Report to the Subcommittee on

Commerce, Justice, State, the

Judiciary, and Related Agencies,

Committee on Appropriations, U.S.

Senate

United States General Accounting Office

GAO

May 2001 SCHOOLS AND

LIBRARIES

PROGRAM

Update on E-Rate

Funding

GAO-01-672
Page i GAO-01-672 Update on E-Rate Funding

Letter 1

Appendix I Funding Requested, Committed, and Approved for

Payment, 1998-2000 9

Appendix II Comments From the Federal Communications

Commission 16

Appendix III Comments From the Universal Service

Administrative Company 18

Tables

Table 1: E-rate Funding Requested for the First 3 Program Years,

by Category of Service 5

Table 2: Estimated Amount of Program Funds Requested by

Applicants for Fourth Program Year (as of April 17, 2001) 6

Table 3: Amounts of Funds Committed, Approved for Payment, and

Unused for the First 2 Program Years, as of January 2001. 7

Table 4: Funds Requested, Committed, and Approved for Payment

in the First Program Year (1998) 10

Table 5: Funds Requested, Committed, and Approved for Payment

in the Second Program Year (1999) 12

Table 6: Funds Requested, Committed, and Approved for Payment

in the Third Program Year (2000) 14

Contents
Page 1 GAO-01-672 Update on E-Rate Funding

May 11, 2001

The Honorable Judd Gregg

Chairman

The Honorable Ernest F. Hollings

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State,

 the Judiciary, and Related Agencies

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

As you know, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 expanded the

traditional definition of universal service—affordable, nationwide

telephone service—to include eligible schools and libraries.1

 Among other

things, the act authorized the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)

to implement a program to assist these institutions in acquiring advanced

telecommunications services. Under FCC’s program, (often referred to as

the “e-rate” program), schools and libraries can receive discounts from

vendors on the cost of eligible telecommunications services, Internet

access, and internal connections (the equipment needed to deliver these

services). The discounts range from 20 to 90 percent, with higher

discounts going to applicants in low-income and rural areas.2

 FCC

appointed the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) as the

program’s permanent administrator, although FCC retains responsibility

for overseeing the program’s operations and ensuring compliance with its

 1

Generally, educational institutions that meet the definition of “schools” in the Elementary

and Secondary Education Act of 1965 are eligible to participate in the e-rate program.

Libraries eligible to receive assistance from a state’s library administrative agency under

the Library Services and Technology Act are eligible for support unless their budgets are

part of a school’s budget. Individual e-rate applications can cover single schools or

libraries, whole school districts or library systems, consortia, or schools in entire cities and

states.

2

The program measures how economically disadvantaged the schools and libraries are by

the number of students eligible to participate in the national school lunch program. Urban

and rural designations are based on the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) listing.

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548
Page 2 GAO-01-672 Update on E-Rate Funding

rules.3 USAC’s Schools and Libraries Division (SLD) is responsible for

carrying out the program’s day-to-day operations.

To obtain e-rate support, eligible schools and libraries must submit an

application to SLD specifying the services they wish to purchase, how

much discount funding they would need, and the vendors they have

selected to provide the services. SLD reviews each application and

commits (i.e., sets aside) program funds for eligible requests. If the total

amount of program funding requested by all applicants exceeds the

program’s funding cap (currently $2.25 billion annually), priority is given

to supporting requests for telecommunications services and Internet

access. Any remaining funds are then used to support internal connection

requests, starting with applicants with the highest discount level (90

percent) and moving downward through lower discount levels until the

available funds are committed.

Schools and libraries do not receive funding directly from the program.

The committed funds are held by USAC, which reimburses vendors

directly for the discounted portion of the e-rate-approved services that

they provide. In accordance with its internal control procedures, SLD will

not approve payments of committed funds until (1) the applicant submits a

form certifying that it has begun to receive e-rate-supported services from

its vendor and (2) the vendor or the applicant has filed an invoice form

requesting reimbursement for these services. Once SLD reviews these

forms and approves payment, USAC disburses program funds to the

vendors.

