You are given two reports by the government agency.  

Report 1:
The Small Business Administration (SBA) administers programs to support small businesses, including loan guaranty programs to encourage lenders to provide loans to small businesses "that might not otherwise obtain financing on reasonable terms and conditions." The SBA's 7(a) loan guaranty program is considered the agency's flagship loan program. Its name is derived from Section 7(a) of the Small Business Act of 1953 (P.L. 83-163, as amended), which authorizes the SBA to provide and guarantee business loans to American small businesses. The SBA also administers several 7(a) subprograms that offer streamlined and expedited loan procedures for particular groups of borrowers, including the SBAExpress, Export Express, and Community Advantage Pilot programs (see the Appendix for additional details). Although these subprograms have their own distinguishing eligibility requirements, terms, and benefits, they operate under the 7(a) program's authorization. Proceeds from 7(a) loans may be used to establish a new business or to assist in the operation, acquisition, or expansion of an existing business. Specific uses include to acquire land (by purchase or lease); improve a site (e.g., grading, streets, parking lots, and landscaping); purchase, convert, expand, or renovate one or more existing buildings; construct one or more new buildings; acquire (by purchase or lease) and install fixed assets; purchase inventory, supplies, and raw materials; finance working capital; and refinance certain outstanding debts. In FY2018, the SBA approved 60,353 7(a) loans totaling nearly $25.4 billion. The average approved 7(a) loan amount was $420,401. As will be discussed, the total number and amount of SBA 7(a) loans approved (and actually disbursed) declined in FY2008 and FY2009, increased during FY2010 and FY2011, declined somewhat in FY2012, and have increased since then. Historically, one of the justifications presented for funding the SBA's loan guaranty programs has been that small businesses can be at a disadvantage, compared with other businesses, when trying to obtain access to sufficient capital and credit. Congressional interest in the 7(a) loan program has increased in recent years because of concerns that small businesses might be prevented from accessing sufficient capital to enable them to grow and create jobs. Some Members of Congress have argued that the SBA should be provided additional resources to assist small businesses in acquiring capital necessary to start, continue, or expand operations with the expectation that in so doing small businesses will create jobs. Others worry about the long-term adverse economic effects of spending programs that increase the federal deficit. They advocate business tax reduction, reform of financial credit market regulation, and federal fiscal restraint as the best means to help small businesses further economic growth and job creation. This report discusses the rationale provided for the 7(a) program; the program's borrower and lender eligibility standards and program requirements; and program statistics, including loan volume, loss rates, use of the proceeds, borrower satisfaction, and borrower demographics. It also examines issues raised concerning the SBA's administration of the 7(a) program, including the oversight of 7(a) lenders and the program's lack of outcome-based performance measures. This report also surveys congressional and presidential actions taken in recent years to help small businesses gain greater access to capital. For example, during the 111 th Congress P.L. 111-5 , the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), provided the SBA an additional $730 million, including $375 million to temporarily subsidize the 7(a) and 504/Certified Development Companies (504/CDC) loan guaranty programs' fees ($299 million) and to temporarily increase the 7(a) program's maximum loan guaranty percentage to 90% ($76 million). P.L. 111-240 , the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, provided $505 million (plus $5 million for administrative expenses) to extend the fee subsidies and 90% loan guaranty percentage through December 31, 2010; increased the 7(a) program's gross loan limit from $2 million to $5 million; and established an alternative size standard for the 7(a) and 504/CDC loan programs to enable more small businesses to qualify for assistance. P.L. 111-322 , the Continuing Appropriations and Surface Transportation Extensions Act, 2011, authorized the SBA to continue the fee subsidies and the 7(a) program's 90% maximum loan guaranty percentage through March 4, 2011, or until available funding was exhausted (which occurred on January 3, 2011). During the 112 th Congress, several bills were introduced to expand the 7(a) program: S. 1828 , a bill to increase small business lending (and for other purposes), would have reinstated for one year following the date of its enactment the fee subsidies for the 7(a) and 504/CDC loan guaranty programs and the 90% loan guaranty percentage for the 7(a) program, which were originally authorized by ARRA. H.R. 2936 , the Small Business Administration Express Loan Extension Act of 2011, would have extended a one-year increase in the maximum loan amount for the SBAExpress program from $350,000 to $1 million for an additional year. That temporary increase was authorized by P.L. 111-240 and expired on September 27, 2011. S. 532 , the Patriot Express Authorization Act of 2011, would have provided statutory authorization for the Patriot Express Pilot Program and increased its loan guaranty percentages and its maximum loan amount from $500,000 to $1 million. The Patriot Express Pilot Program was subsequently discontinued by the SBA on December 31, 2013. During the 113 th Congress, the SBA waived the up-front, one-time loan guaranty fee and ongoing servicing fee for 7(a) loans of $150,000 or less approved in FY2014 and FY2015 as a means to encourage the demand for smaller 7(a) loans. H.R. 2462 , the Small Business Opportunity Acceleration Act of 2013, would have made the fee waiver for smaller 7(a) loans permanent. waived the up-front, one-time loan guaranty fee for a loan to a veteran or to a veteran's spouse under the SBAExpress program (up to $350,000) from January 1, 2014, through the end of FY2015 (called the SBA Veterans Advantage Program). waived 50% of the up-front, one-time loan guaranty fee on all non-SBAExpress 7(a) loans to veterans of $150,001 up to and including $5 million in FY2015. In addition, P.L. 113-235 , the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, provided statutory authorization for the Veterans Advantage fee waiver in FY2015. During the 114 th Congress, the SBA waived the up-front, one-time loan guaranty fee for 7(a) loans of $150,000 or less approved in FY2016 and FY2017 as a means to encourage the demand for smaller 7(a) loans. waived the annual service fee for 7(a) loans of $150,000 or less approved in FY2016 (increased to 0.546% in FY2017). waived 50% of the up-front, one-time loan guaranty fee on all non-SBAExpress 7(a) loans to veterans of $150,001 to $5 million in FY2016; and 50% of the up-front, one-time loan guaranty fee on all non-SBAExpress 7(a) loans to veterans of $150,001 to $500,000 in FY2017. In addition P.L. 114-38 , the Veterans Entrepreneurship Act of 2015, provided statutory authorization and made permanent the veteran's fee waiver under the SBAExpress program, except during any upcoming fiscal year for which the President's budget, submitted to Congress, includes a cost for the 7(a) program, in its entirety, that is above zero. The SBA waived this fee in FY2016, FY2017, FY2018, and is waiving this fee in FY2019. The act also increased the 7(a) program's FY2015 authorization limit of $18.75 billion (on disbursements) to $23.5 billion. P.L. 114-113 , the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, increased the 7(a) program's authorization limit to $26.5 billion in FY2016. P.L. 114-223 , the Continuing Appropriations and Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017, authorized the SBA to use funds from its business loan program account "to accommodate increased demand for commitments for [7(a)] general business loans" for the duration of the continuing resolution (initially December 9, 2016, later extended by P.L. 114-254 , the Further Continuing and Security Assistance Appropriations Act, 2017, to April 28, 2017). During the 115 th Congress, the SBA waived the up-front, one-time loan guaranty fee for 7(a) loans of $125,000 or less approved in FY2018 as a means to encourage the demand for smaller 7(a) loans. waived 50% of the up-front, one-time loan guaranty fee on all non-SBAExpress 7(a) loans to veterans of $125,001 to $350,000 in FY2018. is waiving the annual service fee for 7(a) loans of $150,000 or less made to small businesses located in a rural area or a HUBZone and reducing the up-front one-time guaranty fee for these loans from 2.0% to 0.6667% of the guaranteed portion of the loan in FY2019. In addition P.L. 115-31 , the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017, increased the 7(a) program's authorization limit to $27.5 billion in FY2017 and P.L. 115-141 , the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, increased the 7(a) program's authorization limit to $29.0 billion in FY2018. P.L. 115-189 , the Small Business 7(a) Lending Oversight Reform Act of 2018, among other provisions, codified the SBA's Office of Credit Risk Management; required that office to annually undertake and report the findings of a risk analysis of the 7(a) program's loan portfolio; created a lender oversight committee within the SBA; authorized the Director of the Office of Credit Risk Management to undertake informal and formal enforcement actions against 7(a) lenders under specified conditions; redefined the credit elsewhere requirement; and authorized the SBA Administrator to increase the amount of 7(a) loans not more than once during any fiscal year to not more than 115% of the 7(a) program's authorization limit. The SBA is required to provide at least 30 days' notice of its intent to exceed the 7(a) loan program's authorization limit to the House and Senate Committees on Small Business and the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations' Subcommittees on Financial Services and General Government and may exercise this option only once per fiscal year. P.L. 115-232 , the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, included provisions originally in H.R. 5236 , the Main Street Employee Ownership Act of 2018, to make 7(a) loans more accessible to employee-owned small businesses (ESOPs) and cooperatives. The act clarified that 7(a) loans to ESOPs may be made under the Preferred Lenders Program; allows the seller to remain involved as an officer, director, or key employee when the ESOP or cooperative has acquired 100% ownership of the small business; and authorizes the SBA to finance transition costs to employee ownership and waive any mandatory equity injection by the ESOP or cooperative to help finance the change of ownership. The act also directs the SBA to create outreach programs and an interagency working group to promote lending to ESOPs and cooperatives. President Trump's FY2019 budget request included proposals to offset SBA business loan administrative costs by, among other provisions, (1) allowing the SBA to set the 7(a) program's annual servicing fee at rates below zero credit subsidy; (2) increasing the 7(a) loan program's FY2019 annual servicing fee's cap from 0.55% to 0.625%; and (3) increasing the FY2019 upfront loan guarantee fee on 7(a) loans over $1 million by 0.25%. The Trump Administration estimated that these changes would raise $93 million in additional revenue. The Trump Administration also requested that the 7(a) loan program's authorization limit be increased to $30.0 million in FY2019; that the SBA be allowed to further increase the 7(a) loan program's authorization amount in FY2019 by 15% under specified circumstances "to better equip the SBA to meet peaks in demand while continuing to operate at zero subsidies"; and that the SBAExpress program's loan limit be increased from $350,000 to $1 million. During the 116 th Congress P.L. 116-6 , the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019, increased the 7(a) program's authorization limit to $30.0 billion in FY2019. This report's Appendix provides a brief description of the 7(a) program's SBAExpress, Export Express, and Community Advantage programs. To be eligible for an SBA business loan, a small business applicant must be located in the United States; be a for-profit operating business (except for loans to eligible passive companies and businesses engaged in specified industries, such as insurance companies and financial institutions primarily engaged in lending); qualify as small under the SBA's size requirements; demonstrate a need for the desired credit; and be certified by a lender that the desired credit is unavailable to the applicant on reasonable terms and conditions from nonfederal sources without SBA assistance. To qualify for an SBA 7(a) loan, applicants must be creditworthy and able to reasonably assure repayment. SBA requires lenders to consider the strength of the business and the applicant's character, reputation, and credit history; experience and depth of management; past earnings, projected cash flow, and future prospects; ability to repay the loan with earnings from the business; sufficient invested equity to operate on a sound financial basis; potential for long-term success; nature and value of collateral (although inadequate collateral will not be the sole reason for denial of a loan request); and affiliates' effect on the applicant's repayment ability. Borrowers may use 7(a) loan proceeds to establish a new business or to assist in the operation, acquisition, or expansion of an existing business. 7(a) loan proceeds may be used to acquire land (by purchase or lease); improve a site (e.g., grading, streets, parking lots, landscaping), including up to 5% for community improvements such as curbs and sidewalks; purchase one or more existing buildings; convert, expand, or renovate one or more existing buildings; construct one or more new buildings; acquire (by purchase or lease) and install fixed assets; purchase inventory, supplies, and raw materials; finance working capital; and refinance certain outstanding debts. Borrowers are prohibited from using 7(a) loan proceeds to refinance existing debt where the lender is in a position to sustain a loss and the SBA would take over that loss through refinancing; effect a partial change of business ownership or a change that will not benefit the business; permit the reimbursement of funds owed to any owner, including any equity injection or injection of capital for the business's continuance until the loan supported by the SBA is disbursed; repay delinquent state or federal withholding taxes or other funds that should be held in trust or escrow; or pay for a nonsound business purpose. As mentioned previously, P.L. 111-240 increased the 7(a) program's maximum gross loan amount for any one 7(a) loan from $2 million to $5 million (up to $3.75 million maximum guaranty). In FY2018, the average approved 7(a) loan amount was $420,401, and about 36% of all 7(a) loans exceeded $2 million. A 7(a) loan is required to have the shortest appropriate term, depending upon the borrower's ability to repay. The maximum term is 10 years, unless the loan finances or refinances real estate or equipment with a useful life exceeding 10 years. In that case, the loan term can be up to 25 years, including extensions. Lenders are allowed to charge borrowers "a reasonable fixed interest rate" or, with the SBA's approval, a variable interest rate. The SBA uses a multistep formula to determine the maximum allowable fixed interest rate for all 7(a) loans (with the exception of the Export Working Capital Program and Community Advantage loans) and periodically publishes that rate and the maximum allowable variable interest rate in the Federal Register . The maximum allowable fixed interest rates in February 2019 are 13.50% for 7(a) loans of $25,000 or less; 12.50% for loans over $25,000 but not exceeding $50,000; 11.50% for loans over $50,000 up to and including $250,000; and 10.50% loans greater than $250,000. The 7(a) program's maximum allowable variable interest rate may be pegged to the lowest prime rate (5.50% in February 2019), the 30-day LIBOR rate plus 300 basis points (5.51% in February 2019), or the SBA optional peg rate (3.13% in the second quarter of FY2019). The optional peg rate is a weighted average of rates the federal government pays for loans with maturities similar to the average SBA loan. For 7(a) loans of $25,000 or less, the SBA does not require lenders to take collateral. For 7(a) loans exceeding $25,000 to $350,000, the lender must follow the collateral policies and procedures that it has established and implemented for its similarly sized non-SBA-guaranteed commercial loans. However, the lender must, at a minimum, obtain a first lien on assets financed with loan proceeds, and a lien on all of the applicant's fixed assets, including real estate, up to the point that the loan is fully secured. For 7(a) loans exceeding $350,000, the SBA requires lenders to collateralize the loan to the maximum extent possible up to the loan amount. If business assets do not fully secure the loan, the lender must take available equity in the principal's personal real estate (residential and investment) as collateral. 