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



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

Report 1: The U S  government engages with the governments of other countries in the Western Hemisphere through various inter-American organizations including the OAS, PAHO, IICA, and PAIGH  According to State, the OAS is the primary inter-American political forum through which the United States engages with other countries in the Western Hemisphere to promote democracy, human rights, security, and development  PAHO serves as the Regional Office for the Americas of the World Health Organization, the United Nations agency on health  IICA supports agricultural development and rural well-being through technical cooperation and the execution of agricultural projects throughout the hemisphere  PAIGH specializes in regional cartography, geography, history, and geophysics and has facilitated the settlement of regional border disputes  According to U S  agency officials, the organizations’ regional knowledge and technical expertise make them effective implementing partners for projects serving U S  national interests and priorities throughout the hemisphere  Member states collectively finance these organizations by providing assessed and voluntary contributions (see table 1)  For each organization, its member states’ assessed contributions are intended to finance the organization’s regular budgets, which generally cover the organization’s day-to-day operating expenses, such as facilities and salaries  Member states also finance certain OAS, PAHO, and IICA activities and projects through voluntary contributions  According to U S  officials, the United States provides voluntary contributions to the OAS, PAHO, and IICA primarily through assistance agreements for specific projects from State, USAID, HHS, and USDA  The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) provides the framework for international organizations to oversee funds such as the assessed contributions provided by member states to OAS, PAHO, IICA, and PAIGH  The institute’s authoritative guidance, International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing, includes mandatory performance standards that describe the nature of internal audit activities and provide criteria for evaluating these activities  Organizations are required to subscribe to these IIA standards, according to PAIGH officials and OAS, PAHO, and IICA documents  Assistance agreements are a critical tool the U S  government uses to achieve important national objectives  As we have previously reported, effective oversight and internal control are important to provide reasonable assurance to federal managers and taxpayers that assistance agreements are awarded properly, recipients are eligible, and federal funds are used as intended and in accordance with applicable laws and regulations  State, USAID, HHS, and USDA oversee funds provided to OAS, PAHO, and IICA through assistance agreements using monitoring activities such as financial and performance reports  Within each of these agencies, various bureaus and offices are responsible for awarding and managing assistance agreements to these inter-American organizations, including State’s Office of Weapons Removal and Abatement in the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, USAID’s Office of U S  Foreign Disaster Assistance, HHS’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and its Food and Drug Administration, and USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service  The documentation of these monitoring activities as called for by federal standards for internal control enables the agencies to determine the effectiveness of the agreement activity  We found that the strategic goals of the four inter-American organizations are predominantly aligned with the high-level strategic goals for the Western Hemisphere documented by State, USAID, HHS, and USDA  According to officials, the agencies all consider U S  strategic goals when deciding which projects to fund at OAS, PAHO, and IICA  State, USAID, HHS, and USDA have goals for foreign assistance to the Western Hemisphere, as shown in table 2  For example, four of the five goals in State and USAID’s Joint Strategy correspond with goals at the OAS, IICA, and PAIGH  U S  agencies, on an ongoing basis, evaluate each inter- American organization to ensure U S  and organization goals are aligned  Officials from all four agencies provided examples of how they help to ensure alignment of U S  strategic goals when funding projects at OAS, PAHO, and IICA  State: According to State officials, State created an Annual Performance and Budget Review process in 2014 specifically to review entities, such as the OAS, that receive voluntary contributions funded through the International Organization and Programs account  This process examines performance of State-funded activities relative to those activities from the previous year and the extent to which the activities advance U S  priorities and objectives  State officials further noted that the Annual Performance and Budget Review helps inform State’s decision-making on what to include in the following year’s budget request  For example, during the 2016 review for the OAS Development Assistance Program, State reported the program’s significant activities, funds expended, and achievements such as training government officials on successful small business policies in the United States  USAID: According to USAID officials, USAID’s project design and approval policies and procedures ensure that all USAID-funded activities are linked to applicable U S  and USAID strategies  USAID’s agency guidance requires, at a minimum, that each project or activity must be formally approved in writing by the relevant Mission Director or Principal Officer for a given program  Officials stated that this approval memo and supporting documentation address a number of planning considerations, including how the proposed activity aligns with broader strategies  Furthermore, officials stated that USAID’s lawyers review project approval documentation prior to final approval and verify that the activity complies with all applicable statutes, regulations, and policies  HHS: According to HHS officials, HHS engages with PAHO on its Biennial Work Plans, which are operational planning instruments that PAHO uses to identify activities that it can implement within each of its member states  HHS officials noted that they use PAHO’s Biennial Work Plan to strengthen U S  approaches on issues of common concern and to advance U S  priorities within the region  According to HHS officials, proposals for technical cooperation projects are required to correspond to one of the technical priorities in PAHO’s strategic plan for 2014–2019 and to be aligned with the HHS global strategy and U S  priorities  USDA: USDA officials said that they compare the U S  strategic goals with IICA’s goals and objectives when they formulate project proposals with IICA to ensure that the projects are aligned with U S  priorities for the region  Additionally, USDA officials told us that USDA helped shape and influence IICA’s recent 10-year strategic plan, ensuring that IICA’s strategic objectives were closely aligned with U S  strategic goals  OAS, PAHO, IICA, and PAIGH have established mechanisms for overseeing their use of assessed and voluntary contributions, such as external auditors and internal audit boards as required by IIA standards  State and USDA have directly supported these oversight mechanisms  OAS, PAHO, IICA, and PAIGH have oversight mechanisms, as shown in table 3  The four organizations follow the internal control standards of the IIA, codified in the International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing, according to PAIGH officials and OAS, PAHO, and IICA documents  All four organizations have internal and external auditors, as required by these standards  Furthermore, OAS, PAHO, and IICA have additional oversight mechanisms, such as anti-fraud policies and program evaluation processes  The officials we interviewed from State, USAID, HHS, and USDA expressed confidence in the four organizations’ management of their assessed and voluntary contributions  All four organizations document the status of their financial and internal control activities in audit reports posted on their public websites  For example, the OAS Office of the Inspector General’s April 2017 Annual Report included an update on its five ongoing audits and investigations  The report also outlined progress made against prior recommendations  U S  agency officials support budget and administrative subcommittees in three of the four organizations and promote the participation of U S  experts on independent audit committees, as shown in table 4  For example, according to officials, State plays a significant role in promoting policies on oversight and accountability at the four organizations through formal engagement in deliberations and decision-making of each organization’s governing body and through informal engagement with other member states and the secretariat by recommending best practices in governance, management, and oversight  State and USDA are also directly involved in implementing some of the additional oversight mechanisms at the organizations  For example, a USDA official serves as a member of IICA’s Audit Review Committee  Additionally, an IICA official told us the United States was involved in defining IICA’s Convention and Rules of Procedure for its governing bodies, which established the requirement for internal and external auditing  According to State officials, the United States led efforts to strengthen oversight at several of the organizations under review in recent years, such as advocating for the creation of an ethics officer position at PAHO, proposing language to strengthen the authority and independence of the OAS’s Office of the Inspector General, and encouraging the creation of audit committees at both organizations  In addition, State has played a lead role in supporting the ongoing reform of the OAS administration, which includes improved oversight and accountability, according to officials from the OAS and the U S  Mission to the OAS  We reviewed 12 selected assistance agreements that the four U S  agencies awarded to OAS, PAHO, and IICA that were active during calendar years 2014 through 2016, and found that two agencies did not consistently include all key monitoring provisions in their agreements  While HHS and USAID implemented applicable guidance by including all key monitoring provisions in their agreements, USDA and State did not do so  USDA and State agency officials did not explain why USDA and State did not include these monitoring provisions in their agreements  However, State has since taken corrective action to ensure that they are included in future agreements, according to State officials  Applicable agency guidance calls for agencies to conduct monitoring activities as part of their oversight of their agreements  Each of the four agencies has established agency-specific guidance that outlines the monitoring activities for assistance agreements  In some cases, the agency-specific guidance may mandate additional monitoring activities beyond those called for in applicable federal regulations, such as risk assessments  For example, State’s guidance calls for the creation of a monitoring plan  Federal standards for internal control require that agencies include in agreements all key provisions delineating the parties’ responsibilities  For the 12 agreements we reviewed, the number of total key monitoring provisions per agreement varied—including within one agency—depending on when the agency issued and updated its guidance relative to when the agreements were approved  Federal standards for internal control call for agencies to document internal controls, transactions, and significant events  Specifically, internal control standards state that agency management should include internal control activities (e g , monitoring activities) in policies or directives for transactions such as assistance agreements  For the 12 assistance agreements we reviewed, USDA and State did not include provisions implementing 6 of the 55 total (11 percent) applicable monitoring activities required by applicable guidance to carry out required monitoring activities (see table 5)  State took corrective action in 2015 by issuing a standard operating procedure  USDA: USDA did not include 4 of the 13 key monitoring provisions