# Recent Reports

Reports News from the GAO

- Economic Development: Additional Training Could Help Small Lenders Implement Technology What GAO FoundCommunity development financial institutions (CDFI) are lenders that provide financial products and services to underserved communities, and minority depository institutions (MDI), which can be certified as CDFIs, are generally banks or credit unions primarily owned by minority individuals or serving minority populations. In response to GAO's survey of CDFIs and MDIs, many small CDFIs and MDIs reported they lack the technology needed to provide online services or to underwrite loans, manage operations, and conduct outreach more efficiently. Officials GAO interviewed from some small institutions said their limited technology—such as lack of ability to provide mobile banking—constrains their ability to serve underserved communities. Technology costs and limited staff capacity were the most common reasons CDFIs and MDIs cited for not being able to obtain the technology they need, according to a GAO survey. These institutions reported that additional funding and training related to technology could help them address these challenges.Challenges CDFIs and MDIs Reported Frequently or Always Prevented Them from Acquiring New TechnologyThe CDFI Fund has increased the grant funding CDFIs can use for improving their technology but has not provided technology-related training. CDFI Fund certifies financial institutions (including eligible MDIs) as CDFIs and provides financial and technical assistance. Over the last 10 years, total CDFI Fund technical assistance grants increased from $3.6 million to $25.2 million per year. The CDFI Fund's strategic plan states it will develop training programs targeting key issues affecting CDFIs. However, it has not created any new training or materials since 2020, and none related to technology. Fund officials said they were aware of the impact of technology capacity on small CDFIs' ability to serve their communities and grow. They said they have considered creating training and materials to help CDFIs build technology capacity, but they do not have a time frame for doing so. Such resources could help CDFIs implement the technology they need to increase lending to underserved communities.Why GAO Did This StudyCDFIs and MDIs target loans to traditionally underserved businesses and individuals. Prior GAO work identified challenges some CDFIs and MDIs had accessing emergency lending capital during the COVID-19 pandemic, raising questions about whether they had the technology capacity needed to best serve their communities.GAO was asked to review CDFIs' and MDIs' technology capacities and potential federal solutions to address any technology challenges. This report examines (1) CDFI and MDI officials' views on their technology capacity and challenges, and (2) available federal resources for improving CDFI and MDI technology.GAO surveyed a sample of 711 CDFI and MDI officials in June and July 2023 and generalized results to the population as a whole and to small and large institutions. GAO also reviewed relevant federal laws and regulations and agency funding documents, strategic plans, and other program documentation, including those from Treasury. In addition, GAO interviewed representatives from 23 judgmentally selected CDFIs and MDIs, and officials from Treasury and federal financial regulators.
- COVID-19 Relief: State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Spending as of September 30, 2023 The Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, established under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, allocated $350 billion to Tribes, states, the District of Columbia, localities, and U.S. territories to help cover a broad range of costs stemming from the health and economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. This snapshot updates the status of these funds.The Big PictureMost ($325.5 billion) of the $350 billion in Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) were allocated to states, the District of Columbia, and local governments. SLFRF recipients have until December 31, 2024, to obligate their SLFRF awards and generally have until December 31, 2026, to spend their awards.The Department of the Treasury, which administers the SLFRF, requires recipients to submit project and expenditure reports quarterly or annually—depending on the recipient type, population, and award size. The reports detail recipients’ uses of SLFRF funds, including obligations and spending amounts. The most recent quarterly reports reflect this information as of September 30, 2023.This snapshot includes aggregate data on obligation and spending amounts that SLFRF recipients reported to Treasury as of September 30, 2023, the most recent reporting available when this snapshot was issued. The snapshot updates our October 2023 report on states’ and localities’ obligations and spending amounts, as of March 31, 2023 (GAO-24-106753). Our prior report also includes detailed information on Treasury’s reporting requirements for SLFRF recipients.What GAO’s Work ShowsStates’ Reported ObligationsAs of September 30, 2023, states and the District of Columbia reported obligating 73 percent ($142.4 billion) of their $195.8 billion in SLFRF awards. All states reported obligating at least 25 percent of their SLFRF awards and 23 states reported obligating over 75 percent. Minnesota and North Dakota reported obligating the largest share of their awards (over 99 percent and 100 percent, respectively), while New Jersey and West Virginia reported obligating the smallest shares (36 percent and 33 percent, respectively).States’ Reported Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) Obligations, as of Sept. 30, 2023States’ Reported SpendingAs of September 30, 2023, states and the District of Columbia reported spending 53 percent ($103.7 billion) of their $195.8 billion in SLFRF awards. All but eight states reported spending at least 25 percent of their awards. Eight states reported spending 75 percent or more of their awards. Minnesota and Alaska each reported spending the largest share of their awards (99 percent and 96 percent, respectively). Oklahoma and South Carolina reported spending the smallest shares (5 percent each).States’ Reported Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) Spending, as of Sept. 30, 2023Localities’ Reported Obligations and SpendingAs of September 30, 2023, a total of 26,442 localities reported SLFRF obligations and expenditures, either through an annual report (as of March 31, 2023) or a quarterly report (as of September 30, 2023). Smaller localities—referred to as non-entitlement units of local government (NEU)—comprised the majority of reporting localities (22,361) but received the smallest amount of allocations ($18.9 billion) in the aggregate, compared to counties and metropolitan cities (which we refer to as cities throughout this snapshot).As of September 30, 2023, a total of 26,442 localities reported SLFRF obligations and expenditures, either through an annual report (as of March 31, 2023) or a quarterly report (as of September 30, 2023). Smaller localities—referred to as non-entitlement units of local government (NEU)—comprised the majority of reporting localities (22,361) but received the smallest amount of allocations ($18.9 billion) in the aggregate, compared to counties and metropolitan cities (which we refer to as cities throughout this snapshot).Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) Allocations Received, by Locality Type, as of Sept. 30, 2023&nbsp;			Number of localities reporting			Amount of SLFRF allocation (in billions)		Citiesa			1,105			$47.7		Counties			2,976			$59.4		Non-entitlement units of local governmentb			22,361			$18.9		Total			26,442			$126.1		Source: GAO analysis of Department of the Treasury data. &nbsp;I &nbsp;GAO-24-107472aCities refer to metropolitan cities as defined in 42 U.S.C. § 803(g)(4).bNon-entitlement units of local government as defined in 42 U.S.C. § 803(g)(5).In their annual or quarterly reports, these localities reported obligating 64 percent ($80.1 billion) and spending 47 percent ($59.4 billion) of their $126.1 billion in SLFRF allocations.Cities, counties, and NEUs in the aggregate each reported obligating between 61 and 65 percent of their awards. Cities received the second largest amount of allocations ($47.7 billion), but they reported spending the largest amount of their awards (54 percent), compared to counties and NEUs (each reporting spending 43 percent of their awards).Localities’ Reported Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) Obligations and Spending, as of Sept. 30, 2023aCities refer to metropolitan cities as defined in 42 U.S.C. § 803(g)(4).bNon-entitlement units of local government as defined in 42 U.S.C. § 803(g)(5).We will continue to review states’ and localities’ reported obligations and spending, as well as their uses of SLFRF awards.&nbsp;For more information, contact Jeff Arkin at (202) 512-6806 or ArkinJ@gao.gov.
- Justice40: Additional Efforts Needed to Improve Tribal Applicants' Access to Federal Programs   Under Environmental Justice Initiative What GAO FoundThe Justice40 Initiative is the administration's goal for 40 percent of the overall benefits of certain federal investments to flow to disadvantaged communities. GAO reviewed six Justice40 programs in three selected agencies—the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). GAO found that each agency adjusted program mechanisms to increase access to funding for underserved communities, including Tribes and eligible Indigenous communities (tribal applicants), in response to the Justice40 Initiative as well as other agency initiatives.However, certain program characteristics create barriers to tribal applicants' ability to access selected covered Justice40 programs, including cost shares, administrative burdens, and certain statutory and regulatory requirements. For example, EPA has a mechanism to reduce administrative burdens for recipients by combining funds from multiple grants into a single budget. Agency officials told GAO that grants funded by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and Inflation Reduction Act are not eligible for this mechanism. Agencies have taken actions to identify statutory and regulatory barriers to access for tribal recipients. Additional actions to document and discuss these barriers with affected stakeholders to determine any additional statutory and regulatory changes needed could help tribal applicants more readily access covered programs, consistent with the Justice40 goal and executive orders.Examples of Historic Barriers to Tribes' Access to Federal ProgramsSelected agencies consulted with Tribes on new programs, funding opportunities, and related topics, such as equity assessments. However, the extent to which these efforts informed agency implementation of Justice40 is unclear because the agencies generally did not make related consultation results publicly available. Consistent with executive orders and presidential memoranda, considering publicly sharing high-level consultation summaries could help ensure Tribes have access to information about prior tribal input on federal programs. In turn, this information could inform Tribes' future input on Justice40 and reduce their administrative burdens. Additionally, GAO's review of the selected agencies' online consultation tracking systems and interviews with agency officials found that the agencies did not consult with Tribes specifically about the Justice40 Initiative. Interim implementation guidance directs agencies to consult with stakeholders, including Tribes, when determining Justice40 covered program benefits. Agencies have additional opportunities to consult with Tribes and conduct outreach on Justice40 implementation to ensure meaningful input.Why GAO Did This StudyUnderserved communities—including federally recognized Tribes and other historically marginalized people—experience a disproportionate share of adverse socioeconomic and environmental conditions, according to GAO's prior work. Executive Order 14008 established the Justice40 Initiative with the goal of delivering to disadvantaged communities 40 percent of the overall benefits of certain federal investments. In determining Justice40 benefits, guidance directed agencies to consult with Tribes and other stakeholders to ensure meaningful involvement.GAO was asked to review agencies' implementation of the Justice40 Initiative with respect to tribal applicants. This report reviews the actions selected agencies took to (1) adjust programs to direct funding to tribal recipients, and (2) consult with Tribes and conduct outreach to Indigenous communities regarding the initiative. GAO examined laws, executive orders, presidential memoranda, guidance, and policies; and interviewed officials from three selected agencies, leadership from six Tribes, and representatives from seven tribal organizations. GAO selected a mix of agencies and programs based on tribal participation, funding mechanisms, and types of programs.
