Telecommunications: Concerns Regarding the Structure and FCC's Management of the E-Rate Program
Released: 2005-03-16T00:00:00

Letter

Background

The concept of “universal service” has traditionally meant providing residential telephone subscribers with nationwide access to basic telephone services at reasonable rates. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 broadened the scope of universal service to include, among other things, support for schools and libraries. The act instructed the commission to establish a universal service support mechanism to ensure that eligible schools and libraries have affordable access to and use of certain telecommunications services for educational purposes. In addition, Congress authorized FCC to “establish competitively neutral rules to enhance, to the extent technically feasible and economically reasonable, access to advanced telecommunications and information services for all public and nonprofit elementary and secondary school classrooms . . . and libraries. . . .” Based on this direction, and following the recommendations of a Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, FCC established the schools and libraries universal service mechanism that is commonly referred to as the E-rate program. The program is funded through statutorily mandated payments by companies that provide interstate telecommunications services. Many of these companies, in turn, pass their contribution costs on to their subscribers through a line item on subscribers’ phone bills. FCC capped funding for the E-rate program at $2.25 billion per year, although funding requests by schools and libraries can greatly exceed the cap. For example, schools and libraries requested more than $4.2 billion in E-rate funding for the 2004 funding year.

In 1998, FCC appointed USAC as the program’s permanent administrator, although FCC retains responsibility for overseeing the program’s operations and ensuring compliance with the commission’s rules. In response to congressional conference committee direction, FCC has specified that USAC “may not make policy, interpret unclear provisions of the statute or rules, or interpret the intent of Congress.” USAC is responsible for carrying out the program’s day-to-day operations, such as maintaining a Web site that contains program information and application procedures; answering inquiries from schools and libraries; processing and reviewing applications; making funding commitment decisions and issuing funding commitment letters; and collecting, managing, investing, and disbursing E-rate funds. FCC permits—and in fact relies on—USAC to establish administrative procedures that program participants are required to follow as they work through the application and funding process.

Under the E-rate program, eligible schools, libraries, and consortia that include eligible schools and libraries may receive discounts for eligible services. Eligible schools and libraries may apply annually to receive E- rate support. The program places schools and libraries into various discount categories, based on indicators of need, so that the school or library pays a percentage of the cost for the service and the E-rate program funds the remainder. E-rate discounts range from 20 percent to 90 percent. USAC reviews all of the applications and related forms and issues funding commitment decision letters. Generally, it is the service provider that seeks reimbursement from USAC for the discounted portion of the service rather than the school or library.

FCC Established an Unusual Program Structure without Comprehensively Addressing the Applicability of Governmental Standards and Fiscal Controls

FCC established an unusual structure for the E-rate program but has never conducted a comprehensive assessment of which federal requirements, policies, and practices apply to the program, to USAC, or to the Universal Service Fund itself. FCC recently began to address a few of these issues, concluding that as a permanent indefinite appropriation, the Universal Service Fund is subject to the Antideficiency Act and that USAC’s issuance of commitment letters constitutes obligations for purposes of the act. However, FCC’s conclusions concerning the status of the Universal Service Fund raise further issues relating to the collection, deposit, obligation, and disbursement of those funds—issues that FCC needs to explore and resolve comprehensively rather than in an ad hoc fashion as problems arise.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 neither specified how FCC was to administer universal service to schools and libraries nor prescribed the structure and legal parameters of the universal service mechanisms to be created. To carry out the day-to-day activities of the E-rate program, FCC relied on a structure it had used for other universal service programs in the past—a not-for-profit corporation established at FCC’s direction that would operate under FCC oversight. However, the structure of the E-rate program is unusual in several respects compared with other federal programs: FCC appointed USAC as the permanent administrator of the Universal Service Fund, and FCC’s Chairman has final approval over USAC’s Board of Directors. USAC is responsible for administering the program under FCC orders, rules, and directives. However, USAC is not part of FCC or any other government entity; it is not a government corporation established by Congress; and no contract or memorandum of understanding exists between FCC and USAC for the administration of the E-rate program. Thus, USAC operates and disburses funds under less explicit federal ties than many other federal programs.

Questions as to whether the monies in the Universal Service Fund should be treated as federal funds have troubled the program from the start. Even though the fund has been listed in the budget of the United States and, since fiscal year 2004, has been subject to an annual apportionment from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the monies are maintained outside of Treasury accounts by USAC and some of the monies have been invested. The United States Treasury implements the statutory controls and restrictions involving the proper collection and deposit of appropriated funds, including the financial accounting and reporting of all receipts and disbursements, the security of appropriated funds, and agencies’ responsibilities for those funds.

