The concept of “universal service” has traditionally meant providing residential telephone subscribers with nationwide access to basic telephone services at reasonable rates. Universal service programs traditionally targeted support to low-income customers and customers in rural and other areas where the costs of providing basic telephone service were high. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 broadened the scope of universal service to include, among other things, support for schools and libraries. The act instructed FCC 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 the 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. The FCC IG has noted that program participants generally consider USAC the primary source for guidance on the rules governing the E-rate program. See appendix III for a more detailed explanation of the structure of USAC. 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. Schools and libraries in areas with higher percentages of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunches through the National School Lunch Program (or a federally approved alternative mechanism) qualify for higher discounts on eligible services. Schools and libraries located in rural areas also receive greater discounts in most cases, as shown in table 1. FCC has defined four classes of services that are eligible for E-rate support: telecommunications services, such as local, long-distance, and international telephone service as well as high-speed data links (e.g., T-1 lines); Internet access services, such as broadband Internet access and e-mail internal connections, such as telecommunications wiring, routers, switches, and network servers that are necessary to transport information to individual classrooms; and basic maintenance on internal connections. The list of specific eligible services within each class is updated annually and posted on USAC’s Web site. FCC’s rules provide that requests for telecommunications services and Internet access for all discount categories shall receive first priority for the available funding (Priority One services). The remaining funds are allocated to requests for support for internal connections and basic maintenance (Priority Two services), beginning with the most economically disadvantaged schools and libraries, as determined by the discount matrix. Because of this prioritization, not all requests for internal connections necessarily receive funding. Prior to applying for discounted services, an applicant must conduct a technology assessment and develop a technology plan to ensure that any services it purchases will be used effectively. The applicant submits a form to USAC setting forth its technological needs. Once the school or library has complied with the commission’s competitive bidding requirements and entered into agreements with service providers for eligible services, it must file a second form with USAC that details the types and costs of the services being contracted for, the vendors providing the services, and the amount of discount being requested. USAC reviews the forms and issues funding commitment decision letters (USAC could reduce the amount requested if the school or library has included ineligible services in its application or has calculated its discount category incorrectly). Generally, it is the service provider that seeks reimbursement from USAC for the discounted portion of the service. 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 its issuance of commitment letters constitutes obligations for purposes of the act. We agree with FCC’s determinations on these issues, as explained in detail in appendix II. 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. The Telecommunications Act required FCC to consider the recommendations of the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service and then to develop specific, predictable, and equitable support mechanisms. Using the broad language of the act, FCC crafted an ambitious program for schools and libraries—roughly analogous to a grant program—and gave the program a $2.25 billion annual funding cap. 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 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. As explained below, appropriated funds are subject, unless specifically exempted by law, to a variety of statutory controls and restrictions. These controls and restrictions, among other things, limit the purposes for which federal funds can be used and provide a scheme of accountability for federal monies. Key requirements are in Title 31 of the United States Code and the appropriate Treasury regulations, which govern fiscal activities relating to the management, collection, and distribution of public money. 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. FCC’s Office of Inspector General first looked at the Universal Service Fund in 1999 as part of its audit of the commission’s fiscal year 1999 financial statement because FCC had determined that the Universal Service Fund was a component of FCC for financial reporting purposes. During that audit, the FCC IG questioned commission staff regarding the nature of the fund and, specifically, whether it was subject to the statutory and regulatory requirements for federal funds. In the next year’s audit, the FCC IG 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 still unresolved at the end of the audit. 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 discussed below 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 has, however, made some determinations concerning the status of the Universal Service Fund and the fiscal controls that apply. FCC’s determinations, and our analysis, in brief, are discussed below. (See app. II for our more thorough legal analysis of fiscal law issues involving the Universal Service Fund.) Status of funds as appropriated funds. In assessing the financial statement reporting requirements for FCC components in 2000, FCC concluded that the Universal Service Fund constitutes a permanent indefinite appropriation (i.e., funding appropriated or authorized by law to be collected and available for specified purposes without further congressional action). We agree with FCC’s conclusion. Typically, Congress will use language of appropriation, such as that found in annual appropriations acts, to identify a fund or account as an appropriation and to authorize an agency to enter into obligations and make disbursements out of available funds. Congress, however, appropriates funds in a variety of ways other than in regular appropriations acts. Thus, a statute that contains a specific direction to pay and a designation of funds to be used constitutes an appropriation. In these statutes, Congress (1) authorizes the collection of fees and their deposit into a particular fund, and (2) makes the fund available for expenditure for a specified purpose without further action by Congress. This authority to obligate or expend collections without further congressional action constitutes a continuing appropriation or a permanent appropriation of the collections. Because the Universal Service Fund’s current authority stems from a statutorily authorized collection of fees from telecommunications carriers and the expenditure of those fees for a specified purpose (that is, the various types of universal service), it meets both elements of the definition of a permanent appropriation. Decision regarding the Antideficiency Act. As noted above, 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 or not their funding is approved and in what amount) might be viewed as “obligations” of appropriated funds. If so, 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. FCC was slow to recognize and address the issue of the applicability of the Antideficiency Act, resulting in the abrupt decision to suspend funding commitment decision letters and liquidate investments. 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. Nevertheless, FCC’s conclusion on this issue was correct: Absent a statutory exemption, the Universal Service Fund is subject to the Antideficiency Act, and its funding commitment decision letters constitute obligations for purposes of the act. The Antidefiency Act applies to “official or employee of the United States Government . . . mak or authorizing an expenditure or obligation . . . from an appropriation or fund.” 31 U.S.C. § 1341(a). As discussed above, the Universal Service Fund is an “appropriation or fund.” Even though USAC—a private entity whose employees are not federal officers or employees—is the administrator of the program and the entity that obligates and disburses money from the fund, application of the act is not negated. This is because, as recognized by FCC, it, and not USAC, is the entity that is legally responsible for the management and oversight of the E- rate program and because FCC’s employees are federal officers and employees of the United States subject to the Antideficiency Act. Thus, the Universal Service Fund will again be subject to the Antideficiency Act when the one-year statutory exemption expires, unless action is taken to extend or make permanent the exemption. An important issue that arises from the application of the Antideficiency Act to the Universal Service Fund is what actions constitute obligations chargeable against the fund. Under the Antideficiency Act, an agency may not incur an obligation in excess of the amount available to it in an appropriation or fund. Thus, proper recording of obligations with respect to the timing and amount of such obligations permits compliance with the Antideficiency Act by ensuring that agencies have adequate budget authority to cover all of their obligations. Our decisions have defined an “obligation” as a commitment creating a legal liability of the government, including a “legal duty . . . which could mature into a liability by virtue of actions on the part of the other party beyond the control of the United States. . . .” With respect to the Universal Service Fund, the funding commitment decision letter provides the school or library with the authority to obtain services from a provider with the commitment that the school or library will receive a discount and the service provider will be paid for the discounted portion with E-rate funding. Although the school or library could decide not to seek the services or the discount, so long as the funding commitment decision letter remains valid and outstanding, USAC and FCC no longer control the Universal Service Fund’s liability; it is dependent on the actions taken by the school or library. Consequently, we agree with FCC that a recordable obligation is incurred at the time of issuance of the funding commitment decision letter indicating approval of the applicant’s discount. While 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, 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 Statue, 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. 