted from the restitution award or because the victim received compensation from insurance  If a court does not order restitution, or orders partial restitution, it is required to provide the reason for its decision and to provide that reason to USSC, but our analysis showed USSC did not always have these data  Specifically, from fiscal years 2014 through 2016, we found that restitution was not ordered—and no reason was documented in USSC data for that decision—for 9,848 offenders (5 percent of the 214,578 offenders sentenced during this time period)  Information on offenders’ sentences, including restitution, assists USSC in its continuous reexamination of its guidelines and policy statements and ensures that various sentencing practices are achieving their stated purposes  Further, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government state that management should evaluate issues identified through monitoring activities or reported by personnel to determine whether any of the issues rise to the level of an internal control deficiency  In response to our questions about the missing information on reasons why restitution was not ordered, AOUSC and USSC officials stated that they were unaware of the missing information or why it was missing  Judiciary officials stated that because various entities within the judiciary participate in the process of collecting and recording information on reasons restitution was not ordered, they did not know which entities could take action to improve USSC data  However, as previously discussed, if the court does not order restitution, or orders only partial restitution, the judge must provide the reason, and judges usually do so in a written Statement of Reasons form  The Judicial Conference, along with USSC, has developed guidance to help judges fill out the Statement of Reasons form and AOUSC supports the Judicial Conference in carrying out its policies  Further, courts must provide USSC the written Statement of Reasons form for sentences imposed  USSC is also responsible for collecting, analyzing, and distributing information on federal sentences provided by each district court, including information related to orders for restitution  However, judicial officials, including from the entities listed above, agreed that further studying the missing data may inform the judiciary of the cause of the missing data, as well as any efforts needed to improve USSC information  Courts are required to provide reasons for not ordering restitution and to provide this information to USSC so that the agency can analyze and report on sentencing data  Determining why USSC data are incomplete could help inform the judiciary whether the issue rises to the level of an internal control deficiency and whether additional action can be taken to improve the transparency of sentencing decisions  Doing so could help the judiciary ensure reasons for not ordering restitution are provided consistently in all cases and potentially improve data provided to USSC, in turn supporting its mission to promote transparency in sentencing decisions  Our analysis of DOJ data showed that DOJ collected $2 95 billion in restitution debt from fiscal years 2014 through 2016, half of which was collected on debts imposed during this period  The extent of collections across the 94 USAOs ranged from a high of $848 million in one USAO to a low of $1 2 million in another USAO  The median amount collected for USAOs was $10 7 million  DOJ was more successful at collecting restitution on newer debts—debts imposed from fiscal years 2014 through 2016  Of the $2 95 billion in restitution debt collected, about half was collected from new debts imposed by courts during this time period  Specifically, DOJ collected $1 5 billion (4 percent), of the $34 billion ordered from fiscal years 2014 through 2016  The remaining half of the debt collected during this time frame was collected from debts imposed between fiscal year 1988 and fiscal year 2014  New debts—imposed in fiscal years 2014 through 2016—were also more likely to be fully paid during this time period compared to all debts  Specifically, from fiscal years 2014 through 2016, DOJ collected the full amount of restitution on 4,003 of the 24,950 debts imposed during this time, 16 percent  However, across all debts, including debts imposed prior to fiscal year 2014, DOJ collected the full amount of restitution ordered on only 5 percent of debts  Across all restitution debts, DOJ collected at least some of the debt for one-third of debts and did not collect any restitution on the remaining two-thirds  More than 60 percent of the restitution DOJ collected in fiscal years 2014 through 2016 was owed to non-federal victims ($1 8 billion), including individuals, corporations and state and local governments  An additional 37 percent of restitution was collected on behalf of federal agencies that were victims of crimes  One percent of restitution collected was community restitution, which is restitution collected for drug offenses that otherwise have no victims and which is disbursed to state victim assistance agencies and state agencies dedicated to the reduction of substance abuse, as shown in table 4  AOUSC officials noted that some collected restitution is not disbursed to non-federal victims due to a lack of accurate contact information for these victims  Specifically, according to