SBA’s standard operating procedures on outreach activities establish the agency’s policy on cosponsored activities and are governed by the cosponsorship authority provided to the agency under Section 4(h) of the act, SBA’s regulations implementing cosponsorship authority, and Office of Government Ethics regulations. SBA’s procedures define, among other things, the entities SBA may enter into a cosponsorship agreement with, certain activities that may and may not be performed as cosponsored activities, and how cosponsored activities may be funded. For example, SBA may enter into a cosponsorship agreement with any eligible entity with whom such partnership would not create a conflict of interest with the agency. Eligible entities can include for-profit or nonprofit entities, or any federal, state, or local government official or entity. SBA’s procedures on outreach activities also define certain activities that may be performed as cosponsored activities, described by the following examples: Training: Activity must include delivery of an instructional program— either in person or on-line—that provides information on or experiences with SBA programs or services or a business-related subject. Matchmaking: Activity (generally government contracting or financing initiatives) that brings together government and private-sector resources and small business owners. Matchmaking events are permissible so long as the activities are not exclusive to any one group or do not benefit only one entity. No business transactions (e.g., signing of contracts) can take place during the cosponsored activity. Counseling: One-to-one counseling may be a part of an activity only if the counseling is performed by an SBA employee or by an SBA grantee that provides counseling services as part of its SBA-funded activity. Web pages or websites: A cosponsored web page or website can refer to a variety of activities including (1) the actual cosponsored activity itself; (2) a means to host the cosponsored activity (i.e., online training, digital publication or podcast); or (3) a means to advertise or register participants for the cosponsored activity. The web page or website must include information or links to SBA programs and services and cannot include commercial activity. Recognition: Activity that celebrates the contributions of small business, small business owners, or small business advocates. In addition, SBA’s procedures define activities that may not be performed as cosponsored activities, including political and fundraising activities, and activities that are solely or primarily a networking or social reception and do not provide a formal opportunity for SBA to make a presentation on SBA programs and services. Further, SBA’s procedures define the various ways cosponsored activities may be funded. Cosponsors may provide cash or an in-kind contribution, a cosponsor may charge a participant fee to cover the direct costs of providing the cosponsored activity, or SBA may accept a gift under its gift acceptance authority to support cosponsored activities. SBA also may use appropriated funds to support a cosponsored activity. However SBA must purchase the product or service directly (following the appropriate procurement process) and provide that product or service to the cosponsored activity as an in-kind contribution. Additionally, SBA’s procedures note that funds to support a cosponsored activity may be used for nearly any expense so long as that type of expense is approved as part of the proposed cosponsorship budget, is a direct cost of the activity, and is necessary and integral to the activity. SBA district office officials and staff we spoke to said that they consider various factors when making a decision to provide assistance to small businesses under a cosponsorship agreement, including whether a potential cosponsor has expertise in a particular area such as lending or exporting, has resources necessary to conduct an event such as space, or could provide funding to cover these and other event costs. SBA and cosponsors share responsibilities for planning, funding, and conducting cosponsored activities. SBA’s procedures on outreach activities generally describe the roles and responsibilities of the various offices within SBA. In addition, cosponsorship agreements between SBA and cosponsors describe each party’s specific responsibilities; the division of responsibilities and the extent to which SBA and cosponsors share responsibilities differed in the agreements we reviewed. Figure 1 illustrates the key responsibilities of SBA and cosponsors before, during, and after cosponsored activities. Before a cosponsored activity takes place, SBA and cosponsors have several key responsibilities, as the following examples illustrate. Determining type and subject of activity. SBA field and program offices are responsible for originating cosponsored activities. As previously stated, our analysis of the information SBA maintains on cosponsorship agreements showed that the agency executed 132 cosponsorship agreements in fiscal year 2012. In addition, our review of the official file for these agreements and other related materials showed that more than 80 percent of them included training activities, about 20 percent included recognition activities, and about 17 percent included matchmaking activities. Further, the subject matter of the activities conducted under these agreements varied and included business planning and marketing, social media, e-commerce, technology, franchising, employment practices and employee benefits, tax planning and other legal issues, and government contracting. Making