7(a) loans are considered "fully secured" if the lender has taken security interests in all available fixed assets with a combined "net book value" up to the loan amount. The SBA directs lenders to not decline a loan solely on the basis of inadequate collateral because "one of the primary reasons lenders use the SBA-guaranteed program is for those Applicants that demonstrate repayment ability but lack adequate collateral to repay the loan in full in the event of a default." Lenders must have a continuing ability to evaluate, process, close, disburse, service, and liquidate small business loans; be open to the public for the making of such loans (and not be a financing subsidiary, engaged primarily in financing the operations of an affiliate); have continuing good character and reputation; and be supervised and examined by a state or federal regulatory authority, satisfactory to the SBA. They must also maintain satisfactory performance, as determined by the SBA through on-site review/examination assessments, historical performance measures (such as default rate, purchase rate, and loss rate), and loan volume to the extent that it affects performance measures. In FY2017, 1,978 lenders provided 7(a) loans. The SBA started the Preferred Lenders Program (PLP) on March 1, 1983, initially on a pilot basis. It is designed to streamline the procedures necessary to provide financial assistance to small businesses by delegating the final credit decision and most servicing and liquidation authority and responsibility to carefully selected PLP lenders. PLP loan approvals are subject only to a brief eligibility review and the assignment of a loan number by SBA. PLP lenders draft the SBA Authorization (of loan guaranty approval) without the SBA's review, and execute it on behalf of the SBA. In FY2018, PLP lenders approved 26,497 7(a) loans (43.9% of all 7(a) loans), amounting to $18.8 billion (74.2% of the total amount approved). PLP lenders must comply with all of the SBA's business loan eligibility requirements, credit policies, and procedures. The PLP lender is required to stay informed on, and apply, all of the SBA's loan program requirements. They must also complete and retain in the lender's file all forms and documents required of standard 7(a) loan packages. Borrowers submit applications for a 7(a) business loan to private lenders. The lender reviews the application and decides if it merits a loan on its own or if it has some weaknesses which, in the lender's opinion, do not meet standard, conventional underwriting guidelines and require additional support in the form of an SBA guaranty. The SBA guaranty assures the lender that if the borrower does not repay the loan and the lender has adhered to all applicable regulations concerning the loan, the SBA will reimburse the lender for its loss, up to the percentage of the SBA's guaranty. The small business borrowing the money remains obligated for the full amount due. If the lender determines that it is willing to provide the loan, but only with an SBA guaranty, it submits the application for approval to the SBA's Loan Guaranty Processing Center (LGPC) through the SBA's E-Tran (Electronic Loan Processing/Servicing) website (which is available through SBA One, the SBA's automated lending platform) or, if attachments to the application are too large for E-Tran, by secured electronic file transfer. The LGPC has two physical locations: Citrus Heights, CA, and Hazard, KY. This center has responsibility for processing 7(a) loan guaranty applications for lenders who do not have delegated authority to make 7(a) loans without the SBA's final approval. The SBA has authorized PLP and express lenders to make credit decisions without SBA review prior to loan approval. However, the PLP and express lender's analysis is subject to the SBA's review and determination of adequacy when the lender requests the SBA to purchase its guaranty and when the SBA is conducting a review of the lender. As an additional safeguard against the potential for loan defaults, the SBA now requires all non-express 7(a) loans of $350,000 or less to be SBA credit scored through E-Tran prior to submission/approval. If the credit score is below the minimum set by the SBA (currently 140 for 7(a) loans of $350,000 or less, including Community Advantage loans), the loan must be submitted to the SBA for approval with a full credit write-up for consideration. The loan cannot be processed under delegated authority. If the credit score is acceptable to the SBA, the lender is a PLP lender, and the loan is eligible to be processed under the PLP lender's delegated authority, the lender will receive an SBA loan number indicating that the loan is approved. The PLP lender's documentation, including underwriting, closing, and servicing, must be maintained in their files, and can be reviewed by the SBA at any time. If the lender is not a PLP lender or if the loan is not eligible to be submitted under the PLP lender's delegated authority, the lender must refer the loan to the LGPC for review. The application materials required for a SBA guaranty vary depending on the size of the loan ($350,000 or less versus exceeding $350,000) and the method of processing used by the lender (standard versus expedited/express). The following SBA documentation is required for all 7(a) standard loans of $350,000 or less: Form 191 9: Borrower Information Form . SBA form 1919 provides information about the borrower (name, name of business, social security number, date and place of birth, gender, race, veteran, etc.); the loan request; any indebtedness; the principals and affiliates; current or previous government financing; the applicant's eligibility (e.g., criminal information, citizenship status); the loan's eligibility for delegated or expedited processing (e.g., the borrower is not more than 60 days delinquent in child support payments, not proposed or presently excluded from participation in this transaction by any federal department or agency, has no potential for a conflict of interest due to an owner being a current or former SBA employee, a Member of Congress, or a SCORE volunteer); and, among other disclosures, the firm's existing number of employees, the number of jobs to be created as a result of the loan, and the number of jobs that will be retained as a result of the loan that would have otherwise been lost. Form 912 : Statement of Personal History . SBA form 912 is required if the borrower reports on Form 1919 an arrest in the past six months for a criminal offense or had ever been convicted, plead guilty, plead nolo contendere, been placed on pretrial diversion, or been placed on any form of parole or probation (including probation before judgment) of any criminal offense. Form 912 requires the borrower to furnish details concerning his or her offense(s) and authorizes the SBA's Office of Inspector General to request criminal record information about the applicant from criminal justice agencies for determining program eligibility. It must be dated within 90 days of the application's submission to the SBA. Form 159 : Fee Disclosure and Compensation Agreement . SBA form 159 is required if the borrower reports on Form 1919 that he or she used (or intends to use) a packager, broker, accountant, lawyer, etc. to assist in preparing the loan application or any related materials. SBA form 159 is also required if the lender retains the services of a packager, broker, accountant, lawyer, etc. to assist in preparing the loan application or any related materials. Form 159 provides identifying information about the packager, broker, accountant, lawyer, etc. and the fees paid to any such person. Form 601 : Agreement of Compliance (prohibiting discrimination). SBA form 601 is required if the borrower reports on Form 1919 that more than $10,000 of the loan proceeds will be used for construction. Form 601 certifies that the borrower will cooperate actively in obtaining compliance with Executive Order 11246, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin and requires affirmative action to ensure equality of opportunity in all aspects of employment related to federally assisted construction projects in excess of $10,000. Form 1920 : Lenders Application for Guaranty for all 7(a) Programs . SBA form 1920 provides identifying information about the lender; the loan type (standard, SBAExpress, Export Express, etc.); loan terms; use of proceeds; the business's size and information about affiliates, if any; the applicant's character; if credit is reasonably available elsewhere; the type of business; potential conflicts of interest; and other information such the number of jobs created or retained. PLP lenders complete the form and retain it in the loan file. Other lenders must submit this form electronically to the LGPC. Verification of Alien Status . Documentation of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) status of each alien is required prior to submission of the application to the SBA. Lender's Credit Memo randum . For loans up to and including $350,000, the Lender's Credit Memorandum includes a brief description of the history of the business and its management; the debt service coverage ratio (net operating income compared to total debt service must be at least 1:1); statement that the lender has reconciled financial data (including seller's financial data) against IRS transcripts; an owner/guarantor analysis (including personal financial condition); lender's discussion of life insurance requirements; explanation and justification for any refinancing; analysis of credit, including lender's rationale for recommending approval; for a change of ownership, discussion/analysis of business valuation and how the change benefits the business; discussion of any liens, judgments, or bankruptcy filings; and discussion of any other relevant information. For loans exceeding $350,000, the Lender's Credit Memorandum must also include an analysis of collateral and a financial analysis which includes an analysis of the historical financial statements; defining assumptions supporting projected cash flow; and, when used, spread of pro forma balance sheet, ratio calculations, and working capital analysis. Cash Flow Projections . A projection of the borrower's cash flow, month-by-month for one year, is required for all new businesses, and when otherwise applicable. The following forms and documentation are also required for 7(a) standard loans exceeding $350,000: Form 413 : Personal Financial Statement . SBA form 413 provides detailed information concerning the applicant's assets and liabilities and must be dated within 90 days of submission to the SBA, on all owners of 20% or more (including the assets of the owner's spouse and any minor children), and proposed guarantors. Lenders may substitute their own Personal Financial Statement form. Form 1846 : Statement Regarding Lobbying . SBA Form 1846 must be signed and dated by lender. It indicates that if any funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an officer or employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this commitment, the lender will complete and submit a Standard Form LLL "Disclosure of Lobbying Activities." A copy of Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Form 4506-T, Request for Copy of Tax Return . Lenders must identify the date IRS Form 4506-T was sent to the IRS. For nondelegated lenders, verification of IRS Form 4506-T is required prior to submission of the application to the SBA. For PLP and express lenders, verification of IRS Form 4506-T is required prior the first disbursement. Business Financial Statements or tax returns dated within 180 days of the application's submission to the SBA, consisting of (1) year-end balance sheets for the last three years, (2) year-end profit and loss statements for the last three years, (3) reconciliation of net worth, (4) interim balance sheet, and (5) interim profit and loss statements. Affiliate and Subsidiary Financial Statements or tax returns dated within 180 days of the application's submission to the SBA, consisting of (1) year-end balance sheets for the last three years, (2) year-end profit and loss statements for the last three years, (3) reconciliation of net worth, (4) interim balance sheet, and (5) interim profit and loss statements. A copy of the Le ase Agreement , if applicable. A detailed Schedule of C ollateral . A detailed List of M&E (machinery and equipment) being purchased with SBA loan proceeds, including cost quotes. If real estate is to be purchased with the loan proceeds, a Real Estate Appraisal , Environmental Investigation Report questionnaire, a cost breakdown, and copy of any Real Estate Purchase Agreements . If purchasing an existing business with loan proceeds, a (1) copy of buy-sell agreement, (2) copy of business valuation, (3) pro forma balance sheet for the business being purchased as of the date of transfer, (4) copy of the seller's financial statements for the last three complete fiscal years or for the number of years in business if less than three years, (5) interim statements no older than 180 days from date of submission to the SBA, and (6) if the seller's financial statements are not available, the seller must provide an alternate source of verifying revenues. An explanation of the type and source of applicant's equity injection. Proper evidence of a borrower's equity injection may include the copy of a check together with proof it was processed, or a copy of an escrow settlement sheet with a bank account statement showing the injection into the business prior to disbursement. A promissory note, "gift letter," or financial statement is generally not sufficient evidence. To offset its costs, the SBA is authorized to charge lenders an up-front, one-time guaranty fee and an annual, ongoing service fee for each 7(a) loan approved and disbursed. The SBA's fees vary depending on loan amount and loan maturity. The maximum guaranty fee for 7(a) loans with maturities exceeding 12 months is set by statute and varies depending on the loan amount. The fee is a percentage of the SBA guaranteed portion of the loan. On short-term loans (maturities of less than 12 months), the lender must pay the guaranty fee to the SBA electronically through www.pay.gov within 10 days from the date the SBA loan number is assigned. If the fee is not received within the specified time frame, the SBA will cancel the guaranty. On loans with maturities in excess of 12 months, the lender must pay the guaranty fee to the SBA within 90 days of the date of loan approval. For short-term loans, the lender may charge the guaranty fee to the borrower only after the lender has paid the guaranty fee. For loans with maturities in excess of 12 months, the lender may charge the guaranty fee to the borrower after initial disbursement. Lenders are permitted to retain 25% of the guaranty fee on loans with a gross amount of $150,000 or less. The annual service fee cannot exceed 0.55% of the outstanding balance of the SBA's share of the loan and is required to be no more than the "rate necessary to reduce to zero the cost to the Administration" of making guaranties. The lender's annual service fee to the SBA cannot be charged to the borrower. In an effort to assist small business owners, the SBA waived its annual service fee for all 7(a) loans of $150,000 or less approved from FY2014 through FY2016 (the annual service fee for other small businesses was 0.52% in FY2014, 0.519% in FY2015, and 0.473% in FY2016); is waiving the annual service fee for 7(a) loans of $150,000 or less made to small businesses located in a rural area or a HUBZone in FY2019 (the annual service fee for other small businesses is 0.55% in FY2019); waived the up-front, one-time guaranty fee for all 7(a) loans of $150,000 or less approved from FY2014 through FY2017; waived the up-front, one-time guaranty fee for all 7(a) loans of $125,000 or less approved in FY2018; and is reducing the up-front one-time guaranty fee for loans made small businesses located in a rural area or a HUBZone from 2.0% to 0.6667% of the guaranteed portion of the loan in FY2019. Table 1 shows the annual service fee and guaranty fee for 7(a) loans in FY2019. The annual service fee is a percentage of the outstanding balance of the SBA's share of the loan. The guaranty fee is a percentage of the SBA guaranteed portion of the loan. As mentioned previously, the SBA waived its up-front, one-time guaranty fee for all veteran loans under the 7(a) SBAExpress program (up to $350,000) from January 1, 2014, through the end of FY2015. P.L. 114-38 , the Veterans Entrepreneurship Act of 2015, made this fee waiver permanent, except during any upcoming fiscal year for which the President's budget, submitted to Congress, includes a cost for the 7(a) program, in its entirety, that is above zero. The SBA waived this fee in FY2016, FY2017, and FY2018 and is waiving it in FY2019. The SBA also waived 50% of the up-front, one-time guaranty fee on all non-SBAExpress 7(a) loans of $150,001 to $5 million for veterans in FY2015 and FY2016; 50% of the up-front, one-time guaranty fee on all non-SBAExpress 7(a) loans of $150,001 to $500,000 for veterans in FY2017; and 50% of the up-front, one-time guaranty fee on all non-SBAExpress 7(a) loans of $125,001 to $350,000 for veterans in FY2018. The Obama Administration argued that fee waivers for 7(a) loans of $150,000 or less were necessary because the demand for smaller 7(a) loans had fallen and the waiver reduction "can be achieved with zero credit subsidy appropriations" because the "annual fees for larger 7(a) loans will cover the cost for those smaller loans." The Administration also contended that waiving the fees on smaller SBA loans would "promote lending to small businesses that face the most constraints on credit access." For context, 7(a) loans of $150,000 or less accounted for about 11.8% of the total amount of 7(a) loan approvals in FY2010 ($1.46 billion of $12.41 billion); 8.3% in FY2011 ($1.63 billion of $19.64 billion); 9.5% in FY2012 ($1.44 billion of $15.15 billion); 8.1% in FY2013 ($1.45 billion of $17.87 billion); 9.7% in FY2014 ($1.86 billion of $19.19 billion); 9.7% in FY2015 ($2.28 billion of $23.58 billion); 9.4% in FY2016 ($2.75 billion of $24.13 billion), and 9.2% in FY2017 ($2.33 billion of $25.45 billion). The SBA also announced that eliminating guaranty fees for 7(a) loans of $150,000 or less ($125,000 or less in FY2018) was part of its broader effort to "reduce barriers, attract new lenders, grow loan volumes of existing lenders and improve access to capital for small businesses and entrepreneurs." Some in Congress questioned whether it is appropriate to require borrowers of larger 7(a) loans to, in effect, subsidize borrowers of smaller 7(a) loans, who might be direct competitors. They have suggested that it might be more appropriate to reduce fees across-the-board without regard to loan size. The lender may charge an applicant "reasonable fees" customary for similar lenders in the geographic area where the loan is being made for packaging and other services. The lender must advise the applicant in writing that the applicant is not required to obtain or pay for unwanted services. These fees are subject to SBA review at any time, and the lender must refund any such fee considered unreasonable by the SBA. The lender may also charge an applicant an additional fee if, subject to prior written SBA approval, all or part of a loan will have extraordinary servicing needs. The additional fee cannot exceed 2% per year on the outstanding balance of the part requiring special servicing (e.g., field inspections for construction projects). The lender may also collect from the applicant necessary out-of-pocket expenses, including filing or recording fees, photocopying, delivery charges, collateral appraisals, environmental impact reports that are obtained in compliance with SBA policy, and other direct charges related to loan closing. The lender is prohibited from requiring the borrower to pay any fees for goods and services, including insurance, as a condition for obtaining an SBA guaranteed loan, and from imposing on SBA loan applicants processing fees, origination fees, application fees, points, brokerage fees, bonus points, and referral or similar fees. The lender is also allowed to charge the borrower a late payment fee not to exceed 5% of the regular loan payment when the borrower is more than 10 days delinquent on its regularly scheduled payment. The lender may not charge a fee for full or partial prepayment of a loan. For loans with a maturity of 15 years or longer, the borrower must pay to the SBA a subsidy recoupment fee when the borrower voluntarily prepays 25% or more of its loan in any one year during the first three years after first disbursement. The fee is 5% of the prepayment amount during the first year, 3% in the second year, and 1% in the third year. As shown in Table 2 , the total number and amount of SBA 7(a) loans approved (before and after cancellations and modifications) declined in FY2008 and FY2009, increased during FY2010 and FY2011, declined somewhat in FY2012, and have increased since then. The number and amount of 7(a) loans approved annually is higher than the number and amount of loans disbursed because some borrowers decide not to accept the loan for a variety of reasons, such as financing was secured elsewhere, the funds are no longer needed, or there was a change in business ownership. The SBA attributed the decreased number and amount of 7(a) loans approved in FY2008 and FY2009 to a reduction in the demand for small business loans resulting from the economic uncertainty of the recession (December 2007-June 2009) and to tightened loan standards imposed by lenders concerned about the possibility of higher loan default rates resulting from the economic slowdown. The SBA attributed the increased number of loans approved in FY2010 and FY2011 to legislation that provided funding to temporarily reduce the 7(a) program's loan fees and temporarily increase the 7(a) program's loan guaranty percentage to 90% for all standard 7(a) loans from up to 85% of loans of $150,000 or less and up to 75% of loans exceeding $150,000. The fee subsidies and 90% loan guaranty percentage were in place during most of FY2010 and the first quarter of FY2011. The increased number and amount of 7(a) loans approved since FY2012 are generally attributed to improving economic conditions. Table 2 also provides the 7(a) program's unpaid principal balance by fiscal year. Precise measurements of the small business credit market are not available. However, the SBA has estimated that the small business credit market (outstanding bank loans of $1 million or less, plus credit extended by finance companies and other sources) is roughly $1.2 trillion. The 7(a) program's unpaid principal balance of $92.41 billion at the end of FY2018 was about 7.7% of that amount. One of the SBA's goals is to achieve a zero subsidy rate for its loan guaranty programs. A zero subsidy rate occurs when the SBA's loan guaranty programs generate sufficient revenue through fee collections and recoveries of collateral on purchased (defaulted) loans to not require appropriations to issue new loan guarantees. From 2005 to 2009, the SBA did not request appropriations