ENTREPRENEURIAL 

ASSISTANCE

Opportunities Exist to 

Improve Programs’ 

Collaboration, 

Data-Tracking, and 

Performance Management

Statement of William B. Shear, Director

Financial Markets and Community Investment

Testimony 

Before the Committee on Small 

Business, House of Representatives

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 1:00 p.m. EDT

Wednesday, March 20, 2013

GAO-13-452T

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
 

Page 1 GAO-13-452T 

Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Velazquez, and Members of the 

Committee:

I am pleased to be here today to discuss our work on economic 

development programs that provide entrepreneurial assistance. 

Entrepreneurs play a vital role in the U.S. economy, and the federal 

government provides a variety of support and assistance to them. In 

August 2012, we reported information on 52 programs at the 

Departments of Commerce (Commerce), Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD), Agriculture (USDA), and the Small Business 

Administration (SBA) that support entrepreneurs.1

In January 2011, Congress updated the Government Performance and 

Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) with the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 

(GPRAMA). GPRAMA establishes a new framework aimed at taking a 

more crosscutting and integrated approach to focusing on results and 

improving government performance. Among other things, GPRAMA 

requires the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to coordinate with 

agencies to establish outcome-oriented federal government priority goals 

covering a limited number of policy areas, as well as goals to improve 

management across the federal government. The President’s 2013 

budget submission includes the first interim federal government priority 

goals, including one to increase federal services to entrepreneurs and 

small businesses, with an emphasis on start-ups and growing firms and 

underserved markets.

According to agency 

officials, these programs, which typically fund a variety of activities in 

addition to supporting entrepreneurs, spent an estimated $2 billion on 

economic development efforts in fiscal year 2011. Economic development 

programs that effectively provide assistance to entrepreneurs, in 

conjunction with state and local government and private sector economic 

development initiatives, may help businesses develop and expand. 

However, the ways that these programs are administered could lead to 

inefficient delivery of services, such as requiring entrepreneurs to fill out 

applications to multiple agencies with varying program requirements. 

These inefficiencies could compromise the government’s ability to 

effectively provide the needed services and meet the shared goals of the 

programs.

 

1

GAO, Entrepreneurial Assistance: Opportunities Exist to Improve Programs’ 

Collaboration, Data-Tracking, and Performance Management, GAO-12-819 (Washington, 

D.C.: Aug. 23, 2012).

 
 

Page 2 GAO-13-452T 

My testimony today is based on information on these 52 programs that is 

discussed in our August 2012 report. Specifically, this testimony 

discusses (1) the extent of overlap, fragmentation, and duplication and 

their effects on entrepreneurs, as well as agencies’ actions to address 

them; and (2) the extent to which agencies collect information necessary 

to track program activities and whether these programs have met their 

performance goals and have been evaluated. This testimony also 

provides information on the agencies’ actions to address 

recommendations we made in our August 2012 report.

In summary, we found the following:

• Federal programs that support entrepreneurs are fragmented and 

overlap based on the type of assistance they are authorized to offer, 

such as financial (grants and loans) and technical (training and 

counseling), and the type of entrepreneur they are authorized to 

serve. Much of the overlap among these 52 programs tends to be 

concentrated among programs that provide a broad range of technical 

and financial assistance. In addition, while agencies have taken steps 

to collaborate more in administering these programs, they have not 

implemented a number of good collaborative practices we have 

previously identified, and some entrepreneurs struggle to find the 

support they need. GPRAMA’s crosscutting framework requires that 

agencies collaborate in order to address issues such as economic 

development that transcend more than one agency, and GPRAMA 

directs agencies to describe how they are working with each other to 

achieve their program goals. Without enhanced collaboration and 

coordination, agencies may not be able to make the best use of 

limited federal resources in the most effective and efficient manner.

