DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY 

PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT 

SEPTEMBER 30, 2013 

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
2 

DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY 

PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT 

SEPTEMBER 30, 2013

CONTENTS 

 Page 

Agency Head Letter 4 

 

 

SECTION 1 – MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Management’s Discussion and Analysis 6 

SECTION 2 – PERFORMANCE SECTION 

Fiscal Year 2013 Performance Report 19 

SECTION 3 – FINANCIAL SECTION

Independent Auditor’s Report 40 

Basic Financial Statements 

Balance Sheets 43 

Statements of Net Cost 44 

Statements of Changes in Net Position 45 

Statements of Resources (Budgetary and Non-Budgetary) 46 

Notes to Financial Statements 48 

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
3 

CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 

 Page 

Other Information 

Combining Balance Sheets 58 

Combining Statements of Net Cost 60 

Combining Statements of Changes in Net Position 62 

Combining Reconciliations of Net Cost of Operations (Proprietary) to Budget 64 

Schedule of Expenditures 66 

 

Schedules of Grants Made 67 

Independent Auditor’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting 

 and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of the Financial 

 Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards 68 

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY

 OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL CO-CHAIRMAN

REGIONAL HEADQUARTERS: 

236 SHARKEY AVENUE, STE. 400 

CLARKSDALE, MS 38614 

PHONE: (662) 624-8600 

FAX: (662) 624-8537 

WASHINGTON, D.C. OFFICE: 

444 NORTH CAPITOL, N.W., STE. 309 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 

PHONE: (202) 434-4872 

FAX: (202) 434-4871 

Alabama · Arkansas · Illinois · Kentucky 

Louisiana · Mississippi · Missouri · Tennessee 

www.dra.gov 

December 2, 2013 

Sylvia Mathews Burwell, Director 

The Office of Management and Budget 

725 17th Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20503 

Dear Director Burwell: 

Enclosed you will find the Delta Regional Authority’s (DRA) Performance and 

Accountability Report for FY 2013. This report is an accurate and comprehensive account of the 

Authority’s performance for FY 2013 and includes comparative financial statements for FY 2011, 

FY 2012 and FY 2013. I am pleased to report that, to date, each and every one of DRA's 

independent, financial audits have been unqualified, demonstrating that DRA is a good steward of 

the people’s investment in this agency. 

The DRA governs a culturally rich region, comprised of 252 counties and parishes in 

eight states, yet daily life remains a struggle for many. Through its leadership, strategic economic 

development investments, policy initiatives, and innovative programming the Authority strives to 

create jobs, build communities, and improve the lives of the nearly 10 million residents of the 

Delta region.

In FY 2013, the DRA - through its States’ Economic Development Assistance Program 

(SEDAP) - invested $9,111,719 of its appropriation into 70 projects in its eight-state region. This 

investment leveraged $48,434,216 in other federal, state and local funds – a ratio of 5.3 to 1 – for 

a total project investment of $57,545,935. Additionally, the DRA’s investments attracted private 

investments totaling $276,672,253 - a ratio of 30.4 to 1. Ultimately, the DRA has leveraged 

$325,106,469 in other public and private investments for a total investment ratio of 35.7 to 1. 

With these investments, the 2013 DRA States’ Economic Development Assistance 

Program is expected to realize the following results: 

 1,203 families received improved water and sewer; 

 1,242 individuals trained for jobs; and 

 2,245 jobs created and retained. 

Over the course of 12 funding cycles, the DRA has invested $119,188,005 in 799 projects 

in its eight-state region, leveraging $681,045,256 in other federal, state and local funds at a ratio 

of 5.7 to 1. Additionally, this investment has attracted $2,022,816,351 in private investment – a 

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY

 OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL CO-CHAIRMAN

REGIONAL HEADQUARTERS: 

236 SHARKEY AVENUE, STE. 400 

CLARKSDALE, MS 38614 

PHONE: (662) 624-8600 

FAX: (662) 624-8537 

WASHINGTON, D.C. OFFICE: 

444 NORTH CAPITOL, N.W., STE. 309 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 

PHONE: (202) 434-4872 

FAX: (202) 434-4871 

Alabama · Arkansas · Illinois · Kentucky 

Louisiana · Mississippi · Missouri · Tennessee 

www.dra.gov 

ratio of 17.0 to 1 – for a total of $2,703,861,607 in leveraged public and private funds resulting in 

a leverage ratio of 22.7 to 1. 

Since its inception, SEDAP has accomplished the following results: 

 25,532 families received improved water and sewer; 

 3,745 individuals trained for jobs; and 

 17,331 jobs created and retained. 

Upon projects’ completion, the following outcomes are projected for FY 2013: 

 36,111 families received improved water and sewer; 

 12,912 individuals trained for jobs; and 

 24,526 jobs created and retained. 

As evidence by this report, numerous accomplishments in FY 2013 have been realized through 

the following programs and initiatives: 

 States’ Economic Development Assistance Program (SEDAP); 

 Delta Leadership Institute (DLI); 

 Operation JumpStart (OJS); 

 Growing a Healthy Workforce in the Delta Initiative (HDI); 

 Delta Doctors; 

 Innovative Readiness Training (IRT); 

 Jobs for America’s Graduates (JAG); 

 Local Development Districts (LDD) capacity building; and 

 Save the Children. 

It is with great pleasure that the DRA submits its FY 2013 Performance and 

Accountability Report. Performance data included in this report has been compiled to provide the 

most complete and accurate results available. DRA will continue to grow as an agency and invest 

its resources to help provide the 252 counties and parishes of the Delta region with the necessary 

infrastructure, job training, and business resources to create jobs, build communities, and improve 

lives. 

 

Sincerely, 

 

 Christopher A. Masingill 

 Federal Co-Chairman 

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
SECTION I - MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
Management’s	Discussion	and	Analysis	 2013

6 Delta Regional Authority

DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY 

Listing of Officials 

September 30, 2013 

Federal Co-Chairman States’ Co-Chairman 

Mr. Christopher A. Masingill Governor Jay Nixon 

Alternate Federal Co-Chairman Alternate States’ Co-Chairman 

Mr. Michael G. Marshall Mr. Bill Ransdall 

STATE GOVERNORS, DESIGNEES, AND ALTERNATES 

Alabama Louisiana 

Governor Robert Bentley Governor Bobby Jindal 

Mr. Jim Byard, Jr. (Designee) Mr. Doyle Robinson (Designee) 

Mr. Jimmy Lester (Alternate) Mr. Matthew Parker (Alternate) 

Arkansas Mississippi 

Governor Mike Beebe Governor Phil Bryant 

Mr. Steven B. Jones Mr. Chris Champion 

(Designee & Alternate) (Designee & Alternate) 

Illinois Missouri 

Governor Pat Quinn Governor Jay Nixon 

Mr. William Stanhouse (Designee) Mr. Bill Ransdall (Designee) 

Ms. Kim Watson (Alternate) 

Kentucky Tennessee 

Governor Steven Beshear Governor Bill Haslam 

Mr. Tony Wilder Mr. Ted Townsend (Designee) 

(Designee & Alternate) Ms. Brooxie Carlton (Alternate)

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
Management’s	Discussion	and	Analysis	 2013

7 Delta Regional Authority

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
Management’s	Discussion	and	Analysis	 2013

8 Delta Regional Authority

Introduction 

The Delta Regional Authority (the Authority or DRA) is a federal-state partnership serving 252 

counties and parishes in an eight-state region. Led by a Federal Co-Chairman and the Governors 

of each participating state, the DRA is designed to remedy severe and chronic economic distress 

by stimulating economic development and fostering partnerships that have a positive impact on 

the region’s economy. DRA helps economically distressed communities capitalize on other 

federal and state programs focused on basic infrastructure development, transportation 

improvements, business development and job training services. 

Congress mandated (7U.S.C.§2009aa) that the DRA shall provide funding for the following four 

categories: 

 Basic public infrastructure in distressed counties and isolated areas of distress; 

 Transportation infrastructure for the purpose of facilitating economic development in the 

region; 

 Business development, with emphasis on entrepreneurship; and 

 Job training or employment-related education, with emphasis on use of existing public 

educational institutions located in the region. 

Congressional stipulations include: 

 The Authority will allocate at least 75% of Authority funds for use in distressed counties; 

and 

 The Authority shall allocate at least 50% of any funds for transportation and basic public 

infrastructure projects. 

The following is a discussion and analysis of the operating results and financial position of 

DRA, created by the Delta Regional Authority Act of 2000. The Authority’s original 

authorization expired on October 1, 2007, but was extended by the 2008 Farm Bill to 2013. 

As listed in the Management’s Discussion and Analysis and throughout the Performance and 

Accountability Report, DRA continues to emphasize performance accountability and 

sustainability within its programs. Please review this document in conjunction with the annual 

financial statements and accompanying notes. 

 

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
Management’s	Discussion	and	Analysis	 2013

9 Delta Regional Authority

Program Highlights for Fiscal Year 2013 

During FY 2013, the Authority continued to emphasize its four funding priority areas which are: 

basic public infrastructure, transportation infrastructure, business development, and workforce 

development, with emphasis on job creation and job retention. The total Fiscal Year 2013 

project funding allocation was $8,961,732. Basic public and transportation infrastructure project 

funding totaled $4,851,218, or 54.1% of SEDAP’s investment; investment in distressed counties 

totaled $7,396,813, or 82.5% of total investment. Fiscal Year 2013 SEDAP funds leveraged 

$48,434,216 in additional project funding – a ratio of 5.3 to 1 – and $276,672,253 in leveraged 

private investment, a ratio of 30.4 to 1. 

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
Management’s	Discussion	and	Analysis	 2013

10 Delta Regional Authority

Fiscal Year 2013 Counties and Parishes 

Distressed counties are defined as those counties that are one percent higher than the national 

average for unemployment and/or 80% or less than the national per capita income. Nondistressed counties are those counties that under one percent of the national average for 

unemployment and more than 80% of the national per capita income. 

The DRA Enabling Legislation requires the Authority to update its distressed and non-distressed 

county designation annually. The tabulation for the Fiscal Year 2013 resulted in 210 distressed 

counties and parishes and 42 non-distressed counties (see list below). 

Distressed List as of September 30, 2013 

Alabama (20) 

Barbour 

Bullock 

Butler 

Choctaw 

Clarke 

Conecuh 

Dallas 

Escambia 

Greene 

Hale 

Lowndes 

Macon 

Marengo 

Monroe 

Perry 

Pickens 

Russell 

Sumter 

Washington 

Wilcox 

Arkansas (39) 

Arkansas 

Ashley 

Baxter 

Bradley 

Calhoun 

Chicot 

Clay 

Craighead 

Crittenden 

Cross 

Dallas 

Desha 

Drew 

Fulton 

Grant 

Greene 

Independence 

Izard 

Jackson 

Jefferson 

Lawrence 

Lee 

Lincoln 

Lonoke 

Marion 

Mississippi 

Monroe 

Ouachita 

Phillips 

Poinsett 

Prairie 

Randolph 

Searcy 

Sharp 

St. Francis 

Stone 

Van Buren 

White 

Woodruff 

Illinois (11) 

Alexander 

Franklin 

Hamilton 

Hardin 

Johnson 

Massac 

Perry 

Pope 

Pulaski 

Randolph 

Union 

Kentucky (17) 

Caldwell 

Calloway 

Carlisle 

Christian 

Crittenden 

Fulton 

Graves 

Henderson 

Hopkins 

Livingston 

Lyon 

Marshall 

McLean 

Muhlenberg 

Todd 

Union 

Webster 

Louisiana (37) 

Acadia 

Allen 

Assumption 

Avoyelles 

Beauregard 

Bienville 

Caldwell 

Cameron 

Catahoula 

Claiborne 

Concordia 

De Soto 

East Carroll 

Evangeline 

Franklin 

Grant 

Iberville 

Jackson 

Jefferson Davis 

La Salle 

Lincoln 

Livingston 

Madison 

Morehouse 

Natchitoches 

Red River 

Richland 

St. Helena 

St. James 

St. Martin 

Tangipahoa 

Tensas 

Union 

Vermillion 

Washington 

West Carroll 

West Feliciana 

Mississippi (42) 

Adams 

Amite 

Attala 

Benton 

Bolivar 

Carroll 

Claiborne 

Coahoma 

Copiah 

Covington 

Franklin 

Grenada 

Holmes 

Humphreys 

Issaquena 

Jasper 

Jefferson 

Jefferson Davis 

Lawrence 

Leflore 

Lincoln 

Marion 

Marshall 

Montgomery 

Panola 

Pike 

Quitman 

Sharkey 

Simpson 

Smith 

Sunflower 

Tallahatchie 

Tate 

Tippah 

Tunica 

Union 

Walthall 

Warren 

Washington 

Wilkinson 

Yalobusha 

Yazoo 

Missouri (25) 

