TRIBAL INTERNET 

ACCESS

Increased Federal 

Coordination and 

Performance 

Measurement Needed

Statement of Mark Goldstein, Director, Physical 

Infrastructure

Testimony Before the Committee on 

Indian Affairs, U.S. Senate

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 2:15 p.m. ET

Wednesday, April, 27, 2016

GAO-16-504T

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-16-504T, a testimony 

before the Committee on Indian Affairs, U.S. 

Senate

April 27, 2016

TRIBAL INTERNET ACCESS: 

Increased Federal Coordination and Performance 

Measurement Needed

Why GAO Did This Study

High-speed Internet service is viewed 

as a critical component of the nation’s 

infrastructure and an economic driver,

particularly to remote tribal 

communities. This testimony

examines: (1) perspectives of tribes 

and providers on high-speed Internet 

access and barriers to increasing this 

access; (2) the level of interrelation 

and coordination between federal 

programs that promote high-speed 

Internet access on tribal lands; and (3) 

existing data and performance 

measures related to high-speed 

Internet on tribal lands. This statement 

is based on GAO’s January 2016 

report (GAO-16-222). For this report, 

GAO visited or interviewed officials 

from a non-generalizable sample of 21 

tribal entities and 6 service providers. 

GAO also reviewed FCC and USDA 

fiscal year 2010 through 2014 program 

data, funding, and materials and 

interviewed federal officials. 

What GAO Recommended

In January 2016, GAO recommended

that FCC take the following actions in 

tribal areas: (1) develop joint training 

and outreach with USDA; (2) develop 

performance goals and measures for 

improving broadband availability to 

households; (3) develop performance 

goals and measures for improving 

broadband availability to schools and 

libraries; and (4) improve the reliability 

of FCC data related to institutions that 

receive E-rate funding by defining 

“tribal” on the program application.

FCC agreed with the 

recommendations.

What GAO Found

In January 2016, GAO found that, although all 21 tribes GAO interviewed have 

some access to high-speed Internet, barriers to increasing access remain. Tribal 

officials and Internet providers said that high poverty rates among tribes and the 

high costs of connecting remote tribal villages to core Internet networks limit 

high-speed Internet availability and access. About half of the tribes GAO 

interviewed also said that the lack of sufficient administrative and technical 

expertise among tribal members limits their efforts to increase high-speed 

Internet access.

The Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) Universal Service Fund 

subsidy programs and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Rural 

Utilities Service grant programs are interrelated. The programs seek to increase 

high-speed Internet access in underserved areas, including tribal lands. GAO’s 

previous work on overlap, duplication, and fragmentation has shown that 

interagency coordination on interrelated programs can help ensure efficient use 

of resources and effective programs. However, FCC and USDA do not 

coordinate to develop joint outreach and training, which could result in inefficient 

use of federal resources and missed opportunities for resource leveraging. For 

example, USDA and FCC held separate training events in the Pacific Northwest 

Region in 2015 when a joint event could have saved limited training funds and 

reduced costs. 

FCC has placed special emphasis on improving Internet access on tribal lands 

following the issuance of the National Broadband Plan in 2010, which called for 

greater efforts to make broadband available on tribal lands. However, FCC has 

not developed performance goals and measures for improving high-speed 

Internet availability to households on tribal lands. FCC could establish baseline 

measures to track its progress by using, for example, the National Broadband 

Map which includes data on Internet availability on tribal lands. FCC also lacks 

both reliable data on high-speed Internet access and performance goals and 

measures for high-speed Internet access by tribal institutions—such as schools 

and libraries. Specifically, FCC’s E-rate program provides funds to ensure that 

schools and libraries have affordable access to modern broadband technologies, 

but FCC has neither defined “tribal” on its E-rate application nor set any

performance goals for the program’s impact on tribal institutions. Without these 

goals and measures FCC cannot assess the impact of its efforts.

View GAO-16-504T. For more information, 

contact Mark Goldstein at (202) 512-6670 or 

goldsteinm@gao.gov.
Letter

Page 1 GAO-16-504T 

Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Tester, and Members of the 

Committee:

I am pleased to be here today to discuss the state of broadband access 

and adoption on tribal lands as well as the government programs that 

promote access and adoption on tribal lands. High-speed Internet service 

is viewed as a critical component of the nation’s physical infrastructure 

and a driver of economic growth. The Internet is particularly useful to 

tribal communities—which are generally located in remote, rural 

locations—as access to it offers new opportunities for growth, 

productivity, and innovation. According to 2013 Census estimates, more 

than 640,000 American Indians and Alaska Natives reside on tribal 

lands.1 There are more than 300 Indian tribes in the continental United 

States and more than 200 federally recognized Alaska Native Villages.