In our December 2000 report on e-rate issues, we included data on the

amount of program funds requested, committed, and approved for

payment during the first 2 program years (1998 and 1999), broken out by

state.4

 Funding commitments for the third program year (2000) were not

 3

USAC was originally established as a subsidiary of the National Exchange Carrier

Association (NECA) to administer the high-cost and low-income universal service support

mechanisms. USAC currently performs billing, collection, and disbursement functions for

all universal service support mechanisms, including the e-rate program. These mechanisms

are funded through a universal service fund. Under the act, every telecommunications

carrier providing interstate service must contribute to this fund, unless exempted by FCC.

The Commission also requires certain other telecommunications service providers, such as

pay phone service providers, to contribute to the universal service fund.

4

Schools and Libraries Program: Application and Invoice Review Procedures Need

Strengthening (GAO-01-105, Dec. 15, 2000).
Page 3 GAO-01-672 Update on E-Rate Funding

yet available because SLD and FCC had not finished making all of their

commitment decisions at the time we concluded our review. After

subsequent discussions with Subcommittee staff, we agreed to provide

state-level data on (1) the amount of funds requested and committed for all

3 program years and (2) an update on the amount of committed funds

approved for payment during the first 2 program years. In addition, we

have included a preliminary estimate of the amount of e-rate funding

requested for the fourth program year (2001).

Requests for e-rate support have increased steadily from year to year since

program funding began in 1998. For the third and fourth program years,

total requests greatly exceeded the program’s current annual funding cap

of $2.25 billion. For the third program year (2000), the requests exceeded

$4.2 billion. Although SLD had sufficient e-rate funds to support all valid

requests for telecommunications services and Internet access for the third

year, it could not support requests for internal connections from

applicants with discount levels of 81 percent or lower, leaving nearly $2

billion of the $3.2 billion requested for internal connections unfunded. For

the fourth program year (2001), SLD estimates that applicants requested

nearly $5.2 billion in program funds as of April 17, 2001. This estimate is

subject to change as SLD reviews applications to eliminate invalid requests

and accepts additional applications postmarked before the deadline.

However, it appears that a large proportion of the nearly $3.5 billion in

internal connection requests may go unfunded.

Data from January 2001 indicate that more than $880 million (24 percent)

of the $3.7 billion committed to applicants for the first 2 program years

remains unused. This is a decrease from $1.3 billion in unused funds (35

percent) at the end of August 2000. Funds that are committed, but unused,

are held by USAC in interest-bearing accounts pending requests for

reimbursements. FCC and SLD have taken steps to reduce the mount of

committed funds that go unspent, including canceling the funding

commitments of second-year applicants that have not confirmed that they

have begun receiving services associated with these funds. Commenting

on a draft of this report, FCC’s Managing Director agreed with our analysis

and provided some updated information. For example, FCC stated that as

of April 2001, the amount of unused funds had decreased further to $774

million. USAC’s Chief Executive Officer commented that our report

provides a useful update, and she also clarified USAC’s policy on how it

maintains its data. Copies of FCC’s and USAC’s comments are included in

appendix II.

Results in Brief
Page 4 GAO-01-672 Update on E-Rate Funding

Table 1 summarizes the funding requests for the first 3 program years at

the national level.5

 (Detailed state-level tables providing data on funding

for each program year are found in app. I). SLD’s data indicate that

applicants requested more than $2.3 billion in discount funding in the first

program year.6 Because FCC set the first-year funding level at $1.925

billion, not all of the requests could be funded. In accordance with FCC’s

funding priorities, SLD first committed funds to all valid requests for

telecommunications and Internet access, and it then committed the

remaining funds to valid internal connections requests from applicants

with discount levels of 70 percent or higher. During the second program

year (1999), FCC raised the funding level to the full $2.25 billion allowed

under the cap. After screening out approximately $700 million in ineligible

requests, SLD found that it had more than enough funds to approve all of

the valid requests it received before the initial application deadline.