• Agencies do not track program information on entrepreneurial 

assistance activities for many programs, a practice that is not 

consistent with government standards for internal controls. In addition, 

we found that 33 of the 52 programs had set goals for their programs, 

but 19 of these 33 programs did not meet any of their goals or only 

met some of their goals.2

 

2

Two programs have goals but did not have goal accomplishment information. Goal 

accomplishment information for HUD’s Section 4 Capacity Building for Affordable Housing 

and Community Development program is unknown because HUD did not provide it. In 

addition, goal accomplishment information for USDA’s Small Business Innovation 

Research program is not available because the program goals are based on 2-year time 

periods and the current period has not yet ended.

Further, agencies have conducted 
 

Page 3 GAO-13-452T 

evaluations of only 20 of the 52 active programs since 2000. As a 

result, information on program efficiency and effectiveness is limited, 

and scarce resources may be going toward programs that are less 

effective. GPRAMA requires agencies to set and measure annual 

performance goals, and recognizes the value of program evaluations 

because they can help agencies assess programs’ effectiveness and 

improve program performance. Without more robust program 

information, agencies may not be able to administer programs in the 

most effective and efficient manner.

Based on our findings, we recommended that the four agencies and OMB

explore opportunities to enhance collaboration among programs, both 

within and across agencies, and that the four agencies track program 

information and conduct more program evaluations. The agencies neither 

agreed nor disagreed with the recommendations but did provide 

information on their plans to address them.

For our August 2012 report, on which this testimony is based, we focused 

our analyses on 52 economic development programs at Commerce, 

HUD, USDA, and SBA that are authorized to support entrepreneurs. We 

reviewed statutory and regulatory authority on the activities and services 

the agencies can conduct to administer each of the programs, and we 

found significant overlap and fragmentation among programs that provide 

technical assistance to entrepreneurs (35 of the 52 programs). Therefore, 

we focused on how the agencies provide this assistance. We reviewed 

agency documents and conducted interviews in both headquarters and 

field offices to determine how technical assistance is provided to 

entrepreneurs and the extent of agency collaboration at the local level, 

including both urban and rural areas. We assessed this technical 

assistance information against promising collaborative practices that we 

have previously identified.3 For all 52 programs, we also evaluated the 

agencies’ methods for tracking the activities conducted and assistance 

provided against standards for internal controls that we have previously 

identified.4

 

3

GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain 

Collaboration among Federal Agencies, 

For each program, we reviewed information on program 

mission and goals, performance goals and accomplishments, and 

GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005). 

4

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

(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1, 1999). 
 

Page 4 GAO-13-452T 

program evaluations conducted during the last decade. We evaluated this 

information against promising practices of leading organizations and the 

requirements of GPRAMA. In addition, we obtained and reviewed the 

agencies’ statements on their plans for implementing the 

recommendations made in our August 2012 report. The work on which 

this statement is based was performed from June 2011 through March

2013 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

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

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Federal efforts to support entrepreneurs are fragmented, which occurs 

when more than one agency or program is involved in the same broad 

area of national interest. In fiscal year 2011, the 52 programs we 

reviewed that support entrepreneurial efforts were distributed across four 

agencies: Commerce (8 programs), HUD (12 programs), SBA (19 

programs), and USDA (13 programs). Based on a review of the statutes 

and regulations for these 52 programs, we determined that the programs 

overlap in both the type of assistance they provide and the characteristics 

of the beneficiaries they target. The programs generally can be grouped 

according to at least one of three types of assistance that address 

different entrepreneurial needs: (1) technical assistance, (2) financial 

assistance, and (3) government contracting assistance. Many of the 

programs can provide more than one type of assistance, and most focus 

on technical assistance, financial assistance, or both:

• Technical assistance: Thirty-five programs distributed across the four 

agencies provide technical assistance, including business training, 

counseling and research, and development support. SBA administers 

10 of the 35 programs.