conflict-of-interest determinations. SBA field or program offices that originate cosponsored activities are responsible for vetting nonprofit and governmental entities; SBA’s Office of Strategic Alliances is responsible for vetting for-profit entities and upon request may assist originating offices in vetting nonprofit and government entities. Vetting is the process of gathering information to determine whether potential cosponsors have an actual or apparent conflict of interest with SBA that would preclude them from cosponsoring an activity. The information gathered during the vetting process is submitted to SBA’s General Counsel or designee to determine whether any conflicts of interest exist. The SBA Form 1615 documents the conflict-of-interest determination. Preparing cosponsorship agreement, agenda and budget. Initially, SBA will prepare a draft cosponsorship agreement and, with the assistance of potential cosponsors as necessary, drafts an agenda and budget. Cosponsorship agreements, among other things, describe the purpose of the activity or event, provide the dates and locations of the event and estimated number of attendees, and include, as applicable, a draft agenda and budget for the activity or event. After SBA’s General Counsel or their designee determines that no conflicts of interest exist with potential cosponsors and reviews the draft cosponsorship agreement for legal sufficiency, SBA field and program offices— with assistance from cosponsors—will work to finalize the agreement and develop a proposed budget for the activity that lists the sources of income, such as cash and in-kind contributions from cosponsors, in-kind contributions from SBA, and fees paid by participants, and the estimated cost of conducting the cosponsored activity. Some SBA district office officials told us that, beyond available human resources and the district office’s own space, they do not have an abundance of discretionary funds to spend on cosponsored activities and they leverage the resources of cosponsors because of this. SBA is responsible for designating a cosponsor as fiscal agent when the cosponsored activity expects to receive cash contributions from cosponsors or fees from participants. The fiscal agent is responsible for collecting, managing, and disbursing cosponsorship funds and establishing a separate mechanism to account for all cosponsorship funds that prevents commingling of cosponsorship funds with the fiscal agent’s own funds. Our review of the proposed budgets for all fiscal year 2012 cosponsorship agreements showed that SBA funded direct costs in less than half of the agreements, and when it did it generally funded costs for course materials and instructors, printing, postage, marketing activities, and awards. Table 1 provides information on the budgets for cosponsorship agreements SBA executed in fiscal year 2012. The largest direct cost SBA funded in fiscal year 2012 was $810,475 for the course materials and instructors for the Emerging Leaders Initiative, a 7-month training program provided to small business executives in more than 20 cities (under separate cosponsorship agreements) across the country. SBA does not systematically collect feedback on the benefits that cosponsored activities provide to small businesses. However, participants in all eight focus groups that GAO held described various benefits they received from attending specific cosponsored activities. In addition, according to SBA officials, cosponsored activities enable the agency to combine public and private resources and provide assistance to small businesses at little or no cost. SBA officials and cosponsors also said that cosponsored activities provided participants with convenient access to services and resources from multiple organizations in a single location and often included counseling and training. Some SBA district office staff we met with told us that they collected feedback from participants at cosponsored activities—for instance, through a survey, evaluation, or informal follow-up—and as previously noted some fiscal year 2012 cosponsorship agreements we reviewed included specific responsibilities for SBA or cosponsors to collect participant feedback. However, SBA officials told us that the agency did not have a formal policy that required the collection of such information. Our focus groups participants identified benefits they received from attending cosponsored activities and also noted that they obtained information on topics useful to their small business (see fig. 2). For example, participants from all eight focus groups commented positively on the quality of the presentations and nearly all of the focus group participants said that the opportunity to network was beneficial. In addition, the focus group participants most often cited topics that provided information on how to develop and implement a business expansion plan (growth management) and information about the federal contracting process as being useful to their business. Further, the benefits reported were directly related to the type of cosponsored activity. For example, those attending the Emerging Leaders Initiative, which emphasized business management skills, reported obtaining information on topics such as financial management, strategic planning, and marketing as being useful. Likewise, those attending cosponsored activities focused on federal contracting, such as the Doing Business with Federal Procuring Agencies and the Small Business Talk series, reported obtaining information on understanding the federal contracting process as being useful. Focus group participants also described their