Bollinger 

Carter 

Crawford 

Dent 

Douglas 

Dunklin 

Howell 

Iron 

Madison 

Mississippi 

New Madrid 

Oregon 

Ozark 

Pemiscot 

Perry 

Phelps 

Reynolds 

Ripley 

Shannon 

St. Francois 

Stoddard 

Texas 

Washington 

Wayne 

Wright 

Tennessee (19) 

Benton 

Carroll 

Chester 

Crockett 

Decatur 

Dyer 

Fayette 

Gibson 

Hardeman 

Hardin 

Haywood 

Henderson 

Henry 

Lake 

Lauderdale 

Madison 

McNairy 

Obion 

Weakley

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
Management’s	Discussion	and	Analysis	 2013

11 Delta Regional Authority

Non-Distressed List as of September 30, 2013 

Alabama (0) 

All counties in Alabama are 

designated as distressed 

Arkansas (3) 

Cleveland 

Pulaski 

Union 

Illinois (5) 

Gallatin 

Jackson 

Saline 

White 

Williamson 

Kentucky (4) 

Ballard 

Hickman 

McCracken 

Trigg 

Louisiana (18) 

Ascension 

East Baton Rouge 

East Feliciana 

Iberia 

Jefferson 

LaFourche 

Orleans 

Ouachita 

Plaquemines 

Pointe Coupee 

Rapides 

St. Bernard 

St. Charles 

St. John the Baptist 

St. Landry 

St. Mary 

Webster 

West Baton Rouge 

 

Mississippi (5) 

DeSoto 

Hinds 

Lafayette 

Madison 

Rankin 

Missouri (4) 

Butler 

Cape Girardeau 

Scott 

Ste. Genevieve 

Tennessee (3) 

Marion 

Shelby 

Tipton 

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
Management’s	Discussion	and	Analysis	 2013

12 Delta Regional Authority

Organizational Structure of the Delta Regional Authority

The DRA Board is comprised of Governors from the eight states in the DRA region along with 

the Federal Co-Chairman, Christopher A. Masingill, who was appointed by President Obama and 

took office on July 13, 2010. The Governors annually appoint a States’ Co-Chairman, and in FY 

2013, Governor Jay Nixon of Missouri was elected to serve an additional one-year term as the 

fifth States’ Co-Chairman. Governor Phil Bryant of Mississippi will become the Authority’s 

sixth States’ Co-Chairman in FY 2014. The DRA statute requires the Board to hold an annual 

quorum meeting which compels the attendance of a majority designee and/or alternate of the 

states’ Governors. For all other DRA meetings, Governors may appoint a designee/alternate to 

serve in their absence. 

The relationship between the Federal Co-Chairman and Governors is a partnership where all 

board members share the fiduciary responsibility of the Authority. Moreover, the Board’s 

responsibilities are: to establish and approve investments for economic development to the 

region; assess the state of the region; facilitate and recommend interstate cooperation among 

region members; develop model legislation; support and train local development districts; and 

encourage private investment and cooperate with state economic development programs within 

the region. Board decisions require affirmation from the Federal Co-Chairman and a majority of 

participating Governors. 

An Alternate Federal Co-Chairman shall be appointed by the President; Michael G. Marshall 

took office in May 2010. 

The Federal Co-Chairman maintains an office within the DRA office and at the end of FY 2013 

employed four full-time federal employees. Additionally, the DRA office employs seven nonfederal employees who carry out the day-to-day operations within the following arenas: Finance 

and Administration; Economic and Community Development; Federal Affairs; and Public 

Engagement and Communication. 

The DRA organizational chart is as follows: 

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
Management’s	Discussion	and	Analysis	 2013

13 Delta Regional Authority

DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY

Staff	Organizational	Chart

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
Management’s	Discussion	and	Analysis	 2013

14 Delta Regional Authority

Financial Management of the Delta Regional Authority 

The DRA utilizes the General Services Administration (GSA) for assistance in the management 

of DRA’s economic development obligations, disbursements, and the financial reporting of its 

federally-appropriated dollars. Because of the Authority’s relatively small size, the use of GSA 

has been very cost-effective. GSA has also assisted the Authority with the compliance of many 

federal-mandated requirements. State administrative funds, along with other funds, are held by 

banks located throughout the DRA Region and accounted for by the Chief Administrative 

Officer. 

 

DRA has just completed its eleventh year of compliance with the Accountability of Tax Dollars 

Act of 2002. Although this requirement was first mandated in FY 2003, DRA has consistently 

initiated several additional controls and agreed upon procedural audits to ensure the financial 

integrity of the Authority. 

Financial Highlights 

The following is a summary of the changes in assets, liabilities, revenues, expenditures and net 

position at September 30, 2013, as compared to the prior year: 

 Total assets decreased $3,638,758, or -10.27% in 2013 compared to decreased assets 

of $2,206,260 , or -5.86% in 2012; 

 Total liabilities increased $12,093, or 0.40% in 2013 compared to $961,661, or 

46.57% increase in 2012; 

 Net cost of operations increased $699,271, or 3.80% in 2013 compared to 

$3,899,958, or 26.88% increase in 2012; 

 Financing sources increased $697,970, or 3.79% in 2013 compared to $3,908,442, or 

26.95% increase in 2012; and 

 Net position decreased $3,650,851 or -11.26% in 2013 compared to $3,167,921 or 

-8.90% decrease in 2012. 

Overview of the Financial Statements 

The Management’s Discussion and Analysis introduces DRA’s principal statements. The 

principal statements include: (1) balance sheets, (2) statements of net cost, (3) statements of 

changes in net position, (4) statements of resources (budgetary and non-budgetary), and (5) notes 

to financial statements. DRA also includes in this report additional information to supplement 

the principal statements. 

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
Management’s	Discussion	and	Analysis	 2013

15 Delta Regional Authority

Balance Sheets – The balance sheet is a summary of assets, liabilities and net position for each 

Fiscal Year. It includes assets in possession or managed by the entity exclusive of items subject 

to stewardship reporting (assets), amounts owed by the entity (liabilities), and amounts which 

comprise the difference (net position). 

Condensed Balance Sheets

 

2011 2012 2013 

Total Assets $ 37,645,624 $ 35,439,364 $ 31,800,606 

 

Total Liabilities $ 2,064,890 $ 3,026,551 $ 3,038,644 

 

Net Position 

 Unexpended appropriations/state funds 35,611,087 32,442,603 28,792,490 

 Cumulative results of operations (30,353) (29,790) (30,528) 

 

Total Net Position 35,580,734 32,412,813 28,761,962 

 

Total Liabilities and Net Position $ 37,645,624 $ 35,439,364 $ 31,800,606 

Total assets decreased $3,638,758, or -10.27% in FY 2013 compared to decreased assets of 

$2,206,260, or -5.86% in FY 2012. The FY 2013 decrease is higher due to a sequestered sum of 

$587,423 and rescission of $23,354. The FY 2012 decrease is attributed to a decrease in 

operational funding. 

Total liabilities increased $12,093 or 0.40% in 2013 compared to $961,661, or 46.57% increase 

in FY 2012; the FY 2013 and FY 2012 increases are due to the delays in Congressional 

appropriations, sequestration and decreased revenue thus causing delays in the grant awards. 

Statements of Net Cost – The statements of net cost are designed to show separately the 

components of the net cost of the reporting entity’s operations for the period. The net cost of 

operations is the gross cost incurred by the reporting entity less any exchange revenue earned 

from its activities. The gross cost of a program consists of the full cost of the outputs produced 

by that program plus any non-production costs that can be assigned to the program (nonproduction costs are costs linked to events other than the production of goods and services). The 

net cost of a program consists of gross cost less related exchange revenues. By disclosing the 

gross and net cost of the entity’s programs, the statements of net cost provide information that 

can be related to the outputs and outcomes of the programs and activities. 

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
Management’s	Discussion	and	Analysis	 2013

16 Delta Regional Authority

Condensed Statements of Net Cost

 

2011 2012 2013 

Program Costs 

Intergovernmental gross costs $ 376,295 $ 235,158 $ 174,094 

Net costs with the public 14,132,484 18,173,579 18,933,914 

Total Program Costs 14,508,779 18,408,737 19,108,008 

 

Net Cost of Operations $ 14,508,779 $ 18,408,737 $ 19,108,008 

The net cost of operations increased $699,271 or 3.80% from FY 2012 to FY 2013 compared to 

$3,899,958, a 26.88% increase in FY 2012. The FY 2013 increase is due to decrease in revenue 

with a slight increase in program cost as compared to the FY 2012 change due to increased 

program costs and a small portion can be attributed to increased operating expenses. Grantees 

have been encouraged to utilize funds in a timely manner. 

Statements of Changes in Net Position – The statements of changes in net position report the 

change in net position during the reporting period. Net position is affected by changes to its two 

components: cumulative results of operations and unexpended appropriations. The statement 

format is designed to display both components of net position separately to enable the user to 

better understand the nature of changes to net position as a whole. 

Condensed Statements of Changes in Net Position

 

2011 2012 2013 

Cumulative 

Results of 

Operations 

Unexpended 

Appropriations/ 

Funds 

Cumulative 

Results of 

Operations 

Unexpended 

Appropriations/ 

Funds 

Cumulative 

Results of 

Operations 

Unexpended 

Appropriations/ 

Funds 

 

Beginning Balance $ (22,432) $ 35,975,258 $ (30,353) $ 35,611,087 $ (29,790) $ 32,442,603 

 

Budgetary Financing Sources 12,277,783 (601,183) 14,965,015 (3,288,015) 14,491,512 (3,425,289) 

Other Financing Sources 2,223,075 237,012 3,444,285 119,531 4,615,758 224,824 

Total Financing 

Sources 14,500,858 (364,171) 18,409,300 (3,168,484) 19,107,270 (3,650,113) 

 

Net Cost of Operations 14,508,779 - 18,408,737 - 19,108,008 - 

 

Net Change (7,921) (364,171) 563 (3,168,484) 738 (3,650,113) 

 

Ending Balance $ (30,353) $ 35,611,087 $ (29,790) $ 32,442,603 $ (30,528) $ 28,792,490 

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
Management’s	Discussion	and	Analysis	 2013

17 Delta Regional Authority

Financing sources increased $697,970, or 3.79% in FY 2013 compared to $3,908,442, or 26.95% 

increase in FY 2012. The FY 2012 increase was due to the increase in RCAP financing sources 

which corresponds to the increase noted above in the RCAP net cost of operations. 

DRA’s net position decreased by $3,650,851 or -11.26% in FY 2013 as compared to $3,167,921 

or -8.90% decrease in FY 2012 as a result of sequestration, the decrease in revenue and an 

increase in program costs and other costs, as previously mentioned. 

Statements of Resources (Budgetary and Non-Budgetary) – The statements of resources 

(budgetary and non-budgetary) and related disclosures provide information about how budgetary 

resources were made available, as well as their statuses at the end of the period. It is the only 

financial statement predominantly derived from an entity’s budgetary general ledger in 

accordance with budgetary accounting rules, which are incorporated into generally accepted 

accounting principles (GAAP) in the United States of America for the federal government. 

Condensed Statements of Resources (Budgetary and Non-Budgetary)

 

2011 2012 2013 

 

Total Resources (Budgetary and 

 Non-Budgetary Resources) $ 23,448,564 $ 22,649,555 $ 19,954,636

 

Total Status of Budgetary Resources 21,263,147 19,223,813 15,626,804

 

Total, Unpaid Obligated Balance, Net, 

 End of Year 36,762,747 34,061,487 30,836,627

 

Net Outlays 12,287,250 14,904,306 15,455,154

The decrease in Budgetary Resources for FY 2013 and FY 2012 outlined in the table above is 

attributed to an increase in administrative and grant expenses, thereby reducing available 

resources and increasing obligation activity to re-appropriate and better utilize available funding. 

Notes to Financial Statements – The notes to financial statements are an integral part of the 

financial statements. They explain some of the information in the financial statements and 

provide more detailed data. 

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
Management’s	Discussion	and	Analysis	 2013

18 Delta Regional Authority

Limitations of the Financial Statements

The principal financial statements have been prepared to report the financial position and results 

of operations of the entity, pursuant to the requirements of 31 U.S.C. 3515(b). While the 

statements have been prepared from the books and records of the entity in accordance with 

GAAP for federal entities and the formats prescribed by the President’s Office of Management 

and Budget, the statements are, in addition to the financial reports, used to monitor and control 

budgetary resources, which are prepared from the same books and records. 

The statements should be read with the realization that they are for a component unit of the U.S. 

Government, a sovereign entity. 

Contacting DRA’s Financial Management

This financial report is designed to fulfill the obligations of DRA as it relates to the 

Accountability for Tax Dollars Act of 2002. The report details the financial position of DRA as 

of September 30, 2013 and 2012, and demonstrates DRA’s proper accountability for all the 

monies and appropriations received. 