• Financial assistance: Thirty programs distributed across the four 

agencies support entrepreneurs through financial assistance in the 

form of grants, loans, and venture capital. SBA administers 10 of the 

30 programs.

• Government contracting assistance: Five programs, all of which are 

administered by SBA, support entrepreneurs by helping them qualify 

for federal procurement opportunities.

Fragmented Programs 

Overlap, and 

Agencies’ Efforts to 

Collaborate Have 

Been Limited
 

Page 5 GAO-13-452T 

Appendix I lists the programs GAO identified that may have similar or 

overlapping objectives, provide similar services, or be fragmented across 

government missions.

We found that overlap tends to be concentrated among programs that 

provide technical and financial assistance. Within the technical assistance 

category, 24 of the 35 programs are authorized to provide or fund a broad 

range of technical assistance both to entrepreneurs with existing 

businesses and to nascent entrepreneurs—that is, entrepreneurs 

attempting to start a business—in any industry, including SBA’s Small 

Business Development Centers Program. Similarly, 16 of the 30 financial 

assistance programs can provide or guarantee loans that can be used for 

a broad range of purposes to existing businesses and nascent 

entrepreneurs in any industry, including SBA’s 7(a) Loan Program.

In addition, a number of programs overlap based on the characteristics of 

the targeted beneficiary. Most programs either target or exclusively serve 

one of four types of businesses: businesses in rural areas, businesses in 

economically distressed areas, disadvantaged businesses, and small 

businesses.5

 

5

The definition of rural varies among these programs, but according to USDA—the agency 

that administers many of the economic development programs that serve rural areas—the 

term rural typically covers areas with population limits ranging from less than 2,500 to 

50,000. Based on statutory language, we characterize economically distressed areas as 

communities with high concentrations of low- and moderate-income families or high rates 

of unemployment, underemployment, or both. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 3141; 42 U.S.C. § 

5301. Likewise, based on statutory language, we characterize disadvantaged businesses 

as those owned by women, minority groups, or veterans, among other factors. See, e.g., 

15 U.S.C. § 637(a); 15 U.S.C. § 656. The definition of small business varies among these 

programs, but according to SBA—the agency that administers many of the economic 

development programs that serve small businesses—the term small business refers to 

businesses that have annual receipts or total employee numbers under an agency-defined 

value for their specific industry.

For example, SBA’s 19 programs are all limited to serving 

small businesses, with several programs that either target or exclusively 

serve disadvantaged businesses. Entrepreneurs may fall into more than 

one beneficiary category—for example, an entrepreneur may be in an 

area that is both rural and economically distressed. Therefore, these 

entrepreneurs would be eligible, based on program authority, for more 

than one subset of programs. For example, a small business in a rural, 

economically distressed area, such as Susquehanna County, 

Pennsylvania, could, in terms of program authority, receive a broad range 

of technical assistance through at least nine programs at all four of the 
 

Page 6 GAO-13-452T 

agencies, including SBA’s SCORE and Small Business Development 

Centers programs and USDA’s Rural Business Enterprise Grants and 

Rural Business Opportunity Grants programs. Similarly, a small business 

that is both minority- and women-owned in an urban, non-economicallydistressed area, such as Raleigh, North Carolina, could receive financial 

assistance in the form of guaranteed or direct loans for a broad range of 

uses through at least four programs at two of the four agencies, including 

SBA’s 7(a) Loan and Small Business Investment Companies programs. 

While many programs overlap in terms of statutory authority, 

entrepreneurs may in reality have fewer options to access assistance 

from multiple programs. For example, while entrepreneurs seeking 

technical assistance in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania, are eligible 

to receive this support through USDA’s1890 Land Grant Institutions 

program, the closest funded third-party intermediary (e.g., nonprofit or 

local government) that actually provides this service is in Delaware, 

making it unlikely that such an entrepreneur would utilize services through 

this program.