reasons for attending certain cosponsored activities (see fig. 3). For example, focus group participants told us that networking and partnering opportunities and improved federal contracting opportunities were among the primary reasons why they attended the cosponsored activity. In addition, the participants noted in 6 of 8 focus groups that growth management, business administration, and the federal contracting process were topics of interest that led them to attend the cosponsored activity. We also noted that the number of focus groups citing certain benefits received from attending the cosponsored activity was higher than the number of groups citing this benefit as a primary reason for attending the cosponsored activity. For example, participants in all eight focus groups cited the quality of the curriculum as a benefit received from attending the cosponsored activity (see fig. 2); participants in four focus groups had mentioned obtaining access to the training curriculum as a reason for attending (see fig. 3). Similarly, participants in seven of eight focus groups cited networking or relationship building as a benefit received from attending the cosponsored activity, while participants in five focus groups said that the possibility of identifying such opportunities had helped motivate them to attend. SBA officials told us that having cosponsorship authority allowed the agency to benefit small businesses by combining public and private resources to offer activities and that the events offered benefits that SBA or the cosponsors alone could not provide. Both SBA officials and cosponsors told us that the activities provided attendees with “one-stop shopping,” including access to services and resources from multiple organizations, counseling, and referrals. SBA officials added that when multiple entities acted as cosponsors, small businesses gained a better understanding of the services each entity offered and the way the entities worked together to service small businesses. For example, a district office official said that one Emerging Leaders Initiative cosponsor specialized in business development and another in financing, allowing participants to learn about both opportunities for expanding their businesses. Further, many cosponsored events are offered for free, which an SBA official noted was an important benefit to small businesses that might not be able to spare money for attendance fees. Cosponsors generally shared SBA’s views, with one cosponsor citing one-stop shopping as a benefit. Although the act specifies that SBA cosponsored activities provide benefits to small businesses, it does not specify how SBA should identify and measure benefits. Some SBA district office staff we met with told us that they sought to obtain feedback from attendees at cosponsored activities through various means, including surveys, evaluations, and informal follow-up with participants and cosponsors. However, SBA officials told us that the agency did not have a formal policy requiring the collection and use of participant feedback on cosponsored activities. An SBA official told us that the agency had at one time obtained feedback from participants using an Office of Management and Budget approved survey instrument, but added that SBA did not seek to renew the survey instrument once it had expired. As previously noted, some fiscal year 2012 cosponsorship agreements we reviewed included specific responsibilities for SBA or cosponsors to obtain feedback from participants. SBA officials told us that obtaining participant feedback was not a responsibility that cosponsorship agreements were required to include. Although not required by the cosponsorship agreements, obtaining periodic participant feedback is an integral part of the Emerging Leaders Initiative course. The contractor that provides the curriculum and instructors for the course summarize the participant feedback and provide it to SBA. Further, SBA has reported that the Initiative has shown significant employment growth among participating companies and access to new financing since participants graduated from the program. Cosponsors we met with noted the importance of obtaining participant feedback. For example, three cosponsors told us that having a mechanism to follow up after an activity would help assess its impact— that is, how the activity ultimately benefited participants. Further, small businesses attending focus groups that we held provided us with feedback on ways in which the cosponsored activity could have been improved. As figure 4 shows, participants in seven of the eight focus groups we held commented that they wanted additional follow-up after attending a cosponsored activity. In addition, participants in five of the eight focus groups commented that more time was need for the activity. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government state that federal agencies should have appropriate policies, procedures, techniques, and mechanisms for each of their activities, including those to ensure compliance with key requirements. Obtaining feedback on cosponsored events could provide SBA with direct information from small business participants that could be used to help ensure that the events benefited small businesses. In addition, we found that participants had suggestions for improving the events that could help SBA in designing future activities. Further, evaluating participant feedback could help SBA evaluate its use of cosponsorship authority—that is, whether SBA is most effectively implementing the statutory authority to conduct cosponsored events for the benefit of small businesses. Cosponsored activities can allow the agency to leverage public and private resources to benefit small businesses—generally in the form of training, education, or dissemination of information. Various offices within SBA and cosponsors have a shared responsibility for planning, funding, and conducting cosponsored activities as required under SBA policies and procedures and defined in cosponsorship agreements. Some cosponsorship agreements we reviewed included an additional responsibility for SBA or cosponsors to obtain the views of participants at cosponsored events, but SBA does not have formal policies or procedures for obtaining participant feedback. Federal internal control standards state that federal agencies should have, among other things, appropriate policies and mechanisms for each of their activities, including those to ensure compliance with key requirements. Obtaining feedback on cosponsored events would provide SBA with direct information from small business participants that could be used to help ensure that events are providing benefits to small businesses. Such information could also provide another way for SBA to evaluate the use of its cosponsorship authority. To ensure that SBA most effectively implements the statutory authority to conduct cosponsored events for the benefit of small businesses and to enhance SBA’s ability to evaluate the use of its cosponsorship authority, the Administrator of the SBA should develop a mechanism to consistently obtain participant feedback on cosponsored activities. We requested comments from SBA on a draft of this report, and the agency provided written comments that are presented in appendix V. SBA generally agreed with our recommendation to develop a mechanism to consistently obtain participant feedback on cosponsored activities. SBA stated that it will evaluate the best means to obtain consistent feedback from participants during cosponsored activities in a manner that is not overly burdensome to the participant. In addition, SBA stated that it thinks there are many ways to obtain feedback on events and activities and it will look to provide a range of options for SBA program and district offices to employ. SBA also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. We will send copies of this report to SBA and interested congressional committees. The report will also be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact William B. Shear at (202) 512-8678 or shearw@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are listed in appendix VI. The objectives of this report are to (1) describe the roles and responsibilities of SBA and cosponsors in planning, funding, and conducting cosponsored activities; and (2) examine the benefits cosponsored activities provide to small businesses. To describe the roles and responsibilities of SBA and cosponsors in planning, funding, and conducting cosponsored activities, we reviewed Section 4(h) of the Small Business Act, implementing regulations, and SBA’s standard operating procedures and guidance related to the use of cosponsorship authority. In addition, we identified the specific roles and responsibilities of SBA and cosponsors for a nonprobability sample of 27 cosponsorship agreements SBA executed in fiscal year 2012. The results of our analyses of the specific roles and responsibilities described in these agreements cannot be generalized to all cosponsorship agreements SBA executed in fiscal year 2012, but the agreements represent a variety of eligible entities, eligible activities, expected number of businesses assisted, direct costs, and locations and dates. We interviewed officials and staff from SBA’s Office of Strategic Alliances and Office of General Counsel, and officials from six district offices and staff from five of those district offices to gain an understanding of the roles and responsibilities of SBA and cosponsors related to planning, funding, and conducting cosponsored activities. We selected four of the district offices based primarily on the frequency with which the office conducted cosponsored activities in fiscal years 2010 to 2012 and interviewed officials and staff from the remaining two district offices that originated the cosponsored activities we selected for our focus groups. The district offices were located in California, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, North Dakota, and New York. We also interviewed representatives from 10 entities that cosponsored an activity with SBA during calendar years 2012 or 2013 to understand their roles and responsibilities for the activities they cosponsored and how and why they cosponsored them. Seven of these entities had cosponsored the activities selected for our focus groups and the other three entities had cosponsored National Small Business Week activities in 2012 and 2013. Further, we attended two cosponsored events and observed how information was delivered to and received by participants. We also reviewed SBA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) report on its audit of SBA’s controls over cosponsored activities, which assessed the adequacy of those controls, and discussed the audit with the OIG. In addition, we requested the official file for the more than 132 cosponsorship agreements SBA executed in fiscal year 2012 as listed in a spreadsheet the agency maintains on the status of these agreements. Two analysts reviewed the cosponsorship documentation contained in the files and other materials, including cosponsorship agreements, draft and final agendas, marketing materials and final cosponsorship reports (SBA form 2299). As a part of this