Rural Broadband Deployment: Improved Consistency with Leading Practices Could Enhance Management of Loan and Grant Programs
Released: 2017-04-13T00:00:00

Letter

Background

RUS, an agency in USDA’s Rural Development mission area, oversees three programs for deploying broadband infrastructure in rural communities. The Telecommunications Infrastructure Loan and Loan Guarantee Program (Infrastructure Program) has funded traditional telephone networks but, since the mid-1990s, has been used primarily to fund broadband network infrastructure that can provide both voice and data services. The Rural Broadband Access Loan and Loan Guarantee program (Broadband Program) and the Community Connect Grant Program (Community Connect) are assistance programs that are specifically dedicated to financing broadband deployment.

Differences among these programs include their definitions of rural areas and their eligibility rules for recipients and services.

Infrastructure Program: The largest and oldest of the three programs, the Infrastructure Program was created as part of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, as amended. The program provides loans and loan guarantees for the deployment of telecommunications systems, including broadband systems, to rural areas. The program is generally not available to any city, village, or borough having a population exceeding 5,000. Since fiscal year 2008, the authorized principal amount for the loans and loan guarantees (“lending authority”) has been $690 million. According to RUS, since 2004, individual loans have ranged from $81,600 to $90 million, depending on the size of the project. A loan recipient has 5 years to complete its infrastructure project. According to RUS, the terms of Infrastructure Program loans are typically around 20 years, depending on the nature of the facilities to be financed. This program often sees repeat borrowers as borrowers use the funds to either upgrade existing services in rural areas or expand their rural service area.

Broadband Program: Authorized in 2002, this program provides loans and loan guarantees for the construction, improvement, and acquisition of facilities and equipment for broadband service in eligible rural communities. Recent amendments have revised the program including the definition of rural area, among others. The lending authority for this program has decreased from $602 million in fiscal year 2004 to $20.6 million in fiscal year 2016. According to RUS, the terms of the Broadband Program’s loans depend on the type of broadband system being deployed: generally around 20 years for fiber systems and around 12 years for wireless systems. According to RUS, since 2004, individual loans have ranged from $24,000 to $244 million, depending on the size of the project.

Community Connect: This program started as a pilot program in fiscal year 2002, with $20 million in competitive grants. Noting the positive response it received, RUS made the Community Connect program an annual competitive grant program in fiscal year 2004. Annual appropriations for the program have ranged from $9 million to $18 million. As of December 2016, Community Connect grants have funded approximately 138 projects across the nation intended to improve broadband service. In the past few years, grant awards could not be greater than $3 million per project, with a 15-percent matching- fund requirement placed on the recipient. Further, projects must be in rural areas, as confirmed by the most recent decennial Census. A recipient has 3 years to complete construction of its broadband infrastructure project.

Tables 1 and 2 show the annual lending authority for the loan programs and the annual appropriations for the grant program, respectively.

As shown in figure 1, the dollar amount of loans approved by RUS varies by state, with Colorado, Kansas, and North Dakota receiving the largest loan amounts—each receiving over $500 million in loans from fiscal years 2004 through 2016. Conversely, Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire received the lowest loan amounts—each receiving around $6 million or less during this time. While most states have obtained the majority of their funding from the Infrastructure Program, Colorado and Hawaii used mainly the Broadband Program.

As shown in figure 2, the dollar amounts of Community Connect grants approved by RUS from fiscal years 2004 through 2016 varied, with Oklahoma receiving the largest amount of grant funds (about $22.5 million) and Pennsylvania receiving the lowest amount (around $290,000).

RUS’s Management Procedures and Activities for Broadband Loan and Grant Programs Are Consistent or Partially Consistent with Leading Practices, and Could Improve in Some Areas

Overall, RUS has procedures and activities addressing the leading practices we identified, including the key activities associated with these practices, as part of its management of the rural broadband programs. We found that RUS has procedures and activities consistent with the leading practices for reviewing applications, conducting external training, communicating with applicants and recipients, and coordinating with other federal agencies. RUS has procedures and activities that are partially consistent with leading practices for conducting program performance measurement, conducting risk assessments, mapping, monitoring loan and grant infrastructure projects, communicating internally, and providing written program documentation.