Since the inception of the E-rate program, FCC has struggled with identifying the nature of the Universal Service Fund and the managerial, fiscal, and accountability requirements that apply to the fund. In the past, FCC’s Inspector General (IG) has noted that the commission could not ensure that Universal Service Fund activities were in compliance with all laws and regulations because the issue of which laws and regulations were applicable to the fund was unresolved. During our review, FCC officials told us that the commission has substantially resolved the IG’s concerns through recent orders, including FCC’s 2003 order that USAC begin preparing Universal Service Fund financial statements consistent with generally accepted accounting principles for federal agencies (GovGAAP) and keep the fund in accordance with the United States Government Standard General Ledger. While it is true that these steps and other FCC determinations should provide greater protections for universal service funding, FCC has addressed only a few of the issues that need to be resolved. In fact, staff from the FCC’s IG’s office told us that they do not believe the commission’s GovGAAP order adequately addressed their concerns because the order did not comprehensively detail which fiscal requirements apply to the Universal Service Fund and which do not.

FCC maintains that it has undertaken a timely and extensive analysis of the significant legal issues associated with the status of the Universal Service Fund and has generally done so on a case-by-case basis. We recognize that FCC has engaged in internal deliberations and external consultations and analysis of a number of statutes. However, we do not believe that this was done in a timely manner or that it is appropriate to do this on a case-by-case basis, which puts FCC and the program in the position of reacting to problems as they occur rather than setting up an organization and internal controls designed to ensure compliance with applicable laws.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, a problem with this ad hoc approach was dramatically illustrated with regard to the applicability of the Antideficiency Act to the Universal Service Fund. In October 2003, FCC ordered USAC to prepare financial statements for the Universal Service Fund, as a component of FCC, consistent with GovGAAP, which FCC and USAC had not previously applied to the fund. In February 2004, staff from USAC realized during contractor-provided training on GovGAAP procedures that the commitment letters sent to beneficiaries (notifying them whether their funding is approved and in what amount) might be viewed as “obligations” of appropriated funds. If so viewed, and if FCC also found the Antideficiency Act—which does not allow an agency or program to make obligations in excess of available budgetary resources— to be applicable to the E-rate program, then USAC would need to dramatically increase the program’s cash-on-hand and lessen the program’s investments to provide budgetary authority sufficient to satisfy the Antideficiency Act. As a result, USAC suspended funding commitments in August 2004 while waiting for a commission decision on how to proceed. At the end of September 2004—facing the end of the fiscal year— FCC decided that commitment letters were obligations; that the Antideficiency Act did apply to the program; and that USAC would need to immediately liquidate some of its investments to come into compliance with the Antideficiency Act. According to USAC officials, the liquidations cost the fund approximately $4.6 million in immediate losses and could potentially result in millions in foregone annual interest income. In response to these events, in December 2004, Congress passed a bill granting the Universal Service Fund a one-year exemption from the Antideficiency Act.

As we explain more fully in our report, Mr. Chairman, we agree with FCC’s determinations that the Universal Service Fund is a permanent appropriation subject to the Antideficiency Act and that its funding commitment decision letters constitute recordable obligations of the Universal Service Fund. However, there are several significant fiscal law issues that remain unresolved. We believe that where FCC has determined that fiscal controls and policies do not apply, the commission should reconsider these determinations in light of the status of universal service monies as federal funds. For example, in view of its determination that the fund constitutes an appropriation, FCC needs to reconsider the applicability of the Miscellaneous Receipts Statute, 31 U.S.C. § 3302, which requires that money received for the use of the United States be deposited in the Treasury unless otherwise authorized by law. FCC also needs to assess the applicability of other fiscal control and accountability statutes (e.g., the Single Audit Act and the Cash Management Improvement Act).

Another major issue that remains to be resolved involves the extent to which FCC has delegated some functions for the E-rate program to USAC. For example, are the disbursement policies and practices for the E-rate program consistent with statutory and regulatory requirements for the disbursement of public funds? Are some of the functions carried out by USAC, even though they have been characterized as administrative or ministerial, arguably inherently governmental activities that must be performed by government personnel? Resolving these issues in a comprehensive fashion, rather than continuing to rely on reactive, case-by- case determinations, is key to ensuring that FCC establishes the proper foundation of government accountability standards and safeguards for the E-rate program and the Universal Service Fund. We are encouraged that FCC just announced that it has contracted with the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) for NAPA to study and explore alternative models to the current organizational and governance structure of the Universal Service Fund program. We believe this study will go a long way toward addressing the concerns outlined in our report and we look forward to seeing the results of NAPA’s efforts.