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. In testimony before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation in July 1998, we stated that the E-rate program was beginning its first funding year without clear and specific goals and measures. FCC simply noted in its performance plan for fiscal year 1999 that it would “work to improve the connections of classrooms, libraries, and rural health care facilities to the Internet by the end of 1999.” This type of general statement, with no specific goals and measures for agency accountability, is not in accord with the Results Act. We recommended in our testimony that FCC develop specific E-rate goals and measures before the end of fiscal year 1998, in time to gauge the effect of the program’s first year of operations. As we stated at that time, performance measurement is critical to determining a program’s progress in meeting its intended outcomes. Without clearly articulated goals and reliable performance data, Congress, FCC, and USAC would have a difficult time assessing the effectiveness of the program and determining whether operational changes were needed. Although FCC responded that our recommendation was “reasonable,” we noted in our subsequent March 1999 report on the program that FCC had not acted on our recommendation and again stressed the importance of implementing it. FCC began including specific E-rate goals and measures in its fiscal year 2000 budget estimate submission to Congress and continued to set annual E-rate goals for fiscal years 2001 and 2002. No annual goals for fiscal years 2003 or 2004 were included in FCC’s performance reports, however. The goals and measures that FCC set for fiscal years 2000 through 2002 were not useful in assessing the impact of E-rate program funding. The goals focused on achieving certain percentage levels of Internet connectivity during a given fiscal year for schools, public school instructional classrooms, and libraries. For example, FCC set a fiscal year 2001 goal of having 90 percent of public school instructional classrooms connected to the Internet. FCC measured its performance in meeting these goals using nationwide survey data from the Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) on the percentages of public schools and public school instructional classrooms that are connected to the Internet. The percentages are based on a nationally representative sample of approximately 1,000 public schools that are surveyed about Internet access and Internet-related topics. A fundamental problem with using these NCES percentages is that a nationally representative sample covers both public schools that received E-rate funding for internal connections and those that did not. The percentages, therefore, do not directly measure the impact of E-rate funds, as opposed to other sources of funding, on increases in the percentage of schools connected to the Internet. This is a significant problem because the applicants’ requests for E-rate funds for internal connections have exceeded the amounts available for that purpose by billions of dollars. As a result, while E-rate funds for internal connections have been provided on a priority basis to applicants eligible for very high discounts (generally 70 percent to 80 percent or higher), funding has typically not been available to meet the internal connections requests of the other applicants. Only in the second funding year (1999) were funds sufficient to cover eligible internal connections requests for applicants in all of the discount bands. The applicants who were denied E-rate support for internal connections have had to rely on other funding sources for their internal connections needs, such as state and local government. 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 NCES data, 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? Another problem is that FCC did not consistently set annual goals for the two other major groups of E-rate beneficiaries—libraries and private schools. For example, FCC’s budget submission to Congress in February 2000 included a fiscal year 2001 goal of having 90 percent of libraries connected to the Internet. But this goal was dropped from FCC’s subsequent performance reports and budget estimate submissions, and no other library connectivity goal was set. As for private schools, no specific Internet connectivity goal was set for them until early 2002, when FCC included a fiscal year 2003 goal of having 85 percent of private school instructional classrooms connected to the Internet in both its fiscal year 2003 budget estimate to Congress (dated February 2002) and its 2001 annual performance report (dated March 2002). But these were the only instances where this goal appeared. It was dropped from FCC’s subsequent budget estimate submissions and annual performance reports. In addition to these goal-setting shortcomings, no performance measurement data for either libraries’ or private schools’ Internet connectivity levels have been included in any of FCC’s annual budget estimate submissions or performance reports. The failure to measure the program’s impact on public and private schools and libraries over the past 7 years undercuts one of the fundamental purposes 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. 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. Under the Results Act, managers should use performance data to identify performance gaps and determine where to target their resources to improve overall mission accomplishment. 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, E-rate applicants’ technology needs are posted on USAC’s Web site to allow service providers an opportunity to bid on them. FCC has maintained that absent competitive bidding, the prices charged by service providers could be needlessly high, unnecessarily depleting the program’s funds and limiting its ability to support other applicants. In the commission’s fiscal year 2000 budget estimate submission, FCC included a goal for ensuring that the program’s competitive bidding process led to bids by two or more service providers for the majority of applicants. However, this goal was dropped from FCC’s subsequent budget submissions and annual performance reports. No other goal was developed in its place to assess how well the competitive bidding process is working. In another example, FCC found that the E-rate participation rates for urban low-income school districts and rural school districts fell below the average participation rate for all eligible schools. In preparing our December 2000 report on the E-rate program, FCC officials told us they had finalized a new performance plan for the E-rate program that included tactical goals targeted at increasing participation by both of these groups, as well as rural libraries and libraries serving small areas. During our current review, when we asked FCC officials about the plan, we were told that it had not been implemented and that none of the FCC staff currently working on E-rate was familiar with the plan. Another ongoing program management issue is that a significant amount of funds committed annually go unused by the applicants that requested them. This is troubling because, as noted earlier, the demand for funding is high and there is typically not enough money each year to meet all funding requests for internal connections. In December 2000, we recommended that FCC ascertain and address the difficulties that applicants may be having in this regard. FCC responded that it would undertake an analysis, with USAC, of the factors leading to funds being committed to applicants but not used; and USAC responded that it would develop and pursue options for narrowing the gap between commitments and disbursements, and discuss the options with FCC. Here again was an opportunity to develop a performance goal and measure to address this program management problem, but none was developed. Similarly, no performance goals and measures have been included in FCC’s performance reports related to the management responsibility of identifying and mitigating fraud, waste, and abuse of program funds. OMB also has raised concerns about FCC’s lack of E-rate performance goals and measures. In its 2003 assessment of the E-rate program, OMB, using its Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART), noted that FCC discontinued specific E-rate program measures after fiscal year 2002. OMB’s overall PART rating for the E-rate program was “results not demonstrated.” This does not necessarily mean that the program is ineffective, but rather that its effectiveness is unknown. OMB observed that the program lacked long-term, outcome-oriented performance goals and efficiency measures against which to measure the program’s success in promoting connectivity and to improve and refine the program going forward. Because of this, OMB stated that it is not clear what the end goal of the E-rate program is or how to measure its effectiveness other than incremental increases in the number of classrooms and libraries connected to the Internet. While recognizing that E-rate funding is generally going to the intended beneficiaries of the program, OMB concluded that there was no way to tell whether the program has resulted in 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. Among other things, OMB’s report recommended that for fiscal year 2005, FCC should develop a long-term outcome goal for the program, and consider reinstituting a connectivity measure and developing an efficiency measure. FCC officials told us they have been working with OMB to respond to the concerns raised in its PART assessment and that several FCC staff have recently received training in the development of performance measures. At the time of our review, FCC was considering goals that involve classroom connectivity and program efficiency. As we discussed earlier, any meaningful goals on connectivity would need to have associated measurement data that could isolate the impact of E-rate funding on changes in connectivity in order to assess the program’s impact. It should be noted that with 99 percent of public schools and 