DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY 

PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT 

SEPTEMBER 30, 2012 
2

DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY 

PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT 

SEPTEMBER 30, 2012

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 2012 Performance Report 18 

SECTION 3 – FINANCIAL SECTION

Independent Accountants’ Report on Financial Statements and 

 Supplementary Information 38 

Basic Financial Statements

 Balance Sheets 40 

 Statements of Net Cost 41 

 Statements of Changes in Net Position 42 

 Statements of Resources (Budgetary and Non-budgetary) 44 

 Notes to Financial Statements 46 
3

CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 

 Page 

Supplementary Information

Combining Balance Sheets 56 

Combining Statements of Net Cost 58 

Combining Statements of Changes in Net Position 60 

Combining Reconciliations of Net Cost of Operations (Proprietary) to Budget 62 

Schedule of Expenditures 64 

 

Schedules of Grants Made 65 

SECTION 4 – OTHER ACCOMPANYING INFORMATION 

Independent Accountants’ 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 66 
To Whom It May Concern:

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

Accountability Report for Fiscal Year 2012. This report is an accurate and comprehensive

account of the Authority’s performance for FY2012 and includes comparative financialstatements for FY 2011 and 2012. I am pleased to report that, to date, each and every one of

DRXs independent, financial audits have all been unqualified, showing that DRA is a solid

steward ofthe people’s investment in this agency.

Additionally, the DRA continues to be in full compliance with The Accountabilityfor Tax

Dollars Act (ATDA) of 2002. Under my administration, the DRA maintains its long-term

commitment to setting and sustaining the highest standards in financial integrity and compliance.The report by the auditors of BKD, LLP contains an unqualified opinion on the financial

statements in this document. DRA continues to meet each new challenge and expectation

presented by President Obama and the U.S. Congress.

In In Fiscal Year 2012, the DRA through its “States Economic Development Assistance

Program” (SEDAP) invested $9,471,590 of its appropriation into 63 projects in its eight-state

region, leveraging $20,656,748 in other federal, state and local funds, a ratio of 2.2 to 1, for totalproject costs of $30,128,338. Additionally, private investment total $213,778,500 a ratio of 22.6

to 1, with a total leveraged investment of $234,435,248 a ratio of 24.8 to 1. The 2012 DRA

SEDAP Program will realize the following results:

• 8,136 families received improved water and sewer;• 3,411 individuals trained for jobs;• 1,803 jobs created; and

• 869 jobs retained.

Overall, the DRA has invested $108,019,579 to 718 projects in its eight-state region

leveraging $632, 611, 041 in other federal, state and local funds, a ratio of 5.9 to 1, making total

project costs $740,630,620. Additionally, private investment total $1,746,144,098, a ratio of

16.2 to 1, with a total leveraged investment of $2,378,755,139 a ratio of 22.0 to 1. Since its

inception DRA Federal Grant Program and SEDAP, have accomplished the following results:

• 25,497 families received improved water and sewer;• 3,745 individuals trained forjobs;• 9,251 jobs created; and• 7,578 jobs retained.

REGIONAL HEADQUARTERS: V7ASHINGTON, D.C. 01’FIcE:

236 SHARKEY AVENUE, STE. 400 Alabama • Arkansas • illinois • Kentucky 444 NORTH CAPITOL, NW., STE. 445B

CLARKSDALE, MS 38614 Louisiana • Mississippi Missouri • Tennessee WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001

PHONE: (662) 624-8600 PHONE: (202) 434-4870FAR: (662) 624-8537 www.dra.gov FAx: (202) 434-4871
As evidenced in this report, numerous accomplishments in Fiscal Year 2012 have been

witnessed in the following programs and initiatives:

• States’ Economic Development Assistance Program (SEDAP);• Delta Leadership Institute (DLI).• Entrepreneurship Training (SIU);

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

• Delta Doctors Program (DDP);• Information Technology/iDelta (IT);• Innovative Readiness Training Program (IRT);

• Jobs for America’s Graduates (JAG);

• Local Development Districts (LDD); and

• Save the Children (STC).

Thank you for allowing the Delta Regional Authority to submit the Fiscal Year 2012

Performance Accountability Report. As an organization, we will continue to help create jobs,

build communities, and improve lives for the people ofthe Delta region.

Sincerely

Christopher A. Masingill

Federal Co-Chairman
SECTION I - MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Management’s Discussion and Analysis 2012

6 Delta Regional Authority

DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY 

Listing of Officials 

September 30, 2012 

Federal Co-Chairman States’ Co-Chairman 

Christopher A. Masingill Governor Jay Nixon 

Alternate Federal Co-Chairman Alternate States’ Co-Chairman 

Michael G. Marshall Mr. Bill Ransdall 

GOVERNORS AND STATE DESIGNEES/ALTERNATES 

Alabama Louisiana 

Governor Robert Bentley Governor Bobby Jindal 

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

Mrs. Bea Forniss (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. David Vaught (Designee) Mr. Bill Ransdall (Designee) 

Mr. William Stanhouse (Alternate) Dr. Jon Hagler (Alternate) 

Kentucky Tennessee 

Governor Steven Beshear Governor Bill Haslam 

Mr. Tony Wilder Mr. Allen Borden (Designee) 

(Designee & Alternate) Ms. Brooxie Carlton (Alternate)
Management’s Discussion and Analysis 2012

7 Delta Regional Authority
Management’s Discussion and Analysis 2012

8 Delta Regional Authority

Introduction 

The Delta Regional Authority (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 take advantage of other 

federal and state programs focused on basic infrastructure development, transportation 

improvements, business development and job training services. In short, DRA helps create jobs, 

build communities, and improves lives in the Delta region. 

Congress mandated (7 U.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 percent of Authority funds for use in distressed 

counties; and 

• The Authority shall allocate at least 50 percent 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 October 1, 2012, but has been extended by the House Joint Resolution 117, from 

October 1, 2012 to March 27, 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. 

 
Management’s Discussion and Analysis 2012

9 Delta Regional Authority

Program Highlights for Fiscal Year 2012 

The Authority continued to emphasize the 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 2012 project funding 

allocation was $9,471,590. Basic public and transportation infrastructure project funding totaled 

$6,781,421, which is 66.5 percent, and investment in distressed counties totaled $8,492,711, 

which is 91.0 percent. Fiscal Year 2012 States’ Economic Development Assistance Program 

(SEDAP) funds attracted $23,274,648 in additional project funding, a ratio of 2.5 to 1, and 

$213,778,500 in leveraged private investment, a ratio of 22.9 to 1. 
Management’s Discussion and Analysis 2012

10 Delta Regional Authority

Fiscal Year 2012 Distressed Counties and Parishes 

The DRA Enabling Legislation requires the Authority to update distressed county designation 

annually. The tabulation for the Fiscal Year 2012 resulted in 217 distressed counties and 

parishes (see list below). 

Distressed List as of September 30, 2012 

Alabama (20) 

Barbour 

Bullock 

Butler 

Choctaw 

Clarke 

Conecuh 

Dallas 

Escambia 

Greene 

Hale 

Lowndes 

Macon 

Marengo 

Monroe 

Perry 

Pickens 

Russell 

Sumter 

Washington 

Wilcox 

Arkansas (40) 

Arkansas 

Ashley 

Baxter 

Bradley 

Calhoun 

Chicot 

Clay 

Cleveland 

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 (14) 

Alexander 

Franklin 

Hamilton 

Hardin 

Jackson 

Johnson 

Massac 

Perry 

Pope 

Pulaski 

Randolph 

Saline 

Union 

Williamson 

Kentucky (16) 

Caldwell 

Calloway 

Carlisle 

Christian 

Crittenden 

Fulton 

Graves 

Hopkins 

Livingston 

Lyon 

Marshall 

McLean 

Muhlenberg 

Todd 

Trigg 

Webster 

Louisiana (38) 

Acadia 

Allen 

Assumption 

Avoyelles 

Beauregard 

Bienville 

Caldwell 

Catahoula 

Claiborne 

Concordia 

De Soto 

East Carroll 

Evangeline 

Franklin 

Grant 

Iberville 

Jackson 

Jefferson Davis 

La Salle 

Livingston 

Madison 

Morehouse 

Natchitoches 

Red River 

Richland 

St. Bernard 

St. Helena 

St. James 

St. Landry 

St. Martin 

Tangipahoa 

Tensas 

Union 

Vermillion 

Washington 

West Carroll 

West Feliciana 

Winn 

Mississippi (44) 

Adams 

Amite 

Attala 

Benton 

Bolivar 

Carroll 

Claiborne 

Coahoma 

Copiah 

Covington 

DeSoto 

Franklin 

Grenada 

Holmes 

Humphreys 

Issaquena 

Jasper 

Jefferson 

Jefferson Davis 

Lafayette 

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 (26) 

Bollinger 

Carter 

Crawford 

Dent 

Douglas 

Dunklin 

Howell 

Iron 

Madison 

Mississippi 

New Madrid 

Oregon 

Ozark 

Pemiscot 

Perry 

Phelps 

Reynolds 

Ripley 

Scott 

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 

Tipton 

Weakley 
Management’s Discussion and Analysis 2012

11 Delta Regional Authority

Organizational Structure of the Delta Regional Authority

The DRA Board is comprised of Governors from the eight states included in the DRA region, 

along with the Federal Co-Chairman, Christopher A. Masingill, who was appointed by President 

Obama and confirmed by the Senate. Chairman Masingill took office on July 13, 2010. The 

Governors elect a State Co-Chairman, and in FY 2012, Governor Jay Nixon of Missouri served 

as the DRA’s fifth States’ Co-Chairman. DRA’s statute requires the Board to hold a quorum 

meeting annually that a majority of Governors attend. Additionally, each Governor is authorized 

to appoint a designee and an alternate to assist with day-to-day activities and responsibilities on 

his behalf. 

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

board members share the fiduciary responsibility of the Authority. These responsibilities are to 

establish investment priorities and approve investments for economic development to the region, 

assess the region, formulate and recommend interstate cooperation among region members, 

support and develop local development districts, encourage private investment in 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 may be appointed by the President, and Michael G. Marshall 

took office in May 2010. By comparison, the States’ Co-Chairman’s designee serves as the 

Alternate States’ Co-Chairman; in FY 2012, Bill Ransdal serves as such. 

The Federal Co-Chairman maintains an office within the DRA office in Clarksdale, Mississippi 

and at the end of FY 2012 employed four full-time federal employees. Additionally, the DRA 

office employs nine non-federal employees who carry out the day-to-day operations of the DRA. 

Following is the current DRA organizational chart. 
Management’s Discussion and Analysis 2012

12 Delta Regional Authority

DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY

Staff Organizational Chart
Management’s Discussion and Analysis 2012

13 Delta Regional Authority

Financial Management of the Delta Regional Authority 

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

its obligations, disbursements, and the financial reporting of its federally appropriated dollars. 