AOUSC, as of June 2017, courts had more than $132 million in restitution due to 113,260 victims that could not be disbursed because of a lack of accurate contact information for these victims  DOJ is required to provide courts with victim contact information, and victims are to notify DOJ if their contact information changes  However, AOUSC and USAO officials told us that this notification by victims may not always occur  For example, officials in one USAO told us that due to the length of court proceedings, victims may move without notifying the court prior to the disbursement of restitution and, as a result, the court is unable to disburse restitution to those victims  According to our analysis of DOJ data, at the end of fiscal year 2016, $110 billion in restitution was outstanding and USAOs had identified $100 billion of that debt as uncollectible, as shown in figure 2  USAOs may identify debts as uncollectible and suspend collection actions on a debt for a variety of reasons, including that the offender has no, or only a nominal, ability to pay the debt  Probation officials, EOUSA officials, and officials from five of six USAOs we interviewed stated that most outstanding restitution debt is identified as uncollectible and collection action is suspended because many offenders have little ability to pay the debt—a conclusion supported by USSC data  For example, according to USSC data, 95 percent of offenders ordered to pay restitution from fiscal years 2014 through 2016 received a waiver from paying a court-ordered fine, indicating their inability to pay  While courts are allowed to take an offender’s economic circumstances into consideration when issuing fines, they generally may not do so when ordering restitution  As a result, EOUSA and federal probation officials with whom we spoke stated that offenders ordered to pay restitution often do not have an ability to do so and therefore a large amount of restitution orders is uncollectible  Through various guidance documents, DOJ has identified and recommended numerous practices for DOJ prosecutors and FLU staff to use throughout the restitution process to help ensure full and timely restitution for victims  USAO officials in all six offices with whom we spoke stated that, based on their experience, these practices were generally effective  Specifically, DOJ and EOUSA officials identified practices for prosecutors and FLU staff to use when requesting restitution, facilitating court orders for restitution, and collecting restitution and documented these practices in several guidance manuals  Officials we interviewed from all six USAOs stated they were generally satisfied with the guidance from EOUSA and that they thought most of DOJ’s recommended practices were effective when requesting restitution, facilitating court orders for restitution, and collecting restitution  Requesting restitution  Officials we interviewed from three USAOs identified coordination between prosecutors and case investigators prior to sentencing to identify victims and their losses as an important practice for requesting restitution  USAO officials from three of the six offices stated that gathering detailed information on an offender’s financial resources, which include assets that could be forfeited and used to pay a restitution debt, was a very effective practice related to requesting restitution  Facilitating court orders of restitution  Although the courts, and not prosecutors, are responsible for ordering restitution, DOJ guidance identifies several practices that prosecutors can use to facilitate orders of restitution that may increase the likelihood of full and timely restitution for victims  Officials from three of six USAOs stated that the most effective practice related to ordering restitution was ensuring courts ordered restitution as due and payable immediately  Specifically, when offenders cannot pay restitution in an immediate lump-sum payment, the courts must specify a payment schedule through which the offender will pay restitution based on the offender’s ability to pay  In these cases, USAO officials stated that it is effective for prosecutors to ensure the restitution order specifies that restitution is due and payable immediately  According to an EOUSA official, this permits the agency to immediately pursue all collection remedies allowed by law whenever the debtor has or subsequently obtains the ability to pay  Collecting restitution


Report 2:  Officials from all six USAOs stated that using the Treasury Offset Program (TOP), a program that allows for the reduction or withholding of a debtor’s federal benefits, such as a tax refund, was one of the most effective practices for collecting restitution  Specifically, officials in one USAO told us that TOP requires minimal effort for FLU staff and can result in a high amount of collections  As an example, officials from two USAOs told us their respective offices each recovered more than $500,000 dollars in restitution debt in fiscal year 2016 through TOP  Officials from three of the six offices also identified using wage garnishment as an effective practice for collecting restitution  Across all parts of the restitution process, USAO officials we spoke with also consistently identified DOJ recommended practices related to internal and external communication and collaboration as effective for improving the restitution