- Small Business Administration: Targeted Outreach about Disaster Assistance Could Benefit Rural Communities What GAO FoundThe Small Business Administration's (SBA) Disaster Loan Program is available to rural and urban communities to cover qualified losses after a declared disaster. Disaster loans are intended to help homeowners, renters, businesses, and nonprofits repair, rebuild, and recover from physical and economic losses. For fiscal years 2017–2022, applications for disaster loans from rural and urban areas were approved and declined at comparable rates. Across both types of areas, SBA approved about 40 percent and declined about 40 percent of applications that met minimum qualifications for acceptance. The remaining applications were withdrawn (18.5 percent) or were still being reviewed by SBA as of June 2023 (1.7 percent).Outcomes of SBA Disaster Loan Applications SBA Accepted by Geographic Area, Fiscal Years 2017–2022, as of June 2023Note: This analysis includes applications that met SBA’s minimum acceptance qualifications and excludes 20,882 applications that were duplicates or could not be classified as rural or urban.GAO found that rural communities may have characteristics that can make recovering from a disaster difficult. For instance, they are more likely to have limited telecommunication services (broadband and cellular) because of geographic barriers, such as mountains, or limited demand due to smaller and sparser populations. A lack of reliable communications can hamper outreach to disaster survivors and can make it harder for survivors to apply for disaster assistance. Also, rural communities often do not have the capacity and resources to support recovery activities. Stakeholders also identified challenges to obtaining assistance from SBA. For example, stakeholders noted that rural communities may not be aware of SBA disaster assistance and may not know that SBA aids homeowners as well as businesses.SBA has introduced new outreach approaches in recent years, such as portable outreach centers that can be established after a disaster in hard-to-reach areas, including rural communities. However, SBA's outreach policies and procedures do not distinguish between rural and urban communities, and SBA does not tailor its outreach to address the specific needs of rural communities. Developing outreach plans with specific methods to address challenges rural communities face after disasters could help improve their access to SBA's Disaster Loan Program.Why GAO Did This StudyGAO previously reported that the number and cost of weather and climate disasters, such as tornadoes and wildfires, are increasing in the United States. The Disaster Assistance for Rural Communities Act enabled the SBA Administrator to declare disasters in rural areas if certain conditions are met and included a provision for GAO to examine the unique challenges rural areas face when seeking disaster assistance from SBA. This report examines disaster loan trends in rural and urban areas for fiscal years 2017–2022, challenges rural communities may face after disasters, and SBA's actions that may address these challenges.GAO analyzed and geocoded SBA disaster loan application data for fiscal years 2017–2022 to show trends for approved, accepted, and declined loan applications for rural and urban areas. GAO also interviewed officials from SBA, four regional nonprofit organizations, and 18 state and local entities from three site visits. GAO further reviewed literature and key agency documents related to outreach, marketing, equity, and implementation of the new rural disaster declaration.
- Puerto Rico Disasters: Progress Made, but the Recovery Continues to Face Challenges What GAO FoundThe Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) had awarded about $23.4 billion in Public Assistance to Puerto Rico's permanent recovery work related to hurricanes Irma and Maria and the 2019 and 2020 earthquakes, as of June 2023. Of that, Puerto Rico has expended about $1.8 billion and a substantial amount of permanent work remains. Further, about $11.3 billion of the awarded funds needs FEMA's authorization before Puerto Rico can expend it. Puerto Rico subrecipients plan to submit project applications and obtain FEMA's authorization to access and expend these remaining funds through 2030 and possibly beyond.Work on Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority's Central Laboratory in 2021 and 2022To help jump-start permanent work construction, FEMA and Puerto Rico have taken actions, such as providing advance disbursements of funds; however, projects face additional challenges. Specifically, grant subrecipients that received awards from FEMA through an expedited process in Puerto Rico have identified increased project costs that pose risks to the completion of work on their facilities. For example, officials from Puerto Rico's Aqueduct and Sewer Authority said that the costs for one water treatment plant project exceeded its original estimate by 42 percent. Under the expedited process, these cost increases are of concern because a subrecipient's award acts as a fixed budget to complete projects across its various facilities. Therefore, increased costs for one project could excessively reduce the established budget to complete later projects.In May 2021, GAO identified a number of risks to Puerto Rico's recovery, including subrecipient difficulties in starting project construction, and recommended that FEMA take several actions to manage them. FEMA has partially addressed these recommendations; however, further steps are needed, including finalizing its risk management plan and taking actions to continuously monitor recovery risks. As challenges continue to complicate Puerto Rico's recovery, fully implementing GAO's prior recommendations remains important.FEMA has monitored Puerto Rico's use of Public Assistance grant funds through two oversight activities: improper payment reviews and grants management compliance reviews. Both efforts found improvement in Puerto Rico's ability to manage FEMA grant funds since the 2017 hurricanes. For example, by fiscal year 2020, FEMA found that Puerto Rico's potential improper payments fell below the amount considered significant by statute.Why GAO Did This StudyIn September 2017, hurricanes Irma and Maria caused billions of dollars in damage to Puerto Rico's infrastructure, housing, and economy. Earthquakes in 2019 and 2020 caused additional damages. More than 6 years after hurricanes Irma and Maria, Puerto Rico's recovery is ongoing.FEMA is the lead federal agency assisting Puerto Rico's recovery operations. It administers the Public Assistance program to provide grant funds to repair and rebuild damaged infrastructure, such as schools and the power grid, among other things.GAO was asked to review federal recovery efforts in Puerto Rico. This report addresses: (1) the status of permanent recovery work in Puerto Rico using Public Assistance; (2) the extent to which FEMA and Puerto Rico's government have addressed challenges to starting and completing permanent recovery work; and (3) the results of FEMA efforts to monitor Puerto Rico's use of grant funds. For this report, GAO analyzed relevant FEMA and Puerto Rico government documents and data; conducted site visits; and interviewed FEMA, Puerto Rico, and grant subrecipient officials.
- Economic Downturns: Effects of Automatic Spending Programs and Taxes What GAO FoundStudies GAO reviewed showed that automatic stabilizers—mechanisms that alter tax and spending levels in response to changes in economic conditions without direct intervention by policymakers—reduced the detrimental effects of recent economic downturns. Automatic stabilizers include taxes—such as the individual income tax, where taxpayers owe less as their income declines—as well as benefit programs—such as unemployment insurance, where more people become eligible during economic downturns. These automatic stabilizers prevented the economy from getting worse by generating additional economic activity.Studies showed that during economic downturns, programs with an automatic stabilizer component had various positive effects on the wellbeing of individuals and families, such as alleviating poverty and supporting positive health outcomes such as improved nutrition and healthy birthweights. However, it is difficult to isolate the effects of automatic stabilizers, because studies frequently did not separately analyze the automatic portions of these programs and discretionary changes made by policymakers to address economic downturns.Automatic stabilizers contributed to federal deficits in the wake of recent economic downturns, according to Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis. However, automatic stabilizers are not the key driver of debt over the long-term. Rather, the growth in debt over the long-term results from borrowing to finance increasingly large annual budget deficits, which occur because spending is increasing more than revenue. Over the long term, this spending is driven by increases in Medicare, other federal health care, and Social Security program spending along with increases in interest costs to service the growing debt. We have previously reported that the federal government faces an unsustainable long-term fiscal future. Debt held by the public is expected to exceed its historical high of 106 percent of gross domestic product within the next 10 years.Why GAO Did This StudyDuring economic downturns, the federal government can use tax and spending policies to support economic growth and limit the detrimental effects on individuals and families through the use of automatic stabilizers. For example, in an economic downturn—when incomes and the employment level fall—tax liabilities may decrease, and more people may become eligible for certain government benefits, such as unemployment insurance and food assistance. Conversely—when incomes and the employment level rise—tax liabilities may rise, and fewer people may be eligible for government benefits.GAO was asked to review several issues related to automatic stabilizers. This report examines the effects of automatic stabilizers on the economy, the wellbeing of individuals and families, and the federal government's fiscal condition.GAO conducted an extensive review of academic and government literature; reviewed data and analysis from CBO, National Bureau of Economic Research, Bureau of Economic Analysis, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics; and spoke with CBO and Federal Reserve staff.For more information, contact Jeff Arkin at (202) 512-6806 or arkinj@gao.gov.
- Disaster Recovery: HUD Should Develop Data Collection Guidance to Support Analysis of Block Grant Fraud Risks What GAO FoundGAO's analysis of Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery (disaster block grant) applicant data identified vulnerabilities to fraud. Out of 8,260 households reviewed, GAO identifiedPotential duplication of benefits.&nbsp;500 households were approved for Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) assistance that is potentially duplicative of disaster block grant assistance. The FEMA-only assistance for these households totaled over $1 million. The figure shows other potentially duplicative assistance GAO identified.	Potentially ineligible households.&nbsp;197 households with estimated income over limits were approved. Estimated income for two of these households exceeded $330,000—far above the income limits.Households Potentially Receiving Duplicative Benefits from Multiple ProgramsNote: The categories in this figure are not mutually exclusive.GAO also found that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) does not require grantees and subrecipients to collect applicant data in a complete and consistent manner to support applicant eligibility determinations and fraud risk management.GAO's analysis of the disaster block grant contracting network identified key players who are important to HUD's risk-based monitoring because of the greater potential impact they have on the contracting environment. Specifically, GAO identified 16 contractors and 30 subcontractors that are key players within a network of 1,324 entities. While key players' ability to influence or diffuse information can lead to positive outcomes, fraud risk is heightened when information on control vulnerabilities or wrongdoing is more easily shared across the network.GAO's analysis of the 16 contractors that are key players illustrates how HUD and grantees could better understand the disaster block grant risk environment by collecting contractor and subcontractor data, such as unique entity identifiers. Currently, HUD's approach to identifying and managing risks focuses on monitoring individual grantees and may not fully assess risks across the contracting environment. HUD does not provide specific guidance to grantees on standards or requirements for collecting data. Additional guidance from HUD on what data elements to collect could support grantees' and subrecipients' ability to identify contractors that are debarred, suspended, or excluded from receiving federal contracts.Why GAO Did This StudyIn response to the damage caused by natural disasters in 2017 through 2019, Congress appropriated approximately $39 billion in disaster block grant funds to HUD. The decentralized environment in which HUD's disaster block grants operate creates vulnerabilities to different types of fraud as funds are distributed to grantees, subrecipients, contractors, and subcontractors.As part of wide-ranging disaster-related work we are conducting, this report focuses on the potential for fraud in CDBG-DR homeowner assistance programs. This report examines, among other objectives, the extent to which (1) applicant data indicate vulnerabilities to fraud and data quality presents challenges to identifying such vulnerabilities and (2) network and other analyses can help HUD manage risks associated with the contracting environment.GAO conducted data matching and analysis to identify potentially ineligible households for our selected grantees and subrecipients. GAO also conducted network analysis, among other analyses, to help HUD better understand and monitor its decentralized grant environment.