Because of the Authority’s size, the use of GSA has been very cost-effective. GSA has also 

assisted the Authority with the compliance of many federally mandates. State administrative 

funds, along with other funds, are held by banks located throughout the DRA Region and are 

accounted for by the Chief Administrative Officer. 

 

DRA has just completed its tenth 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, 2012, as compared to the prior year: 

• Total assets decreased $2,206,260, or 5.86 percent during 2012, compared to 

decreased assets of $516,343, or 1.35 percent during 2011; 

• Total liabilities increased $961,661, or 46.57 percent during 2012, compared to 

$144,251, or 6.53 percent decrease during 2011; 

• Net cost of operations increased $3,899,958, or 26.88 percent during 2012, compared 

to $311,079, or 2.19 percent increase during 2011; 

• Financing sources decreased $15,202,288, or .075 percent during 2012, compared to 

$2,668,172, or 15.88 percent decrease during 2011; and 

• Net position decreased $3,167,921 or 9.70 percent during 2012, as compared to 

$372,092 or 1.03 percent decrease during 2011. 

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. 
Management’s Discussion and Analysis 2012

14 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

 

2010 2011 2012 

Total Assets $ 38,161,967 $ 37,645,624 $ 35,439,364 

 

Total Liabilities $ 2,209,141 $ 2,064,890 $ 3,026,551 

Net Position 

 Unexpended appropriations/state funds 35,975,258 35,611,087 32,442,603 

 Cumulative results of operations (22,432) (30,353) (29,790) 

Total Net Position 35,952,826 35,580,734 32,412,813 

 

Total Liabilities and Net Position $ 38,161,967 $ 37,645,624 $ 35,439,364 

Total assets decreased $2,206,260, or 5.86 percent during 2012, compared to $516,343, or 1.35 

percent decrease during 2011. The difference in FY 2012 is due to a decrease in funding. 

Additionally, the FY 2011 appropriation included a rescission of $23,400. 

Total liabilities increased $961,661, or 46.57 percent during 2012, compared to $144,251, or 

6.53 percent decrease during 2011. The FY 2011 decrease was due to the delays in 

Congressional appropriations, thus causing delays in the grant awards. The increase for FY2012 

is due to the accrual of grant disbursements for the final quarter of the fiscal year which 

corresponds with the increase in total net cost of operations. DRA has become increasingly 

recognized as an economic development driver in the designated eight-state region, which has 

resulted in the overall increase in grant funding to grantees. With no similar increases in the 

appropriated funding over the last two fiscal years, decreases in assets and increases in costs and 

liabilities have occurred. 

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. 
Management’s Discussion and Analysis 2012

15 Delta Regional Authority

Condensed Statements of Net Cost

 

2010 2011 2012 

Program Costs 

Intergovernmental gross costs $ 86,684 $ 376,295 $ 235,158 

Net costs with the public 14,111,016 14,132,484 18,173,579 

Total Program Costs 14,197,700 14,508,779 18,408,737 

 

Net Cost of Operations $ 14,197,700 $ 14,508.779 $ 18,408,737 

The net cost of operations increased $3,899,958, or 26.88 percent during 2012, compared to 

$311,079, or 2.19 percent increase during 2011. The FY 2012 change is 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 

2010 2011 2012 

Cumulative 

Results of 

Operations 

Unexpended 

Appropriations/ 

Funds 

Cumulative 

Results of 

Operations 

Unexpended 

Appropriations/ 

Funds 

Cumulative 

Results of 

Operations 

Unexpended 

Appropriations/ 

Funds 

 

Beginning Balance $ (14,058) $ 33,359,725 $ (22,432) $ 35,975,258 $ (30,353) $ 35,611,087 

 

Budgetary Financing Sources 10,396,232 2,603,768 12,277,783 (601,183) 14,965,015 (3,288,015) 

Other Financing Sources 3,793,094 11,765 2,223,075 237,012 3,444,285 119,531 

Total Financing 

 Sources 14,189,326 2,615,533 14,500,858 (364,171) 18,409,300 (3,168,484) 

 

Net Cost of Operations 14,197,700 - 14,508,779 - 18,408,737 - 

 

Net Change (8,374) 2,615,533 (7,921) (364,171) 563 (3,168,484) 

 

Ending Balance $ (22,432) $ 35,975,258 $ (30,353) $ 35,611,087 $ (29,790) $ 32,442,603 
Management’s Discussion and Analysis 2012

16 Delta Regional Authority

Financing sources increased $1,104,138, or 7.80 percent during 2012, compared to a $2,668,172, 

or 15.88 percent decrease during 2011. The FY 2012 increase was due to the increase in RCAP 

financing sources which correspond to the increase noted above in the RCAP net cost of 

operations. 

Net position decreased $3,167,921, or 9.70 percent as a result of the decrease in revenue and an 

increase in program costs and other costs without a corresponding increase in appropriations for 

FY2012, 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 status 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 accounting principles 

generally accepted in the United States of America for the federal government. 

Condensed Statements of Resources (Budgetary and Non-Budgetary)

 

2010 2011 2012 

 

Total Resources (Budgetary and 

 Non-Budgetary Resources) $ 36,635,757 $ 23,448,564 $ 22,649,555

 

Total Status of Budgetary Resources 32,767,949 21,263,147 19,223,813 

 

Total, Unpaid Obligated Balance, Net, 

 End of Year 29,202,889 36,762,747 34,061,487

 

Net Outlays 9,557,893 12,287,250 14,904,306 

As previously discussed, both the FY 2011 and 2012 changes outlined in the table above are 

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

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

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. 
Management’s Discussion and Analysis 2012

17 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 OMB, 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, 2012 and 2011, 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 
SECTION 2- PERFORMANCE SECTION
DRA Performance Report 2012

18 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 Authority; 

• Analysis of Delta Regional Authority (DRA or the “Authority”) Congressional Mandates

and Strategic Goals and how those guiding principles further develop and refine DRA 

Performance Goals;

• Summary of results on the following DRA programs and initiatives; and 

o States’ Economic Development Assistance Program (SEDAP); 

o Delta Doctors Program (DDP); 

o Delta Leadership Institute (DLI); 

o Entrepreneurship Training (SIU); 

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

o Information Technology/iDelta (IT); 

o Innovative Readiness Training Program (IRT); 

o Jobs for America’s Graduates (JAG); 

o Local Development Districts (LDD); 

o Save the Children (STC); 
DRA Performance Report 2012

19 Delta Regional Authority 

OVERVIEW OF THE 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. 

 

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

area in an eight-state Region. Led by two presidential appointees, a Federal Co-Chairman (FCC) 

and Alternate Federal Co-Chairman (AFCC), along with a State Co-Chairman 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 which are focused on basic infrastructure development, transportation improvements, 

business development, and job training services. Federal law requires at least 75 percent of funds 

to be invested in distressed counties and parishes and pockets of poverty, with 50 percent of the 

funds earmarked for transportation and basic infrastructure improvements. In Fiscal Year 2012, 

the DRA invested 90.7 percent in distressed counties and parishes and pockets of poverty, and 

68.7 percent of funds earmarked for transportation and basic infrastructure improvements. 

At the local level, the Authority coordinates efforts with a combination of agencies. Assisting 

the Authority are local development districts (LDD), regional entities with a proven track record 

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

growth. 

DRA, in 2012, continues to partner with 

USDA's Rural Development 

Administration (RDA). Through their 

network of state and local offices, RDA 

assists the Authority with the Rural 

Community Advancement Program 

(RCAP) administration. Additionally, the 

Authority works with Member State’s 

federal, state and local governmental 

entities, as well as local development 

districts. 
DRA Performance Report 2012

20 Delta Regional Authority 

The economic challenges facing the Delta region are 

serious. Between 2000 and 2005, nominal per capita 

personal income (PCI), for the (then) 240 counties 

and parishes of the DRA region, grew at a compound 

annual growth rate (CAGR) of 2.71 percent. In 

comparison, PCI for the eight DRA states and the 

U.S. grew at rates of 2.92 percent and 2.93 percent, 

respectively. 

Moreover, projections of nominal per capita personal 

income growth based on the 2000-2005 averages 

show the income disparity between the Delta region 

and the nation worsening (see figure below). By 

2025, PCI for the U.S. is projected to reach $61,367. 

For the DRA region, total per capita income is 

forecast to reach just $44,224 over the same period. 

While PCI for the eight states would remain at 89 

percent of the U.S. level in 2025, for the DRA region 

it would fall over the 20-year period from 75 percent 

to 72 percent. With shrinking opportunities to earn more money, Delta residents with marketable 

skills will likely migrate elsewhere in search of better paying jobs. 

Why has income growth in the region fallen so far behind the rest of the nation, especially since 

the late 1990s? The most compelling economic answer has to do with the region’s continuing 

dependence on a declining industrial and agricultural base. While much of the rest of the nation 

has made the transition to information technology and a growing professional service sector, the 

Delta region has persistently adhered to a failing economic model. Not surprisingly, this has 

forced many of the more skilled and educated rural Delta residents to leave in exchange for 

growing metro areas inside and outside the region. The remaining non-metro residents, 

especially those living in distressed areas, lack access to the resources needed to become 

economically competitive. As a consequence, rural communities fall further into decline and the 

population grows increasingly dependent upon public assistance. 

To illustrate this point, the figure above 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, collectively, are growing increasingly dependent on transfer payments as a source of 

income. The sharp declines in the last year of the graph are likely the result of Hurricane Katrina 

related payments. Still, the overall trend of the past 35 years is clear: Delta residents are 

increasingly earning less income derived from work. 
DRA Performance Report 2012

21 Delta Regional Authority 

STATES’ ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 

The previous administration’s efforts were inclined more toward grants administration. To better 

serve the DRA Region, the Authority, under Chairman Masingill’s leadership, has both realigned 

and reprioritized the goals of the former Federal Grant Program. Now known as the States’ 

Economic Development Assistance Program (SEDAP), the current focus is placed on project 

development and management. 

This shift, however subtle it may seem, more clearly defines the role of the project development 

and management department staff within this administration. Staff members now play a more 

active role in the project development phase by building those relationships and connecting 

applicants and project developers to other funding sources thereby helping to connect the dots. 

The new approach is more holistic in nature, and will demonstrate the Authority’s 

responsiveness to fluid economic development opportunities. SEDAP will strive to provide 

flexible funding solutions for the region. 

Clearly, economic development has always been a 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 just a funding source for economic and community development. 

Chairman Masingill has become actively engaged in developing the necessary tools and 

resources to help get the job done. 

The Authority’s 2012 SEDAP complements the economic development activities taking place in 

the region. From top to bottom, the entire program has been crafted with the economic 

developer in mind. Highlights of the program include: 

• Administrative Notices 

• Automated Application Website 

• Critical Development Projects 

• Emergency/Contingency Funds 

• Expedited Process 

• Federal Priority Eligibility Criteria 

• Priority Status Designation and 

• SEDAP Funds. 

The 2012 SEDAP Manual, in its entirety may be found at 

http://www.dra.gov/!userfiles/editor/docs/2012_SEDAP_Program_Manual%20(April%209).pdf. 