process  Specifically, the officials identified collaboration between various units in the USAO as an effective practice to ensuring restitution for victims  For example, USAO officials in two of the six offices highlighted coordination between Victim-Witness coordinators and prosecutors to help identify victims and quantify their losses as effective to assisting in the request for restitution  Additionally, USAO officials in all six offices stated that strong coordination between FLU personnel and criminal prosecutors to identify an offender’s financial resources and available assets was an effective practice to help ensure FLU staff could collect restitution using those resources or assets  USAO officials from five of six offices identified external communication between FLU and the federal probation office as an effective practice  Specifically, officials from these USAOs stated that FLUs coordinating with probation officers during the offender’s supervision period to enforce restitution terms was an effective practice for collecting restitution  Additionally, according to EOUSA guidance, FLU staff can use outreach and training with other partners such as the probation office to facilitate information sharing on restitution collection issues and officials from five of six USAOs told us that FLUs conducting training and outreach is a very effective practice  In addition, probation officials we interviewed in each of the six federal judicial districts we selected stated that ongoing communication between USAO staff and probation officers is effective to ensuring victims are identified and receive full and timely restitution  Probation officials from one court district emphasized the importance of a good working relationship with the USAO, stating that the probation office and USAO are better able to ensure victims and their losses are accurately identified and defendants’ ability to pay is adequately addressed when working collaboratively  A probation official from another office said that probation officers regularly coordinated with the USAO’s FLU, and this coordination was particularly important on cases involving complex financial crimes, where the offender has a complicated financial portfolio  Further, probation officials from five of six probation offices also stated that attending training conducted by the FLU is a very effective practice  EOUSA and selected USAO officials told us that while these practices may be useful in some circumstances, they may not be effective or applicable in all cases or in all districts  Specifically, practices DOJ recommends may be effective when offenders have the ability to pay restitution but are simply unwilling to do so; however, USAO officials in five of six offices stated that these practices cannot mitigate the fact that many offenders lack the ability to pay restitution because they lack assets and income  Additionally, while EOUSA guidance recommends that FLU staff contact co-defendants or victims for information on the whereabouts or assets of offenders who owe restitution, officials from three USAOs told us this was not effective  According to one official, although co- defendants are sometimes eager to share information, the information is usually unreliable  USAO officials also identified some recommended practices as not applicable to their district  For example, EOUSA recommends that FLU units request Asset Investigation assistance from EOUSA for complex cases involving large amounts of valuable assets  However, USAO officials in a small, rural district with whom we spoke stated that the types of cases their office prosecutes tend not to be the type of financial cases that warranted use of this resource  DOJ has identified improving debt collection—including court-ordered restitution—as a major management initiative in its 2014-2018 Strategic Plan  However, it does not have any measures or goals in place to assess its performance in meeting this initiative or meet requirements that it evaluate its performance in seeking and recovering restitution as required by statute  In 2001, we recommended that DOJ adequately measure its criminal debt collection performance against established goals to help improve collections and stem the growth in uncollected criminal debt  DOJ concurred with this recommendation, and as of fiscal year 2003, annually assessed each district based on established collection goals for that district  However, as of September 2017, DOJ no longer evaluates each district based on established goals  EOUSA officials stated that DOJ no longer uses these performance goals and that the agency did not maintain records for when or why it stopped  EOUSA officials stated that while the agency does not have any measures or goals to assess USAOs’ performance in improving debt collection, including the collection of federal restitution, they are working with DOJ’s Justice Management Division to develop a suite of analytical tools to monitor the collection of debt across all offices  According to DOJ, some of these analytical tools have been implemented and additional tools will be implemented by March 2018  EOUSA officials stated that these tools will help the agency determine which cases are most likely to result in significant collections and the types and timing of enforcement actions that generate maximum debt recovery results  EOUSA officials further