Native Americans are among the most economically distressed groups in 

the United States and, according to the Census’ 2014 American 

Community Survey (ACS), about 28.3 percent live in households with 

incomes below the federal poverty level—compared to 15.5 percent for 

the U.S. population as a whole. In addition, Federal Communications 

Commission (FCC) data indicates that, as of December 2013, high-speed 

Internet was available to 37 percent of households on tribal lands—

compared to 47 percent of U.S. households in rural areas and 92 percent 

of U.S. households in urban areas.

The communications infrastructure that supports Internet access is, by 

and large, built and operated by private industry. Advances in technology, 

attained through the use of fiber optics and new wireless technologies 

have allowed providers to offer high-speed Internet that supports new 

services and applications such as streaming video. In 2010, FCC stated 

that every household and business in America should have access to 

affordable advanced telecommunication service with a speed of at least 4 

megabits per second (Mbps) download and at least 1 Mbps upload and 

that this target should be re-set every four years. In January 2015, FCC 

 1

For this testimony, GAO has defined tribal lands as lands that include any federally 

recognized Indian tribe’s reservation, off-reservation trust lands, pueblo, or colony, and 

Alaska Native regions established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, 

Pub. L. No. 92-203, 85 Stat. 688 (1971) (codified as amended at 43 U.S.C. §§ 1601 et 

seq.). Tribal lands do not include Oklahoma Tribal Statistical Areas (OTSA), and the 

population figure of 640,000 does not include the 401,000 Native Americans living on 

OTSAs.

Letter
Page 2 GAO-16-504T 

adopted a speed benchmark at download speeds of at least 25 Mbps and 

upload speeds of at least 3 Mbps.

From fiscal years 2010 to 2014, the federal government provided over 

$33 billion in assistance to telecommunications service providers and 

municipalities to build or improve networks in order to further the national 

goal of universal high-speed Internet access. The federal government has 

provided this funding through the FCC’s Universal Service Fund (USF) 

and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Rural Utilities Service 

(RUS). RUS’s programs focus on rural telecommunications development, 

while USF’s programs focus on providing support for areas where the 

cost of providing services is high, as well as for low-income consumers, 

schools, libraries, and rural health care facilities.

My statement today is based on our January 2016 report (GAO-16-222) 

on tribal high-speed Internet access. 2 My statement, like the report, 

examines (1) perspectives of selected tribes and providers on the 

importance of high-speed Internet access for tribes and any barriers to 

increasing this access on tribal lands; (2) the level of interrelation and 

coordination between federal programs at FCC and USDA that promote 

high-speed Internet access on tribal lands; and (3) existing data and FCC 

performance goals and measures related to access to high-speed 

Internet service on tribal lands and for tribal institutions.

To conduct this work for our January 2016 report, we interviewed officials 

from 18 tribal governments covering 10 of the continental states, 3 Alaska 

Native regions, and 6 service providers operating on tribal lands.3 We 

also identified and interviewed industry stakeholders such as research 

groups and telecommunications associations on their views regarding the 

barriers to increasing high-speed Internet access to broadband on tribal 

lands. In addition, we evaluated USF and RUS program coordination 

based on criteria for implementing interrelated programs developed in 

previous GAO work on fragmentation, overlap, duplication, and 

 2

GAO, Telecommunications: Additional Coordination and Performance Measurement 

Needed for High-speed Internet Access Programs on Tribal Lands, GAO-16-222,

(Washington D.C.: January 29, 2016).