If you have any questions about this report or need additional information, please contact the 

Delta Regional Authority via telephone by calling (662) 624-8600 or mail by directing your 

inquiry to: 

Delta Regional Authority 

236 Sharkey Avenue 

Suite 400 

Clarksdale, Mississippi 38614 

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
SECTION 2 - PERFORMANCE SECTION

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
DRA	Performance	Report	 2013

19 Delta Regional Authority

INTRODUCTION

The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (“GPRA”) requires all federal agencies 

to submit a report to Congress on actual program results at the end of each Fiscal Year along 

with its audited financial statements outlined in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 

Circular No. A-136. This report includes the following: 

 Overview of the Delta Regional Authority; 

 Summary of results on the following DRA programs and policy effort: 

o Funding Programs 

 States’ Economic Development Assistance Program (SEDAP) 

 Rural Community Advance Program (RCAP) 

o Policy and Program Efforts 

 Affordable Care Act (ACA) Outreach and Enrollment Strategy 

 Delta Doctors Program 

 Delta Leadership Institute (DLI) 

 Healthy Delta Initiative 

 Innovative Readiness Training Program (IRT) 

 Jobs for America’s Graduates (JAG) 

 Save the Children 

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
DRA	Performance	Report	 2013

20 Delta Regional Authority

Overview of the Delta Regional Authority 

Vision Statement 

After decades of decline, the Delta Region will achieve a pattern of sustained growth. Increasing 

capital investment and productivity will establish the region as a magnet for talent and 

innovation, and will nurture a sense of place within each community. 

Mission Statement 

The DRA will serve as a regional focal point for resources, planning and ideas. The DRA will be 

a catalyst for investment in the communities and in the people of the Mississippi Delta. 

The DRA, created by Congress in 2000, is a federal-state partnership serving 252 counties and 

parishes in an eight-state region. Led by presidentially appointed, senate confirmed Federal CoChairman (FCC) Chris Masingill; presidentially appointed Alternate Federal Co-Chairman 

(AFCC) Mike Marshall; State Co-Chairman Governor Jay Nixon; and the governors of each 

participating state (http://www.dra.gov/about-us/board-members/default.aspx), the Authority is 

designed to remedy severe and chronic economic distress by stimulating economic development 

and fostering partnerships that will have a positive impact on the Region’s economy. 

The Authority helps economically distressed communities to leverage other federal and state 

programs and funding opportunities through the four funding priorities: basic public 

infrastructure, transportation infrastructure, business development, and workforce development 

and training. Federal law requires at least 75 percent of funds to be invested in distressed 

counties and parishes and identified pockets of poverty, with 50 percent of the funds earmarked 

for basic public infrastructure and transportation improvements. In Fiscal Year 2013, the DRA 

invested 82.5 percent of federal funding in distressed counties and parishes and pockets of 

poverty 45.9 percent of funds in basic public infrastructure and transportation improvements. 

At the local level, the Authority coordinates efforts with a combination of community and 

federal agencies. Local development districts (LDDs), regional entities with a proven track 

record of helping small municipalities, counties and parishes improve basic infrastructure and 

stimulate growth, serve as the Authority’s front-line partners for project development and 

management. 

DRA maintains a strong partnership with USDA Rural Development (USDA-RD) through their 

network of state and local offices, which support the Authority’s Rural Communities Assistance 

Program (RCAP). Additionally, the Authority works with federal, state, and local government 

entities to invest in projects that achieve the four funding priorities. 

Economic Status of the Delta Region 

The economic challenges facing the Delta region remain serious. Like the rest of the nation, 

incomes in much of the Delta have stagnated in recent years, as continued wage pressures from 

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
DRA	Performance	Report	 2013

21 Delta Regional Authority

foreign competition coupled with one of the most dramatic economic downturns in recent 

memory and a struggling recovery have conspired to keep wage rates low in the latter half of the 

decade. Despite these downward pressures, however, nominal per capita personal income (PCPI) 

growth in the 252 counties and parishes of the DRA region has actually outpaced that of the 

eight DRA states and the U.S. in recent years. Between 2006 and 2011, nominal PCPI in the 

DRA region counties increased at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 2.7 percent, 

compared with 2.2 percent for the DRA states, and 2.0 percent for the nation. 

As encouraging as this data appear to be, unfortunately, these short-term gains are not likely to 

be sustained over the long-term, further proving the importance of efforts to increase public and 

private investment in the Delta region. This projection can be explained by the significant 

equalizing effect of the last recession. U.S. income levels grew rapidly in the 1990s and in the 

years leading up to the downturn. This period of economic expansion largely bypassed the DRA 

counties. As a result, the impact of the recession on income in the Delta counties as a group was 

less dramatic relative to the US. 

Furthermore, much of the DRA region entered the recession later than the nation as a whole. 

While PCPI at the national level saw modest growth between 2007 and 2008, rising 3.6 percent, 

the average growth rate for the DRA counties was 7.0 percent. Similarly, the drop in income 

levels experienced during the height of the recession in 2009 was less severe across the Delta 

region than at the national level. PCPI for the U.S. decreased by 5.6 percent between 2008 and 

2009, compared with just 1.7 percent for the Delta region. 

Finally, the performance of some individual counties has contributed to the region’s overall 

improvement. In a 

number of cases, the 

“improvements” in 

PCPI have been the 

result of statistical 

quirks. For example, 

several parishes 

affected by 

Hurricane Katrina in 

2005 saw dramatic 

increases in PCPI in 

subsequent years. 

This seeming 

incongruity likely 

reflects the influx of 

relief payments and 

new investment 

dollars measured 

against a diminished 

population. The 

2009 revisions to the 

$44,246

$102,767

$40,460

$89,982

$37,142

$85,770

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$70,000

$80,000

$90,000

$100,000

$110,000

$120,000

2012 2017 2022 2027 2032

Figure 1: Projected per capita income

Based on 10-year, 1995-2005 CAGR (unadjusted), in current (2012) dollars

US DRA States DRA Counties

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis, US Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

Future income projections do not account for the impact of inflation. 

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
DRA	Performance	Report	 2013

22 Delta Regional Authority

National Income and Product Account, which changed how the financial effects of disasters are 

captured, may also have contributed to the region’s growth in PCPI during this time period. 

Other strong performances can be attributed to dramatic growth in energy-related industries, 

which have a significant influence on a number of the DRA counties. 

To help reduce the effect of these anomalies, the projections of nominal PCPI growth shown in 

Figure 1 were calculated using growth rates from a less volatile period. Under this scenario, 

income growth in the DRA region would begin to more closely parallel that of the eight DRA 

states over the next two decades. However, both would lag the U.S. 

By 2032, PCPI for the U.S. is projected to reach $102,767, while total PCPI for the Delta region 

is forecast to reach just $85,770 over the same period, or 83 percent of national levels. By 

contrast, PCPI for the eight states would rise to $89,982 or 88 percent of the US level (shown in 

Figure 1). With shrinking opportunities to earn more money relative to those outside the region, 

Delta residents with marketable skills will likely migrate elsewhere in search of better paying 

jobs, again emphasizing the need for the region to recruit private investment and increase 

opportunity for high-skilled, high-paying jobs. 

One trend that has not improved in recent years is the region’s increasing dependence on public 

assistance relative to the DRA states and the U.S. To illustrate this point, Figure 2 shows the 

ratio of total wage and salary disbursements (earnings) to total government transfer payments for 

the DRA region and the 

eight DRA states. The 

annual ratio for the U.S. 

is set to 100 and 

represents the baseline 

ratio of earned income to 

transfer payments. The 

lower an index falls 

below 100, the greater 

the region’s reliance on 

transfer payments 

relative to the rest of the 

country. It is obvious that 

both the states and the 

region are growing 

increasingly dependent 

on transfer payments as a 

source of income. The 

sharp decline in the 

regional index in the 

mid-2000s is likely the 

result of Hurricane 

Katrina related 

payments. 

US=100.0

99.1

88.5

73.5

69.8

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Figure 2: Source of income index

Illustrates reliance on transfer payment as a source of income relative to the US

US DRA States DRA Counties

DRA State trend DRA County trend

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
DRA	Performance	Report	 2013

23 Delta Regional Authority

Although the index has recovered somewhat in recent years, the overall trend of the past several 

decades is clear: Delta residents are increasingly earning less income derived from work. These 

realities are further proof of the need for prioritizing economic and community development for 

the entire Delta region, attacking these discrepancies with a regional approach. In answering 

these needs, the Delta Regional Authority, with its federal, state, and local partners, strives to 

transform these economic realities by focusing investment in our four priority funding areas as 

well as improving the health of the region’s people and workforce, providing the necessary 

resources to build a supportive environment for small businesses and entrepreneurs throughout 

the region, and strengthening and connecting our state and local leadership. 

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
DRA	Performance	Report	 2013

24 Delta Regional Authority

FY 2013 States’ Economic Development Assistance Program (SEDAP) 

To better serve the DRA region, the Authority – under Chairman Chris Masingill’s leadership – 

has both realigned and reprioritized the goals of DRA’s investment program, now known as the 

States’ Economic Development Assistance Program (SEDAP). SEDAP’s current focus is on 

project development and management. Following the Chairman’s example, staff members now 

play a more active role in developing funded projects, building relationships, and connecting 

applicants and project developers to other funding sources thereby helping to complete needed 

projects. This approach is more holistic in nature and allows the Authority to be responsive to 

fluid economic development opportunities. SEDAP is now providing flexible funding solutions 

for the region. 

Clearly, economic development has always been an integral part of the process for each of the 

SEDAP applications received by the DRA. The Authority is now better positioned to fill this role 

as a project developer rather than simply a funding source for economic and community 

development. Chairman Masingill is actively engaged in developing the necessary tools and 

resources to help achieve the Authority’s goals for this program. 

The Authority’s 2013 SEDAP compliments the economic development activities taking place in 

the Region. From top to bottom, the entire program is crafted with the economic developer in 

mind. Highlights of the program include: 

Administrative Notice -- A document and method used by DRA to make and track policy and 

procedural changes. Annually, DRA reviews its procedures and programs for necessary 

revisions. These updates are encapsulated and officially announced through an Administrative 

Notice, which is made public to our stakeholders. 

Automated Application Website -- A web-based portal, found on www.dra.gov, allows 

applicants to fill out and submit applications for DRA investment programs. After release of the 

awards the site provides back-office support and tools for the management of constituent 

portfolios. Each of the DRA partner groups (DRA staff, DRA board, LDDs, and 

applicants/awardees) will have a customized web presence to assist in monitoring application 

and project activity. Transparency and accountability are enhanced through the utilization of this 

technology. 

Critical Development Projects -- These projects include investment(s) of $300M or more from 

public and/or private sources and - other than for technology-related projects - for which 350 or 

more jobs created and/or retained. Some developers refer to these projects as “super projects” 

because of the significant economic impact they bring to an area. 

Emergency/Contingency (E/C) Account -- Funds set aside for projects defined separately as 

emergencies related to natural disasters, fire, or unforeseen/unexpected developments that 

present a health and/or safety risk to communities; or contingency projects that fall outside the 

normal scope and/or timeline of the annual investment program. This funding program allows 

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
DRA	Performance	Report	 2013

25 Delta Regional Authority

17.5%

82.5%

Non‐Distressed Distressed

DRA the flexibility to act quickly to assist with needed investments in order to help restore a 

community or secure an economic development projects. 

Expedited Process -- One of several funding pathways, the “Expedited Process” will be initiated 

by the state when an immediate need exists for an economic development prospect project. A 

“prospect” would be a company committed to creating and/or retaining jobs in a community. 

Upon the request of the state, DRA will act quickly to complete the necessary review, eligibility 

determination, and award documentation delivery so as to meet the unique circumstances of the 

project. 

Federal Priority Eligibility Criteria -- Investment priorities established by the Authority, 

which have been adopted from the President’s administration. Currently the four federal 

priorities for DRA investment are: 1) Innovation and Small Business, 2) Regional Approach, 3) 

Multiple Funding Partners, and 4) Emergency Funding Need. The first priority focuses on job 

creation and/or retention and together with the other priorities these represent the primary 

objectives of the SEDAP program. Every funded project should meet at least one of these four 

federal criteria. 

Priority Status Designation -- An eligible project that meets at least one goal or priority from 

each of the three additional areas of investment focus: 1) Federal Priorities (set by the 

administration), 2) Regional Development Plan goals, and 3) DRA State Plan goals and/or 

priorities. Projects meeting these requirements are given first consideration during the project 

selection process and have the best chance of receiving a SEDAP award. 