FCC Did Not Develop Useful Performance Goals and Measures for Assessing and Managing the E-Rate Program

Although $13 billion in E-rate funding has been committed to beneficiaries during the past 7 years, FCC did not develop useful performance goals and measures to assess the specific impact of these funds on schools’ and libraries’ Internet access and to improve the management of the program, despite a recommendation by us in 1998 to do so. At the time of our current review, FCC staff was considering, but had not yet finalized, new E-rate goals and measures in response to OMB’s concerns about this deficiency in a 2003 OMB assessment of the program.

One of the management tasks facing FCC is to establish strategic goals for the E-rate program, as well as annual goals linked to them. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 did not include specific goals for supporting schools and libraries, but instead used general language directing FCC to establish competitively neutral rules for enhancing access to advanced telecommunications and information services for all public and nonprofit private elementary and secondary school classrooms and libraries. As the agency accountable for the E-rate program, FCC is responsible under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (Results Act) for establishing the program’s long-term strategic goals and annual goals, measuring its own performance in meeting these goals, and reporting publicly on how well it is doing.

For fiscal years 2000 through 2002, FCC’s goals focused on achieving certain percentage levels of Internet connectivity during a given fiscal year for schools, public school instructional classrooms, and libraries. However, the data that FCC used to report on its progress was limited to public schools (thereby excluding two other major groups of beneficiaries—private schools and libraries) and did not isolate the impact of E-rate funding from other sources of funding, such as state and local government. This is a significant measurement problem because, over the years, the demand for internal connections funding by applicants has exceeded the E-rate funds available for this purpose by billions of dollars. Unsuccessful applicants had to rely on other sources of support to meet their internal connection needs. Even with these E-rate funding limitations, there has been significant growth in Internet access for public schools since the program issued its first funding commitments in late 1998. At the time, according to data from the Department of Education’s National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES), 89 percent of all public schools and 51 percent of public school instructional classrooms already had Internet access. By 2002, 99 percent of public schools and 92 percent of public school instructional classrooms had Internet access. Yet although billions of dollars in E-rate funds have been committed since 1998, adequate program data was not developed to answer a fundamental performance question: How much of the increase since 1998 in public schools’ Internet access has been a result of the E-rate program, as opposed to other sources of federal, state, local, and private funding?

Performance goals and measures are used not only to assess a program’s impact but also to develop strategies for resolving mission-critical management problems. However, management-oriented goals have not been a feature of FCC’s performance plans, despite long-standing concerns about the program’s effectiveness in key areas. For example, two such goals—related to assessing how well the program’s competitive bidding process was working and increasing program participation by low- income and rural school districts and rural libraries—were planned but not carried forward.

FCC did not include any E-rate goals for fiscal years 2003 and 2004 in its recent annual performance reports. The failure to measure effectively the program’s impact on public and private schools and libraries over the past 7 years undercuts one of the fundamental purposes of the Results Act: to have federal agencies adopt a fact-based, businesslike framework for program management and accountability. The problem is not just a lack of data for accurately characterizing program results in terms of increasing Internet access. Other basic questions about the E-rate program also become more difficult to address, such as the program’s efficiency and cost-effectiveness in supporting the telecommunications needs of schools and libraries. For example, a review of the program by OMB in 2003 concluded that there was no way to tell whether the program has resulted in the cost-effective deployment and use of advanced telecommunications services for schools and libraries. OMB also noted that there was little oversight to ensure that the program beneficiaries were using the funding appropriately and effectively. In response to these concerns, FCC staff have been working on developing new performance goals and measures for the E-rate program and plan to finalize them and seek OMB approval in fiscal year 2005.

FCC’s Oversight Mechanisms Are Not Fully Effective in Managing the E-Rate Program

FCC testified before Congress in June 2004 that it relies on three chief components in overseeing the E-rate program: rulemaking proceedings, beneficiary audits, and fact-specific adjudicatory decisions (i.e., appeals decisions). We found weaknesses with FCC’s implementation of each of these mechanisms, limiting the effectiveness of FCC’s oversight of the program and the enforcement of program procedures to guard against waste, fraud, and abuse of E-rate funding.