3

For reporting purposes, we developed the following series of indefinite quantifiers to 

describe the tribal responses from the 21 tribal entities we interviewed: 5 of the 21 is 

described as “a few”; 5 to 9 is described as “some”; 10 to 12 is described as “about half”; 

13 to 16 is described as “many”; and 17 or more is described as “most”.
Page 3 GAO-16-504T 

interagency coordination within the federal government.4 Finally, to 

determine what data and FCC performance goals and measures exist 

related to access to high-speed Internet service on tribal lands and to 

tribal institutions, we analyzed fiscal year 2010 through 2014 data from 

USF programs providing assistance, reviewed applications and the 

guidance materials for those programs, and the agencies’ performance 

reports. Finally, we reviewed performance goals and measures for USF 

programs according to criteria established in the Government 

Performance and Results Act of 1993, as amended5 and in federal 

standards for internal control.6 More detailed information on our scope 

and methodology for that work can be found in the issued report. We 

conducted the work on which this statement is based in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards.

Tribal officials we interviewed for our January 2016 report said they place 

a high priority on institutional and personal Internet access because of the 

numerous benefits, including the following:

• Economic Development: Officials from most tribes said high-speed 

Internet is essential for economic development such as finding 

employment or establishing online businesses. FCC also found that 

community access to Internet services is critical in facilitating job 

placement, career advancement, and other uses that help to stimulate 

economic activity.

• Education: Officials from many tribes stated that high-speed Internet 

access at schools supports educational success. For example, access 

can allow students to conduct online testing or to watch online 

lectures.

 4

GAO, Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication: An Evaluation and Management Guide, 

GAO-15-49SP, (Washington, D.C.: April 14, 2015); GAO, Managing for Results: Barriers 

to Interagency Coordination, GAO/GGD-00-106, (Washington, D.C.: March 29, 2000); and

GAO, Managing for Results: Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency 

Collaborative Mechanisms, GAO-12-1022, (Washington, D.C.: September 27, 2012).

5

Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285 (Aug. 3, 1993) as amended by GPRA Modernization 

Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-352 (2010).

6

GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1,

(Washington, D.C.: November 1999).

Selected Tribes and 

Providers Identified 

Opportunities and 

Barriers Related to 

Increasing HighSpeed Internet 

Access
Page 4 GAO-16-504T 

• Health: About half of the tribes said that high-speed Internet access to 

support telemedicine was important to the tribe, particularly in rural or 

remote areas.

Officials from all 21 tribes we interviewed said that Internet service 

existed on at least some of their lands at varying connection speeds, 

ranging from less than 1 Mbps to over 25 Mbps. Some of the tribes we 

interviewed had at least some fiber optic high-speed Internet connections 

while others had slower copper lines, only mobile service, or only satellite 

service. Many of the tribal lands where we held interviews had some level 

of mobile Internet service but only a few had 4G mobile high-speed 

Internet services. Others had no mobile service. Further, officials from 

about half of the tribes we interviewed described important limitations to 

their Internet services, including higher than usual costs, small data 

allocations, slow download speeds, and unreliable connections.

In January 2016, we found that the barriers to improvements in highspeed Internet service on tribal lands are interrelated. The rugged terrain 

and rural location as well as tribal members’ limited ability to pay for highspeed Internet service were tribes’ and private providers’ most commonly 

cited impediments. Many tribal officials and all six providers we 

interviewed said these barriers can deter private investment in 

infrastructure needed to connect remote towns and villages to a service 

provider’s core network—known as the middle-mile. Middle-mile 

infrastructure may include burying fiber optic or copper cables, stringing 

cable on existing poles, or erecting towers for wireless microwave links, 

which relay wireless Internet connections from tower to tower through 

radio spectrum. Tribal lands, located far from urban areas, may not have 

the middle-mile infrastructure necessary for providers to deploy highspeed Internet.

Tribal officials and providers we interviewed also cited limited financial 

resources as a barrier to high-speed Internet access. Of the 21 tribes we 

interviewed, many reported poverty and affordability as drivers of low 

subscribership to existing Internet services or as a barrier to broadening 

the availability of services. Poverty rates among the tribes we interviewed 

varied, but many were well above the 2014 national average of 15.5 

percent. Two of the providers we interviewed discussed non-payment 

among tribal households as a disincentive to Internet service provision. 

One provider said that the customers it serves on tribal lands had nonpayment rates double that of other customer groups, and that these rates 

often follow seasonal employment patterns.

Rugged Terrain, High 

Poverty, and a Lack 

of Capacity Were the 

Most Cited Barriers to 

Increasing Access to 

High Speed Internet 

in Tribal Areas
Page 5 GAO-16-504T 

About half of the tribes we interviewed told us that a lack of tribal 

members with sufficient bureaucratic and technical expertise was a 

common barrier to increasing high-speed Internet access on tribal lands. 