92 percent of public school instructional classrooms connected to the Internet in 2002 (according to the most current NCES report on public school connectivity at the time of our review), applicants are moving past achieving initial connectivity to maintaining and upgrading existing connections over the long term. As a result, simple measures of Internet connectivity will be much less useful indicators of the program’s performance than in past years. As for the program’s efficiency in providing support for telecommunications services, FCC staff told us they are considering a measure that would calculate and track the E-rate disbursements for each school (or school system) divided by the number of students, further broken down by the eligible services categories. An efficiency measure would be valuable, as there has been a long-standing concern about some applicants requesting funding for technology that greatly exceeds their needs (sometimes referred to as “goldplating”). While “E-rate dollars-per- student” ratios might be interesting data to assess in this regard, a performance measure needs to have a goal associated with it in order to be a meaningful tool for performance management. Currently, the program rules do not expressly establish a clear test for cost-effectiveness that could be used as a measurable goal, although in late 2003, FCC asked for comment on whether it would be beneficial or administratively feasible to develop such a test. At the time we concluded our review, FCC planned to finalize performance measures for the E-rate program and seek OMB approval in fiscal year 2005. As noted above, OMB’s PART assessment recommended that FCC develop a long-term outcome goal for the program. “Outcomes” are the results or benefits of the products or services provided by the program. A basic policy issue associated with the E-rate program involves assessing the extent to which the billions of dollars of support for telecommunications services are providing the sought-after return on investment: improvement in the quality of education. As we noted in our 2000 report on the program, the complex issue of measuring educational outcomes lies outside FCC’s expertise and comes under the purview of the Department of Education. FCC officials told us they have made initial contact with staff at the Department of Education to discuss the development of a long-term E-rate outcome measure. According to FCC’s current timetable, the collection and analysis of data for outcome measures would start with funding year 2006. 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. As part of its oversight of the E-rate program, FCC is responsible for establishing new rules and policies for the program and making changes to existing rules, as well as for 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 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 from making policy, some USAC procedures arguably rise to the level of policy decisions. 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 administrative procedures. Throughout the history of the program, USAC has found it necessary to create additional procedures to effectively and efficiently process more than 40,000 applications annually. However, these procedures sometimes deal with more than just ministerial details. For example, procedures that affect funding decisions arguably rise to the level of policy decisions. 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 FCC IG stated in May 2004 in his Semiannual Report to Congress that he believes the distinction between FCC rules and USAC administrative procedures represents a weakness in program design, fails to give program participants a clear understanding of the rules and the consequences associated with rule violations, and complicates the design and implementation of effective program oversight. The critical nature of USAC’s administrative procedures is further illustrated by FCC’s repeated codification of them throughout the history of the program. For example, in 1999, USAC implemented a procedure known as “the 30-percent policy.” This procedure sought to avoid blanket denials of funding requests because of minor errors in the eligibility of the services requested, while at the same time prompting applicants to prepare their applications carefully and make a conscientious effort to exclude ineligible items. If more than 30 percent of the services for which discounts were requested were ineligible, USAC denied the funding request rather than undertake the administratively burdensome task of correcting the request and refiguring the amount based only on the eligible services requested. In April 2003, in the commission’s Second Report and Order in its E-rate docket, FCC codified USAC’s 30-percent policy, stating that the commission found the procedure “improves program operation and is important in reducing the administrative costs of the program.” In fact, the procedures put in place by USAC generally appear to be sensible and represent thoughtful administration of the E-rate program. Nonetheless, USAC is prohibited from making program rules. 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. The other problem with USAC administrative procedures is the question of enforcement of those procedures through recovery of funds for procedural violations. FCC has generally held that funds can be recovered from a beneficiary or service provider only if an FCC rule was violated. In its August 2004 order, after several years of E-rate audits by USAC and the FCC IG, the commission attempted to clarify the rules of the program with relation to recovery of funds. In the order, the commission describes nine overall categories of statutory violations or FCC rule violations that would result in fund recovery being sought, in whole or in part, from beneficiaries or service providers. With respect to violations of USAC operating procedures, FCC said in its August 2004 order that it intends to evaluate whether there are USAC procedures that should be codified into the commission’s rules and whether violation of any of these codified procedures should also be a basis for recovery of funding. The commission noted that recovery of funds may not be appropriate for violations of procedural rules codified to enhance operations. Nevertheless, the commission stated that applicants will be required to comply with procedural rules and that applications that do not comply will be rejected. The commission noted, however, that if the codified procedural rule violation “is inadvertently overlooked during the application phase and funds are disbursed, the commission will not require that they be recovered, except to the extent that such rules are essential to the financial integrity of the program, as designated by the agency, or that circumstances suggest the possibility of waste, fraud, or abuse, which will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.” Thus, even under the August 2004 FCC order, the commission did not clearly address the treatment of beneficiaries who violate a USAC administrative procedure that has not been codified. This creates a potentially unfair situation when the procedure is one that can lead to denial of an application. That is, if violation of the procedure is caught in the application process, funding will be denied. However, if the violation slips by in the application process, funding is granted, and the violation is later caught during a beneficiary audit, no recovery of funding can be attempted since there was no actual rule violation by the beneficiary. Also, as noted earlier, the FCC order also leaves to USAC the initial determination of which procedures should be codified rather than having FCC make that determination. Lastly, FCC did not establish a time frame for its review of USAC procedures. 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. In December 2000, we recommended that USAC establish a quality assurance function responsible for ensuring that its funding decisions adhere to FCC’s program eligibility rules. In response to our recommendation, USAC increased both its in-house audit staff and the number of beneficiary audits conducted by outside accounting firms. 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, table 2 below shows audit findings from the 1998 program year that were only recently resolved by FCC’s August 2004 rulemaking. As table 2 illustrates, audit findings related to the lack of record retention by beneficiaries were a problem. Given that the E-rate program operates similarly in some ways to a grant program, FCC should have had in place a record retention policy at the start of the program as a basic accountability measure since record retention is fundamental to an audit trail. In fact, early in the program, FCC did create rules on beneficiary and service provider document retention, but the rules contained a potentially enormous loophole. Under FCC’s rules, program participants were required only to maintain “the kind of procurement records that they maintain for other purchases.” Thus, if a school or library had no record retention policy for other purchases, they did not need to retain records related to E- rate purchases. FCC proposed a more comprehensive record retention policy in December 2003 and released it for comment. In August 2004—7 years into the existence of the E-rate program—FCC adopted record retention rules that call for beneficiaries and service providers to retain E- rate program-related records for at least five years. 