Efficiency and Effectiveness of Fragmented Economic Development Programs Are Unclear
Gao ID: GAO-11-477R May 19, 2011One of the areas included in our recent report on potential duplication among federal programs was economic development. If economic development programs are administered efficiently and effectively, they can contribute to the well-being of our nation's economy at the least cost to taxpayers. Absent a common definition for economic development, we had previously developed a list of nine activities most often associated with economic development. These activities include planning and developing strategies for job creation and retention, developing new markets for existing products, building infrastructure by constructing roads and sewer systems to attract industry to undeveloped areas, and establishing business incubators to provide facilities for new businesses' operations, among others. Our recent work included information on 80 economic development programs at four agencies--the Departments of Commerce (Commerce), Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Agriculture (USDA), and the Small Business Administration (SBA). This work examined (1) the potential for overlap in the design of the programs, (2) the extent to which the four agencies collaborate to achieve common goals, and (3) the extent to which the agencies have developed measures to determine the programs' effectiveness. According to the agencies, funding provided for these 80 programs in fiscal year 2010 amounted to $6.2 billion, of which about $2.9 billion was for economic development efforts, largely in the form of grants, loan guarantees, and direct loans. Some of these 80 programs can fund a variety of activities, including those focused on noneconomic development activities, such as rehabilitating housing and building community parks. In February 2011 we briefed staff of the House and Senate Small Business Committees on the results of this work to date. We will perform additional analysis of some of these programs and will report on them at a later date.
Our work to date suggests that the design of each of these 80 economic development programs appears to overlap with that of at least one other program in terms of the economic development activity that they are authorized to fund. For example, the four agencies administer a total of 54 programs that can fund "entrepreneurial efforts," which includes helping businesses to develop business plans and identify funding resources. We have also identified the ways each agency is able to distribute economic development funding, as well as the geographic regions based on population density that the agencies target. To address issues arising from potential overlap and fragmentation in economic development programs, we previously identified collaborative practices agencies should consider implementing in order to maximize performance and results of federal programs that share common outcomes. Results from our work to date show that Commerce, HUD, SBA, and USDA appear to have taken actions to implement some of the collaborative practices, such as defining and articulating common outcomes, for some of their related programs. However, the four agencies have offered little evidence so far that they have taken steps to develop compatible policies or procedures with other federal agencies or to search for opportunities to leverage physical and administrative resources with their federal partners. In addition, a lack of information on program outcomes is both a current and longstanding concern. We identified such weaknesses at the four agencies we reviewed. Better information on program outcomes is needed to determine whether this potential overlap and fragmentation are resulting in ineffective or inefficient programs. See our March 2011 report for more information on our preliminary results related to the extent to which these four agencies collaborate and how they determine the effectiveness of some of their programs. In previous reports we identified areas of concern related to the extent to which agencies collaborate and assess the effectiveness of their programs. These areas can benefit from continued attention. (1) Agencies need to further utilize promising practices for enhanced collaboration. We first made this recommendation to SBA and USDA in September 2008, but these agencies have taken only limited steps to fully address our concerns. The actions that the four agencies should consider include seeking more opportunities for resource sharing across economic development programs with shared outcomes and identifying ways to leverage each program's strengths to improve existing collaborative efforts. Continuing to explore the extent to which these agencies collaborate could help identify promising practices that may result in more effective and efficient delivery of economic development programs to economically distressed areas. (2) Agencies need to collect accurate and complete data on program outcomes and use the information to assess each program's effectiveness. In June 2008 we made a similar recommendation to SBA about its HUBZone program, but the agency has taken limited action thus far.
GAO-11-477R, Efficiency and Effectiveness of Fragmented Economic Development Programs Are Unclear
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-477R
entitled 'Efficiency and Effectiveness of Fragmented Economic
Development Programs Are Unclear' which was released on May 19, 2011.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility.