Governors’ project recommendations, which are in line with Chairman Masingill’s and the 

President’s priorities, demonstrate the Authority’s continued emphasis of the four funding 

priority areas: 

• Basic Public Infrastructure 

• Transportation Infrastructure 

• Business Development - emphasis on entrepreneurship 

• Workforce Development 

Figure 3. Share of SEDAP funding by federal priority               Figure 4. Share of SEDAP funding by distress status                                  

54.1%

45.9%

Business & Workforce Development

Basic Public & Transporation

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
DRA	Performance	Report	 2013

26 Delta Regional Authority

As seen in figures 3 and 4, basic public and transportation infrastructure project investments 

totaled $4,851,218 (54.1 percent of SEDAP investments) and funding for distressed counties and 

parishes was $7,396,813 (82.5 percent of investments) for Fiscal Year 2013. The total project 

funding allocation is $8,961,732. SEDAP funds leveraged $48,434,216 in additional project 

funding, a ratio of 5.3 to 1, and $276,672,253 in private investment, a ratio of 30.4 to 1. For the 

FY 2013 SEDAP funding cycle the following is projected: 

• 1,096 jobs will be created 

• 1,149 jobs will be retained 

• 1,203 families will receive improved water and sewer 

• 1,242 individuals will be trained for jobs 

Over the program’s 12 years DRA has contributed $119,188,005 to 799 projects in the eightstate region for total project costs of $800,233,261. Total project cost includes $681,045,256 in 

other federal, state, and local funds, a ratio of 5.7 to 1 in additional leveraged funds. Private 

investment totals $2,022,816,351, a ratio of 17.0 to 1. Since inception, the DRA Federal Grant 

and States’ Economic Development Assistance Programs have accomplished the following: 

• 9,476 jobs created 

• 7,855 jobs retained 

• 25,532 families received improved water and sewer 

• 3,745 individuals trained for jobs 

Once all projects are completed the following is projected: 

• 13,512 jobs created 

• 11,014 jobs retained 

• 36,111 families received improved water and sewer 

• 12,912 individuals trained for jobs 

The job creation and retention numbers above are guaranteed, to a large extent, through the 

execution of the DRA Private Entity Participation Agreement. The Participation Agreement was 

developed to demonstrate the private entity’s commitment to creating and/or retaining jobs and 

injecting capital investment into a funded project. Congress intends for DRA to track certain 

metrics such as jobs created, jobs retained, families affected, and people trained. DRA also tracks 

private leveraged investment in addition to the other public investment (other project funds). 

When DRA reports to Congress the results of the prior fiscal years, there is an increased level of 

confidence in the metrics being reported due to this agreement. In the case of a project that 

benefits a private entity by allowing the entity to expand or locate a facility, DRA asks the 

private partner to show its commitment by agreeing to this legal document. In the event the 

private partner withdraws or does not meet its commitment, it is required to refund a percentage 

of the project investment to DRA as a “claw-back.” 

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
DRA	Performance	Report	 2013

27 Delta Regional Authority

Rural Community Advancement Program (RCAP) 

Beginning in 2003, Congress designated a portion of U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural 

Development - Rural Community Advancement Program (RCAP) funds for use by Delta 

Regional Authority within the same program. There are numerous programs in the RCAP 

umbrella, all of which are eligible with DRA funding. However, to-date, DRA has only funded 

three types of RCAP projects: 

1. Rural Business Opportunity Grants-RBOG 

2. Rural Business Enterprise Grants-RBEG 

3. Community Facility Grants 

Over the last eight years, DRA has successfully applied for more than $19 million in RCAP 

funding, which supported 198 projects. Traditionally, each year DRA allocates a portion of the 

RCAP dollars to fund various programmatic as well as region-wide projects determined by the 

Federal Co-Chairman. Examples of funded projects include: Local Development District (LDD) 

training, iDelta, Delta Leadership Institute, and the Delta Development Highway System. 

The remaining portion of RCAP funding is used to fund projects submitted to DRA by each State 

Director of Rural Development. These projects are typically approved projects by Rural 

Development, but were left unfunded due to fiscal year budget constraints. 

Internal meetings were held to upgrade to RCAP with the intent to streamline and improve 

administrative processes thereby placing greater emphasis on project development and 

management. Consequently, DRA will conduct site visits with more frequency. 

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
DRA	Performance	Report	 2013

28 Delta Regional Authority

Affordable Care Act (ACA) Outreach and Enrollment Strategy 

DRA has been working throughout the year to help uninsured and underinsured families and 

individuals gain access to health insurance coverage. DRA will continue to amplify these ACA 

outreach and enrollment efforts in step with the open enrollment period that began on October 1, 

2013. DRA is working in partnership with Small Business Administration (SBA), Health and 

Human Services (HHS), Department of Defense (DOD), and other partners in order to reach as 

many uninsured individuals as possible in order to educate them about how the ACA will affect 

them, and to help connect them to the information they need to enroll and with Navigators who 

can help guide them through the process. 

DRA’s ACA Accomplishments to Date: 

 This summer, DRA proactively facilitated Affordable Care Act outreach and enrollment 

as part of a larger coordinated effort helping to improve health outcomes throughout the 

Delta region. 

 DRA continued its now five-year partnership with the Department of Defense to provide 

free medical care to residents in underserved communities. More than 12,000 patients 

were seen through this program in July and August. 

 DRA distributed nearly 12,000 health resource cards to help inform and connect 

uninsured individuals to affordable insurance options. The resource was given to every 

patient that came through an IRT clinic. 

 DRA collected up-to-date contact information for thousands of IRT patients, so that 

Navigators, In-Person Assistors, Certified Application Counselors, and others will be 

better able to get in touch with the uninsured to inform them about options available to 

them through the ACA health exchanges. 

 DRA provided handouts that directed patients to Federally Qualified Health Centers 

(FQHCs) in or near their communities. 

 DRA worked with the Small Business Administration to hold educational Affordable 

Care Act seminars for small business owners and employees. 

 DRA collaborated with the US Department of Defense, US Department of Health and 

Human Services Health Resources and Services Administration, US Small Business 

Administration, and others to facili

As 

tate ACA outreach and enrollment. 

submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
DRA	Performance	Report	 2013

29 Delta Regional Authority

Delta Doctors Program 

At the conclusion of FY 2013 the Delta Doctors Program has received 56 applications surpassing 

its total number of 2012 application submissions (33). Delta Doctors also maintains constructive 

dialogue with J-1 attorneys who counsel doctors in the program. In April, DRA hosted a highly 

successful Delta Doctors Conference in Memphis, TN with more than 60 J-1 attorneys, hospitals 

and medical professionals attending. Some of the outcomes from the conference are: the need to 

market the programs together, networking with the State Conrad 30 Directors and a need to have 

a central job bank for the region that hospitals, community centers and doctors looking for jobs 

can connect. Additionally, immigration reform was discussed as what impacts it will have on the 

Region. 

DRA collaborates and 

coordinates with health clinics, 

hospitals, immigration 

attorneys, State Conrad 30 

coordinators, and the State 

Department to ensure the 

program’s integrity. To date, 

the Delta Doctors program has 

assisted with the placement of 

261 physicians in the region, 

which has increased regional 

capacity to meet the health care 

needs of Delta families. 

Compliance-forms have been sent out to physicians, hospitals and clinics to get the patient 

numbers, and the breakdown of who has been seen these forms are sent out twice a year in July 

and December. We are asking for documentation from January 1- June 30 and then in December 

will be asking for patients seen from July 1-December 31. 

Delta Doctors 

Physicians Placed by State 

State 2013 FY 2003 - 2013 

Alabama 3 3

Arkansas 1 16

Illinois 13 45

Kentucky 1 9

Louisiana 5 14

Mississippi 13 71

Missouri 8 41

Tennessee 12 62

Totals 56 261

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
DRA	Performance	Report	 2013

30 Delta Regional Authority

Delta Leadership Institute 

During the graduation session of the Delta Leadership Institute’s Executive Academy in Little 

Rock, Arkansas this past July, the Delta Regional Authority Board also entertained proposals 

from five institutions across the region: Arkansas State University’ Delta Center for Economic 

Development (ASU), University of Alabama’s College of Continuing Studies (UA), University 

of Arkansas’s Institute for Economic Advancement (IEA), University of Louisiana at Monroe 

(ULM), and the University of Mississippi’s McLean Institute for Public Service and Community 

Engagement (UM). The board concluded that Chairman Masingill would offer three of the 

institutions (ASU, ULM, UM) a role in a three-entity collaboration. All three institutes accepted 

and began planning for the 2013-2014 Executive Academy as well as the next phase of the Delta 

Leadership Network. 

In August, the Delta Regional Authority announced 

publicly that the Delta Leadership Institute (DLI) will 

become a three-entity collaboration with support from 

the entire eight-state region to build a comprehensive 

regional leadership program that focuses on issues 

affecting the Delta region. This announcement was 

based on a recommendation from the DRA Board to take 

the Delta Leadership Institute to the next level. 

The application period for the upcoming DLI Executive 

Academy was open Tuesday, August 20 - Friday, 

September 20. For the first time, this year’s application was available online, and applicants were 

be able to create a profile, complete an application, and upload recommendations to the DRA 

website. To date – seven of the eight states have submitted their Governor’s selections for the 

2013-2014 Executive Academy and those participants have been notified. 

Expectations and Projections for FY 2014 

 Orientation Session – November 4-7, Oxford, MS 

 Planning for future sessions will continue 

 We will finalize plan and announce continuing education opportunity for Delta 

Leadership Network at Harvard Kennedy School 

 Project Background 

Delta communities often lack the civic infrastructure, organizations and knowledge base 

necessary for sustained economic growth. Even those who are considered local leaders too often 

do not understand how good governance, quality infrastructure, adequate schools and quality 

health care services can work together to sustain growth. These areas often are marked by a lack 

of investment in leadership development and strategic planning. This results in a leadership void 

DLI is designed to improve the 

decisions made by leaders 

across the region by 

broadening their 

understanding of regional 

issues, creating a corps of 

leaders with a regional and 

national perspective

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
DRA	Performance	Report	 2013

31 Delta Regional Authority

and a lack of direction. Communities never decide on their priorities. With no leadership, vision 

or plans for growth, these communities will continue to struggle. 

DRA’s Delta Leadership Institute (DLI) is designed to improve the decisions made by leaders 

across the region by broadening their understanding of regional issues, creating a corps of 

leaders with a regional and national perspective. The motivation for the creation of this 

Executive Academy and Delta Leadership Network under the Delta Leadership umbrella was, in 

fact, to have an “army” of well-informed community leaders who understand not only their 

issues but the Region’s issues. To that end, those leaders who have participated in and continue 

to participate in the Delta Leadership Network (DLN) become the voice of the Region and for 

the Authority. DLN is the body of alumni who have successfully completed the year-long DLI 

Executive Academy program and continue to communicate in order to foster and strengthen 

cross-cultural, inter-governmental bonds in the region. 

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
DRA	Performance	Report	 2013

32 Delta Regional Authority

Healthy Delta Initiative 

This August, the DRA announced a Healthy Delta Initiative investment of more than $800,000 to 

implement five Healthy Workforce Challenge programs in Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, 

Louisiana and Missouri. Chairman Masingill announced notices to proceed for all five 

programs. The DRA is also in the process of re-launching the Rural Health IT Revolving Loan 

Fund to encourage providers who have not yet made the transition to electronic health records to 

do so in advance of the federal timetable for implementation. 

 

As mentioned, the DRA continues health-related work through the Delta Doctors program and 

the incredible provision of free health care services and Affordable Care Act enrollment outreach 

that occurred during this year’s Innovative Readiness Training (IRT) program. The Delta Data 

Initiative remains active and available to assist organizations in our region with the 

county/parish, state and regional data needed to present a compelling case when applying for 

grants and other funding opportunities. 

The DRA has made investments more than $9.5 million in SEDAP health-related and RCAP 

health project in the region. Combined with the Healthy Workforce Challenge and the Rural 

Health IT Revolving Loan Fund, this amounts to a direct investment of more than $10.8 million, 

not including the considerable impact of the Delta Doctors and Innovative Readiness Training 

programs. The overall DRA health footprint is significant in a region that remains burdened by 

the nation’s highest rates of chronic disease. 

In the coming months, the DRA’s Healthy Delta Initiative will continue to transition into a 

greater policy and advocacy role due to current and future federal funding limitations. In this 

new role, the DRA will continue to work on health through our ongoing collaborations, outreach 

capacity and partnerships in the existing program areas. 

DRA Healthy Workforce Challenge 

 

This August, the DRA joined HRSA in announcing twelve new recipients of the Delta States 

Rural Development Network Grant Program, and five new DRA Healthy Workforce Challenge 

awardees. The DRA Healthy Workforce Challenge investment totals more than $800,000 

devoted to improving workforce health. The five selected awardees include the following 

programs: 

Program Name Location Amount Awarded

The Tombigbee Healthcare Authority Demopolis, Alabama $163,145

ARcare Augusta, Arkansas $170,518

Southern Illinois University Center for 

Rural Health and Social Service 

Development 

Carbondale, Illinois $187,500

North Louisiana Regional Alliance Delhi, Louisiana $139,433

Mississippi County Health Department Charleston, Missouri $158,345

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
DRA	Performance	Report	 2013

33 Delta Regional Authority

DRA Healthy Workforce Challenge projects must involve the development of programs that 

work with local business and industry to incentivize healthy living through behavior change in 

the workplace. The Delta region struggles with some of the highest rates of health disparities 

and chronic disease in the country. Delta area businesses pay a high cost in overall workforce 

productivity, including high rates of workforce absences and a surge in health related expenses. 