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 waivers 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 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. FCC’s IG and USAC are currently working to address this problem by following OMB’s guidance on the Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 (IPIA). IPIA requires that agencies annually estimate the amount of improper payments for programs and activities susceptible to significant improper payments. In response to IPIA, FCC and USAC are currently in the process of soliciting and evaluating responses to a Request for Proposals issued to procure the services of an independent auditor to conduct approximately 250 beneficiary audits in the E-rate program. We examined the methodology used by FCC’s IG and USAC for arriving at a sample size of 250, and it appears that they properly used OMB guidance under IPIA in determining the sample size. However, because the effort is still in the beginning stages, they were not able to provide additional information on the sample design, such as the method of sample selection, stratification criteria, and estimation methods. Sample design will be critical in determining the value of the information gained from the audits. In addition, FCC IG officials estimated the cost at approximately $50,000 per audit. With an anticipated total cost of $12.5 million (250 audits at $50,000 per audit), this is an expensive effort. If the cost of the 250 audits varies by the size of the grant, the sample design could be optimized based on variable cost, which may either yield a tighter precision of the estimate of the amount of improper payments or reduce the total cost of the audit. It should also be noted that because this represents a sizable increase from prior audits, FCC may face an even greater challenge in resolving the audit findings in a timely manner. Lastly, we were told by USAC officials that they have recently contracted with a consulting firm to conduct approximately 1,000 site visits a year to program beneficiaries beginning in mid-January 2005. Although these are not audits, USAC testified in June 2004 that the site visits will allow USAC to assess more fully, in real time, how E-rate funds are being used, to learn about and publicize best practices in education technology and program compliance, and to help ensure that products and services have in fact been delivered and are being used effectively. For each visit, the selected vendor will, among other things, conduct a physical inspection of equipment and services purchased with E-rate funds. A checklist, outlining the steps for review, is to be followed for each visit to ensure consistency. The deliverables will include a formal report on each beneficiary visited, a monthly report on best practices observed and outreach suggestions, and immediate notification to USAC in instances where significant noncompliance is discovered. 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. There is currently 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 approximately 458 (25 percent) are backlog appeals. Perhaps of most concern are the subset of appeals dealing with recovery of funding erroneously committed to schools and libraries. According to USAC, recovery has been slowed, in part, because FCC has not been timely in resolving these types of appeals from beneficiaries. In fact, through October 2004, of the approximately $36 million in E-rate funding for which USAC has brought recovery actions since the beginning of the program, only $3.2 million has been recovered and approximately $14.4 million is tied up in appeals with FCC. This is money that might be placed back into the E-rate program for disbursement to applicants. 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, adding some delay to appeals decisions because new staff necessarily take time to learn about the program and the issues. (See app. IV for additional information on FCC staffing levels in support of the E-rate program.) Additionally, we were told that another factor contributing to the backlog is that the appeals have become more complicated as the program has matured. For example, applicants are increasingly appealing decisions concerning eligible services. These appeals can be difficult to resolve because the technology needs of participants in the program can be complex. 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 has not done enough to proactively manage and provide a framework of government accountability for the multibillion-dollar E-rate program. 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. FCC has recently begun to address a few of these issues, concluding that the Universal Service Fund constitutes an appropriation and that the Fund is subject to the Antideficiency Act. Nevertheless, fundamental issues affecting the E-rate program remain to be resolved. Resolving these issues in a comprehensive fashion is key to ensuring that FCC applies the appropriate government accountability standards and safeguards to the E-rate program and to the Universal Service Fund. In managing the program, FCC has not developed specific and meaningful goals and measures to assess the impact of E-rate funding, address mission critical management problems, and establish the direction of the program as schools and libraries move beyond initial Internet connectivity to long- term maintenance concerns. Moreover, FCC has consistently shifted many important responsibilities onto USAC, such as identifying which administrative procedures should be adopted as commission rules and handling resolutions of audit findings. Combined with the weaknesses in FCC’s oversight mechanisms, these problems create barriers to enforcement, uncertainty about what the program’s requirements really are, and questions about the soundness of the program’s structure and accountability amid recent cases of fraud, waste, and abuse. This mixture of E-rate problems—related both to the structure of the program and to FCC’s shortcomings in carrying out key E-rate management responsibilities—indicates the need for corrective actions by FCC. Finally, regardless of the problems with the E-rate program, schools and libraries across the country use E-rate funds for their purchases of telecommunications services. Any reassessment of the program must take the needs of the beneficiaries into account. It is particularly important that efforts to protect the program from fraud, waste, and abuse do not result in a program that is excessively burdensome on program participants. Given the critical importance of telecommunications technologies to schools and libraries, we recommend that the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission direct FCC staff to take the following three actions: 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 program and the funding. The assessment should include, but not be limited to the implications of FCC’s determination that the Universal Service Fund constitutes an appropriation by identifying the fiscal controls that apply and do not apply to the Universal Service Fund, including the collection, deposit, obligation, and disbursement of funds; and an evaluation of the legal authority for the organizational structure for carrying out the E-rate program, including the relationship between FCC and USAC and their respective authorities and roles in implementing the E-rate program. Because of the complexities posed by FCC’s arrangements with USAC and the questions that flow from these arrangements, FCC may want to request an advance decision from the Comptroller General under 31 U.S.C. § 3529. Section 3529 provides the heads of agencies and certifying and disbursing officers of the government an opportunity to request decisions from the Comptroller General on matters of appropriations law in order to ensure compliance with fiscal law. 2. Establish performance goals and measures for the E-rate program that are consistent with the Government Performance and Results Act. FCC should use the resulting performance data to develop analyses of the actual impact of E-rate funding and to determine areas for improved program operations. 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 resolution. We provided a draft of this report to FCC for review and comment. In its comments, which are reprinted in appendix V, FCC noted that it took a number of steps during 2004 to improve its management and oversight of the E-rate program. These included the adoption of new rules regarding the recovery of improperly disbursed funds; the implementation of new accounting requirements related to the Universal Service Fund; new efforts to deter waste, fraud, and abuse; and work with the FCC IG to develop a plan for conducting hundreds of additional beneficiary audits. FCC commented that it has strengthened its oversight and management of USAC through the establishment of a high-level working group to coordinate oversight and has adopted rules codifying certain USAC procedures. FCC also noted that it is currently evaluating USAC’s existing operations and administrative procedures to determine which should be codified into FCC rules. FCC reaffirmed its belief that the current structure of USAC is consistent with congressional intent and guidance, adding that it nevertheless intends to consider whether to modify the manner in which the Universal Service Fund is administered. During the coming year, FCC anticipates examining whether and how to modify its existing administrative structure and processes as they apply to the E-rate program. FCC intends to consider other administrative structures and their implications, including those relying on contractual arrangements. Other actions under consideration include initiating a notice-and-comment rulemaking proceeding to assess the management of the E-rate program and the Universal Service Fund; retaining an outside contractor to evaluate the program and make recommendations for improving its administration; and requiring certain beneficiaries to obtain an independent audit of their compliance with FCC rules. Regarding our recommendations, FCC officials told us they did not concur with our recommendation to conduct a comprehensive assessment concerning the applicability of government accountability requirements, policies, and practices. FCC maintains that it has conducted timely and extensive analysis of significant legal issues related to the status of the fund on a case-by-case basis, and provided examples. Although we recognize that FCC has engaged in internal deliberations and external consultations and analyses of a number of statutes, we do not believe this has been done in a timely manner or that it is appropriate to do so on a case-by-case basis. A definitive determination on the entire framework of laws that apply or do not apply to this program and to the Universal Service Fund itself would enable FCC to make proactive operational decisions on what steps it should take and what internal controls it should have in place. As noted in our report, we continue to believe that major issues remain unresolved such as defining the relationship between FCC and USAC and their respective authorities and roles in implementing the E-rate program and identifying whether other actions taken in the universal service programs constitute obligations and ensuring that those are properly recorded. FCC officials told us that they concurred with our recommendations for establishing performance goals and measures and developing a strategy for reducing the