implementing the applicable guidance for the three USDA agreements we reviewed (see table 6)  Two of the agreements and supporting documentation each included all four key applicable monitoring provisions  However, Agreement 2 in the table did not include 4 of the 5 monitoring provisions in the agreement or work plan, which documents the monitoring provisions  The agreement partially included performance goals, because it included objectives for the agreement’s activities, but did not include time frames to complete all of the activities  The USDA grant official did not explain why the work plan did not adhere to applicable federal regulations when it was drafted and approved  State: State did not include 2 of the 21 key monitoring provisions implementing the applicable guidance for the three State agreements we reviewed (see table 7)  Two of the agreements and supporting documentation we reviewed included the 7 monitoring provisions implementing the requirements in the applicable agency guidance  However, one agreement awarded in 2012 did not include 2 of the provisions: a risk assessment and a monitoring plan  That office that awarded this agreement took corrective action in 2015 by issuing a standard operating procedure requiring that risk assessments and monitoring plans accompany its grants and cooperative agreements  USAID: USAID included both key monitoring provisions implementing the applicable guidance for the three USAID agreements we reviewed (see table 8)  USAID’s Automated Directives System 308, Standard Provisions for Cost-Type Awards to Public International Organizations contains two key monitoring provisions for agreements  USAID incorporated the monitoring provisions nearly verbatim into the agreements we reviewed, using templates from this guidance for required terms and conditions  HHS: HHS included the 15 monitoring provisions implementing the applicable guidance for the three HHS agreements we reviewed (see table 9)  None of the agencies provided us with full documentation to demonstrate their adherence to the required monitoring activities called for in all of their agreements that we reviewed, including the previously mentioned key monitoring provisions that we reviewed  State and HHS have taken corrective actions to address the gaps we found in documentation for the agreements we reviewed  Agency officials told us that they use these monitoring documents, such as financial and progress reports, to inform future budgetary and programmatic decisions  Therefore, they may lack information needed to make such decisions if they do not have access to complete monitoring documentation  According to federal standards for internal control, each agency is to include key monitoring provisions as part of its agreements  In the individual assistance agreements, the agencies specify the requirements to fulfill these activities, such as requiring financial reports on a quarterly basis or including specific information in performance reports  Grants officers at times, if they deem it necessary or appropriate, include additional monitoring provisions requiring activities beyond those required by the applicable guidance, such as site visits  Federal standards for internal control call for agency management to design monitoring activities, such as financial and performance reporting, so that all transactions are completely and accurately recorded  Recording these activities maintains their relevance and value to management in controlling operations and making decisions  Without access to complete monitoring documentation, the agencies risk weakening the effectiveness of these controls  None of the four U S  agencies had full documentation of all of the monitoring activities required by their agreements we reviewed (see table 10)  The agencies did not have full documentation of monitoring activities for 9 of the 12 agreements we reviewed  For the 42 monitoring activities identified across all of the individual agreements, the four agencies did not have full documentation of 18 of the activities (43 percent)  However, State took corrective action in May 2017 to address its gaps in documentation, and according to HHS officials, the Food and Drug Administration addressed its gap in documentation by implementing its agreement monitoring program in fiscal year 2018  USDA did not have full documentation of any of the 10 monitoring activities we identified (see table 11)  USDA demonstrated that it had partially documented 2 of the 10 monitoring activities (20 percent) by providing us with some, but not all, quarterly performance reports  For one of the agreements, USDA had no documentation of the monitoring activities for that agreement  For its other two agreements, USDA did not have full documentation of the required monitoring activities  USDA officials did not explain why they did not have full documentation  Without full documentation of the required monitoring activities, USDA may not have the information it needs to make appropriate budgetary and programmatic decisions  USAID did not have full documentation of 2 of the 11 total monitoring activities (18 percent) we identified across the three agreements we reviewed (see table 12)  USAID had partial documentation of those 2 monitoring activities  For example, USAID provided us with some, but not all, records such as financial reports required by the terms of the monitoring activities in the agreements  According to USAID officials, the agencies’ lack of complete monitoring documentation was in part due to agency officials not following some of their agency’s requirements for managing agreement documents, such as placing all documents in a shared document management system  For example, for one of the agreements we reviewed, USAID officials stated that they stored some agreement documentation electronically—such as modifications, correspondence with the agreement recipient, and quarterly financial reports—but primarily maintained paper files  USAID officials told us they use the monitoring documents of these agreements, such as financial and progress reports, to inform future budgetary and programmatic decisions  For example, according to USAID officials, USAID uses monitoring documents to identify and address potential project delays or other “red flags ” For one of the agreements we reviewed, USAID officials stated these monitoring reports also assist them in determining whether to award additional funds and establish new indicators in subsequent agreements  Without full documentation of the required monitoring activities, USAID may not have the information it needs to make appropriate budgetary and programmatic decisions  State did not have full documentation for 5 of the 16 monitoring activities (31 percent) we identified across the three agreements we reviewed (see table 13)  However, State had partial documentation of 4 of those 5 monitoring activities  For example, State had some, but not all, records such as standard reporting metrics, required by the terms of the monitoring activities in one of the agreements  State did not have documentation of one of the monitoring activities (site visits)  According to State officials, the agency’s lack of complete monitoring documentation was in part due to agency officials not following some of the agency’s requirements for managing agreement documents, such as placing all documents in a shared document management system  For example, according to State officials, for one of the agreements we reviewed, the grants officer mistakenly had saved site visit reports and similar documents to personal folders because the officer did not know how to use State’s grant document storage system  As a result, neither the current grants officer nor other State officials could retrieve these documents  In May 2017, after awarding the agreements we reviewed, State took corrective action by issuing the Federal Assistance Directive to establish internal guidance, policies, and procedures for all domestic and overseas grant-making bureaus, offices, and posts within the department when administering federal financial assistance  The directive notes that State implemented a grant management system for domestic and overseas grants to resolve its “significant deficiency in the management of Federal financial assistance ” In addition, the directive indicates that officials from State’s Bureau of Administration, Office of the Procurement Executive, Federal Assistance Division will evaluate compliance with risk assessment requirements and review documentation for selected agreements each fiscal year  One of the stated purposes of these reviews is to mitigate risk by strengthening management and oversight of awards, including grants  According to a State Office of Inspector General report, State should complete the full deployment of this system for overseas grants in fiscal year 2019  HHS did not have full documentation of 1 of the 5 applicable monitoring activities (20 percent) we identified across the three agreements we reviewed (see table 14)  HHS had partial documentation of the semiannual progress report activity for one of its agreements, required by the terms of its agreement  HHS officials did not explain why they did not have full documentation for this monitoring activity  HHS had full documentation of all applicable monitoring activities for the other two agreements we reviewed  According to agency officials, the Food and Drug Administration, which administered one of the HHS agreements we reviewed, has taken corrective action to evaluate its agreement documentation and address deficiencies  According to HHS officials, the Food and Drug Administration developed a pilot program intended to provide an additional layer of oversight to ensure adherence to the terms of each agreement  Under the pilot, officials said, a grant monitoring specialist reviews the agreement documentation and monitoring reports to identify agreements that need additional assistance  According to HHS officials, the Food and Drug Administration implemented this program in fiscal year 2018 and will eventually include all Food and Drug Administration agreements  U S  assistance agreements for projects with inter-American organizations further U S  strategic goals in the Western Hemisphere, but State, HHS, USAID, and USDA did not consistently include all key monitoring provisions as part of their assistance agreements or demonstrate that they had full documentation of monitoring activities for the agreements we reviewed  Of these four agencies, USAID and USDA have not taken corrective actions  Monitoring the implementation of U S  assistance agreements and fully documenting the results of such monitoring are key management controls to help ensure that U S  agreement recipients use federal funds appropriately and effectively  The agencies risk weakening the effectiveness of these controls by not including all key monitoring provisions called for by applicable agency guidance  Further, if the agencies do not have full documentation of the agreements’ required monitoring activities, they may not be able to effectively manage federally funded projects that support U S  strategic goals  In addition, agencies may not have all the information they need to make budgetary and programmatic decisions  We are making a total of three recommendations: one to USAID and two to USDA  The USAID Administrator should ensure that USAID officials have full documentation of required monitoring activities in agreements with inter- American organizations  (Recommendation 1) The Secretary of Agriculture should ensure that USDA includes all key monitoring provisions specified by applicable guidance as part of agreements with inter-American organizations  (Recommendation 2) The Secretary of Agriculture should ensure that USDA officials have full documentation of required monitoring activities in agreements with inter- American organizations  (Recommendation 3) We provided a draft of this report for comment to State, USAID, HHS, and USDA  USDA concurred with our recommendations in an e-mail  In its written comments, reproduced in appendix IV, USAID stated that it has policies, procedures, and training in place for the officials who manage these agreements  In response to our recommendations, USAID stated that it will issue an agency notice to remind all such officials of these responsibilities, including the requirement to maintain complete files for each agreement  State and HHS did not provide formal comments  They did provide technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate  As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date  At that time, we will send copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of State, the Administrator of the U S  Agency for International Development, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Secretary of Agriculture  In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www gao gov  If you or your staff have questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-9601, or melitot@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  Congressional requesters asked us to review several issues related to the Organization of American States (OAS), the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA), and the Pan-American Institute of Geography and History (PAIGH)  In this report, we (1) assess the extent to which the organizations’ strategic goals align with those of U S  agencies; (2) examine how the organizations oversee the use of their funds and the extent to which U S  agencies have supported those efforts; (3) assess the extent to which U S  agencies included key monitoring provisions as part of their assistance agreements; and (4) assess the extent to which U S  agencies had documentation of monitoring activities, including those called for by these provisions  To address the first objective, we gathered documentation and interviewed officials from the four U S  agencies and the four organizations to determine the U S  strategic goals for foreign assistance to the Western Hemisphere and the goals of the four organizations  According to Department of State (State) and U S  Agency for International Development (USAID) officials, the strategic document that underpins their foreign assistance priorities for the region is The Department of State’s Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs’ and USAID’s Bureau for Latin American and Caribbean Affairs’ Joint Regional Strategy  Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) officials said that HHS’s relevant strategic document is The Global Strategy of the U S  Department of Health and Human Services  U S  Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) strategic goals for foreign assistance, according to officials, are outlined in the United States Department of Agriculture Strategic Plan FY2015–2018  The OAS outlined its strategic goals in the Comprehensive Strategic Plan of the Organization, adopted on October 31, 2016  PAHO’s goals are laid out in Strategic Plan of the Pan American Health Organization 2014–2019  IICA’s strategic document is the IICA 2010–2020 Strategic Plan, which took effect in October 2010  PAIGH’s strategic document is the Declaration and Guide for the Pan American Agenda 2010-2020  We compared the strategic goals articulated by the four organizations against U S  strategic goals to assess the extent to which the organizations’ goals contribute to U S  interests in the region  We then interviewed officials from the four agencies and reviewed relevant documentation on efforts they undertake to ensure that U S -funded activities align with U S  strategic goals  To address the second objective, we reviewed documentation of the organizations’ internal control mechanisms and confirmed our findings with the organizations  We identified mechanisms to include policies, directives, rules, practices, and organizational structures that can have an oversight role in the use of the organizations’ funds  We also interviewed officials from State, USAID, HHS, and USDA to discuss their support of these mechanisms  To address the third objective, we identified 60 active assistance agreements that these agencies oversaw with OAS, PAHO, and IICA during calendar years 2014 through 2016 and selected a nongeneralizable sample of 12 agreements, three each from State, USAID, HHS, and USDA  To determine which agreements we would review for each agency, we selected the three agreements with the lowest, median, and highest dollar value  If any of an agency’s agreements supported the same country or activity or were for one-time projects such as seminars, we selected the next appropriate agreement based on dollar value  For these selected agreements, we then identified the applicable agency guidance for monitoring activities in the agreements, which we define as all documents related to each agreement provided to us by the agencies, such as monitoring reports  The number of key monitoring provisions varied—even within each agency—depending on when agency guidance was issued and updated relative to when the agreements were approved  USDA did not have applicable internal agency-specific guidance for monitoring of assistance agreements at the time it awarded the agreements we reviewed; thus, with USDA’s input, we used the applicable sections of the Code of Federal Regulations, which together have five key monitoring provisions for agreements  However, USDA approved two of the agreements in 2012 and the third agreement in 2016, and this third agreement was subject to an amended version of the Code of Federal Regulations, which added an additional provision for performance goals  State’s four applicable grants policy directives have seven key monitoring provisions for agreements that were applicable at the time the agreements we reviewed were approved  USAID’s Standard Provisions for Cost-Type Awards to Public International Organizations (PIOs): A Mandatory Reference to ADS Chapter 308 has two key monitoring provisions for agreements: audits and records, and the organization’s adherence to their rules  HHS’s grants policy has five key monitoring provisions for grant documentation  We identified key monitoring provisions for agencies to include as part of agreements to ensure oversight of the use of funds, such as financial and progress reports  For the 12 agreements in our sample, we analyzed the assistance agreements from the four agencies, and then determined the extent to which the agencies’ agreements included key monitoring provisions implementing monitoring activities called for by applicable agency guidance  We did not include subsequent amendments to these 12 agreements in our review of key monitoring provisions  We interviewed officials from State, USAID, HHS, and USDA (1) to confirm we were applying the appropriate federal or agency guidance and (2) to discuss instances in which the agreements did not include key monitoring provisions  To address the fourth objective, we reviewed the 12 selected assistance agreements and guidance to identify specific required monitoring activities, such as financial and program reports, site visits, and other forms of oversight  The agreements specify the requirements for these activities such as requiring financial reports on a quarterly basis  For these 12 agreements, we reviewed all the documentation provided to us by the agencies, then determined the extent to which the agencies had full documentation of key monitoring activities as specified in the assistance agreements, including those called for by key monitoring provisions, as well as those called for by guidance when the monitoring provisions were absent  We did not include subsequent amendments to these 12 agreements in our review of monitoring activities  We interviewed officials from State, USAID, HHS, and USDA to discuss instances in which the agency did not have full documentation of key monitoring activities  We also discussed how State, USAID, and HHS agency officials manage their agreement documentation and use the information in the agreements’ required monitoring documentation  We conducted this performance audit from July 2016 to December 2017 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  The Organization of American States (OAS), Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA), and the Pan-American Institute on Geography and History (PAIGH) have established mechanisms for overseeing their use of funds  Tables 15–18 show the mechanisms (oversight policies and oversight committees and organizations) for each of these inter-American organizations, as confirmed by the organizations’ officials  To oversee the execution of their agreements, the Department of State (State), the U S  Agency for International Development (USAID), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and U S  Department of Agriculture (USDA) are to conduct monitoring activities called for by applicable federal regulations or agency guidance and document these provisions in assistance agreements as called for by federal standards for internal control  We identified key monitoring provisions implementing the applicable agency guidance for State, USAID, HHS, and the applicable regulations for USDA, as shown in table 19  For both the agency guidance and the federal regulations, those listed are the ones that were in effect when the agreements in our sample were approved  Some of the agency guidance and regulations have since been amended or superseded  In addition to the contact named above, Pierre Toureille (Assistant Director), Julia Jebo Grant (Analyst-in-Charge), Leslie Stubbs, and Paul Sturm, Alana Miller, and Shirley Min made key contributions to this report  In addition, David Dayton, Martin de Alteriis, Neil Doherty, Jeff Isaacs, and Alex Welsh provided technical assistance 


Report 2: The Small Business Administration (SBA) currently administers several types of programs to support small businesses, including loan guaranty and venture capital programs to enhance small businesses' access to capital; contracting programs to increase small businesses' opportunities in federal contracting; direct loan programs for businesses, homeowners, and renters to aid in their recovery from natural disasters; and small business management and technical assistance training programs to assist in business formation and expansion  Congressional interest in these programs has increased in recent years, primarily because small businesses are viewed as a means to stimulate economic activity and create jobs  Many Members of Congress also regularly receive constituent inquiries about the SBA's programs  This report examines appropriations for the SBA (new budget authority, minus rescissions and sequestration) over time, focusing on developments and trends since FY2000  This report also provides total available funding (which includes carryover from the prior fiscal year, carryover into the next fiscal year, account transfers, rescissions, and sequestration) and, for comparative purposes, actual and anticipated expenditures for the SBA's entrepreneurial development noncredit programs  SBA appropriations, as a whole, have varied significantly from year to year since FY2000 and across all three major SBA spending categories: appropriations for disaster assistance, business loan credit subsidies, and "other programs," a spending category that includes appropriations for salaries and expenses, business loan administration, the Office of Inspector General, the Office of Advocacy, and entrepreneurial development noncredit programs  The variation in appropriations for disaster assistance since FY2000 is largely due to supplemental appropriations provided to address disaster needs arising from the impact of major hurricanes  Business loan credit subsidies represent the net present value of cash flows to and from the SBA over the life of the agency's loan portfolios  For guaranteed loans, the net present value of cash flows is affected by several factors, but it is primarily the difference between the cost of purchasing loans that have defaulted and the revenue generated from fees and collateral liquidation  For direct (Microloan) lending, it is primarily the cost of offering below-market interest rates to Microloan intermediaries  The variation in appropriations for SBA business loan credit subsidies since FY2000 is primarily due to the impact of changing economic conditions on the SBA's guaranteed loan portfolios  During good economic times, revenue from SBA fees and collateral liquidation is typically sufficient to cover the SBA's cost of purchasing guaranteed loans that have defaulted  During and immediately following economic slowdowns, however, revenue from SBA fees and collateral liquidation is typically insufficient to cover the SBA's cost of purchasing guaranteed loans that have defaulted  The shortfall occurs because the SBA's cost of purchasing guaranteed loans tends to increase when the economy slows (primarily because guaranteed loans are more likely to default during and immediately following recessions) and revenue