Healthier workforces promise to provide significant cost savings and a productivity boost to 

local businesses. 

 

At minimum, Healthy Workforce Challenge programs must include a focus on smoking 

cessation, weight loss, exercise programs such as documentable activity logs, regular health 

checks and overall healthy living. The programs are encouraged to include new ways to 

encourage employees to take advantage of existing business incentives designed to influence 

healthy living in the workplace or create new incentives. 

Over the next year, the DRA will be monitoring and evaluating the Healthy Workforce 

Challenge program outcomes, in anticipation of sharing and replicating best practices throughout 

the region. 

Rural Health IT Revolving Loan Fund 

 

Late last year, the DRA collaborated with USDA to create an innovative revolving loan fund to 

assist health care providers working in Health Provider Shortage or Medically Underserved 

Areas of the Delta to make the transition to electronic health records. This program provides 

interest free loans of up to $7,500 to small health care provider offices throughout the Delta 

region to be used to install and adopt electronic health records systems. Applicants must be 

eligible to receive meaningful use incentives, as defined by the HITECH Act, and must agree to 

repay the DRA upon receipt of these federal incentives. 

 

Thus far, the DRA has provided revolving loans to providers in Mississippi, Missouri and 

Tennessee. Recent inquiries have been received from Alabama. Efforts are underway to 

encourage providers from all eight states to apply for this program as a way to help their offices 

meet the upfront costs of making the federally required transition to electronic health records. In 

the coming months, the DRA envisions working closely with State Offices of Rural Health 

Policy, medical societies and individual practitioner groups in all eight states to spread 

information about the program to providers in the Delta. 

Background 

Through its Healthy Delta Initiative (HDI), the DRA continues to highlight the importance of 

health to the region as a whole. The growing incidence of chronic disease in the region poses a 

threat to the lives, livelihoods, productivity, and economic vitality of the Delta. Within DRA 

states, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) estimates that more than 3.3 million people suffer 

from diabetes. Improving health outcomes by addressing the toll of chronic disease through 

prevention and behavior change promises to strengthen workforce productivity and spur 

economic development throughout Delta communities. 

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
DRA	Performance	Report	 2013

34 Delta Regional Authority

The Healthy Delta Initiative began in fiscal year 2011 to tackle the toll of chronic disease 

through stakeholder meetings with governors, state Health and Human Service directors, and 

local community leaders. DRA then expanded its approach to strengthening health outcomes for 

the Delta region and met with White House staff, the United States Surgeon General, and 

regional directors of federal agencies that share its concerns for the health of Delta citizens. 

Since 2011, HDI has consistently convened rural health advocacy organizations and rural health 

government agencies to develop strategic partnerships throughout the Delta region. These 

collaborations have yielded opportunities for more than 400 health care professional to receive 

technical assistance in how to access federal funding for programs that strengthen the health of 

the Delta. 

 

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
DRA	Performance	Report	 2013

35 Delta Regional Authority

Innovative Readiness Training 

In its fifth year of partnership, the Delta Regional Authority and the Department of Defense are 

bringing the Innovative Readiness Training program to the Delta region through four medical 

missions across six states: Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee. 

These medical missions provide quality medical care by licensed medical professionals-serving 

in reserve forces to residents of rural communities that otherwise have little to no access to 

quality health care. This year, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) through the 

Health Resources & Services Administration (HRSA) has joined the partnership to provide 

information and resources to patients regarding upcoming opportunities to enroll in health 

insurance. 

2014 IRT Missions 

Currently, DRA is assisting in Planning 4 missions for the 2014 cycle. Planning is underway for 

the Southern IL Care. Cajun Care held its initial planning session on September 23-26, 2013 in 

Abbeville, LA and will hold its second meeting December 17-19. Initial planning meetings for 

Arkansas Care were held September 19-20 in Newport, McCrory, Earle and Wynne the second 

follow-up meeting will take place January 28-30, 2014. 

Dates for 2014 missions: 

 Cajun Care – Abbeville, LA and Vermillion Parish 

o February 23- March 6, 2014

 Southern IL Care – Marion, Cairo, Mounds and Harrisburg 

o June 14-30, 2014 

 Northern Louisiana Care – Tallulah, Delhi, and Winnsboro 

o July 7-18, 2014 

 Arkansas Care – Earle, Wynne, Forrest City, Brinkley, McCroy and Newport 

o July 23 – August 5, 2014 

2015 IRT Missions 

For the 2015 cycle, the DRA and DOD IRT program is taking a new and exciting approach with 

a large scale mission. For a month (three weeks of medical care), the military will be in the 

region. With this type of operation, the program may incorporate tent hospitals. The four 

potentials sites are Pine Bluff, AR; West Memphis (to serve the greater Memphis population as 

well); Southeast Missouri; and Greenville, MS. 

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
DRA	Performance	Report	 2013

36 Delta Regional Authority

2013 IRT Mission Outcomes 

The Innovative Readiness Training program is one of the best ways the Delta Regional Authority 

contributes to both the training of troops and the improving health outcomes in the people. In 

2013, IRT clinics realized the following outcomes: 

Martin Medical (Martin, TN and surrounding communities) 

 3,200 patients 

o 8,800 procedures, and providing $702,000 in value 

Mississippi Medical (Clarksdale, Marks, Tunica, Rosedale, MS; Helena-West Helena, AR) 

 4,298 patients 

o 7,735 procedures, and providing $1.4 M in value 

o 1,886 patients turned away due to shortage of doctors 

Four State Medical (Blytheville, AR; Dyersburg, TN; Hayti, MO; Mayfield, KY) 

 3,942 patients 

o 14,925 procedures, and providing $1.2M in value 

o 4,263 patients turned away due to shortage of doctors 

Ferriday Medical (Ferriday, LA) 

 3,600 patients 

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
DRA	Performance	Report	 2013

37 Delta Regional Authority

Jobs for America’s Graduates 

Jobs for America’s Graduates, Inc. (JAG) is the nation’s largest and, arguably, the most 

successful school-to-work system for at-risk and disadvantaged youth. JAG focuses on keeping 

students in school through graduation, equipping them with the academic and technical skills 

necessary to improve their employability, which is parallel to DRA’s commitment to invest in 

strategies that boost employment and educational success. 

The program substantially exceeded the goals that were set, and the work was able to be carried 

out in ways that helped to assure the core goal of the grant – the expansion of Jobs for America's 

Graduates services to high risk youth in the Delta Regional Authority’s service area. 

Results of Phase II Partnership between the DRA and JAG: 

1. The full commitment of ten new schools to implement Jobs for America's Graduates in 

six of the DRA states: 

 Alabama 

 Arkansas 

 Kentucky 

 Louisiana 

 Mississippi 

 Missouri 

For the $200,000 invested in $20,000 incentive grants to the 10 new schools, a total in excess of 

$650,000 in matching commitments was generated to fully implement the JAG Model in the 

2012-13 school year including the services that will follow as the high school graduates move 

into the labor market and/or into higher education this summer. 

2. All six Governors in the targeted states have been personally engaged and made aware of 

the strategy, along with many of the Chief State School Officers and the State 

Departments of Labor. In addition, dozens of school districts have been reached by the 

JAG Affiliates to help assess and identify those that were ready to make the combination 

of commitments required to implement the JAG Model. 

3. Sustainability: it is anticipated that at least eight and likely all ten Phase II schools will be 

continuing in the upcoming school year with our own resources. 

4. A substantial amount of recognition was provided to the Delta Regional Authority in 

multiple venues including the press announcement at National Governors Association 

meeting in February 2011, the presentation to the Board of the Delta Regional Authority, 

presentations to the JAG National Training Seminar, and the presentation by the 

Chairman of the DRA to the JAG 2012 National Leadership Awards Event, the largest 

annual gathering of Jobs for America's Graduates. In addition, a direct presentation was 

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
DRA	Performance	Report	 2013

38 Delta Regional Authority

made by the Chairman at the end of the year Board of Directors meeting of Jobs for 

America's Graduates in November 2012. 

Based upon JAG’s 33 years of experience working with state and local organizations in support 

of Jobs for America's Graduates, the investment from the Delta Regional Authority which 

provided for additional outreach and engagement opportunities with Governors, Chief State 

School Officers, Commissioners and Secretaries of Labor, state legislators, and school district 

and community leaders added to and encouraged: 

 The support of Governor Phil Bryant’s initiative to substantially expand Jobs for 

Mississippi Graduates by securing the single largest appropriation in its history from the 

Legislature – $1 million. That amount, combined with funding from the two schools that 

received investments from Jobs for Mississippi Graduates, will result in an increase from 

18 to 32 schools – an increase in scale of more than 50 percent. 

 The success of Jobs for Louisiana’s Graduates in boosting the overall graduation rate of 

the state, as cited by Governor Bobby Jindal in his statement that Louisiana had achieved 

the highest graduation rates in its history, attributing this result, in part, to Jobs for 

Louisiana’s Graduates as one of the most important ingredients in its success. 

 Encouraged the overall expansion of Jobs for Arkansas Graduates under the leadership of 

Governor Mike Beebe, by adding a total of nine additional schools, plus the two schools 

funded by the DRA, to the current 70 schools, for a growth of 15 percent in Arkansas. 

 Bringing JAG to the “Bootheel” area of Missouri for the first time, and demonstrating its 

effectiveness and value, which has resulted in 300,000 of new state money to grow JAG 

to 10 new schools in the 2013-14 school year. 

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
DRA	Performance	Report	 2013

39 Delta Regional Authority

Save the Children 

Save the Children’s partnership with the Delta Regional Authority has brought professional 

development opportunities to Save the Children’s school-based literacy programs in the Delta 

region in rural areas of Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee. Save is 

currently developing the program in Missouri. Save the Children’s program specialists have 

provided high-quality professional development training and technical assistance directly to staff 

members and teachers working in these rural schools. As an additional economic benefit, Save 

the Children’s literacy programs have provided free, quality afterschool childcare options for 

working parents. 

Program Results 

 Save the Children’s program specialists trained paraprofessionals and teachers to 

implement its school-based literacy programs in a total of 52 sites. 

 Save the Children’s afterschool literacy programs served a total of 5,582 children. 

 Save the Children’s program specialists trained a total of 433 program employees and 

103 teachers.

 Books and computers to thirty Save the Children programs: Computers -- 68 Lenovo 

Think center desktops, 68 Desktop monitors, 20 Lenovo Thinkpad notebooks; Books -- 

4,210 Books; Software -- 30 Renaissance Learning licenses for STAR Reading and 

Accelerate Reader programs.

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
SECTION 3 - FINANCIAL SECTION

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
Independent Auditor’s Report 

Federal and State Co-Chairs 

 and Members of the Board 

Delta Regional Authority 

Clarksdale, Mississippi 

Report on the Financial Statements 

We have audited the accompanying financial statements of Delta Regional Authority (the 

Authority) as of and for the years ended September 30, 2013 and 2012, and the related notes to 

the financial statements, which collectively comprise the Authority’s basic financial statements 

listed in the table of contents. 

Management’s Responsibility for the Financial Statements 

Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these financial statements 

in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America; this 

includes the design, implementation and maintenance of internal control relevant to the 

preparation and fair presentation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, 

whether due to fraud or error. 

Auditor’s Responsibility 

Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits. We 

conducted our audits in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United 

States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government 

Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States; and Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) Bulletin No. 14-02, Audit Requirements for Federal Financial 

Statements. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable 

assurance about whether the financial statements are free from material misstatement. 

An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and 

disclosures in the financial statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditor’s 

judgment, including the assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the financial 

statements, whether due to fraud or error. In making those risk assessments, the auditor 

considers internal control relevant to the entity’s preparation and fair presentation of the financial 

statements in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not 

for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity’s internal control.

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
41 

Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes evaluating the appropriateness 

of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by 

management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements. 

We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a 

basis for our audit opinion. 

Opinion 

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, 

the financial position of Delta Regional Authority as of September 30, 2013 and 2012, and its net 

cost and the changes in its financial position and its resources (budgetary and non-budgetary) for 

the years then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United 

States of America. 

Required Supplementary Information 

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America require that the 

management's discussion and analysis listed in the table of contents be presented to supplement 

the basic financial statements. Such information, although not part of the basic financial 

statements, is required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board, who considers it to be 

an essential part of financial reporting for placing the basic financial statements in an appropriate 

operational, economic or historical context. We have applied certain limited procedures to the 

required supplementary information in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in 

the United States of America, which consisted of inquiries of management about the methods of 

preparing the information and comparing the information for consistency with management's 

responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements and other knowledge we obtained 

during our audits of the basic financial statements. We do not express an opinion or provide any 

assurance on the information because the limited procedures do not provide us with sufficient 

evidence to express an opinion or provide any assurance. 