backlog of appeals, noting that the commission is already taking steps to address these recommendations. As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to interested congressional committees; the Chairman, FCC; the Chief Executive Officer, USAC; and other interested parties. We also will make copies available to others upon request. In addition, this report will be available at no cost on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix VI. Our objectives were to review and evaluate: (1) the effect of the current structure of the E-rate program on the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) management of the program, (2) FCC’s establishment of and use of goals and performance measures in managing the program, and (3) the effectiveness of FCC’s oversight mechanisms—rulemaking proceedings, beneficiary audits, and reviews of the Universal Service Administrative Company’s (USAC) decisions (appeals)—in managing the program. To provide information on the effect of the current structure of the E-rate program, we reviewed provisions of the Telecommunications Act, as well as documents and records used by FCC to implement and administer the E- rate program. We also assessed the extent to which FCC had established managerial and financial government accountability standards, safeguards, and legal relationships for the E-rate program and the Universal Service Fund. Additionally, we interviewed officials from FCC’s Wireline Competition Bureau, Office of General Counsel, Office of Managing Director, and Office of Inspector General. We also interviewed officials from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and USAC, the not-for- profit corporation that administers the E-rate program under FCC oversight. To respond to the second objective on FCC’s use of goals and performance measures in managing the program, we reviewed provisions of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, as well as documents and records used by FCC to establish goals and performance measures— budget justifications, performance plans, and strategic plans. We also reviewed OMB’s Program Assessment Rating Tool that assessed FCC’s performance goals and related measures for the E-rate program. In addition, we discussed this issue with officials from FCC’s Wireline Competition Bureau, Office of Managing Director, Office of Strategic Planning and Policy Analysis, and Office of Inspector General. We also interviewed officials from the Office of Management and Budget and Department of Education. Finally, to evaluate FCC’s oversight mechanisms for managing the program, we reviewed relevant documents relating to all three oversight mechanisms: (1) rulemaking proceedings, (2) beneficiary audits, and (3) fact-specific adjudicatory decisions (i.e., appeals decisions). Specifically, we reviewed FCC orders and provisions of the Code of Federal Regulations, which sets forth FCC’s rulemaking process. In addition, we reviewed relevant USAC documents and policies, including its procedures that are in place to aid in the administration of the program. To assess FCC’s oversight mechanism of auditing, we reviewed the FCC Inspector General’s (IG) Semi-Annual Reports to Congress, GAO’s Standards for Internal Controls in the Federal Government, recent FCC orders, and beneficiary audits used to assess program compliance. Our statistician also examined the methodology (based on interviews with and documentation provided by FCC and USAC) that the FCC IG and USAC have proposed for the next round of beneficiary audits. To gain an understanding of how FCC manages appeals, we reviewed relevant documents and gathered data from FCC and USAC regarding the number of outstanding appeals and USAC recovery actions tied up in FCC appeals. To assess the reliability of the FCC appeals data and USAC recovery actions tied up in FCC appeals, we (1) reviewed related documentation, (2) conducted electronic testing of the source databases, and (3) interviewed knowledgeable agency officials about the quality of the data. We found that one database was limited in producing reports that track historical trends. However, this limitation was minor in the context of our engagement. As a result, we determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. Finally, we discussed this issue with officials from FCC’s Wireline Competition Bureau, Office of General Counsel, Office of Managing Director, Office of Inspector General, and USAC. We also reviewed internal memorandums provided by FCC’s Office of General Counsel to determine how FCC has applied federal requirements, policies, and practices to the E-rate program and to the Universal Service Fund. We interviewed FCC officials to obtain their views concerning whether monies in the Universal Service Fund should be treated as federal funds and the effect of using government accounting standards on the fund. Funding commitments since the inception of the program, the number of USAC appeals, and USAC recoveries tied up in appeals to USAC were used only as background information in the report to provide context for our findings; therefore, the data were not verified for data reliability purposes. However, to assess the reliability of funding for which USAC has brought recovery actions, we (1) reviewed related documentation, (2) conducted electronic testing of the source databases, and (3) interviewed knowledgeable agency officials about the quality of the data. As a result, we determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. We also determined that other relevant documents and records that we gathered were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our review. Our review was performed from December 2003 through December 2004 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. There have been questions from the start of the E-rate program regarding the nature of the Universal Service Fund (USF) and the applicability of managerial, fiscal, and financial accountability requirements to USF. FCC has never clearly determined the nature of USF, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), and GAO have at various times noted that USF has not been recognized or treated as federal funds for several purposes. However, FCC has never confronted or assessed these issues in a comprehensive fashion and has only recently begun to address a few of these issues. In particular, FCC has recently concluded that as a permanent indefinite appropriation, USF is subject to the Antideficiency Act and its funding commitment decision letters constitute obligations for purposes of the Antideficiency Act. As explained below, we agree with FCC’s determination. However, FCC’s conclusions concerning the status of USF raise further issues related to the collection, deposit, obligation, and disbursement of those funds—issues that FCC needs to explore and resolve. Universal service has been a basic goal of telecommunications regulation since the 1950s, when FCC focused on increasing the availability of reasonably priced, basic telephone service. See Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel v. FCC, 183 F.3d 393, 405-406 (5th Cir., 1999), cert. denied sub nom; Celpage Inc. v. FCC, 530 U.S. 1210 (2000). FCC has not relied solely on market forces, but has used a combination of explicit and implicit subsidies to achieve this goal. Id. Prior to 1983, FCC used the regulation of AT&T’s internal rate structure to garner funds to support universal service. With the breakup of AT&T in 1983, FCC established a Universal Service Fund administered by the National Exchange Carrier Association (NECA). NECA is an association of incumbent local telephone companies, also established at the direction of FCC. Among other things, NECA was to administer universal service through interstate access tariffs and the revenue distribution process for the nation’s local telephone companies. At that time, NECA, a nongovernmental entity, privately maintained the Universal Service Fund outside the U.S. Treasury. Section 254 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 codified the concept of universal service and expanded it to include support for acquisition by schools and libraries of telecommunications and Internet services. Pub. L. No. 104-104, § 254, 110 Stat. 56 (1996) (classified at 47 U.S.C. § 254). The act defines universal service, generally, as a level of telecommunications services that FCC establishes periodically after taking into account various considerations, including the extent to which telecommunications services are essential to education, public health, and public safety. 47 U.S.C. § 254 (c)(1). The act also requires that “every telecommunications carrier that provides interstate telecommunications services shall contribute . . . to the specific, predictable, and sufficient mechanisms” established by FCC “to preserve and advance universal service.” Id., §254 (d). The act did not specify how FCC was to administer the E-rate program, but required FCC, acting on the recommendations of the Federal-State Joint Board, to define universal service and develop specific, predictable, and equitable support mechanisms. FCC designated the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC), a nonprofit corporation that is a wholly owned subsidiary of NECA, as the administrator of the universal service mechanisms. USAC administers the program pursuant to FCC orders, rules, and directives. As part of its duties, USAC collects the carriers’ universal service contributions, which constitute the Universal Service Fund, and deposits them to a private bank account under USAC’s control and in USAC’s name. FCC has directed the use of USF to, among other things, subsidize advanced telecommunications services for schools and libraries in a program commonly referred to as the E-rate program. Pursuant to the E-rate program, eligible schools and libraries can apply annually to receive support and can spend the funding on specific eligible services and equipment, including telephone services, Internet access services, and the installation of internal wiring and other related items. Generally, FCC orders, rules, and directives, as well as procedures developed by USAC, establish the program’s criteria. USAC carries out the program’s day-to-day operations, such as answering inquiries from schools and libraries; processing and reviewing applications; making funding commitment decisions and issuing funding commitment decision letters; and collecting, managing, investing, and disbursing E-rate funds. 