to subsidize the cost of any of its loan guaranty programs, including the 7(a) program. However, as indicated in Table 3 , loan guaranty fees and loan liquidation recoveries did not generate enough revenue to cover loan losses in the 7(a) loan guaranty program from FY2010 through FY2013 and in the 504/CDC loan guaranty program from FY2012 through FY2015. Appropriations were provided to address the shortfalls. Congress did not approve appropriations for 7(a) and 504/CDC loan guaranty program credit subsidies for FY2016 through FY2019 because the President's budget request indicated that those programs did not require appropriations for credit subsidies in those fiscal years. In FY2017, the SBA spent $82.2 million on the 7(a) program for administrative expenses, including $63.0 million for loan making, $4.1 million for loan servicing, and $15.1 million for loan liquidation. Also, the SBA spent $36.9 million on lender oversight, including oversight of 7(a) lenders. The SBA anticipated that 7(a) program administrative expenses will be about $82.2 million in FY2018 and $84.5 million in FY2019. In addition, the SBA anticipated that it will spend about $36.9 million in FY2018 and $36.6 million in FY2019 for lender oversight of the SBA's various lending programs. In FY2017, borrowers used 7(a) loan proceeds to purchase land or make land improvements (26.62%); purchase a business (17.06%); finance working capital (15.59%); pay off loans, accounts payable or notes payable (13.23%); construct new buildings (6.06%); purchase equipment (5.76%); make leasehold improvements (3.25%); expand or renovate current buildings (2.39%); refinance existing debt (1.40%); and cover other expenses (8.64%). In 2008, the Urban Institute released the results of an SBA-commissioned study of the SBA's loan guaranty programs. As part of its analysis, the Urban Institute surveyed a random sample of SBA loan guaranty borrowers. The survey indicated that most of the 7(a) borrowers responding to the survey rated their overall satisfaction with their 7(a) loan and loan terms as either excellent (18%) or good (50%). One out of every five 7(a) borrowers (20%) rated their overall satisfaction with their 7(a) loan and loan terms as fair, and 6% rated their overall satisfaction with their 7(a) loan and loan terms as poor (7% reported don't know or did not respond). In addition, 90% of the survey's respondents reported that the 7(a) loan was either very important (62%) or somewhat important (28%) to their business success (2% reported somewhat unimportant, 3% reported very unimportant, and 4% reported don't know or did not respond). The Urban Institute found that about 9.9% of conventional small business loans are issued to minority-owned small businesses, and about 16% of conventional small business loans are issued to women-owned businesses. In FY2018, 32.8% of 7(a) loan approvals ($8.32 billion of $25.37 billion) were to minority-owned businesses (23.0% Asian, 6.0% Hispanic, 3.1% African-American, and 0.7% American Indian) and 13.6% ($3.46 billion of $25.37 billion) were to women-owned businesses. From its comparative analysis of conventional small business loans and the SBA's loan guaranty programs, the Urban Institute concluded the following: SBA's loan programs are designed to enable private lenders to make loans to creditworthy borrowers who would otherwise not be able to qualify for a loan. As a result, there should be differences in the types of borrowers and loan terms associated with SBA-guaranteed and conventional small business loans. Our comparative analysis shows such differences. Overall, loans under the 7(a) and 504 programs were more likely to be made to minority-owned, women-owned, and start-up businesses (firms that have historically faced capital gaps) as compared to conventional small business loans. Moreover, the average amounts for loans made under the 7(a) and 504 programs to these types of firms were substantially greater than conventional small business loans to such firms. These findings suggest that the 7(a) and 504 programs are being used by lenders in a manner that is consistent with SBA's objective of making credit available to firms that face a capital opportunity gap. Congressional interest in the 7(a) loan program has increased in recent years largely because of concerns that small businesses might be prevented from accessing sufficient capital to enable them to assist in the economic recovery. During the 110 th and 111 th Congresses, several laws were enacted to increase the supply and demand for capital for both large and small businesses. For example, in 2008, Congress adopted P.L. 110-343 , the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, which authorized the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Under TARP, the U.S. Department of the Treasury was authorized to purchase or insure up to $700 billion in troubled assets, including small business loans, from banks and other financial institutions. The law's intent was "to restore liquidity and stability to the financial system of the United States." P.L. 111-203 , the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, reduced total TARP purchase authority from $700 billion to $475 billion. The Department of the Treasury's authority to make new financial commitments under TARP ended on October 3, 2010. The Department of the Treasury has disbursed approximately $430 billion in TARP funds, including $370 million to purchase SBA 7(a) loan guaranty program securities. In addition, as mentioned previously, in 2009, ARRA provided an additional $730 million for SBA programs, including $375 million to temporarily reduce fees in the SBA's 7(a) and 504/CDC loan guaranty programs and increase the 7(a) program's maximum loan guaranty percentage from up to 85% of loans of $150,000 or less and up to 75% of loans exceeding $150,000 to 90% for all standard 7(a) loans. Congress subsequently provided another $265 million, and authorized the SBA to reprogram another $40 million, to extend the fee reductions and loan modification through May 31, 2010, and the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 provided another $505 million (plus $5 million for administrative expenses) to extend the fee reductions and loan modification from September 27, 2010, through December 31, 2010. Also, P.L. 111-322 , the Continuing Appropriations and Surface Transportation Extensions Act, 2011, authorized the use of any funding remaining from the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 to extend the fee subsidies and 90% maximum loan guaranty percentage through March 4, 2011, or until the available funding was exhausted. Funding for these purposes was exhausted on January 3, 2011. The Obama Administration argued that TARP and the additional funding for the SBA's loan guaranty programs helped to improve the small business lending environment and supported "the retention and creation of hundreds of thousands of jobs." Critics argued that small business tax reduction, reform of financial credit market regulation, and federal fiscal restraint are the best means to assist small business economic growth and job creation. Over the years, the SBA's Office of Inspector General (OIG) and the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) have independently reviewed the SBA's administration of the SBA's loan guaranty programs. Although improvements have been noted, both agencies have reported deficiencies in the SBA's administration of its loan guaranty programs that they argue need to be addressed, including issues involving the oversight of 7(a) lenders and the lack of outcome-based performance measures. On December 1, 2000, the OIG released its FY2001 list of the most serious management challenges facing the SBA and included, for the first time, the oversight of SBA lenders. Since then, the OIG has determined that the SBA has made significant progress in improving its oversight of SBA lenders. For example The SBA established an Office of Lender Oversight (renamed the Office of Credit Risk Management in 2007), led by an Associate Administrator, which, in October 2000, drafted a strategic plan to serve as a basis for developing a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for lender oversight and, among other activities, initiated "steps to develop and implement a comprehensive loan monitoring system to evaluate lender performance. The system will collect data on lenders such as delinquency default rates, liquidations, loan payments, and loan originations." In 2004, the SBA's National Guaranty Purchase Center developed a quality control plan "to review the quality of the guaranty purchase process." In 2006, the SBA issued an SOP that established procedures for on-site, risk-based lender reviews and safety and soundness examinations for 7(a) lenders and Certified Development Companies (CDCs) participating the SBA's 504/CDC loan guaranty program. In 2007, the SBA completed the centralization of all 7(a) loan processing activities and, with very limited exception, ended loan making, servicing, liquidation, and guaranty purchase activity at district offices. In 2008, the SBA issued an SOP for 7(a) lender oversight which included uniform policies and procedures for the evaluation of lender performance and the SBA's Office of Financial Program Operations (OFPO) began designing "a comprehensive quality control program across all of its centers." Previously, quality control was conducted within each loan center (Standard 7(a) Loan Guaranty Processing Center, Commercial Loan Service Center, and National Guaranty Purchase Center) "at various levels of sophistication." The SBA issued an interim final rule in the Federal Register on December 1, 2008, incorporating the SBA's risk-based lender oversight program into the SBA's regulations. In 2010, the SBA's OFPO established its agency-wide quality control program, which is designed to improve service and "reduce waste, fraud, and abuse" by ensuring "that centers accurately and consistently apply statutory, regulatory, and procedural loan program requirements." The SBA also developed a "risk-based, off-site analysis of lending partners through its Loan/Lender Monitoring System (L/LMS), a state-of-the-art portfolio monitoring system that incorporates credit scoring metrics for portfolio management purposes." In 2012-2013, the SBA "(1) developed risk profiles and lender performance thresholds, (2) developed a select analytical review process to allow for virtual risk-based reviews, (3) updated its lender risk rating model to better stratify and predict risk, and (4) conducted test reviews under the new risk-based review protocol." In 2013-2014, the SBA "improved its monitoring and verification of corrective actions by lenders by: (1) developing corrective action assessment procedures, (2) finalizing a system to facilitate the corrective action process, and (3) populating the system with lender oversight results requiring corrective action." In 2015, the SBA's Office of Credit Risk Management (OCRM) "engaged contractor support to expand on its corrective action follow-up process. Additionally, OCRM issued its FY2015 Risk Management Oversight Plan, which included plans to conduct 170 corrective action reviews between 7(a) and 504 lenders." In 2016, OCRM reported that it conducted 147 corrective action follow-up assessments, established performance measures and risk mitigation goals for the SBA's entire lending portfolio, and "conducted portfolio analyses of problem lenders with heavy concentrations in SBA 7(a) lending and sales on the secondary market." Despite these improvements, the OIG continues to list lender oversight as one of the most serious management challenges facing the SBA because it argues that several issues that it has identified in audits have not been fully addressed. Specifically, the OIG reports that the SBA needs to show that the portfolio risk management program is used to support risk based decisions, implement additional controls to mitigate risks, develop an effective method for tracking loan agents, and update regulations on loan agents. GAO has argued that the 7(a) program's performance measures (e.g., number of loans approved, loans funded, and firms assisted across the subgroups of small businesses) provide limited information about the impact of the loans on participating small businesses: The program's performance measures focus on indicators that are primarily output measures–for instance, they report on the number of loans approved and funded. But none of the measures looks at how well firms do after receiving 7(a) loans, so no information is available on outcomes. As a result, the current measures do not indicate how well the agency is meeting its strategic goal of helping small businesses succeed. The SBA's OIG has made a similar argument concerning the SBA's Microloan program's performance measures. Because the SBA uses similar program performance measures for its Microloan and 7(a) programs, the OIG's recommendations could also be applied to the SBA's 7(a) program. Specifically, as part of its audit of the SBA Microloan program's use of ARRA funds, the OIG found that the SBA's performance measures for the Microloan program are based on the number of microloans funded, the number of small businesses assisted, and program's loan loss rate. It argued that these "performance metrics ... do not ensure the ultimate program beneficiaries, the microloan borrowers, are truly assisted by the program" and "without appropriate metrics, SBA cannot ensure the Microloan program is meeting policy goals." It noted that the SBA does not track the number of microloan borrowers who remain in business after receiving a microloan to measure the extent to which the loans contributed to the success of borrowers and does not determine the effect that technical training assistance may have on the success of microloan borrowers and their ability to repay loans. It recommended that the SBA "develop additional performance metrics to measure the program's achievement in assisting microloan borrowers in establishing and maintaining successful small businesses." In its response to GAO's recommendation to develop additional performance measures for the 7(a) program, the SBA formed, in July 2014, an impact evaluation working group to develop a methodology for conducting impact evaluations of the agency's programs using administrative data sources residing at the SBA and in other federal agencies, such as the U.S. Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Numerous SBA program offices participated in this working group and each office developed its own program evaluation methodology or established program evaluation frameworks. More recently, the SBA indicated in its FY2017 congressional budget justification document that although it "continues to face barriers gathering outcome rich evaluation data with current restrictions in collecting personal identification information (PII) and business identification information (BII)" it "plans to further develop its analytical capabilities, enhance collaboration across its programs, provide evaluation-specific trainings, and broaden use of impact evaluations to support senior leaders and institutionalize the evidence-based process across programs." To encourage evidence-based evaluations across its programs, the SBA has created an annual Enterprise Learning Agenda designed to "help program managers continue to build and use evidence and to foster an environment of continuous learning." As part of this agenda building process, the SBA identifies programs for evidence-based evaluation and undertakes both internal evaluations using available data or contracts with third parties to conduct the evaluations. Congress authorized several changes to the 7(a) program during the 111 th Congress in an effort to increase the number and amount of 7(a) loans. During the 111 th Congress, the Obama Administration supported congressional efforts to temporarily subsidize fees for the 7(a) and 504/CDC loan guaranty programs and to increase the 7(a) program's loan guaranty percentage from up to 85% of loans of $150,000 or less and up to 75% of loans exceeding $150,000 to 90%. Congress subsequently provided nearly $1.1 billion to temporarily subsidize fees for the 7(a) and 504/CDC loan guaranty programs and to increase the 7(a) program's maximum loan guaranty percentage to 90% for all standard 7(a) loans. The Obama Administration also proposed the following modifications to several SBA programs, including the 7(a) program: increase the maximum loan size for 7(a) loans from $2 million to $5 million; increase the maximum loan size for the 504/CDC program from $2 million to $5 million for regular projects and from $4 million to $5.5 million for manufacturing projects; increase the maximum loan size for microloans to small business concerns from $35,000 to $50,000; increase the maximum loan limits for lenders in their first year of participation in the Microloan program, from $750,000 to $1 million, and from $3.5 million to $5 million in the subsequent years; temporarily increase the cap on SBAExpress loans from $350,000 to $1 million; and temporarily allow in FY2010 and FY2011, with an option to extend into FY2012, the refinancing of loans for owner-occupied commercial real estate that are within one year of maturity under the SBA's 504/CDC program. The Obama Administration argued that increasing the maximum loan limits for the 7(a), 504/CDC, Microloan, and SBAExpress programs would allow the SBA to "support larger projects," which would "allow the SBA to help America's small businesses drive long-term economic growth and the creation of jobs in communities across the country." The Administration also argued that increasing the maximum loan limits for these programs would be "budget neutral" over the long run and "help improve the availability of smaller loans." Critics of the Obama Administration's proposals to increase the SBA's maximum loan limits argued that higher loan limits might increase the risk of defaults, resulting in higher guaranty fees or the need to provide the SBA additional funding, especially for the SBAExpress program, which has experienced somewhat higher default rates than other SBA loan guaranty programs. Others advocated a more modest increase in the maximum loan limits to ensure that the 7(a) program "remains focused on startup and early-stage small firms, businesses that have historically encountered the greatest difficulties in accessing credit," and "avoids making small borrowers carry a disproportionate share of the risk associated with larger loans." Others argued that creating a small business direct lending program within the SBA would reduce paperwork requirements and be more efficient in providing small businesses access to capital than modifying existing SBA programs that rely on private lenders to determine if they will issue the loans. Also, as mentioned previously, others argued that providing additional resources to the SBA or modifying the SBA's loan programs as a means to augment small business access to capital is ill-advised. In their view, the SBA has limited impact on small businesses' access to capital. They argued that the best means to assist small business economic growth and job creation is to focus on small business tax reduction, reform of financial credit market regulation, and federal fiscal restraint. As mentioned previously, in 2009, ARRA provided an additional $730 million for SBA programs, including $375 million to temporarily reduce fees in the SBA's 7(a) and 504/CDC loan guaranty programs ($299 million) and increase the 7(a) program's maximum loan guaranty percentage from up to 85% of loans of $150,000 or less and up to 75% of loans exceeding $150,000 to 90% for all standard 7(a) loans ($76 million). P.L. 111-240 provided $505 million (plus $5 million for administrative expenses) to extend the 7(a) program's 90% maximum loan guaranty percentage and 7(a) and 504/CDC loan guaranty programs' fee subsidies through December 31, 2010 (later extended to March 4, 2011), or until available funding was exhausted (which occurred on January 3, 2011). The act also made the following changes to the SBA's programs: increased the maximum loan size for 7(a) loans from $2 million to $5 million; temporarily increased for one year (through September 27, 2011) the cap on SBAExpress loans from $350,000 to $1 million; increased