stated the analytical tools will allow the agency to compare districts’ efforts based on a variety of factors (e g , caseload, staff size, and enforcement actions)  These analytical tools may provide EOUSA with valuable insight into the present condition of the collection of restitution across USAOs, but they will not provide DOJ with a baseline performance standard that could be used to indicate if USAOs’ efforts to collect restitution debts are having a measurable impact in meeting DOJ’s objective of improving debt collection  Additionally, EOUSA conducts evaluations of each USAO every 4 years, which include a review of FLU operations, but EOUSA officials stated that these reviews do not include oversight of the collection of restitution  Among other aspects of USAO operations, these internal evaluations review the extent to which each FLU is complying with statutory and DOJ requirements related to debt collection, has sufficient program resources, and adequately manages its caseload  However, DOJ and EOUSA officials told us that it did not plan to use these internal evaluations to meet the Justice for All Reauthorization Act of 2016 requirement to evaluate each USAO on its performance in seeking and recovering restitution for victims  Specifically, the officials stated that these internal evaluations are not an appropriate mechanism to meet the law’s requirements because the internal evaluations do not specifically review the seeking and recovery of restitution for victims  According to DOJ officials responsible for the internal evaluation program, these evaluations are largely intended to provide onsite management assistance and analysis of how the USAO allocates its administrative and legal personnel resources rather than the office’s efficacy in collecting restitution  Consistent with requirements outlined in the Government Performance and Results Act Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA), performance measurement is the ongoing monitoring and reporting of program accomplishments—particularly towards pre-established, objective and quantifiable goals—and agencies are to establish performance measures to assess progress towards those goals  While GPRAMA is applicable to the department or agency level, performance measures and goals are important management tools at all levels of an agency, including the program, project, or activity level  Agencies can use performance measurement to make various types of management decisions to improve programs and results, such as developing strategies and allocating resources, including identifying problems and taking corrective action when appropriate  Further, the Justice for All Reauthorization Act of 2016 requires DOJ to evaluate each USAO in its performance in recovering restitution for victims  DOJ and EOUSA officials told us that DOJ does not require USAOs to establish performance measures or goals to assess their progress in improving the collection of restitution  DOJ and EOUSA officials also told us that each USAO could develop performance goals but that they were unaware of the extent to which USAOs did so, and further, they do not track the extent to which USAOs met performance goals  Additionally, these officials stated that because each USAO faces different constraints in its ability to collect restitution, establishing a uniform and consistent performance measure and goal would be challenging  EOUSA officials noted that some USAOs may have more resources, such as more FLU staff or specialized asset investigators, available to pursue collections as compared to other offices and therefore offices with fewer resources could have difficulty meeting a performance goal  Further, EOUSA and USAO officials stated that the extent to which DOJ can collect on a debt is heavily influenced by factors outside of the agency’s control, such as an offender’s ability to pay  USAOs could use information provided by performance measures and goals—such as an office’s ability to meet a performance goal—to make managerial decisions to help address these constraints, such as by increasing the allocation of staff resources  Further, to avoid comparing USAOs to a nationally set performance goal that does not account for specific constraints faced by each office, DOJ could—as it did in fiscal year 2003—require each USAO to establish its own objective, quantitative collection goals based on historical, district-specific collection statistics  Finally, as previously discussed, each USAO already accounts for external factors that affect the collectability of a debt, such as an offender’s ability to pay, by suspending collection action on debts it identifies as uncollectible  Therefore, any performance measures and goals developed could be based solely on debts that the USAO already has determined to be collectible  Stakeholders we interviewed—including officials from one USAO, probation officials in two districts, and officials with DOJ’s Office of Crime Victims—noted that receiving restitution is both emotionally and financially important to victims  Specifically, officials from one USAO and one probation office noted that while many victims may never receive the full amount of restitution ordered, receiving even a minimal amount of restitution is a symbolic victory and that it is important for victims to know the government is making efforts to collect restitution