SBA administers five programs that provide government contracting 

assistance to entrepreneurs, but our analysis did not identify significant 

overlap in the types of assistance these programs provide or the types of 

entrepreneurs they serve. These programs tend to target specific types of 

entrepreneurs and provide unique types of assistance. For example, the 

Procurement Assistance to Small Businesses program coordinates 

access to government contracts for small and disadvantaged businesses 

with other federal agencies, while the 8(a) Business Development 

Program coordinates certification of eligible disadvantaged businesses for 

the contracts made available at these other agencies, in addition to 

providing business development assistance during their 9 years of 

eligibility.6

Although we identified a number of examples of statutory overlap, we did 

not find evidence of duplication among these programs (that is, instances 

when two or more agencies or programs are engaged in the same 

activities to provide the same services to the same beneficiaries) based 

on available data. However, as discussed later, most agencies were not 

 

6

SBA’s 8(a) program, named for a section of the Small Business Act, is a development 

program created to help small, disadvantaged businesses compete in the U.S. economy 

and access the federal procurement market. Participating businesses, which are generally 

referred to as 8(a) firms, are eligible to participate in the program for 9 years.
 

Page 7 GAO-13-452T 

able to provide the programmatic information, such as data on users of 

the program, that would be necessary to determine whether or not 

duplication actually exists among the programs.

Some entrepreneurs struggle to navigate the fragmented programs that 

provide technical assistance. For example, some entrepreneurs and 

various technical assistance providers with whom we spoke—including 

agency field offices, intermediaries, and other local service providers—

told us that the system can be confusing and that some entrepreneurs do 

not know what services are available or where to go for assistance.7

Enhanced collaboration between agencies could help address some of 

the difficulties entrepreneurs experience and improve program efficiency. 

In prior work we identified practices that can help to enhance and sustain 

collaboration among federal agencies, which can help to maximize 

performance and results, and we have recommended that the agencies 

follow them.

Technical assistance providers sometimes attempt to help entrepreneurs 

navigate the system by referring them to other programs, but these efforts 

are not consistently successful. In addition, programs’ Internet resources 

can also be difficult to navigate. Each agency has its own separate 

website that provides information to entrepreneurs, but they often direct 

entrepreneurs to other websites for additional information. SBA, 

Commerce, USDA, and other agencies have collaborated to develop a 

joint website called BusinessUSA with the goal of making it easier for 

businesses to access services. Some technical assistance providers and 

entrepreneurs we spoke with suggested that a single source to help 

entrepreneurs quickly find information instead of sorting through different 

websites would be helpful.

8

 

7

Federal funds typically flow from the federal agencies to different eligible intermediaries, 

which are third-party entities that receive federal funds, such as nonprofits or universities. 

These intermediaries in turn may provide technical assistance to entrepreneurs by, for 

example, helping them to develop a business plan or put together a loan package to 

obtain financing. Although intermediaries are the primary providers of technical 

assistance, agency field offices may also provide some technical assistance. 

These collaborative practices include identifying common 

outcomes, establishing joint strategies, leveraging resources, determining 

roles and responsibilities, and developing compatible policies and 

procedures. In addition, GPRAMA’s crosscutting framework requires that 

agencies collaborate in order to address issues such as economic 

8

GAO-06-15. 
 

Page 8 GAO-13-452T 

development that transcend more than one agency, and GPRAMA directs 

agencies to describe how they are working with each other to achieve 

their program goals. While the agencies have agreed to work together by 

signing formal agreements to administer some of their similar programs, 

they have not implemented a number of other good collaborative 

practices we have previously identified. For example, SBA and USDA 

entered into a formal agreement in April 2010 to coordinate their efforts 

aimed at supporting businesses in rural areas. We previously testified that 

USDA’s April 2011 survey of state directors indicates progress under the 

memorandum of understanding in several areas, including field offices 

advising borrowers of SBA’s programs, referring borrowers to SBA and its 

resource partners, and exploring ways to make USDA and SBA programs 

more complementary.9 However, as we reported in August 2012, the 

agencies have not implemented other good collaborative practices, such 

as establishing compatible policies and procedures to better support rural 

businesses.