Program Performance Measurement

RUS has procedures and activities that are partially consistent with the leading practice of program performance measurement because USDA has identified a goal and a performance measure at a high level. However, at the individual program level, RUS has not established a process that ensures program goals are identified, tracked, and fulfilled; has not developed performance measures linked to goals; and does not evaluate or document the results of program measurement activities. First, we have previously found that results-oriented organizations implement two key practices to lay a strong foundation for successful program management—setting performance goals to clearly define desired program outcomes and developing performance measures that are clearly linked to the performance goals. Through our review of USDA and RUS documentation, we identified a goal set by USDA at the Rural Development mission area level. Specifically, USDA’s Fiscal Year 2015 Annual Performance Report and Fiscal Year 2017 Annual Performance Plan describes the year-end progress of USDA toward achieving the department’s strategic goals, objectives, and performance measures. USDA sets forth a strategic goal “to assist rural communities to create prosperity so they are self-sustaining, repopulating, and economically thriving.” Under this strategic goal, the annual performance report contains a performance measure for RUS: the annual number of borrowers or subscribers receiving new or improved telecommunications services. According to the report, the performance target for 2016 was 120,000 borrowers or subscribers receiving new or improved telecommunications services; the 2017 target is 100,000. Outside of this one high-level strategic goal and performance measure, RUS officials told us they do not have formal documented program performance goals and measures for the individual loan and grant programs. RUS officials told us that they believe their goals for each of the three programs are to ensure that facilities are constructed properly and that the service is actually provided. However, these goals are not documented, and there are no specific performance measures that link to these goals.

Federal agencies can use the information gained from performance measurement to make various types of management decisions to improve programs and results. Both the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) and OMB’s Circular A-129 highlight the use of performance measures and goals as a means to evaluate program performance. For example, GPRA requires agencies to develop a performance plan covering each program activity set forth in the budget, including program goals that are objective, quantifiable, and measurable. Although such practices are only required at the federal department or agency level under GPRA, they can serve as leading practices for planning at lower levels within federal agencies, such as at an individual program or initiative level. In addition, OMB’s Circular A-129 stipulates that for credit programs, agencies shall periodically evaluate programs in terms of the policy goals of the program and the program’s effectiveness towards addressing those goals. Without specific, documented goals for each loan and grant program—and specific performance measures that are crafted around those goals—it is difficult to determine in an objective, quantifiable way if these programs are fulfilling USDA’s strategic goal of assisting rural communities, and it could be more difficult for RUS to manage the programs in a proactive, results- oriented manner.

Risk Assessment

RUS has procedures and activities that are partially consistent with the leading practice of risk assessment because RUS conducts a variety of risk assessment activities at the application and the individual project level, as well as having procedures to guard against fraud; however, RUS has not established procedures to conduct risk assessment activities at the program level. The Green Book defines the standards for internal control in the federal government, noting that management should: define objectives clearly to enable the identification of risks and define identify, analyze, and respond to risks related to achieving the defined objectives; consider the potential for fraud when identifying, analyzing, and responding to risks; and identify, analyze, and respond to significant changes that could impact internal controls.

OMB’s Circular A-129 provides that, for credit programs, agencies must have robust management and oversight frameworks for credit programs to monitor the program’s progress towards achieving policy goals within acceptable risk thresholds, reinforce these frameworks with appropriate internal controls, and take action where appropriate to increase efficiency and effectiveness.

RUS’s risk assessment efforts have focused on the proposed and funded broadband projects and their financial risks, particularly for the loan programs, which have greater inherent risk to the federal government because borrowers are expected to repay loans with interest. The application review process for both of the loan programs includes a financial risk review to determine whether the borrower has a sufficient forward-looking return on investment. Borrowers are required to maintain a times interest earned ratio (TIER) between 1.0 and 1.5, based on the projected TIER determined by a feasibility study prepared for each loan. According to RUS, all borrowers receive the same treatment once their loans are approved, irrespective of the risk involved with the project. In other words, RUS does not vary interest rates based on risk or set a higher TIER requirement for riskier borrowers. However, because the loan programs target rural areas that, as previously mentioned, may not appeal to private broadband providers, the programs tend to attract some applicants that may present higher financial risks. Since 2004, the Broadband Program’s loans have had defaults on 22 of 108 loans. In analyzing the risk factors behind these defaults, RUS determined that the majority of the defaulting companies were startup firms. In response, RUS has put in place new financial requirements on startup firms to better ensure that such borrowers are financially sound and less likely to default. For 2017 Broadband applicants, RUS has a Calculation of Additional Cash Requirement for startup operations or firms that have not demonstrated a positive cash flow from operations for the 2 years prior to the application date. This stipulation is in addition to the audited financial statements, tax returns, methodology, and assumptions that must be part of the application package. According to RUS officials, these requirements will enable RUS to place greater emphasis on evaluating these applicants’ subscriber and revenue projections to help address default risks.