the maximum loan size for the 504/CDC loans from $1.5 million to $5 million for regular projects, from $2 million to $5 million for projects meeting one of the program's specified public policy goals, and from $4 million to $5.5 million for manufacturers; increased the maximum loan size for the Microloan program from $35,000 to $50,000; authorized the SBA to establish an alternative size standard for the 7(a) and 504/CDC programs that uses maximum tangible net worth and average net income as an alternative to the use of industry standards and established an interim size standard of a maximum tangible net worth of not more than $15 million and an average net income after federal taxes (excluding any carryover losses) for the preceding two fiscal years of not more than $5 million; and allowed 504/CDC loans to be used to refinance up to $7.5 billion in short-term commercial real estate debt each fiscal year for two years after enactment (through September 27, 2012) into long-term fixed rate loans. The act also authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to establish a $30 billion Small Business Lending Fund (SBLF) to encourage community banks to provide small business loans ($4 billion was issued), a $1.5 billion State Small Business Credit Initiative to provide funding to participating states with small business capital access programs, and about $12 billion in tax relief for small businesses. It also contained revenue raising provisions to offset the act's cost and authorized a number of changes to other SBA loan and contracting programs. Congress did not approve any changes to the 7(a) program during the 112 th Congress. However, several bills were introduced during the 112 th Congress that would have changed the program. S. 1828 , a bill to increase small business lending, and for other purposes, was introduced on November 8, 2011, and referred to the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship. The bill would have reinstated for a year following the date of its enactment the temporary fee subsidies for the 7(a) and 504/CDC loan guaranty programs and the 90% loan guaranty for standard 7(a) loans, which were originally authorized by ARRA and later extended by several laws, including the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010. H.R. 2936 , the Small Business Administration Express Loan Extension Act of 2011, introduced on September 15, 2011, and referred to the House Committee on Small Business, would have extended a one-year increase in the maximum loan amount for the SBAExpress program from $350,000 to $1 million for an additional year. The temporary increase in that program's maximum loan amount was authorized by P.L. 111-240 , the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, and expired on September 27, 2011 (see Appendix ). S. 532 , the Patriot Express Authorization Act of 2011, introduced on March 9, 2011, and referred to the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, would have provided statutory authorization for the Patriot Express Pilot Program. This program was subsequently discontinued by the SBA on December 31, 2013. The bill would have increased the program's maximum loan amount from $500,000 to $1 million, and it would have increased the guaranty percentages from up to 85% of loans of $150,000 or less and up to 75% of loans exceeding $150,000 to up to 85% of loans of $500,000 or less and up to 80% of loans exceeding $500,000. H.R. 2451 , the Strengthening Entrepreneurs' Economic Development Act of 2013, was introduced on June 20, 2013, and referred to the House Committee on Small Business. It would have authorized the SBA to make direct loans of up to $150,000 to businesses with fewer than 20 employees. It would have also required the SBA to assess, collect, and retain a fee with respect to the outstanding balance of the deferred participation share of each 7(a) loan in excess of $2 million that is no more than is necessary to reduce to zero the SBA's cost of making the loan. H.R. 2461 , the SBA Loan Paperwork Reduction Act of 2013, was introduced on June 20, 2013, and referred to the House Committee on Small Business. It would have provided statutory authorization for the Small Loan Advantage (SLA) pilot program. The SBA started that program on February 15, 2011. It provided a streamlined application process for 7(a) loans of up to $350,000 if the loan received an acceptable credit score from the SBA prior to the loan being submitted for processing. The SBA adopted the SLA application process as the model for processing all non-express 7(a) loans of $350,000 or less, effective January 1, 2014. As mentioned previously, the Obama Administration waived the up-front, one time loan guaranty fee and ongoing servicing fee for 7(a) loans of $150,000 or less approved in FY2014 (and later extended the fee waiver in FY2015 and FY2016). H.R. 2462 , the Small Business Opportunity Acceleration Act of 2013, introduced on June 20, 2013, and referred to the House Committee on Small Business, would have made the fee waiver permanent. Also, the Obama Administration waived the up-front, one-time loan guaranty fee for veteran loans under the SBAExpress program (up to $350,000) from January 1, 2014, through the end of FY2015 (called the Veterans Advantage Program). S. 2143 , the Veterans Entrepreneurship Act, would have authorized this fee waiver and made it permanent. Also, P.L. 113-235 provided statutory authorization to waive the 7(a) SBAExpress program's guarantee fee for veterans (and their spouse) in FY2015. P.L. 114-38 , the Veterans Entrepreneurship Act of 2015, authorized and made permanent the waiver of the up-front, one-time loan guaranty fee for veterans (and their spouse) in the SBAExpress program beginning on or after October 1, 2015, except during any upcoming fiscal year for which the President's budget, submitted to Congress, includes a cost for the 7(a) program, in its entirety, that is above zero. The act also increased the 7(a) program's authorization limit from $18.75 billion in FY2015 to $23.5 billion. On June 25, 2015, the SBA informed Congress that the 7(a) program "is on track to hit its authorization ceiling of $18.75 billion well before the end of FY2015." The SBA indicated that "our activity and trend analysis reveal a strong uptick that, if sustained, would exceed our lending authority ceiling by late August." If that were to occur, and in the absence of statutory authority to do otherwise, the SBA reported that it would have to suspend 7(a) loan making for the remainder of the fiscal year. The SBA requested an increase in the 7(a) loan program's authorization limit to $22.5 billion in FY2015. On July 23, 2015, citing "unprecedented demand," the SBA suspended 7(a) program lending. The SBA indicated that it would continue to process loan applications "up to the point of approval" and then place approved loans "into a queue awaiting the availability of program authority." Loans would be released "once program authority became available due to Congressional action or as a result of cancellations of loans previously approved this fiscal year." Applications would then "be funded in the order they were approved by SBA, with the exception that requests for increases to previously approved loans will be funded before applications for new loans." The SBA resumed 7(a) lending on July 28, 2015, following P.L. 114-38 's enactment. In addition to increasing the 7(a) program's authorization limit for FY2015, the act added requirements designed to ensure that SBA loans do not displace private sector loans (e.g., the SBA Administrator may not guarantee a 7(a) loan if the lender determines that the borrower is unable to obtain credit elsewhere solely because the liquidity of the lender depends upon the guarantied portion of the loan being sold on the secondary market, or if the sole purpose for requesting the guarantee is to allow the lender to exceed the lender's legal lending limit), and requires the SBA to report, on a quarterly basis, specified 7(a) program statistics to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations and Small Business. These required statistics are designed to inform the committees of the SBA's pace of 7(a) lending, provide estimates concerning the date on which the program's authorization limit may be reached, and present information concerning early defaults and actions taken by the SBA to combat early defaults. As mentioned previously, P.L. 114-113 increased the 7(a) program's authorization limit from $23.5 billion in FY2015 to $26.5 billion for FY2016. In addition, P.L. 114-223 , the Continuing Appropriations and Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017, authorized the SBA to use funds from its business loan program account "to accommodate increased demand for commitments for [7(a)] general business loans" for the duration of the continuing resolution (initially December 9, 2016, later extended by P.L. 114-254 , the Further Continuing and Security Assistance Appropriations Act, 2017, to April 28, 2017). In a related development, S. 2496 , the Help Small Businesses Access Affordable Credit Act, introduced on February 2, 2016, would have authorized the SBA Administrator, with prior approval of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, to make loans in an amount equal to not more than 110% of the 7(a) program's authorization limit if the demand for 7(a) loans should exceed that limit. The Obama Administration also requested authorization to allow the SBA Administrator to continue to issue loans should the demand for 7(a) loans exceed the program's authorization limit. Also. S. 2992 , the Small Business Lending Oversight Act of 2016, would have required the Director of the SBA's Office of Credit Risk Management (OCRM) to impose penalties on 7(a) lenders who "knowingly and repeatedly" undertake specified activities; required the SBA to annually undertake and report the findings of a risk analysis of the 7(a) program's loan portfolio; redefined the credit elsewhere requirement; authorized fees to be used to support OCRM operations; required the SBA to identify potential loan risks by lenders participating in the Preferred Lenders Program by requiring the SBA, at the end of each year, to "calculate the percentage of loans in a lender's portfolio made without a contribution of borrower equity when the loan's purpose was to establish a new small business concern, to effectuate a change of small business ownership, or to purchase real estate"; and, among other provisions, prohibited the SBA from approving any loan if its financing is more than 100% of project costs. Legislation was also introduced ( S. 2125 , the Small Business Lending and Economic Inequality Reduction Act of 2015) to provide permanent, statutory authorization for the Community Advantage Pilot program (see Appendix ). The SBA announced on December 28, 2015, that it was extending the Community Advantage Pilot program through March 31, 2020. It had been set to expire on March 15, 2017. Recognizing that 7(a) loan approvals during the first half of FY2017 were about 9% higher than during the first half of FY2016, Congress included a provision in P.L. 115-31 , the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017, that increased the 7(a) program's authorization limit to $27.5 billion in FY2017 from $26.5 billion in FY2016. Congress also approved legislation ( P.L. 115-141 , the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018) that increased the 7(a) program's authorization limit to $29.0 billion in FY2018. In addition, as mentioned earlier, P.L. 115-189 , the Small Business 7(a) Lending Oversight Reform Act of 2018, among other provisions, codified the SBA's Office of Credit Risk Management; required that office to annually undertake and report the findings of a risk analysis of the 7(a) program's loan portfolio; created a lender oversight committee within the SBA; authorized the Director of the Office of Credit Risk Management to undertake informal and formal enforcement actions against 7(a) lenders under specified conditions; redefined the credit elsewhere requirement; and authorized the SBA Administrator to increase the amount of 7(a) loans not more than once during any fiscal year to not more than 115% of the 7(a) program's authorization limit. The SBA is required to provide at least 30 days' notice of its intent to exceed the 7(a) loan program's authorization limit to the House and Senate Committees on Small Business and the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations' Subcommittees on Financial Services and General Government and may exercise this option only once per fiscal year. Also, P.L. 115-232 , the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, included provisions to make 7(a) loans more accessible to employee-owned small businesses (ESOPs) and cooperatives. The act authorizes the SBA to make "back-to-back" loans to ESOPs to better align with industry practices (the loan proceeds must only be used to make a loan to a qualified employee trust); clarifies that 7(a) loans to ESOPs may be made under the Preferred Lenders Program; allows the seller to remain involved as an officer, director, or key employee when the ESOP or cooperative has acquired 100% ownership of the small business; and authorizes the SBA to finance transition costs to employee ownership and waive any mandatory equity injection by the ESOP or cooperative to help finance the change of ownership. The act also directs the SBA to create outreach programs with Small Business Investment Companies and Microloan intermediaries to make their lending programs more accessible to all eligible ESOPs and cooperatives, an interagency working group to promote lending to ESOPs and cooperatives, and a Small Business Employee Ownership and Cooperatives Promotion Program, administered by Small Business Development Centers, to offer technical assistance and training to small businesses on the transition to employee ownership through cooperatives and ESOPs. Congress did not focus much attention on the Trump Administration's proposal in its FY2019 budget request to "introduce counter-cyclical policies in SBA's business guaranty loan programs and update certain fees structures to offset $155 million in business loan administration." As mentioned earlier, the proposal included raising $93 million in additional revenue by allowing the SBA to set the 7(a) program's annual servicing fee at rates below zero credit subsidy; increasing the 7(a) loan program's FY2019 annual servicing fee's cap from 0.55% to 0.625%; and increasing the FY2019 upfront loan guarantee fee on 7(a) loans over $1 million by 0.25%. The Administration also requested that the 7(a) loan program's authorization limit be increased to $30.0 million in FY2019; that the SBA be allowed to further increase the 7(a) loan program's authorization amount in FY2019 by 15% under specified circumstances "to better equip the SBA to meet peaks in demand while continuing to operate at zero subsidies;" that the SBA be allowed to impose an annual fee, not to exceed 0.05% per year, of the outstanding balance on 7(a) secondary market trust certificates to help offset administrative costs; and that the SBAExpress program's loan limit be increased from $350,000 to $1 million. P.L. 116-6 , the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019, increased the 7(a) program's authorization limit to $30.0 billion in FY2019. The congressional debate concerning the SBA's 7(a) program during the 111 th Congress was not whether the federal government should act, but which federal policies would most likely enhance small businesses' access to capital and result in job retention and creation. As a general proposition, some Members of Congress argued that the SBA should be provided additional resources to assist small businesses in acquiring capital necessary to start, continue, or expand operations with the expectation that in so doing small businesses will create jobs. Others worried about the long-term adverse economic effects of spending programs that increase the federal deficit. They advocated business tax reduction, reform of financial credit market regulation, and federal fiscal restraint as the best means to help small businesses further economic growth and job creation. In terms of specific program changes, increasing the 7(a) program's loan limit, extending the 7(a) program's temporary fee subsidies and 90% maximum loan guaranty percentage, and establishing an alternative size standard for the 7(a) program were all designed to achieve the same goal: to enhance job creation by increasing the ability of 7(a) borrowers to access credit at affordable rates. However, determining how specific changes in federal policy are most likely to enhance job creation is a challenging task. For example, a 2008 Urban Institute study concluded that differences in the term, interest rate, and amount of SBA financing were "not significantly associated with increasing sales or employment among firms receiving SBA financing." The study also reported that the analysis accounted for less than 10% of the variation in firm performance. The Urban Institute suggested that local economic conditions, local zoning regulations, state and local tax rates, state and local business assistance programs, and the business owner's charisma or business acumen also "may play a role in determining how well a business performs after receipt of SBA financing." As the Urban Institute study suggests, because many factors influence business success, measuring the 7(a) program's effect on job retention and creation is complicated. That task is made even more challenging by the absence of performance-oriented measures that could serve as a guide. Both GAO and the SBA's OIG have recommended that the SBA adopt outcome performance-oriented measures for its loan guaranty programs, such as tracking the number of borrowers who remain in business after receiving a loan to measure the extent to which the program contributed to their ability to stay in business. Other performance-oriented measures that Congress might also consider include requiring the SBA to survey 7(a) borrowers to measure the difficulty they experienced in obtaining a loan from the private sector and the extent to which the 7(a) loan or technical assistance received contributed to their ability to create jobs or expand their scope of operations. The 7(a) program has several specialized programs that offer streamlined and expedited loan procedures for particular groups of borrowers, including the SBAExpress, Export Express, and Community Advantage programs. Lenders must be approved by the SBA for participation in these programs. SBAExpress Program The SBAExpress program was established as a pilot program by the SBA on February 27, 1995, and made permanent through legislation, subject to reauthorization, in 2004 ( P.L. 108-447 , the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005). The program is designed to increase the availability of credit to small businesses by permitting lenders to use their existing documentation and procedures in return for receiving a reduced SBA guaranty on loans. It provides a 50% loan guaranty on loan amounts up to $350,000. As shown in Table A-1 , the SBA approved 27,794 SBAExpress loans (46.1% of total 7(a) program loan approvals), totaling $1.98 billion (7.8% of total 7(a) program amount approvals) in FY2018. The program's higher loan amount in FY2011 was due, at least in part, to a provision in P.L. 111-240 , the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which temporarily increased the SBAExpress program's loan limit to $1 million for one year following enactment (through September 27, 2011). During the 112 th Congress, H.R. 2936 , the Small Business Administration Express Loan Extension Act of 2011, would have extended the SBAExpress program's higher loan limit for an additional year (through September 27, 2012). SBAExpress loan proceeds can be used for the same purposes as those of the 7(a) program (expansion, renovation, new construction, the purchase of land or buildings, the purchase of equipment, fixtures, and lease-hold improvements, working capital, to refinance debt for compelling reasons, seasonal line of credit, and inventory); except that participant debt restructure cannot exceed 50% of the project and may be used for revolving credit. The program's loan terms are the same as those of the 