Thereafter, FCC directed SLD to reopen the second-year application

period so that the remainder of the funds could be used. In the third

program year (2000), applicants requested more than $4.2 billion in

discount funding. Although the amount of funds requested for all

categories of service increased from the previous program years, most of

the additional funding requests were for internal connections. Because the

program’s annual funding cap remained at $2.25 billion, SLD again

approved requests using the funding priority rules. SLD was able to fund

all eligible requests for telecommunications and Internet access, but it

could fund internal connections requests only from applicants with

discount levels of 82 percent or higher.

 5

The amounts presented in this report for the first 2 program years differ from those

included in our December 2000 report because they reflect more current information. For

example, some applicants cancelled funding requests or had their commitments revoked

due to the inclusion of ineligible services. Also, in this report we included data for secondyear applications received and processed after the initial application period.

6

These estimates exclude requests that did not meet a filing deadline or include a required

certification. However, because of inconsistencies in how SLD maintains its data, we could

not exclude the value of requests for ineligible services. Thus, these estimates are likely to

overestimate the level of valid requests but underestimate the amount originally requested.

We discuss this issue further in appendix I.

Demand for E-Rate

Support Is Exceeding

the Program’s

Funding Cap
Page 5 GAO-01-672 Update on E-Rate Funding

Table 1: E-rate Funding Requested for the First 3 Program Years, by Category of

Service

Category of service

First program

Year (1998)

Second program

year (1999)

Third program

year (2000)

Internal connections $1,484,137,664 $1,747,716,342 $3,169,458,246

Internet access 133,100,693 181,203,526 247,451,662

Telecommunications 716,506,732 733,187,591 811,264,432

Total $2,333,745,089 $2,662,107,458 $4,228,174,339

Note: Columns may not add to totals due to rounding.

Source: GAO analysis of SLD data, as of January 2001.

For the fourth program year (2001), requests have again increased

significantly. SLD’s preliminary estimates indicate that applicants have

requested almost $5.2 billion in program funds. As shown in table 2,

applicants requested about $1.7 billion for telecommunications and

Internet access. Under the current cap, this leaves only $517 million from

which to fund internal connections requests and other program needs – far

less than the nearly $3.5 billion requested by applicants for this purpose.

Although these figures may change as SLD accepts additional valid

applications and excludes ineligible requests, it appears likely that there

will be insufficient funds to cover the $1.6 billion in internal connections

support requested by applicants in the highest priority level (i.e., those

with a 90 percent discount level). According to FCC’s priority rules, if the

remaining funds are not sufficient to support all of the funding requests

within a particular discount level, the total amount of remaining support

available is to be divided by the amount of support requested within the

particular discount level to produce a pro rata factor. The support level for

each applicant within the particular discount level is then reduced by the

amount derived from multiplying each applicant’s requested amount of

support by the pro-rata factor.7

 SLD officials said that FCC is also

considering other prioritization options.

 7

See 47 C.F.R. 507(g)(iv).
Page 6 GAO-01-672 Update on E-Rate Funding

Table 2: Estimated Amount of Program Funds Requested by Applicants for Fourth

Program Year (as of April 17, 2001)

Discount

level

Telecommunications

services

Internet

access

Internal

connections

Total

(Percent of

total)

20-29 $2,124,662 $554,757 $2,910,514 $5,589,934

(0.1%)

30-39 9,323,491 1,993,868 3,823,332 15,140,691

(0.3)

40-49 119,085,067 33,981,845 155,050,412 308,117,323

(5.9)

50-59 139,158,034 44,404,260 125,889,608 309,451,902

(6.0)

60-69 177,133,506 88,282,664 211,815,966 477,232,191

(9.2)

70-79 233,790,586 91,319,962 159,073,112 484,183,660

(9.3)

80-89 306,147,139 84,449,009 1,247,026,394 1,637,622,541

(31.5)

90 298,847,831 101,970,713 1,556,519,702 1,957,338,246

(37.7)

Total

(Percent

of total)

$1,285,610,370

(24.7%)

$446,957,078

(8.6%)

$3,462,109,039

(66.6%)

$5,194,676,487

(100%)

Note: Columns may not add to totals due to rounding.