Governors’ project recommendations demonstrate the Authority’s continued emphasis of the 

four funding priority areas—basic public infrastructure, transportation infrastructure, business 

development, and workforce development—with emphasis on job creation and job retention. 

Basic public and transportation infrastructure project funding totaled $6,781,421 (68.7 percent) 

and funding for distressed counties and parishes was $8,192,711 (90.7 percent) for Fiscal Year 

2012. The total DRA project funding allocation is $9,471,590. SEDAP funds leveraged 

$20,656,748 in additional project funding, a ratio of 2.5 to 1, and $213,778,500 in private 
DRA Performance Report 2012

22 Delta Regional Authority 

investment, a ratio of 22.6 to 1. For the Fiscal Year 2012 SEDAP grant cycle, the following is 

projected: 

• 8,136 families received improved water and sewer 

• 3,411 individuals trained for jobs 

• 1,803 jobs created and 

• 869 jobs retained. 

Overall, in 11 cycles, the DRA has contributed $108,019,579 to 718 projects in the eight-state 

region for total project costs of $740,630,620. Total project cost includes $632,611,041 in other 

federal, state and local funds, a ratio of 5.9 to 1 in additional leveraged funds. Private investment 

totals $1,746,144,098, a ratio of 16.2 to 1. Since inception, the DRA Federal Grant and States’ 

Economic Development Assistance Programs have actually accomplished the following: 

• 25,497 families received improved water and sewer 

• 9,251 jobs created 

• 7,578 jobs retained and 

• 3,745 individuals trained for jobs. 

Once projects are complete, the following is projected: 

• 35,236 families received improved water and sewer 

• 13,305 jobs created 

• 11,750 individuals trained for jobs and 

• 9,987 jobs retained. 

Analysis and Comparison 

Congress has mandated through the DRA Code and Enabling Legislation 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. 

Additional congressional stipulations include: 

• The Authority will allocate at least 75 percent of Authority funds for use in distressed 

counties; and 

• The Authority shall allocate at least 50 percent of any funds for transportation and basic 

public infrastructure projects. 
DRA Performance Report 2012

23 Delta Regional Authority 

These items represent the lower tier policy points that specifically drive the economic 

development efforts of the Authority. The following section pertains to DRA strategic goals and 

provides a broad vision of how DRA can be successful in its mission. The Authority’s mission 

encompasses many different activities, not least among these being SEDAP. 

The DRA commissioned the development of the Regional Development Plan, which codifies the 

strategic goals of the Authority and serves to augment the congressionally mandated mission of 

the Authority. 

The three general goals from the DRA’s 2008-2012 Regional Development Plan, “Rethinking 

the Delta” are used and outlined below to demonstrate performance in Fiscal Year 2012 and 

beyond. 

GOAL 1 

Advance the productivity and economic competitiveness of the Delta Workforce 

Objective 1.1: Improve the health of the region’s workforce through the Healthy Delta Initiative. 

Objective 1.2: Expand access to healthcare professionals. 

Objective 1.3: Establish a Delta Institute. 

Objective 1.4: Work with other regional partners to improve the employability and productivity 

of Delta residents. 

Objective 1.5: Strengthen workforce education and professional skills programs. 

GOAL 2 

Strengthen the Delta’s physical and digital connections to the global economy 

Objective 2.1: Advance the iDelta initiative. 

Objective 2.2: Build the Delta Development Highway System (DDHS). 

Objective 2.3: Expand intermodal and multimodal transportation nodes and networks. 

Objective 2.4: Expand the region’s energy infrastructure and production capacity. 

GOAL 3 

Create sustainable communities within the Delta 

Objective 3.1: Enhance the quality of place of Delta Communities. 

Objective 3.2: Promote innovations and diversification within local and regional economies. 

Objective 3.3: Support growth-oriented entrepreneurship. 
DRA Performance Report 2012

24 Delta Regional Authority 

Objective 3.4: Foster local leadership. 

Objective 3.5: Build and augment basic infrastructure. 

 

All of the above referenced strategic goals serve as a navigational aid to senior management and 

DRA member states when it comes to planning for the future of this region. The Regional 

Development Plan could be considered a touchstone used to provide focus for DRA policy 

decisions. 

Program Goal One: 

Advance the productivity and economic competitiveness of the Delta Workforce 

Objective 1.1: Improve the health of the region’s workforce through the Healthy Delta Initiative. 

GROWING A HEALTHY WORKFORCE IN THE DELTA INITIATIVE 

The Federal Co-Chairman and eight Governors have identified health as a major focus of the 

Authority. The growing incidence of chronic disease is a formidable challenge for the region and 

for the nation. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) estimates that in 2011 25.8 million 

Americans – 8.3 percent of the population – had diabetes. Within DRA states, more than 2.57 

million people are estimated to suffer from diabetes. 

The DRA recognizes that health plays a critical role in the productivity and well-being of the 

Region. In Fiscal Year 2011, the DRA adopted its newly-revised plan entitled “Growing a 

Healthy Workforce in the Delta” that can be viewed at 

http://www.dra.gov/initiatives/health.aspx. In Fiscal Year 2012, the DRA began to work on two 

Federal collaborations in support of the Healthy Delta Initiative (HDI), including planning for 

Fiscal Year 2013 work with the CDC to address the high incidences of diabetes within DRA 

states. 

 

Recognizing that health plays a critical role in the productivity and well-being of the region, the 

DRA’s health advisory committee developed a strategic plan for the agency that emphasizes 

evidence based activities and the sharing of best practices to have a real impact on health in the 

Delta. The DRA has a long and successful history of bringing together various agencies and local 

groups for the betterment of the Delta Region. This leadership role as facilitator, coordinator and 

relationship-builder has proven invaluable to the region and represents a unique and critical 

asset. For this reason, we believe that focusing on activities that build on these DRA’s strengths 

will ensure the success of their activities in the health arena. 

Consistent with DRA’s current success in the arena of economic development, we believe that 

the following principles must guide efforts in the health arena: 

1. Empowerment – sustainability requires that local leadership be empowered to own their 

health issues and the local solutions. 
DRA Performance Report 2012

25 Delta Regional Authority 

2. Local Determination/Local Effort – similarly, local solutions should be driven by grassroots 

efforts so that programs are tailored to the unique needs of each area and local leadership is 

invested in the process and outcomes. 

3. Accountability – all investments require accountability to ensure efficient and appropriate use 

of resources. Currently, SEDAP requires that local agencies sign a contract to deliver promised 

outcomes or forfeit grant monies. A similar approach should be used with the health program to 

ensure realistic goals and responsible management of funds. 

4. Coordination/Alignment – building on its strengths as coordinator, facilitator and 

relationship-builder, the DRA should emphasize activities that; 

• leverage other federal, state, and local funding; 

• bring together various agencies and groups with similar interests or responsibilities; 

• compile and organize information on health needs, best practices, and available funding 

so that it is easily accessible for local leadership in the Delta; and 

• work to eliminate fragmentation and duplication of federal, state and local efforts. 

5. Monitoring and Updating – to ensure maximum relevance and impact, the DRA must 

continuously monitor and update the information it makes available and its communication and 

coordination methods. 

If Job Growth increases 1% 

Then, Life Expectancy over 15 years 4.6% 

Domestic Migration 3.8% 

Technical & Professional Occupations 2.6% 

Foreign-born Population 1.9% 

Self-Employed 0.3% 

Jobs (from companies started in last 5 years) 0.3% 

Public School Enrollment 0.2% 

The Regional Development Plan, which can be found on the DRA website at the address listed 

(http://www.dra.gov/%21userfiles/editor/docs/DRA_Regional_Development_Plan.pdf) reflects 

that the impact on Job Growth of 1 percent increases life expectancy over 15 years, or 4.6 

percent. Researchers at Harvard University’s School of Public Health recently completed a 

major project on life expectancy. The residual of this project was an extensive database of life 

expectancy data at the county level. Building on this database, we found that life expectancy 

changes have a high correlation with job growth. While public health is often taken for granted 

in the U.S., in the least developed countries, stabilizing public health often comes before literacy 

and education as a policy priority. The relationship between health and economic development 

goes beyond the fact that healthy people live longer and are therefore able to be productive 

members of society longer. They also show up regularly for work and they cost their employers 

less in health care. Their productivity is higher. All of these things bode well for economic 

development efforts. DRA’s priorities should focus on programs that improve public health. In 

fact, DRA’s “Healthy Delta” initiative is an ideal example of this type of priority already in 

practice. 
DRA Performance Report 2012

26 Delta Regional Authority 

The DRA, through its Healthy Delta initiative, has highlighted the importance of health to the 

region as a whole. In addition to its direct implications on quality of life, the critical mass 

community analysis suggests a direct link between health (measured in changes in life 

expectancy) and economic vitality. With substantially high rates of chronic disease, the 

productivity of the Delta is severely compromised. DRA started the beginning stages of the 

plans implementation towards the end of Fiscal Year 2010. Additional information regarding 

DRA Growing a Healthy Workforce in the Delta is found in appendix A. 

In Fiscal Year 2011, the Healthy Delta Initiative continued working in the region by conducting 

meetings with Governors, State Health and Human Service Directors, local and community 

leaders. We began working closely with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ 

Office of Minority Health and the Health Resources and Services Administration’s Office of 

Rural Health Policy on several projects important to the Region. 

The HDI is almost completed with developing county level health data reports for the 252 

counties within the eight-state region. This level of health data will be soon be available for use 

on the new DRA website. This information will prove helpful to groups such as those the HDI 

met with to establish regional and sub-regional workforce task groups. Examples of those 

groups include, but are not limited to, the Arkansas Rural Health Partnership and the Mid-Delta 

Community Consortium. 

The Delta Regional Authority’s Healthy Delta Initiative has had continued success with 

convening rural health advocacy organizations and rural health government agencies for the 

purpose of developing strategic plans for partnership in the Delta Region. The product of such 

collaborations yielded the opportunity for more than 400 participants to receive technical 

assistance pertaining to accessing federal funds, resources and grant sustainability. Partnerships 

that exist between DRA HDI and the Health Resource Service Agency’s Office of Rural Health 

Policy will continue to provide opportunities for community organizations to build capacity and 

become more competitive in the pursuit of securing grant funds to improve health status in the 

Delta Region. 

DRA Rural Health IT Loan Fund: DRA HDI created a partnership opportunity with the United 

States Department of Health and Human Service Office of Minority Health and the American 

Health Information Management Association (AHIMA) to remove foreseen barriers for health 

care providers by providing opportunities for the adoption and purchase of electronic health 

records systems. The pilot program expedites the adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) 

in the Delta region among health care providers by initiating a revolving micro-loan program. 

The DRA will provide no-interest loans in increments of $5000 and $7500 to eligible healthcare 

providers to use as a down-payment for the purchase of an EHR system. AHIMA will provide 

the educational component to health care providers, as well as assist with provider recruitment. 