7(a) program (the loan maturity for working capital, machinery, and equipment (not to exceed the life of the equipment) is typically 5 years to 10 years; and the loan maturity for real estate is up to 25 years, except that the term for a revolving line of credit cannot exceed 7 years. The SBAExpress loan's interest rates and fees are the same as those used for the 7(a) program. To account for the program's lower guaranty rate of 50%, lenders are allowed to perform their own loan analysis and procedures and receive SBA approval with a targeted 36-hour maximum turnaround time. Also, collateral is not required for loans of $25,000 or less. Lenders are allowed to use their own established collateral policy for loans over $25,000. As mentioned earlier, the SBA waived the up-front, one-time loan guaranty fee for 7(a) loans of $125,000 or less approved in FY2018. The SBA also waived 50% of the up-front, one-time loan guaranty fee on all non-SBAExpress 7(a) loans to veterans of $125,001 to $350,000 in FY2018. In addition, P.L. 114-38 , the Veterans Entrepreneurship Act of 2015, provided statutory authorization and made permanent the veteran's fee waiver in the SBAExpress program, except during any upcoming fiscal year for which the President's budget, submitted to Congress, includes a cost for the 7(a) program, in its entirety, that is above zero. The SBA waived this fee in FY2016, FY2017, and FY2018 and is waiving it in FY2019. The SBA indicated that its fee waivers for veterans are part "of SBA's broader efforts to make sure that veterans have the tools they need to start and grow a business." In a related development, the SBA discontinued the Patriot Express Pilot Program on December 31, 2013. It provided loans of up to $500,000 (with a guaranty of up to 85% of loans of $150,000 or less and up to 75% of loans exceeding $150,000) to veterans and their spouses. It had been in operation since 2007, and, like the SBAExpress program, featured streamlined documentation requirements and expedited loan processing. Over its history, the Patriot Express Pilot Program disbursed 9,414 loans amounting to more than $791 million. Export Express The Export Express program was established as a subprogram of the SBAExpress program in 1998, and made a separate pilot program in 2000. It was made permanent through legislation, subject to reauthorization, in 2010 ( P.L. 111-240 , the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010). The Export Express program is designed to increase the availability of credit to current and prospective small business exporters that have been in business, though not necessarily in exporting, for at least 12 full months, particularly those small businesses needing revolving lines of credit. Export Express loans may not be used to finance overseas operations, except for the marketing or distribution of products or services exported from the United States. The program is generally subject to the same loan processing, making, closing, servicing, and liquidation requirements as well as the same maturity terms, interest rates, and applicable fees as the SBAExpress program. Two key differences between the two programs is that the Export Express program's maximum loan amount is up to $500,000, and its guaranty rate is 90% for loans of $350,000 or less, and 75% for loans exceeding $350,000. There were 215 lenders with approved SBA Export Express loan guaranties at the end of FY2017. These lenders are located in 46 states, Guam, and Puerto Rico. As shown in Table A-2 , the SBA approved 59 Export Express loans totaling $15.45 million in FY2018. Community Advantage 7(a) Loan Initiative The SBA's Community Advantage (CA) 7(a) loan initiative became operational on February 15, 2011. Originally announced as a three-year pilot program (through March 15, 2014), it subsequently was extended through March 15, 2017; March 31, 2020; and September 30, 2022. As of September 12, 2018, there were 113 approved CA lenders, 99 of which were actively making and servicing CA loans. The CA loan initiative is designed to increase lending to underserved low- and moderate-income communities. It, along with the now-discontinued Small Loan Advantage program, replaced the Community Express Pilot Program, which also was designed to increase lending to underserved communities. The CA loan initiative provides the same loan terms, guaranty fees, and guaranty as that of the 7(a) program on loan amounts up to $250,000 (85% for loans up to $150,000 and 75% for those greater than $150,000). Loan proceeds can be used for the same purposes as those of the 7(a) program. The loan's maximum interest rate is prime, plus 6%. The program has an expedited approval process, which includes a two-page application for borrowers and a goal of completing the approval process within 5 to 10 days. The CA loan initiative is designed to increase "the number of SBA 7(a) lenders who reach underserved communities, targeting community-based, mission-focused financial institutions which were previously not able to offer SBA loans." These mission-focused financial institutions include the following: nonfederally regulated Community Development Financial Institutions certified by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, SBA's Certified Development Companies, SBA's nonprofit microlending intermediaries, and, added in December 2015, SBA's Intermediary Lending Pilot Program intermediaries. They are expected to maintain at least 60% of their SBA loan portfolio in underserved markets, including loans to small businesses in, or that have more than 50% of their full-time workforce residing in, low-to-moderate income (LMI) communities; Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities; HUBZones; start-ups (firms in business less than two years); businesses eligible for the SBA's Veterans Advantage program; Promise Zones (added in December 2015); and Opportunity Zones and Rural Areas (added in October 2018). The SBA placed a moratorium, effective October 1, 2018, on accepting new CA lender applications, primarily as a means to mitigate the risk of future loan defaults. The SBA also increased the minimum acceptable credit score for CA loans "that satisfies the need to consider several required underwriting criteria" from 120 to 140; increased the wait time for CA lenders ineligible for delegated lender status at the time of approval as a CA lender from 6 months to 12 months and increased the number of CA loans that must be initially dispersed before a CA lender may process applications under delegated authority from five to seven loans; increased the loan loss reserve requirement for CA loans sold in the secondary market from 3% to 5% of the outstanding amount of the guaranteed portion of each loan; modified requirements related to the refinancing of debts with a CA loan; limited fees that can be charged by a CA lender for assistance in obtaining a CA loan to no more than $2,500, with the exception of necessary out-of-pocket costs such as filing or recording fees; and as mentioned previously, added Opportunity Zones and Rural Areas to the list of economically distressed communities that are eligible for a CA loan. As shown in Table A-3 , the SBA approved 1,118 CA loans amounting to $157.5 million in FY2018 and 4,906 CA loans amounting to $643.72 million from the time the program became operational to the end of FY2018. As mentioned previously, legislation was introduced during the 114 th Congress ( S. 2125 , the Small Business Lending and Economic Inequality Reduction Act of 2015) to provide the Community Advantage Pilot program permanent, statutory authorization.

 

 Report 2:
Created in 1968, the SFSP is authorized under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act and generally provides free meals to children age 18 and under in low-income areas during certain periods when school is not in session. Specifically, the SFSP operates during school summer vacation periods between May through September, vacation periods in any month for programs operating on a continuous school calendar, and certain other times for areas affected by an unanticipated school closure, such as for a natural disaster. However, the majority of SFSP meals are served to children during the summer months. In fiscal years 2007 through 2016, federal expenditures on SFSP increased, according to FNS data, though there was a slight decrease between fiscal years 2015 and 2016 (see fig. 1). The SFSP is administered at the federal level by FNS through its national and regional offices. FNS is responsible for issuing regulations, instructions, and guidance; reviewing states’ program management and administration plans; overseeing program administration; and reimbursing states for meals served that meet program requirements. At the state level, the program is administered by state agencies and locally operated by state-approved sponsors, such as school districts, local government entities, or private nonprofit organizations. State agencies are responsible for approving, providing training to, and inspecting and monitoring sponsors and meal sites. Sponsors, in turn, are responsible for monitoring their SFSP meal sites, managing the meal service, and providing training to administrative staff and site operators. A sponsor may operate one site or multiple sites. Sites are physical locations in the community where children receive and consume meals in a supervised setting. According to FNS guidance, sites may be located in a variety of settings, including schools, parks, community centers, health clinics, hospitals, apartment complexes, churches, and migrant camps. States may approve different types of SFSP meal sites, including open sites, closed enrolled sites, and camps. Open sites operate in an area where at least half of the children are eligible for free or reduced-price school meals (referred to as “area eligible”), according to data from entities such as schools or the U.S. Census Bureau. Children are generally eligible for free or reduced-price school meals if their households have incomes at or below 185 percent of federal poverty guidelines. At open sites, meals are made available to all children in the area, and all meals served that meet program requirements are reimbursable. Closed enrolled sites, on the other hand, are open only to enrolled children, as opposed to the community at large. At closed enrolled sites, meals served to all children in attendance are reimbursable as long as at least half of the enrolled children are eligible for free or reduced-price school lunch. Unlike other types of sites, camps are reimbursed only for meals served to children who have been individually determined to be eligible for free or reduced-price school meals. SFSP meals must meet certain requirements in order to be eligible for federal reimbursement; for example, the meals must be served and consumed on-site at an approved site. Federal reimbursements for summer meals are provided for each breakfast, lunch, supper, or snack served to an eligible child at an eligible site that also meets federal requirements for menu components, scheduled meal times, and nutrition. For example, to meet nutritional requirements, a lunch or a supper must, at a minimum, include four components: 2 ounces of meat or a comparable serving of a meat alternate, 3/4 cup of fruits and/or vegetables (at least two kinds), a slice of bread or a comparable serving of another grain, and a cup of milk. In 2017, the federal reimbursement rate was $3.83 or $3.77 for each eligible SFSP lunch or supper served, depending on the type of meal site. Each site may serve up to two meals or one meal and one snack per day. Some flexibilities are available to FNS in implementing the SFSP program, under its waiver and demonstration authorities. Specifically, the National School Lunch Act authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to waive, upon request of a state or eligible service provider, certain program requirements established under the National School Lunch Act or the Child Nutrition Act of 1966, as amended, including some for the SFSP. In order to grant a waiver request, the Secretary must determine that the waiver would facilitate the state or service provider’s ability to carry out the purpose of the program, and that the waiver will not increase the overall cost of the program to the federal government, among other things. In the event a waiver request is submitted, the Secretary is required to act promptly and state in writing whether the waiver request is granted or denied, and why. The Secretary is also required to periodically review the performance of waiver recipients, and submit an annual report to Congress summarizing the use of waivers and their effectiveness, among other details. In addition to this waiver authority, the Secretary is also authorized to carry out demonstration projects to develop and test methods of providing access to summer meals for low-income children in urban and rural areas, to reduce or eliminate the food insecurity and hunger of low-income children and improve their nutritional status. The Secretary is required to provide for an independent evaluation of the demonstration projects carried out under this authority, and submit an annual report to Congress on the status of each project and the results of the evaluations. The total number of SFSP meals served nationwide during the summer— one indicator of program participation—increased from 113 million meals in fiscal year 2007 to 149 million meals in fiscal year 2016, or by 32 percent, according to our analysis of FNS data. The number of SFSP meals served has generally increased from year to year over this 10-year period. Most recently, meals decreased by 6 percent from 156 million meals in summer 2015 to 149 million meals in summer 2016, according to our analysis of FNS data (see fig. 2). Factors that may have affected year-to-year fluctuations include changes in funding for summer programs, sponsor participation, weather, and the number of weekdays available for sites to serve meals within a given summer, according to FNS and state agency officials we interviewed. For example, state agency officials in one of the three selected states we visited said they believe that reductions in state and local funding for summer programs that also provide meals, and turnover of sponsors, including losing one of the state’s largest sponsors in a recent summer, affected the total number of SFSP meals served in their state in 2016. According to our analysis of FNS data, SFSP lunches served in the summer months increased by over 17 million from fiscal year 2007 through fiscal year 2016, accounting for almost half of the total increase in the number of SFSP meals served in that period. However, when comparing across each of the meal types, supper and breakfast had the largest percentage increases over the 10-year period, 50 and 48 percent, respectively (see table 1). In comparison, the number of SFSP lunches served increased by 26 percent from fiscal years 2007 through fiscal year 2016. From fiscal year 2007 through fiscal year 2016, there were increases in the numbers of meals served in both SFSP and NSLP, the largest child nutrition assistance program. Specifically, SFSP lunches served in July increased from 32 million to 40 million, or 24 percent, from fiscal year 2007 to 2016, and NSLP lunches served in March increased from 328 million to 376 million meals, or 15 percent, according to our analysis of FNS data. Although the programs generally serve similar populations, different factors likely affected the number of meals served by each program, in part because NSLP serves children in schools during the school year and SFSP serves children in a variety of settings during the summer months. Although states report the actual number of SFSP meals served to FNS, they estimate the number of children participating in SFSP, and information obtained from our state survey and FNS indicate that these participation estimates have been calculated inconsistently. FNS instructs state agencies on how to calculate a statewide estimate of children’s participation in the SFSP, referred to as average daily attendance (ADA), using sponsor-reported information on the number of meals served and days of operation in July of each year. However, states’ methods for calculating ADA have differed from state to state and from year to year, according to our review of states’ survey responses and FNS documents. For example, although FNS directed states to include the number of meals served in each site’s primary meal service— which may or may not be lunch—some states, according to our survey and FNS data, were calculating ADA using only meals served at lunch. FNS officials told us that these states were therefore not following the agency’s instructions. Further, some states have changed their methods for calculating ADA over time—five states reported in our survey that the method they used to calculate ADA in fiscal year 2016 differed from the one they used previously. While FNS clarified its instructions in May 2017 to help improve the consistency of states’ ADA calculations moving forward, ADA remains an unreliable estimate of children’s daily participation in SFSP for at least two reasons, according to our analysis. (See sidebar for the revised ADA calculation instructions.) First, ADA is based on summary data that does not account for existing variation in site days of operation, and second, it is based on July data, which does not reflect the month with the greatest number of meals served in every state. According to our analysis, ADA is an unreliable estimate of children’s participation in SFSP because it currently does not account for existing variation in the number of days that each site serves meals to children. Specifically, because FNS’s instructions indicate that sites’ ADAs are to be combined to provide a statewide ADA estimate, differences in the number of days of meal service are disregarded. As a result, ADA does not reflect the average number of children served SFSP meals daily throughout the month. Our analysis of site-level data from one of the selected states illustrates this limitation. In this state, multiple sites reported an ADA of 60 for July, yet two of those sites served meals to children on only 1 day of the month and another site served meals to children on 20 days. Although 120 children were served SFSP meals only 1 day in July across two of these sites, the combined ADA across all three sites, which we calculated following FNS’s instructions, inaccurately suggests an average of 180 children were participating in SFSP at these sites on a daily basis in July. According to our analysis, ADA is also an unreliable estimate of children’s participation in SFSP because it currently does not account for state variation in the month with the greatest number of SFSP meals served, potentially leading to an underestimate. According to FNS officials, the agency instructs states to calculate ADA for July because officials identified this as the month with the largest number of meals served nationwide. However, because of reasons such as state variations in school calendars, July is not the month with the largest number of meals served in every state. In one of the selected states, Arizona, using July to calculate ADA cuts the estimate almost in half. Specifically, we followed FNS’s instructions and calculated that Arizona’s ADA was 14,987 in July 2016 compared to 26,772 in June 2016. Nationwide, in summer 2016, 26 states served more SFSP meals in June or August than in July, according to our analysis of FNS data. However, without site level data on meals served and operating days, the extent to which these states had higher ADAs in June or August as compared to July is unknown. In its May 2017 memo to states revising the ADA calculation instructions, FNS said that it is critical that the agency’s means of estimating children’s participation in the SFSP is as accurate as possible because it helps inform program implementation at the national level and facilitates strategic planning and outreach to areas with low participation. In addition, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government state that agencies should maintain quality data and process it into quality information that is shared with stakeholders to help achieve agency goals. Although FNS has also collected information on other data that states collect on