Source: Schools and Libraries Division of USAC.

Although demand for program funds has been high, our December 2000

report noted that a significant portion of the funds committed for the first

and second program years (1998 and 1999) remained unused. Specifically,

as of August 31, 2000, at least 35 percent ($1.3 billion) of the $3.7 billion in

program funds committed to applicants for these years had not yet been

approved for payment. As table 3 below shows, this situation has

improved somewhat, with the balance of unused funds decreasing to 24

percent ($885 million) as of January 2001. According to FCC, as of April

24, 2001, $774 million in committed funds remained unspent. Most of the

decrease is due to additional disbursements of funds committed for the

second program year. More of the unused funds may still be disbursed

because, under certain circumstances, vendors can request payment for

services until September 2001. USAC holds the unused, committed funds

in interest-bearing accounts.

A Significant Amount

of Committed Funds

Remains Unused
Page 7 GAO-01-672 Update on E-Rate Funding

Table 3: Amounts of Funds Committed, Approved for Payment, and Unused for the

First 2 Program Years, as of January 2001.

Category of

service

Funds

committed

Funds

approved

for payment Unused funds

Percentage

of funds

unused

First program year

(1998)

Telecommunications $916,683,436 $792,638,769 $124,044,666 13.5%

Internet access 135,767,598 95,324,145 40,443,453 29.8

Internal connections 679,260,413 507,556,121 171,704,292 25.3

Total $1,731,711,446 $1,395,519,035 $336,192,411 19.4%

Second program

year (1999)

Telecommunications $1,208,059,709 $924,846,350 $283,213,359 23.4%

Internet access 145,472,048 87,395,961 58,076,086 39.9

Internal connections 603,783,828 396,799,396 206,984,432 34.3

Total $1,957,315,585 $1,409,041,708 $548,273,877 28.0%

First 2 program

years (1998 and

1999)

Total $3,689,027,031 $2,804,560,743 $884,466,288 24.0%

Note: Columns may not add to totals due to rounding.

Source: GAO analysis of SLD Data, as of January 2001.

In our December report, we noted that FCC and SLD had not conducted a

comprehensive analysis to determine why this situation was occurring.

FCC and SLD officials recently told us that they have taken several steps

to address this situation, including implementing new policies to provide

applicants with flexibility to change service providers or modify the

services originally requested. Also, they said that they have established

new deadlines for notification of the receipt of services and for submitting

invoices. If these deadlines are not met, SLD will recapture the committed

funds. For example, in January 2001, SLD sent letters to applicants that

had not confirmed that they were receiving services for second-year

funding commitments. The letters stated that if the applicants did not

confirm by February 15, 2001, that they had begun receiving these

services, their funding commitments would be automatically cancelled.

According to SLD, these cancellations will make more money available to

second-year applicants that submitted requests after the initial application

deadline. FCC still needs to determine whether changes to program rules

and procedures are needed to address the difficulties that applicants may

be having in using committed funds in a timely manner, as recommended

in our December 2000 report.
Page 8 GAO-01-672 Update on E-Rate Funding

To provide the updated information in this report, we interviewed officials

at USAC and SLD and obtained program funding data from them. When

using computer-generated data provided by SLD, we tested their reliability

against complementary data sets. Limitations on the validity of the data on

the amounts of funding that applicants requested are discussed in

appendix I. We performed our review from January through April 2001 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards

We provided a draft of this report to FCC and USAC for comment. In

response, FCC’s Managing Director agreed with our analysis and provided

some updated information. USAC’s Chief Executive Officer commented

that our report provides a useful update, and she also clarified USAC’s

policy on how it maintains its data. Copies of their comments are included

in appendices II and III.