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. As a result of the application of the discount rate to the cost of the service, the school or library pays a percentage of the cost for the service and the E-rate program covers the remainder. E-rate discounts range from 20 percent to 90 percent. Once the school or library has complied with the program’s requirements and entered into agreements with vendors for eligible services, the school or library must file a form with USAC noting the types and costs of the services being contracted for, the vendors providing the services, and the amount of discount being requested. USAC reviews the forms and issues funding commitment decision letters. The funding commitment decision letters notify the applicants of the decisions regarding their E-rate discounts. These funding commitment decision letters also notify the applicants that USAC will send the information on the approved E-rate discounts to the providers so that “preparations can be made to begin implementing . . . E-rate discount(s) upon the filing of . . . Form 486.” The applicant files FCC Form 486 to notify USAC that services have started and USAC can pay service provider invoices. Generally, the service provider seeks reimbursement from USAC for the discounted portion of the service, although the school or library also could pay the service provider in full and then seek reimbursement from USAC for the discount portion. The precise phrasing of the questions regarding the nature of USF has varied over the years, including asking whether they are federal funds, appropriated funds, or public funds and, if so, for what purposes? While the various fiscal statutes may use these different terms to describe the status of funds, we think the fundamental issue is what statutory controls involving the collection, deposit, obligation, and disbursement of funds apply to USF. As explained below, funds that are appropriated funds are subject, unless specifically exempted by law, to a variety of statutory provisions providing a scheme of funds controls. See B-257525, Nov. 30, 1994; 63 Comp. Gen. 31 (1983); 35 Comp. Gen. 436 (1956); B-204078.2, May 6, 1988. On the other hand, funds that are not appropriated funds are not subject to such controls unless the law specifically applies such controls. Thus, we believe the initial question is whether USF funds are appropriated funds. FCC has concluded that USF constitutes a permanent indefinite appropriation. We agree with FCC’s conclusion. Typical language of appropriation identifies a fund or account as an appropriation and authorizes an agency to enter into obligations and make disbursements out of available funds. For example, Congress utilizes such language in the annual appropriations acts. See 1 U.S.C. § 105 (requiring regular annual appropriations acts to bear the title “An Act making appropriations. . .”). Congress, however, appropriates funds in a variety of ways other than in regular annual appropriation acts. Indeed, our decisions and those of the courts so recognize. Thus, a statute that contains a specific direction to pay, and a designation of funds to be used, constitutes an appropriation. 63 Comp. Gen. 331 (1984); 13 Comp. Gen. 77 (1933). In these statutes, Congress (1) authorizes the collection of fees and their deposit into a particular fund, and (2) makes the fund available for expenditure for a specified purpose without further action by Congress. This authority to obligate or expend collections without further congressional action constitutes a continuing appropriation or a permanent appropriation of the collections. E.g., United Biscuit Co. v. Wirtz, 359 F.2d 206, 212 (D.C. Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 971 (1966); 69 Comp. Gen. 260, 262 (1990); 73 Comp. Gen. 321 (1994). Our decisions are replete with examples of permanent appropriations, such as revolving funds and various special deposit funds, including mobile home inspection fees collected by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, licensing revenues received by the Commission on the Bicentennial, tolls and other receipts deposited in the Panama Canal Revolving Fund, user fees collected by the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, user fees collected from tobacco producers to provide tobacco inspection, certification and other services, and user fees collected from firms using the Department of Agriculture’s meat grading services. It is not essential for Congress to expressly designate a fund as an appropriation or to use literal language of “appropriation,” so long as Congress authorizes the expenditure of fees or receipts collected and deposited to a specific account or fund. In cases where Congress does not intend these types of collections or funds to be considered “appropriated funds,” it explicitly states that in law. See e.g., 12 U.S.C. § 244 (the Federal Reserve Board levies assessments on its member banks to pay for its expenses and “funds derived from such assessments shall not be construed to be government funds or appropriated moneys”); 12 U.S.C. § 1422b(c) (the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight levies assessments upon the Federal Home Loan Banks and from other sources to pay its expenses, but such funds “shall not be construed to be government funds or appropriated monies, or subject to apportionment for the purposes of chapter 15 of title 31, or any other authority”). Like the above examples, USF’s current authority stems from a statutorily authorized collection of fees from telecommunications carriers, and expenditures for a specified purpose—that is, the various types of universal service. Thus, USF meets both elements of the definition of a permanent appropriation. We recognize that prior to the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, there existed an administratively sanctioned universal service fund. With the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress specifically expanded the contribution base of the fund, statutorily mandated contributions into the fund, and designated the purposes for which the monies could be expended. These congressional actions established USF in a manner that meets the elements for a permanent appropriation and Congress did not specify that USF should be considered anything other than an appropriation. Appropriated funds are subject to a variety of statutory controls and restrictions. These controls and restrictions, among other things, limit the purposes for which they may be used and provide a scheme of funds control. See e.g., 63 Comp. Gen. 110 (1983); B-257525, Nov. 30, 1994; B- 228777, Aug. 26, 1988; B-223857, Feb. 27, 1987; 35 Comp. Gen. 436 (1956). A key component of this scheme of funds control is the Antideficiency Act. B- 223857, Feb. 27, 1987. The Antideficiency Act has been termed “the cornerstone of congressional efforts to bind the executive branch of government to the limits on expenditure of appropriated funds.” Primarily, the purpose of the Antideficiency Act is to prevent the obligation and expenditure of funds in excess of the amounts available in an appropriation or in advance of the appropriation of funds. 31 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(1). FCC has determined that the Antideficiency Act applies to USF, and as explained below, we agree with FCC’s conclusion. The Antideficiency Act applies to “officer or employee of the United States Government . . . mak or authoriz an expenditure or obligation . . . from an appropriation or fund.” 31 U.S.C. § 1341(a). As established above, USF is an “appropriation or fund.” The fact that USAC, a private entity whose employees are not federal officers or employees, is the administrator of the E-rate program and obligates and disburses funds from USF is not dispositive of the application of the Antideficiency Act. This is because, as the FCC recognizes, it, not USAC, is the entity that is legally responsible for the management and oversight of the E-rate program and FCC’s employees are federal officers and employees of the United States subject to the Antideficiency Act. Where entities operate with funds that are regarded as appropriated funds, such as some government corporations, they, too, are subject to the Antideficiency Act. See e.g., B-223857, Feb. 27, 1987 (funds available to Commodity Credit Corporation pursuant to borrowing authority are subject to Antideficiency Act); B-135075-O.M., Feb. 14, 1975 (Inter- American Foundation). The Antideficiency Act applies to permanent appropriations such as revolving funds and special funds. 72 Comp. Gen. 59 (1992) (Corps of Engineers Civil Works Revolving Fund subject to Antideficiency Act); B-120480, Sep. 6, 1967, B-247348, June 22, 1992, and B- 260606, July 25, 1997 (GPO revolving funds subject to Antideficiency Act); 71 Comp. Gen. 224 (1992) (special fund that receives fees, reimbursements, and advances for services available to finance its operations is subject to Antideficiency Act). Where Congress intends for appropriated funds to be exempt from the application of statutory controls on the use of appropriations, including the Antideficiency Act, it does so expressly. See e.g., B-193573, Jan. 8, 1979; B- 193573, Dec. 19, 1979; B-217578, Oct. 16, 1986 (Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation has express statutory authority to determine the character and necessity of its obligations and is therefore exempt from many of the restrictions on the use of appropriated funds that would otherwise apply); B-197742, Aug. 1, 1986 (Price-Anderson Act expressly exempts the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from Antideficiency Act prohibition against obligations or expenditures in advance or in excess of appropriations). There is no such exemption for FCC or USF from the prohibitions of the Antideficiency Act. Thus, USF is subject to the Antideficiency Act. An important issue that arises from the application of the Antideficiency Act to USF is what actions constitute obligations chargeable against the fund. Understanding the concept of an obligation and properly recording obligations are important because an obligation serves as the basis for the scheme of funds control that Congress envisioned when it enacted fiscal laws such as the Antideficiency Act. B-300480, Apr. 9, 2003. For USF’s schools and libraries program, one of the main questions is whether the funding commitment decision letters issued to schools and libraries are properly regarded as obligations. FCC has determined that funding commitment decision letters