on their behalf  The legislative history of the MVRA echoes these sentiments, providing that even nominal restitution payments have benefits for the victim of crime, and that orders of restitution are largely worthless without enforcement  Yet, according to our analysis, $10 billion of restitution debt DOJ identified as collectible remained outstanding at the end of fiscal year 2016  Further, the extent to which USAOs collected restitution varied widely— from a high of one USAO district collecting nearly 350 percent of all collectible debt in fiscal years 2014 through 2016 to a low of one district collecting less than one percent of collectible debt in the same period  Without performance measures, including the establishment of goals, DOJ cannot assess if this variation is due to factors outside the control of USAOs or due to management deficiencies that require corrective action  Developing performance measures and goals for each USAO related to the collection of restitution would allow DOJ to assess its progress in achieving its major management initiative in improving debt collection— including debts owed to victims as court-ordered restitution  Doing so would also better position DOJ to meet the requirements of the Justice for All Reauthorization Act of 2016 to evaluate offices in their performance in recovering restitution on behalf of victims and to use performance information to improve the practices of offices as needed  Although asset forfeiture and restitution are separate parts of a criminal sentence, DOJ guidance states that using forfeited assets to benefit victims is a way that DOJ can help ensure eligible victims of crime are compensated for their losses  Further, DOJ regulations and policy require that eligible victims receive compensation from forfeited assets before certain other uses, such as official use or equitable sharing  However, while DOJ tracks the amount of compensation provided to victims through forfeited assets, it does not have assurances that forfeited assets are being used to compensate victims to the greatest extent possible  According to DOJ information, the agency made payments of about $595 million to eligible victims other than owners of the property from the Assets Forfeiture Fund from fiscal years 2014 through 2016, or 15 percent of $3 9 billion in paid expenditures during this period, as shown in table 5  As table 5 shows, DOJ can account for cases in which forfeited assets were used to compensate eligible victims who were not owners or lienholders  However, DOJ does not have information on the overall universe of victims who could have been eligible to receive compensation from forfeited assets  Further, it does not have insight into any reasons why funds from forfeited assets were not used for these victims  Specifically, DOJ officials stated that the department collects information on whether victims have been identified in cases associated with forfeited assets, and if restitution is anticipated in these cases, but it does not track the extent to which these victims were ultimately compensated using forfeited assets  Further, DOJ also does not collect information on reasons why victims were not compensated using funds from forfeited assets  While DOJ is required to use forfeited assets to compensate victims before using those assets for certain other purposes, the agency is unable to provide assurances that it is always doing so because it does not have information on the overall universe of victims or reasons why victims were not compensated using forfeited assets  As a result, DOJ does not have a basis to know whether the $595 million provided to victims from fiscal years 2014 through 2016 is the maximum amount of compensation the agency could have provided to victims using forfeited assets  Full use of forfeited assets for victim compensation has long been, and continues to be, a goal of DOJ  In 2005, an interagency task force—led by DOJ and including the Department of Treasury, Office of Management and Budget and AOUSC—developed a strategic plan to improve the collection of criminal debt  Among other goals included in its strategic plan, the task force stated a goal of examining how asset seizure and forfeiture procedures can be used to maximize recoveries for victims  More recently, DOJ reported in its 2014-2018 Strategic Plan that it would make every effort to recover full and fair restitution for victims using the federal forfeiture statutes to preserve and recover criminal proceeds  Specifically, DOJ stated that using federal forfeiture statutes to recover full and fair restitution for victims is one part of its strategy to protect the rights of the American people and enforce the rule of law  Finally, DOJ officials told us they considered providing compensation to victims as one goal of the Asset Forfeiture Program and EOUSA stated in guidance that asset forfeiture is the most widely available and effective tool to seize assets for restitution purposes  Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government call on federal managers to design control activities to achieve the agency’s objectives  These controls can include using quality information to make informed decisions, evaluate the entity’s performance in achieving key objectives, and address risks  DOJ officials told us that they do not track the extent to which victims were not compensated