While the four agencies collect at least some information on program 

activities in either an electronic records system or through paper files, 

most were unable to summarize the information in a way that could be 

used to help administer the programs. Table 1 summarizes the type of 

information that the agencies maintain in a readily available format that 

could be tracked to help administer the programs. For example, SBA 

collects detailed information on the type of technical assistance provided 

and type of entrepreneur served for 5 of its 10 technical assistance 

programs. SBA categorizes the types of technical assistance it provides 

into 17 categories of training and counseling, such as helping a business 

develop its business plan. All of this information is maintained in an 

electronic database that is accessible by agency staff. Although USDA 

does not collect detailed information on the type of technical assistance 

provided for its eight programs that provide technical assistance, it does 

collect detailed information on the industry of each of the entrepreneurs it 

supports for all of its programs. USDA also collects detailed information 

(19 categories) on how entrepreneurs use proceeds, such as for working 

capital, provided through five of its financial assistance programs. USDA 

 

9

GAO, Entrepreneurial Assistance: Efficiency and Effectiveness of Fragmented Programs 

Are Unclear, GAO-12-601T (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 29, 2012).

Agencies Lack 

Information to Track 

Program Activities 

and Measure 

Performance 
 

Page 9 GAO-13-452T 

maintains this information in an electronic database, and officials stated 

that they can provide this type of detailed information upon request.

Table 1: Programs that Can Support Entrepreneurs and Maintain Readily Available Information, by Agency

35 Technical Assistance Programs

Information Maintained Commerce 

(8) 

HUD (9) SBA (10) USDA (8) Total (35)

Type of technical assistance provided? yes 2 0 5 0 7 

no 6 9 5 8 28

Industry entrepreneur is working in? yes 8 0 5 8 21

no 0 9 5 0 14

Type of entrepreneur by targeted 

categories?a yes 8 1 5 7 21

no 0 8 5 1 14

30 Financial Assistance Programs

Commerce 

(2) 

HUD (10) SBA (10) USDA (8) Total (30)

Type of financial assistance provided? yes 2 8 9 8 27

no 0 2 1 0 3 

Use of proceeds? yes 2 1 7 5 15

no 0 9 3 3 15

Industry entrepreneur is working in? yes 2 0 5 8 15

no 0 10 5 0 15

Type of entrepreneur by targeted 

categories?

yes 2 3 8 5 18

no 0 7 2 3 12

Source: GAO analysis of information provided by Commerce, HUD, USDA, and SBA.

Note: This table is based on 50 of the 52 programs that can support entrepreneurs because we 

excluded the 2 SBA programs that only support government contracting assistance. Some of the 50 

programs can provide both financial and technical assistance.

a

Targeted categories can include businesses in rural or economically distressed areas, 

disadvantaged businesses, or small businesses.

According to OMB, being able to track and measure specific program 

data can help agencies diagnose problems, identify drivers of future 

performance, evaluate risk, support collaboration, and inform follow-up 

actions. Analyses of patterns and anomalies in program information can 

also help agencies discover ways to achieve more value for the 

taxpayer’s money. In addition, agencies can use this information to 

assess whether their specific program activities are contributing as 

planned to the agency goals. Government internal control standards state 

that agencies should promptly and accurately record transactions to 
 

Page 10 GAO-13-452T 

maintain their relevance and value for management decision making.10

We also found that for fiscal year 2011, a number of programs that 

support entrepreneurs failed to meet some or all of their performance 

goals. Table 2 summarizes accomplishment data for the programs that 

support entrepreneurs and set goals for fiscal year 2011. For example, 7 

of the 14 SBA programs that set goals either did not meet any of their 

goals or only met some of their goals.