from loan liquidation tends to be constrained during slow economic times (primarily because commercial real estate values typically fall during and immediately following recessions)  As a result, additional appropriations are needed to cover these expenses, which are guaranteed by the "full faith and credit of the United States " Since FY2000, the variation in appropriations for the other programs spending category is attributable primarily to congressional response to changing economic conditions  As the report will discuss, appropriations for this spending category have generally increased at a pace that exceeds inflation  In addition, Congress approved significant, temporary increases in appropriations for SBA programs in the other programs spending category in FY2009 and FY2010  It approved these temporary increases primarily as a means to enhance small businesses' access to capital, which had become constrained during and immediately following the Great Recession (December 2007 to June 2009)  The SBA's appropriations for FY1954 through FY1999 are provided in the Appendix   As shown in Table 1 , the SBA's appropriations have varied significantly since FY2000, ranging from a high of $2 359 billion in FY2018 to a low of $571 8 million in FY2007  Much of this volatility is due to significant variation in appropriations for disaster assistance, which ranged from a high of $1 7 billion in FY2006 to a low of $0 in FY2009  This variation is attributable primarily to supplemental appropriations provided to address disaster needs arising from the impact of major hurricanes, such as Hurricanes Katrina, Sandy, Harvey, Irma, and Maria  In addition, as shown in Table 1 , appropriations for business loan credit subsidies have varied significantly since FY2000, ranging from a high of $319 7 million in FY2013 ($337 3 million before sequestration and rescission) to a low of $1 3 million in FY2006 and FY2007  As mentioned previously, the variation in appropriations for business loan credit subsidies results primarily from the impact of changing economic conditions on the SBA's loan portfolios  During good economic times, revenue from fees and collateral liquidation is typically sufficient to cover the costs of purchasing defaulted loans  During and immediately following recessions, revenue from fees and collateral liquidation is typically not sufficient to cover those costs  As shown in Table 1 , appropriations for the all other programs category have also varied since FY2000, ranging from a high of $1 6253 billion in FY2010 to a low of $455 6 million in FY2007  Much of this variation resulted from significant, temporary increases in appropriations for the SBA's other programs in FY2009 ($724 0 million) and FY2010 ($962 5 million)  These additional appropriations were approved primarily as a means to enhance small businesses' access to capital, which had become constrained during and immediately following the Great Recession  As mentioned previously, from FY2000 to FY2019, appropriations for the SBA's other programs spending category, as a whole, have exceeded the rate of inflation  For comparative purposes, Table 1 also presents the SBA's total available funds  As indicated in the table, the SBA's carryovers and account transfers tend to reduce variation in its budget from one fiscal year to the next  Much of this "evening out" process is due to disaster assistance appropriations, which are provided in one fiscal year and then typically spent over several fiscal years  The following section examines appropriations and total available funding for FY2000-FY2019 for the five main components of the SBA's other programs spending category: (1) salaries and expenses, (2) business loan administration, (3) the Office of Inspector General (OIG), (4) the Office of Advocacy (Advocacy), and (5) entrepreneurial development (ED) noncredit programs  The SBA's salaries and expenses account currently provides funding for the following: office operating budgets, which are used by program and administrative offices for daily operations, such as travel, supplies, and contracted services; agency-wide costs, such as rent and telecommunications, which are managed centrally; employee compensation and benefits, which are also managed centrally; and reimbursable expenses for programs for which the SBA receives reimbursable budget authority from other federal government agencies  Several adjustments were made to the SBA's reported appropriations for its salaries and expenses account to enable meaningful comparisons over time  For example, prior to FY2014, appropriations for the SBA's ED programs were included in the salaries and expenses account  They now have their own, separate appropriations account  Therefore, to allow for meaningful comparisons with current appropriations, Table 2 lists and deducts the reported appropriations for ED programs prior to FY2014 from the reported appropriations for salaries and expenses  In addition, the SBA previously included appropriations for congressional initiatives (earmarks) under the salaries and expenses account  Therefore, to allow for meaningful comparisons with current appropriations and focus the comparison on administrative expenses, appropriations for earmarks are deducted from the reported appropriations for salaries and expenses  Prior to FY2012, Advocacy was funded through the salaries and expenses' executive direction subaccount  Advocacy now has its own, separate appropriations account  To allow for meaningful comparisons with current appropriations, Table 2 lists Advocacy's funding provided through the salaries and expenses' executive direction subaccount prior to FY2012 and deducts that amount from the reported appropriation s for salaries and expenses   As discussed in greater detail below (see "Office of Advocacy"), data concerning Advocacy's funding provided through the salaries and expenses' executive direction subaccount are not available for FY2006-FY2010  However, in FY2003, FY2004, and FY2005, Advocacy's funding provided through the salaries and expenses' executive direction subaccount was 79% of its reported total cost  The estimates provided in the table for FY2006-FY2010 were derived by multiplying Advocacy's total program cost reported for each of those fiscal years by 79%  As shown in Table 2 , the SBA's appropriations for salaries and expenses have varied from year to year, with increases in some years and decreases in others  Overall, appropriations for the SBA's salaries and expenses have increased from $176 490 million in FY2000 to $267 500 million in FY2019  This increase has exceeded the rate of inflation  The SBA has statutory authorization to transfer appropriations from the business loan administration account into the salaries and expenses account  As evidenced by the amounts listed in the total available funds column in the table, the SBA exercised that authority in every fiscal year from FY2000 to FY2018 (and is expected to do so again in FY2019), transferring the entire appropriation for business loan administration into the salaries and expenses account in each of those fiscal years  Appropriations for the SBA's business loan administration account have varied since FY2000, increasing in some years and decreasing in others (see Table 3 )  Overall, appropriations for SBA business loan administration increased from $129 million in FY2000 to $155 150 million in FY2019  The program's recommended appropriations have not kept pace with inflation  As evidenced by the $0 0 balance in the total funds available column for the business loan administration account, the SBA has routinely transferred all business loan administration appropriations to the salaries and expenses account  The combined appropriations for SBA salaries and expenses and business loan administration increased from $305 490 million in FY2000 to $422 650 million in FY2019  This increase has not kept pace with inflation  According to the SBA, the OIG's mission is to "provide independent, objective oversight to improve the integrity, accountability, and performance of the SBA and its programs for the benefit of the American people " The office was created within the SBA by the Inspector General Act of 1978 ( P L  95-452 , as amended)  The inspector general, who is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, directs the office  The Inspector General Act provides the OIG with the following responsibilities: promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in the management of SBA programs and supporting operations; conduct and supervise audits, investigations, and reviews relating to the SBA's programs and support operations; detect and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse; review existing and proposed legislation and regulations and make appropriate recommendations; maintain effective working relationships with other governmental agencies and nongovernmental entities regarding the inspector general's mandated duties; keep the SBA administrator and Congress informed of serious problems and recommend corrective actions and implementation measures; comply with the comptroller general's audit standards; avoid duplication of Government Accountability Office activities; and report violations of federal criminal law to the U S  attorney general  As shown in Table 4 , the OIG's appropriations have increased from $11 405 million in FY2000 to $21 900 million in FY2019  This increase has exceeded the rate of inflation  The OIG typically receives a transfer of appropriations from the disaster assistance account for auditing expenses  It was also provided additional appropriations in FY2006, FY2013, and FY2018 for expenses related to the review of SBA disaster loans following major hurricanes (e g , Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma in 2005, Hurricane Sandy in 2012, and Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria in 2018) and in FY2009 to conduct reviews and audits of $730 million provided to the SBA by P L  111-5 , the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009  The SBA indicates that its Office of Advocacy is "an independent voice for small business within the federal government " The chief counsel for Advocacy, who is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, directs the office  Advocacy's mission is to "encourage policies that support the development and growth of American small businesses" by intervening early in federal agencies' regulatory development processes on proposals that affect small businesses and providing Regulatory Flexibility Act compliance training to federal agency policymakers and regulatory development officials; producing research to inform policymakers and other stakeholders on the impact of federal regulatory burdens on small businesses, document the vital role of small businesses in the economy, and explore and explain the wide variety of issues of concern to the small business community; and fostering two-way communication between federal agencies and the small business community  As shown in Table 5 , Advocacy's funding has increased from $5 620 million in FY2000 to $9 120 million in FY2019  This increase has exceeded the rate of inflation  P L  111-240 , the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, enhanced Advocacy's independence by ending the practice of funding Advocacy through the SBA's salaries and expenses' executive direction subaccount  Instead, P L  111-240 requires the President to provide a separate statement of the appropriations request for Advocacy, "which shall be designated in a separate account in the General Fund of the Treasury " The act also requires the SBA administrator to provide Advocacy with "appropriate and adequate office space at central and field office locations, together with such equipment, operating budget, and communications facilities and services as may be necessary, and     necessary maintenance services for such offices and the equipment and facilities located in such offices " In addition, Congress has provided Advocacy its own, separate appropriations amount since FY2012  As mentioned previously, prior to FY2012, the SBA reported Advocacy's total program cost, which includes funding provided through the salaries and expenses' executive direction subaccount, agency-wide overhead costs (rent, telecommunications, etc ), and other support costs (e g , management and administrative support, including human resources support)  From FY2000 to FY2005, the SBA provided relatively detailed information concerning Advocacy's budget, including