- Community Redevelopment: Significant Improvements in Policies and Procedures Are Needed at NeighborWorks America What GAO FoundThe mission of NeighborWorks America, a congressionally chartered nonprofit, is to revitalize neighborhoods. The organization has made progress in establishing policies, procedures, and internal controls relating to procurement, whistleblower complaints, and internal audits. But GAO found weaknesses remain.Procurement.  GAO reviewed a sample of contract files and purchase card transactions and found staff did not consistently follow procurement policies, including for documentation and supervisory approval. NeighborWorks has begun to implement a new procurement system, but the extent to which the new system will address these issues is unclear. NeighborWorks does not provide formal training on its procurement process and made some changes to its procedures without clearly communicating those changes to staff. Providing formal training to staff and clearly communicating changes in policy would help address weaknesses in the procurement process.NeighborWorks America's Documentation of Selected Required Elements of Sample Contract Files, by Contract Size, Fiscal Years 2019–2021Note: For more details, see figure 2 in GAO-23-105944.Whistleblowers.  NeighborWorks has a new whistleblower policy, but it does not include procedures for investigating complaints or criteria for who will conduct investigations. Developing and implementing such procedures and criteria would help ensure that potential violations of law or policy or misuse of taxpayer dollars are appropriately investigated.Internal audits.  NeighborWorks' internal audit function met most standards of The Institute for Internal Auditors—a recognized leader on internal auditing. However, it has not fully met standards on quality assurance and improvement. For example, Internal Audit has not had an external assessment—required every 5 years—since 2012. By implementing a quality assurance and improvement program, Internal Audit could assess the efficiency and effectiveness of its activities and identify opportunities for improvement.Why GAO Did This StudyNeighborWorks received an annual appropriation of $163 million in fiscal year 2021, which accounted for most of its funding, and has around 350 employees. However, past audits have raised questions about its procurement process.The Joint Explanatory Statement for the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 includes a provision for GAO to review NeighborWorks' compliance with regulatory requirements and internal policies in several areas. This report addresses the extent to which NeighborWorks established effective policies, procedures, and internal controls for procurement, whistleblowers, and audits, among others. GAO analyzed (1) NeighborWorks' policies and procedures in these areas, (2) a nongeneralizable sample of contract files and purchase card transactions from 2019–2021, and (3) whistleblower complaints from 2016–2022. GAO also interviewed current and former staff and conducted five focus groups with current staff.
- Priority Open Recommendations: U.S. Agency for International Development What GAO FoundIn May 2022, GAO identified two priority recommendations for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Since then, the two recommendations remain open.These recommendations involve establishing performance goals and targets to help improve USAID's ability to assess progress of Feed the Future, a global food security initiative.USAID's continued attention to these issues could lead to significant improvements in government operations.Why GAO Did This StudyPriority open recommendations are the GAO recommendations that warrant priority attention from heads of key departments or agencies because their implementation could save large amounts of money; improve congressional and/or executive branch decision-making on major issues; eliminate mismanagement, fraud, and abuse; or ensure that programs comply with laws and funds are legally spent, among other benefits. Since 2015 GAO has sent letters to selected agencies to highlight the importance of implementing such recommendations.For more information, contact Jason Bair at (202) 512-6881 or bairj@gao.gov.
- American Rescue Plan Act: Implementation of Economic Development, Environment, and Wildlife Provisions What GAO FoundIn the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA), Congress sought to help address public health and economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic by providing $3 billion to the Economic Development Administration (EDA), $100 million to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and $105 million to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). EDA allocated its appropriation largely toward grants intended to create jobs. EPA funded activities addressing public health harms, and FWS expanded agency services for such things as wildlife disease research and trafficking enforcement. As of the first quarter of fiscal year 2023, EDA had obligated nearly 100 percent, EPA 67 percent, and FWS 49 percent of their appropriations.Status of American Rescue Plan Act Appropriations, by Selected Agency, as of End of First Quarter Fiscal Year 2023The agencies are largely using their existing procedures to distribute ARPA appropriations to external organizations, with some modifications. For example, for one initiative, EDA established a new prescreening process intended to limit time spent assessing less competitive applications. This change was made to streamline the review process and accommodate the larger volume of applications. EPA conducted legal reviews of ARPA applications earlier than usual in its review process to expedite eligibility determinations. This allowed EPA to identify when certain activities of a proposed project were not eligible for ARPA funding. FWS created a reimbursement program for zoos and aquariums and established procedures to ensure recipients did not receive payment for the same activity under more than one COVID-19 relief program.To mitigate risks, such as fraud or poor performance, the agencies applied their standard assessment procedures for assessing ARPA applicants. For example, they used government-wide databases to obtain information about applicants' eligibility and past performance using federal funds. For applicants without prior federal funding, the agencies obtained information on applicants' financial management, organizational capacity, and other factors.Once funds are awarded, all three agencies plan to monitor ARPA awards using their existing procedures. These monitoring activities are based on relevant regulations and require such activities as periodic financial and performance reporting. Awards exceeding $750,000 are subject to financial and compliance audits. In addition, the inspectors general that oversee EDA and EPA plan to oversee awards that used ARPA funds.Why GAO Did This StudyUnder ARPA, Congress provided a total of $3.205 billion to EDA, EPA, and FWS. These funds were to be used by EDA to help communities and regions respond to economic injury, by EPA to address health outcome disparities in underserved communities, and by FWS to prevent zoonotic diseases and to care for animals in zoos and aquariums. These funds were to be used by the end of fiscal year 2022 for EDA and are available until expended for EPA and FWS.GAO was asked to review these agencies' implementation of ARPA provisions and expenditure of ARPA funds. This report examines how the agencies allocated ARPA appropriations, their procedures for making grant and reimbursement awards, and their plans to monitor these awards.GAO reviewed agencies' budget data for fiscal years 2021 and 2022 and the first quarter of fiscal year 2023. GAO also reviewed agency spending plans, funding announcements, and agency plans to monitor and audit grant recipients. GAO selected a nongeneralizable sample of 13 grants in total (selected to reflect various funding amounts and project characteristics) and reviewed their files to determine how agencies documented their evaluation of applicants. GAO also interviewed agency officials and compared each agency's grant-making and monitoring procedures against federal requirements.For more information, contact William B Shear at (202) 512-8678 or ShearW@gao.go&nbsp;or J. Alfredo Gómez at (202) 512-3841 or GomezJ@gao.gov.
- Disaster Assistance: Action Needed to Improve Resilience, Response, and Recovery The Big PictureThe federal government provides billions of dollars to help communities damaged by disasters—such as hurricanes, floods, wildfires, and earthquakes—rebuild infrastructure and improve their resilience to future damages. Federal assistance also helps individuals and households impacted by disasters recover.FEMA-Reported Federal Assistance for Selected Natural Disasters, as of February 2023The rising number of natural disasters and increasing reliance on federal assistance are key sources of increasing costs for the federal government and the American taxpayer.What GAO’s Work ShowsGAO has evaluated federal disaster resilience, response, and recovery efforts and has identified opportunities for improvement.Invest in Disaster Resilience.  One way to reduce federal fiscal exposure is to invest in disaster resilience, thereby reducing the need for more costly future assistance. In 2019, GAO developed the  Disaster Resilience Framework&nbsp;to help federal entities identify opportunities to promote disaster resilience.The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has grant programs that fund state and local projects to increase disaster resilience, such as elevating homes to prevent flood damage. However, challenges with these programs, including  complex and lengthy application processes, discourage investment in projects to enhance disaster resilience.✓ We recommended that FEMA develop a plan to streamline its grant application processes.Improve Processes for Assisting Survivors.  After a major disaster, survivors can apply to FEMA's Individuals and Households Program (IHP) for temporary housing or home repair funds. GAO found that  survivors face numerous challenges obtaining aid. For instance, FEMA does not always fully explain to survivors that, in order to receive certain types of IHP assistance, they must first apply for and be denied a Small Business Administration (SBA) disaster loan. Survivors who do not understand such requirements may not receive all the assistance for which they are eligible.✓ We recommended that FEMA improve communication about this requirement.GAO has also identified issues with FEMA's process for estimating damage to homes. In 2020, FEMA changed its approach for estimating such damages. However,  FEMA did not assess how such changes affected IHP award amounts. GAO found awards were 35 percent lower on average with the new approach. As a result, applicants may not receive an award amount that accurately reflects the damage for which they are eligible.✓ We recommended that FEMA assess its new approach for estimating damage and adjust the approach as needed.California Wildfire Approaching a ResidenceImprove Federal Approach to Disaster Recovery.  Funding provided by the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery can be used for housing activities, such as home repairs. We found that this funding has been  slow to reach affected communities. We reported in December 2022, that the seven states and territories that received the vast majority of grants to help affected communities recover from 2017 and 2018 disasters had disbursed only 28 percent of the funds allocated for housing activities. HUD does not require grantees to collect and analyze data needed to monitor program timeliness.✓ We recommended that HUD require grantees to collect and analyze data to monitor grant timeliness.Hurricane Ian Damage to Home in Pine Island, FloridaFEMA, HUD, and SBA are just three of over 30 federal entities involved in disaster recovery. Having so many entities involved has created challenges, such as confusing and lengthy processes for disaster survivors and communities to apply for assistance. Such challenges can disproportionately affect populations that are least prepared to navigate complex federal programs.We identified  11 options that could improve the federal approach to disaster recovery.✓ We recommended that Congress consider establishing an independent commission to recommend reforms to the federal approach to disaster recovery.More from GAO's PortfolioDisaster Assistance: GAO-23-104750, GAO-20-604, GAO-20-503Disaster Recovery: GAO-23-105295, GAO-23- 104956, GAO-22-104452, GAO-19-232Disaster Resilience: GAO-22-106046, GAO-21-140, GAO-20-100SPHighway Emergency Relief: GAO-20-32Puerto Rico Recovery: GAO-21-264 2017Hurricanes: GAO-22-106211For more information, contact&nbsp;Chris Currie at (404) 679-1875 or&nbsp;curriec@gao.gov.