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional

committees; the Honorable Michael K. Powell, Chairman of the Federal

Communications Commission; and other interested parties. We will also

make copies available to others upon request.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please call me or

John Finedore at (202) 512-2834. Other major contributors include James

R. Sweetman, Jr.; Teresa Russell; and Mindi Weisenbloom.

Sincerely yours,

Stanley J. Czerwinski

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues

Scope and

Methodology

Agency Comments
Appendix I: Funding Requested, Committed,

and Approved for Payment, 1998-2000

Page 9 GAO-01-672 Update on E-Rate Funding

The Schools and Libraries Division of the Universal Service Administrative

Company (SLD) provided us with a copy of its database for the first 3

program years (1998-2000), which included funding requests,

commitments, and authorized payments of committed funds for each year.

The data for program years 1 and 2 were current as of January 22, 2001;

and the data for year 3 were current as of January 18, 2001. Because SLD’s

database is constantly changing as funding decisions and appeal decisions

are reached, the data included in this report constitute a snapshot in time.

In addition, the data on requests do not reflect the original amount of

discount funding requested by applicants. SLD officials stated that for

reasons of efficiency, the database was designed in a way that makes

retrieving the amount originally requested for each application an

administrative burden. Instead, SLD provided request data that had been

modified during application review. For example, some entries in the

database reflect the original amounts requested minus funding for

ineligible services denied by SLD. Other entries were adjusted to correct

mathematical errors made by the applicants in calculating their requests.

However, we found that SLD did not consistently maintain this data. For

example, SLD modified request information in cases where it denied a

small percentage of the funding, but not when it denied the entire request.

Also, in the first and third program years, SLD did not review requests for

internal connections from applicants with low discount levels because

these requests were unlikely to be funded. As a result, there is no way to

determine what percentage of these requests was ineligible for funding.

We also found that funding requests that were denied at some point but

later restored through the appeal process were not reflected consistently

in the database—in some cases, the committed amounts but not the

requested amounts were adjusted to reflect the appeal decisions. As a

result, some applicants appeared to receive more discount funds than the

database showed them requesting. SLD officials stated, however, that no

applicant received more discount funding than had been validly requested.

Due to these concerns, we cannot ensure that SLD’s request data validly

reflect either the original amount requested by the applicants or the

amount SLD estimates is eligible for program funding. Instead, they likely

reflect a hybrid of these cases. We did not identify similar concerns with

the data on commitments or requests approved for payment. Finally, when

analyzing the data provided by SLD, we excluded those applications that

were cancelled by the applicant or were not eligible for funding because

they either missed a filing deadline or did not include a required

certification.

Appendix I: Funding Requested, Committed,

and Approved for Payment, 1998-2000
Appendix I: Funding Requested, Committed,

and Approved for Payment, 1998-2000

Page 10 GAO-01-672 Update on E-Rate Funding

Table 4 shows the amounts of discount funding requested by applicants, as

well as the amounts of discount funding committed to applicants by SLD

and approved for payment in the first program year. Tables 5 and 6 present

the same information for years 2 and 3, respectively. The data in tables 4

and 5 differ slightly from those presented in our December 2000 report

because they are more recent.

Table 4: Funds Requested, Committed, and Approved for Payment in the First

Program Year (1998)