the amount of funding Advocacy received through the salaries and expenses' executive direction subaccount  Also, Advocacy's FY2013 congressional budget justification document included the amount of funding Advocacy received through the salaries and expenses' executive direction subaccount in FY2011  However, those data are not available for FY2006-FY2010, and it was therefore necessary to estimate Advocacy's funding from the salaries and expenses' executive direction subaccount for those years  The estimates provided in the table were derived by multiplying Advocacy's total program cost for each of those fiscal years by 79%, which was the proportion of Advocacy's total program costs provided from the salaries and expenses' executive direction subaccount in FY2003, FY2004, and FY2005  The SBA's entrepreneurial development (ED) noncredit programs provide a variety of management and training services to small businesses  Congress provides appropriations for eight management and technical assistance training programs: Small Business Development Centers, the Microloan Technical Assistance Program, Women Business Centers, SCORE, the Program for Investment in Microentrepreneurs (PRIME), Veterans Programs (including Veterans Business Outreach Centers, Boots to Business, Boots to Business: Reboot, Veteran Women Igniting the Spirit of Entrepreneurship [VWISE], and Entrepreneurship Bootcamp for Veterans with Disabilities), the 7(j) Technical Assistance Program, and the Native American Outreach Program; two relatively long-standing nontraining programs: the National Women's Business Council and HUBZone administration; three initiatives: the Entrepreneurial Development Initiative (Clusters), the Entrepreneurship Education Initiative, and Growth Accelerators; and the Step Trade and Export Promotion (STEP) Pilot Grant program  Initially, the SBA provided its own management and technical assistance training programs  Over time, however, the SBA has increasingly relied on third parties to provide that training  The SBA reports that more than 1 million aspiring entrepreneurs and small business owners receive training from an SBA-supported resource partner each year  Congress specifies appropriations in appropriations acts for the Small Business Development Center (SBDC) program, the Microloan Technical Assistance program, and the STEP program

ground_truth: The United States is a member of the OAS, PAHO, IICA, and PAIGH, which promote democracy, health care, agricultural development, and scientific exchange. GAO was asked to review U.S. assistance to these four organizations. In this report, GAO (1) assesses the extent to which the organizations' strategic goals align with those of U.S. agencies; (2) examines how the organizations oversee the use of their funds and the extent to which U.S. agencies have supported those efforts; (3) assesses the extent to which U.S. agencies included key monitoring provisions as part of assistance agreements; and (4) assesses the extent to which U.S. agencies had documentation of monitoring activities, including those called for by these provisions. GAO analyzed documents and interviewed officials from State, USAID, HHS, USDA, and the organizations. GAO also analyzed a nongeneralizable sample of 12 of the 60 assistance agreements that were awarded by State, USAID, HHS, and USDA to OAS, PAHO, and IICA and were active during calendar years 2014 through 2016. For each agency, GAO selected three agreements with the lowest, median, and highest dollar value. GAO found that strategic goals of the Organization of American States (OAS), the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA), and the Pan-American Institute of Geography and History (PAIGH) are predominantly aligned with the strategic goals of the Department of State (State), the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). For example, IICA's strategic goals of a productive agricultural sector, enhancing agricultural development, and food security are aligned with USDA's foreign assistance goals. State, USAID, HHS, and USDA fund activities in the form of assistance agreements (e.g., grants and cooperative agreements) with OAS, PAHO, and IICA, which in 2016 totaled $32 million. According to agency officials, the agencies employ mechanisms to ensure that these agreements align with U.S. strategic goals. OAS, PAHO, IICA, and PAIGH have established mechanisms for overseeing their use of funds, such as external auditors, internal audit boards, and anti-fraud and ethics policies. State and USDA have directly supported these mechanisms. For example, State engaged in the selection process for OAS's Inspector General. GAO's review of 12 selected assistance agreements found that USDA included no financial or performance monitoring provisions in one of its agreements and that State did not include two key monitoring provisions in one of its agreements, called for by applicable guidance. GAO found that the remaining 10 agreements it reviewed contained all key monitoring provisions and that State has since taken corrective action. GAO found that U.S. agencies did not have full documentation of 18 of the 42 monitoring activities required by the 12 assistance agreements GAO reviewed (see table). For example, USDA did not have full documentation, such as for financial reports, of any of its 10 required monitoring activities and USDA officials did not explain their lack of documentation. USAID officials explained that their lack of full documentation was due, in part, to grant officers not always following their document management policies. State and HHS have since taken corrective action. If an agency does not have full documentation of monitoring activities, it may lack information needed to make appropriate budgetary and programmatic decisions. GAO recommends that (1) USDA ensure inclusion of all monitoring provisions as part of agreements and (2) USAID and USDA ensure full documentation of monitoring activities. USDA and USAID concurred with GAO's recommendations.

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



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



Report 2:  Congress provides an overall appropriation for the SBA's ED programs and recommends appropriations for the SBA's other ED programs, typically in the conference agreement or "Explanatory Statement" accompanying the appropriations act  As a result, the following tables refer to appropriations for the SBDC and Microloan Technical Assistance programs and recommended appropriations for other ED programs  Although not legally binding, the SBA has traditionally adhered to these recommended funding amounts  SBDCs provide free or low-cost assistance to small businesses using programs customized to local conditions  SBDCs support small business in marketing and business strategy, finance, technology transfer, government contracting, management, manufacturing, engineering, sales, accounting, exporting, and other topics  They are funded by grants from the SBA and matching funds  There are 63 lead SBDC service centers, at least one in each state (with four in Texas and six in California), the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa  These lead SBDC service centers manage more than 900 SBDC outreach locations  As shown in Table 6 , appropriations for SBDCs have increased from $84 179 million in FY2000 to $131 000 million in FY2019  This increase has exceeded the rate of inflation  In addition, as shown in the table, SBDCs received an additional $50 million in temporary funding in FY2010, which was spent over two fiscal years  The SBA reports actual and anticipated expenditures for its ED programs in its annual budget justification document  SBDC expenditures in FY2000-FY2018 and anticipated SBDC expenditures in FY2019 are presented in the table's last column for comparative purposes  The SBA's Microloan lending program is designed to address the perceived disadvantages faced by women, low-income, veteran, and minority entrepreneurs and business owners in gaining access to capital for starting or expanding their business (see P L  102-140 , the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1992)  Under the Microloan program, the SBA provides direct loans to qualified nonprofit intermediary Microloan lenders who, in turn, provide "microloans" of up to $50,000 to small business owners, entrepreneurs, and nonprofit child care centers  The SBA's Microloan Technical Assistance program is part of the SBA's Microloan program but receives a separate appropriation  It provides grants to Microloan intermediaries to offer management and technical training assistance to Microloan program borrowers and prospective borrowers  There are currently 147 active Microloan intermediaries, serving 49 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico  As shown in Table 7 , the Microloan Technical Assistance program's appropriations have varied over the years  Overall, Microloan Technical Assistance Program appropriations have increased from $23 112 million in FY2000 to $31 000 million in FY2019  This increase has been less than the rate of inflation  Microloan Technical Assistance expenditures in FY2000-FY2018 and anticipated Microloan Technical Assistance expenditures in FY2019 are presented in the table's last column for comparative purposes  Women Business Centers (WBCs) provide financial, management, and marketing assistance to small businesses, including start-up businesses, owned and controlled by women  Since its inception, the program has targeted the needs of socially and economically disadvantaged women (see P L  100-533 , the Women's Business Ownership Act of 1988)  Currently, there are 121 WBCs located throughout most of the United States and the territories  As shown in Table 8 , WBC's recommended appropriations have increased from $8 966 million in FY2000 to $18 500 million in FY2019  This increase has exceeded the rate of inflation  WBC expenditures in FY2000-FY2018 and anticipated WBC expenditures in FY2019 are presented in the table's last column for comparative purposes  The SBA provides financial assistance to SCORE (formerly the Service Corps of Retired Executives) to provide in-person mentoring and online training to small business owners and prospective owners  SCORE's 320 chapters and more than 800 branch offices are located throughout the United States and partner with more than 11,000 volunteer counselors, who are working or retired business owners, executives and corporate leaders, to provide management and training assistance to small businesses "at no charge or at very low cost " As shown in Table 9 , SCORE's recommended appropriations have increased from $3 487 million in FY2000 to $11 700 in FY2019  This increase has exceeded the rate of inflation  SCORE expenditures in FY2000-FY2018 and anticipated SCORE expenditures in FY2019 are presented in the table's last column for comparative purposes  The Program for Investment in Microentrepreneurs (PRIME) provides grants to nonprofit microenterprise development organizations or programs that have "a demonstrated record of delivering microenterprise services to disadvantaged entrepreneurs; an intermediary; a microenterprise development organization or program that is accountable to a local community, working in conjunction with a state or local government or Indian tribe; or an Indian tribe acting on its own, if the Indian tribe can certify that no private organization or program referred to in this paragraph exists within its jurisdiction " As shown in Table 10 , PRIME's recommended appropriations have varied, starting at $14 964 million in FY2001 (the program's first recommended appropriation) and falling to $2 million in FY2006 and FY2007  PRIME has received $5 0 million since FY2015  PRIME expenditures in FY2001-FY2018 and anticipated PRIME expenditures in FY2019 are presented in the table's last column for comparative purposes  The Obama Administration argued that PRIME overlaps and duplicates the SBA's Microloan Technical Assistance program and recommended in its FY2012-FY2017 budget requests that PRIME receive no appropriations  As shown in the table, in FY2013, the Obama Administration eliminated PRIME's appropriation as part of the SBA's sequestration process  The Trump Administration recommended in its FY2018 and FY2019 budget requests that the PRIME program receive no appropriations  The SBA's Office of Veterans Business Development (OVBD) administers several management and training programs to assist veteran-owned businesses, including the