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features,
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters,
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
GAO-11-477R:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
May 19, 2011:
Congressional Addressees:
Subject: Efficiency and Effectiveness of Fragmented Economic
Development Programs Are Unclear:
One of the areas included in our recent report on potential
duplication among federal programs was economic development.[Footnote
1] If economic development programs are administered efficiently and
effectively, they can contribute to the well-being of our nation's
economy at the least cost to taxpayers. Absent a common definition for
economic development, we had previously developed a list of nine
activities most often associated with economic development.[Footnote
2] These activities include planning and developing strategies for job
creation and retention, developing new markets for existing products,
building infrastructure by constructing roads and sewer systems to
attract industry to undeveloped areas, and establishing business
incubators to provide facilities for new businesses' operations, among
others.
Our recent work included information on 80 economic development
programs at four agencies--the Departments of Commerce (Commerce),
Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Agriculture (USDA), and the Small
Business Administration (SBA). This work examined (1) the potential
for overlap in the design of the programs, (2) the extent to which the
four agencies collaborate to achieve common goals, and (3) the extent
to which the agencies have developed measures to determine the
programs' effectiveness. According to the agencies, funding provided
for these 80 programs in fiscal year 2010 amounted to $6.2 billion, of
which about $2.9 billion was for economic development efforts, largely
in the form of grants, loan guarantees, and direct loans.[Footnote 3]
Some of these 80 programs can fund a variety of activities, including
those focused on noneconomic development activities, such as
rehabilitating housing and building community parks.
In February 2011 we briefed staff of the House and Senate Small
Business Committees on the results of this work to date. See enclosure
III for the briefing presented to the congressional staff. We will
perform additional analysis of some of these programs and will report
on them at a later date.
Summary:
Our work to date suggests that the design of each of these 80 economic
development programs appears to overlap with that of at least one
other program in terms of the economic development activity that they
are authorized to fund. For example, as shown in figure 1, the four
agencies administer a total of 54 programs that can fund
"entrepreneurial efforts," which includes helping businesses to
develop business plans and identify funding resources.
Figure 1: Economic Development Activities by Agency:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated table]
Number of programs by agency:
Entrepreneurial efforts:
Commerce: 9;
HUD: 12;
SBA: 19;
USDA[A]: 14;
Total: 54.
Infrastructure:
Commerce: 4;
HUD: 12;
SBA: 1;
USDA[A]: 18;
Total: 35.
Plans and strategies:
Commerce: 7;
HUD: 13;
SBA: 13;
USDA[A]: 7;
Total: 40.
Commercial buildings:
Commerce: 4;
HUD: 12;
SBA: 4;
USDA[A]: 7;
Total: 27.
New markets:
Commerce: 6;
HUD: 10;
SBA: 6;
USDA[A]: 6;
Total: 28.
Telecommunications:
Commerce: 3;
HUD: 11;
SBA: 2;
USDA[A]: 8;
Total: 24.
Business incubators:
Commerce: 5;
HUD: 12;
SBA: 0;
USDA[A]: 7;
Total: 24.
Industrial parks:
Commerce: 5;
HUD: 11;
SBA: 0;
USDA[A]: 5;
Total: 21.
Tourism:
Commerce: 5;
HUD: 10;
SBA: 0;
USDA[A]: 4;
Total: 19.
Source: GAO analysis of information from Commerce, HUD, SBA,and USDA.
Interactive content: Hover over numbers to see program names.
[A] In December 2010, USDA officials provided us information on the
economic activities that each of their economic development programs
can fund, which we reported in our March 2011 report (GAO-11-318SP).
In April 2011, they provided revised information for six of their
programs and we incorporated the information into this product. We
identify these six programs in Enclosure V.
[End of figure]
Enclosure IV lists the specific programs in figure 1 that can fund
each economic activity, grouped by agency and activity type.
We have also identified the ways each agency is able to distribute
economic development funding, as well as the geographic regions based
on population density that the agencies target (see figures 2 and 3).
Figure 2: Program Award Distribution Type by Agency:
[Refer to PDF for image: 4 pie-charts]
Commerce:
Grant or direct payment: 91%;
Grant and services/technical assistance: 9%.