Other Information 

Our audits were performed for the purpose of forming an opinion on the basic financial 

statements as a whole. The information presented in Section 2 – Performance Section, the 

combining financial statements, schedule of expenditures and schedule of grants made, as listed 

in the table of contents, is presented for purposes of additional analysis and is not a required part 

of the basic financial statements. Such information has not been subjected to the auditing 

procedures applied in the audits of the basic financial statements, and accordingly, we do not 

express an opinion or provide any assurance on it. 

Other Reporting Required by Government Auditing Standards 

In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our report dated 

December 2, 2013, on our consideration of the Authority’s internal control over financial 

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
42 

reporting and our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts 

and grant agreements and other matters. The purpose of that report is to describe the scope of 

our testing of internal control over financial reporting and compliance and the results of that 

testing, and not to provide an opinion on the internal control over financial reporting or on 

compliance. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government 

Auditing Standards in considering the Authority’s internal control over financial reporting and 

compliance. 

Jackson, Mississippi 

December 2, 2013 

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
2013 2012

ASSETS

Intragovernmental

Fund balance with Treasury 30,309,027 $ 33,696,751 $ 

Cash 863,244 1,069,779

Receivables 628,335 672,834 

TOTAL ASSETS 31,800,606 $ 35,439,364 $ 

LIABILITIES

Intragovernmental payable 235,501 $ 234,574 $ 

Accounts payable 31,266 159,198 

Grants and other payables 2,771,877 2,632,779 

TOTAL LIABILITIES 3,038,644 3,026,551

NET POSITION

Unexpended appropriations/state funds 28,792,490 32,442,603 

Cumulative results of operations (30,528) (29,790) 

TOTAL NET POSITION 28,761,962 32,412,813 

TOTAL LIABILITIES AND NET POSITION 31,800,606 $ 35,439,364 $ 

See Notes to Financial Statements

DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY

BALANCE SHEETS

SEPTEMBER 30, 2013 AND 2012

43

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
2013 2012

PROGRAM COSTS

Economic Development

Intragovernmental gross costs 174,094 $ 371,042 $ 

Less intragovernmental earned revenue - - 

Intragovernmental net costs 174,094 371,042

Gross costs with the public 18,933,914 18,037,695

Less earned revenues from the public - - 

Net costs with the public 18,933,914 18,037,695

TOTAL NET PROGRAM COSTS 19,108,008 18,408,737 

NET COST OF OPERATIONS 19,108,008 $ 18,408,737 $ 

See Notes to Financial Statements

YEARS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2013 AND 2012

STATEMENTS OF NET COST

DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY

44

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
2013

Cumulative Unexpended Cumulative Unexpended

Results Appropriations/ Results Appropriations/

of Operations Funds of Operations Funds

NET POSITION, BEGINNING BALANCE $ (29,790) $ 32,442,603 $ (30,353) $ 35,611,087

BUDGETARY FINANCING SOURCES

Appropriations received - 11,677,000 - 11,677,000

Other adjustments (recessions, etc.) - (610,777) - - 

Appropriations used 14,491,512 (14,491,512) 14,965,015 (14,965,015)

OTHER FINANCING SOURCES

Cost of operations absorbed by member states and others - 1,111,371 - 972,212

Cost of operations absorbed by RCAP - 3,252,971 - 2,559,199 

Imputed financing from costs absorbed by others 26,592 - 32,405 - 

Disbursements of RCAP funds 3,324,684 (3,324,684) 2,539,845 (2,539,845)

Disbursements of funds provided by member states and others 1,264,482 (1,264,482) 872,035 (872,035) 

TOTAL FINANCING SOURCES 19,107,270 (3,650,113) 18,409,300 (3,168,484) 

NET COST OF OPERATIONS 19,108,008 - 18,408,737 - 

NET CHANGE (738) (3,650,113) 563 (3,168,484) 

NET POSITION, ENDING BALANCE (30,528) $ 28,792,490 $ (29,790) $ 32,442,603 $ 

See Notes to Financial Statements

2012

DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY

STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN NET POSITION

YEARS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2013 AND 2012

45

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
2013

Federal State and Other

 Rural Community 

Assistance Program Eliminations Combined

Budgetary and

Budgetary Non-Budgetary Non-Budgetary Non-Budgetary Non-Budgetary

BUDGETARY RESOURCES

Unobligated balance, beginning of year 652,423 $ 659,015 $ 36,414 $ - $ 1,347,852 $ 

Recoveries of prior year obligations 3,249,138 - - - 3,249,138 

Other adjustments (recisions, etc.) (610,777) - - - (610,777) 

Budget authority

Appropriations received 11,066,223 - - - 11,066,223 

Spending authority from offsetting collections

Collected - 1,299,786 3,252,971 (188,415) 4,364,342 

TOTAL RESOURCES (BUDGETARY AND NON-BUDGETARY) 14,357,007 $ 1,958,801 $ 3,289,385 $ (188,415) $ 19,416,778 $ 

STATUS OF BUDGETARY RESOURCES

Obligations incurred

Direct 14,508,474 $ - $ - $ - $ 14,508,474 $ 

Unobligated balances/unexpended funds

Apportioned 459,310 - - - 459,310 

Unexpended funds - 694,319 (35,299) - 659,020 

TOTAL STATUS OF BUDGETARY RESOURCES 14,967,784 $ 694,319 $ (35,299) $ - $ 15,626,804 $ 

CHANGE IN OBLIGATED BALANCES

Obligated balance, net, beginning of year 33,044,329 $ - $ 1,017,158 $ - $ 34,061,487 $ 

Obligations incurred 14,508,474 1,264,482 3,324,684 - 19,097,640 

Gross outlays (14,453,948) (1,243,686) (3,375,728) - (19,073,362) 

Recoveries of prior year unpaid obligations, actual (3,249,138) - - - (3,249,138) 

Obligated balance, net, end of year

Undelivered orders 28,094,642 - - - 28,094,642 

Accounts payable 1,755,075 20,796 966,114 - 2,741,985 

Total, unpaid obligated balance, net, end of year 29,849,717 $ 20,796 $ 966,114 $ - $ 30,836,627 $ 

NET OUTLAYS

Gross outlays 14,453,948 $ 1,243,686 $ 3,375,728 $ - $ 19,073,362 $ 

Offsetting collections - (1,299,786) (3,252,971) (4,552,757) - 

NET OUTLAYS $ (56,100) 14,453,948 $ 122,757 $ - $ 14,520,605 $ 

See Notes to Financial Statements

DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY

STATEMENTS OF RESOURCES (BUDGETARY AND NON-BUDGETARY)

YEARS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2013 AND 2012

46

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
2012

 Federal State and Other

 Rural Community 

Assistance Program Eliminations Combined 

Budgetary and

Budgetary Non-Budgetary Non-Budgetary Non-Budgetary Non-Budgetary

$ 558,838 306,978 $ 17,060 $ - $ 882,876 $ 

 - 6,496,469 - - 6,496,469 

 - - - - - 

 - 11,677,000 - - 11,677,000 

 1,367,476 61,799 2,559,199 (395,264) 3,593,210 

$ 1,926,314 18,542,246 $ 2,576,259 $ (395,264) $ 22,649,555 $ 

$ - 17,889,825 $ - $ - $ 17,889,825 $ 

 - 638,559 - - 638,559 

 659,015 - 36,414 - 695,429 

$ 659,015 18,528,384 $ 36,414 $ - $ 19,223,813 $ 

$ 40,667 35,374,195 $ 1,347,885 $ - $ 36,762,747 $ 

 1,267,299 17,889,825 2,539,845 - 21,696,969 

 (1,307,966) (13,723,222) (2,870,572) - (17,901,760) 

 - (6,496,469) - - (6,496,469) 

 - 31,326,818 - - 31,326,818 

 - 1,717,511 1,017,158 2,734,669 - 

$ - 33,044,329 $ 1,017,158 $ - $ 34,061,487 $ 

$ 1,307,966 13,723,222 $ 2,870,572 $ (395,264) $ 17,506,496 $ 

 (1,367,476) (61,799) (2,540,390) (3,969,665) - 

$ (59,510) 13,661,423 $ 330,182 $ (395,264) $ 13,536,831 $ 

47

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
48

DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY 

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 

September 30, 2013 and 2012 

NOTE 1 – NATURE OF OPERATIONS AND SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT 

ACCOUNTING POLICIES 

Reporting Entity 

The Delta Regional Authority (DRA or the Authority) is a federal-state partnership serving a 252 

county/parish area in an eight-state region. Led by a federal co-chairman and the governors of 

each participating state, DRA is designed to remedy severe and chronic economic distress by 

stimulating economic development and fostering partnerships that will have a positive impact on 

the region’s economy. DRA helps economically distressed communities take advantage of other 

federal and state programs focused on basic infrastructure development and transportation 

improvements, business development and job training services. 

The Authority is a party to allocation transfers with other federal agencies as a transferring 

(parent) entity. Allocation transfers are legal delegations by one department of its authority to 

obligate budget authority and outlay funds to another department. A separate fund account 

(allocation account) is created in the U.S. Department of Treasury (Treasury) as a subset of the 

parent fund account for tracking and reporting purposes. All allocation transfers of balances are 

credited to this account, and subsequent obligations and outlays incurred by the child entity are 

charged to this allocation account as they execute the delegated activity on behalf of the parent 

entity. Generally, all financial activity related to these allocation transfers (e.g., budget 

authority, obligations, outlays) is reported in the financial statements of the parent entity from 

which the underlying legislative authority, appropriations and budget apportionments are 

derived. The Authority allocates funds, as the parent, to the United States Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. Economic Development Administration (EDA). 

Basis of Presentation 

These basic statements have been prepared from the accounting records of DRA in accordance 

with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAP) and the 

form and content for entity financial statements specified by the President’s Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) in OMB Circular No. A-136, Financial Reporting 

Requirements, as amended. GAAP, for federal entities, are standards prescribed by the Federal 

Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB), which has been designated as the official 

accounting standards setting body for the federal government by the American Institute of 

Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). 

OMB Circular No. A-136 requires agencies to prepare basic statements, which include a balance 

sheet, statement of net cost, statement of changes in net position and statement of resources 

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
49

(budgetary and non-budgetary). The balance sheets present, as of September 30, 2013 and 2012, 

amounts of future economic benefits owned or managed by DRA (assets), amounts owed by 

DRA (liabilities), and amounts which comprise the difference (net position). The statements of 

net cost report the full cost of the program, both direct and indirect costs of the output, and the 

costs of identifiable supporting services provided by other segments within DRA and other 

reporting entities. The statements of resources (budgetary and non-budgetary) report an 

agency’s budgetary activity. 

 

Management of Financial Records 

Federal appropriations are managed for DRA by the General Services Administration (GSA). 

Using the government-wide standard general ledger system (SGL), accounting transactions are 

initiated at DRA and ultimately entered into the accounting records by GSA. These transactions 

are designated in the financial statements as “federal.” 

As described in Note 3, DRA invoices and receives funds from the various member states to be 

used to pay administrative costs. This process meets the requirement of originating legislation 

which stipulates that “IN GENERAL.- Administrative expenses of the Authority (except for the 

expenses of the federal co-chairperson, including expenses of the alternate and staff of the 

federal co-chairperson, which shall be paid solely by the federal government) shall be paid (A) 

by the federal government, in an amount equal to 50% of the administrative expenses; and (B) by 

the states in the region participating in the Authority, in an amount equal to 50% of the 

administrative expenses. The funds received from the states are maintained in a local bank 

account, and transactions are initiated and managed by the DRA staff. These transactions are 

designated in the financial statements as ‘State’.” 

Basis of Accounting 

Transactions are recorded on both the accrual and budgetary basis. Under the accrual basis of 

accounting, revenues are recognized when earned and expenses are recognized when a liability is 

incurred, without regard to receipt or payment of cash. Budgetary accounting facilitates 

compliance with legal constraints on, and control of, the use of federal funds. 

The accompanying balance sheets, statements of net cost and statements of changes in net 

position have been prepared on an accrual basis. The statements of resources (budgetary and 

non-budgetary) have been prepared in accordance with budgetary accounting rules. 

Use of Estimates 

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make 

estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amount of assets and liabilities and disclosure 

of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported 

amounts of revenues, expenses and other changes in net position during the reporting period. 

Actual results could differ from those estimates. 

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
50

Revenues and Other Financing Sources 

DRA is a federal agency and receives appropriations. Other financing sources for DRA consist 

of imputed financing sources which are costs financed by other federal entities on behalf of 

DRA, as required by Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standard (SFFAS) No. 5, 

Accounting for Liabilities of the Federal Government. DRA also had a reimbursable agreement 

with the United States Department of Transportation (DOT) during fiscal years 2013 and 2012. 

Cash 

At September 30, 2013 and 2012, cash consisted of deposit accounts with several financial 

institutions. At September 30, 2013, the Authority’s cash accounts were not fully insured. 

General Property and Equipment 

Substantially all of the facilities and equipment used by DRA are under an operating lease. Any 

potentially capitalizable equipment purchased by DRA has been immaterial and has been 

expensed as incurred. 