With regard to fraud risks, there are procedures to help limit fraud incidents. For instance, the grant agreements that Community Connect recipients are required to sign stipulate that invoices are to be submitted with requests for advance or with reimbursement forms before grant funds are disbursed. Recipients, depending on entity type, are to provide RUS with an audit for each year in which grant funds are expended and an annual project performance activity report. Loan agreements lay out specific conditions that loan recipients are required to follow for loan advances. Loan recipients are required by their loan agreements to have fidelity bond or theft insurance coverage and maintain all documentation, such as invoices, receipts, and annual financial reports, available for federal inspection, if requested. Loan recipients are required to provide RUS with annual audited financial statements until the loans are paid off.

RUS performs compliance audits for all grant and loan projects on a 2-5 year cycle (depending on the amount of unaudited advances) until all funds are disbursed. Furthermore, USDA requires GFRs to submit reports on construction status based on regular site visits. These site visits also allow GFRs an opportunity to examine the projects for any misuse of funds. If a discrepancy is found, RUS officials told us that they will immediately disallow funding. If fraud involving a grant project is suspected, RUS officials said they would turn the information over to USDA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) for investigation. Investigations can also be turned over to the Department of Justice for further action, such as a criminal indictment or an action to recover funds. According to RUS officials, fraud cases have been rare and have involved fake invoices and employee theft.

While RUS has risk assessment activities at the application and individual project level and procedures related to fraud risks, RUS has no risk assessment activities at the overall program level. As set forth in the Green Book, a precondition to risk assessment is the establishment of clear, consistent program objectives. When clear program objectives are established up front, then internal controls can be designed around the fundamental risk that program objectives will not be met. As previously discussed, RUS does not have clear goals and performance measures in place for its loan and grant programs. RUS officials acknowledged that they have not conducted a formal risk assessment of the broadband loan and grant programs because to date, as noted, they have focused on risk assessment at the application and project level. But a higher-level, programmatic risk assessment would provide a holistic look at the programs’ core processes and practices and assess internal controls over each program. Such a programmatic risk assessment could include an examination of risks at the portfolio level for both the portfolio of loans and the portfolio of grants. RUS officials told us that they recognize the need for portfolio risk assessments and would like to put procedures in place in the future to assess the loan and grant portfolios. In late 2016, USDA hired a Chief Risk Officer for the Rural Development mission level. While RUS’s efforts to address risks in applications and funded projects and its recent creation of the Chief Risk Officer position are positive steps, these efforts are not fully consistent with the level of risk assessment that is intended under the Green Book. Those standards call for first establishing clear objectives for each program and then for comprehensively identifying risks to meeting those objectives. Without doing so, RUS is missing information crucial to the thoughtful design of an internal control structure that appropriately considers program risks for each of the three programs.

Application Review Procedures

RUS has procedures and activities consistent with the leading practice for application review, such as procedures for assigning applications to reviewers, reviewing and scoring applications, recording the results of application reviews, resolving scoring variances, and ensuring consistent reviews across reviewers. We found some differences among the individual loan- and grant-application review processes as a result of the nature of their individual funding mechanisms. For example, the Infrastructure loan application process is not competitive and uses a first- come, first-served procedure as long as the applications meet eligibility requirements. The Broadband Program is a competitive program that currently requires two application windows per year. Priority is given to those applications with the highest percentage of unserved areas. The grant program is also competitive but selects applications based on a scoring process. In addition, RUS has procedures for training reviewers, ensuring relevant expertise and the appropriate application of criteria, and guarding against conflicts of interest. For example, RUS uses a combination of guidance documents and on-the-job training to train reviewers, and helps ensure relevant expertise by hiring staff in particular job classifications for particular types of reviews (e.g., only engineers in the engineering job series conduct the engineering reviews of proposed projects).

With regard to loans, the application review procedures for the Infrastructure Program start in the field, where the GFR conducts the first level of review (see fig. 3, which illustrates the loan review and approval process). For both loan programs, once an application is at RUS headquarters, staff from RUS’s engineering and financial-operations branches review the application for completeness. If complete, RUS’s financial and engineering analysts, managers, GFR, and GFR managers discuss the eligibility of the applicant. Once a loan application package is determined complete and eligible, it undergoes an engineering and financial review, followed by multi-level reviews and approvals by a number of committees and divisions. RUS officials noted a difference between the two loan programs in that the Infrastructure Program has a rolling application process while the Broadband Program holds two application submission periods each year.