Tribal officials said that tribal members do not always have the 

bureaucratic expertise required to apply for federal funds, which can lead 

to mistakes or the need to hire consultants. A lack of technical expertise 

also affects tribes’ ability to interact with private-sector Internet providers. 

For the seven tribes we interviewed that either had a tribally-owned 

provider or were in the process of establishing one, three of them said 

that the lack of expertise in the tribe was a challenge to establishing a 

tribally-owned telecommunications provider for high-speed Internet 

deployment. To address this, in the early 2000s, FCC held a number of 

Indian telecommunications initiatives, regional workshops, and 

roundtables. In fiscal year 2012, the FCC’s Office of Native Affairs and 

Policy consulted with about 200 tribal nations, many during six separate 

one- to three-day telecommunications training and consultation sessions 

on tribal lands. These included the Native Learning Labs, where 

attendees could, for example, learn about data the FCC has available on 

spectrum licensing and USF programs, among other things. The Office 

held seven training workshops in fiscal years 2014 and 2015, and plans 

to offer more in fiscal year 2016. The goal of this new series of sessions 

is to provide tribal officials with information about funding opportunities 

and policy changes with respect to high-speed Internet, USF programs, 

and spectrum issues.

In January 2016, we found that FCC and USDA implement mutually 

supportive, interrelated high-speed Internet access programs that offer 

funding to either tribal entities or service providers to achieve the goal of 

increased access. Tribal officials we interviewed said that both FCC’s and 

USDA’s programs were important for the expansion of high-speed 

Internet service on their lands. Tribes sometimes qualify for benefits from 

Interrelated Federal 

Programs Promoting 

High-Speed Internet 

Access on Tribal 

Lands Are Not Always 

Well Coordinated

FCC and USDA HighSpeed Internet Programs 

are Interrelated
Page 6 GAO-16-504T 

more than one of these programs, either directly or through private-sector 

Internet providers. Eligibility requirements are based on the need of an 

area as well as deployment requirements. Table 1 identifies three 

universal service programs that subsidize telecommunications carriers 

and services to areas that include tribal lands and two RUS grant 

programs.

Table 1: FCC and RUS Programs That Provide High-Speed Internet Services to Areas that Include Tribal Lands

FCC Programs Description Recent funding

The Connect America Fund 

(CAF) - Formerly the High Cost 

Program

CAF provides subsidies to Internet providers to 

supplement their operating costs for providing 

high-speed Internet in unserved or high-cost 

areas.

The High Cost and CAF distributed about $20 

billion in subsidies to providers between 2010 and 

2014, portions of which went to providers that 

serve tribal lands.

The USF Schools and Library 

Support Program (E-rate)

E-rate provides discounts to eligible schools 

and libraries on telecommunications services, 

Internet access, and internal connections.

E-rate provided about $13 billion in discounts to 

schools and libraries between 2010 and 2014, 

portions of which went to schools and libraries on 

tribal lands.

Healthcare Connect Fund

(HCCF)

HCCF provides assistance to ensure eligible 

rural health care providers have access to highspeed Internet services. Assistance may be 

provided to a service provider that serves tribal 

lands.

HCCF provided about $52 million to healthcare 

facilities in fiscal year 2014, a portion of which 

went to tribal lands.

RUS Programs

Distance Learning and 

Telemedicine program

The Distance Learning and Telemedicine 

program provides grants to rural communities to 

acquire technologies that use the Internet to link 

educational and medical professionals with 

people living in rural areas.

The Distance Learning and Telemedicine program 

provided about $128 million in grants and loans 

between 2010 and 2014, almost $3 million of 

which went to tribal lands.

Community Connect Program The Community Connect Program provides 

grants to rural communities to provide highspeed Internet service to unserved areas.

The Community Connect Program provided about 

$53 million in grants between 2010 and 2014, 

almost $3 million of which went to tribal lands.