HUD:
Grant or direct payment: 93%;
Loan (direct or guaranteed): 7%.
SBA:
Grant or direct payment: 47%;
Loan (direct or guaranteed): 26%;
Advantages for federal contract competition: 11%;
Grant and loan: 11%;
Services/technical assistance and advantages for federal contract
competition: 5%.
USDA:
Grant or direct payment: 44%;
Loan (direct or guaranteed): 19%;
Grant and loan: 25%;
Grant and services/technical assistance: 11%.
Source: GAO analysis of information from Commerce, HUD, SBA,and USDA.
[End of figure]
Figure 3: Percentage of Programs Designated toward Urban and Rural
Communities:
[Refer to PDF for image: 4 pie-charts]
Commerce:
Not specified: 100%.
HUD:
Not specified: 79%;
Urban only: 7%;
Rural only: 14%.
SBA:
Not specified: 100%.
USDA:
Not specified: 14%;
Rural only: 86%.
Source: GAO analysis of information from Commerce, HUD, SBA,and USDA.
[End of figure]
Enclosure V provides additional details on each of the 80 economic
development programs, including administering agency, funding received
in fiscal year 2010, economic activities eligible for funding, area
served based on population density, primary recipients targeted by
program, and award type.
To address issues arising from potential overlap and fragmentation in
economic development programs, we previously identified collaborative
practices agencies should consider implementing in order to maximize
performance and results of federal programs that share common outcomes.
[Footnote 4] Results from our work to date show that Commerce, HUD,
SBA, and USDA appear to have taken actions to implement some of the
collaborative practices, such as defining and articulating common
outcomes, for some of their related programs. However, the four
agencies have offered little evidence so far that they have taken
steps to develop compatible policies or procedures with other federal
agencies or to search for opportunities to leverage physical and
administrative resources with their federal partners.
In addition, a lack of information on program outcomes is both a
current and long-standing concern. We identified such weaknesses at
the four agencies we reviewed. Better information on program outcomes
is needed to determine whether this potential overlap and
fragmentation are resulting in ineffective or inefficient programs.
See our March 2011 report for more information on our preliminary
results related to the extent to which these four agencies collaborate
and how they determine the effectiveness of some of their programs.
[Footnote 5]
Actions Needed and Potential Financial or Other Benefits:
In previous reports we identified areas of concern related to the
extent to which agencies collaborate and assess the effectiveness of
their programs. These areas can benefit from continued attention.
* Agencies need to further utilize promising practices for enhanced
collaboration. We first made this recommendation to SBA and USDA in
September 2008, but these agencies have taken only limited steps to
fully address our concerns.[Footnote 6] The actions that the four
agencies should consider include seeking more opportunities for
resource sharing across economic development programs with shared
outcomes and identifying ways to leverage each program's strengths to
improve existing collaborative efforts. Continuing to explore the
extent to which these agencies collaborate could help identify
promising practices that may result in more effective and efficient
delivery of economic development programs to economically distressed
areas.
* Agencies need to collect accurate and complete data on program
outcomes and use the information to assess each program's
effectiveness. In June 2008 we made a similar recommendation to SBA
about its HUBZone program, but the agency has taken limited action
thus far.[Footnote 7]
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to Commerce, SBA, USDA and HUD for
review and comment. Commerce's Assistant Secretary for Economic
Development and SBA's Assistant Administrator for Congressional and
Legislative Affairs provided written comments that are presented in
Enclosures I and II. In addition, Commerce, SBA, and USDA provided
technical comments, which we incorporated where appropriate. HUD did
not provide written or technical comments.