- Community Development Financial Institutions: Analysis of Annual and Emergency Assistance and Treasury Efforts to Address Program Risks What GAO FoundCommunity development financial institutions (CDFI) and minority depository institutions (MDI) provide financial services to underserved communities. The Department of the Treasury assists eligible institutions through annual CDFI Program awards. Treasury received additional funds in 2021 for three COVID-19-related assistance programs—Rapid Response Program, Emergency Capital Investment Program, and Equitable Recovery Program (see table). GAO found that awards for the first two of these programs were larger than typical CDFI Program awards, which had a median of $400,000 in fiscal year 2021.Status of Awards from Treasury's Emergency Assistance Programs for Community Development Financial Institutions and Minority Depository Institutions			Program 									Amount appropriated 									Status 									Primary recipients (percentage of all recipients) 									Median award 								Rapid Response Program									$1.25 billion									Fully disbursed									Loan funds (54%); credit unions (28%)									$1.83 million								Emergency Capital Investment Program									$9.00 billion									$8.28 billion disbursed as of Sept. 21, 2022									Banks, savings associations, and holding companies (57%); credit unions (43%)									$29.94 million								Equitable Recovery Program									$1.75 billion									Not yet awarded									Not applicable									Not applicable					Source: GAO and Department of the Treasury. | GAO-23-105952GAO's analysis of CDFI Program and Rapid Response Program data found that recipients have used awards mainly to provide financial products and to increase reserves. Financial products provided by CDFI Program recipients in fiscal years 2016–2020 mainly funded home purchases, businesses, and microenterprises.Treasury took steps to address potential risks to program integrity created by aspects of the emergency programs. For example:Risk-based application reviews.  Treasury allowed higher-risk institutions to be eligible for the Rapid Response Program and the Equitable Recovery Program to be inclusive of institutions from more communities (e.g., those with low levels of bank deposits). To address potential risks, Treasury's process called for additional reviews of such applicants.	Ability-to-pay requirement.  The Emergency Capital Investment Program requires recipients to pay Treasury dividends or interest in exchange for a capital investment. To help ensure recipients can pay the amounts due, Treasury required institutions to have at least a 1-to-1 ratio of net income to the dividend or interest amount to be eligible for an investment.Treasury is also developing a risk-based process for reviewing Rapid Response Program and Equitable Recovery Program recipients and is finalizing policies for post-award reporting and award monitoring for the Emergency Capital Investment Program. These efforts are intended to monitor whether the funds are being used as intended.Why GAO Did This StudyAccess to credit and capital is vital to economic development but is limited in many low- and moderate-income communities underserved by traditional financial institutions. The economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic have further stressed these communities, which often rely on CDFIs and MDIs—generally smaller, community-based organizations—for financial products and services.The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, appropriated $188 million to Treasury's existing CDFI Program and supplemental programs. It also appropriated $12 billion in emergency assistance for three new Treasury programs designed to help CDFIs and MDIs respond to the impacts of COVID-19, most of which has been awarded. Two of the new programs required Treasury to award funds expeditiously.GAO was asked to assess Treasury's distribution of funds, efforts to ensure program integrity, and the use of Treasury's funding. This report examines (1) the types of institutions that received funds from the CDFI Program or the 2021 emergency programs and how much they received, (2) how recipients have used CDFI Program and Rapid Response Program funds, and (3) steps Treasury took to address risks posed by the emergency programs.To conduct this work, GAO analyzed Treasury data, reviewed Treasury policies and procedures, and interviewed Treasury officials.For more information, contact William B. Shear at (202) 512-8678 or ShearW@gao.gov.
- COVID-19 Relief Funds: Lessons Learned Could Improve Future Distribution of Federal Emergency Relief to Tribal Recipients What GAO FoundAgencies used various approaches to provide COVID-19 pandemic relief to tribal entities, tribal members, and American Indian or Alaska Native individuals (tribal recipients). Disbursement and eligibility requirements, distribution and reporting deadlines, and the number and type of steps that tribal recipients had to take to access and use funds varied across federal relief programs (see fig. for examples). For programs that distributed funds through existing mechanisms, such as self-determination contracts and self-governance compacts, tribal recipients generally did not need to take action. These contracts and compacts authorize federally recognized tribes to take over the administration of certain federal programs previously administered by agencies. For other programs, tribal recipients had to take additional steps, such as applying for and receiving approval to access and use certain COVID-19 funds.Examples of How Federal COVID-19 Relief Programs Distributed Funds for Tribal RecipientsGAO identified lessons learned from selected agencies' administration of COVID-19 relief funding that could improve future federal relief for tribal recipients. For example, using existing mechanisms, such as contracts and compacts, can enable agencies to more quickly distribute funds to recipients and mitigate administrative burden for agencies and tribes. By enabling agencies to use existing mechanisms to distribute funds, Congress would better ensure that they distribute these funds more quickly and with minimal additional administrative burden on tribal recipients and agencies. This also allows agencies to maintain accountability in the use of the funds through existing reporting mechanisms. Additionally, GAO found that increasing federal capacity and expertise for working with tribal recipients could improve federal administration of future funding for tribal recipients. In accordance with a 2021 presidential memo, each selected agency is implementing an action plan that includes building capacity and expertise to better meet the unique needs of tribes and tribal communities.Why GAO Did This StudyCOVID-19 has disproportionately harmed the public health and economies of federally recognized tribes and their members. Congress has appropriated at least $43.6 billion since March 2020 for federal programs serving tribes, their members, and tribal organizations. These programs include preexisting and new programs.The CARES Act includes a provision for GAO to conduct monitoring and oversight related to the COVID-19 pandemic. GAO was also asked to review efforts to provide COVID-19 relief to tribal governments. This report examines (1) approaches selected federal agencies used to administer programs that provided COVID-19 funds to tribal recipients and (2) lessons learned that could improve future federal relief to these recipients.GAO reviewed federal agency documents and interviewed agency officials, tribal recipients, and representatives of tribal organizations. GAO selected a nongeneralizable sample of five federal agencies that administer 12 programs. GAO selected programs involving a range of funding amounts, eligibility requirements, and methods for providing assistance.
- Disaster Recovery: Better Information Is Needed on the Progress of Block Grant Funds What GAO FoundAs of July 2022, the seven states and territories receiving the vast majority of the 2017 and 2018 Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) funds had disbursed 28 percent of the $11.9 billion they allocated for housing activities. The grantees' disbursements for housing activities funded with 2017 CDBG-DR funds ranged from approximately 4 percent to 51 percent. The two grantees with the highest disbursement rates for 2017 funds (Texas and Florida) have more recent experience administering CDBG-DR funds.Texas expects to complete construction for its three Homeowner Assistance Programs by the end of 2023 or early 2024, and to serve about 7,900 homeowners. Texas opened applications for its first and largest Homeowner Assistance Program about 1.3 years after Hurricane Harvey was declared a major disaster. Texas expects that it will take another 4.4 years from then until construction on homes is complete.GAO's analysis of available data as of August 2022 showed that the application processing and preconstruction phases of Texas's Homeowner Assistance Programs each took longer than construction (see figure). Factors that can significantly affect the length of the application process include the time households take to complete the application and provide required documentation, as well as the time Texas takes to conduct damage assessments and environmental reviews. Data limitations prevented GAO's analysis from pinpointing the duration of some individual process steps.Texas Homeowner Assistance Program Time Line and Process StepsNote: This time line is for Texas's largest Homeowner Assistance Program. Because the phases' durations are medians, their sum does not equal the total duration.The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) does not require Texas or other CDBG-DR grantees to collect accurate data on critical milestones. Texas's grant management system resets the date of key application processing milestones when an application has to repeat a step, which results in unreliable data for tracking those milestones. This limits Texas's ability to determine the true duration of individuals steps. Further, a HUD-funded 2019 study on the timeliness of CDBG-DR housing activities found that all but one grantee in the study faced challenges in developing a grant management system, which caused delays in program implementation. By requiring grantees to collect and analyze timeliness data, HUD could better ensure that its grantees identify problem milestones and take corrective actions.Why GAO Did This StudyCongress provided about $39 billion to HUD for CDBG-DR and mitigation grants to help communities recover from the 2017 and 2018 hurricanes and wildfires. Seven grantees—California, Florida, North Carolina, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Texas, and the U.S. Virgin Islands—received over 90 percent of the funds. They generally budgeted more than 50 percent of the CDBG-DR funds to address unmet housing needs.The Additional Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Relief Act of 2019 includes a provision for GAO to audit issues related to the 2018 presidentially declared major disasters. This report examines, among other things, (1) the status of the seven grantees' 2017 and 2018 CDBG-DR housing activities, (2) Texas's implementation of its Homeowner Assistance Programs, and (3) the extent to which HUD requires grantees to collect data to manage programs effectively.GAO analyzed data from HUD and the Texas grantee. GAO also reviewed documentation and interviewed officials from HUD and Texas. GAO focused on Texas in part because it had expended the most funds and plans to focus on other grantees in future work.