Source: GAO analysis of FCC and USDA data. | GAO-16-504T
Page 7 GAO-16-504T 

While FCC and USDA programs that promote high-speed Internet access 

on tribal lands are interrelated, we found that they are not always well 

coordinated. Our body of work has shown that interagency coordination 

can help agencies with interrelated programs ensure efficient use of 

resources and effective programs.7 Agencies can enhance and sustain 

their coordinated efforts by engaging in key practices, such as 

establishing compatible policies and procedures through official 

agreements.8 Agencies can also develop means to operate across 

agency boundaries, including leveraging resources across agencies for 

joint activities such as training and outreach.9

One area lacking coordination between FCC and USDA is their outreach 

and technical assistance efforts. FCC and USDA independently conduct 

outreach and training efforts for related programs promoting Internet 

access. For example, while FCC officials said they invite USDA officials to 

FCC training workshops and are sometimes invited to USDA training 

workshops, they said that they do not coordinate to develop joint outreach 

or training events. Synchronizing these activities could be a resourcesaving mechanism, which could result in a more efficient use of limited 

federal resources, an opportunity for resource leveraging between the two 

agencies and a cost-savings to the tribes attending training events. For 

example, USDA held a training event in Washington State in fiscal year 

2015 and FCC hosted a training event in Oregon the same year. The two 

agencies could have planned a joint training event in the Pacific 

Northwest Region—each contributing to the cost of the event—that would 

have reduced the cost burdens for tribes. Tribal members with limited 

budgets would not have had to travel twice or choose between the two 

training events. Better coordination on conferences, as feasible, could 

help FCC and USDA reach a broader audience and increase the value of 

their outreach to tribes.

To this end, we recommended in January 2016 that FCC develop joint 

outreach and training efforts with USDA whenever feasible to help 

 7

GAO, Managing for Results: Barriers to Interagency Coordination, GAO/GGD-00-106, 

(Washington, D.C.: March 29, 2000).

8

GAO, Managing for Results: Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency 

Collaborative Mechanisms, GAO-12-1022, (Washington, D.C.: September 27, 2012).

9

GAO, Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication: An Evaluation and Management Guide,

GAO-15-49SP, (Washington, D.C.: April 14, 2015).

Outreach and 

Training Efforts for 

Interrelated FCC and 

USDA Programs Are 

Not Always Well 

Coordinated
Page 8 GAO-16-504T 

improve Internet availability and adoption on tribal lands. FCC concurred 

with our recommendation and summarized the areas in which it 

coordinates with USDA and said that it will continue to work with USDA to 

ensure more strategic and routine coordination. For example, FCC invited 

USDA officials to participate in all tribal consultation and training events 

planned for 2016.

FCC defines Internet availability as the presence of Internet service in an 

area, and Internet adoption as the number of people in the area 

subscribing to Internet service. In 2006, we found that data on the rate of 

availability and adoption of Internet on tribal lands was unknown because 

no federal survey had been designed to capture this information. We 

recommended that additional data be identified to help assess progress 

towards providing access to telecommunications, including high-speed 

Internet, for Native Americans living on tribal lands.10 Since then, as 

discussed in our January 2016 report, the federal government has started 

collecting data on Internet availability and adoption. However, as of 

December 2015, FCC has not identified the performance goals and 

measures it intends to achieve for broadband availability or adoption on 

tribal lands.

 10GAO, Telecommunications: Challenges to Assessing and Improving 

Telecommunications for Native Americans on Tribal Lands, GAO-06-189 (Washington, 

D.C.: January 11, 2006).

Federal Government 

is Gathering Data, but 

FCC Lacks 

Performance Goals 

and Measures for the 

Internet on Tribal 

Lands

The Federal Government 

is Gathering Data on 

Internet Availability and 

Adoption in Households 

on Tribal Lands
Page 9 GAO-16-504T 

In 2011, The National Telecommunications and Information 

Administration (NTIA), in cooperation with FCC and the states, began 

publishing the National Broadband Map, an interactive website that allows 

users to view information on high-speed Internet availability across the 

United States, including on tribal lands. The data to support the National 

Broadband Map is collected from service providers, including those 

offering service to federally recognized Indian tribes, including Alaska 

Native villages. The National Broadband Map website provides data on 

Internet availability on approximately 318 federal Indian reservations and 

associated trust lands, including upload and download speeds for both 

wireline and wireless service, technology for Internet delivery, and the 

number of Internet service providers.

While the National Broadband Map provides information about highspeed Internet availability, according to NTIA officials, the map is based 

on Census blocks.11 If a service provider reported any availability of highspeed Internet in a Census block, the entire block was counted as served. 