Commerce's Assistant Secretary states that prior GAO reports have
focused on the types of investments made without an appropriate
definition of economic development. Because federal agencies do not
have a standard definition of what constitutes economic development,
we used a list of activities as criteria for identifying programs that
are generally accepted as being directly related to economic
development. Our list includes economic activities that we first
identified for our 2000 report on economic development issues and then
updated for our 2006 report on rural economic development.[Footnote
8]The list was developed based on a general consensus of officials,
including officials from the Department of Commerce's EDA, along with
other federal agencies involved with economic development and several
national associations familiar with economic development. In general,
we focused on activities that directly affected the overall
development of an area, such as job creation, rather than on
activities that improved individuals' quality of life, such as housing
and education. The Assistant Secretary also stated that only an
evaluation of programs that considers goals and the outcomes of each
program can accurately identify duplication. We agree that accurate
program outcomes are critical to evaluating the impact of federal
economic development efforts. Our report states that these programs
appear to overlap in terms of their design and authorization; it does
not state that programs overlap in terms of outcomes. We have not
concluded that duplication exists among programs and plan to address
these issues in our future work on overlap and duplication, which will
further examine the services that each program provides, program
outcome measures, and collaborative procedures.
SBA's Assistant Administrator for Congressional and Legislative
Affairs made a similar point. He wrote that while our report provides
an initial starting point by presenting a road map for further
investigation into individual programs, it does not attempt to set
forth specific data about the differences in focus, target recipients,
delivery mechanisms, and other features of each program. We agree that
more work is required before concluding that duplication and related
waste or inefficiencies exist. In this report, we took an initial step
to differentiate the 80 programs by identifying the primary targeted
recipient for each program. In our work going forward, we plan to take
further steps to identify the unique value that each program provides.
The Assistant Administrator also stated that he disagreed with our
finding related to the extent to which SBA collaborates with other
agencies. He noted, for example, that SBA's HUBZone program office
recently signed a memorandum of understanding with HUD on sharing
geocoding services related to its HUBZone map. The new information
that the Assistant Administrator provided does not change our finding.
We found that the agencies, including SBA, appear to have taken
actions to implement some of the collaborative practices, such as
defining and articulating common outcomes. However, SBA has offered
little evidence to date that it has implemented some of the other key
collaborative practices, such as developing compatible policies or
procedures that help to facilitate collaboration between its federal
partners. As we continue work in these areas, we plan to, for example,
further monitor and assess SBA's collaborative practices. SBA also
provided revised fiscal year 2010 funding figures for each of their
programs. These revised figures were significantly different from the
ones they provided to us in December 2010, which we incorporated into
our March 2011 reports.[Footnote 9] SBA officials could not identify
the source for the inaccurate figures. They did state that the
majority of their programs do not receive program-specific
appropriations and that they rely on estimates provided by SBA staff
to determine the costs associated with each program. We noted the
programs for which this is the case. As stated in our scope and
methodology, we relied on the agencies for program-specific funding
data because the agencies are the only source for that information.
Although we assessed the reliability of program-specific information
that we used to support our findings (such as, the primary targeted
recipient), we did not verify the reliability of either the original
or revised program-specific funding figures because we did not rely on
them to support any of our findings. However, as we continue our work,
we plan to obtain a better understanding of how the agencies that we
review, including SBA, determine the costs of their programs.
USDA's Director of the Office of Budget and Program Analysis provided
comments to our report and emphasized that the President's fiscal year
2012 budget proposes the termination of several Rural Development and
Forest Service programs that have been determined to be duplicative of
other programs as clarified in the terminations, reductions, and
savings volume of the fiscal year 2012 budget. He said that these
proposals demonstrate USDA's commitment to reducing duplication and
improving the program efficiencies of USDA's economic development
programs. In our work going forward we plan to continue to, for
example, monitor and assess efforts made by the Administration to
implement these and other proposals aimed at eliminating duplicative
federal economic development programs. Among the technical comments
USDA provided, officials made a number of revisions to the information
they originally provided to us in December 2010, which was the
information that we incorporated into one of our March 2011 reports.
[Footnote 10] Specifically, they asked us to clarify the types of
economic activities that six of their economic development programs
can fund. We incorporated the changes to our report and noted the
programs where this is the case.