- Economic Development: Status of Recommendations on Empowerment Zones and Other Selected Community Investment Initiatives What GAO FoundGAO has previously reported that Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities used their grant funds to implement a range of community and economic development initiatives to revitalize impoverished urban and rural communities. GAO also found limitations with available program data and how the programs were monitored and administered. GAO has also reported on other tax incentives to promote economic development in low-income communities and distressed areas, including the New Markets Tax Credit and Opportunity Zones.GAO made 11 recommendations related to data available on Empowerment Zones and other federal tax incentives that encourage investment in low-income or distressed communities from 2004 to 2021. Six recommendations have been implemented by the agencies. Five recommendations remain open.For example, on the Empowerment Zone and Enterprise Community programs, GAO found a lack of adequate data to assess the programs, making it challenging to evaluate the programs' effectiveness. GAO made one recommendation in 2004 to three agencies that administered the program—HUD, USDA, and IRS. Specifically, the agencies should collaborate to identify the data needed to assess the use of the tax benefits and the various means of collecting such data, and agree on a cost-effective means to collect these data.The recommendation has not been implemented because the agencies have not sought authority to collect the data, in part because the agencies could not agree on a cost- effective method. Without more detailed data and with the extension of the designation until 2025, the agencies and others cannot tie the use of tax benefits to particular communities. This is because the information collected on tax forms, such as the location of where the tax benefit is being used or the specific Empowerment Zone designation, does not allow them to do so.On the New Markets Tax Credit, GAO found challenges related to the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund's and IRS's monitoring of the New Market Tax Credit, including the use of data. GAO made related recommendations to improve the monitoring of compliance with the tax credit, all six of which have been fully addressed.Why GAO Did This StudyCongress established the Empowerment Zone, Enterprise Communities, and Renewal Communities programs beginning in 1993 to reduce unemployment and generate economic growth in selected census tracts. Urban and rural communities designated as Empowerment Zones, Enterprise Communities, and Renewal Communities received grants, tax incentives, or both to stimulate community development and business activity. The Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the Department of Housing and Urban Development fiscal year 2022 appropriations includes a provision for GAO to review Empowerment Zones.This report addresses (1) the key findings from previous GAO reports on Empowerment Zones and (2) the status of previous GAO recommendations related to program administration and the collection of data on the Empowerment Zone program and other programs with community investment and redevelopment goals.To conduct this work, GAO reviewed its previous reports on Empowerment Zones, and other tax incentives with economic and community development goals. More specifically, GAO included reports completed from 2004 to 2010 on Empowerment Zones, Enterprise Communities, Renewal Communities and the New Markets Tax Credit. For the Opportunity Zones, GAO reviewed the recommendation status of reports completed between 2020 and 2021. GAO also reviewed its result phase system database.For more information, contact William Shear at (202) 512-8678 or shearw@gao.gov.
- Small Business Research Programs: Reporting on Award Timeliness Could Be Enhanced What GAO FoundAgencies’ timeliness rates for issuance of Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) awards remained similar from fiscal year 2020 to 2021. Agencies’ timeliness performance for award issuance has improved for both programs overall since fiscal year 2016. This is the case government-wide, although defense agencies have lagged behind civilian agencies in their performance (see figure). View the full results of GAO’s analysis here.Civilian and Department of Defense Award Timeliness, Fiscal Years 2016-2021Note: Civilian agencies exclude the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health, which have different award notification and issuance time frames.Government-wide, the programs’ participating agencies have more consistently met the required time frames for notifying awardees than the recommended time frames for issuing awards. The Department of Defense’s (DOD) timeliness relies on the performance of the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, which together issued 83 percent of all defense-related awards for fiscal year 2021. DOD issued 65 percent of its awards on time from fiscal year 2016 through fiscal year 2021 compared with 85 percent by civilian agencies.The Small Business Administration (SBA) is required to annually report agency award timeliness data to Congress along with other information about participating agencies’ implementation of the SBIR and STTR programs. However, SBA has been consistently late with its annual reports from FY 2016 to FY 2021—between 6 to 16 months late. Without a comprehensive, documented analysis of its process for developing these annual reports, it is unclear whether SBA is missing opportunities to take action to improve the timeliness of its required reports.&nbsp;Additionally, SBA is missing opportunities to provide real-time award timeliness data on its website. While SBA is not required to do so, providing current award timeliness data on its website would offer an alternative source of information to Congress and the public about agencies’ performance in meeting award time frames and could spur further improvements.Why GAO Did This StudyAgencies participating in the SBIR and STTR programs awarded nearly $3 billion to small businesses in fiscal year 2021. Small businesses rely on timely issuance of these awards to plan, develop, and commercialize new technologies. In its oversight role for the two programs, SBA sets timeliness standards for award notification and issuance. SBA is mandated to report annually to Congress on overall outcomes for both programs including award timeliness.The fiscal year 2019 National Defense Authorization Act included a provision for GAO to review the timeliness of award notification and issuance. This report, GAO’s fourth, examines, among other objectives, agencies’ timeliness in award notification and issuance and trends from fiscal year 2016 through 2021, and the extent to which SBA reports on agencies’ award timeliness.GAO analyzed SBIR and STTR award data, administered a questionnaire to all 29 participating agencies, and reviewed participating agency and SBA documentation. GAO also interviewed SBA officials and conducted follow-up interviews with officials at other agencies as needed to clarify information they provided.
- COVID Relief: SBA Could Improve Communications and Fraud Risk Monitoring for Its Arts and Entertainment Venues Grant Program What GAO FoundThe Shuttered Venue Operators Grant program was created to financially assist businesses in the performing arts and entertainment industries hard hit by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Small Business Administration (SBA) approved 73 percent of the 17,328 applications it received for the program as of December 31, 2021. Smaller businesses (those with 50 or fewer employees) represented over 90 percent of award recipients. Of the six types of eligible businesses, movie theaters had the highest median award amount (see figure).Shuttered Venue Operators Grant Recipients and Median Awards, by Eligible Business Type, as of December 31, 2021 Most applicants viewed SBA's Shuttered Venue program communications negatively, according to a GAO survey. The agency changed program guidance frequently and the survey estimates that 85 percent of applicants found these changes to be challenging. Customer service was hard to access and did not provide applicant-specific assistance, most survey respondents reported. SBA's existing plans for program communication during emergencies focus on regional loan programs serving all businesses, so they were not well-suited for the Shuttered Venue program, which is a grant program that is national in scope but industry-specific. A more comprehensive communications strategy would better position SBA for future emergency assistance programs, particularly those that may differ from its existing programs.SBA controls for the application process (pre-award controls to verify identity and eligibility) reflected some leading practices for fraud risk management. For example, SBA designed controls to check applicant information against third-party databases. SBA periodically assessed risks to the program, including fraud risks. The most recent assessment described eight fraud risks, including identity theft. In July 2022, SBA provided GAO with draft procedures for monitoring suspected fraud among Shuttered Venue grant recipients. However, the draft procedures do not specifically discuss all risks identified in SBA's fraud-risk assessments. GAO's fraud risk framework underscores the importance of focusing monitoring resources on identified risks. By ensuring that the program's monitoring efforts are appropriately targeted, SBA would be better positioned to detect and respond to fraud.Why GAO Did This StudyBetween April 2021 and July 2022, SBA awarded $14.6 billion in grants to help arts and entertainment businesses adversely affected by the pandemic. Grantees can use the awards to pay for operating expenses such as payroll, rent or mortgage, and utilities.The CARES Act includes a provision for GAO to monitor funds provided for the COVID-19 pandemic. Among its objectives, this report examines characteristics of grant applicants and recipients as of December 31, 2021; applicant views of SBA communications; and steps SBA took to identify ineligible and fraudulent applications and manage fraud risks and the extent to which these reflect selected leading practices.GAO reviewed documents from SBA and analyzed program data as of December 31, 2021 (the most recent grant-level data available at the time of GAO's analysis). GAO surveyed a generalizable sample of grant applicants, and interviewed staff from SBA and six business associations. GAO also tested program eligibility and fraud controls.
- Tracking the Funds: Specific Fiscal Year 2022 Provisions for Department of Commerce What GAO FoundThe Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 appropriated $247.5 million to the Department of Commerce for 107 projects at the request of Members of Congress. The act includes specific provisions that designate an amount of funds for a particular recipient to use for a specific project. These provisions are called "Congressionally Directed Spending" in the U.S. Senate and "Community Project Funding" in the House of Representatives.GAO described, among other things, information about the intended uses for these funds, the recipients to whom they were designated, and when Commerce expects recipients will have access to the funds:The intended uses of these funds are to support new and ongoing scientific research through the construction of facilities, upgrades to equipment, and efforts to restore and monitor natural habitats.The designated recipients of these funds are mostly higher education organizations and other nonprofit organizations. The remaining recipients are federal, state, and local governments, and a tribal entity. Funding ranged from $50,000 to $60 million.Commerce plans to obligate funds between September 2022 and December 2022, although when funds must be obligated varies by account.Why GAO Did This StudyThe joint explanatory statement accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 includes a provision for GAO to review agencies' implementation of Community Project Funding/Congressionally Directed Spending.For more information, contact Cardell Johnson at (202) 512-3814 or johnsoncd1@gao.gov and Candice Wright at (202) 512-6888 or wrightc@gao.gov.
- Broadband: Needs of Rural Small Businesses and Federal Programs to Support Them What GAO FoundIn a 2021 report, GAO found that some small businesses lack access to broadband, but may benefit from federal programs that fund deployment in rural areas. A nationally representative survey by Amazon and the U.S. Chamber Technology Engagement Center found approximately 20 percent of rural small businesses were not using broadband, with about 5 percent using a dial up connection. Small businesses likely benefit from the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) and the Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Utilities Service's (RUS) funding to expand broadband deployment. For example, at the time of the 2021 report, FCC had awarded $19.7 billion since 2014 through components of its high-cost programs, and estimated it had served 9.1 million business and residence locations. Both FCC and USDA have also helped increase broadband speeds in rural areas. For example, USDA's rural broadband deployment program, ReConnect, is mostly funding projects that propose to build fiber, which is generally associated with the fastest speeds available.Much of the literature GAO reviewed suggests that FCC's current broadband minimum benchmark speeds—25 megabits per second (Mbps) for downloading and 3 Mbps for uploading—are likely too slow to meet many small business speed needs. For example, a 2019 USDA report stated that as technology advances and volumes of data needed to manage agriculture production grow, speeds above of 25/3 Mbps will likely be needed. In July 2022, the FCC Chairwoman announced a proposal to increase the benchmark to 100 Mbps for download and 20 Mbps for upload.Small Business Administration (SBA) officials told GAO that their agency supports broadband access for small businesses, especially for those in rural areas, through partnerships with organizations and federal agencies. For example, SBA partners with national organizations that offer technical assistance and training to small businesses on a variety of topics, including how to use broadband to support their business.Why GAO Did This StudySome rural areas continue to lack access to broadband, which can hamper operations for small businesses in those areas. FCC encourages the deployment of broadband and provides funding, particularly for rural areas, for this purpose. USDA also provides broadband funding in underserved rural communities. SBA supports small business growth and development, including offering technical assistance to small business owners, which can improve adoption and use of broadband.This correspondence responds to a provision in the Explanatory Statement accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 to brief congressional committees on the broadband challenges facing rural small businesses. This correspondence is based primarily on GAO's prior report on this topic issued in July 2021 (GAO-21-494), and discusses 1) small business access to broadband and how FCC and RUS broadband funding programs may serve small businesses, 2) the extent to which FCC's broadband speed benchmark meets the needs of small businesses, and 3) support provided by SBA related to rural small business access or use of broadband. For that report, GAO reviewed pertinent literature, documentation on federal broadband funding and relevant FCC statutory requirements to promote broadband deployment. GAO also conducted interviews with small businesses, broadband providers, industry associations, researchers, and state and federal officials, and obtained updates from the agencies for this correspondence.