FCC’s Rulemakings Have Led to Problems with USAC’s Procedures and Enforcement of Those Procedures

As part of its oversight of the E-rate program, FCC is responsible for establishing new rules and policies for the program or making changes to existing rules, as well as providing the detailed guidance that USAC requires to effectively administer the program. FCC carries out this responsibility through its rulemaking process. FCC’s E-rate rulemakings, however, have often been broadly worded and lacking specificity. Thus, USAC has needed to craft the more detailed administrative procedures necessary to implement the rules. However, in crafting administrative procedures, USAC is strictly prohibited under FCC rules from making policy, interpreting unclear provisions of the statute or rules, or interpreting the intent of Congress. We were told by FCC and USAC officials that USAC does not put procedures in place without some level of FCC approval. We were also told that this approval is sometimes informal, such as e-mail exchanges or telephone conversations between FCC and USAC staff. This approval can come in more formal ways as well, such as when the commission expressly endorses USAC operating procedures in commission orders or codifies USAC procedures into FCC’s rules. However, two problems have arisen with USAC administrative procedures.

First, although USAC is prohibited under FCC rules from making policy, some USAC procedures deal with more than just ministerial details and arguably rise to the level of policy decisions. For example, in June 2004, USAC was able to identify at least a dozen administrative procedures that, if violated by the applicant, would lead to complete or partial denial of the funding request even though there was no precisely corresponding FCC rule. The critical nature of USAC’s administrative procedures is further illustrated by FCC’s repeated codification of them throughout the history of the program. FCC’s codification of USAC procedures—after those procedures have been put in place and applied to program participants— raises concerns about whether these procedures are more than ministerial and are, in fact, policy changes that should be coming from FCC in the first place. Moreover, in its August 2004 order (in a section dealing with the resolution of audit findings), the commission directs USAC to annually “identify any USAC administrative procedures that should be codified in our rules to facilitate program oversight.” This process begs the question of which entity is really establishing the rules of the E-rate program and raises concerns about the depth of involvement by FCC staff with the management of the program.

Second, even though USAC procedures are issued with some degree of FCC approval, enforcement problems could arise when audits uncover violations of USAC procedures by beneficiaries or service providers. The FCC IG has expressed concern over situations where USAC administrative procedures have not been formally codified because commission staff have stated that, in such situations, there is generally no legal basis to recover funds from applicants that failed to comply with the USAC procedures. In its August 2004 order, the commission attempted to clarify the rules of the program with relation to recovery of funds. However, even under the August 2004 order, the commission did not clearly address the treatment of beneficiaries who violate a USAC administrative procedure that has not been codified.

FCC Has Been Slow to Address Problems Raised by Audit Findings

FCC’s use of beneficiary audits as an oversight mechanism has also had weaknesses, although FCC and USAC are now working to address some of these weaknesses. Since 2000, there have been 122 beneficiary audits conducted by outside firms, 57 by USAC staff, and 14 by the FCC IG (2 of which were performed under agreement with the Inspector General of the Department of the Interior). Beneficiary audits are the most robust mechanism available to the commission in the oversight of the E-rate program, yet FCC generally has been slow to respond to audit findings and has not made full use of the audit findings as a means to understand and resolve problems within the program.

First, audit findings can indicate that a beneficiary or service provider has violated existing E-rate program rules. In these cases, USAC or FCC can seek recovery of E-rate funds, if justified. In the FCC IG’s May 2004 Semiannual Report, however, the IG observes that audit findings are not being addressed in a timely manner and that, as a result, timely action is not being taken to recover inappropriately disbursed funds. The IG notes that in some cases the delay is caused by USAC and, in other cases, the delay is caused because USAC is not receiving timely guidance from the commission (USAC must seek guidance from the commission when an audit finding is not a clear violation of an FCC rule or when policy questions are raised). Regardless, the recovery of inappropriately disbursed funds is important to the integrity of the program and needs to occur in a timely fashion.

Second, under GAO’s Standards for Internal Controls in the Federal Government, agencies are responsible for promptly reviewing and evaluating findings from audits, including taking action to correct a deficiency or taking advantage of the opportunity for improvement. Thus, if an audit shows a problem but no actual rule violation, FCC should be examining why the problem arose and determining if a rule change is needed to address the problem (or perhaps simply addressing the problem through a clarification to applicant instructions or forms). FCC has been slow, however, to use audit findings to make programmatic changes. For example, several important audit findings from the 1998 program year were only recently resolved by an FCC rulemaking in August 2004.

In its August 2004 order, the commission concluded that a standardized, uniform process for resolving audit findings was necessary, and directed USAC to submit to FCC a proposal for resolving audit findings. FCC also instructed USAC to specify deadlines in its proposal “to ensure audit findings are resolved in a timely manner.” USAC submitted its Proposed Audit Resolution Plan to FCC on October 28, 2004. The plan memorializes much of the current audit process and provides deadlines for the various stages of the audit process. FCC released the proposed audit plan for public comment in December 2004.