Like the loan applications, Community Connect grant applications go through a multilevel review process (see fig. 4). To confirm that the area in question is truly unserved, a GFR physically goes to the area of the proposed broadband project to test that existing broadband services are not present. After the engineering and financial review, the application is scored independently by two GFRs who do not oversee the applicant’s area, to avoid any conflict of interest. Each application is scored according to the criteria outlined in the Notice of Funding Availability or Notice of Solicitation of Applications. RUS has guidelines on how to score applications and how many points each criterion is worth. While the expectation is for the two scores to be similar, RUS officials said that occasionally there can be substantial differences. If such variance occurs, the officials review the application again and hold discussions with the Deputy Assistant Administrator and their branch chiefs to determine whether to move the application forward. All awards in the grant program must have been approved by the Administrator.

Mapping

Currently, RUS’s procedures and activities are partially consistent with the leading practice of mapping because RUS has two mapping systems in place, but its mapping information is not complete and the agency has efforts under way to improve its mapping activities. RUS officials told us that they currently use mapping data to determine if the service proposed by an applicant overlaps the service of an existing provider in the same area, and to determine and prioritize grant applications that propose to serve areas with the greatest need. Applicants requesting funding under the Infrastructure Program and Broadband Program for loans and the Community Connect grant program are required to submit maps of their service area and proposed service area. RUS uses a number of sources to collect mapping data, but has two distinct mapping tools. First, applicants upload digital maps of their proposed service areas in RDApply as they submit their applications. Second, applicants can also use the RUS mapping tool, which predates the RDApply mapping system. According to RUS, the mapping tool serves three purposes. First, it can be used by existing borrowers or those interested in applying for loan or grant funding to draw their existing or proposed service-area maps. Second, it can be used by RUS to post Public Notices of applicants’ proposed service areas or be used by existing providers to submit information regarding their service offerings. Third, it can be used by any state, local, or other entity that wishes to upload an authenticated map of existing broadband services.

According to RUS officials, they intend that the RDApply system will eventually incorporate the mapping tool information and they will no longer use the mapping tool, but will instead rely on one system. They explained that they are building a mapping system based on recent and current application information because they did not previously require all applicants to submit mapping data. They began requiring submission of geospatial mapping data for the Broadband Program in 2009, for Community Connect in 2012, and for the Infrastructure Program in 2015. According to RUS officials, USDA’s Office of General Counsel ruled that they do not have the authority to require past recipients to provide them with mapping data, so they are unable to completely fill in historical mapping information for past projects.

Presently, RUS has service-area and proposed service-area data for the loan and grant recipients in the RUS mapping tool, which it then overlays with decennial Census data. RUS also incorporates data from federal and state sources, including FCC’s National Broadband Map, into the RUS mapping tool. Currently, RUS uses information from the National Broadband Map as part of its review of an applicant’s proposed coverage area. However, according to RUS, it has found the National Broadband Map to have accuracy limitations. We testified before Congress in April 2016 that when a service provider reports any availability of high-speed Internet in a Census block, the entire block was counted as served in FCC’s National Broadband Map. As we testified, this reporting could overstate service in rural areas, which generally constitute large Census blocks. RUS officials told us that they do not have a mapping system that houses extensive broadband service-area data. RUS officials told us that they are in the process of improving the data and their broadband- mapping capabilities as they move to improve their RDApply mapping information and move to having one mapping system. If successful, this effort should lead to improved information about the location of rural broadband services. Going forward, improved mapping information can help RUS begin to use its mapping information to determine if there are unserved rural areas where it should consider additional outreach.

External Training

RUS has procedures and activities that are consistent with the leading practice of providing external training to prospective applicants, applicants, and recipients of its loan and grant programs. For example, we found that, over the past 5 years, RUS has held a number of external training and outreach events, such as workshops and seminars, to provide a range of information about its broadband loan and grant programs to rural communities and prospective applicants. For example, RUS has hosted multi-day construction and engineering workshops on broadband engineering and construction issues. RUS also hosted workshops on contract administration issues, such as the financial, accounting, and audit processes and requirements for the programs. RUS has also provided technical training on system installation. In addition, RUS representatives have participated in conferences held by broadband trade associations and other groups, setting up information booths or holding information sessions on the RUS programs. For applicants, RUS has held webinars on the loan- and grant-application processes. While RUS does not have a formal process for identifying external training needs, the agency assesses and makes training decisions at the beginning of each fiscal year or when there are available funds. According to an RUS official, decisions are made after consulting with the GFRs, state officials, and RUS loan and grant recipients.

Officials representing all six loan and grant recipients we spoke with had participated in external training provided by RUS. Project recipients participated in at least one training course and felt that the RUS training was helpful. Moreover, all six recipients said that their GFR was critical to obtaining necessary program information by providing ongoing support and assistance, such as assisting applicants in filling out the forms for the loan programs and helping explain program policies or procedures.