- 2017 Hurricanes: Update on FEMA's Disaster Recovery Efforts in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands What GAO FoundIn response to recommendations GAO made in prior reports, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has taken steps to improve its management of disaster recovery programs in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI). For example, GAO found in February 2020 that Puerto Rico government officials did not always understand what FEMA guidance was in effect for the Public Assistance grant program. Thus, GAO recommended that FEMA develop a repository of current applicable Public Assistance policies and guidance for Puerto Rico and make it available to all recovery partners. In response, FEMA made these documents accessible to Puerto Rico recovery partners through an internal application management system.As of August 2022, GAO found that FEMA has obligated about $32.2 billion in funding for Public Assistance projects in response to hurricanes Irma and Maria. In turn, the governments of Puerto Rico and the USVI have expended approximately $7.7 billion of the Public Assistance obligations as of the same period. About $1 billion of these Public Assistance expenditures were for permanent work projects that support long-term rebuilding, such as rebuilding schools, the power grid, water systems, and other damaged infrastructure. GAO also visited Puerto Rico in March 2022 and July 2022 as part of its ongoing work, in part to observe disaster-damaged areas and assess the progress of projects it had visited for prior work (see figure).Status of Selected Recovery Projects in Puerto RicoIn GAO's ongoing work, officials interviewed thus far have described potential challenges to the continuing disaster recovery efforts in Puerto Rico, including the increasing cost of projects due to inflation and difficulties procuring resources to construct projects, among others. Preliminary observations from GAO's ongoing work also indicate that FEMA and the government of Puerto Rico are regularly communicating through formal and informal means to, among other things, discuss the status of projects and related grant funding or construction issues. Further, FEMA has taken actions, such as providing trainings, to help address some of these issues.GAO will continue to evaluate disaster recovery efforts in Puerto Rico and plans to report its findings in 2023.Why GAO Did This StudyIn September 2017, hurricanes Irma and Maria struck Puerto Rico and the USVI, causing billions of dollars in damage. FEMA is the lead federal agency responsible for assisting Puerto Rico and the USVI to recover from these natural disasters. Among other responsibilities, FEMA is responsible for administering grant programs in partnership with the governments of Puerto Rico and the USVI, to rebuild damaged infrastructure and restore services.This statement describes, among other things, (1) actions FEMA has taken to address GAO recommendations to improve disaster recovery efforts in Puerto Rico and the USVI, (2) the status of FEMA's Public Assistance funding in Puerto Rico and the USVI as of August 2022, and (3) potential challenges related to ongoing disaster recovery efforts in Puerto Rico and actions FEMA is taking to address them.This statement is based on prior GAO reports issued between November 2019 and May 2021; it also includes preliminary observations from an ongoing GAO review of FEMA operations in Puerto Rico. For ongoing work, GAO analyzed documents and data on obligations and expenditures; interviewed agency officials; and visited disaster-damaged areas in Puerto Rico, where GAO also interviewed FEMA and local officials.GAO will continue to monitor FEMA's progress toward implementing GAO's prior recommendations.For more information, contact Chris Currie at (404) 679-1875 or curriec@gao.gov.
- Tribal Economic Development: Action is Needed to Better Understand the Extent of Federal Support What GAO FoundFederal efforts to support economic development among tribal entities (such as tribal governments and businesses) show evidence of fragmentation and some overlap. Programs are fragmented across seven agencies: the U.S. Departments of Agriculture (USDA), Commerce, Energy, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, and the Interior, and the Small Business Administration (SBA). Tribal organizations GAO spoke with said many tribes have limited capacity to identify and access programs and may not be aware of the federal assistance available. The Secretary of Commerce is required by law to assist tribes and other eligible entities with identifying and taking advantage of business development opportunities; however, the department does not maintain information on federal economic development programs across agencies available to tribal entities. Without information on available programs, tribal entities may not access programs that could provide valuable benefits to tribal communities. GAO did not find evidence of duplication.Fragmentation among Economic Development Programs Available to Tribal Entities, Fiscal Year 2021GAO identified eight programs that are specifically for tribal entities and provided over $930 million in grants and loan guarantees in fiscal years 2017–2021. An additional 14 programs have a wider range of eligible recipients, such as small businesses or local governments, as well as tribal entities. The total amount of assistance provided by these 14 programs to tribal entities is unknown because two agencies—SBA's Office of Capital Access and USDA's Farm Service Agency—do not analyze data to estimate obligations provided to tribal entities. Estimating and reporting the amount of program obligations provided to tribal communities would allow federal agencies and decision makers, such as Congress, to better understand the reach of these programs and identify areas where tribal entities may need additional support.GAO identified several tax incentives that can contribute to economic development in tribal communities. However, data to evaluate whether tribal entities use these incentives are limited. In the absence of more specific data, location data can be used to estimate the extent to which some tax incentives have reached tribal communities. For example, using location data for the New Markets Tax Credit, GAO estimated that from 2004 through 2019, tribal communities (defined as individuals and businesses on or near reservations, trust land, or Oklahoma Tribal and Alaska Native Village Statistical Areas) received between $734 million and $891 million of investment (1.3 to 1.6 percent of the total dollars invested via the credit).Why GAO Did This StudyHistorically, tribal communities have experienced higher rates of unemployment and poverty than nontribal communities. Tribal economic development may help address these challenges and also provides benefits to tribes and surrounding areas. The federal government administers programs to facilitate this development.The Indian Community Economic Enhancement Act of 2020 includes a provision that GAO conduct a study on Indian economic development. This report examines economic development programs available to tribal entities and the extent of fragmentation, overlap, and duplication among these programs; analyzes available data on obligations to tribal entities for these programs; and describes selected tax incentives available to tribes and related data, among other objectives. GAO reviewed program information, analyzed obligations data, and interviewed tribal entities, agency officials, and Native Community Development Financial Institutions.
- Broadband: National Strategy Needed to Guide Federal Efforts to Reduce Digital Divide What GAO FoundFederal broadband efforts are fragmented and overlapping, with more than 100 programs administered by 15 agencies. Many programs have broadband as their main purpose, and several overlap because they can be used for the purpose of broadband deployment, as shown in the figure. Programs can also help with planning infrastructure, making service affordable, providing devices, and building digital skills. Despite numerous programs and federal investment $44 billion from 2015 through 2020, millions of Americans still lack broadband, and communities with limited resources may be most affected by fragmentation.The Mosaic of 25 Federal Programs with Broadband as a Main Purpose, as of November 2021, by Purpose CategoryAgency officials said programmatic differences, including some set by statute, limit their ability to align programs. For example, programs may have differing definitions of eligible areas, populations, and broadband speeds. In 2018, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) led an interagency group that reviewed differing program definitions. However, NTIA did not identify which statutory provisions limit alignment nor recommend any changes. NTIA is responsible for coordinating telecommunications matters across the executive branch and at the end of 2020 gained additional responsibilities for improving broadband coordination. Improved alignment is needed to help address fragmentation and overlap. Without legislative proposals for Congress to consider, agencies may continue to face limitations in aligning programs to close the digital divide.The U.S. broadband efforts are not guided by a national strategy with clear roles, goals, objectives, and performance measures. In 2021, the Executive Office of the President, through the National Economic Council and in collaboration with other White House offices, took the lead for coordinating broadband programs. The Executive Office of the President has not decided if a national strategy is needed, but it is well positioned to develop and implement one. A strategy to help better align programs could also include legislative proposals for Congress. Without such a strategy, federal broadband efforts will not be fully coordinated, and thereby continue to risk overlap and duplication of effort.Why GAO Did This StudyBroadband is critical for daily life. It provides a digital lifeline to education, work, and healthcare. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the urgent need for broadband access for all Americans. The President set a goal for universal broadband access by 2030.GAO was asked to review federal broadband efforts. This report examines: (1) fragmentation and overlap among federal broadband programs and potential limitations to improved alignment and (2) the extent to which interagency coordination efforts are guided by a strategy, among other objectives.GAO inventoried and analyzed broadband programs and interviewed 50 stakeholders, including broadband providers and local officials. GAO compared interagency coordination efforts to characteristics of a national strategy and reviewed relevant statutes, regulations, and agency documents. GAO also interviewed federal officials from agencies with broadband programs about their programs and coordination efforts.
- Paycheck Protection Program: Program Changes Increased Lending to Smaller and Underserved Businesses What GAO FoundThe Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) supported small businesses through forgivable loans for payroll and other eligible costs. Early lending favored larger and rural businesses, according to GAO's analysis of Small Business Administration (SBA) data. Specifically, 42 percent of early loans (approved April 3–16, 2020) went to larger businesses (10 to 499 employees), although these businesses accounted for only 4 percent of all U.S. small businesses. Larger businesses were more likely to have a preexisting lending relationship with a bank. Businesses in rural areas also received a high share of early loans despite being traditionally underserved.Other traditionally underserved businesses—in particular, businesses owned by self-employed individuals, minorities, women, and veterans—faced challenges obtaining loans, prompting Congress and SBA to make a series of changes shortly after the program launched. For example:SBA admitted about 600 new lenders, including nonbanks (generally, lending institutions that do not accept deposits).	SBA developed guidance helping self-employed individuals participate in the program.	SBA targeted funding to minority-owned businesses in part through Community Development Financial Institutions.Lending to traditionally underserved businesses increased noticeably after these changes were implemented. By the time PPP closed in June 2021, lending in traditionally underserved counties was proportional to their representation in the overall small business community (see figure). While lending to businesses with fewer than 10 employees remained disproportionately low, it increased significantly over the course of the program.Paycheck Protection Program Loans, by Type of Business or CountyWhy GAO Did This StudyThe COVID-19 pandemic resulted in significant turmoil in the U.S. economy, leading to temporary and permanent business closures and high unemployment. In response, in March 2020, Congress established PPP under the CARES Act and ultimately provided commitment authority of approximately $814 billion for the program over three phases. When initial program funding ran out in 14 days, concerns quickly surfaced that certain businesses were unable to access the program, prompting a series of changes by Congress and SBA.This testimony addresses (1) which small businesses received early PPP loans and (2) how program changes affected small business participation in PPP. It is based on GAO's September 2021 report on PPP (GAO-21-601). For that report, GAO analyzed loan-level PPP data from SBA and county-level data from the U.S. Census Bureau.For more information, contact William B. Shear at (202) 512-8678 or shearw@gao.gov.