constitute obligations. And again, as explained below, we agree with FCC’s determination. Under the Antideficiency Act, an agency may not incur an obligation in excess of the amount available to it in an appropriation or fund. 31 U.S.C. § 1341(a). Thus, proper recording of obligations with respect to the timing and amount of such obligations permits compliance with the Antideficiency Act by ensuring that agencies have adequate budget authority to cover all of their obligations. B-300480, Apr. 9, 2003. We have defined an “obligation” as a “definite commitment that creates a legal liability of the government for the payment of goods and services ordered or received.” Id. A legal liability is generally any duty, obligation or responsibility established by a statute, regulation, or court decision, or where the agency has agreed to assume responsibility in an interagency agreement, settlement agreement or similar legally binding document. Id. citing to Black’s Law Dictionary 925 (7th ed. 1999). The definition of “obligation” also extends to “ legal duty on the part of the United States which constitutes a legal liability or which could mature into a legal liability by virtue of actions on the part of the other party beyond the control of the United States. . . .” Id. citing to 42 Comp. Gen. 733 (1963); see also McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. United States, 37 Fed. Cl. 295, 301 (1997). The funding commitment decision letters provided to applicant schools and libraries notify them of the decisions regarding their E-rate discounts. In other words, it notifies them whether their funding is approved and in what amounts. The funding commitment decision letters also notify schools and libraries that the information on the approved E-rate discounts is sent to the providers so that “preparations can be made to begin implementing . . . E-rate discount(s) upon the filing of . . . Form 486.” The applicant files FCC Form 486 to notify USAC that services have started and USAC can pay service provider invoices. At the time a school or library receives a funding commitment decision letter, the FCC has taken an action that accepts a “legal duty . . . which could mature into a legal liability by virtue of actions on the part of the grantee beyond the control of the United States.” Id. citing 42 Comp. Gen. 733, 734 (1963). In this instance, the funding commitment decision letter provides the school or library with the authority to obtain services from a provider with the commitment that it will receive a discount and the provider will be reimbursed for the discount provided. While the school or library could decide not to seek the services or the discount, so long as the funding commitment decision letter remains valid and outstanding, USAC and FCC no longer control USF’s liability; it is dependent on the actions taken by the other party—that is, the school or library. In our view, a recordable USF obligation is incurred at the time of issuance of the funding commitment decision letter indicating approval of the applicant’s discount. Thus, these obligations should be recorded in the amounts approved by the funding commitment decision letters. If at a later date, a particular applicant uses an amount less than the maximum or rejects funding, then the obligation amount can be adjusted or deobligated, respectively. Additional issues that remain to be resolved by FCC include whether other actions taken in the universal service program constitute obligations and the timing of and amounts of obligations that must be recorded. For example, this includes the projections and data submissions by USAC to FCC and by participants in the High Cost and Low Income Support Mechanisms to USAC. FCC has indicated that it is considering this issue and consulting with the Office of Management and Budget. FCC should also identify any other actions that may constitute recordable obligations and ensure those are properly recorded. Various policies to promote universal service—providing residential customers with affordable, nationwide access to basic telephone service— have generally been around since the 1950s. Congress codified and made significant changes to universal service policy in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. However, Congress did not prescribe a structure for administering the universal service programs and instead called for a Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service (Joint Board) to make recommendations to FCC. At the time of the act, the National Exchange Carrier Association (NECA) was responsible for administering the existing universal service mechanisms providing support for high-cost areas and low-income individuals. NECA is an association of incumbent local telephone companies that was established at FCC’s direction in 1983 (in anticipation of the breakup of the Bell System) to administer interstate access tariffs and the revenue distribution process for the nation’s nearly 1,000 local telephone companies. In November 1996, the Joint Board recommended that, in the interest of providing services to schools and libraries and health care providers quickly, FCC should appoint NECA as the temporary administrator of universal service to these groups, subject to changes in NECA’s governance to make NECA more representative of the telecommunications industry as a whole. Under the Joint Board’s recommendation, NECA would continue this role until a permanent administrator was appointed. The Joint Board recommended that FCC establish an advisory board to select and oversee a neutral third-party administrator for all universal service programs and suggested criteria to be used in that selection. The Joint Board further recommended that FCC allow NECA to change its membership and governance in a manner that would allow it to compete for the role of permanent administrator in the advisory board’s selection process. On the basis of the Joint Board’s recommendations, FCC agreed in a May 1997 order to appoint NECA as the temporary administrator, subject to changes in NECA’s governance. It also agreed to create a federal advisory committee, whose sole responsibility would be to recommend an administrator, and directed that the administrator should select a contractor to manage the application process for schools and libraries. NECA later determined that developing a satisfactory board structure to be able to bid for the permanent administrator role might not be possible. Thus, NECA proposed to FCC in January 1997 that it be allowed to establish a separate subsidiary to administer universal service. In July 1997, FCC issued an order directing NECA to create two independent nonprofit corporations—one to administer the program for schools and libraries (the Schools and Libraries Corporation) and one to administer the program for rural health care providers (the Rural Health Care Corporation). FCC’s order further specified that these corporations would continue to administer the programs even after the appointment of a permanent administrator. To carry out billing, collecting, and disbursement activities for these programs, FCC directed NECA to create a nonprofit subsidiary. FCC further directed that the subsidiary create a special committee of its board of directors to administer the universal service programs for high-cost areas and low-income individuals. NECA created the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) as the subsidiary. In November 1998, FCC changed the universal service structure in response to legal concerns about FCC’s authority to create the two independent corporations and Congress’s directive that a single entity administer universal service support. FCC appointed an existing body, USAC, as the permanent administrator of the program and directed the Schools and Libraries Corporation and the Rural Health Care Corporation to merge with USAC by January 1, 1999. Under this merger, the staff of the Schools and Libraries Corporation became part of a new Schools and Libraries Division (SLD) within USAC, carrying out essentially the same functions as before, such as processing and reviewing E-rate applications. However, SLD contracts out most of its billing, collecting, and disbursement activities to USAC. In addition, in 2000 NECA formed an unaffiliated, for-profit corporation, NECA Services Inc., to pursue new business opportunities. USAC later contracted most of its application processing, client support, and review functions to NECA Services Inc. See figure 1. The following are GAO’s comments on the Federal Communications Commission’s letter dated January 14, 2005. 1. As stated in our report, we have not addressed FCC’s authority to establish the current organizational structure. We recognize that FCC has reported to Congress on its implementation of the current organizational structure and it believes that structure is consistent with congressional intent and conforms to congressional guidance. However, at the time this structure was established by FCC, numerous issues such as the status of the Universal Service Fund as federal funds—specifically a permanent indefinite appropriation—and the applicability of fiscal statutes such as the Antideficiency Act had not been resolved. It is critical to the management of federal funds that the funds be properly collected, deposited, obligated, and expended by authorized parties in accordance with those determinations regarding the status of the funds. Thus, we believe FCC should consider whether the current organizational structure and roles and responsibilities of FCC and USAC are consistent with law and comply with fiscal and accountability requirements for federal funds. FCC states that it intends to consider whether to modify the manner in which the Universal Service Fund is administered, including possible changes to the underlying administrative structure. We believe this would be a positive step toward carrying out our recommendation. 