review, the analysts independently coded the documentation to identify the type of activity and subject matter. The analysts also recorded the type of budgeted direct costs, whether each agreement included a responsibility for SBA or the cosponsor to obtain participant feedback, and compared the budgeted amount to that listed in the spreadsheet data SBA maintains. Any disagreement between the analysts on the coding of the cosponsorship documentation was resolved through discussion. We assessed the reliability of the spreadsheet data SBA maintains on the status of cosponsorship agreements by reviewing it for obvious errors and comparing the data for selected agreements to SBA’s official files. We clarified any discrepancies with SBA and corrected the data accordingly. We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of determining the number of executed cosponsorship agreements and the associated date of execution and budgeted direct cost for these agreements. To examine the benefits cosponsored activities provide to small businesses, we conducted eight focus groups in three cities (Atlanta, GA; Detroit, MI; and Kalamazoo, MI) with 48 entrepreneurs that had attended one of three SBA cosponsored activities conducted in 2012 and 2013— the Emerging Leaders Initiative, Doing Business with Federal Procuring Agencies series, and Small Business Talk Series. We considered a number of factors in selecting the three activities. For example, we selected the Emerging Leaders Initiative because of the large amount of direct costs SBA funded for the initiative. We selected the Doing Business with Federal Procuring Agencies and Small Business Talk series because the activities (1) took place in the same or nearby location where an Emerging Leaders Initiative was taking place (2) included a significant training component, (3) had a sizable number of expected attendees from which to solicit 8 to12 people for a focus group, (4) had lists of preregistered participants or attendee lists with contact information, and (5) occurred within 12 months preceding the focus groups. We also considered geographic diversity for the three activities we selected to conduct focus groups. We sought to ensure that the activities we selected to conduct focus groups took place in different regions of the country with differing economic profiles. We determined that these activities would provide us with sufficient information from participants on the benefits participants received or expected to receive in the future from having attended different types of cosponsored activities in different parts of the country. The entrepreneurs who participated in our focus groups included mostly small business owners, but also individuals who were interested in starting up their own small business and those who worked for a small business. We limited our focus group participation to entrepreneurs with recent experience attending a cosponsored activity to minimize recall bias and to ensure that the most accurate account of participants’ experiences could be obtained. To recruit volunteers to our focus groups, we obtained from SBA a list of persons who attended the three activities in locations we selected. We contacted each person by email, soliciting them to participate in our focus groups and took the first volunteers for up to 12 persons per focus group. Our focus groups ranged in size from 3 to 11. Attendees at our focus groups included women-owned and veteran- owned small businesses in a variety of industries including construction, janitorial services, and health care (see app. IV, figs. 5 through 8, for additional information about participant characteristics and focus group responses on various themes). The focus groups were structured small group discussions designed to generate information on the participants’ experiences with SBA cosponsored training, education, and counseling events. Methodologically, information gathered from focus groups cannot be used to make generalizations about a population or to demonstrate the extent of an issue. Thus, while the information we gathered is not generalizable to all participants in SBA cosponsored activities, it provides valuable context regarding their perceptions of the benefits and challenges they experienced when attending these events and this information is more in- depth than is possible using numerous individual interviews. Small business owners and other participants who did not attend our focus groups may have had different experiences. A GAO facilitator guided the focus group participants using a structured set of questions. In addition to the GAO facilitator, another team member recorded notes of the proceedings. At the start of each discussion session, ground rules were established encouraging participants to limit their comments to their own personal experiences with the SBA cosponsored event attended unless explicitly asked to respond more broadly. The facilitator encouraged all participants to share their views and react to the views of others. Using a GAO-developed discussion guide, the facilitator asked the participants to give their perspectives on (1) their decision to attend the SBA cosponsored event, (2) the perceived benefits, (3) the challenges associated with their experience or suggestions for improvements, (4) expectations about future uses of what they learned, and (5) events they attended within 12 months preceding the focus groups. We conducted the analysis of the focus group results in three steps. First, two analysts developed a codebook to identify common themes in the focus group notes and worked together to ensure