using forfeited assets because USAO staff are not required to request that these assets be used for victim compensation  DOJ officials explained that staff are required to indicate in the agency’s forfeited asset database, the Consolidated Asset Tracking System, if victims exist in cases associated with forfeited assets and if restitution is anticipated in these cases  However, these officials stated that staff are not required to then compensate these victims using the forfeited assets or to indicate why these assets were not used for this purpose  DOJ officials told us that decisions to compensate victims using forfeited assets are best left to the judgment of the USAO staff familiar with the case, such as the prosecuting attorney or asset forfeiture staff  DOJ officials pointed to informal communication and coordination among prosecutors, the FLU, and the Asset Forfeiture unit in each USAO as a means to provide compensation to victims as appropriate  However, communication and coordination among these groups has been a challenge for USAOs, as the DOJ Inspector General found in a June 2015 review of DOJ’s debt collection program  Similarly, during our current review, EOUSA and USAO officials we spoke with identified communication and coordination as an area for improvement  EOUSA officials told us that while they thought that FLU staff and Asset Forfeiture unit staff were collaborating more frequently to use forfeited assets to collect restitution debts since the issuance of the DOJ Inspector General’s report, the extent of collaboration between these two units still varied across USAOs  Further, officials we talked to in two USAOs and one probation office noted that USAO staff could improve their use of forfeited assets for restitution payments  For example, officials in one probation office noted that it was their practice to identify forfeited assets that could be used for compensation in the PSR because they had observed that USAO staff were frequently not applying such assets to victim compensation  While DOJ may allow USAO staff to use discretion when requesting restoration or alerting victims to assets available for compensation, increasing the agency’s understanding of the extent to which assets could have been—but were not—used for victim compensation, and the reasons for those decisions, does not affect that discretion  There are legitimate reasons why victims might not be compensated using forfeited assets; for example, the assets may have other owners or lienholders that must be compensated prior to victims, or offenders may have other means by which to pay victims restitution  However, there are also instances where victims may have not received compensation through forfeited assets as a result of unintentional circumstances  For example, according to DOJ’s Asset Forfeiture Manual, forfeiture actions can proceed faster than the parallel criminal case  Consequently, assets might be equitably shared, placed into official use, or remitted to victims who file petitions long before restitution is ordered, and therefore would not be available for other victims who wait for restitution to be ordered after an offender is sentenced  To avoid this outcome, DOJ recommends that USAOs coordinate to ensure the retention of property for victim compensation  However, although DOJ officials responsible for leading DOJ’s asset forfeiture efforts highlighted the need for expedient coordination when USAO staff are considering using forfeited assets to compensate victims, they stated this may not always occur  As a result, otherwise eligible victims may not always be compensated through forfeited assets  By gathering information about the extent to which assets were used for victim compensation—including when they were not used and reasons why not—DOJ could have a better understanding of potential instances where victims could be, but are not, receiving compensation through forfeited funds and could take steps to address them accordingly  Options for gathering such information could include doing a one-time retrospective study of forfeited assets with victims or anticipated restitution to determine the extent that assets were used for victim compensation, or creating a tracking mechanism through its forfeited assets database, or another system  Gathering information on the extent to which forfeited assets were used for victim compensation, including when not used and reasons why not, could position DOJ to take action to increase the use of these assets for victim compensation if warranted  These actions could include providing funds for increased asset forfeiture staff in USAOs, providing additional training or changing policies or procedures for using forfeited assets to compensate victims  Fully and systematically understanding the extent to which issues, such as a lack of coordination within USAOs, result in victims not being compensated using forfeited assets would give DOJ a basis upon which to develop improvements to the Asset Forfeiture Program  Such information would also provide DOJ and staff at all USAOs with information to evaluate its performance in achieving one of the goals of the Asset Forfeiture Program and taking action to meet the agency goal of protecting the rights of the American people—including the right to full and fair restitution for victims  Restitution serves the criminal justice