This pilot program will assist small physician practices and federally-qualified health centers in 

Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee. 
DRA Performance Report 2012

27 Delta Regional Authority 

This initiative will be available to assist healthcare providers enhance health care delivery in 

these underserved communities by helping providers purchase an Electronic Health Record 

(EHR) system. 

The DRA Rural Health IT Loan Fund is expected to continue accepting applications and issuing 

down-payments for the purchase of EHR systems through FY 2013, with the ability to initiate a 

second round of the program if it is deemed necessary. 

White House Rural Council Forums: The DRA hosted two regional forums in Dyersburg, 

Tennessee and outside of Jackson, Mississippi on behalf of the White House Rural Council to 

highlight the work underway to transition providers in the Delta Region to EHRs and to 

introduce the DRA Rural Health IT Loan Fund. These forums focused on the role Delta 

community colleges must play in training the workforce needed to realize this transition. 

Representatives from the United States Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of the 

National Coordinator for Health Information Technology and the Health Resources and Services 

Administration’s (HRSA’s) Office of Rural Health Policy traveled to the Region to participate in 

these forums. 

DRA and HRSA Healthy Workforce Challenge: The Delta Regional Authority is partnering 

with the Health Resources and Services Administration to launch a new workforce competition 

that will be a part of the 2013 round of the Delta State Rural Development Network Grant 

Program, to be awarded in August of 2013. 

Applicants from the eight Delta states will be given the opportunity to apply for supplemental 

funding from the DRA to implement pilot programs on workforce health. The purpose of the 

Delta States Rural Development Network (Delta) Grant Program is to fund rural public or rural 

nonprofit private entities located in rural counties/parishes throughout the eight Delta States to 

address unmet local health care needs and prevalent health disparities through the development 

of new and innovative project activities in rural Delta communities. 

Approximately twelve awards are expected to be announced, with at least two and potentially up 

to five of the awardees chosen to receive the additional workforce health funding from the Delta 

Regional Authority. 

The above programs are exemplary of the Growing a Healthy Workforce in the Delta Action 

Plan mentioned above as advised by the Health Advisory Committee which meets quarterly to 

strengthen our presence in the Region. 

Objective 1.2 Expand access to healthcare professionals. 

 
DRA Performance Report 2012

28 Delta Regional Authority 

DELTA DOCTORS PROGRAM 

Access to quality healthcare is a significant challenge facing rural America, especially among the 

poorest and most disadvantaged regions. Many medically underserved areas struggle to recruit 

and retain high quality physicians, nurses, and other medical specialists. Moreover, local 

residents who are trained for such occupations often 

choose to live in more urban and affluent areas. 

The lack of health care providers and services, 

combined with greater financial and geographic 

barriers common to rural areas, condemns many rural 

Americans to higher rates of chronic disease, physical 

limitations, and premature death. The number of 

physicians in the Delta region is 23 percent lower than 

in the rest of the nation. The number of dentists in the 

Delta is 24 percent lower. 

In an attempt to increase the number of doctors serving 

Delta residents, the Delta Regional Authority 

implemented the Delta Doctors program in 2003. The 

program allows foreign physicians who are trained in 

this country to work in medically underserved areas for three years. Most choose to stay far 

longer once they develop a patient base. Those in the Delta Doctors program do not take jobs 

away from U.S.-born physicians. Instead, they provide services in areas where otherwise there 

would be a shortage of physicians. 

The Delta Regional Authority is one of the few government agencies allowed to recommend 

such visa waivers to the State Department. Medical school graduates from other countries 

normally are required to return to their home countries for at least two years after they complete 

their education. The J-1 visa waiver obtained under the Delta Doctors program allows them to 

stay in the United States if they spend at least three years in medically underserved areas. The 

physicians must provide primary care in their specialty fields for at least 40 hours a week. They 

also must provide care to the indigent, Medicaid recipients and Medicare recipients. The Delta 

Doctors program accepts waiver requests 

for medical specialists and also provides 

National Interest Waiver (NIW) 

support. The NIW allows foreign 

physicians to obtain permanent residence in 

this country by providing a total of five 

years of medical service in a medically 

underserved area. 

Delta Doctors

Physicians Placed by State 

State 2003-2012 2012 

 Alabama 0 0 

 Arkansas 12 2 

 Illinois 33 4 

 Kentucky 7 1 

 Louisiana 7 1 

 Mississippi 50 11 

 Missouri 31 1 

 Tennessee 47 2 

 Totals 187 22 

Mississippi 18.4 50

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services: Health, United States, 2006

Includes the 50 states and District of Columbia

U.S. 26.3 --

Arkansas 20.5 46

Alabama 21.1 43

Kentucky 22.7 35

Louisiana 25.3 25

Missouri 25.7 22

Illinois 27.2 13

State Number U.S. Rank

Number of Physicians per 10,000 Civilian 

Population, 2004

Mississippi 18.4 50

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services: Health, United States, 2006

Includes the 50 states and District of Columbia

U.S. 26.3 --

Arkansas 20.5 46

Alabama 21.1 43

Kentucky 22.7 35

Louisiana 25.3 25

Missouri 25.7 22

Illinois 27.2 13

State Number U.S. Rank

Number of Physicians per 10,000 Civilian 

Population, 2004
DRA Performance Report 2012

29 Delta Regional Authority 

JOBS FOR AMERICA’S GRADUATES 

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

school-to-work system for at-risk and disadvantaged young people. Since its inception in 1980, 

well over 800,000 young people have participated in a JAG Model program. Today, JAG 

operates in approximately 850 high schools and serves nearly 42,000 youth in 33 states. The 

ultimate objective of the JAG Model is to help each program participant secure a quality job that 

will lead to a meaningful and satisfying career. To achieve this objective, JAG focuses on 

keeping students in school through graduation and equipping them with the academic and 

technical skills necessary to improve their employability. Second, JAG requires no less than one 

year of follow-up and support after the student leaves high school. This latter component of JAG 

helps to ensure the young person’s success in a job and/or postsecondary education during the 

time when the student is most at risk of failure. This partnership with JAG will focus on the 

priority of the Delta Regional Authority of boosting employment, specifically including high-risk 

youth (whose unemployment rate is the highest in American history). 

This partnership will provide $250,000 to support the opening of 10 new JAG programs at 

schools in the DRA service area and the JAG Annual National Training Seminar. The venture 

will support the following: 

• Engaging a wide range of schools in the DRA service area to fully inform stakeholders 

about the success of the JAG programs in their states as they consider participation in the 

program. 

• Engaging at the state level with the leadership of the state education and workforce 

system to recognize the commitment of the Delta Regional Authority, and to highlight the 

one-time-only matching grant strategy with its proven success over the past 30 years of 

Jobs for America's Graduates. 

• Serving an additional 350-400 high-risk youth in the DRA service area, providing the 

opportunity to participate in the JAG program and benefit from the dramatic 

improvements in graduation, employment, and college attendance rates that JAG has 

demonstrated for more than 30 years. 

• Creating of a mechanism of support and early engagement that would lead to sustaining

the JAG program in eight of the ten schools from other sources for the 2013-14 school 

year and beyond. 

Based on the track record of Jobs for America's Graduates over the past 30 years, it is anticipated 

that at least 2,000 high-risk youth will be served by the JAG program as a result of this 

partnership. 
DRA Performance Report 2012

30 Delta Regional Authority 

Influence on Jobs 

Jobs for America’s Graduates is one of the nation’s largest and most successful strategies for 

helping very high-risk and economically disadvantaged youth to succeed both in school and on 

the job. 

Objective 1.5: Strengthen workforce education and professional skills programs. 

Access to skilled talent is the most pressing challenge facing American employers and foreignowned companies operating in the United States. While many lower-skill, lower-wage jobs are 

either eliminated through technology or moved offshore, skilled positions that require more 

advanced training and expertise are increasing in demand. In the manufacturing sector, jobs go 

unfilled as modern production and assembly occupations require higher-level knowledge and 

training. Moreover, as the “baby boom” generation begins entering retirement age in significant 

numbers—around 2011—the demand for skilled and educated workers will intensify. 

As a consequence, regions that cannot offer a talent base with the ability to learn and acquire 

advanced skills will not be able to compete for new jobs. For the Delta region, which suffers 

from chronic high unemployment and poverty, its workforce must be equipped with the skills 

and training necessary to fill 21st century occupations. To meet this challenge, over the past four 

years, the DRA has awarded over $4.5 million in federal grant funds toward local workforce 

training initiatives and programs. 

SAVE THE CHILDREN 

Save the Children coordinates school-age education programs primarily in poor and rural 

communities. The partnership with the DRA will help with training and infrastructure expenses 

for thirty school-based literacy programs in the Delta region in rural areas of Alabama, Arkansas, 

Louisiana, Mississippi and Tennessee. 

These funds will align with DRA’s mission to “improve basic public services” and “assist the 

region in obtaining the job training, employment-related education.” Funding from the DRA of 

$500,000 will: 

• Provide high-level skills training to 180 program employees and at least 180 teachers; 

• Provide free, quality childcare to poor, working families; and 

• Leverage over $4.5M of public and private funding from Save the Children. 

To date, Save the Children’s Program Specialists have trained 132 paraprofessionals and 30 

teachers to implement the school-based literacy programs at a total of 52 sites. The afterschool 

literacy programs have served a total of 1,744 children. 
DRA Performance Report 2012

31 Delta Regional Authority 

Details of Proposed Activity 

Enhance Extended Learning Programs: The centerpiece of the after school and summer literacy 

program is the Literacy Block, which consists of an hour of activities that support increased 

reading achievement, including guided independent reading practice, fluency-building support 

and listening to books read aloud. A key component of the literacy program is Guided 

Independent Reading where children self-select developmentally appropriate books, read these 

books independently – while receiving appropriate support from program staff – and then take a 

short comprehension quiz using Accelerated Reader (AR) software. AR software provides 

diagnostic reports on each child’s reading achievement and enables close monitoring of overall 

program progress. Funding from the DRA will allow Save the Children to order new books and 

computers for thirty literacy programs. Keeping technology and books up to date are crucial to 

the communities served. Many times the books make up the majority of school libraries. This 

project will benefit teachers, staff, and students in rural areas of the Delta region (Alabama, 

Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee). 

As an additional economic benefit, Save the Children’s literacy programs provide free, quality 

afterschool childcare options for working parents. Delta region residents often lack the personal 

resources to pay for quality childcare, the lack of which can inhibit their ability to seek 

employment. Save the Children’s program provides a vital service to parents that many times is 

requirement for full-time employment. 

Provide high-level skills training: Employees receive high quality job training from Save the 

Children that encompasses skill development around instruction, project management and 

computer use. Training continues throughout the school year and often expands to include 

teachers and school administrators. On average, across all 150 of our programs, 40 hours of 

training and technical assistance were provided during the 2009-2011 school year. 