Project Monitoring

RUS’s procedures and activities are partially consistent with the leading practice of project monitoring because RUS has in place a number of monitoring and oversight activities of program recipients, but RUS does not currently evaluate Community Connect project results. According to the Green Book, effective project monitoring incorporates a process that helps ensure that project goals are identified, tracked, and met. Project monitoring should include corrective actions to address identified internal- control issues and penalties for serious and frequent offenses of program requirements. Project activities are to be evaluated and reported on a regular basis to help determine whether changes are needed to better meet project goals and detect fraud and abuse.

A July 2014 RUS reorganization resulted in separate divisions for overseeing the different phases of RUS projects. Prior to the reorganization, analysts were responsible for overseeing each loan and grant project from beginning to end. The reorganization split the responsibilities by divisions—Loan Origination and Approval Division (LOAD) oversees all project applications and approvals, while Portfolio Management and Risk Assessment (PMRA) is responsible for monitoring all broadband loans and grants and has procedures for tracking performance and monitoring projects. While there are some differences in the monitoring requirements for the three programs, PMRA tracks the following for all projects:

Subscriber number and service area: Applicants are required to provide details on the service area and the number of subscribers intended to be served. The GFR is responsible for visiting the designated service area to ensure that these goals are met.

Deliverables and time frames: PMRA reviews recipients’ contracts with construction firms and the related invoices to evaluate recipients’ progress toward established deliverables and project milestones.

Progress reports: Project recipients are required to submit progress reports to RUS. According to RUS officials, Community Connect grant recipients submit annual progress reports to their GFRs while Infrastructure Program and Broadband Program loan recipients are required to submit quarterly progress reports as well as an annual report. Progress report data are tracked in RUS’s Broadband Collection Analysis System and Data Collection System.

Financial information for loans: The financial information required in the progress reports includes balance sheets, income, debt service ratios, cash flow, and long-term debt. PMRA analysts evaluate the financial data against broadband miles constructed and the number of subscribers to ensure compliance with the project goals and flag any potential issues.

Monitoring duration: Community Connect grants are monitored for the duration of the grant project, typically up to the 3 years the program allows for construction and implementation; all recipients are required to submit a project performance-activity report and audit report annually. Infrastructure Program and Broadband Program loans are monitored for the life of the loans and audited for compliance every 2- 5 years until all funds are disbursed . A final audit is conducted after all funds are disbursed. Annual audited financial statements are reviewed annually until the loans are paid in full.

The two grant and four loan recipients we spoke with confirmed that their GFRs make site visits to ensure the eligibility of the area to receive service. While the number of visits may vary, the recipients said that work by their GFRs ranged from evaluating construction progress and ensuring compliance with contract goals and deliverables to validating billing statements. They also stated that actions that RUS can take for non- compliance are laid out in their loan or grant agreements.

While RUS established many project-monitoring activities, with regard to the key activity of evaluating project results, we found that RUS evaluates loan performance but does not review post-award grant program performance. For loans, RUS necessarily follows loan projects through the repayment process—which is often 20 years or more—and evaluates what happened when a loan recipient defaults. However, for grants, once a Community Connect grant is fully disbursed, RUS does not conduct any evaluation of whether the grant recipient is still providing broadband service at a later date or measure the effectiveness of the project in meeting its goals. RUS officials told us that they would like to go back and evaluate grant projects, but that staffing resource constraints have prevented them from doing so. However, not periodically evaluating grant project results affects RUS’s ability to measure the outcomes and success of its grant program. Without analysis of post-award project successes or failures, Community Connect program managers are missing information that could be used to determine if programmatic changes might improve the selection of grant recipients or the results of grant awards.

External Communication

RUS’s procedures and activities related to its communications with program applicants and recipients are consistent with the leading practice of external communication. RUS provides outreach efforts to publicize its broadband loan and grant programs through workshops and seminars located around the country, and to provide information on program requirements, key dates, funding availability, and the review processes, including how applications are scored. Both RUS headquarters employees and GFRs in the field conduct outreach efforts. According to an RUS official, it is not cost-effective to visit very remote areas to disseminate information about their programs, but they do try to hold their workshops in areas where there may be an interest in the programs. For example, the workshops that RUS has held in recent years included a 2014 Telecommunications Workshop held in Clanton, Alabama, which has a population under 9,000, and a 2-day workshop in 2015 held in the Washington State Rural Development Office in Olympia, Washington, that covered broadband access and deployment. To reach out to others, RUS’s website contains information on its programs, including information about eligibility criteria, corresponding regulations, time frames, and frequently asked questions.

Applicants can get pre-application assistance from their GFRs and RUS headquarters staff. Applicants can also obtain program application guidance on the RUS website, including fact sheets, process information, and application instructions. We reviewed documentation and interviewed officials and found that RUS sent eligibility, acceptance, and rejection letters that explain how decisions were reached. RUS also publicizes information on loan and grant awards through press releases and announcements on its website.