the SFSP, the agency has not yet used this information to help improve its estimate of children’s participation in the program. In 2015, FNS published a Request for Information, asking whether states or sponsors collect any SFSP data that are not reported to FNS. While FNS received responses from only 15 states, these responses suggest that some states collect additional data, such as site-level data that may allow for an improved estimate of children’s SFSP participation, potentially addressing the issues we found in our analysis. In response to the information FNS received, they followed up with up to 9 of the 15 states in 2016 and 2017 to explore the feasibility of collecting additional data and improving estimates of children’s participation. Although they took these steps, FNS officials told us they are cognizant of the burden on states and site operators that would be associated with additional reporting requirements. At this time, the agency has not taken further action to improve the estimate, such as addressing the reliability issues caused by variation in the number of operating days of meal sites and in the months with the greatest number of meals served by state. As a result, FNS’s understanding of children’s participation in the SFSP remains limited, which impairs its ability to both inform program implementation and facilitate strategic planning and outreach to areas with low participation. Other federal programs that operate solely in the summer, as well as those operating year-round, help feed low-income children in the summer months. These programs include the NSLP Seamless Summer Option, which provides nutrition assistance benefits solely in the summer, and several federal programs that operate year-round. In July 2016, in addition to the 70 million meals provided through the SFSP, 26 million meals were provided to low-income children through school food authorities participating in the NSLP’s Seamless Summer Option, according to FNS data. The Seamless Summer Option was established in 2004, and according to FNS, streamlines administrative requirements to encourage school food authorities providing free or reduced-price meals during the school year under the NSLP and SBP to continue providing meals to low-income children when school is not in session. For example, officials from a national organization involved in summer meals told us the Seamless Summer Option makes it easier for school food authorities to provide summer meals because they continue working with the same state agency, reporting the same information to the state, and operating without having to transition to a separate program. Nonetheless, school food authorities can choose to provide free summer meals to children through either the SFSP or Seamless Summer Option, and the majority of states (34) reported in our survey that a greater proportion of school food authorities participated in the SFSP than the Seamless Summer Option in summer 2016. According to FNS and selected state officials, this may be related to the generally lower meal reimbursement rates school food authorities participating in the Seamless Summer Option receive compared to the rates received by those participating in the SFSP. In summer 2016, the Seamless Summer Option added to the geographic availability of summer meal sites in two of the three states we visited as part of our review. School food authorities provided summer meals through the Seamless Summer Option in Arizona and Illinois, but not in Massachusetts, based on our analysis of data provided by these states. In Arizona and Illinois, school food authorities participating in the Seamless Summer Option added 643 and 298 summer meal sites, respectively, in the month with the largest number of SFSP meals served in each state (see fig. 3). In addition, some of the Seamless Summer Option sites in these two states provided meals to children in areas where there were no SFSP sites. For example, Seamless Summer Option sites provided meals in areas near the northeastern and southwestern corners of Arizona that lacked nearby SFSP sites. In addition to the SFSP and the Seamless Summer Option, the Summer Electronic Benefit Transfer for Children (Summer EBT) demonstration provided nutrition assistance benefits to 209,000 low-income children in summer 2016 in select areas across 6 states and 2 Indian Tribal Organizations, according to FNS officials. Since the summer of 2011, Summer EBT benefits have been provided to eligible households on an electronic benefits transfer card, which households use to purchase eligible foods at authorized retailers. Specifically, the demonstration has provided monthly benefits of $30 or $60 per eligible child to households with children in areas with a perceived high level of need, based on the demonstration grantees’ assessments of the percentage of children eligible for free or reduced-price school meals and the availability of the SFSP. Consistent with this, three of the states that participated in Summer EBT in 2016 reported through our survey that these benefits helped children who were unable to access summer meals through the SFSP or the Seamless Summer Option. Further, according to an FNS- funded evaluation, Summer EBT improved food security among low- income children who participated in the demonstration. Specifically, the evaluation found the receipt of these benefits reduced the number of children in the demonstration experiencing very low food security between 2011 and 2013 by one-third. Some low-income children also receive nutrition assistance in the summer through federal programs that operate year-round. According to FNS data, in June 2016, 5.8 million infants and children participated in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) and 3 million children participated in the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP). In addition, an average of 19.2 million children participated each month in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) in fiscal year 2016, according to FNS data. These benefits are provided year-round, including when school is in session and children may also be eligible to receive school meals. In our previous work on federal domestic food assistance programs, we reported that no one program alone is intended to meet a household’s full nutritional needs. At that time, several officials and providers told us that the variety of food assistance programs offers eligible individuals and households different types of assistance and can help households fill the gaps and address the specific needs of individual members. For example, a mother with two children may rely on SNAP for her household’s basic groceries, the NSLP to feed a school-age child during the school year, and WIC to obtain supplemental foods for herself and an infant. Some low-income children also receive summer meals through nonfederal programs, according to our state survey and interviews with organizations involved in summer meals. Twenty-seven states reported in our survey that they were aware of other state- or non-state-funded programs that provided children of low-income households with meals in their states during the summer months. According to our analysis of state survey responses, local faith-based organizations and foodbanks were the most common types of entities operating these types of programs. Similarly, officials from FNS and two regional organizations we interviewed said they were aware of children receiving summer meals through nonfederal programs operated by faith- based and other community organizations. In addition, SFSP site operators at 6 of the 30 meal sites we visited in the selected states told us nearby foodbanks and faith-based organizations may also be providing children with free meals to some extent. For example, one of the meal sites we visited was operated by a foodbank that, in addition to the SFSP, provided food boxes to those in need and distributed food to other local community organizations to provide to persons in need of immediate assistance, including families with children. Although FNS and the majority of states do not collect data on nonfederal programs, results from our state survey and interviews with SFSP providers and organizations involved in summer meals indicate the reach of nonfederal programs is limited. In our survey, states reported that the geographic coverage of these nonfederal programs varied by state, with 11 states indicating that they operated in some portions of the state—the most common state response. In addition, 16 states reported that they were not aware of any nonfederal programs providing summer meals to children in their state (see fig. 4). Similarly, SFSP site operators at 24 of the 30 meal sites we visited were unaware of nonfederal programs providing meals to children in the areas in which they operated. In addition, officials from several national organizations involved in summer meals told us children have very few options for receiving summer meals beyond the federal summer meals programs. Specifically, officials from one national organization explained that food is often a significant part of the cost of a summer activity program for children and suggested that is one reason why organizations choose to participate in the SFSP. Although the SFSP provides for federal reimbursement of eligible meals and certain administrative and operating costs, nonfederal programs that provide children with summer meals may choose not to participate in the SFSP for several reasons, according to officials we interviewed from several organizations involved in summer meals. For example, some nonfederal program providers may not participate in the SFSP because they are unaware the program exists. Additionally, some nonfederal program providers may be aware of the SFSP, but choose not to participate because they do not want to follow certain program requirements, such as the nutrition or meal pattern standards. In addition, some providers may not participate in the program because they do not think they can handle certain aspects of the administrative workload associated with the SFSP. For example, a state official we interviewed told us the administrative workload associated with the SFSP can be particularly challenging, especially for smaller sponsors. Similarly, officials from a regional organization involved in summer meals told us one of the providers they work with who operated 10 meal sites chose to leave the SFSP because the paperwork required to operate the sites was too administratively burdensome for their volunteer site operators. States and SFSP providers reported challenges with meal sites, participation, and administration, though federal, state, and local entities have taken steps to improve these areas. Half or more of states reported in our survey that SFSP issues related to meal site availability, such as in rural areas, increasing children’s participation, and program administration were moderately to extremely challenging (see fig. 5). Overall, 41 states reported facing at least one challenge with the SFSP, while 9 reported facing none. Availability of transportation, low population density, and limited meal sites pose challenges for SFSP in rural areas, according to states we surveyed, selected national organizations, and state and local officials in the three selected states we visited. More than two-thirds of states in our survey reported they faced a moderate to extreme challenge with limited options in rural areas to transport children to summer meal sites (37), as well as with the distance to summer meal sites in rural areas resulting in low child turnout that affects the financial viability of site sponsorship (36). As officials from one national organization explained, it may not be cost- effective for sponsors to operate in remote or rural areas if there are not enough meal sites or children participating in the program. Similarly, a sponsor in one of the selected states indicated that there are large parts of the state where the distances between meal sites are substantial, and travel between them takes several hours. An official from one of the selected states said transportation challenges can lead to underserved rural areas, including Indian reservations. Of the three states we reviewed, each had rural areas with few or no federally funded meal sites in summer 2016. However, a majority of the children in some of those areas were eligible for free or reduced price school meals, according to Census data provided by FNS, and would therefore be “area eligible” for the purposes of SFSP. For example, as shown in figure 6, “area eligible” locations in rural western parts of Arizona did not have any SFSP or Seamless Summer Option meals sites in June 2016, the month with the greatest number of summer meals served in that state. States and SFSP providers have responded to challenges with meal sites in rural areas by using other meal delivery approaches—efforts that FNS has supported through information sharing and grants. For example, according to one national organization involved in summer meals, some SFSP providers offer vans or buses to transport children to meal sites or partner with local bus authorities to give children free rides to meal sites. Instead of transporting children to sites, other sponsors transport meals to children through mobile meal delivery, an alternative summer meal model used in 48 states according to our survey. In this model, sponsors deliver meals by bus, using a route with state-approved stops in a community, and children consume the meal at the stop under a supervised setting. According to FNS officials and representatives from national organizations, this approach can be particularly helpful for providing summer meals to children in rural areas. State officials in two selected states told us they use mobile meal delivery to help fill gaps in meal service and help children overcome the lack of transportation or resources in their community. To serve children in very remote areas with limited resources, a sponsor in one of the selected states reported piloting a model involving delivering frozen meals every other week to such areas and supplying equipment, such as freezers and microwaves, to support meal service. To help sponsors address challenges related to meal sites in rural areas, FNS has shared information on alternative delivery models through its SFSP toolkit and webinars and has also provided related grant funding. For example, in summer 2011 and 2012, FNS funded the Meal Delivery demonstration project to provide meals to children in rural areas where low population density, long distances, and transportation issues made it difficult for children to get to SFSP sites, making site and sponsor operation financially unsustainable. The demonstration project funded meals to children in rural areas of Delaware, Massachusetts, and New York, providing food delivery to homes or drop-off sites near homes of eligible children. More than half the states (30) in our survey reported they faced a moderate to extreme challenge reaching low-income children in communities that are not area eligible. Areas in which fewer than 50 percent of children qualify for free or reduced-price meals during the school year are not eligible to have open summer meal sites at which all children who come to the site can receive a free meal. As a result, some children who are eligible for free and reduced-price meals during the school year do not have open summer meal sites located in close proximity to their residences, according to several national organization officials and SFSP providers. Eligible children in these areas may instead be limited to other types of SFSP sites, such as closed enrolled summer meal sites, or nonfederal programs providing meals, if available. For example, in one of the selected states, a sponsor of SFSP sites funded meals without federal support at one site that they operated as an open site in order to serve low-income children residing in low-income housing. These children did not otherwise have access to a federally funded summer meals site, according to these officials, because the broader area was part of a school district that had a greater than 50 percent proportion of children from higher-income families. Recognizing that some children may reside in an area that is not area eligible but is immediately adjacent to such an area, FNS has allowed additional flexibility in establishing area eligibility for open meal sites. Specifically, in 2014 and 2016 policy memos, FNS expanded the ways in which states and sponsors can use Census data to establish area eligibility. For example, FNS has allowed states and sponsors to average Census data across adjacent geographic areas to determine area eligibility. FNS noted that these additional flexibilities help ensure meal sites can be located in more areas in which poor economic conditions exist. Nearly all states (50) reported in our survey that the availability of meal sites throughout the summer months was a factor critical to the success of the SFSP, yet more than half the states (27) also reported they faced a moderate to extreme challenge with limited meal site days of operation. Nineteen of the 40 states that provided information about site days of operation reported 1 day as the shortest length of operation for SFSP sites in their state in fiscal year 2016. Limited meal site days of operation was a significant challenge in one of the three selected states we visited, as almost one-quarter of sites operated for only 1 to 2 weeks across a 2-month period in summer 2016, and an additional half of sites operated for 3 to 4 weeks across that same period, according to our analysis of state data. In contrast, in the other two selected states, the majority of sites (64 and 76 percent, respectively) operated for 5 or more weeks during a 2-month period. SFSP sites may have limited days of operation for various reasons, such as constraints with program administration and costs, according to interviews with a national organization official and a sponsor in one of the selected states. Some SFSP providers and national organizations involved in summer meals have responded to these challenges by working to extend the days of operation of meal sites—efforts that FNS has supported through related grant funding. Officials from one meal site located at a school in one of the selected states told us that 2017 was the first year the site stayed open an additional 4 weeks after summer school classes ended in an effort to expand participation, an extension made possible through support from an experienced sponsor. In addition, officials from a national organization involved in sponsoring summer meals told us they encourage their local sites to operate in August—a month where there are generally fewer summer meal service offerings—to meet children’s needs. At the federal level, under its demonstration authority, FNS funded the Extending Length of Operation Incentive project, a grant which provided an additional 50-cent reimbursement for all lunch meals served at sites in Arkansas in 2010 that offered meals for 40 or more days. Two-thirds of states (34) reported through our survey that they also faced a moderate to extreme challenge with a lack of awareness of summer meal sites among children and families, a challenge also mentioned by SFSP providers in the selected states. Meal site operators in one selected state noted that making families aware that all children may receive a meal for free at open sites can be a challenge. For example, one sponsor operating a meal site in a school said the perception among some is that the meal program is only for children attending summer school, and not for others in the community. Although that site had outside banners and advertising to help address that misperception, another SFSP provider explained that having sufficient funds to market the SFSP and increase awareness among families is also a challenge. To address these challenges, state agencies, some SFSP providers, and FNS have taken steps to help promote awareness of the SFSP. For example, nearly all states (47) reported in our survey that they have increased their outreach efforts for the SFSP in the last 5 years. More than half of states (36) also reported increases in overall SFSP participation during that time, which they believe were related to their outreach efforts. The majority of states in