Entrepreneurship Bootcamp for Veterans with Disabilities Consortium of Universities, which provides "experiential training in entrepreneurship and small business management to post-9/11 veterans with disabilities" at eight universities; the Veteran Women Igniting the Spirit of Entrepreneurship (V-WISE) program, which is administered through a cooperative agreement with Syracuse University, offers women veterans a 15-day, online course focused on entrepreneurship skills and the "language of business," followed by a 3-day conference (offered twice a year at varying locations) in which participants "are exposed to successful entrepreneurs and CEOs of Fortune 500 companies and leaders in government" and participate in courses on business planning, marketing, accounting and finance, operations and production, human resources, and work-life balance; the Operation Endure and Grow Program, which is administered through a cooperative agreement with Syracuse University, offers an eight-week online training program "focused on the fundamentals of launching and/or growing a small business" and is available to National Guard and reservists and their family members; the Boots to Business program (started in 2012), which is "an elective track within the Department of Defense's revised Training Assistance Program called Transition Goals, Plans, Success (Transition GPS) and has three parts: the Entrepreneurship Track Overview—a 10-minute introductory video shown during the mandatory five-day Transition GPS course which introduces entrepreneurship as a post-service career option; Introduction to Entrepreneurship—a two-day classroom course on entrepreneurship and business fundamentals offered as one of the three Transition GPS elective tracks; and Foundations of Entrepreneurship—an eight-week, instructor-led online course that offers in-depth instruction on the elements of a business plan and tips and techniques for starting a business"; the Boots to Business Reboot program (started in 2014), which assists veterans who have already transitioned to civilian life; and the Veterans Business Outreach Centers (VBOC) program, which provides veterans and their spouses management and technical assistance training at 15 locations, including assistance with the Boots to Business program, the development and maintenance of a five-year business plan, and referrals to other SBA resource partners when appropriate for additional training or mentoring services  Prior to FY2016, Congress recommended appropriations for VBOCs and, in FY2014 and FY2015, for the Boots to Business initiative ($7 0 million in FY2014 and $7 5 million in FY2015)  Funding for the OVBD's other veterans assistance programs were provided through the SBA's salaries and expenses account  Starting in FY2016, Congress has recommended appropriations for OVBD's programs as a whole: $12 3 million in FY2016, FY2017, and FY2018, and $12 7 million in FY2019  This increase has not kept pace with inflation  OVBD expenditures in FY2015-FY2018 and anticipated OVBD expenditures in FY2019 are presented in the table's last column for comparative purposes  Recommended appropriations for VBOCs from FY2000-FY2015 are presented in Table 12 for historical comparisons  As the data indicate, recommended appropriations for VBOCs increased from $0 613 million in FY2000 to $3 000 million in FY2015  This increase has exceeded the rate of inflation  OVBD expenditures in FY2000-FY2015 are presented in the table's last column for comparative purposes  The SBA's 7(j) Technical Assistance Program provides "a wide variety of management and technical assistance to eligible individuals or concerns to meet their specific needs, including: (a) counseling and training in the areas of financing, management, accounting, bookkeeping, marketing, and operation of small business concerns; and (b) the identification and development of new business opportunities " Eligible individuals and businesses include "8(a) certified firms, small disadvantaged businesses, businesses operating in areas of high unemployment, or low income or firms owned by low income individuals " As shown in Table 13 , recommended appropriations for the 7(j) Technical Assistance Program have varied since FY2000, with increases in some years and decreases in others  Overall, the SBA's 7(j) Technical Assistance Program's recommended appropriations have decreased from $3 584 million in FY2000 to $2 800 million in FY2019  7(j) Technical Assistance Program expenditures in FY2000-FY2018 and anticipated 7(j) Technical Assistance Program expenditures in FY2019 are presented in the table's last column for comparative purposes  The SBA's Native American Outreach (NAO) program provides management and technical educational assistance to American Indians, Alaska natives, native Hawaiians, and "the indigenous people of Guam and American Samoa … to promote entity-owned and individual 8(a) certification, government contracting, entrepreneurial education, and capital access " The program's management and technical assistance services are available to members of these groups living in most areas of the nation  As shown in Table 14 , the NAO program's recommended appropriations have varied somewhat since FY2003 (the first year it received recommended appropriations), ranging from $1 0 million to $2 0 million  The program's recommended appropriations have not kept pace with inflation  NAO program expenditures in FY2003-FY2018 and anticipated NAO expenditures in FY2019 are presented in the table's last column for comparative purposes  The National Women's Business Council (NWBC) is a bipartisan federal advisory council created to serve as an independent source of advice and counsel to the President, Congress, and the SBA on economic issues of importance to women business owners  The council's mission "is to promote bold initiatives, policies, and programs designed to support women's business enterprises at all stages of development in the public and private sector marketplaces—from start-up to success to significance " As shown in Table 15 , the recommended appropriation for the NWBC has increased from $0 598 million in FY2000 to $1 500 million in FY2019  This increase has exceeded the rate of inflation  NWBC expenditures in FY2000-FY2018 and NWBC anticipated expenditures in FY2019 are presented in the table's last column for comparative purposes  The HUBZone program helps small businesses located in designated Historically Underutilized Business Zones (HUBZones) to compete for federal contracts  Federal agencies may award contracts directly to HUBZone-certified small businesses through a sole-source contract, limit contact competitions to HUBZone-certified firms through a contract set-aside, or provide HUBZone-certified firms a price evaluation preference in full and open competitions  The HUBZone program was initially funded through the SBA's salary and expenses account  As shown in Table 16 , Congress started recommending an appropriation for the program in FY2004  This recommended appropriation remained relatively stable until FY2015, when it increased to $3 0 million  With this increase, the HUBZone program's recommended appropriations have exceeded inflation  The HUBZone program's expenditures in FY2000-FY2018 and the HUBZone program's anticipated expenditures in FY2019 are presented in the table's last column for comparative purposes  The SBA reports that "regional innovation clusters are on-the-ground collaborations between business, research, education, financing and government institutions that work to develop and grow a particular industry or related set of industries in a particular geographic region " The SBA has supported regional innovative clusters since FY2009, and the initiative has received recommended appropriations from Congress since FY2010  As shown in Table 17 , funding for the Entrepreneurial Development Initiative (Regional Innovation Clusters) has been reduced from a recommended appropriation of $10 0 million in FY2010 to $5 0 million in FY2019  The table's last column indicates that the SBA's expenditures for the initiative have often been less than the amount appropriated  The Trump Administration recommended in its FY2018 and FY2019 budget requests that the Entrepreneurial Development Initiative receive no appropriations  The SBA's Entrepreneurship Education initiative offers high‐growth small businesses in underserved communities "a seven‐month executive leader education series" consisting of "more than 100 hours of specialized training, technical resources, a professional networking system, and other resources to strengthen their business model and promote economic development within urban communities " At the conclusion of the training, "participants produce a three‐year strategic growth action plan with benchmarks and performance targets that help them access the necessary support and resources to move forward for the next stage of business growth " As shown in Table 18 , the Entrepreneurship Education initiative received its first recommended appropriation from Congress in FY2014 ($5 0 million), $7 0 million in FY2015, $10 0 million in FY2016, FY2017, and FY2018, and $3 5 million in FY2019  The SBA describes growth accelerators as "organizations that help entrepreneurs start and scale their businesses " Growth accelerators are typically run by experienced entrepreneurs and help small businesses access seed capital and mentors  The SBA claims that growth accelerators "help accelerate a startup company's path towards success with targeted advice on revenue growth, employee growth, sourcing outside funding and avoiding pitfalls " As shown in Table 19 , the Growth Accelerator initiative received its first recommended appropriation from Congress in FY2014 ($2 5 million), $4 0 million in FY2015, $1 0 million in FY2016, FY2017, and FY2018, and $2 million in FY2019  It provides $50,000 matching grants each year to universities and private sector accelerators "to support the development of accelerators and their support of startups in parts of the country where there are fewer conventional sources of access to capital (i e , venture capital and other investors) " The Trump Administration recommended in its FY2018 and FY2019 budget requests that the Growth Accelerator Initiative receive no appropriations 
Report 2:  This longer time frame is required because the estimated contribution rate increases as the projection horizon increases and eventually converges to a steady state  If the projection period is of insufficient length, the steady-state level of contribution is not attained, and the necessary contribution rate is understated  We simulated variables used to estimate the pension contribution rate using the approach summarized in table 3  This approach is similar to the approach we have used in prior model updates  Future growth in the number of state and local government retirees— many of whom will be entitled to pension and health care benefits—is largely driven by the size of the workforce in earlier years  We simulated the number of state and local government retirees by assuming that the growth rate in the number of retirees is a weighted average of the growth rates in lagged general government and government enterprise employment  We estimated the weights using a regression of the percent change in the number of retirees on the percent change in employment 1, 6, 11, 16, 21, 26, 31, 36, and 41 years in the past  The coefficients on the past percentage changes in employment were constrained to be non- negative and to sum to 1  For this regression, we removed cyclical swings in employment using the Hodrick-Prescott filter  Similarly, future changes in the real amount of pension benefits will be a function of past changes in real wages and salaries  As indicated in table 3, we used a weighted average of past values of the state and local government employment cost index to simulate the employment cost index for state and local government retirees  We chose the weights to reflect changes in the share and average real benefit level of three subsets of the retiree population over time: (1) new retirees entering the beneficiary pool, (2) deceased retirees leaving the pool, and (3) continuing retirees from the previous year  We simulated the weight for new retirees in a year as the number of retirees less the number of continuing retirees divided by the number of retirees  We simulated the weight for deceased retirees as the mortality rate multiplied by last year’s retirees divided by this year’s retirees  We simulated