Furthermore, this information should be readily available for use by 

agency management and others so that they can carry out their duties 

with the goal of achieving all of their objectives, including making 

operating decisions and allocating resources.

Table 2: Accomplishment Data for Programs that Support Entrepreneurs and Set 

Goals, Fiscal Year 2011

Programs that did not 

meet goals

Programs that met 

some goals

Programs that met all 

goals

Commerce 1 5 2 

HUD 2 0 0 

SBA 2 5 7 

USDA 4 0 3 

Total 9 10 12

Source: GAO analysis of data from Commerce, HUD, SBA, and USDA.

Note: Two programs have goals but did not have goal accomplishment information. Goal 

accomplishment information for HUD’s Section 4 Capacity Building for Affordable Housing and 

Community Development program is unknown because HUD did not provide goal accomplishment 

information. Goal accomplishment information for USDA’s Small Business Innovation Research 

program is not available because the program goals are based on 2-year time periods and the current 

period has not yet ended.

Measuring performance allows organizations to track the progress they 

are making toward their goals and gives managers crucial information on 

which to base their organizational and management decisions. Leading 

organizations recognize that performance measures can create powerful 

incentives to influence organizational and individual behavior. Some of 

their good practices include setting and measuring performance goals. 

GPRAMA also requires agencies to develop annual performance plans 

that include performance goals for an agency’s program activities and 

 

10GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1.
 

Page 11 GAO-13-452T 

accompanying performance measures. According to GPRAMA, these 

performance goals should be in a quantifiable and measurable form to 

define the level of performance to be achieved for program activities each 

year.

Further, since 2000 the agencies have conducted program evaluations of 

only 20 of the 52 programs that support entrepreneurs. Based on our 

review, we found that SBA has conducted performance evaluation studies 

on 9 of its 19 programs, including 3 programs that provide counseling and 

training. We also found that USDA has conducted an evaluation on 1 of 

its 13 programs, but the study did not address the extent to which the 

program was achieving its mission. Although GPRAMA does not require 

agencies to conduct formal program evaluations, it does require agencies 

to describe program evaluations that were used to establish or revise 

strategic goals, as well as program evaluations they plan to conduct in the 

future. Additionally, while not required to do so, agencies can use periodic 

program evaluations to complement ongoing performance measurement. 

Program evaluations that systematically study the benefits of programs 

may help identify the extent to which overlapping and fragmented 

programs are achieving their objectives. In addition, program evaluations 

can help agencies determine reasons why a performance goal was not 

met and give an agency direction on how to improve program 

performance.

To address these issues and to help improve the efficiency and 

effectiveness of federal efforts to support entrepreneurs, in our August 

2012 report, we made the following recommendations:

• The Director of the Office and Management and Budget; the 

Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and 

Housing and Urban Development; and the Administrator of the Small 

Business Administration should work together to identify opportunities 

to enhance collaboration among programs, both within and across 

agencies.

• The Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and 

Housing and Urban Development and the Administrator of the Small 

Business Administration should consistently collect information that 

would enable them to track the specific type of assistance programs 

provide and the entrepreneurs they serve and use this information to 

help administer their programs.
 

Page 12 GAO-13-452T 

• The Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and 

Housing and Urban Development and the Administrator of the Small 

Business Administration should conduct more program evaluations to 

better understand why programs have not met performance goals and 

the programs’ overall effectiveness.