goal of holding offenders accountable and, to the extent possible, restoring victims of federal crimes to their prior position had the crime not occurred  Many victims are unlikely to receive any meaningful portion of court-ordered restitution owed to them because of offenders’ inability to pay these debts  However, the fact that restitution is difficult to collect does not negate the important responsibilities of the judiciary and DOJ to properly manage and oversee all aspects of the restitution process  By law, courts are to state why they did not order restitution and provide that information to USSC  While this information was collected and recorded in USSC data for most offenders, we found that this information was missing for thousands of offenders  It is important for the judiciary to ensure that this information is consistently collected and recorded to assist USSC in its continuous re-examination of its guidelines and policy statements and ensure that various sentencing practices are achieving their stated purposes  The judiciary could support USSC in this endeavor by determining why this information is missing  Results from this study could help inform the judiciary whether this issue rises to the level of an internal control deficiency and whether additional action can be taken to improve the transparency of sentencing decisions  While DOJ has delegated collection activities for restitution to USAOs, it could provide better oversight to ensure it is making reasonable efforts to collect restitution and meeting its responsibility to victims  USAOs have identified a significant portion of outstanding restitution debt as uncollectible, but they have also identified $10 billion of outstanding restitution debt that could be collected  Developing and implementing performance measures and goals for each USAO would allow DOJ to gauge USAOs’ success in collecting this restitution and, by extension, the department’s success in achieving its major management initiative to increase the collection of debt  Further, DOJ could use performance information to improve the practices of offices in seeking and recovering restitution, consistent with a requirement in the Justice for All Reauthorization Act of 2016  Finally, DOJ could gain greater visibility into the use of forfeited assets to compensate victims by gathering information on cases in which victims have been identified and restitution is anticipated but forfeited assets are not used, and any reasons why  Doing so would better position DOJ to take action to increase the use of forfeited assets to compensate eligible victims if warranted and to provide assurance that it is maximizing the use of asset forfeiture in satisfying restitution debts, one of the agency’s most effective mechanisms for satisfying restitution  We are making three recommendations, including one to the judiciary and two to DOJ  Specifically: Judiciary officials, including AOUSC, USSC, and the Judicial Conference, should determine why USSC data on the reasons restitution was not ordered are incomplete  Additionally, if warranted based on this information, judiciary officials should take action to ensure USSC data records include all required information for orders of restitution  (Recommendation 1) To improve oversight of the collection of restitution we recommend that the Attorney General: Develop and implement performance measures and goals for each USAO related to the collection of restitution, and measure progress towards meeting those goals  (Recommendation 2) In cases where forfeited assets were not used to compensate victims, gather information on reasons why forfeited assets were not used for victims  If warranted based on this information, take action to increase the use of forfeited assets to compensate eligible victims  (Recommendation 3) We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to DOJ, the Judicial Conference of the United States, AOUSC, USSC, and the Federal Judicial Center  DOJ concurred with our recommendations and provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate  AOUSC provided written comments, which are reproduced in appendix III  In its written comments, AOUSC noted that it would work with the USSC to address our recommendation  We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees and the Attorney General, the Judicial Conference of the United States, the Directors of AOUSC, the Staff Director of USSC, the Federal Judicial Center and other interested parties  In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www gao gov  If you and your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-8777 or goodwing@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report  GAO staff who made key contributions are listed in appendix IV  According to our analysis of data from the U S  Sentencing Commission (USSC), 214,578 federal offenders were sentenced from fiscal years 2014 through 2016  Table 6 shows the number of offenders sentenced and the number and percentage of offenders ordered to pay restitution for each primary offense of conviction in fiscal years 2014 through 2016  The Department of Justice (DOJ) has identified and recommended numerous practices for federal prosecutors and Financial Litigation Unit (FLU) staff to use throughout the restitution process through various guidance documents  We conducted semi-structured interviews with