Program staff receives two trainings: Afterschool Program Introduction and Behavior 

Management. Staff also receives position-specific training. For example, new tutors 

implementing the fluency/read-aloud component receive An Introduction to Vocabulary, 

Fluency, Part I –Songs, Poetry and Tongue Twisters, and Read-Aloud, Part I – All About ReadAlouds with an Emphasis on Fiction. Training continues in Phase II: Follow-Up Training for 

Program Components. Continuing the example of the tutor, he/she receives Fluency, Part II – 

Reader’s Theater, and Read-Aloud, Part II – Implementing Nonfiction Read-Alouds. Tutors also 

learn at this time about various Accelerated Reader reports and how to analyze their content to 

improve programming. Phase III: Additional Component Trainings is implemented later in the 

year. 

Jobs saved and created: Save the Children’s programs are a driver for sustainable economic 

growth in the poor rural communities of the Delta region. Each literacy program creates six new 

jobs, all locally sourced. By providing high-level skills training to 180 program employees and 

at least 180 teachers, our project will give at least 360 paraprofessionals and teachers the job 

skills they need to be competitive in the education industry. 
DRA Performance Report 2012

32 Delta Regional Authority 

Program Goal Two: 

Strengthen the Delta’s physical and digital connections to the global economy 

Objective 2.1 Advance the iDelta initiative 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY/ iDELTA

To measure the presence and role of Information Technology (IT) in the economic development 

of the Delta, the DRA commissioned a two-part plan from the Southern Growth Policies Board 

(SGPB). The first volume assesses the level of IT utilization in the domains of education, 

healthcare, government, business, and personal and 

community engagement. The second volume offers 

recommendations for expanding its use in order to 

maximize the region’s potential. 

In April 2007, the DRA released its “iDelta–DRA’s 

Information Technology Plan for the Region”, which 

included eight specific recommendations to increase 

awareness, use and deployment of IT resources in the 

region, all of which will combine for a richer and 

more robust economy and future for its people: 

1. Geographic Information Systems; 

2. Tele-health; 

3. Community Access; 

4. Awareness; 

5. Distance Education; 

6. Workforce Development; 

7. E-Government; and 

8. Create an atmosphere of opportunity for increased private-sector investment. 

Toward those ends, the DRA has been working with high-level staff discussions and negotiations 

with national and state offices, particularly USDA and its Rural Utility Services and Rural 

Development offices, different state technology alliances, congressional offices and 

regional/national telecomm carriers and providers to initiate the phased implementation of 

iDelta. Specifically, DRA is continuing work on the following bases – DRA region-wide, DRA 

sub-region and state sub-regions to: 

1. DRA region-wide: help other states in the region grow their own technology 

entities. Most DRA states do NOT have an entity with a formalized structure, strengths 

of partners and shared missions and visions. 

2. DRA sub-region: DRA is working with a multi-state entity on a technology-based 

system for workforce training and development, which will elevate under-employed 

workers to higher-paying jobs and attract new talent, thereby boosting the economies of 

DRA states. 
DRA Performance Report 2012

33 Delta Regional Authority 

3. State sub-region: some specific, much needed (pilot/demonstration) projects – such as: 

wireless broadband in underdeveloped counties, such as Phillips County, Arkansas and 

Coahoma County, Mississippi. 

DRA contracted with Mississippi Technology Alliance (MTA), for project management, to 

pilot/demonstrate wireless broadband in Coahoma County, Mississippi. 

MTA performed the following tasks: 

• Task 1: Developed and facilitated a Coahoma County Wireless Broadband team with 

members representing a cross section of the community, including business, 

telecommunication, health care, workforce development, K-12 education, higher 

education, libraries, community-based organizations, local government, 

tourism/recreation, and agriculture; 

• Task 2: Coordinated with willing current broadband service providers to identify and 

map the gaps in broadband service, in the county without broadband availability; 

• Task 3: Investigated best practice models for community telecommunications 

assessments including: Connected Nations, E-North Carolina, and Georgia Tech’s 

Smart Tech; 

• Task 4: Conducted a pilot community telecommunications assessment to identify 

barriers to broadband adoption and provide market demand analysis for wireless 

broadband; 

• Task 5: Developed and managed a Request for Proposal process for a wireless 

broadband demonstration in a manner that supports a service providers business plans 

and meets the needs of the county; 

• Task 6: Monitored the progress of the wireless broadband demonstration project; 

• Task 7: Identified best practice tools and resources to equip the DRA and the 

Coahoma County Wireless Broadband team to measure and track broadband and 

information technology adoption; and 

• Task 8: Worked with the DRA and the Coahoma County Wireless Broadband team 

to develop a computer donation pilot program to provide computers and wireless 

devices to needy students. 

Program Status 

This pilot/demonstration project is ongoing in Coahoma County and currently being financially 

maintained by DRA, while options are being considered for commercialization of the network. 
DRA Performance Report 2012

34 Delta Regional Authority 

DRA is also funding the initial stages of a similar program across the Mississippi River in 

Phillips County, Arkansas to further expand the reach of the iDelta approach. 

The next phase of this project will include identifying the appropriate means for commercializing 

the network, which is anticipated to include free wireless hotspots in certain public areas and 

facilities, as well as a reduced cost aspect for lower income sectors of the local population. 

Discussions are currently underway with Coahoma County leadership to develop the partnership 

needed to support the iDelta endeavor. 

Program Goal Three: 

Create sustainable communities within the Delta 

Objective 3.1: Enhance the quality of place of Delta Communities. 

INNOVATIVE READINESS TRAINING 

IRT Background: 

The purpose of the Civil-Military Programs is to improve military readiness while 

simultaneously providing quality services to communities throughout America. These programs 

are in keeping with a long military tradition, leveraging training to benefit both units and their 

home communities. They are strongly supported by the Department of Defense (DOD), 

Congress, the states and communities. 

The military services have always brought to bear their extensive resources to help meet some of 

the country’s civil needs. In recent years, DOD has realized the simultaneous benefits these civilmilitary programs can offer to military readiness. This document reviews the resurgence of these 

dual-benefit programs. 

IRT in the Delta: 

In July 2009, the Delta Regional Authority partnered with the Department of Defense for its 

program called Innovative Readiness Training (IRT). The IRT program gives the military the 

ability to train its medical personnel by providing medical care in rural, underserved areas. 

Past communities in the DRA region selected by the Pentagon for the 2009 and 2011 IRT 

program include Clarksdale, Mississippi; Hayneville, Alabama; and Helena-West Helena, 

Wynne, Marianna, Eudora, and McGhee, Arkansas. The selected towns received medical 

services from general practitioners to dentist to veterinary care for pets. For two weeks, military 

units lived in these communities and provided free medical assistance to citizens who were in 

need of medical care. 

 
DRA Performance Report 2012

35 Delta Regional Authority 

In Alabama – 3 communities (2012): 

• 20,000 patients were seen 

• 14,010 were general medical 

o 8,635 were dental; 

o 6,987 were optometry; 

o 465 patients were other. 

Objective 3.3: Support growth-oriented entrepreneurship. 

ENTREPRENUERSHIP TRAINING 

Traditional economic development philosophy emphasizes industrial recruitment as the most 

important role for the economic development practitioner. There is an emerging consensus, 

however, that other avenues for economic growth and vitality are just as essential—especially in 

rural communities lacking the key attributes sought by selectors and recruitment prospects. In 

most communities, economic development opportunities lie close to home. 

To demonstrate this objective, in Fiscal Year 2012, DRA is continuing to fund entrepreneurial 

training projects with DRA and Rural Community Advancement Program (RCAP) funding. 

Southern Illinois University in Carbondale, Illinois is one such recipient of RCAP funding and is 

completing their second year of Operation Bootstrap – Entrepreneurial Training Program. 

Southern Illinois University Carbondale’s Entrepreneurship Center proposed to launch an 

entrepreneurial business training program for low- to moderate-income residents in the state’s 16 

Delta counties. The overall goal during the first year of funding was to launch at least 30 small 

businesses in the impoverished southern Illinois Delta region. 

In total, DRA’s initial investment of $200,000 in SIUC and the 16 southern Illinois Delta 

counties produced a combined economic impact of: 

• 66 trained entrepreneurs; 

• Launching a minimum of 26 businesses (awarded seed capital); 

• Investing a total of $90,000 in southern Illinois businesses; 

• With at least 1 job per start-up company; and 

• Additional leveraged funding if obtained by graduate (currently tracking). 

The second year of funding is currently underway, and results from this class are anticipated to 

exceed the first year. 

Objective 3.4: Foster local leadership. 

 
DRA Performance Report 2012

36 Delta Regional Authority 

DELTA LEADERSHIP INSTITUTE 

The most important ingredient of successful community growth is leadership. Communities with 

assets sufficient to achieve sustainable communities may still not live up to their potential. They 

may fail – despite these advantages – to create an economic climate that attracts private 

investment. When this is the case, it is because of a lack of leadership. Similarly, there are 

many examples where asset-poor communities have overcome adversity through bold and 

progressive leaders. 

DRA’s Delta Leadership Institute (DLI) is designed to create a corp of leaders with a regional 

and national perspective. The first class of the institute met in 2005. The program was operated 

by the DRA in cooperation with Delta State University in Cleveland, Mississippi. In April 2006, 

the DRA board chose the University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa to coordinate the Delta 

Leadership Institute. The University of Alabama is currently conducting the sixth class of DLI. 

Many of the 252 counties and parishes that make up the Delta region are characterized by high 

poverty, high unemployment levels, low educational attainment, a loss of skilled labor, and a 

general lack of hope. Unable to establish development priorities, these counties and parishes 

have failed to keep up with counties and parishes in other areas of their states. 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 and a lack of direction. Communities never decide on 

their priorities. With no leadership, vision or plans for growth, these communities continue to 

struggle. 

The Delta Leadership Institute is designed to improve the decisions made by leaders across the 

region. Each of the eight governors and the Federal Co-Chairman nominate five people per year 

for the program, resulting in a class of 45 Delta leaders. In 2009, the Delta Leadership Network 

(DLN) alumni organization was formed through a committee of DLI alumni. They have begun 

plans to broaden the DLN in the years to come. These will be leaders who stay in touch with 

each other, sharing best practices and solutions to common problems through the DRA Annual 

Conference and through the newly designed website to accommodate the needs of the alumni. 

It is expected that many of the graduates of the Delta Leadership Institute will go back to their 

communities and help lead local leadership programs, multiplying the number of people in the 

region who receive leadership training. 

In June of 2012, Delta Leadership Institute graduated 45 members of the 2011-2012 Executive 

Academy class. Those 45 members completed six sessions of leadership training, skill building, 

project development and implementation. The first session was held in St. Louis, Missouri; this 

session is an introduction to DLI and the Executive Academy. The second session was held in 

Little Rock, Arkansas during the DRA National Policy conference; the second session focused 
DRA Performance Report 2012

37 Delta Regional Authority 

on training for crucial conversations and attending the policy conference. The third session in 

New Orleans, Louisiana in December focused on small business and entrepreneurship and 

innovation. The fourth meeting was the first time the DRA has held a session in Washington, 

D.C. During the sessions, the academy members met with their Congressmen and Senators, 

heard from Federal Agency representatives, met with White House officials, and were treated to 

a tour of the monuments. The fifth session in Memphis, Tennessee was about creating 

sustainable communities, health as an economic engine and a visit to the Civil Rights Museum. 