- Climate Resilience: Opportunities to Improve Federal Planning and Implementation What GAO FoundDisaster costs are projected to increase as certain extreme weather events become more frequent and intense due to climate change, as observed and projected by the U.S. Global Change Research Program and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. GAO's Disaster Resilience Framework can serve as a guide for analyzing federal action to facilitate and promote resilience to natural disasters and the effects of climate change. The framework is organized around three guiding principles—information, integration, and incentives (see figure)—that can help Congress and federal agencies improve federal climate resilience planning and implementation.Figure 1: GAO's  Disaster Resilience Framework  PrinciplesInformation.  Congress and federal agencies can help decision makers access climate information that is authoritative and understandable. For example, in November 2015, GAO reported that the federal government needs a government-wide approach for providing decision makers with authoritative climate information. GAO recommended that the Executive Office of the President (EOP) designate a federal entity to develop and update such information and designate a federal entity to create a national climate information system. EOP neither agreed nor disagreed with the recommendations and had not implemented them as of March 2022.Integration.  Congress and federal agencies can help decision makers integrate analysis and planning to take coherent and coordinated resilience actions. For example, in March 2021, GAO reported that the Department of Energy did not have a department-wide strategy to enhance the resilience of the electricity grid to the risks of climate change. GAO recommended that the department develop and implement such a strategy. The department agreed in principle with this recommendation, but its proposed actions do not fully address it.Incentives.  Congress and federal agencies can make risk-reduction investments more viable and attractive. For example, in September 2021, GAO identified a suite of policy options the Federal Highway Administration could take to incentivize states and localities to enhance the climate resilience of federally funded roads. GAO suggested that Congress direct the agency to implement one or more of these options, and to give it statutory authority to do so.Why GAO Did This StudyThe increasing number of natural disasters in the U.S. and reliance on federal assistance to address them are sources of federal climate-related fiscal exposure.  Limiting the Federal Government's Fiscal Exposure by Better Managing Climate Change Risks  has been on GAO's High-Risk List since 2013, in part because of the increasing costs of federal disaster response and recovery efforts. For example, from fiscal years 2015 through 2021, select appropriations for disaster assistance totaled $315 billion.GAO has previously found that enhancing climate resilience could help limit future costs. Enhancing climate resilience means taking actions to reduce potential future losses by planning and preparing for potential climate hazards. Agencies have taken some actions, including in the areas of climate resilience planning.This testimony focuses on how Congress and federal agencies can improve climate resilience planning and implementation by applying principles of GAO's  Disaster Resilience Framework. This testimony is based on findings and methodologies of GAO reports on climate resilience from May 2011 through September 2021.
- Compacts of Free Association: Implications of Planned Ending of Some U.S. Economic Assistance What GAO FoundThe U.S. contributes to trust funds provided pursuant to Compacts of Free Association with the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI), and Republic of Palau. These funds are meant to provide long-term budgetary support after certain grant assistance ends after fiscal year (FY) 2023 for FSM and RMI and after FY 2024 for Palau. GAO previously found the FSM and RMI trust funds may not provide sustainable income and recommended that the Department of the Interior work to develop a trust fund distribution policy to address the funds' sustainability. For this report, GAO was asked to project the effects of the ending of certain assistance under the compacts as well as the sustainability of compact trust fund disbursements to replace grants and financially support the three nations. GAO found the following:FSM.  FSM relied on compact sector grants and a supplemental education grant (SEG) ending in FY 2023 for 28 percent of expenditures in FY 2019. GAO projects that disbursements from FSM's compact trust fund will not cover all of the value of these grants, resulting in annual fiscal gaps. Because of rules governing the compact trust fund, FSM faces a 36 percent likelihood of zero disbursements from its compact trust fund in 1 or more years before FY 2034, even though the fund may have a substantial balance.RMI.  RMI relied on compact sector grants and a SEG ending in FY 2023 for 21 percent of expenditures in FY 2019. GAO projects that disbursements from RMI's compact trust fund will not cover all of the value of these grants, leading to annual fiscal gaps. Because of rules governing the compact trust fund, RMI faces a 12 percent likelihood of zero disbursements from its compact trust fund in 1 or more years before FY 2034, even with a projected increasing fund balance.Palau.  Palau relied on compact grants as well as disbursements from its compact trust fund for 13 percent of expenditures in FY 2019. GAO projects minimal disbursement risks to Palau's compact trust fund before FY 2044. As of September 2021, the Department of State, working with Interior, had not established timeframes to constitute the Palau Advisory Group on Economic Reform, which the Palau Compact Review Agreement stipulates is to recommend reforms to enhance long-term economic sustainability.FSM's, RMI's, and Palau's Total Government Expenditures, by Revenue Source, Fiscal Year 2019Why GAO Did This StudyThe U.S. has provided economic assistance pursuant to its compacts with FSM and RMI since 1986 and with Palau since 1994. This assistance—grants overseen by the Department of the Interior as well as programs and services provided by various U.S. agencies—is intended to promote FSM's, RMI's, and Palau's economic advancement and self-sufficiency. The Department of State is responsible for bilateral relations.The U.S. has also provided contributions to each country's compact trust fund. FSM and RMI compact trust fund earnings are intended to provide revenue after compact grant assistance ends. Palau is receiving disbursements from its compact trust fund, which is designed to provide revenue until 2045.GAO was asked to provide an update on U.S. assistance to FSM, RMI, and Palau. This report examines, among other things, (1) the use and role of the U.S. funds and programs in each country's budgets and (2) the projected fiscal effects of the ending of compact grants and certain programs and services. This report also examines the implementation of the Compact Review Agreement for Palau. GAO reviewed compact agreements, U.S. law, and country documents; modeled future compact trust fund performance; and interviewed FSM, RMI, Palau, and U.S. government officials.
- Innovative Technologies in Manufacturing: Commerce Has No Plans to Implement the Program What GAO FoundThe Department of Commerce's (Commerce) Economic Development Administration (EDA) has not taken steps or made plans to implement the Innovative Technologies in Manufacturing (ITM) federal loan guarantee program since January 2020, when GAO last reported on the program. EDA therefore has not issued any loan guarantees under the program. EDA officials provided several reasons for not implementing the program:Perceived lack of demand. EDA officials told GAO that they expected limited demand by small and medium-sized manufacturers for loans under the ITM program. However, they said that it would be helpful to gauge potential demand for loans, because the United States entered an economic recession around 2020 and the recent Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to changing conditions in the manufacturing sector and the global supply chain.	Alternative loan programs. EDA officials said that it would be difficult to execute the ITM program without duplicating alternative loan programs available to help businesses, including those in the innovative manufacturing sector, such as the Small Business Administration's (SBA) 7(a) loan program.	Lender participation uncertainty. EDA officials expressed uncertainty over the level of interest and participation that potential lenders would have in the ITM program if EDA were to implement it—for example, because potential lenders are familiar with and might be more likely to continue their participation in SBA loan programs.Why GAO Did This StudyManufacturing plays a key role in the U.S. economy as a source of economic growth, high-paying jobs, and technological innovation. Small and medium-sized manufacturers represent a majority of manufacturers in the country but may lag behind large firms in Manufacturing plays a key role in the U.S. economy as a source of economic growth, high-paying jobs, and technological innovation. Small and medium-sized manufacturers represent a majority of manufacturers in the country but may lag behind large firms in innovation and adoption of new technologies. To invest in innovative manufactured goods and processes, improve U.S. competitiveness, and help address the capital needs of U.S. manufacturers, the America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science (COMPETES) Reauthorization Act of 2010 directed the Secretary of Commerce to establish the ITM program. The ITM program was to provide loan guarantees to small and medium-sized manufacturers for the use or production of innovative technologies. Commerce's EDA is responsible for implementing the program.The America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 also included a provision for GAO to conduct a biennial review of the Secretary of Commerce's execution of the program. GAO's January 2020 report found that EDA had not taken additional steps to implement the program after ceasing its implementation in October 2017 because of uncertainties about the demand for the program, among other reasons. This report examines any steps EDA has taken to implement the ITM program since GAO's January 2020 report. GAO analyzed applicable laws and program documents, interviewed EDA and SBA officials, and collected information from other stakeholders.For more information, contact Candice N. Wright at (202) 512-6888 or wrightc@gao.gov.