State

Funds

requested

Funds

committed

Funds approved

for payment

Alabama $56,352,486 $46,904,698 $40,810,055

Alaska 15,276,225 13,613,107 8,759,085

American Samoa 3,557,348 3,557,348 2,798,764

Arizona 45,682,133 35,641,528 30,015,387

Arkansas 15,650,841 13,408,504 10,543,027

California 287,517,094 211,712,610 165,574,053

Colorado 25,413,660 14,316,280 11,494,794

Connecticut 33,172,203 24,162,307 21,492,462

Delaware 4,060,210 1,019,235 922,451

District of Columbia 6,724,843 4,866,831 4,624,354

Florida 74,447,357 49,699,726 41,429,911

Georgia 90,609,589 78,370,374 56,795,293

Hawaii 7,181,467 5,891,557 5,172,319

Idaho 6,219,595 4,620,940 3,508,863

Illinois 104,284,467 81,027,851 63,829,587

Indiana 33,278,462 21,908,289 16,264,636

Iowa 26,155,569 7,309,466 5,578,971

Kansas 15,309,464 10,450,532 7,874,258

Kentucky 54,610,400 50,345,985 38,220,231

Louisiana 44,882,023 40,236,482 33,633,146

Maine 3,940,030 3,014,559 2,248,063

Maryland 22,875,785 15,026,602 13,321,165

Massachusetts 42,982,446 30,089,620 24,955,199

Michigan 94,424,272 58,518,651 49,684,389

Minnesota 33,918,346 24,759,157 20,262,210

Mississippi 25,986,317 24,379,441 19,221,563

Missouri 35,528,370 25,221,660 20,637,661

Montana 4,728,651 3,674,052 2,797,163

Nebraska 6,360,346 4,934,595 4,196,382

Nevada 9,839,022 5,380,808 4,067,259

New Hampshire 3,116,485 1,619,911 1,269,257

New Jersey 82,078,787 62,721,247 53,437,478

New Mexico 35,364,048 19,308,898 12,660,849
Appendix I: Funding Requested, Committed,

and Approved for Payment, 1998-2000

Page 11 GAO-01-672 Update on E-Rate Funding

State

Funds

requested

Funds

committed

Funds approved

for payment

New York 215,656,278 172,102,413 139,168,187

North Carolina 35,652,532 26,918,980 21,035,721

North Dakota 4,509,036 2,583,641 2,191,752

Ohio 74,365,692 58,143,969 50,030,883

Oklahoma 40,862,134 33,697,803 27,888,235

Oregon 14,074,069 9,603,463 7,561,852

Pennsylvania 83,224,045 52,219,758 45,342,395

Puerto Rico 47,647,135 47,646,855 22,056,308

Rhode Island 7,004,329 6,010,398 5,843,552

South Carolina 30,117,056 26,365,435 23,001,684

South Dakota 4,273,080 2,958,618 2,010,585

Tennesseea 48,983,537 51,685,706 45,767,927

Texas 197,163,718 129,745,272 114,831,265

Utah 6,586,661 6,386,100 5,216,653

Vermont 3,428,912 2,073,329 1,303,886

Virgin Islands 2,181,929 2,180,444 2,121,557

Virginia 39,082,350 25,575,119 21,269,369

Washington 50,811,355 29,311,208 22,468,500

West Virginia 10,517,798 9,350,687 5,519,416

Wisconsin 63,949,180 38,218,134 31,935,968

Wyoming 2,125,917 1,221,264 853,053

Total $2,333,745,089 $1,731,711,446 $1,395,519,035

a

The data indicate that Tennessee applicants received more funding than requested. According to

SLD officials, this discrepancy reflects FCC’s reversal of an SLD decision to deny funds to the

Tennessee Department of Education. SLD officials stated that although SLD updated its data to

reflect the funds committed following the reversal, it did not update the amount requested, which had

been reduced to reflect the initial denial.

Note: Columns may not add to totals due to rounding.

Source: GAO Analysis of SLD data, as of January 2001.
Appendix I: Funding Requested, Committed,

and Approved for Payment, 1998-2000

Page 12 GAO-01-672 Update on E-Rate Funding

Table 5: Funds Requested, Committed, and Approved for Payment in the Second

Program Year (1999)