This could create misrepresentations of service in rural areas, which 

generally constitute large Census blocks. Because much of tribal land is

rural, the reported broadband service is shown to be greater than the 

actual service available on tribal lands, according to NTIA officials. Some 

tribal officials agreed that certain areas on the Broadband Map were 

inaccurate. For example, the map showed the Lac du Flambeau 

reservation in Wisconsin as covered because two providers reported that 

they provide Internet service on the reservation. However, according to 

tribal officials, the National Broadband Map exaggerated the level of 

service on their reservation making them unable to compete for some 

USF and RUS programs despite their efforts to document coverage 

problems to correct the map. One provider indicated that in rural areas, it 

is more difficult to get accurate data because in some cases addresses

are not used, making it difficult to link service to a census block. However, 

in the future, this provider indicated that it planned to utilize GPS 

information to provide more accurate data. Five of the six providers we 

interviewed said that the reliability of the National Broadband Map has 

improved over time.

 11Census blocks are the basis for all geographic boundaries for which the Census Bureau 

tabulates data. Census blocks are statistical areas bounded by visible features such as 

roads, streams, and railroad tracks, and by nonvisible boundaries such as property lines, 

city, township, school district, county limits, and short line-of-sight extensions of roads.

Data on Internet Availability in 

Households on Tribal Lands
Page 10 GAO-16-504T 

In 2008, Congress passed the Broadband Data Improvement Act, 12

which required the Bureau of the Census to collect information from 

residential households, including those on tribal lands. Census captured 

three aspects of Internet adoption: 1) whether a computer is owned or 

used at the residence, 2) if the household subscribes to Internet service, 

and if so, 3) whether that service is dial-up or a high-speed connection.

Census began collecting the required data on Internet adoption beginning 

with the 2013 American Community Survey (ACS). According to Census 

officials, five years of ACS data must be collected to provide data for 

areas with smaller populations. Census officials said that this data will be 

available in late 2018 and will provide an estimate for Internet adoption 

nationwide, including the first estimates for hard to reach populations 

such as Native Americans.

Agency performance measurement is the ongoing monitoring and 

reporting of program accomplishments, particularly towards preestablished goals. Performance measurement allows organizations to 

track progress in achieving their goals and provides information to identify 

gaps in program performance and plan any needed improvements. The 

GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 requires annual performance plans to 

include performance measures to show the progress the agency is 

making in achieving its goals. Further, we have identified best practices in 

articulating goals that include:

• showing baseline and trend data for past performance, and

• identifying projected target levels for performance for multi-year 

goals.13

Making high-speed Internet, including broadband Internet, available to all 

Americans is FCC’s stated long-term objective, but we found in January 

2016 that FCC has not set goals to demonstrate or measure progress 

toward achieving it. The National Broadband Map is currently the best 

 12Pub. L. No. 110-385, 122 Stat. 4096 (2008).

13GAO, Agency Performance Plans: Examples of Practices that Can Improve Usefulness 

to Decision-makers, GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-69, (Washington, D.C.: February 1999). While 

the Government Performance and Results Act is applicable to the department or agency 

level, performance goals and measures are important management tools applicable to all 

levels of an agency, including the program, project, or activity level, consistent with 

leading practices and internal controls related to performance monitoring.

Data on Internet Adoption by 

Households on Tribal Lands

FCC Has Not 

Established 

Performance Goals 

and Measures for 

Internet Availability or 

Adoption on Tribal 

Lands
Page 11 GAO-16-504T 

tool for setting goals and measuring progress toward increasing the 

availability of high-speed Internet on tribal lands. Map data are widely 

used by FCC to describe the availability of broadband nationwide. For 

example, FCC uses data gathered for the National Broadband Map in its 

annual Broadband Progress report provided to Congress as required by 

the Telecommunications Act of 1996.14

To improve performance management, we recommended in our January 

2016 report that FCC develop performance goals and measures using, 

for example, data from the National Broadband Map, to track progress on 

achieving its strategic goal of making broadband internet available to 

households on tribal lands, and FCC agreed with our recommendation.

Although Census is gathering baseline information on household Internet 

adoption, and the National Broadband Map provides data on high-speed 

Internet availability across the country, we found that FCC lacks the 

specific information it needs to measure the outcomes of its E-rate 

program at tribal schools and libraries. The E-rate program provides 

assistance to schools, school districts, and libraries to obtain 

telecommunications technology, including high-speed Internet. E-rate 

does not specifically target tribal schools and libraries, although some are 

eligible and receive benefits. Since 2010, E-rate has committed more 

than $13 billion in service provider customer fees to schools and libraries, 

and according to data provided by FCC, at least $1 billion of that amount 

supports tribal institutions.