- Triángulo Norte de Centroamérica: La suspensión y reprogramación de fondos de los Estados Unidos en 2019 afectó adversamente los proyectos de asistencia This is the Spanish language highlights associated with GAO-21-104366.Conclusiones de la GAOA partir de marzo de 2019, la administración del entonces presidente Trump suspendió la mayor parte de los nuevos fondos de asistencia exterior de la Agencia de los Estados Unidos para el Desarrollo Internacional (USAID, por sus siglas en inglés) y del Departamento de Estado (State, por su nombre en inglés) a El Salvador, Guatemala y Honduras (el “Triángulo Norte” de Centroamérica)—por hasta 14 meses y reprogramó aproximadamente US$396 millones (85 por ciento) de los fondos del año fiscal 2018 hacia otros países. En junio de 2020, la administración puso fin a la suspensión de los fondos de asistencia. Al concluir la suspensión, la USAID ajustó su cartera de asistencia para implementar proyectos centrados en disuadir la migración y diseñó nuevos indicadores para evaluar la relación entre sus proyectos de asistencia y la migración de la región. Funcionarios de State y de la USAID indicaron que su enfoque general––promover la prosperidad, la buena gobernanza y la seguridad––seguía siendo el mismo tras la suspensión.Aunque algunos proyectos que habían recibido fondos anteriormente siguieron su curso previsto, la suspensión y reprogramación de los fondos de asistencia en 2019 afectó adversamente a 92 de los 114 proyectos de la USAID y a 65 de los 168 proyectos de State. Según informaron esas agencias, las consecuencias adversas que habitualmente se registraron en la ejecución de los proyectos fueron demoras en los plazos previstos y la disminución de la frecuencia, la calidad o los tipos de servicios prestados a los beneficiarios. (Ver la figura.)Proyectos de la USAID y de State/INL en el Triángulo Norte con una o más consecuencias adversas debido a la suspensión y reprogramación de los fondos de asistencia en 2019La USAID y State comunicaron no haber logrado algunos de sus objetivos de rendimiento debido a la suspensión y reprogramación de los fondos de la asistencia en 2019. Por ejemplo, la USAID informó que no alcanzó a 19 por ciento (35 de 182) de sus objetivos en el año fiscal 2019, mientras que State informó que no alcanzó el 30 por ciento (tres de 10).Propósito de este estudioLos Estados Unidos han proporcio-nado asistencia al Triángulo Norte de Centroamérica durante muchos años. Esta asistencia tiene como objetivo promover la prosperidad, la buena gobernanza y la seguridad en la región; abordar las causas de la migra-ción; y combatir el crimen transnacio-nal. En marzo de 2019, la administra-ción suspendió los fondos de la asistencia exterior a los países del Triángulo Norte hasta que los gobier-nos de la región acordaran tomar medidas para reducir el número de migrantes que llegaban a la frontera de los Estados Unidos.Se le solicitó a la GAO que examinara las consecuencias de la suspensión y reprogramación de los fondos a la asistencia al Triángulo Norte en 2019. Este informe (1) identifica los fondos asignados por el Congreso al Triángulo Norte que fueron suspendidos y reprogramados hacia otros países, y cómo cambió el enfoque de la asistencia de los Estados Unidos a la región después de marzo de 2019; (2) examina los efectos de la suspensión y reprogramación de los fondos de asistencia en la ejecución de los pro-yectos; y (3) examina en qué medida la suspensión y reprogramación de los fondos de asistencia afectó la capacidad de las agencias estadou-nidenses para cumplir sus objetivos de rendimiento de la asistencia exterior para la región.La GAO analizó los datos relativos a los fondos de las agencias y los informes de rendimiento y monitoreo; encuestó a los administradores de los proyectos de las agencias; y entrevistó a los funcionarios así como los socios implementadores seleccionados en los Estados Unidos y en los países del Triángulo Norte.Para más información, contactar a Chelsa Kenney al (202) 512-2964 o kenneyc@gao.gov.
- Disaster Recovery: Better Data Are Needed to Ensure Equitable Delivery of HUD Block Grant Funds to Vulnerable Populations What GAO FoundRecent  Federal Register  notices for the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) funds direct grantees to demonstrate how their programs will promote housing for vulnerable populations. Grantees generally have been required to spend 70 percent of their funds on low- and moderate-income people. Draft action plans that grantees submit to HUD are to describe how grant funds will be used and the populations to be served, including vulnerable populations such as racial minorities, the elderly, or persons with disabilities. HUD provides tools, such as strategies for reaching people with limited English proficiency, to help grantees serve these populations.When reviewing grantees' draft plans, HUD officials told GAO they typically require revisions to clarify the populations defined as vulnerable, how funds will help them, and how grantees will reach out to traditionally underserved populations. HUD officials also noted that vulnerable populations can be difficult to define because they may vary locally and regionally based on factors such as geography, housing stock, and policy. They described plans to define vulnerable populations in upcoming  Federal Register  notices.Grantees we reviewed seek to assist vulnerable populations, but HUD does not collect and analyze key demographic data needed to fully assess the extent of CDBG-DR assistance to these populations.HUD requires grantees to collect selected data (race and ethnicity and the gender of single-headed households) on activities that directly benefit households or individuals (such as housing).	However, HUD requires grantees to report these data only for those actually served and not for all applicants.	The six grantees GAO reviewed gather additional demographic information on both applicants and those served, including age, disability status, and primary language.A 2021 Executive Order cited the need for better data and transparency on assistance to vulnerable populations, noting that a lack of data impedes efforts to measure and advance equity. By collecting, analyzing, and publicly reporting these additional demographic data, HUD and grantees could better assess whether they effectively reach the populations CDBG-DR activities are intended to serve.Vulnerable populations may experience several challenges accessing CDBG-DR assistance, according to grantees and organizations GAO interviewed and studies GAO reviewed. These include language barriers (individuals with limited English proficiency may need translation services), limited access to transportation (to get to assistance centers), and program requirements (individuals may not be able to produce or complete the documentation required). Some grantees said they addressed these challenges by acquiring translation services and developing outreach plans for vulnerable populations.Why GAO Did This StudyLarge-scale disasters, such as the 2017 hurricanes, have resulted in catastrophic damage, and vulnerable populations can face particular challenges in recovering from a disaster. Since 1993, Congress has provided over $90 billion in supplemental appropriations through CDBG-DR to help affected areas recover.This testimony discusses (1) HUD's approach to assisting vulnerable populations, (2) grantees' actions to assist vulnerable populations, and (3) challenges grantees and vulnerable populations face in implementing and using CDBG-DR. It is based on a report GAO issued in November 2021 (GAO-22-104452). For that report, GAO reviewed documentation from HUD and six grantees (the four largest 2017 CDBG-DR grantees—Florida, Puerto Rico, Texas, and the U.S. Virgin Islands—and Louisiana and New Jersey, which are further along in implementation). GAO also interviewed HUD officials, grantees, and organizations representing vulnerable populations.
- Disaster Recovery: School Districts in Socially Vulnerable Communities Faced Heightened Challenges after Recent Natural Disasters What GAO FoundMost school districts that received key federal disaster recovery grants following 2017-2019 presidentially-declared major disasters had elevated proportions of students from certain socially vulnerable groups, according to GAO's analysis of federal data. Research shows that socially vulnerable groups—including children who are low income, minorities, English learners, or living with disabilities—are particularly susceptible to the adverse effects of disasters. School districts serving high proportions of children in these groups may need more recovery assistance compared to districts with less vulnerable student populations. The Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Public Assistance program and the Department of Education's Immediate Aid to Restart School Operations (Restart) program may provide such assistance. GAO found that 57 percent of school districts receiving these key grants for 2017-2019 disasters served a higher than average proportion of students in two or more of these socially vulnerable groups, compared to 38 percent of all school districts nationwide.Officials from five selected school districts in socially vulnerable communities described heightened challenges recovering from recent natural disasters. These challenges generally fell into four areas of recovery: emotional, academic, financial, and physical (see figure). For instance, officials said the disasters caused significant emotional trauma to students due to stressors including extended housing instability, food insecurity, parental job loss, and social disconnection. To address these needs, districts worked to obtain additional mental health and support services. But officials cited frequent challenges in doing so. For instance, officials in two rural districts said their communities lacked sufficient qualified mental health providers.Key Aspects of School Recovery from a Natural Disaster or EmergencyThrough its Restart grant program, Education helped support a range of school recovery efforts after 2017-2019 natural disasters, awarding nearly $940 million in six states and three U.S. territories. School districts used funds to make physical repairs, acquire portable classrooms, and provide mental health and academic services to students, among other things. Education also worked proactively to help applicants with urgent recovery needs, such as by advancing a portion of anticipated grant funding early to help jumpstart recovery projects. Through such efforts, the Restart program played a key role in helping schools resume operations and meet students' needs following disasters.Why GAO Did This StudySince 2017, over 300 presidentially-declared major disasters have occurred across all 50 states and all U.S. territories. Many of these disasters have had devastating effects on K-12 schools, including those in socially vulnerable communities for whom disaster recovery is more challenging.The Additional Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Relief Act of 2019 included provisions for GAO to audit issues related to certain recent disasters. This report reviews (1) the extent to which school districts that received key federal disaster recovery grants served students from selected socially vulnerable groups, (2) the recovery experiences of selected K-12 school districts in socially vulnerable communities, and (3) the extent to which Education's Restart program supports school disaster recovery.GAO analyzed disaster-related data from FEMA and Education including data on Restart grants and program documentation, and reviewed relevant federal laws and agency guidance. GAO also collected information from five school districts in three states, selected for demographic diversity, elevated rates of social vulnerability in their community, and receipt of Restart grants. In addition, GAO interviewed officials from FEMA and Education.For more information, contact Jacqueline M. Nowicki at (617) 788-0580 or nowickij@gao.gov.
- Advanced Manufacturing: Innovation Institutes Report Technology Progress and Members Report Satisfaction with Their Involvement What GAO FoundThe Departments of Commerce, Defense (DOD), and Energy (DOE) have established a network of innovation institutes—known as Manufacturing USA institutes—to promote research, development, and commercialization of advanced manufacturing technologies. Manufacturing USA institutes reported making progress toward achieving their technology goals. Progress on institute projects is often tracked using technology readiness levels (TRL), a standardized scale for assessing maturity and risk. GAO's analysis of institute information found that projects moved through a range of TRLs (see figure). Many moved from TRL 4 to 6, taking a manufacturing technology from a point where it could be demonstrated in a lab to a point where a prototype system could be created in a simulated production environment.Advancement of Technology Readiness Level (TRL) for Completed Manufacturing USA Institute Projects, as of March 2021 Note: Circle size illustrates the number of projects (but is not in direct proportion).Results from a survey administered by GAO to institute members found that smaller manufacturers (those with fewer than 500 employees) were generally engaged and satisfied with their institutes' activities, such as collaborating on projects and providing input on institute priorities. Larger businesses and academic institutions reported similar levels of satisfaction. Officials noted that some factors, such as cost of membership, may limit smaller manufacturer engagement, and identified initiatives to help offset the cost.Commerce, DOD, and DOE have implemented GAO's prior recommendations on interagency collaboration and developing sustainability criteria. However, Commerce has not fully implemented two of GAO's prior recommendations related to network-wide performance goals for the Manufacturing USA program. By not implementing these recommendations, Commerce is missing an opportunity to better observe and report on progress made toward achieving the purposes of the Manufacturing USA program.Why GAO Did This StudyIn recent decades, the U.S. trade balance in advanced technology products declined, resulting in a $130 billion deficit as of 2018. The Manufacturing USA institutes seek to stimulate leadership in advanced manufacturing innovation. Members include companies, nonprofits, academic institutions, and state and local governments. Members receive benefits such as access to shared facilities, equipment, and intellectual property. As of August 2021, Commerce, DOD, and DOE have provided $1.7 billion to the institutes.The Revitalize American Manufacturing and Innovation Act of 2014, as amended, includes a provision for GAO to assess the Manufacturing USA program. This third report examines institutes' progress toward technology goals, smaller manufacturers' engagement with the institutes, and implementation of prior recommendations, among other things.GAO collected institute information via a questionnaire, surveyed a generalizable sample of institute members, and interviewed agency officials and institute representatives.