the weight for continuing retirees as last year’s retirees divided by this year’s retirees  Finally, we simulated the employment cost index for state and local government retirees as the sum of the weight on new retirees multiplied by the state and local government employment cost index and the weight on continuing retirees multiplied by the state and local government employment cost index 8 years prior, less the weight on deceased retirees multiplied by the state and local government employment cost index 21 years prior  As discussed above, we started with historical data for 2017, or the most recent year available, simulated all of the variables in table 3 over the long run, and then used the consumer price index (CPI) and the real return on pension assets to calculate the total present value of wages and salaries for state and local government general government and government enterprise employees, the total present value of real pension benefits paid to state and local government retirees, and the total present value of state and local government employees’ pension contributions  Then, we calculated the total present value of state and local governments’ pension liabilities as the total present value of real pension benefits paid to state and local government retirees less the total present value of state and local government employees’ pension contributions, and the value of assets in state and local government defined benefit pension funds in 2017  Finally, we estimated state and local governments’ pension contribution rate as the ratio of the total present value of their pension liabilities to the total present value of wages and salaries for state and local government employees  Table 4 summarizes the approach we used to simulate interest rates on state and local government financial assets and liabilities  This approach is similar to the approach we have used in prior model updates  Table 5 summarizes our approach to simulating state and local government receipts  This approach is similar to the approach we have used in prior model updates  These variables track state and local government receipts in table 1 above as follows: State and local government personal income tax revenue is the sum of state personal income tax revenue and local personal income tax revenue; State and local government personal tax revenue is the sum of personal income tax revenue and other personal tax revenue; State and local government revenue from taxes on production and imports is the sum of general sales tax revenue, excise tax revenue, property tax revenue, and revenue from other taxes on production and imports; State and local government current tax revenue is the sum of personal tax revenue, revenue from taxes on production and imports, and corporate income tax revenue; State and local government current transfer receipts are equal to federal Medicaid grants minus Medicare Part D payments to the federal government, plus other federal grants (excluding investment grants), transfer receipts from businesses, and transfer receipts from persons; State and local government current receipts are the sum of current tax revenue, current transfer receipts, income on assets, social insurance contributions, and government enterprise surplus; State and local government capital transfer receipts are the sum of federal investment grants and estate and gift tax revenue; and State and local government total receipts are the sum of current receipts and capital transfer receipts  Our general approach to simulating state and local government expenditures is to assume that state and local governments maintain the current level of public goods and services provision per capita (see table 6)  Thus, we generally assume that expenditures keep up with U S  population growth and some measure of inflation, where the relevant rate of inflation varies depending on the specific type of expenditure  However, we use alternative approaches—described below—to simulate depreciation, interest payments, and social benefits for health care  This approach is similar to the approach we have used in prior model updates  These variables correspond to state and local government expenditures in table 1 as follows: Employee compensation is the sum of wages and salaries, pension contributions, health benefits for current employees, health benefits for retirees, and other compensation, for state and local government general government employees  Consumption expenditures are the sum of employee compensation, general government fixed capital consumption, and other general government consumption expenditures  Social benefit payments are the sum of Medicaid benefits, non- Medicaid health benefits, and non-health social benefits  Current expenditures are the sum of consumption expenditures, social benefit payments, interest payments, and subsidy payments  Total expenditures are the sum of current expenditures, gross investment, capital transfer payments, and purchases of nonproduced assets, minus general government and government enterprise fixed capital consumption  Table 7 summarizes our approach for simulating state and local government financial assets and liabilities  This approach is similar to the approach we have used in prior model updates  Our method for simulating the sectors’ short-term debt outstanding leverages the fact that for any entity, there is a direct relationship between budget outcomes and changes in financial position  Specifically, if expenditures exceed receipts, the gap needs to be financed by some combination of changes in financial assets and changes in financial liabilities  If governments spend more than they take in, they must pay for it by issuing debt, cashing in assets, or some combination of the two  Conversely, if receipts exceed expenditures and the sector is a net lender, its net financial investment (the net change in financial assets minus the net change in financial liabilities) must equal the budget surplus  The relationship between budget outcomes and the sector’s financial position is shown in the following accounting identity: total receipts – total expenditures = change in financial assets – change in financial liabilities  The sector’s financial liabilities include short-, medium-, and long-term debt; trade payables; and loans from the federal government, so the accounting identity can be rewritten as follows: total receipts – total expenditures = change in financial assets – change in medium- and long-term debt – change in trade payables – change in federal government loans – change in short term debt  For a given difference between total receipts and total expenditures, various combinations of changes in financial assets and changes in financial liabilities can satisfy this identity  However, we assumed that financial assets grow at the same rate as U S  GDP, that medium- and long-term debt outstanding is determined using the historical relationship described in table 7, that federal government loans to state and local governments are determined using the historical relationship described in table 7, and that trade payables grow at the same rate as other state and local government consumption spending  If the first four terms on the right hand side of the identity are already determined, then only the fifth term— the change in short-term debt—is free to satisfy this identity  As discussed above, our indicators of fiscal balance are operating balance, net saving, and net lending or borrowing  This approach is similar to the approach we have used in prior model updates  Recall that we defined operating balance as follows: operating balance = total receipts – (gross investment + capital transfer payments + net purchases of nonproduced assets – medium- and long-term debt issuance) – (current expenditures – consumption of general government fixed assets) – current surplus of state and local government enterprises – net social insurance fund balance  By substituting for total receipts and current expenditures using the relationships described above and rearranging terms, we can also calculate operating balance using a formula that more easily identifies its revenue components—the items in the first set of parentheses—and expenditure components—the items in the second set of parentheses: operating balance = (current tax revenues + estate and gift tax revenues + social insurance fund contributions + income receipts from assets + current transfers + federal investment grants + medium- and long-term debt issuance) – (compensation of general government employees + social benefit payments + interest payments + gross investment + capital transfer payments + net purchases of nonproduced assets + other general government consumption expenditures + subsidy payments + net social insurance fund balance)  Some of our simulations are based on estimated historical relationships between pairs of variables: Elasticity of real personal consumption expenditures less food and services with respect to real wages and salaries; Elasticity of the real U S  market value of real estate with respect to Relationship between effective interest rates on financial assets and Relationship between state and local government bond yields and 10- year Treasury rates; Relationship between effective interest rates on long-term state and local government debt and federal government loans and state and local government bond yields; Elasticity of real state personal income tax revenue with respect to Elasticity of real state and local government excise tax revenue with respect to real wages and salaries; Relationship between long-term debt issuance as a fraction of gross investment and nonproduced asset purchases in excess of federal investment grants and the change in state and local government bond yields; and Relationship between real federal government lending to state and local governments and real U S  GDP  To estimate each of these historical relationships, we used the following approach: first, we assessed the order of integration of both variables using unit root tests of the levels and the first differences, where a variable is integrated of order 0 (I(0) or stationary) if we rejected the null hypothesis of a unit root in the levels at standard significance levels, and is integrated of order 1 (I(1) or first-order nonstationary) if we could not reject the null hypothesis of a unit root in the levels but we could do so for the first differences  For relationships between variables that were both stationary, we estimated an autoregressive distributed lag model, where y is the dependent variable, x is the independent variable, and ε is an independent, identically distributed error term  The long-run impact on y of a one unit change in x is given by ∑   We initially chose the number of lags based on the Bayesian Information Criteria and then added additional lags of the dependent variable, if needed, until the residuals were consistent with a white noise process at standard significance levels  For relationships between variables that were both first-order nonstationary, we used the same approach but also used the Pesaran, Shin, and Smith bounds test for the existence of a cointegrating (long-run equilibrium) relationship  We concluded that the variables were cointegrated if we rejected the null hypothesis of no relationship at standard significance levels  Tables 8 and 9 summarize the estimated regression models as well as the results of the unit root, white noise, and cointegration tests  We simulated the model for the 75-year period from 2018 through 2092, and we used the results to calculate the operating balance for the state and local government sector as a percentage of U S  GDP  Our results suggest that if the sector maintains current policy and continues to provide current per capita levels of public goods and services, then its operating balance will decline from about -1 percent of U S  GDP to about -3 percent of U S  GDP over the next 50 years  To shed light on how maintaining the operating balance at or above zero would affect the state and local government sector, we used the model to simulate the level of total expenditures that would keep the operating balance greater than or equal to zero  We then calculated the difference between the present value of total expenditures simulated assuming the sector maintains balance, and the present value of total expenditures simulated assuming the sector maintains current policies, both as a percentage of the present value of total expenditures assuming the sector maintains current