State

Funds

requested

Funds

committed

Funds

approved

 for payment

Alabama $33,574,488 $26,341,929 $21,138,280

Alaska 15,850,548 11,572,864 8,711,612

American Samoa 2,703,821 2,703,821 2,356,670

Arizona 53,409,676 38,150,606 29,858,064

Arkansas 12,729,836 10,316,474 7,608,097

California 381,263,218 235,517,675 158,015,725

Colorado 14,637,982 12,354,214 9,685,922

Connecticut 44,597,278 32,109,207 28,784,565

Delaware 1,403,126 1,371,571 1,220,631

District of Columbia 21,795,155 9,427,956 1,921,400

Florida 109,698,532 73,718,033 49,678,520

Georgia 103,128,251 91,048,416 52,704,100

Hawaii 6,145,771 5,329,023 3,458,578

Idaho 5,859,594 4,728,506 3,449,685

Illinois 193,040,643 161,365,691 131,358,046

Indiana 27,579,682 22,803,861 16,858,891

Iowa 12,444,522 7,941,063 5,050,069

Kansas 19,237,766 14,932,360 11,781,778

Kentucky 73,781,430 56,905,176 34,126,421

Louisiana 46,528,820 37,635,994 32,377,213

Maine 5,847,337 3,614,466 2,349,611

Maryland 27,720,784 22,048,893 16,459,133

Massachusetts 42,536,703 32,999,872 25,370,141

Michigan 109,578,156 78,885,150 61,479,449

Minnesota 40,874,343 29,397,790 21,036,816

Mississippi 35,466,473 29,997,805 24,269,505

Missouri 34,193,367 28,768,900 19,986,646

Montana 4,227,761 3,725,173 3,010,520

Nebraska 8,167,701 6,741,507 4,868,229

Nevada 5,202,240 3,137,231 2,080,680

New Hampshire 1,740,403 1,269,103 826,587

New Jersey 68,479,713 43,906,311 27,751,146

New Mexico 32,766,672 29,106,091 23,818,103

New York 254,122,382 192,668,511 147,700,157

North Carolina 44,007,444 36,692,607 28,172,063

North Dakota 2,520,972 2,187,730 1,625,846

Northern Mariana Islands 95,401 95,401 43,940

Ohio 52,293,847 43,133,998 28,606,871

Oklahoma 73,808,674 33,903,196 25,390,269
Appendix I: Funding Requested, Committed,

and Approved for Payment, 1998-2000

Page 13 GAO-01-672 Update on E-Rate Funding

State

Funds

requested

Funds

committed

Funds

approved

 for payment

Oregon 14,319,445 10,952,270 6,643,764

Pennsylvania 93,968,541 56,197,419 41,984,917

Puerto Rico 68,206,779 67,279,777 37,441,100

Rhode Island 8,143,900 7,823,910 5,453,141

South Carolina 59,831,982 28,657,229 23,727,570

South Dakota 3,030,240 2,114,491 1,160,034

Tennessee 69,042,221 62,773,984 42,991,894

Texas 183,636,552 134,955,191 100,492,975

Utah 6,482,067 5,729,296 4,453,263

Vermont 1,972,646 1,589,727 958,016

Virgin Islands 2,997,929 2,347,516 1,895,757

Virginia 36,609,504 25,177,652 18,758,834

Washington 41,834,364 32,769,036 20,503,669

West Virginia 9,395,817 9,361,363 4,538,108

Wisconsin 34,184,790 26,064,005 20,160,172

Wyoming 5,390,171 4,968,551 2,888,517

Total $2,662,107,458 $1,957,315,585 $1,409,041,708

Note: Columns may not add to totals due to rounding.

Source: GAO Analysis of SLD data, as of January 2001.
Appendix I: Funding Requested, Committed,

and Approved for Payment, 1998-2000

Page 14 GAO-01-672 Update on E-Rate Funding

Table 6: Funds Requested, Committed, and Approved for Payment in the Third

Program Year (2000)