FCC’s E-rate program has a stated goal of ensuring that all schools and 

libraries have affordable access to modern broadband technologies. 

Communicating what an agency intends to achieve and its programs for 

doing so are fundamental aims of performance management and required 

under the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010. Specifically the act requires 

an agency to have measurable, quantifiable, outcome-oriented goals for 

major functions and operations, an annual performance plan consistent 

with FCC’s strategic plan and a means to communicate the outcomes of 

its efforts. However, FCC has not set any quantifiable goals and 

performance measures for its E-rate efforts to extend high-speed Internet 

in schools and libraries nationwide or on tribal lands.

 14Pub. L. No. 104-104, § 706, 110 Stat. 56, 153 (1996).

Data Collected Does 

Not Allow FCC to 

Measure Outcomes 

of its E-rate Program 

for Tribal Institutions
Page 12 GAO-16-504T 

According to federal internal control standards, government managers 

should ensure there are adequate means of obtaining information from 

external stakeholders that may have a significant impact on the agency 

meeting its goals. To that end, FCC collects information on E-rate 

recipients nationwide through questions on its application for E-rate 

assistance. Several different types of institutions on tribal lands can 

qualify for E-rate funding, including schools operated by the tribe or 

Bureau of Indian Education, private schools operating on a reservation, 

and public school districts that serve the reservation.15 On FCC’s E-rate 

application, applicants receiving service may self-identify as tribal, but in 

this instance, the application provides no definition of “tribal.” We found 

that not all schools and libraries on tribal lands identify themselves as 

such during the application process. FCC provided us with information on 

E-rate recipients between 2010 and 2014 that self-identified as tribal, and 

the amounts committed to those recipients. These data may understate 

the amount of funds supporting schools on tribal lands. Specifically, we 

identified more than 60 additional school districts, private schools, and 

public libraries on the lands of the 21 tribes we studied that received Erate assistance but were not included in FCC’s information on tribal 

recipients. Consequently, FCC does not have accurate information on the 

number of federally recognized tribes, including Alaska Native villages, 

receiving E-rate support, or the amount being provided to them. Without 

more precise information and direction from FCC, the extent to which Erate assistance is provided to tribal institutions cannot be reliably 

determined, nor can FCC rely on the information to develop quantifiable 

goals and performance measures for improving high-speed Internet 

access in tribal schools or libraries. It is important to understand how 

these programs affect tribal institutions because FCC has made 

improving high-speed Internet access in tribal institutions a priority 

following the National Broadband Plan, with the establishment of the 

Office of Native Affairs and Policy in 2010, and its current Strategic Plan.

To address these concerns, in January 2016, we recommended that 

FCC:

 15The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (ISDEA), Pub. L. 

No. 93-638 (1975), as amended, directs the U.S. Department of the Interior, at the request 

of a tribe, to contract with Indian tribes or tribal organizations to carry out the services and 

programs the federal government provides to Indians.
Page 13 GAO-16-504T 

• improve the reliability of data related to institutions receiving E-rate 

funding by defining “tribal” on the program application. FCC agreed 

with our recommendation and intends to provide guidance to 

applicants in fiscal year 2017.

• develop performance goals and measures to track progress on 

achieving its strategic objective of ensuring that all tribal schools and 

libraries have affordable access to modern broadband technologies.

FCC also agreed with this recommendation, indicating that goals and 

performance measures, among other things, will substantially improve 

the accessibility of modern broadband technologies for tribal schools 

and libraries.

Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Tester, and Members of the 

Committee, this completes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to 

respond to any questions that you may have at this time.

If you or your staff have any questions about this testimony or the related 

report, please contact Mark Goldstein, at (202) 512-6670 or 

GoldsteinM@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional 

Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this 

statement. GAO staff who made key contributions to this testimony 

include Keith Cunningham, Assistant Director; Christopher Jones; Sarah 

Jones; Cheryl Peterson; Carl Ramirez; Cynthia Saunders; and Michelle 

Weathers.

GAO Contact and 

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(100703)
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. 

Listen to our Podcasts and read The Watchblog.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.