agreement. Second, two GAO analysts independently coded the transcripts and then resolved any coding discrepancies. Third, the coders noted how often a theme was expressed across each focus group and focused on those that were mentioned frequently across the majority of focus groups. The focus group results discussed in this report reflect the range of views and perceptions expressed in a larger number of the focus groups. We also interviewed key officials at SBA headquarters in Washington, D.C., including representatives from the agency’s Office of Strategic Alliances and Office of General Counsel and six SBA district offices and staff from five of those district offices to obtain testimonial information about district office involvement and experiences with their use of SBA’s cosponsorship authority, including how they evaluate the results of the events. Finally, we interviewed representatives from 10 entities that cosponsored an activity with SBA during calendar years 2012 or 2013 to obtain their perspectives on benefits to small business arising from cosponsored events. We analyzed the information obtained from the interviews to determine what perceived benefits small businesses received from attending or were expected to gain from the cosponsored events, what would have improved the cosponsored event experience, whether cosponsors sought feedback about a cosponsored event, and whether SBA had any consistent practices for obtaining participant feedback on cosponsored events. We conducted this performance audit from November 2012 to May 2014 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. SBA district office officials and staff we spoke to identified the following factors that they consider in deciding whether to utilize cosponsorship authority to conduct outreach activities: 1. Whether a proposed activity would better meet the needs of small businesses, and more of them, if conducted with other entities under a cosponsorship agreement. 2. Whether a potential cosponsor has expertise in a particular area, such as lending or exporting, or has resources necessary to conduct an event, such as space, or could provide funding to cover these and other event costs. 3. How much control SBA wants to have over the various aspects of an event’s planning, content, and delivery, including setting the agenda, identifying speakers, and selecting a suitable location, or whether it would be helpful to share these responsibilities. 4. Whether potential cosponsors could provide SBA with access to groups that it does not have a well-established relationship with or that might not be familiar with SBA or its programs and services. 5. Whether cosponsorship authority provides SBA with an opportunity to develop and strengthen long-term relationships with groups that represent minority small businesses or those in particular geographic areas that could help identify and target those businesses that might benefit most from a particular event. 6. Whether co-branding of a cosponsored activity—displaying SBA and cosponsor logos on all marketing and event material—could attract greater small business attendance, in part because of the appeal of having multiple small business resources at a single event. 7. What the costs would be in terms of time and SBA’s own resources. 8. Whether potential cosponsors would be able to fulfill their responsibilities under an agreement, including handling cosponsorship funds while serving as a fiscal agent. The SBA Office of Inspector General issued Advisory Memorandum Report No. 13-21, SBA Enterprise-wide Controls over Cosponsored Activities, dated September 26, 2013, which presented the results of its work on the adequacy of controls over SBA’s cosponsored activities. The table below summarizes the findings and recommendations from that report and the required procedures that the Office of Inspector General found SBA had not complied with. SBA agreed with some but not all of the OIG’s findings and recommendations. SBA stated that the OIG’s findings about the failings of SBA’s cosponsorship program as a whole are too broadly stated, considering that the five agreements the OIG tested represent less than 1 percent of all the cosponsored activities that took place during the fiscal years covered by their audit. SBA also responded to each specific recommendation. For example, SBA agreed that vetting is important, but disagreed with the recommendation because it believed that the OIG’s audit did not demonstrate a deficiency with the vetting process, adding that only one cosponsorship file did not contain the requisite vetting information. Also, SBA agreed with the intent of the OIG’s recommendation to modify the cosponsorship agreement template to include the specific roles and responsibilities of fiscal agents but did not agree with the recommendation itself, as SBA believes that providing staff with supplemental guidance and more instruction would be a better approach. As discussed in this report, we conducted eight focus groups with 48 participants and obtained a variety of information about their experience at certain cosponsored events. This appendix provides additional information on the results of the focus groups including selected characteristics of the participants, as shown in the following figures. Figure 5 presents information on how the focus group participants thought they might use the information and skills learned at the cosponsored activity attended to improve their business management activities and approaches. As part of the focus group discussions, we asked participants whether they owned a small business or what role they held in the