2. FCC states that it has undertaken a timely and extensive analysis of the significant legal issues related to 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 this has been done in a timely manner or that it is appropriate to do so on a case-by-case basis. Addressing the applicability of the statutes on a case-by-case basis, as issues have arisen, has put 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. The laws encompassing fiscal and accountability controls are not applied in isolation; rather, they are part of a framework that addresses issues of financial and general management of federal agencies and programs. The E-rate program was established over seven years ago, yet FCC is still analyzing whether certain statutes or requirements apply to the program and what actions it must take to implement those statutes and ensure compliance with them. The recent issues involving the Antideficiency Act best illustrate the problem with this case-by-case approach. As explained in our report, it was not until the fall of 2004 that the applicability and consequences of the Antideficiency Act were resolved. Moreover, this was not the first time issues regarding the Antideficiency Act had been raised. In July 1998, a question had been raised regarding USAC’s authority to commecially borrow funds. At that time, USAC was instructed to refrain from commercial borrowing while FCC was examining the applicability of the Antideficiency Act to USAC’s operations. While FCC determined that USAC should not borrow commercially in 1998, the question of whether there were other consequences for the E-rate program regarding the applicability of the Antideficiency Act was not addressed. Had FCC taken a comprehensive approach to the application of fiscal and accountability statutes such as the Antideficiency Act when the program was created or soon thereafter, FCC would have been in a position to determine what steps they should have taken and what internal controls they should have had in place to ensure compliance with those statutes. For example, with respect to the Antideficiency Act, they could have determined whether actions they were taking were obligations that needed to be recorded and, if so, made any necessary changes to the program to ensure that they had sufficient amounts in the Universal Service Fund to cover those obligations. Furthermore, while certain determinations may have been made internally, they have neither been analyzed nor definitively determined in FCC’s orders on the E-rate program. In addition, USAC has not always received instruction on how to carry out all of these requirements. For example, as noted in our report, in its October 2003 order applying GovGAAP to the Universal Service Fund, FCC stated that “the Funds may be subject to a number of federal financial and reporting statutes” (emphasis added) and “relevant portions of the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996,” but did not specify which specific statutes or the relevant portions or further analyze their applicability. 3. In our report, we list several examples of fiscal control and accountability statutes. FCC states in its letter that it has already made a determination of each statute’s applicability to the Universal Service Fund. We agree that FCC has made a determination involving the applicability of the Improper Payments Information Act, and we therefore deleted our references to this act. We recognize that FCC has consulted with other agencies such as OMB and Treasury regarding the applicability of the Miscellaneous Receipts Act, the Single Audit Act, and the Cash Management Improvement Act. However, 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. Such a reconsideration is particularly important in the case of the Miscellaneous Receipts Act, where OMB and FCC determined in 2000 that the act did not apply because the funds were not public monies for the use of the United States. Our recommendation focuses on a proactive, comprehensive analysis and determination of legal requirements rather than a continued approach of reactive case-by-case determinations. A definitive determination on the entire framework of laws that apply or do not apply to this program would enable FCC to make operational decisions on what steps they should take and what internal controls they should have in place to ensure compliance with applicable laws. 4. As stated in our report, due to the complexities posed by these issues, GAO remains available to provide an advance decision to FCC under 31 U.S.C. § 3529. 5. Our report does not note that “FCC had established some performance measures, but determined that it needed to establish better and more comprehensive ways of measuring E-rate performance.” It also does not note that the reason FCC stopped using the number of public schools connected to the Internet was that it was no longer a useful measure of the program. Our report states that prior to fiscal year 2000, FCC had no specific goals and measures for the program; that for fiscal years 2000 through 2002, the goals and measures set by FCC were not useful for assessing the impact of E-rate program funding because the measures used did not directly measure the impact of E-rate funding; and that since fiscal year 2002 there have been no E-rate performance goals and measures at all. In its letter, FCC states that it is actively working to re-establish performance goals and measures that are consistent with the Government Performance and Results Act. Our finding is that FCC never established E-rate goals and measures that were consistent with the act in the first place, despite our recommendation in 1998 (and reiterated in 1999) to do so. In a multibillion-dollar program now entering its eighth funding year, this is a serious management deficiency. In its letter, FCC notes that it needs to seek comment from stakeholders regarding performance measures. GAO’s guidance on implementing the Results Act supports this approach: Stakeholder involvement in defining goals is particularly important in a political environment, and the involvement of Congress is indispensable. While we understand the time involved in crafting useful performance goals and measures and complying with the notice-and-comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, we urge FCC to move as quickly as possible in its efforts. 6. Our draft report included appeals numbers that were different from those in FCC’s letter. It appears that our numbers included waiver requests as well as appeals. We have changed our report to reflect the numbers included in FCC’s letter, which, according to FCC, are current as of January 1, 2005. This numerical difference does not reflect any material change. 7. We are encouraged that FCC has begun redirecting staff and hiring additional attorneys to Universal Service Fund oversight and program management, including the resolution of E-rate appeals. It is a particularly positive step that FCC has established a measurable goal of resolving all backlogged E-rate appeals by the end of calendar year 2005. In addition to those named above, Carol Anderson-Guthrie, Andy Clinton, Derrick Collins, Sandra DePaulis, Edda Emmanuelli-Perez, Chad Factor, Moses Garcia, Lynn Gibson, Karen O’Conor, Mindi Weisenbloom, and Alwynne Wilbur made key contributions to this report.

Summary: Since 1998, the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) E-rate program has committed more than $13 billion to help schools and libraries acquire Internet and telecommunications services. Recently, however, allegations of fraud, waste, and abuse by some E-rate program participants have come to light. As steward of the program, FCC must ensure that participants use E-rate funds appropriately and that there is managerial and financial accountability surrounding the funds. GAO reviewed (1) the effect of the current structure of the E-rate program on FCC's management of the program, (2) FCC's development and use of E-rate performance goals and measures, and (3) the effectiveness of FCC's oversight mechanisms in managing the program. FCC established the E-rate program using an organizational structure unusual to the government without conducting a comprehensive assessment to determine which federal requirements, policies, and practices apply to it. The E-rate program is administered by a private, not-for-profit corporation with no contract or memorandum of understanding with FCC, and program funds are maintained outside of the U.S. Treasury, raising issues related to the collection, deposit, obligation, and disbursement of the funding. While FCC recently concluded that the Universal Service Fund constitutes an appropriation and is subject to the Antideficiency Act, this raises further issues concerning the applicability of other fiscal control and accountability statutes. These issues need to be explored and resolved comprehensively to ensure that appropriate governmental accountability standards are fully in place to help protect the program and the fund from fraud, waste, and abuse. FCC has not developed useful performance goals and measures for assessing and managing the E-rate program. The goals established for fiscal years 2000 through 2002 focused on the percentage of public schools connected to the Internet, but the data used to measure performance did not isolate the impact of E-rate funding from other sources of funding, such as state and local government. A key unanswered question, therefore, is the extent to which increases in connectivity can be attributed to E-rate. In addition, goals for improving E-rate program management have not been a feature of FCC's performance plans. In its 2003 assessment of the program, OMB noted that FCC discontinued E-rate performance measures after fiscal year 2002 and 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. In response to OMB's concerns, FCC is currently working on developing new E-rate goals. FCC's oversight mechanisms contain weaknesses that limit FCC's management of the program and its ability to understand the scope of any waste, fraud, and abuse within the program. According to FCC officials, oversight of the program is primarily handled through agency rulemaking procedures, beneficiary audits, and appeals decisions. FCC's rulemakings have often lacked specificity and led to a distinction between FCC's rules and the procedures put in place by the program administrator--a distinction that has affected the recovery of funds for program violations. While audits of E-rate beneficiaries have been conducted, FCC has been slow to respond to audit findings and make full use of them to strengthen the program. In addition, the small number of audits completed to date do not provide a basis for accurately assessing the level of fraud, waste, and abuse occurring in the program, although the program administrator is working to address this issue. According to FCC officials, there is also a substantial backlog of E-rate appeals due in part to a shortage of staff and staff turnover. Because appeal decisions establish precedent, this slowness adds uncertainty to the program.