In addition to the Proposed Audit Resolution Plan, the commission instructed USAC to submit a report to FCC on a semiannual basis summarizing the status of all outstanding audit findings. The commission also stated that it expects USAC to identify for commission consideration on at least an annual basis all audit findings raising management concerns that are not addressed by existing FCC rules. Lastly, the commission took the unusual step of providing a limited delegation to the Wireline Competition Bureau (the bureau within FCC with the greatest share of the responsibility for managing the E-rate program) to address audit findings and to act on requests for waiver of rules warranting recovery of funds.

These actions could help ensure, on a prospective basis, that audit findings are more thoroughly and quickly addressed. However, much still depends on timely action being taken by FCC, particularly if audit findings suggest the need for a rulemaking.

In addition to problems with responding to audit findings, the audits conducted to date have been of limited use because neither FCC nor USAC have conducted an audit effort using a statistical approach that would allow them to project the audit results to all E-rate beneficiaries. Thus, at present, no one involved with the E-rate program has a basis for making a definitive statement about the amount of waste, fraud, and abuse in the program. Of the various groups of beneficiary audits conducted to date, all were of insufficient size and design to analyze the amount of fraud or waste in the program or the number of times that any particular problem might be occurring programwide. At the time we concluded our review, FCC and USAC were in the process of soliciting and reviewing responses to a Request for Proposal for audit services to conduct additional beneficiary audits.

FCC Has Been Slow to Act on Some E-Rate Appeals

Under FCC’s rules, program participants can seek review of USAC’s decisions, although FCC’s appeals process for the E-rate program has been slow in some cases. Because appeals decisions are used as precedent, this slowness adds uncertainty to the program and impacts beneficiaries. FCC rules state that FCC is to decide appeals within 90 days, although FCC can extend this period. At the time of our review there was a substantial appeals backlog at FCC (i.e., appeals pending for longer than 90 days). Out of 1,865 appeals to FCC from 1998 through the end of 2004, approximately 527 appeals remain undecided, of which 458 (25 percent) are backlog appeals.

We were told by FCC officials that some of the backlog is due to staffing issues. FCC officials said they do not have enough staff to handle appeals in a timely manner. FCC officials also noted that there has been frequent staff turnover within the E-rate program, which adds some delay to appeals decisions because new staff necessarily take time to learn about the program and the issues. Additionally, we were told that another factor contributing to the backlog is that the appeals have become more complicated as the program has matured. Lastly, some appeals may be tied up if the issue is currently in the rulemaking process.

The appeals backlog is of particular concern given that the E-rate program is a technology program. An applicant who appeals a funding denial and works through the process to achieve a reversal and funding two years later might have ultimately won funding for outdated technology. FCC officials told us that they are working to resolve all backlogged E-rate appeals by the end of calendar year 2005.

In summary, Mr. Chairman, we remain concerned that FCC has not done enough to proactively manage and provide a framework of government accountability for the multibillion-dollar E-rate program. Lack of clarity about what accountability standards apply to the program causes confusion among program participants and can lead to situations where funding commitments are interrupted pending decisions about applicable law, such as happened with the Antideficiency Act in the fall of 2004. Ineffective performance goals and measures make it difficult to assess the program’s effectiveness and chart its future course. Weaknesses in oversight and enforcement can lead to misuse of E-rate funding by program participants that, in turn, deprives other schools and libraries whose requests for support were denied due to funding limitations.

To address these management and oversight problems identified in our review of the E-rate program, our report recommends that the Chairman of FCC direct commission staff to (1) conduct and document a comprehensive assessment to determine whether all necessary government accountability requirements, policies, and practices have been applied and are fully in place to protect the E-rate program and universal service funding; (2) establish meaningful performance goals and measures for the E-rate program; and (3) develop a strategy for reducing the E-rate program’s appeals backlog, including ensuring that adequate staffing resources are devoted to E-rate appeals.

Scope and Methodology

We conducted our work from December 2003 through December 2004 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We interviewed officials from FCC’s Wireline Competition Bureau, Enforcement Bureau, Office of General Counsel, Office of Managing Director, Office of Strategic Planning and Policy Analysis, and Office of Inspector General. We also interviewed officials from USAC. In addition, we interviewed officials from OMB and the Department of Education regarding performance goals and measures. OMB had conducted its own assessment of the E-rate program in 2003, which we also discussed with OMB officials. We reviewed and analyzed FCC, USAC, and OMB documents related to the management and oversight of the E-rate program. The information we gathered was sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our review. See our full report for a more detailed explanation of our scope and methodology.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you or other Members of the Subcommittee may have.

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

For further information about this testimony, please contact me at (202) 512-2834. Edda Emmanuelli-Perez, John Finedore, Faye Morrison, and Mindi Weisenbloom also made key contributions to this statement.

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.