small business activity represented. Figure 6 describes the self-reported responses. This report notes that SBA helps entrepreneurs start, build, and grow businesses by, among other things, providing counseling and training as well as actions to increase federal contracting and subcontracting opportunities. As part of discussions, we asked the participants to describe the ownership of the business they represented, including ownership types that SBA has targeted for assistance. The responses received are noted in figure 7. Finally, the participants in the focus group discussions provided information on the industry in which their businesses or planned businesses operated (see fig. 8). In addition to the contact named above, Marshall Hamlett (Assistant Director), Emily Chalmers, Pamela Davidson, Alexandra Martin- Arseneau, John McGrail, Scott E. McNulty, and Jena Sinkfield made key contributions to this report.

Summary: Section 4(h) of the Small Business Act authorizes SBA to provide assistance for the benefit of small businesses through activities the agency cosponsors with eligible for-profit and nonprofit entities, as well as federal, state, and local government entities. Cosponsored activities can provide information on SBA programs and services or on subjects of interest to small businesses, bring together government and private sector resources and small business owners (generally for government contracting or financing initiatives), or celebrate the contributions of small business owners. GAO was asked to study SBA's use of its cosponsorship authority. This report (1) describes the roles and responsibilities of SBA and cosponsors in planning, funding, and conducting cosponsored activities, and (2) examines the benefits cosponsored activities provide to small businesses. GAO reviewed relevant laws and regulations and SBA procedures, guidance, and official cosponsorship files. GAO conducted eight focus groups with a total of 48 small business entrepreneurs in three cities to obtain feedback on their experiences with cosponsored activities. GAO also interviewed cosponsors and SBA officials. The Small Business Administration (SBA) and cosponsors share responsibilities for planning, funding, and conducting cosponsored activities. Before cosponsored activities take place, SBA field and program offices decide on the type and subject of the activity, solicit potential cosponsors, draft an agreement, agenda and budget, and designate a cosponsor as fiscal agent to collect, manage, and disburse any funds received. SBA's General Counsel or designee is responsible for reviewing draft cosponsorship agreements for legal sufficiency and determining whether any conflicts of interest exist with potential cosponsors. GAO's analysis of the official files for 132 cosponsored agreements SBA executed in fiscal year 2012 and other related materials showed that the activities were intended to provide training on a variety of topics, such as business planning and marketing, social media, and government contracting. SBA and cosponsors are both responsible for conducting the activity in accordance with the agreement. Following cosponsored activities, SBA field and program offices must submit a final cosponsorship report to SBA's Office of Strategic Alliances, which is responsible for maintaining the official files on these activities. SBA does not consistently collect feedback related to the benefits that cosponsored activities provide to small businesses. Participants in focus groups that GAO held commented positively on the quality of the presentations and opportunities to network, among other things, offered by cosponsored activities. Participants also noted that they obtained information on topics useful to their small businesses, including financial management and the federal contracting process. SBA officials and representatives of cosponsors told GAO that the events provided attendees with access to services and resources from multiple organizations in a single venue and often included counseling and referrals to other resources. Although the Small Business Act specifies that SBA cosponsored activities provide benefits to small businesses, it does not specify how SBA should identify and measure benefits. Some SBA district office staff told GAO that they solicited participant feedback on cosponsored events through a survey, evaluation, or questionnaire. GAO also found that obtaining periodic participant feedback is an integral part of a 7-month training initiative, called the Emerging Leaders Initiative, conducted using cosponsorship authority. However, SBA officials told us that obtaining formal feedback was not required and that the agency did not have a policy on soliciting and using it. Cosponsors GAO met with noted the importance of obtaining participant feedback and entrepreneurs GAO spoke to also identified ways in which the cosponsored activities could have been improved. Federal internal control standards state that federal agencies should have appropriate policies, procedures, techniques, and mechanisms for each of their activities, including those to ensure compliance with key requirements. Obtaining feedback on cosponsored events would provide SBA with direct information from small business participants that could be used to help ensure that events are providing benefits to small businesses. Such information could also provide another way for SBA to evaluate the use of its cosponsorship authority. GAO recommends that SBA develop a mechanism to consistently obtain participant feedback on cosponsored activities. SBA generally agreed with this recommendation.