The agencies, together with the administration, have taken some steps to 

address our recommendations. For example, the administration has 

initiated steps that provide the agencies with a mechanism to work 

together to identify opportunities to enhance collaboration among 

programs. In particular, it introduced a cross-agency priority goal to 

increase services to entrepreneurs and small businesses in the fiscal year 

2013 budget submission.11

In addition, the four agencies said that they have taken steps to improve 

program evaluation and collect information to help track program activities 

and administer programs that support entrepreneurs. For example,

One of the objectives under this goal is to 

utilize programs and resources across the federal government to improve 

and expand the reach of training, counseling, and mentoring services to 

entrepreneurs and small business owners. According to the fiscal year 

2012 fourth quarter status update for this goal, the administration 

established an interagency group (including Commerce, SBA, USDA, and 

others) that aims to streamline existing programs, improve cooperation 

among and within agencies, ease entrepreneurs’ access to the programs, 

and increase data-based evaluation of program performance. The update 

also notes that the interagency group will develop an action plan outlining 

opportunities to enhance collaboration among programs across agencies 

and a strategy for increasing data collection and outcome-based program 

evaluation. However, the update does not specify a timeframe for the 

completion of these actions. It will be important for the interagency group 

to follow through on developing an action plan, including milestones, that 

identifies opportunities to enhance collaboration among programs across 

agencies and for the agencies to pursue such opportunities.

 

11GPRAMA, among other things, required OMB to coordinate with agencies to establish 

outcome-oriented federal government priority goals—otherwise referred to as crosscutting 

goals—covering a limited number of policy areas, as well as goals to improve 

management across the federal government. Entrepreneurship and small businesses was 

one of 14 interim crosscutting priority goals included in the President’s 2013 budget 

submission.
 

Page 13 GAO-13-452T 

• SBA noted that it is engaged in a comprehensive analysis and review 

of its performance measures and metrics to identify opportunities to 

make them more efficient and transparent. SBA added that in 

coordination with its Office of Performance Management, all of its 

offices are working together to achieve more efficient and effective 

data-driven performance measures.

• Commerce’s Economic Development Administration noted that it has 

partnered with two universities to develop a comprehensive set of 

performance measures that can be used to evaluate the effectiveness 

of its programs and has engaged a third-party firm to assess best 

practices within the agency’s University Center Program, with the 

findings scheduled to be completed in 2015.

• USDA noted that its Rural Business-Cooperative Service is 

developing a strategic plan that includes an initiative to improve the 

quality of performance measurement within the next 2 years.

• HUD noted that it included a proposed study of its Community 

Development Block Grant economic development activities in its draft 

research roadmap for fiscal years 2014 to 2018.

Chairman Graves and Ranking Member Velazquez, this concludes my 

prepared statement. I would be happy to answer any questions at this 

time.

For further information on this testimony, please contact me at (202) 512-

8678 or shearw@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this statement. Key contributors to this testimony include Marshall 

Hamlett, Assistant Director; John McGrail; and Jennifer Schwartz.

Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgements 
Appendix I: List of Programs That Support 

Entrepreneurs and Related Budgetary 

Information

Page 14 GAO-13-452T 

Agency Program FY 2011 obligationsa

Department of Commerce Grants for Public Works and Economic Development

Facilities

114,529,000

Economic Development/ Support for Planning Organizations 31,352,000

Economic Development/ Technical Assistance 13,373,000

Economic Adjustment Assistance 78,720,000

Trade Adjustment Assistance 15,418,000

Global Climate Change Mitigation Incentive Fund 17,466,000

Minority Business Centers 17,948,122

Native American Business Enterprise Centersb 0 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Woody Biomass Utilization Grant Program 3,000,000

1890 Land Grant Institutions Rural Entrepreneurial Outreach 

Program/Rural Business Entrepreneur Development Initiativec 0 

Small Business Innovation Research 22,635,200

Biomass Research and Development Initiative Competitive Grants 

Program 

2,075,000

Value Added Producer Grants 1,318,000

Agriculture Innovation Center 0 

Small Socially-Disadvantaged Producer Grants 2,940,000

Intermediary Re-lending 7,364,000

Business and Industry Loans 70,202,000

Rural Business Enterprise Grants 38,586,000

Rural Cooperative Development Grants 8,424,000

Rural Business Opportunity Grants 2,581,000

Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program 6,668,000

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development

Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)/Entitlement Grantsd 325,549,306