All six recipients we spoke with said that their GFR was their primary communication link, followed by someone in the RUS headquarters office. The recipients’ views about RUS’s external communication ranged from “adequate” to “excellent.” Typically, the recipients would first reach out to their GFRs and then to RUS headquarters if a GFR could not answer the question. Recipients also said that they would try to get information and answers on the RUS website; however, as one recipient noted, it is easier to ask the GFR. Overall, the recipients said that RUS’s external communication efforts kept them informed. Specifically, recipients praised their GFRs’ efforts to inform them about relevant events, such as available funding, upcoming application periods, and deadlines.

Internal Communication

RUS’s procedures and activities are partially consistent with the leading practice of internal communication as it has established an organizational structure to permit the flow of information to assist agency staff and recipients, appropriate methods of communication throughout the organization, and mechanisms to obtain relevant data based on identified project information requirements. However, RUS falls short of this leading practice in that it does not have a centralized system to obtain relevant data to monitor grant awards and loans, including correspondence and deliverables.

As noted above, RUS established a new organizational structure in 2014 to consolidate expertise and assist agency staff in fulfilling their responsibilities. For example, the new organizational structure has clearly defined reporting lines that include four divisions with respective Deputy Assistant Administrators. These divisions oversee operations, loan origination and approval, portfolio management and risk assessment, and policy and outreach. With regard to communication methods, internal meetings are held on an ad-hoc basis throughout the year, and at the Rural Development mission area level, regular announcements and notices are sent to the various offices. As discussed earlier, RUS’s application review process includes numerous meetings and distribution of pertinent information throughout the process among field and headquarters staff.

RUS has multiple software systems to monitor loan and grant data, and both division and field staff are responsible for collecting and monitoring data. However, the current loan and grant data are not aggregated or housed in a centralized database. According to RUS officials, RUS has updated the application system with RDApply, but in addition to that, uses a number of different databases that are mostly legacy systems and antiquated. RUS headquarters and field staff can access pertinent data from the various software systems. However, RUS officials told us they cannot conduct complex analyses, but can produce data such as, for example, spreadsheets on how many obligations have been made since a particular year. RUS officials told us that they want to move to a modern, single, centralized database that would enable them to conduct analyses of all loan and grant applications. RUS officials said that USDA’s information technology department is working on a new software system, but RUS was not able to provide us with a plan or implementation timelines for when the system would become operational. Moving toward a centralized system would allow RUS to more effectively monitor loans and grants and more fully analyze program performance.

Written Documentation

RUS’s procedures and activities are partially consistent with the written documentation leading practice. According to the Green Book, an effective management framework for grants and loans includes developing and maintaining written documentation as a means to obtain and retain organizational knowledge and to ensure accountability for achieving agreed-upon results. Although RUS has effectively developed written documentation to communicate to program applicants and recipients, we found that RUS has not consistently updated its written policies and procedures to retain organizational knowledge and to communicate loan- and grant-management knowledge internally among its staff.

For each of the three programs, RUS has updated application guides to assist applicants in the application process. For Community Connect, RUS created an application guide for fiscal year 2016. The current application guides for both the Broadband Program and the Infrastructure Program incorporate updates regarding the eligibility of equipment and facilities for funding. For the benefit of applicants and recipients, we found that RUS has periodically issued announcements and letters pertaining to the programs, frequently asked questions, and fact sheets. Furthermore, information about the three programs and their application documents are online.

According to RUS officials, RUS documents its award decisions. RUS conducts an initial assessment of applications to determine whether an application meets eligibility requirements, is complete, or needs clarification. For those not complete, RUS would send the applicant a letter stating the deficiencies or with questions. The applicant would have 30 days to address the concerns of the letter and amend the application in order for it to continue through the decision making process. Once final application decisions are made, RUS notifies the applicants of the decisions and reasons for denial of loan or grant. Recipients are required to sign agreements which lay out their expectations during the course of the awards.

The six loan and grant recipients we spoke with told us that the application processes are lengthy and require a great deal of information. However, two recipients for the Community Connect and Infrastructure Programs told us that they found the written documentation for the processes to be relatively clear and straightforward. RUS has provided guidance and templates that have been helpful to some of the recipients.