In June, the class met in Point Clear, Alabama for their graduation where they discussed and 

worked in teams on the case studies they had been working on all year and presented a case 

study to the DLN board as well as the Federal Co-Chairman. 

Contact Information 

The Authority is pleased to have complied with this directive. Please feel free to contact the 

DRA Finance and Administration Department should there be any questions or requirements for 

additional information. Direct requests for additional information to: 

Delta Regional Authority 

Attn: Finance and Administration 

236 Sharkey Avenue, Suite 400 

Clarksdale, Mississippi 38614 
SECTION 3- FINANCIAL SECTION
Independent Accountants’ Report on Financial Statements 

and Supplementary Information 

Federal and State Co-Chairs 

 and Members of the Board 

Delta Regional Authority 

Clarksdale, Mississippi 

 We have audited the accompanying basic financial statements of Delta Regional 

Authority (the Authority) as of and for the years ended September 30, 2012 and 2011, as listed in 

the table of contents. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Authority’s 

management. 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; 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. 07-04, Audit Requirements for Federal Financial 

Statements. Those standards and OMB Bulletin No. 07-04 require that we plan and perform the 

audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material 

misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts 

and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting 

principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall 

financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our 

opinion. 

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

material respects, the financial position of Delta Regional Authority as of September 30, 2012 

and 2011, and its net cost and changes in net position and resources (budgetary and nonbudgetary) for the years then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted 

in the United States of America. 

 In accordance with Government Auditing Standards and OMB Bulletin No. 07-04, we 

have also issued our report dated November 14, 2012, on our consideration of the Authority’s 

internal control over financial 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 
39

and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on internal control over financial 

reporting or on compliance. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance 

with Government Auditing Standards and OMB Bulletin No. 07-04 and should be considered in 

assessing the results of our audit. 

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

management’s discussion and analysis, as 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. 

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

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

Our audits were conducted for the purpose of forming opinions on the basic financial 

statements as a whole. The accompanying supplementary information, 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 is the responsibility of management and was derived 

from and related directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic 

financial statements. The information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in 

the audits of the basic financial statements and certain additional procedures, including 

comparing and reconciling such information directly to the underlying accounting and other 

records used to prepare the basic financial statements or to the basic financial statements 

themselves, and other additional procedures in accordance with auditing standards generally 

accepted in the United States of America. In our opinion, the information is fairly stated in all 

material respects in relation to the basic financial statements as a whole. 

November 14, 2012 
BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY

BALANCE SHEETS

SEPTEMBER 30, 2012 AND 2011

2012 2011

ASSETS

Intragovernmental

Fund balance with Treasury $ 33,696,751 $ 35,681,174

Cash 1,069,779 1,205,441

Receivables 672,834 759,009

TOTAL ASSETS $ 35,439,364 $ 37,645,624

LIABILITIES

Intragovernmental payable $ 234,574 $ 234,948

Accounts payable 159,198 399,162

Grants and other payables 2,632,779 1,430,780

TOTAL LIABILITIES 3,026,551 2,064,890

NET POSITION

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

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

TOTAL NET POSITION 32,412,813 35,580,734

TOTAL LIABILITIES AND NET POSITION $ 35,439,364 $ 37,645,624

See Notes to Financial Statements.

40
DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY

STATEMENTS OF NET COST

YEARS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2012 AND 2011

2012 2011

PROGRAM COSTS

Economic Development

Intragovernmental gross costs $ 235,158 $ 376,295

Less intragovernmental earned revenue - -

Intragovernmental net costs 235,158 376,295

Gross costs with the public 18,173,579 14,132,484

Less earned revenues from the public - -

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

TOTAL NET PROGRAM COSTS 18,408,737 14,508,779

NET COST OF OPERATIONS $ 18,408,737 $ 14,508,779

See Notes to Financial Statements.

41
DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY

STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN NET POSITION

YEARS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2012 AND 2011

2012

Cumulative Unexpended

Results Appropriations!

of Operations Funds

NET POSITION, BEGINNING BALANCE $ (30,353) $ 35,611,087

BUDGETARY FINANCING SOURCES

Appropriations received 11,677,000

Other adjustments (recessions, etc.)

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

OTHER FINANCING SOURCES

Cost of operations absorbed by member states and others 972,212

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 872,035 (872,035)

TOTAL FINANCING SOURCES 18,409,300 (3,168,484)

NET COST OF OPERATIONS 18,408,737

NET CHANGE 563 (3,168,484)

NET POSITION, ENDING BALANCE $ (29,790) $ 32,442,603

See Notes to Financial Statements.

42
2011

Cumulative Unexpended

Results Appropriations!

of Operations Funds

$ (22,432) $ 35,975,258

- 11,700,000

- (23,400)

12,277,783 (12,277,783)

- 936,260

- 1,486,169

37,658 -

1,491,521 (1,491,521)

693,896 (693,896)

14,500,858 (364,171)

14,508,779

(7,921) (364,171)

$ (30,353) $ 35,611,087

43
DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY

STATEMENTS OF RESOURCES (BUDGETARY AND NON-BUDGETARY)

YEARS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2012 AND 2011

2012

Rural Community

Federal State and Other Assistance Program Eliminations Combined

Budgetary and

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

BUDGETARY RESOURCES

Unobligated balance, beginning of year

Recoveries of prior year obligations

Budget authority

Appropriations received

Spending authority from offsetting collections

Collected

Change in unfilled customer orders

Other adjustments (recessions, etc.)

- $ 882,876

- 6,496,469

TOTAL RESOURCES (BUDGETARY AND NON-BUDGETARY) $ 18,542,246 $ 1,926,314 $ 2,576,259 $ (395,264) $ 22,649,555

STATUS OF BUDGETARY RESOURCES

Obligations incurred

Direct

Reimbursable

Unobligated balances/unexpended funds

Apportioned

Unexpended funds

Unobligated balance not available

17,889,825

TOTAL STATUS OF BUDGETARY RESOURCES $ 18,528,384 $ 659,015 $ 36,414 $ - $ 19,223,813

CHANGE IN OBLIGATED BALANCES

Obligated balance, net, beginning of year

Obligations incurred

Gross outlays

Recoveries of prior year unpaid obligations, actual

Obligated balance, net, end of year

Undeivered orders

Accounts payable

Total, unpaid obligated balance, net, end of year

NET OUTLAYS

$ 35,374,195 $

17,889,825

(13,723,222)

(6,496,469)

- $ 36.762,747

- 21,696,969

395,264 (17.506,496)

- (6,496,469)

31,326,818 - - -

1,717,511 1,017,158 -

3 1.326,818

2,734,669

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

$ 13,723,222 $ 1,307,966 $

(61,799) -

2,870,572 $ (395.264) $ 17.506,496

(2.540.390) - (2.602.189)

NET OUTLAYS

See Notes to Financial Statements

$ 13,661,423 $ 1,307,966 $ 330,182 $ (395,264) $ 14,904,307

Advance received

Subtotal

$ 306,978 $ 558,838 $ 17,060 $

6,496,469 -

11,677,000 -

61,799 1,367,476

11,738,799 1,367,476

-

- 11,677.000

2,559,199 (395,264) 3,593,210

2.559,199 (395,264) 15,270,210

$ 17,889,825 $

17,889,825

638,559

- $ - $

659,015 36,414

- $ 17,889.825

638,559

695,429

40.667 $

1,267,299

(1.307.966)

1,347,885 $

2,539,845

(2,870,572)

Gross outlays

Offsetting collections

44
Budgetary and

Non-Budgetary Non-Budgetary

$ - $ 9,053,385

- 296.150

11,700,000

11,700,000

(23.400)

$ 20,687,249

936,260

936,260

$ 1,252,734

1,486,169

1,486,169

$ 1,508,581 $

11,700,000

2.422,429

14,122,429

(23,400)

$ 23,448,564

$ 20,380,270

20,380.270

150,662

156,317

$ 20,687,249

$

558.838

$ 558,838

$

17,060

$ 17,060

$

$

$ 20.380,270

20,380.270

150,662

575,898

156,317

$ 21,263,147

Federal

2011

Rural Community

State and Other Assistance Program Eliminations Combined

Budgetary Non-Budgetary Non-Budgetary

$ 8,714,499 $ 316,474 $ 22,412

296,150 - -

$ 27,229,305 $ 180,488 $ 1,793,096 $ - $ 29,202,889

20.380,270 693,896 1,491,521 - 22,565,687

(11,939,230) (833,717) (1.936,732) - (14,709,679)

(296,150) - - - (296,150)

34,960,276 - - - 34.960,276

413,919 40.667 1.347.885 - 1,802,471

$ 35,374,195 $ 40,667 $ 1,347.885 $ - $ 36,762.747

$ 11,939,230 $ 833,717 $ 1.936,732 $ - $ 14,709,679

- (936,260) (1.486.169) - (2,422,429)

$ 11,939,230 $ (102,543) $ 450,563 $ - $ 12,287,250

45
46

DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY 

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 

September 30, 2012 and 2011 

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. 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 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 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 the official 

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

Certified Public Accountants. 

 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 
47

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

and 2011, 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 accounting principles 

generally accepted in the United States of America 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. 
48

Revenues and Other Financing Sources 

 DRA is an appropriated fund 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 2012 

and 2011. 

Cash 

 At September 30, 2012 and 2011, cash consisted of deposit accounts with several 

financial institutions. 

Effective July 21, 2010, the FDIC’s insured limit was permanently set at $250,000. 