officials from six U S  Attorneys’ Offices (USAO) to obtain their views on the restitution process and the extent to which they believed DOJ- recommended restitution practices related to the restitution process were effective  In particular, we spoke with USAO officials from the District of Connecticut; the Southern District of California; the District of New Jersey; the Southern District of Ohio; the District of South Dakota; and the District of Wyoming  Tables 7 through 9 show the results of our semi-structured interviews  In particular, table 7 shows practices related to requesting restitution and the extent to which USAO officials found these practices effective  Table 8 shows practices related to facilitating orders of restitution and the extent to which USAO officials found these practices effective  Table 9 shows practices related to collecting restitution and the extent to which USAO officials found these practices effective  Each table also indicates practices that officials we interviewed considered as most important or effective for helping ensure victims receive full and timely restitution  In addition to the contact named above, Chris Ferencik (Assistant Director); Kathleen Donovan (Analyst-in-Charge); Enyinnaya David Aja; David Alexander; Lacinda Ayers; Carla Brown; Emily Hutz; Janet Temko- Blinder; and Adam Vogt, made key contributions to this report 

ground_truth: Federal agencies are exploring ways to use telework as a tool to reduce the federal footprint and use space more efficiently. GAO was asked to examine the effects of telework on agencies' space-planning efforts. In this report, GAO reviewed: (1) how the 23 civilian CFO Act agencies reported using telework in office space planning; (2) the specific ways selected agencies and GSA used telework in their office space planning; and (3) any challenges the civilian CFO Act agencies faced in using telework in office space planning. GAO surveyed all 23 civilian CFO Act agencies, analyzed each agency's space-planning documents, and Real Property Efficiency Plans . GAO reviewed four agencies in greater detail based on analysis of telework data and other factors. For those four agencies GAO conducted site visits, interviewed officials, and analyzed agency documents. GAO also identified challenges agencies faced in using telework in space planning, based on survey results, agency documents, and interviews. The 23 civilian Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Act agencies reported various ways of considering and using telework as a space-planning tool, by, for example, implementing desk-sharing for employees who telework in order to relinquish leased space, or increasing the number of staff working in an existing space without increasing its size. All of the 23 agencies discussed telework in the context of space planning and achieving greater space efficiencies in either their space-planning documents or Real Property Efficiency Plans . The agencies that used telework as a space-planning tool generally reported implementing smaller or unassigned workstations. Three of the four agencies GAO reviewed in greater detail––the General Services Administration (GSA); the Office of Justice Programs at the Department of Justice; the Centers for Disease Control at the Department of Health and Human Services; and the Bureau of the Fiscal Service at the Department of the Treasury––leveraged telework to reduce or use office space more efficiently. For example, GSA and the Office of Justice Programs used telework to accommodate more employees in a smaller office space as illustrated in figure 1 below. The Centers for Disease Control used telework to accommodate more employees in the same amount of space. The Bureau of the Fiscal Service reduced space without telework by reducing the size of individual workstations. The 23 civilian CFO Act agencies reported several challenges in using telework to reduce space including human capital issues, mission suitability, and measuring cost savings attributable to telework. About two-thirds of the agencies said they would find it helpful to have additional information, assistance, or resources in using telework as a space-planning tool. GSA provides guidance to improve space utilization. However, GAO found that GSA last developed relevant formal guidance in 2006. This information, and that on GSA's telework and space-planning websites, was neither specific nor detailed and therefore of limited assistance to agencies that would like to use telework as a space-planning tool. Additionally, GSA's space-planning tool—the Workplace Investment and Feasibility Tool, intended to help agencies quantify the benefits and costs of telework––remains under development after more than 4 years, and GSA officials have not decided whether to make the tool available to other federal agencies. As such, agencies reported that they lack adequate guidance to determine how best to reduce space or use it more efficiently, and how to assess the benefits and costs of using telework in space planning. GSA concurred with recommendations that GSA should: (1) develop guidance on how agencies can use telework as a strategic space-planning tool and make this guidance readily available and (2) complete and make the Workplace Investment and Feasibility Tool available to federal agencies for use in assessing the benefits and costs of telework.