Compensated Absences 

The Authority’s policies permit employees to accumulate annual and sick leave benefits that may 

be realized as paid time off. Expense and the related liability are recognized as annual leave 

benefits are earned. Sick leave benefits expected to be realized as paid time off are recognized as 

expense when the time off occurs, and no liability is accrued for such benefits employees have 

earned but not yet realized. The maximum accrual of annual leave is 240 hours, and there is no 

maximum accumulation of sick leave. Compensated absence liabilities for annual leave are 

computed using the regular pay and termination pay rates in effect at the balance sheet date, plus 

an additional amount for compensation-related payments such as Social Security, Medicare taxes 

and retirement computed using rates in effect at that date. 

Reclassifications 

Certain reclassifications have been made to the 2012 financial statements to conform to the 2013 

financial statement presentation. These reclassifications had no effect on net costs. 

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
51

NOTE 2 – FUND BALANCE WITH TREASURY 

DRA’s fund balance with Treasury comes from appropriations and the reimbursable agreement 

with DOT. A summary of DRA’s fund balance with Treasury is as follows: 

 

2013 2012

Fund balance with Treasury

Appropriated fund 30,309,027 $ $ 33,696,751

Status of fund balance with Treasury

Unobligated balance

Available 459,310 $ 638,559 $ 

Unavailable - - 

Obligated balance not yet disbursed 29,849,717 33,058,192

$ 30,309,027 $ 33,696,751

NOTE 3 – FUNDS RECEIVED AS ASSESSMENTS FROM MEMBER STATES 

Funds received as assessments from the various member states are maintained in a bank account 

separate from all other cash. These assessments are included with cash in the accompanying 

balance sheets. The states are required, by originating legislation, to pay 50% of the 

administrative costs of DRA. Amounts billed to the states are calculated at the beginning of each 

fiscal year and are based on the states’ 50% assessment of DRA administrative costs. The 

following table indicates funds on hand received from member states: 

2013 2012

Unobligated balance of state funds on hand, 

beginning of year $ 107,079 228,047 $ 

Current year billed to and received from states 722,729 771,551

Total available from states $ 950,776 $ 878,630

Unobligated balance of state funds on hand, 

end of year $ 185,810 $ 228,047

In addition, included in cash are funds totaling $21,552 and $129,330 at September 30, 2013 and 

2012, respectively, which are reimbursements from the RCAP program and available to offset 

future state assessments. 

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
52

NOTE 4 – LIABILITIES COVERED AND NOT COVERED BY BUDGETARY RESOURCES 

Liabilities not covered by budgetary resources are liabilities for which congressional action 

(DRA appropriation bill) is needed before budgetary resources can be provided. Liabilities of 

DRA are classified as liabilities covered or not covered by budgetary resources (DRA state 

assessments, transfers/grants from other agencies) as follows: 

2013 2012

Liabilities not covered by budgetary resources

Leave liability (federal) 34,844 $ 29,791 $ 

Leave liability (state) 25,959 25,959

Other payables (state) 24,588 4,067

Deferred inflows from grants (RCAP) 275,792 157,548

Grants payable (RCAP) 690,322 859,610 

Total liabilities not covered by budgetary resources 1,051,505 1,076,975

Liabilities covered by budgetary resources

Accounts payable 6,678 159,198

Grants payable 1,728,836 1,545,072

Payroll and leave liability 16,124 10,732

Intragovernmental payable 235,501 234,574

Total liabilities covered by budgetary resources 1,987,139 1,949,576

Total liabilities $ 3,038,644 $ 3,026,551

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
53

NOTE 5 – GRANTS AND OTHER PAYABLES 

 A summary of grants and other payables at September 30 follows: 

2013 2012

Federal

Accrued funded payroll and leave - current 12,333 $ 10,732 $ 

Accrued unfunded leave - noncurrent 34,844 29,791

Grants payable 1,728,836 1,545,072 

Total federal 1,776,013 1,585,595 

State and Other

Accrued leave 29,750 30,026 

Total state and other 29,750 30,026 

Rural Community Assistance Program 

Deferred inflows of grant funds 275,792 157,548

Grants payable 690,322 859,610 

Total Rural Community Assistance Program 966,114 1,017,158 

$ 2,632,779 2,771,877 $ 

NOTE 6 – APPORTIONMENT CATEGORIES OF OBLIGATIONS INCURRED 

The direct obligations are obligations incurred against amounts apportioned under category A 

and category B on the latest Standard Form (SF) 132. The reimbursable obligations are those 

incurred against the reimbursable agreements with DOT. A summary of these obligations at 

September 30 follows: 

 

2013 2012

Direct - category A $ 1,448,313 $ 1,943,597

Direct - category B 13,060,161 15,946,228

Total obligations $ 14,508,474 $ 17,889,825

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
54

NOTE 7 – EXPLANATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LIABILITIES NOT 

COVERED BY BUDGETARY RESOURCES ON THE BALANCE SHEETS AND THE 

CHANGE IN COMPONENTS REQUIRING OR GENERATING RESOURCES IN THE 

FUTURE PERIODS 

Liabilities not covered by budgetary resources totaled $1,051,504, and the increase in 

components requiring resources in future periods totaled $0 at September 30, 2013. Liabilities 

not covered by budgetary resources totaled $1,076,975, and the decrease in components 

requiring resources in future periods totaled $563 at September 30, 2012. The changes are the 

net increase/decrease of future funded expenses for annual leave and represent the difference 

between appropriations of annual funds for the prior and current annual funds. Accrued funded 

payroll liability is covered by budgetary resources and is included in the net cost of operations. 

Whereas, the unfunded leave liability includes the expense related to the increase in annual leave 

liability for which the budgetary resources will be provided in a subsequent period. 

NOTE 8 – OPERATING LEASES 

DRA leases its primary operating facilities, including substantially all furniture and fixtures used, 

under a 15-year operating lease arrangement with Coahoma County, Mississippi. DRA also 

leases space for the Washington D.C. office from State Services Organization, Inc. under an 8- 

year operating lease arrangement. 

Future minimum lease payments at September 30, 2013, were: 

 

 

2014 $ 136,150

2015 137,912

2016 139,713

2017 112,631

2018 85,591

After 5 years 117,015 

$ 729,012

 

The lease with Coahoma County may be terminated by DRA should DRA fail to receive funding 

from the United States, the existence of DRA be terminated, or should the governing body of 

DRA choose to move DRA’s office outside Coahoma County, Mississippi. However, the lease 

with State Services Organization, Inc. may also be terminated for the above reasons, and DRA 

will be liable for four months of base rent upon early termination of the lease agreement. Rental 

expense was $127,721 and $175,054 for the years ended September 30, 2013 and 2012, 

respectively. 

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
55

NOTE 9 – PENSION PLANS 

Plan Description 

The Authority contributes to a defined contribution 401(k) plan covering all non-federal 

employees. Retirement expense is recorded for the amount of the Authority’s required 

contributions, determined in accordance with the terms of the plan. The plan is administered by 

Advanced Data Processing, Inc. The plan provides retirement and death benefits to plan 

members and their beneficiaries. Benefit provisions are contained in the Plan Document and 

were established and can be amended by action of the Authority’s governing body. 

Additionally, the Authority’s federal employees participate in the Federal Employees’ 

Retirement System (FERS), a cost-sharing, multiple-employer defined benefit pension plan. 

FERS provides retirement and disability benefits, annual cost-of-living adjustments and death 

benefits to the plan members and beneficiaries. 

Funding Policy 

Contribution rates for the Authority for the defined contribution 401(k) plan expressed as a 

percentage of covered payroll was 14.3% and 15.3% for the years ended September 30, 2013 and 

2012, respectively. Contributions made by the Authority amounted to $64,514 and $76,809 for 

the years ended September 30, 2013 and 2012, respectively. 

FERS covered employees are required to contribute 0.80% of their annual covered salary, and 

the Authority was required to contribute 11.2% of annual covered payroll through September 30, 

2013. The Authority’s contributions to FERS for the years ended September 30, 2013 and 2012 

were $63,595 and $67,420, respectively, which equaled the required contributions for each year. 

NOTE 10 – RISK MANAGEMENT 

The Authority is exposed to various risks of loss related to torts; theft of, damage to and 

destruction of assets; business interruption; errors and omissions; employee injuries and 

illnesses; natural disasters and employee health and accident benefits. Commercial insurance 

coverage is purchased for claims arising from such matters other than those related to errors and 

omissions and natural disasters. Settled claims have not exceeded this commercial coverage in 

any of the three preceding years. 

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
56

NOTE 11 – RECONCILIATION OF NET COST OF OPERATIONS (PROPRIETARY) TO 

BUDGET 

2013 2012

RESOURCES USED TO FINANCE ACTIVITIES

BUDGETARY RESOURCES OBLIGATED

Obligations incurred 14,508,474 $ 17,889,825 $ 

Less spending authority from offsetting collections and recoveries (3,249,138) (6,558,268) 

Net obligations 11,259,336 11,331,557 

OTHER RESOURCES

Imputed financing from costs absorbed by others 26,592 32,405 

Cost of operations absorbed by member states and others 1,264,482 872,035

Cost of operations absorbed by RCAP 3,324,684 2,539,845 

TOTAL RESOURCES USED TO FINANCE ACTIVITIES 15,875,094 14,775,842 

RESOURCES USED TO FINANCE ITEMS NOT PART

OF THE NET COST OF OPERATIONS

Change in budgetary resources obligated for goods,

services and benefits ordered but not yet provided 3,232,176 3,633,458 

TOTAL RESOURCES USED TO FINANCE THE NET

COST OF OPERATIONS 19,107,270 18,409,300 

TOTAL RESOURCES USED TO FINANCE THE 

ACQUISITION OF ASSETS (4,314) - 

COMPONENTS REQUIRING OR GENERATING

RESOURCES IN FUTURE PERIODS

Increase (decrease) in annual leave liability 5,052 (563) 

TOTAL RESOURCES USED TO FINANCE THE NET

COST OF OPERATIONS 19,108,008 $ 18,408,737 $ 

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
57

NOTE 12 – EXPLANATION OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE STATEMENT OF 

BUDGETARY RESOURCES AND THE BUDGET OF THE UNITED STATES 

GOVERNMENT 

Budgetary resources made available to DRA include current appropriations, unobligated 

appropriations and recoveries of prior year obligations. For FY2012, no material differences 

exist between the amounts on the statement of budgetary resources and the amounts in the 

FY2013 President’s budget, which are rounded to the nearest million. As the FY2015 

President’s budget is not yet available, comparison between the statement of budgetary resources 

and the actual FY2013 data in the FY2015 budget cannot be performed. 

 

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
OTHER INFORMATION

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
 Rural Community 

Federal State and Other Assistance Program Elimination

ASSETS

Intragovernmental

Fund balance with Treasury 30,309,027 $ -$ $ - -$ 

Cash - 486,330 376,914 - 

Receivables 258,535 4,314 553,901 (188,41

 

.

TOTAL ASSETS 30,313,341 $ 744,865 $ 930,815 $ (188,41

$ 

LIABILITIES

Intragovernmental payable 235,501 $ -$ $ - -$ Accounts payable 10,470 20,796 - - Grants and other payables 29,750 1,776,013 966,114 - 

TOTAL LIABILITIES 2,021,984 50,546 966,114 - 

NET POSITION

Unexpended appropriations/state funds 28,321,885 694,319 (35,299) (188,41

Cumulative results of operations (30,528) - - - 

TOTAL NET POSITION 28,291,357 694,319 (35,299) (188,41

 

TOTAL LIABILITIES AND NET POSITION 30,313,341 $ 744,865 $ 930,815 $ (188,41

$ 

DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY

COMBINING BALANCE SHEET

SEPTEMBER 30, 2013 

58

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
State Rural Community 

Federal and Other Assistance Program Eliminatio

ASSETS

Intragovernmental

Fund balance with Treasury 33,696,751 $ -$ $ - -$ 

Cash - 589,846 479,933 - 

Receivables 76,695 - 596,139 - 

TOTAL ASSETS 33,696,751 $ 666,541 $ 1,076,072 $ - $ 

LIABILITIES

Intragovernmental payable 234,574 $ (22,500) $ 22,500 $ -$ Accounts payable 159,198 - - - 

Grants and other payables 30,026 1,585,595 1,017,158 - 

TOTAL LIABILITIES 1,979,367 7,526 1,039,658 - 

NET POSITION

Unexpended appropriations/state funds 31,747,174 659,015 36,414 - 

Cumulative results of operations - (29,790) - - 

TOTAL NET POSITION 31,717,384 659,015 36,414 - 

TOTAL LIABILITIES AND NET POSITION 33,696,751 $ 666,541 $ 1,076,072 $ - $ 

DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY

COMBINING BALANCE SHEET

SEPTEMBER 30, 2012 

59

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
State Rural Community 

Federal and Other Assistance Program Eliminatio

PROGRAM COSTS

Economic Development

Intragovernmental gross costs 174,094 $ - $ - $ -$ 

Less intragovernmental earned revenue - - - - 

Intragovernmental net costs 174,094 - - - 

Gross costs with the public 14,344,748 1,264,482 3,324,684 - 

Less earned revenues from the public - - - - 

Net costs with the public 14,344,748 1,264,482 3,324,684 - TOTAL NET PROGRAM COSTS 14,518,842 1,264,482 3,324,684 - 