CDBG/Special Purpose/Insular Arease 214,396

CDBG/Statesf 559,961,961

CDBG/Non-entitlement CDBG Grants in Hawaiig 338,257

CDBG/Brownfields Economic Development Initiative 0 

CDBG/Section 108 Loan Guarantees 6,000,000

Section 4 Capacity Building for Affordable Housing and Community 

Development

50,000,000

Rural Innovation Fundh 0 

CDBG Disaster Recovery Grants 0 

Indian CDBG 64,000,000

Hispanic Serving Institutions Assisting Communities 0 

Appendix I: List of Programs That Support 

Entrepreneurs and Related Budgetary 

Information 
Appendix I: List of Programs That Support 

Entrepreneurs and Related Budgetary 

Information

Page 15 GAO-13-452T 

Agency Program FY 2011 obligationsa

Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian Institutions Assisting Communities 0 

Small Business Administration 8(a) Business Development Program 58,274,000

7(j) Technical Assistance 6,502,000

Procurement Assistance to Small Businesses 21,171,000

Small Business Investment Companies 26,305,000

7(a) Loan Program 88,000,000

Surety Bond Guarantee Program 4,865,000

SCORE 12,980,000

Small Business Development Centers 130,323,000

504 Loan Program 38,888,000

Women’s Business Centers 19,446,000

Veterans’ Business Outreach Centers 8,995,000

Microloan Program 38,729,000

PRIME 8,863,000

New Markets Venture Capital Programi 0 

International Trade 7,681,000

HUBZone 15,569,000

Small Business Technology Transfer Program 352,000

Small Business Innovation Research Program 781,000

Federal and State Technology Partnership Program 1,885,096

Total 1,950,272,338

Source: GAO analysis of information provided by Commerce, HUD, SBA, and USDA.

a

Fiscal year 2011 obligations were provided by agency officials for each program. HUD’s figures 

represent fiscal year 2011 actual budget authority rather than obligations. SBA figures represent fiscal 

year 2011 fully allocated costs rather than obligations.

b

Commerce’s Native American Business Enterprise Centers program incurred obligations in fiscal 

year 2011, but Commerce officials could not provide funding data at the program level. Funding for 

this program is included in the fiscal year 2011 obligations for Commerce’s Minority Business Center 

program.

c

USDA’s 1890 program does not have a congressional appropriation but is instead funded through 

USDA’s Salaries and Expenses account. Funding is not reported separately for this program and is 

listed as $0 here, but the program is active and funded.

d

This figure is an estimate of actual budget authority used for activities that GAO categorizes as 

economic development, rather than total program expenditures, and does not include other costs for 

activities such as housing or public services.

e

This figure is an estimate of actual budget authority used for activities that GAO categorizes as 

economic development, rather than total program expenditures, and does not include other costs for 

activities such as housing or public services.
Appendix I: List of Programs That Support 

Entrepreneurs and Related Budgetary 

Information

Page 16 GAO-13-452T 

f

This figure is an estimate of actual budget authority used for activities that GAO categorizes as 

economic development, rather than total program expenditures, and does not include other costs for 

activities such as housing or public services.

g

This figure is an estimate of actual budget authority used for activities that GAO categorizes as 

economic development, rather than total program expenditures, and does not include other costs for 

activities such as housing or public services.

h

HUD officials noted that $31,355,236 in 5-year grants was awarded in September 2011 through this 

program, but those funds will not be obligated until after fiscal year 2011. These funds include 

$25,000,000 that was appropriated in fiscal year 2010 for the program and additional funds 

recaptured through HUD’s Rural Housing and Economic Development program.

i

According to SBA officials, the New Markets Venture Capital program is a one-time pilot program that 

received one-time funding in fiscal year 2001.

(250706)
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

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

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

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

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

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

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

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

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

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

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

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

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

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

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

Contact:

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

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

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

7125, Washington, DC 20548

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

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

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.