While written guidance to assist applicants and recipients exists, since its reorganization in 2014, RUS has not fully updated written documentation for loan and grant management policies and procedures to communicate knowledge among its staff. For the Community Connect program, RUS has updated its staff instructions, templates and worksheets for determining eligibility, conducting technical reviews, and scoring the applications. For the Infrastructure Program, RUS provided us with revised application checklists, loan checklists, and post-award project- visit checklists to be used by the GFR. For the Broadband Program, RUS provided us with the program’s initial application review report. However, RUS does not have any formalized staff instructions for processing the Broadband Program’s loan applications. According to one RUS official, employees use checklists and review packets similar to those for the Infrastructure Program. Moreover, the dates of other checklists and instructions RUS provided range from 1995 to 2011, and some of them make reference to agency offices that no longer exist.

RUS officials told us that they have not been able to update employee manuals on the grant and loan programs due to resource constraints. While we were told that engineers (job series 855—Professional series for engineers) and financial analysts (job series 1101—Business-Industry Analyst) review the applications, the grant- and loan-review process steps are not written down. New employees are assigned a mentor and learn their responsibilities through on-the-job training. The GFR manual is dated March 2007 and has not been updated to reflect organizational changes within RUS. According to one of the loan recipients we spoke with, new RUS employees seemed to have a difficult time ensuring that they are passing correct information to program applicants.

The Telecommunications Division responsible for overseeing the broadband grant and loan programs consists of employees located in its headquarters and GFRs located in 27 regional territories throughout the country. Since fiscal year 2000, the Telecommunications Division’s approved full-time equivalents (FTE) have decreased about 25 percent, from 133 FTEs in fiscal year 2000 to 98 FTEs in fiscal year 2016. We found that much of the critical knowledge of these programs resides in one key official located at headquarters, who is close to retirement. Furthermore, several of the recipients we spoke with noted that their GFR has changed, either due to retirement or reassignment. These changes could negatively affect the agency in efficiently carrying out its tasks, unless the agency has documented detailed information on how the programs are to be managed for the next generation of RUS officials.

Coordination Mechanisms

RUS’s procedures and activities for coordinating and collaborating with other federal agencies are consistent with the leading practice of coordination mechanisms, which should help the agencies in minimizing redundancies and removing regulatory barriers, for example: In 2014, RUS and FCC, the other agency with primary responsibility for providing rural broadband funding, entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU). The MOU was intended to govern the sharing of data between the agencies, thereby improving federal coordination and facilitating the agencies’ efforts to carry out the responsibilities of their broadband-funding programs. For example, documentation we reviewed showed RUS and FCC staff coordinating on issues regarding carriers that use both agencies’ programs, data resulting from carrier audits, and questions about program rules.

RUS signed an interagency agreement with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in September 2015 to provide technical assistance for the Cool & Connected project, which aims to support community development by leveraging investments in Internet access. The agreement states that the two agencies will provide technical assistance to the partner communities and conduct outreach for the Cool & Connected project. The technical assistance includes consultations, analysis, and workshops to help members of the partner communities develop action plans for improving broadband access and revitalizing downtowns and traditional neighborhoods in rural areas. According to the agreement, both RUS and EPA will invest financial resources into the project and both agencies will offer the services of headquarters and field staff to provide technical assistance.

In addition, the Department of Agriculture co-chairs the Broadband Opportunity Council, an effort involving 25 federal agencies and departments with missions or programs with the potential to drive broadband infrastructure investment and adoption. The Broadband Opportunity Council seeks to foster increased collaboration among agencies, to identify regulatory barriers and additional opportunities to improve broadband access, and to elevate the importance of broadband as a cross-cutting policy objective across the federal government. The Broadband Council issued a report in 2015 with dozens of action items intended to improve broadband nationwide and, in January 2017, issued a progress report stating that more than one-third of the action items had been completed by the federal agencies involved.

Conclusions

By following leading practices related to program management, federal funding, and broadband deployment, RUS can more effectively and efficiently use its resources to help promote the deployment of broadband infrastructure to rural areas that are currently unserved or underserved. RUS has established procedures and activities that are consistent with leading practices in the management of its broadband infrastructure loan and grant programs in several areas, including its application review process, its external training of and communication with program participants, and its collaboration with other federal entities on efforts related to broadband deployment. With regard to mapping, we believe that RUS’s plan to obtain mapping information from recipients going forward will help RUS to better align with the leading practice in this area. In other areas, RUS is consistent with some key activities of leading practices, but further incorporation of key activities could enhance its loan- and grant-program management. Most fundamentally, RUS needs to develop clear goals and performance measures for each of its three programs. With regard to risk assessments, RUS established procedures to conduct numerous risk-assessment activities at the application and project level. However, an assessment of each program could help RUS determine whether modifications to business practices and internal controls are necessary to cost-effectively address programmatic and portfolio-level risks. Similarly, RUS established procedures to actively monitor loan and grant projects in numerous ways, but has not evaluated the outcomes of its grant awards over time. Such an evaluation could better inform RUS as to whether changes to Community Connect are warranted to help improve the outcomes for the communities served by the grant projects. Internally, RUS could improve its practices by establishing a centralized data system and improving its written documentation for the benefit of its staff. These actions to improve RUS’s consistency with leading practices can help the agency build a stronger foundation for successful program management.