policies, and as a percentage of the present value of U S  GDP  We calculated all of the present values for the 50-year period from 2018 through 2067, and we used a discount rate equal to the average of the 3-month Treasury rate and the 10-year Treasury rate for each year  Our results suggest that the difference between the present value of total expenditures that maintain balance and the present value of total expenditures that maintain current policies is about -14 7 percent of the present value of total expenditures that maintain current policies, or about -2 4 percent of the present value of U S  GDP  That is, our simulations suggest that maintaining balance would require the sector to spend about 14 7 percent less than it would spend each year to maintain current policies  We note that a similar exercise based on simulating total revenues required to maintain the operating balance at or above zero would generate a similar result  Our approach has a number of limitations and the results should be interpreted with caution: The state and local government fiscal model is not designed for certain types of analyses  The simulations are not intended to provide precise predictions  Even though we know that these governments regularly make changes to tax laws and expenditures, the model essentially holds current policy in place and analyzes the fiscal future for the sector as if those policies were maintained because it would be highly speculative to make any assumptions about future policy adjustments  Fiscal outcomes, as related to the state and local government sector’s financial position and solvency, may not reflect all aspects of the sector’s fiscal health  Other indicators include economic indicators that go beyond the sector’s financial position to include economic growth, income, or distributional equity, as well as indicators of the quality of services provided by the sector, including education, health care, infrastructure, and other public goods and services  Our unit of analysis is the state and local government sector as a whole, so our results provide an assessment of the sector’s fiscal outlook  However, individual state and local governments likely exhibit significant heterogeneity in their expenditure and revenue patterns, so their fiscal outlooks will likely differ from that for the sector  Nevertheless, it is informative to assess the overall fiscal outlook of the sector because doing so reveals the outlook for the average state or local government  In addition, aggregate data on the sector are available on a more timely basis than data for individual state and local governments  This allows for a better assessment of the sector’s current fiscal outlook  Our results for the sector also provide a baseline from which to view the experiences of individual state and local governments  Finally, assessing the fiscal outlook of the sector as a whole can help mitigate the tendency to extrapolate from the most visible, but potentially not representative, experiences of individual states or localities  Our baseline approach to simulating the fiscal outlook for the state and local government sector is described in appendix I  As part of our simulation approach, we used five variables with values for the simulation period—the period from 2018 through 2092—that are projected outside the model and that do not rely on maintaining historical relationships: U S  population, real U S  gross domestic product (GDP) growth, national health care excess cost growth, Medicaid excess cost growth, and the real rate of return on pension assets  U S  population  For our baseline simulations, we used the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds’ (OASDI Trustees) intermediate population projections  Real U S  GDP  For our baseline simulations, we projected real U S  GDP to grow at the same rate as Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projections for the period from 2018 through 2028 and to grow at the same rate as the OASDI Trustees’ intermediate projections of real U S  GDP growth for the period from 2029 through 2092  National health expenditures excess cost growth  For our baseline simulations, we used Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS) baseline projection of national health expenditures excess cost growth  Medicaid excess cost growth  For our baseline simulations, for the period from 2029 through 2092, we used Medicaid excess cost growth derived from CMS’s baseline projections  Real rate of return on state and local government pension assets  For our baseline simulations, we assumed a 5 percent real rate of return on state and local government pension assets  To assess the sensitivity of our results to changes in these baseline projections, we selected two alternative projections of each of these variables, one associated with a faster growth rate or rate of return and one associated with a slower growth rate or rate of return  U S  population  For our alternative simulations, we used the OASDI Trustees’ high cost and low cost population projections  Real U S  GDP  For our alternative simulations, we used the OASDI Trustees’ high cost and low cost projections of real U S  GDP growth  National health expenditures excess cost growth  For our alternative simulations, we used CMS’s alternative projection of national health expenditures excess cost growth  As another alternative, we simulated the model assuming excess cost growth for national health expenditures is zero  Medicaid excess cost growth  For our alternative simulations, for the period from 2029 through 2092, we used Medicaid excess cost growth derived from CMS’s alternative projections for the period from 2029 through 2092  As another alternative, we simulated the model assuming Medicaid excess cost growth is zero for the period from 2029 through 2092  Real rate of return on state and local government pension assets  For our sensitivity analysis, we used real rates of return of 2 5 percent and 7 5 percent  Table 10 shows the average annual growth rate or rate of return associated with the baseline and alternative projections of each variable for the simulation period  For our simulations based on alternative assumptions about U S  population growth and real U S  GDP growth, as well as simulations based on alternative assumptions about real pension asset returns, we simulated the model changing one variable at a time and leaving the others fixed at their baseline values  For example, for one simulation we used the slower assumption for real U S  GDP growth and the baseline assumptions for all other variables  For our simulations based on alternative assumptions about excess cost growth for national health expenditures and for Medicaid, we changed both variables in the same direction and left the others fixed at their baseline values  For example, for one simulation we used zero excess cost growth for both national health expenditures and for Medicaid, and made the baseline assumption for the other variables  Thus, our sensitivity analysis is in the spirit of a partial equilibrium comparative statics analysis that sheds light on how each of the individual variables may affect the state and local government sector’s fiscal outlook  However, these variables are likely to be correlated so future changes in one would likely be associated with changes in others  State and Local Governments’ Fiscal Outlook: December 2016 Update, GAO-17-213SP  Washington, D C : Dec  8, 2016  State and Local Governments’ Fiscal Outlook: December 2015 Update, GAO-16-260SP  Washington, D C : Dec  16, 2015  State and Local Governments’ Fiscal Outlook: December 2014 Update, GAO-15-224SP  Washington, D C : Dec  17, 2014  State and Local Governments’ Fiscal Outlook: April 2013 Update, GAO-13-546SP  Washington, D C : Apr  29, 2013  State and Local Governments’ Fiscal Outlook: April 2012 Update, GAO-12-523SP  Washington, D C : Apr  5, 2012  State and Local Government Pension Plans: Economic Downturn Spurs Efforts to Address Costs and Sustainability, GAO-12-322  Washington, D C : Mar  2, 2012  State and Local Governments’ Fiscal Outlook: April 2011 Update, GAO-11-495SP  Washington, D C : Apr  6, 2011  State and Local Governments: Knowledge of Past Recessions Can Inform Future Federal Fiscal Assistance, GAO-11-401  Washington, D C : Mar  31, 2011  State and Local Governments: Fiscal Pressures Could Have Implications for Future Delivery of Intergovernmental Programs, GAO-10-899  Washington, D C : July 30, 2010  State and Local Governments’ Fiscal Outlook: March 2010 Update, GAO-10-358  Washington, D C : Mar  2, 2010  Update of State and Local Government Fiscal Pressures, GAO-09-320R  Washington, D C : Jan  26, 2009  State and Local Fiscal Challenges: Rising Health Care Costs Drive Long- term and Immediate Pressures, GAO-09-210T  Washington, D C : Nov  19, 2008  State and Local Governments: Growing Fiscal Challenges Will Emerge during the Next 10 Years, GAO-08-317  Washington, D C : Jan  22, 2008  Our Nation’s Long-Term Fiscal Challenge: State and Local Governments Will Likely Face Persistent Fiscal Challenges in the Next Decade, GAO-07-1113CG  Washington, D C : July 18, 2007  State and Local Governments: Persistent Fiscal Challenges Will Likely Emerge within the Next Decade, GAO-07-1080SP  Washington, D C : July 18, 2007  In addition to the contacts listed above, Brenda Rabinowitz and Courtney LaFountain (Assistant Directors), David Aja, Brett Caloia, Ann Czapiewski, Joe Silvestri, Stewart Small, Andrew J  Stephens, Frank Todisco, Walter Vance, and Chris Woika made significant contributions to this report 

ground_truth: This report examines the Small Business Administration's (SBA's) appropriations (new budget authority, minus rescissions and sequestration) over time, focusing on developments and trends since FY2000. It also provides total available funding (which includes carryover from the prior fiscal year, carryover into the next fiscal year, account transfers, rescissions, and sequestration) and, for entrepreneurial development noncredit programs, actual and anticipated expenditures for comparative purposes. SBA appropriations, as a whole, have varied significantly from year to year since FY2000 and across all three of the agency's major spending categories: disaster assistance, business loan credit subsidies, and "other programs," a category that includes salaries and expenses, business loan administration, the Office of Inspector General, the Office of Advocacy, and entrepreneurial development programs. Overall, the SBA's appropriations have ranged from a high of $2.359 billion in FY2018 to a low of $571.8 million in FY2007. Much of this volatility is due to significant variation in appropriations for disaster assistance, which ranged from a high of $1.7 billion in FY2006 to a low of $0 in FY2009. This variation can be attributed primarily to supplemental appropriations provided to address disaster needs arising from the impact of major hurricanes, such as Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy, and more recently, Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria. The SBA's appropriations for business loan credit subsidies have also varied since FY2000, ranging from a high of $319.7 million in FY2013 ($337.3 million before sequestration and rescission) to a low of $1.3 million in FY2006 and FY2007. This variation is due to the impact of changing economic conditions on the SBA's guaranteed loan portfolios. During good economic times, revenue from SBA fees and collateral liquidation is typically sufficient to cover the costs of purchasing guaranteed loans that have defaulted. During and immediately following recessions, however, that revenue is typically insufficient to cover the costs of purchasing guaranteed loans that have defaulted. The SBA's appropriations for other programs, as a collective, have also varied since FY2000, ranging from a high of $1.6253 billion in FY2010 to a low of $455.6 million in FY2007. This variation is primarily due to congressional response to changing economic conditions. For example, Congress approved significant, temporary increases in appropriations for the SBA's other programs spending category in FY2009 and FY2010. Overall, since FY2000, appropriations for other programs have increased at a pace that exceeds inflation. This report provides appropriations for all five major components of the other programs spending category, including the SBA's entrepreneurial development programs. The SBA's appropriations for FY1954 through FY1999 are provided in the Appendix.