State Funds requested

Funds

committed

Funds

approved

for paymenta

Alabama $50,710,884 $18,713,260

Alaska 17,607,525 11,964,037

American Samoa 2,244,050 2,070,977

Arizona 96,843,614 44,964,866

Arkansas 31,108,114 17,340,649

California 969,806,036 471,583,366

Colorado 31,663,757 14,146,345

Connecticut 53,830,139 24,483,956

Delaware 6,549,312 1,395,743

District of Columbia 31,157,789 9,399,918

Florida 156,486,845 53,436,513

Georgia 102,403,176 48,088,233

Guam 3,867,079 851,958

Hawaii 7,008,124 2,578,090

Idaho 6,683,896 2,659,172

Illinois 167,208,884 114,262,677

Indiana 43,833,548 19,343,927

Iowa 12,415,130 5,272,539

Kansas 26,524,499 7,753,611

Kentucky 67,982,997 26,241,771

Louisiana 94,048,641 25,466,300

Maine 7,745,848 3,447,627

Maryland 38,135,968 19,003,465

Massachusetts 58,806,297 46,330,905

Michigan 171,698,201 52,716,366

Minnesota 38,715,045 17,431,029

Mississippi 40,501,639 30,408,084

Missouri 100,761,574 72,293,461

Montana 4,806,143 3,122,080

Nebraska 10,545,041 6,111,282

Nevada 7,611,262 4,040,753

New Hampshire 2,891,263 1,241,405

New Jersey 80,263,298 42,113,321

New Mexico 44,819,180 18,681,934

New York 443,760,003 275,364,966

North Carolina 67,029,785 27,392,726

North Dakota 3,310,760 1,721,543

Northern Mariana Islands 2,675,060 498,872

Ohio 93,490,811 60,904,057
Appendix I: Funding Requested, Committed,

and Approved for Payment, 1998-2000

Page 15 GAO-01-672 Update on E-Rate Funding

State Funds requested

Funds

committed

Funds

approved

for paymenta

Oklahoma 80,273,048 24,481,411

Oregon 26,186,696 10,484,221

Pennsylvania 93,659,840 52,235,284

Puerto Rico 112,360,240 76,756,365

Rhode Island 5,644,445 4,293,060

South Carolina 90,817,598 51,111,807

South Dakota 12,420,638 1,794,575

Tennessee 83,657,683 46,535,680

Texas 359,698,078 153,408,129

Utah 11,166,132 5,095,243

Vermont 2,483,252 1,670,053

Virgin Islands 870,425 731,860

Virginia 41,754,344 18,488,337

Washington 43,460,608 18,189,878

West Virginia 16,303,211 5,425,793

Wisconsin 47,311,975 25,396,199

Wyoming 2,554,913 1,126,779

Total $4,228,174,339 $2,102,066,459 $329,830,464

a

SLD did not finish committing third-year funds until December 2000. Although we have included the

total amount approved for payment as of January 2001 for informational purposes, not enough time

has passed to warrant a state-level breakdown of this data.

Note: Columns may not add to totals due to rounding.

Source: GAO Analysis of SLD data, as of January 2001.
Appendix II: Comments From the Federal Communications

Commission

Page 16 GAO-01-672 Update on E-Rate Funding

Appendix II: Comments From the Federal

Communications Commission
Appendix II: Comments From the Federal Communications

Commission

Page 17 GAO-01-672 Update on E-Rate Funding
Appendix III: Comments From the Universal

Service Administrative Company

Page 18 GAO-01-672 Update on E-Rate Funding

Appendix III: Comments From the Universal

Service Administrative Company
Appendix III: Comments From the Universal

Service Administrative Company

Page 19 GAO-01-672 Update on E-Rate Funding (391010)

The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of reports are

$2 each. A check or money order should be made out to the

Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are also

accepted.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are

discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

Orders by visiting:

Room 1100

700 4th St., NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

Washington, DC 20013

Orders by phone:

(202) 512-6000

fax: (202) 512-6061

TDD (202) 512-2537

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To

receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days,

please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will

provide information on how to obtain these lists.

Orders by Internet

For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet, send an email message with “info” in the body to:

Info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web home page at:

http://www.gao.gov

Contact one:

• Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

• E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

• 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)

Ordering Information

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in

Federal Programs