our survey reported conducting outreach on the SFSP to groups including children, parents and guardians, and schools, among others, using methods such as flyers, email, newspapers, and social media (see fig. 7). Further, state agency officials and sponsors in the selected states reported that they have developed partnerships with state and local advocacy groups and community leaders, among others, to promote the SFSP. For example, one state agency official said they partner with local advocacy organizations to field calls from parents seeking information about summer meal sites through their hunger hotline. FNS has promoted the use of such partnerships, as well as traditional and social media, to raise awareness of the SFSP. In addition, FNS developed the Summer Meals Site Finder, an online mapping tool that provides information on summer meal sites nationwide. Attracting children of all ages to SFSP meal sites can also be a challenge, according to states and SFSP providers. More than half of the states (31) reported in our survey that they faced a moderate to extreme challenge with limited youth and teen participation at summer meal sites, and an official from a national organization involved in the SFSP explained that it is difficult to attract children to a meal site when the site is focused solely on food. Similarly, 46 states in our survey reported that providing age- appropriate programming and enrichment activities for children at summer meal sites is a factor critical to the success of the SFSP. However, some meal sites may lack the resources to add activities, according to some SFSP providers in the selected states as well as FNS and national organization officials. Attracting teens can be particularly challenging, in part because of meal service time periods, a lack of age- appropriate activities, and stigma, according to national organizations and providers we interviewed. For example, early morning meal sites generally attract younger kids as teens may be apt to sleep later in the summer, and teens may also perceive a stigma in participating in a free meal program and may face peer pressure not to eat. In addition, meal offerings at SFSP sites may also present challenges to teen participation. Specifically, because FNS bases minimum portion size requirements for meals on the needs of younger children, meals are not always adequate to meet the nutritional needs of teens, according to one sponsor we interviewed. Across the 30 meal sites in the 3 states we visited in summer 2016, we observed variety in the meals served during different meal services. (see fig. 8.) States and SFSP providers have collaborated with others and sought specific types of sites to help provide enrichment activities and attract certain age groups—efforts that FNS has supported through information sharing and related grant funding. Sponsors in the selected states said they have focused on partnerships with groups such as those focused on youth development, churches, libraries, and police or fire departments, to offer age-appropriate activities for children (see fig. 9). For example, programs with local police departments, such as Cops N Kids in one selected state, or libraries in two selected states, provided meal services in combination with youth development or other enrichment activities. (See sidebar for highlights on the Cops N Kids program.) One national organization official said activities at SFSP sites can help take away the stigma around the program because children are not just there for the meal. Efforts to rebrand the SFSP as a community event where entire families can participate at the meal site also can have this effect, which is why some sponsors in the selected states said they partnered with foodbanks to donate meals for adults. In addition, a sponsor in one selected state told us they adjusted their meal offerings to match the needs of children of different age groups, for example, by serving meals to younger children earlier in the day and meals to teens later in the day. To support participation from children of all ages, FNS has shared information on age-appropriate activities through its SFSP toolkit and provided related grant funding. For example, in 2010, FNS funded the Activity Incentive demonstration project, in which sponsors in Mississippi were provided with mini-grants to increase enrichment and recreational activities, such as education, tutoring, sports and games, arts and other activities, to draw children to meal sites. More than half the states reported in our survey that they faced a moderate to extreme challenge with limited state agency staffing (27), a limited amount of federal funding for SFSP administration (27), as well as ensuring sponsor participation to meet needs (28). In addition, 28 states reported in our survey that they faced a moderate to extreme challenge with sponsors not following program requirements. Limited staffing can affect a state agency’s ability to conduct efforts aimed at increasing participation, identifying potential sponsors, and reviewing and monitoring sponsors, according to national organization and state officials we interviewed. For example, increases in sponsors and sites requires additional staff and time to conduct pre-approval visits, sponsor and site reviews, vendor reviews, and technical assistance visits, which directly affects the amount of funding needed to support staff salaries and travel reimbursement, according to one state in our survey. However, because the SFSP administrative funds FNS provides to states are based on the number of meals served in the previous year, increasing the number of staff to help increase SFSP participation is difficult, according to a national organization official we interviewed. States reported a moderate to extreme challenge with the following issues related to ensuring sponsor participation: a lack of sponsors to meet summer meal needs, a lack of awareness of the summer meal program among potential sponsors or sites, completing federal requirements for monitoring of SFSP sponsors, and identifying potential sponsors. State agencies responsible for administering the SFSP reported relying on other resources and partners to help with program administration— strategies that FNS has supported through information sharing and its online tools. As discussed earlier, all three selected state agencies we interviewed told us they partner with advocacy groups to help expand and conduct outreach on the SFSP. Additionally, more than half the states in our survey reported several factors—which may ease the administrative burden on states—as critical to the success of the SFSP, including partnerships with SFSP sponsors (49) and retaining sponsors and sites over multiple summers (51). To support states’ use of alternative funding sources to help administer the SFSP, FNS has shared information on federal, state, and private funding and grant opportunities. FNS also developed the online Capacity Builder tool, which 35 states reported in our survey was moderately to extremely useful in identifying or confirming meal site eligibility in fiscal year 2017. Seventeen states reported in our survey that ensuring summer meal sites are in safe locations was moderately to very challenging, a challenge that some states and SFSP providers have taken steps to help address. State officials and SFSP providers in the selected states reported that when crime has occurred near a site, there are concerns about ensuring children’s safety while they are consuming meals at the site, as well as the safety of site staff delivering meals. Some sponsors noted, in particular, parents’ concerns for the safety of their children at meal sites in light of criminal activities in the surrounding area. To ensure children continue to have access to meals, some sponsors noted that in the event of an immediate threat at an outdoor meal site, site staff are sometimes able to bring children to a nearby indoor space instead. States and SFSP provider officials in two selected states told us they have also used other strategies, including partnerships with local law enforcement agencies, to help address safety concerns during the meal service and ensure children have access to meals. For example, national organizations involved in summer meals and sponsor officials in the selected states said they encourage partnerships with local police departments to use police escorts at meal sites or to follow mobile meal routes in situations where safety at the meal site is a concern. When violence or crime has occurred near a site, some states and SFSP sponsors have also sought flexibility from FNS with respect to the federal requirement that children consume summer meals on site, according to state and local officials. FNS has used its available authorities to grant some states and sponsors flexibility with respect to the requirement that children consume summer meals on site, such as when safety at the site is a concern; however, FNS has not clearly communicated to all states and sponsors the circumstances it considers when deciding whether to grant this flexibility. According to our review of letters FNS sent to multiple states approving their requests for this type of flexibility, the agency identified a consistent set of circumstances that needed to be met for it to grant this flexibility. These circumstances were described in the letters the agency sent to states and generally included verification that violent crime activities occurred within both a 6-block radius of the meal site and 72 hours prior to the meal service. FNS’s letters to states indicate that when documentation was provided to the agency showing that these circumstances existed at a summer meals site on a particular day or days, meals consumed by children off site on those days were eligible for federal reimbursement. Although FNS has issued guidance on the general processes for requesting flexibility from program requirements under its waiver and demonstration authorities, these guidance documents do not detail the specific circumstances that the agency considers when deciding whether to grant flexibility from the on-site requirement due to safety concerns. FNS has communicated this information only in its responses to specific state and sponsor requests, and it has not communicated these circumstances more broadly to all states and sponsors. FNS officials explained that they review state and sponsor requests for flexibility due to safety concerns on a case-by-case basis. However, they also acknowledged that the set of circumstances used for approval of state and sponsor requests for flexibility, which we identified in their letters to states, has been used repeatedly. Further, states and sponsors reported challenges obtaining the specific data needed for approval of a site for this type of flexibility, hampering some providers’ efforts to ensure safe delivery of meals. For example, state agency and sponsor officials in one selected state said obtaining the crime data needed to qualify for the flexibility can be an administrative burden on sponsors, and these data are not consistently available in a timely manner. According to state agency and sponsor officials in one of the selected states, daily crime statistics are not available in all areas, and while a sponsor can sometimes access current data on crime in a city, the most recent available data on crime in suburban areas are sometimes one year old. FNS is aware of state and local challenges obtaining the necessary crime data, according to our discussions with FNS officials. FNS officials acknowledged that while they have granted some state and sponsor requests to allow children to consume meals off site in certain areas where violence or crime has occurred, some sponsors were unable to implement the flexibility because they could not obtain the necessary crime data. To help achieve agency objectives and address related risks, the Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government state that agencies should communicate key information to their internal and external stakeholders. Although FNS officials told us they do not have one set of circumstances under which they approve these requests, our review found only one set of circumstances under which this type of flexibility has been approved. However, FNS has not broadly communicated the circumstances it considers in deciding whether to approve requests for flexibility with respect to the requirement that children consume summer meals on site in areas with violence or crime. Unless FNS shares this information with all states and sponsors, states and sponsors will likely continue to be challenged to use this flexibility, hindering its usefulness in ensuring safe summer meal delivery to children. In addition, FNS has issued reports to Congress evaluating some of its demonstration projects, as required under its statutory authorities, but the agency has not issued any such reports to Congress specifically on the use of flexibilities with respect to the on-site requirement in areas where safety is a concern. As previously discussed, the agency is required to annually submit certain reports to Congress regarding the use of waivers and evaluations of projects carried out under its demonstration authority. Furthermore, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government state that management should use quality information to make informed decisions and evaluate the entity’s performance in achieving key objectives and addressing risks. Yet, FNS has not evaluated nor reported on the use of waivers and demonstration projects in cases where safety was a concern. Although FNS requests reports from state agencies or sponsors that have received flexibility with summer meals delivery under FNS’s demonstration and waiver authorities, FNS officials told us they have not assessed whether their use of these flexibilities to address safety issues has been effective in ensuring safe meal delivery. FNS officials told us that they have not evaluated or reported on these flexibilities, in part, because they have limited information on their outcomes. Without understanding the impact of its use of these flexibilities, neither FNS nor Congress knows whether these flexibilities are helping provide meals to children. In addition to the challenges with safety at meal sites, sponsors also sometimes face administrative challenges when participating in multiple child nutrition programs that are operated by different state agencies or divisions within the same agency, according to officials from national and regional organizations and sponsors we interviewed. For example, officials from national organizations involved in summer meals told us the management of each child nutrition program and processes related to applications, funding, and oversight are fragmented in many states. For example, a sponsor in one of the selected states told us aspects of the SFSP and CACFP sponsor applications are highly duplicative and estimated it took 42 hours last year to complete duplicative paperwork. Another sponsor that provides school meals during the school year told us they had to fill out 60 additional pages of paperwork to provide summer meals, which coupled with having a state contact for the SFSP that was different from the one they worked with for the NSLP, was a significant burden for them. Officials from one national organization told us a lack of interoperability of some state agencies’ data systems has caused challenges and administrative burden for some sponsors. For example, in some states, different agencies oversee child nutrition programs, yet are unable to share data on sponsor approval, and therefore, sponsors are required to submit similar information to both, according to these officials. Duplicative paperwork can be particularly burdensome for some SFSP providers, as national organization officials and SFSP providers in the selected states said completing SFSP application paperwork can be especially challenging when a sponsor has staff shortages or no dedicated SFSP staff. Some selected states have worked with SFSP sponsors to help minimize the administrative burden. For example, state agency officials from one of the selected states said they have connected less-experienced sponsors to more-experienced sponsors in the community to help them with program administration. In one case, an experienced SFSP sponsor partnered with a small sponsor new to the program to help with SFSP administration, including helping them understand program rules and paperwork requirements. One SFSP sponsor also noted that their state agency took additional steps to ease administrative burden, such as making the forms for the CACFP more consistent with those for the SFSP and streamlining certain requirements for large and experienced sponsors, which the sponsor found helpful. At the federal level, FNS has established program and policy simplifications to help lessen the administrative burden on sponsors participating in multiple child nutrition programs, though the persistence of these challenges indicate that information about these simplifications has not reached all relevant state agencies. While FNS officials told us that some of the duplicative requirements may be a function of differences in statute, FNS provided guidance to states in 2011 and 2014 on simplified application procedures for institutions participating in CACFP that also wish to apply for SFSP. FNS noted in its guidance that in states where CACFP and SFSP are administered by different state agencies, state agencies are encouraged to work together to share information and streamline the application and agreement process as much as possible. FNS also addressed these simplifications in a state agency meeting in November 2017. Additionally, FNS provided guidance to states in 2012 on simplified application and review procedures for school food authorities participating in the NSLP that wish to also participate in the SFSP. Although FNS has shared this information with states in an attempt to make them aware of streamlining options, FNS officials noted that some states may choose not to implement them. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government state that management should externally communicate the necessary quality information to achieve the entity’s objectives, as well as periodically evaluate the methods of communication to ensure communication is effective and appropriate. FNS’s existing guidance addresses options for streamlining administrative requirements for sponsors participating in multiple child nutrition programs. However, information on program and policy simplifications available for sponsors participating in both NSLP and SFSP has not been shared with states recently, and challenges in this area persist, indicating this information has not reached all relevant state agencies. Without further efforts from FNS to disseminate information on current options for streamlining administrative requirements across child nutrition programs, overlapping and duplicative administrative requirements may limit children’s access to meals by discouraging sponsor participation in child nutrition programs. The purpose of the SFSP is to continue to provide children in low-income areas with nutritious meals over the summer when school is no longer in session, and to that end, the program provided 149 million SFSP meals to children in fiscal year 2016. Although meals served are one indicator of participation, FNS’s current estimates of children participating in SFSP are unreliable. Without additional understanding of children’s participation in the SFSP, FNS lacks information critical for informing program implementation, strategic planning, and outreach. The majority of states nationwide and SFSP providers in the three states we visited reported experiencing a number of challenges with the SFSP, and FNS has taken important steps to address these challenges. Two key challenges identified by officials in the selected states and national organizations we interviewed are ensuring summer meal sites are in safe locations, and meeting administrative requirements when participating in multiple child nutrition programs. FNS has taken steps to address these challenges by providing flexibilities in how meals are delivered to children and streamlining options for those providers participating in more than one child nutrition program. However, a lack of clarity concerning the circumstances under which FNS grants flexibilities in areas of violence and crime, and a lack of information on its use of these flexibilities and their impact on program administration, hinder efforts to ensure program goals are met. Furthermore, absent a reminder to states regarding existing options for streamlining administration across multiple nutrition programs, some providers may continue to be discouraged from participating in these programs due to duplicative and burdensome administrative requirements, which may ultimately limit the provision of nutritious meals to children. We are making the following four recommendations to FNS: The Administrator of FNS should improve its estimate of children’s participation in the SFSP by focusing on addressing, at a minimum, data reliability issues caused by variations in the number of operating days of meal sites and in the months in which states see the greatest number of meals served. (Recommendation 1) The Administrator of FNS should communicate to all SFSP stakeholders the circumstances it considers in approving requests for flexibility with respect to the requirement that children consume SFSP meals on-site in areas that have experienced crime and violence, taking into account the feasibility of accessing data needed for approval, to ensure safe delivery of meals to children. (Recommendation 2) The Administrator of FNS should evaluate and annually report to Congress, as required by statute, on its use of waivers and demonstration projects to grant states and sponsors flexibility with respect to the requirement that children consume SFSP meals on-site in areas experiencing crime or violence, to improve its understanding of the use and impact of granting these flexibilities on meeting program goals. (Recommendation 3) The Administrator of FNS should disseminate information about existing flexibilities available to state agencies to streamline administrative requirements for sponsors participating in the SFSP and other child nutrition programs to help lessen the administrative burden. For example, FNS could re-distribute existing guidance to state agencies that explains available flexibilities and encourage information sharing. (Recommendation 4) We provided a draft of this report to the Secretary of the USDA for review and comment. FNS officials provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. In addition, in oral comments, FNS officials, including the Deputy Administrator for Child Nutrition Programs, generally agreed with the recommendations in the report. 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 to the Secretary of the USDA and interested congressional committees. The report will also be available at no charge on the GAO website at www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-7215 or larink@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 IV. This appendix discusses in detail our methodology for addressing three research objectives: (1) What is known about participation in the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) and how has it changed in the last 10 years? (2) What other programs help feed low-income children over the summer? and (3) What challenges exist, if any, in providing summer meals to children, and to what extent does the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) provide assistance to states and sponsors to address these challenges? In addition to the methods we discuss below, to address all three research objectives, we reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, and guidance; interviewed FNS officials in its headquarters and seven regional offices; and interviewed a broad range of regional and nationwide organizations involved in the SFSP. In addition, we coordinated with officials in USDA’s Office of Inspector General on their ongoing work in this area. To address our first objective about participation in the SFSP, we analyzed FNS data on meals served for fiscal years 2007 through 2016. Specifically, we analyzed the total number of meals served nationwide through the SFSP from fiscal year 2007 through fiscal year 2016. Each month, states report to FNS the number of meals served by meal type (breakfast, lunch, snack, and supper) and the number of meals served by meal and sponsor type (e.g., government, nonprofit, etc.) using the FNS- 418 form. To add context on these trends, we also analyzed and compared the number of SFSP lunches served in July with the number of free and reduced-price lunches served to children in March through the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), the largest child nutrition assistance program, from fiscal year 2007 through fiscal year 2016. Each month, states report to FNS the number of meals served through the NSLP using the FNS-10 form. To assess the reliability of SFSP and NSLP data, we (1) performed electronic testing of relevant data elements, (2) reviewed existing information about the data and the system that produced them, and (3) interviewed agency officials knowledgeable about the data. Electronic testing included, but was not limited to, checks for missing data elements, duplicative records, and values outside a designated range or valid time period. We determined that these data were sufficiently reliable to identify the number of SFSP meals served and assess change over time. To further examine what is known about participation in the SFSP, we also reviewed FNS’s data on estimates of children’s participation in the program and determined that these estimates have been calculated inconsistently and are unreliable. To assess the reliability of these data, we reviewed documentation about the estimates, interviewed FNS officials, and asked states about the estimate calculation in our survey. As described in our findings, FNS does not collect data on the number of children participating in the SFSP. Instead, FNS relies on states’ estimates of children’s participation, which are based on other data reported by sponsors, such as the number of meals served and meal service days in July. To address our second objective about other programs that help feed children in the summer, we reviewed FNS’s estimate of the number of meals served through the NSLP’s Seamless Summer Option in fiscal year 2016. FNS does not collect data on the number of meals served through the Seamless Summer Option. Instead, FNS annually estimates the number of Seamless Summer Option meals served nationally by aggregating the number of free and reduced-price breakfasts, lunches, and snacks served through the School Breakfast Program (SBP) and NSLP in July. As previously noted, states report these data monthly to FNS. Although FNS does not know the actual number of meals served through the Seamless Summer Option, agency officials told us they believe the number of summer meals provided through the NSLP is small relative to the number of meals served through the Seamless Summer Option during the summer months. They noted that their use of July NSLP data to estimate the Seamless Summer Option meals likely overestimates the number of these meals for July and underestimates the number of these meals for the entire summer. To assess the reliability of the July NSLP data, we (1) performed electronic testing of relevant data elements, (2) reviewed existing information about the data and the system that produced them, and (3) interviewed agency officials knowledgeable about the data. Electronic testing included, but was not limited to, checking for missing data and data that fell outside of a reasonable range or date for the specific time period (July). We determined that these data were sufficiently reliable to describe the number of meals served. In addition to the data FNS requires states to report, some states collect summer meals data at the meal site level and we used such data from the three selected states to address all three objectives. For objective one, to examine the number of meals served and days of operation at each summer meals site, we analyzed site-level data for 2 months from summer 2016, including the month with the largest number of SFSP meals served in each selected state: Arizona (June and July 2016), Illinois (July and August 2016), and Massachusetts (July and August 2016). Each state also provided us with data on the number and types of meals served at each SFSP site, the site location, and the duration of time each site operated over the summer. Using the data provided by the states, we calculated the average daily attendance (ADA) for each meal site based on FNS’s instructions and examined the variation in ADA across sites and months. For our second objective on other programs, these selected states provided similar site level data for the state’s Seamless Summer Option sites, if applicable. We assessed the reliability of these data by (1) performing electronic testing of relevant data elements, (2) reviewing existing information about the data and the system that produced them, and (3) interviewing agency officials knowledgeable about the data. We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. For both our second objective on other programs and third objective about challenges in providing summer meals to children, we also examined meal site availability in the three selected states by mapping the locations of meal sites. On the maps, we included fiscal year 2016 area eligibility data from FNS’s Capacity Builder mapping tool, as provided by FNS. The site area eligibility data from FNS’s Capacity Builder is based on the U.S. Census Bureau’s 5-Year American Community Survey (ACS) estimates of children ages 0-12 and 0-18 eligible for free and reduced-price meals by Census block group and tract. According to FNS officials, FNS obtains 5-Year ACS estimates annually from the U.S. Census Bureau and updates its site area eligibility in the Capacity Builder accordingly. For fiscal year 2016, FNS used 2009- 2013 ACS data to identify and include site area eligibility in its Capacity Builder. To help inform all of our research objectives, we conducted a survey of the state agencies that oversee the SFSP in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. We administered our web-based survey between August and October 2017 and received 100 percent response rate. The survey included questions about participation in the SFSP, factors critical to the overall success of the SFSP, outreach efforts, federal technical assistance, barriers and challenges in providing summer meals, alternative summer feeding models, the NSLP’s Seamless Summer Option and the federal Summer Electronic Benefit Transfer for Children demonstration, and nonfederal programs that provide children of low- income households with meals during the summer months. The survey also requested data on SFSP sites participating in the program in fiscal year 2016 and the method state agencies used to calculate ADA in SFSP on the FNS-418 form in fiscal year 2016. Because this was not a sample survey, there are no sampling errors. However, the practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce nonsampling errors, such as variations in how respondents interpret questions and their willingness to offer accurate responses. We took steps to minimize nonsampling errors, including pretesting draft instruments and using a web-based administration system. Specifically, during survey development, we pretested draft instruments with SFSP staff from four states (Michigan, New Mexico, North Carolina, and South Dakota) in May 2017. We selected the pretest states based on information provided by officials from FNS’s regional offices and national organizations involved in summer meals about state administration of summer meals programs, with the goal of selecting a group of states with varied experiences. In the pretests, we were generally interested in the clarity, precision, and objectivity of the questions, as well as the flow and layout of the survey. For example, we wanted to ensure definitions used in the surveys were clear and known to the respondents, categories provided in close-ended questions were complete and exclusive, and the ordering of survey sections and the questions within each section were appropriate. We revised the final survey based on pretest results. Another step we took to minimize nonsampling errors was using a web-based survey. Allowing respondents to enter their responses directly into an electronic instrument created a record for each respondent in a data file and eliminated the need for and the errors associated with a manual data entry process. We did not fully validate specific information that states reported through our survey. To help inform all of our objectives and gather information about the SFSP directly at the local-level, we conducted 30 site visits in three states: Arizona (12 sites), Illinois (8 sites), and Massachusetts (10 sites) between June and July 2017, and interviewed organizations involved with the SFSP in each site visit state. We used U.S. Census Bureau data to select states and local areas within those states based on a high proportion of children in poverty, a mix of urban and rural locations, as well as a mix of sponsor and site type and diverse locations. We visited a wide variety of site locations including, but not limited to, schools, parks, community recreation areas, and libraries. At each SFSP site, we gathered information on local level factors related to SFSP participation and administration by interviewing the organization sponsoring the site, the site operators and staff, and those participating at the site using semi-structured questions. While interviewing SFSP sponsor organizations, we collected information on the sponsors’ roles in the SFSP, characteristics of the sites the organizations sponsored, outreach efforts, any challenges or barriers to SFSP administration and any efforts to address such challenges, relationships with the state agencies that administer the SFSP, relationships with FNS (national and regional offices), and the availability of nonfederally funded programs that provide meals to low-income children over the summer. During the interviews with site operators and staff, we collected information about site operation (e.g., site operating days, meals offered, etc.), any challenges to providing SFSP meals to children and any efforts to address such challenges, outreach efforts, and the proximity of the next closest meal site. The information we collected from those participating at the sites included their perspectives on the SFSP food, site food consumption habits, ease of travel to the site, and access to other SFSP sites. At each site, we made observations as to how the food was provided to the children, food consumption and waste, the approximate age range of the children being served, and availability of programs or activities (e.g., recreational sports). Using semi-structured questions, we also interviewed the state agencies responsible for administering the SFSP in the site visit states to gather further information on how the SFSP is administered in each state, statewide participation in the program, related data collection activities, any challenges to administering the program and any efforts to address such challenges, related outreach efforts, alternative meal delivery models being employed by SFSP sponsors, FNS guidance or technical assistance, and the availability of nonfederally funded programs that provide meals to low-income children over the summer. For states that indicated there were other challenge(s), we provided an open-ended question that requested a description of the challenge(s) and 14 states provided descriptions of other challenges, not shown here. For states that indicated there were other challenge(s), we provided an open-ended question that requested a description of the challenge(s) and 8 states provided descriptions of other challenges, not shown here. In addition to the contact named above, Rachel Frisk (Assistant Director), Claudine Pauselli (Analyst-in-Charge), Melissa Jaynes, and Matthew Nattinger made key contributions to this report. Also contributing to this report were Susan Aschoff, Sarah Cornetto, Ying Long, Jean McSween, Mimi Nguyen, Almeta Spencer, and Ashanta Williams.

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

Answer: The Small Business Administration (SBA) administers several programs to support small businesses, including loan guaranty programs designed to encourage lenders to provide loans to small businesses "that might not otherwise obtain financing on reasonable terms and conditions." The SBA's 7(a) loan guaranty program is considered the agency's flagship loan program. Its name is derived from Section 7(a) of the Small Business Act of 1953 (P.L. 83-163, as amended), which authorizes the SBA to provide business loans and loan guaranties to American small businesses. In FY2018, the SBA approved 60,353 7(a) loans totaling nearly $25.4 billion. The average approved 7(a) loan amount was $420,401. Proceeds from 7(a) loans may be used to establish a new business or to assist in the operation, acquisition, or expansion of an existing business. This report discusses the rationale provided for the 7(a) program; the program's borrower and lender eligibility standards and program requirements; and program statistics, including loan volume, loss rates, use of proceeds, borrower satisfaction, and borrower demographics. It also examines issues raised concerning the SBA's administration of the 7(a) program, including the oversight of 7(a) lenders and the program's lack of outcome-based performance measures. The report also surveys congressional and presidential actions taken in recent years to enhance small businesses' access to capital. For example, Congress approved legislation during the 111th Congress to provide more than $1.1 billion to temporarily subsidize the 7(a) and 504/Certified Development Companies (504/CDC) loan guaranty programs' fees and temporarily increase the 7(a) program's maximum loan guaranty percentage to 90% (funding was exhausted on January 3, 2011); raise the 7(a) program's gross loan limit from $2 million to $5 million; and establish an alternative size standard for the 7(a) and 504/CDC loan programs. The SBA waived the up-front, one-time loan guaranty fee for smaller 7(a) loans from FY2014 through FY2018; and is waiving the annual service fee for 7(a) loans of $150,000 or less made to small businesses located in a rural area or a HUBZone and reducing the up-front one-time guaranty fee for these loans from 2.0% to 0.6667% of the guaranteed portion of the loan in FY2019. The SBA has also waived the up-front, one-time loan guaranty fee for veteran loans under the SBAExpress program (up to $350,000) since January 1, 2014; and reduced the up-front, one-time loan guaranty fee on non-SBAExpress 7(a) loans to veterans from FY2015 through FY2018. P.L. 114-38, the Veterans Entrepreneurship Act of 2015, provided statutory authorization and made permanent the veteran's fee waiver under the SBAExpress program, except during any upcoming fiscal year for which the President's budget, submitted to Congress, includes a cost for the 7(a) program, in its entirety, that is above zero. Congress also approved legislation that increased the 7(a) program's authorization limit from $18.75 billion (on disbursements) in FY2014 to $23.5 billion in FY2015, $26.5 billion in FY2016, $27.5 billion in FY2017, $29.0 billion in FY2018, and $30 billion in FY2019. P.L. 115-189, the Small Business 7(a) Lending Oversight Reform Act of 2018, among other provisions, codified the SBA's Office of Credit Risk Management; required that office to annually undertake and report the findings of a risk analysis of the 7(a) program's loan portfolio; created a lender oversight committee within the SBA; authorized the Director of the Office of Credit Risk Management to undertake informal and formal enforcement actions against 7(a) lenders under specified conditions; redefined the credit elsewhere requirement; and authorized the SBA Administrator, starting in FY2019 and after providing at least 30 days' notice to specified congressional committees, to increase the amount of 7(a) loans not more than once during any fiscal year to not more than 115% of the 7(a) program's authorization limit. The Appendix provides a brief description of the 7(a) program's SBAExpress, Export Express, and Community Advantage programs.