Beginning December 31, 2010 through December 31, 2012, all non-interest bearing transaction 

accounts are fully insured at all FDIC-insured institutions. At September 30, 2012, the 

Authority’s cash accounts held with financial institutions were 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. 
49

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 follows: 

 

2012 2011

Fund balance with Treasury

Appropriated fund $ 33,696,751 $ 35,681,174

Status of fund balance with Treasury

Unobligated balance

Available 638,559 $ 150,661 $ 

Unavailable - 156,317

Obligated balance not yet disbursed 33,058,192 35,374,196

$ 33,696,751 $ 35,681,174

NOTE 3 – FUNDS RECEIVED FROM MEMBER STATES 

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

in a member state of the state co-chair. These funds 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 after consideration of costs associated with the federal co-chairman 

and his staff. Amounts billed to the states are calculated at the beginning of each fiscal year and 

are based on federally-appropriated monies allocated to the respective states: 

2012 2011

Unobligated balance of state funds on hand, beginning of year $ 249,418 430,473 $ 

Other income used to defray state expenses 87,360 31,494 

Current year billed to and receivable from states 771,551 721,286

Total received from states $ 1,289,384 $ 1,002,198

Unobligated balance of state funds on hand, end of year $ 486,777 $ 430,473
50

NOTE 4 – LIABILITIES COVERED AND NOT COVERED BY BUDGETARY RESOURCES 

 Liabilities not covered by budgetary resources are liabilities for which congressional 

action is needed before budgetary resources can be provided. Liabilities of DRA are classified as 

liabilities covered or not covered by budgetary resources as follows: 

2012 2011

Liabilities not covered by budgetary resources

Leave liability (federal) 29,791 $ 30,700 $ 

Leave liability (state) 25,959 40,667

Other payables (state) 4,067 - 

Deferred revenue (RCAP) 157,548 22,289

Grants payable (RCAP) 859,610 1,325,596 

Total liabilities not covered by budgetary resources 1,076,975 1,419,252

Liabilities covered by budgetary resources

Accounts payable 159,198 399,162

Grants payable 1,545,072 - 

Payroll and leave liability 10,732 11,528

Intragovernmental payable 234,574 234,948

Total liabilities covered by budgetary resources 1,949,576 645,638

Total liabilities $ 3,026,551 $ 2,064,890
51

NOTE 5 – GRANTS AND OTHER PAYABLES 

 A summary of grants and other payables at September 30 follows: 

2012 2011

Federal

Accrued funded payroll and leave - current 10,732 $ 11,528 $ 

Accrued unfunded leave - noncurrent 29,791 30,700 

Grants payable 1,545,072 - 

Total federal 1,585,595 42,228 

State and Other

Accrued leave 25,959 40,667

Other payables 4,067 - 

Total state and other 30,026 40,667 

Rural Community Assistance Program 

Deferred revenue 157,548 22,289

Grants payable 859,610 1,325,596 

Total Rural Community Assistance Program 1,017,158 1,347,885 

$ 1,430,780 2,632,779 $ 

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 SF 132. The reimbursable obligations are those incurred 

against the reimbursable agreements with DOT. A summary of these obligations at 

September 30 follows: 

 

2012 2011

Direct - category A 1,943,597 $ 2,146,895 $ 

Direct - category B 15,946,228 18,233,375

Total obligations 17,889,825 $ $ 20,380,270
52

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 $1,076,975, and the decrease in 

components requiring resources in future periods totaled ($563) at September 30, 2012. 

Liabilities not covered by budgetary resources totaled $1,419,252, and the increase in 

components requiring resources in future periods totaled $7,921 at September 30, 2011. 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 eight-year operating lease arrangement. 

Future minimum lease payments at September 30, 2012, were: 

 

2013 134,427 $ 

2014 134,150 

2015 137,912 

2016 139,713 

2017 112,631 

After 5 years 202,606 

Total 861,439 $ 

 

 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 $175,054 and $149,280 for the years ended September 30, 2012 and 2011, 

respectively. 
53

NOTE 9 – PENSION PLANS 

Plan Description 

Effective February 1, 2011, 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. Prior to February 1, 2011, the Authority’s non-federal employees participated in the 

Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi (PERS), a cost-sharing, multiple-employer 

defined benefit pension plan. PERS provides retirement and disability benefits, annual cost-ofliving adjustments and death benefits to plan members and beneficiaries. Benefit provisions are 

established by state law and may be amended only by the Mississippi State Legislature. PERS 

issues a publicly available financial report that includes financial statements and required 

supplementary information for the plan. The report may be obtained by writing to the Public 

Employees’ Retirement System, PERS Building, 429 Mississippi Street, Jackson, MS 39201-

1005, or by calling 601.359.3589 or 1.800.444.PERS. The Authority’s non-federal employees 

participated in the above plan through January 31, 2011. 

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 

Since February 1, 2011, contribution rates for the Authority for the defined contribution 

401(k) plan expressed as a percentage of covered payroll was 15.3% and 11.7% for the years 

ended September 30, 2012 and 2011, respectively. Contributions made by the Authority 

amounted to $76,809 and $52,979 for the years ended September 30, 2012 and 2011, respectively. 

Prior to February 1, 2011, employees participating in PERS were required to contribute 

7.25% of their annual covered salary through June 30, 2010, and 9.00% of their annual covered 

salary through January 31, 2011. The Authority was required to contribute at an actuarially 

determined rate, which was 12.0% of annual covered payroll through January 31, 2011. The 

Authority’s contributions to PERS for the years ended September 30, 2011 and 2010 were 

$14,941 and $71,519, respectively, which equaled the required contributions for each year. 

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, 2010. The Authority's contributions to FERS for the years ended September 30, 2012, 2011 

and 2010 were $67,420, $68,214 and $47,730, respectively, which equaled the required 

contributions for each year. 
54

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. 

NOTE 11 – RECONCILIATION OF NET COST OF OPERATIONS (PROPRIETARY) TO 

BUDGET 

2012 2011

RESOURCES USED TO FINANCE ACTIVITIES

BUDGETARY RESOURCES OBLIGATED

Obligations incurred 17,889,825 $ 20,380,270 $ 

Plus prior year undelivered orders paid becoming current year obligations - 408 

Less spending authority from offsetting collections and recoveries (6,558,268) (296,150) 

Net obligations 11,331,557 20,084,528 

OTHER RESOURCES

Imputed financing from costs absorbed by others 32,405 37,658 

Cost of operations absorbed by member states and others 872,035 693,896

Cost of operations absorbed by RCAP 2,539,845 1,491,521 

TOTAL RESOURCES USED TO FINANCE ACTIVITIES 14,775,842 22,307,603 

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 (7,806,745) 

TOTAL RESOURCES USED TO FINANCE THE NET

COST OF OPERATIONS 18,409,300 14,500,858 

COMPONENTS REQUIRING OR GENERATING

RESOURCES IN FUTURE PERIODS

Increase (decrease) in annual leave liability (563) 7,921 

TOTAL RESOURCES USED TO FINANCE THE NET

COST OF OPERATIONS 18,408,737 $ 14,508,779 $ 
55

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 FY 2011, no material differences 

exist between the amounts on the statement of budgetary resources and the amounts in the FY 

2013 President’s budget, which are rounded to the nearest million. As the FY 2014 President’s 

budget is not yet available, comparison between the statement of budgetary resources and the 

actual FY 2012 data in the FY 2014 budget cannot be performed. 

 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY

COMBINING BALANCE SHEETS

SEPTEMBER 30, 2012

Rural Community

ASSETS

Intragovernmental

Fund balance with Treasury

Cash

Receivables

LIABILITIES

Intragovernmental payableAccounts payable

Grants and other payables

TOTAL LIABILITIES

NET POSITION

Unexpended appropriations/state funds

Cumulative results of operations

TOTAL NET POSITION

$ 33,696,751 $

589,846

76,695

$ 33,696,751 $ 666,541

$ 234,574 $ (22,500)

159,198 -

1,585,595 30,0261,979,367 7,526

$ 33,696,751

1,069,779

672,834

$ 35,439,364

$ 234,574

159,198

2,632,779

3,026,551

32,442,603

(29,790)

32,412,813

$ 35,439,364

Federal State and Other

TOTAL ASSETS

Combined Assistance Program

$

479,933

596,139

$ 1,076,072

$ 22,500

1,017,158

1,039,658

36,414

36,414

$ 1,076,072

Eliminations

$

$

$

$ TOTAL LIABILITIES AND NET POSITION

31,747,174 659,015

(29,790) - 31,717,384 659,015

$ 33,696,751 $ 666,541

56
DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY

COMBINING BALANCE SHEETS

SEPTEMBER 30, 2011

ASSETS

Intragovernmental

Fund balance with Treasury

Cash

Receivables

TOTAL ASSETS

LIABILITIES

Intragovernmental payable

Accounts payable

Grants and other payables

TOTAL LIABILITIES

NET POSITION

Unexpended appropriations/state funds

Cumulative results of operations

TOTAL NET POSITION

$ 35,681,174

$ 234,948

399,162

42,228

676,338

35,035,189

(30,353)

35,004,836

$ 35,681,174

State

and Other

488,398

107,500

$ 595,898

2,064,890

35,611,087

(30,353)

Federal

$ 35,681,174 $

Eliminations Combined

$ - $ 35,681,174 - 1,205,441

759,009

$ - $ 37,645,624

Rural Community

Assistance Program

$

717,043651,509

$ 1,368,552

$ 3,607

1,347,885

1,351,492

17,060

17,060

$ 1,368,552

$ - $ 234,948

399,162

1,430,780

$ (3,607)

40,667

37,060

558,838

558,838

$ 595,898 TOTAL LIABILITIES AND NET POSITION $

35,580,734

$ 37,645,624

57
DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY

COMBINING STATEMENTS OF NET COST

YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2012

PROGRAM COSTS

Economic Development

Intragovernmental gross costsLess intragovernmental earned revenue

Intragovernmental net costs

Gross costs with the public

Less earned revenues from the public

Net costs with the public

TOTAL NET PROGRAM COSTS

State

Federal and Other

$ 235,158 $

235,158 — 14,761,699 1,267,299

14,761,699 1,267,299

14,996,857 1,267,299

$ 14,996,857 $ 1,267,299

Rural Community

Assistance Program

$

2,539,845

2,539,845

2,539,845

$ 2,539,845 NET COST OF OPERATIONS

Eliminations Combined

$ - $ 235,158

235,158

(395,264) 18,173,579

(395,264) 18,173,579

(395,264) 18,408,737

$ (395,264) $ 18,408,737

58
DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY

COMBINING STATEMENTS OF NET COST

YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2011

PROGRAM COSTS

Economic Development

Intragovernmental gross costsLess intragovemmental earned revenue

Intragovemmental net costs

Gross costs with the public

Less earned revenues from the public

Net costs with the public

TOTAL NET PROGRAM COSTS

State

Federal and Other

14,508,779

$ 376,295 $

376,295

11,947,067 693,896

11,947,067 693,896

12,323,362 693,896

$ 12,323,362 $ 693,896

Rural Community

Assistance Program

$

1,491,5211,491,521

1,491,521

$ 1,491,521 NET COST OF OPERATIONS

Eliminations Combined

$ - $ 376,295 - 376,295 - 14,132,484

14,132,484

$ - $ 14,508,779

59
DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY

COMBINING STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN NET POSITION

YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2012

Rural Community Assistance

Federal State and Other Program Eliminations Combined

Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative Unexpended

Results Unexpended Results Unexpended Reaulls Unexpended Results Unexpended Results Appropriarions/ of Operations Appropriations of Operations State Funds of Operations RCAP Funds of Operations Funds of Operations Funds

NET POSITION, BEGINNING BALANCE $ (30.353) $ 35,035.189 $ - $ 558,838 $ - $ 17.060 $ - $ - $ (30.353) $ 35,611,087

BUDGETARY FINANCING SOURCES

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

Appropriations used 14,965.015 (14.965,015) - 14,965,015 (14,965,015)

OTHER FINANCING SOURCES

Cost of operations absorbed by member states

and others - 1.367.476 - (395,264) - 972.212

Cost of operations absorbed by RCAP - - - 2.559,199 - 2.559,199Imputed financing from costs absorbed by others 32,405 - - - - - - 32.405 - Disbursements of RCAP funds - - - - 2.539.845 (2.539.845) - - 2.539.845 (2,539.845)