Recommendations for Executive Action

To improve RUS’s management of the Infrastructure Program, Broadband Program, and Community Connect by more closely following leading practices for broadband loan- and grant-program management, we recommend that the Secretary of Agriculture direct RUS to take the following five actions.

Develop and document clear goals and performance measures linked to those goals, for each program.

Establish and implement procedures to conduct a risk assessment of each program, including an examination of risk at both the programmatic and portfolio level for each program.

Establish and implement procedures to conduct periodic evaluations of completed grant projects to determine the outcomes associated with these projects, and analyze the information gained to assess if any programmatic changes are needed to improve the Community Connect program.

Establish a timeline for implementing a centralized internal system for staff to obtain relevant and timely program data for use in managing and monitoring loans and grant awards.

Develop, update, and maintain complete written policies and procedures for RUS’s programs as a way to retain and communicate organizational knowledge internally among agency staff. RUS should determine the critical documentation that should be created or updated, including considering documentation such as loan- application review guidance and employee manuals for each of the three programs.

Agency Comments

We provided a draft of this report to USDA, FCC, and NTIA for review and comment. USDA agreed with our recommendations. USDA, FCC, and NTIA provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture, the USDA’s Under Secretary for Rural Development, the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, the Secretary of the Department of Commerce, and the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information at the National Telecommunications and Information Administration. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or members of your staff have questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix II.

Appendix I: Description of Leading Practices and GAO’s Assessment

Appendix I: Description of Leading Practices and GAO’s Assessment Key activities associated with the leading practice Assessment Establish a process that ensures program goals are identified, tracked, and fulfilled.

Develop performance measures that link directly to stated program goals. Establish a process to evaluate and document the results of program measurement activities, including plans for corrective actions.

Define program objectives.

Define the program’s risk tolerances.

Establish a process to conduct risk assessments to identify and analyze risks to achieving program objectives.

Conduct risk assessments to identify and analyze risks for credit programs.

Determine the program’s fraud risk factors and the types of fraud for which the program is most at risk.

Determine and conduct the appropriate responses to identified risks.

Develop procedures for the review of grant and loan applications that describes the process (describing, for example, the number of panels or reviewers, the methods for assigning applications to panels or reviewers, how the results of the review are recorded, how scoring variances across panels or reviewers are resolved, how panels or reviewers ensure consistent reviews, etc.).

Use a panel or reviewers who hold relevant expertise, do not have conflicts of interest, apply the appropriate criteria, and are trained.

Map broadband availability to help both policymakers and service providers determine where to focus their efforts, and to reveal gaps in service to providers that might wish to expand their offerings. Establish mapping systems that identify the necessary information requirements, obtain relevant data from reliable sources, and process mapping data into quality information.

Key activities associated with the leading practice Assessment Identify external training needs.

Develop a mechanism that allows grant and loan applicants and recipients to establish and maintain a level of subject-matter expertise and competence so that they can fulfill their responsibilities related to compliance with the terms and conditions of the program.

Develop training that helps grant and loan recipients obtain sufficient understanding of regulations, policies, and procedures governing their grants or loans. Establish baselines, goals, and performance measures for projects. Establish a system of internal control for monitoring projects. Identify problematic issues and design and take corrective actions.

Require periodic reviews, including progress reports. Establish corrective actions, including penalties, for serious and frequent offenses of program requirements. Evaluate project results. Establish procedures for outreach efforts to potential applicants. Provide relevant information, prior to making award decisions, on program requirements, time frames, and review processes. Establish a process to provide pre-application assistance. Establish a process to notify successful and unsuccessful applicants of selection decisions in writing and provide feedback on applications. Ensure transparency by making program documents, policies, procedures, and decisions publicly available. Publish information on the number of grants and loans awarded annually.

Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Mark L. Goldstein, (202) 512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov.

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Faye Morrison (Assistant Director), Martha Chow (Analyst in Charge), Melissa Bodeau, Richard Bulman, Russell Burnett, Marcia Carlsen, Carol Henn, Ken Rupar, Terence Lam, Hannah Laufe, Benjamin Licht, SaraAnn Moessbauer, Joshua Ormond, Cheryl Peterson, Mathew Scirè, and Sarah Veale made key contributions to this report.