NET COST OF OPERATIONS 14,518,842 $ 1,264,482 $ 3,324,684 $ - $ 

DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY

COMBINING STATEMENT OF NET COST

YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2013

60

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
 State Rural Community 

Federal and Other Assistance Program Elimination

PROGRAM COSTS

Economic Development

Intragovernmental gross costs 371,042 $ - $ - $ 

$ 

Less intragovernmental earned revenue - - - 

 

Intragovernmental net costs 371,042 - - 

 

Gross costs with the public 14,625,815 1,267,299 2,539,845 (395,2

 

Less earned revenues from the public - - - 

Net costs with the public 1,267,299 14,625,815 2,539,845 (395,2

 

TOTAL NET PROGRAM COSTS 14,996,857 1,267,299 2,539,845 (395,2

 

NET COST OF OPERATIONS 14,996,857 $ 1,267,299 $ 2,539,845 $ (395,2

$ 

DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY

COMBINING STATEMENT OF NET COST

YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2012

61

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
Federal 

Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative 

Results Unexpended Results Unexpended Results Unexpended Results Unexpended 

of Operations Appropriations of Operations State Funds of Operations RCAP Funds of Operations Funds 

NET POSITION, BEGINNING BALANCE $ (29,790) $ 31,747,174 $ - $ 659,015 $ - $ 36,414 $ - -$ 

BUDGETARY FINANCING SOURCES

Appropriations received - 11,677,000 - - - - - - 

Other adjustments (recisions, etc.) - (610,777) - - - - - - Appropriations used 14,491,512 (14,491,512) - - - - - - 

OTHER FINANCING SOURCES

Cost of operations absorbed by member states

and others - - 1,299,786 - - - (188,415) - 

Cost of operations absorbed by RCAP - - - - 3,252,971 - - - 

Imputed financing from costs absorbed by others 26,592 - - - - - - - Disbursements of RCAP funds - - - 3,324,684 (3,324,684) - - - 

Disbursements of funds provided by member states

and others - - 1,264,482 (1,264,482) - - - - 

TOTAL FINANCING SOURCES 14,518,104 (3,425,289) 1,264,482 35,304 3,324,684 (71,713) - (188,415) 

NET COST OF OPERATIONS 14,518,842 - 1,264,482 - 3,324,684 - - - 

NET CHANGE (738) (3,425,289) - 35,304 - (71,713) - (188,415) 

NET POSITION, ENDING BALANCE (30,528) $ 28,321,885 $ - $ 694,319 $ - $ (35,299) $ - $ (188,415) $ 

DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY

COMBINING STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN NET POSITION

YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2013

State and Other

 Rural Community Assistance 

Program Eliminations

62

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative 

Results Unexpended Results Unexpended Results Unexpended Results Unexp

of Operations Appropriations of Operations State Funds of Operations RCAP Funds of Operations Fun

NET POSITION, BEGINNING BALANCE $ (30,353) $ 35,035,189 $ - $ 558,838 $ - $ 17,060 $ - $ BUDGETARY FINANCING SOURCES

Appropriations received - 11,677,000 - - - - - 

Appropriations used 14,965,015 (14,965,015) - - - - - 

 

OTHER FINANCING SOURCES

Cost of operations absorbed by member states

and others - - - 1,367,476 - - - (3

 

Cost of operations absorbed by RCAP - - - - - 2,559,199 - 

 

Imputed financing from costs absorbed by others 32,405 - - - - - - 

 

Disbursements of RCAP funds - - - - 2,539,845 (2,539,845) - 

 

Disbursements of funds provided by member states

and others - - 1,267,299 (1,267,299) - - (395,264) 3

 

TOTAL FINANCING SOURCES 14,997,420 (3,288,015) 1,267,299 100,177 2,539,845 19,354 (395,264) 

 

NET COST OF OPERATIONS 14,996,857 - 1,267,299 - 2,539,845 - (395,264) 

NET CHANGE 563 (3,288,015) - 100,177 - 19,354 - 

NET POSITION, ENDING BALANCE (29,790) $ 31,747,174 $ - $ 659,015 $ - $ 36,414 $ - $ 

$ 

DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY

COMBINING STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN NET POSITION

YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2012

State and Other

 Rural Community Assistance 

Federal Program Eliminations

63

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY

 State Rural Community 

Federal and Other Assistance Program El

RESOURCES USED TO FINANCE ACTIVITIESBUDGETARY RESOURCES OBLIGATED

Obligations incurred 14,508,474 $ -$ $ - 

$ 

Less spending authority from offsetting collections and recoveries - 3,253,452 - 

Net obligations 11,255,022 - - 

 

OTHER RESOURCES

Imputed financing from costs absorbed by others 26,592 - - 

 

Cost of operations absorbed by member states and others 1,264,482 - - 

 

Cost of operations absorbed by RCAP - - 3,324,684 

TOTAL RESOURCES USED TO FINANCE ACTIVITIES 11,281,614 1,264,482 3,324,684 

 

RESOURCES USED TO FINANCE ITEMS NOT PART OF THE

NET COST OF OPERATIONS

Change in budgetary resources obligated for goods,

services and benefits ordered but not yet provided - (3,232,176) - 

TOTAL RESOURCES USED TO FINANCE THE NET COST 

OF OPERATIONS 14,513,790 1,264,482 3,324,684 

 

COMPONENTS REQUIRING OR GENERATING RESOURCES IN 

FUTURE PERIODS

Decrease in annual leave liability - 5,052 - 

TOTAL RESOURCES USED TO FINANCE THE NET COST OF 

OPERATIONS 14,518,842 $ 1,264,482 $ 3,324,684 $ 

$ 

COMBINING RECONCILIATION OF NET COST OF OPERATIONS (PROPRIETARY) TO BUDGE

YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2013

64

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY

 State Rural Community 

Federal and Other Assistance Program El

RESOURCES USED TO FINANCE ACTIVITIESBUDGETARY RESOURCES OBLIGATED

Obligations incurred 17,889,825 $ -$ $ 

- $ 

Less spending authority from offsetting collections and recoveries 6,558,268 - - 

Net obligations 11,331,557 - - 

OTHER RESOURCES

Imputed financing from costs absorbed by others 32,405 - - 

Cost of operations absorbed by member states - 1,267,299 - 

 

Cost of operations absorbed by others - - 2,539,845 

TOTAL RESOURCES USED TO FINANCE ACTIVITIES 11,363,962 1,267,299 2,539,845 

 

RESOURCES USED TO FINANCE ITEMS NOT PART OF THE

NET COST OF OPERATIONS

Change in budgetary resources obligated for goods,

services and benefits ordered but not yet provided (3,633,458) - - 

TOTAL RESOURCES USED TO FINANCE THE NET COST 

OF OPERATIONS 14,997,420 1,267,299 2,539,845 

 

COMPONENTS REQUIRING OR GENERATING RESOURCES IN 

FUTURE PERIODS

Increase in annual leave liability (563) - - 

TOTAL RESOURCES USED TO FINANCE THE NET COST OF 

OPERATIONS 14,996,857 $ 1,267,299 $ 2,539,845 $ 

$ 

COMBINING RECONCILIATION OF NET COST OF OPERATIONS (PROPRIETARY) TO BUDGE

YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2012

65

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
Description Federal Funds

 State and Other 

Funds 

 Rural Community 

Assistance Program 

Grants, subsidies and contributions $ 12,861,960 $ - $ 3,324,68

Consulting and other services 330,598 421,154 - 

Employee benefits 227,039 77,159 - 

Personnel services 741,708 244,303 - 

Seminars and meetings - 127,246 - 

Travel and transportation of persons 149,232 81,664 - 

Rent, communications and utilities 87,998 204,409 - 

Supplies and materials 20,802 52,153 - 

Printing and reproduction 30,103 29,093 - 

Office expense 27,301 4,508 - 

$ 1,264,482 14,453,948 $ 3,324,68

$ 

NOTE TO SCHEDULE 1. The federal funds column of the schedule of expenditures has been prepared on the cash basis. Therefore, some amounts presmay differ from amounts presented in, or used in the preparation of, the basic financial statements.

YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2013

SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES

DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY

Paid From

 66

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
Funding Priorities - Public Law 100-460: Sec. 382C.(b) (2) (A)-(D), 

(7 U.S.C. 2009 aa, as amended)

DRA Total Funding DRA Total Funding DRA 

Obligated Project Funds Priority % Obligated Project Funds Priority % Obligated 

 A. Basic Public Infrastructure $ 2,915,806 $ 649,450,560 32.0% 3,048,016 $ $ 225,049,336 33.8% 2,812,54

$ 

 B. Transportation Infrastructure 2,035,412 70,517,811 22.4% 2,937,905 13,114,186 32.5% 5,115,28

 C. Business Development 2,883,616 226,731,630 31.6% 1,999,030 4,063,777 22.1% 3,823,86

 D. Work Development 1,276,885 6,997,425 14.0% 1,045,900 1,596,300 11.6% 1,214,73

 E. Other - - 0.00% - - 0.00% 26,90

 

$ 953,697,426 9,111,719 $ 100.0% $ 243,823,599 9,030,851 $ 100.0% $ 

12,993,32

DRA State State DRA State State DRA 

Obligated Allocation % Obligated Allocation % Obligated 

State Allocations:

Alabama 979,248 $ 979,248 $ 10.9% 1,013,555 $ 1,013,555 $ 10.7% 1,087,05

$ 

Arkansas 1,415,326 1,415,326 15.8% 1,336,720 1,461,940 15.4% 1,554,21

 

Illinois 706,184 706,148 7.9% 810,579 810,579 8.6% 978,50

 

Kentucky 839,893 839,894 9.4% 850,170 850,170 9.0% 928,25

 

Louisiana 1,644,478 1,644,478 18.3% 1,734,437 1,734,438 18.3% 1,779,64

 

Mississippi 1,342,547 1,342,557 15.0% 1,161,316 1,467,054 15.5% 1,482,25

 

Missouri 1,039,830 1,039,830 11.6% 1,093,874 1,093,874 11.5% 1,434,74

 

Tennessee 994,213 994,215 11.1% 1,030,200 1,039,980 11.0% 3,748,64

 

$ 8,961,719 8,961,696 $ 100.0% $ 9,030,851 9,471,590 $ 100.0% $ 12,993,32

 

2013 2012 

DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY

SCHEDULES OF GRANTS MADE

YEARS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2013, 2012 AND 2011

2013 2012 

67

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
Independent Auditor’s Report on Internal Control 

Over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and 

Other Matters Based on an Audit of the Financial Statements 

Performed in Accordance With Government Auditing Standards 

Federal and State Co-Chairs 

 and Members of the Board 

Delta Regional Authority 

Clarksdale, Mississippi 

We have audited, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States 

of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing 

Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, the financial statements of 

Delta Regional Authority (the Authority), which comprise the balance sheet as of September 30, 

2013, and the related statements of net cost, changes in net position, and resources (budgetary 

and nonbudgetary) for the year then ended, and the related notes to the financial statements, and 

have issued our report thereon dated December 2, 2013.

Internal Control Over Financial Reporting 

Management of the Authority is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal 

control over financial reporting (internal control). In planning and performing our audit, we 

considered the Authority’s internal control to determine the audit procedures that are appropriate 

in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the financial statements, but 

not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Authority’s internal 

control. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the Authority’s 

internal control. 

A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow 

management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to 

prevent or detect and correct misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a 

deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control such that there is a reasonable 

possibility that a material misstatement of the Authority’s financial statements will not be 

prevented or detected and corrected on a timely basis. A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or 

a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet 

important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance. 

Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph 

of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be 

material weaknesses. Given these limitations, during our audit we did not identify any

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013
69 

deficiencies in internal control that we consider to be material weaknesses as defined above. 

However, material weaknesses may exist that have not been identified. 

Compliance 

As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the Authority’s financial statements are 

free of material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of 

laws, regulations, contracts and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct 

and material effect on the determination of financial statement amounts and certain other laws 

and regulations specified in OMB Bulletin No. 14-02. However, providing an opinion on 

compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit and, accordingly, we do not 

express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or 

other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards or OMB 

Bulletin No. 14-02. 

Other Matters 

We noted certain matters that we reported to the Authority’s management in a separate letter 

dated December 2, 2013. 

The purpose of this communication is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal 

control and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the 

effectiveness of the Authority’s internal control or compliance. This communication is an 

integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in 

considering the Authority’s internal control and compliance. Accordingly, this communication 

is not suitable for any other purpose. 

Jackson, Mississippi 

December 2, 2013 

As submitted to OMB 12-2-2013