Disbursements of funds provided by member states

and others - - 1.267.299 (1.267.299) - - (395.264) 395,264 872,035 (872,035)

TOTAL FINANCING SOURCES 14.997.420 (3.288.015) 1,267.299 100.177 2.539.845 19,354 (395.264) - 18.409,300 (3.168.484)

NETCOSTOFOPERATIONS 14.996,857 - 1.267,299 - 2.539,845 - (395.264) - 18.408,737 - NETCHANGE 563 (3,288,015) - 100,177 - 19,354 - - 563 (3,168,484)

NET POSITION. ENDING BALANCE $ (29,790) $ 31,747,174 $ - $ 659,015 $ - $ 36,414 $ - $ - $ (29.790) $ 32.442,603

60
DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY

COMBINING STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN NET POSITION

YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2011

Rural Community Assistance

Federal State and Other Program Eliminations Combined

Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative Unexpended

Results Unexpended Results Unexpended Results Unexpended Results Unexpended Results Appropriations/

of Operations Appropriations of Operations State Funds of Operations RCAP Funds of Operations Funds of Operations Funds

NET POSITION. BEGINNING BALANCE $ (22.432) S 35.636.372 $ - $ 3 16.474 $ - 5 22.4 12 S - $ - S (22.432) $ 35.975.258

BUDGETARY FINANCING SOURCES

Appropriations received - 11,700.000 - - - - - - - 11,700,000Other adjustments (recessions, etc.) - (23,400) - - - - - (23,400)

Appropriations used 12,277,783 (12,277,783) - - 12,277,783 (12,277,783)

OTHER FINANCING SOURCES

Cost of operations absorbed by member stales

and others - - 936.260 - - - (94,715) - 841,545

Cost of operations absorbed by RCAP - - - - - 1.486.169 - - - 1,486.169

Imputed financing from costs absorbed by others 37.658 - - - - - 37.658 - Disbursements of RCAP funds - - - 1.491.521 (1.491.521) - 94.715 1,491.521 (1,396.806)

Disbursements of funds provided by member states

and others - - 693,896 (693.896) - - - - 693.896 (693.896)

TOTAL FINANCING SOURCES 12,315.441 (601.183) 693,896 242,364 1,491,521 (5,352) - - 14,500,858 (364,171)

NETCOSTOFOPERATIONS 12,323,362 - 693,896 - 1,491,521 - - - 14,508,779 - NET CHANGE (7,921) (601,183) - 242,364 - (5,352) - - (7,921) (364,171)

NET POSITION. ENDING BALANCE $ (30,353) $ 35,035,189 $ - $ 558.838 $ - $ 17,060 $ - $ - $ (30,353) $ 35.611,087

61
DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY

COMBINING RECONCILIATIONS OF NET COST OF OPERATIONS (PROPRIETARY) TO BUDGET

YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2012

BUDGETARY RESOURCES OBLIGATED

Obligations incurred

Less spending authority from offsetting collections and recoveriesNet obligations

OTHER RESOURCES

Imputed financing from costs absorbed by othersCost of operations absorbed by member states and others

Cost of operations absorbed by RCAP

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

TOTAL RESOURCES USED TO FINANCE THE NET COST

OF OPERATIONS

COMPONENTS REQUIRING OR GENERATING RESOURCES IN

FUTURE PERIODS

Decrease in annual leave liability

TOTAL RESOURCES USED TO FINANCE THE NET COST OF

OPERATIONS

(3.633.458)

(563)

32,405

872,035 

2,539,845

14,775,842

- (3,633.458)

(395,264) 18,409.300

(563)

RESOURCES USED TO FINANCE ACTIVITIES

Rural Community

Assistance Program Eliminations Combined

$ - $ 17,889.825 - 6,558,268 - 11,331,557

TOTAL RESOURCES USED TO FINANCE ACTIVITIES

State

Federal andOther 

$ 17,889,825 $ - $

6.558,268

11.331,557

32,405 - - 1,267,299

- - 2,539,845

11,363,962 1,267,299 2,539,845

1,267.299 2,539,845 

$ 1,267,299 $ 2,539,845 (395,264) (395,264) 14,997.420 $ 14,996,857 $ (395,264) $ 18,408,737

62
DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY

COMBINING RECONCILIATIONS OF NET COST OF OPERATIONS (PROPRffiTARY) TO BUDGET

YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2011

State Rural Community 

and Other Assistance Program Eliminations

BUDGETARY RESOURCES OBLIGATED

Obligations incurred

Plus prior year undelivered order becoming current year obligations

Less spending authority from offsetting collections and recoveriesNet obligations

$ 20,380,270 $

408

296,150

20,084,528

OTHER RESOURCES

Imputed financing from costs absorbed by others

Cost of operations absorbed by member states

Cost of operations absorbed by others

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

TOTAL RESOURCES USED TO FINANCE THE NET COST

OF OPERATIONS - - 37,658 - - 693,896 1.491,521 - 1,491,521 1,491,521 - 22,307,603

COMPONENTS REQUIRING OR GENERATING RESOURCES IN

FUTURE PERIODS

Increase in annual leave liability 7,921 - 7,921

TOTAL RESOURCES USED TO FINANCE THE NET COST OF

OPERATIONS $ 12,323,362 $ 693,896 $ 1,491,521 $ - $ 14,508,779

RESOURCES USED TO FINANCE ACTIVITIES

Federal Combined

$ - $ - $ 20,380,270

TOTAL RESOURCES USED TO FINANCE ACTIV1TIES

408 

296,150 - 20,084,528

37,658

20,122,186

693,896

693,896

7,806,745 - - - 7,806,745

12,315,441 693,896 1,491,521 - 14.500,858

63
DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY

SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES

YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2012 

Paid From

Description Federal Funds

State and Other

Funds

Rural Community

Assistance Program Total All Funds

Grants, subsidies and contributions

Consulting and other services

Employee benefits

Personnel services

Seminars and meetings

Travel and transportation of personsRent, communications and utilities

Supplies and materials

Printing and reproduction

Office expense

$ 11,877,417 $

520,597

295,008747,899

$ 2,539,798 $ 14,417,215

- 844,361 - 488,138

- 1,250,619

- 35,573

- 239,692 - 119,968

47

$ 2,539,845

262

12,809

117,125

$ 17,525,762

NOTE TO SCHEDULE

1. The federal funds column of the schedule of expenditures has been prepared on the cash basis. Therefore, some amounts presented in this schedule

may differ from amounts presented in, or used in the preparation of, the basic financial statements.

323,764

193,130

502,720

35,573

66,533

28,501

173,159

91,467

262

12,809

117,078

$ 13,718,618 $ 1,267,299

64
DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY

SCHEDULES OF GRANTS MADE

YEARS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2012, 2011 AND 2010

Funding Priorities -Public Law 100-460: Sec. 382C.(b) (2) (A)-(D),

(7 U.S.C. 2009 aa. as amended)

2012 2011 2010

DRA Total Funding DRA Total Funding DRA Total Funding

Obligated Project Funds Priority % Obligated Project Funds Priority % Obligated Project Funds Priority %

A. Basic Public Infrastructure $ 3,048,016 $ 225,049,336 33.8% $ 2,812,540 $ 12,471,751 21.6% $ 7,395,838 $ 23,661,446 72.2%

B. Transportation Infrastructure 2,937,905 13,114,186 32.5% 5,115,282 186.371,579 39.4% 2,417,717 13,855,778 23.6%

C. Business Development 1,999,030 4,063,777 22.1% 3,823.860 23,076,044 29.4% 100,000 6,643,670 1.0%

D. Work Development 1,045,900 1,596,300 11.6% 1,214,738 6,450,956 9.3% 70,000 697,000 0.7%B. Other - 0.0% 26,900 26,900 0.2% 253,536 20,530,332 2.5%

$ 9,030,851 $ 243,823,599 100.0% $ 12,993,320 $ 228,397,230 100.0% $ 10.237,091 $ 65,388,226 100.0%

2012 2011 2010

DRA State State DRA State State DRA State State

Obligated Allocation % Obligated Allocation % Obligated Allocation %

State Allocations:

Alabama $ 1,013,555 $ 1,013,555 10.70% $ 1,087,053 $ 1,087,053 8.37% $ 1,231,684 $ 1,135,667 10.8%

Arkansas 1,336,720 1,461,940 15.44% 1,554,213 1,554,213 11.96% 1,715,414 1,618,483 15.4%

Illinois 810,579 810,579 8.56% 978,509 978,509 7.53% 423,050 907,904 8.6%

Kentucky 850,170 850,170 8.98% 928,253 928,253 7.14% 558,754 960,384 9.1%

Louisiana 1,734,437 1,734,438 18.31% 1,779,648 1,779,648 13.70% 1,933,363 1,933,363 22.5%

Mississippi 1,161,316 1,467,054 15.49% 1,482,253 1,482,253 11.41% 1,499,361 1,537,664 14.6%Missouri 1,093,874 1,093,874 11.55% 1,434,745 1,434,745 11.90% 1,548,607 1,241,886 11.8%

Tennessee 1,030,200 1,039,980 10.98% 3,748,646 3,748,646 11.20% 1,326,858 1.160,858 11.1%

S 9,030,851 $ 9,471,590 100.0% S 12,993,320 $ 12,993,320 100.0% $ 10,237,091 $ 10,496,209 100.0%

65
SECTION 4- OTHER ACCOMPANYING INFORMATION
Independent Accountants’ 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 the financial statements of Delta Regional Authority (DRA or the 

Authority) as of and for the year ended September 30, 2012, and have issued our report thereon 

dated November 14, 2012. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards 

generally accepted in the United States of America; 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. 07-04, Audit Requirements 

for Federal Financial Statements. 

Internal Control Over Financial Reporting 

Management of the Authority is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective 

internal control over financial reporting. In planning and performing our audit, we considered 

DRA’s internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing our auditing procedures 

for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of 

expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of DRA’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of DRA’s internal control over 

financial reporting. 

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 DRA’s financial statements will not be prevented or 

detected and corrected on a timely basis. 

Our consideration of internal control over financial reporting was for the limited purpose 

described in the first paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in 

internal control over financial reporting that might be deficiencies, significant deficiencies or 

material weaknesses. We did not identify any deficiencies in internal control over financial 

reporting that we consider to be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies as defined above. 
67 

Compliance and Other Matters 

As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether DRA’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. 07-04. We limited our tests of compliance to 

these provisions, and we did not test compliance with all laws and regulations applicable to 

DRA. 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 instance of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under 

Government Auditing Standards or OMB Bulletin No. 07-04. 

We also noted certain matters that we reported to the Authority’s management in a 

separate letter dated November 14, 2012. 

 This report is intended solely for the information and use of management of DRA, the 

Federal and State Co-Chairs, members of the Board, others within DRA, OMB and the Congress 

of the United States of America, and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone 

other than these specified parties. 

November 14, 2012