Scope and Methodology:
To identify areas of potential overlap and best practices to address
the areas of concern, we utilized information from previous GAO
products as well as our ongoing work following up on the
recommendations from those previous products. We also relied on our
recent evaluation of economic development programs at Commerce, HUD,
SBA and USDA. During this recent evaluation, we compiled publicly
available information on each program to determine the economic
activities that the programs can fund, the ways the agencies
distribute economic development funding, as well as the geographic areas
and primary recipients that the agencies target. We then relied on the
agencies to review this information, confirm its accuracy, and provide
clarifications as necessary. Based on the information we collected and
the clarifications that the agencies provided, we determined that
these data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this review.
Our report also includes self-reported data on program funds from the
agencies for background and contextual purposes. We relied on the
agencies for the program-specific funding data because the agencies
are the only source for this type of information. We met with
officials from each of the agencies to discuss each of the programs
and the program missions. Because SBA officials view all of their
programs as being related to economic development, we included all SBA
programs in this review. Using the Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance and other agency documents, we identified 80 federal
programs administered by the four agencies that could fund economic
development activities and determined the primary targeted recipients
(that is, the end user that the agency is focused on serving) for each
of the programs. Agency officials reviewed our determinations of the
primary targeted recipients and they generally agreed with our
assessments. We did not include tax credit programs aimed at economic
development in this review. For information on how tax programs can
contribute to duplication, see the report we issued in March 2011.
[Footnote 11] We conducted this performance audit from October
2010 through April 2011, 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.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional
committees and other interested parties. In addition, this report will
be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov]. Should you or your staff have any questions
concerning this report, please contact William B. Shear, Director, 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. Key contributors to this report are listed in
Enclosure VI.
Signed by:
William B. Shear:
Director, Financial Markets and Community Investment:
Enclosures (6):
List of Congressional Addressees:
The Honorable Mary Landrieu:
Chair:
The Honorable Olympia Snowe:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Samuel Graves:
Chairman:
The Honorable Nydia Velazquez:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Small Business:
House of Representatives:
[End of section]
Enclosure I: Comments from the Department of Commerce:
United States Department of Commerce:
The Assistant Secretary far Economic Development:
Washington. D.C. 20230:
April 26, 2011:
Mr. William B. Shear:
Director, Financial Markets and Community Investment:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Shear:
In response to your request for comments on the U.S. Government
Accountability (GAO) Report 11-477R, "Efficiency and Effectiveness of
Fragmented Economic Development Programs Are Unclear," effectively
evaluating Federal programs that support economic development requires
a thorough understanding of, not only the types of investments that
are made, but how, why, and to whom the investments are made. GAO has
periodically issued several reports that analyzed potential overlap of
Federal economic development activities. A glaring deficiency in this
report, however, is GAO's admission on page 1 that there is not a
common definition of economic development used to guide its analysis.
Rather, its analysis depends upon a listing of activities to make
inferences regarding what economic development is, and by extension,
whether there is duplication of programs.
Prior GAO reports have all focused exclusively on the types of
investments made without considering the goals of each of the
programs, as well. Without viewing Federal investments in economic
development through the lens of an appropriate definition and
development of outcomes arising from that definition, GAO may be
incorrectly identifying duplication where none exists. As the country
prepares to address the mounting deficit and reevaluate its
investments, GAO's new report could have offered important information
to inform future budget discussions. Instead, this fundamental flaw in
the methodology employed by GAO to identify duplication and examine
performance limits the report's value and usability.
Economic development is a common term used for many types of
activities. From the perspective of the Economic Development
Administration (EDA), in its most distilled form, economic development
traditionally focuses on the creation or retention of jobs that
support the growth of income, and by extension, the tax base in a
geographic region. Creating these jobs, however, requires the
engagement of a variety of actors at every level within the public and
private sectors, as well as many inputs, including infrastructure,
housing, social and community development, a skilled workforce,
entrepreneurial talent, technology, and access to capital.
In the Federal Government, the term economic development has become
synonymous with all of these things.
Ensuring that the American public benefits from robust economic
development requires investments in many economic activities, some of
which GAO has identified, including business incubators,
telecommunications, plans and strategies, infrastructure, industrial
parks, etc. While Federal agencies may appear to make similar types of
investments based on these categories, because the goals of each
agency and program differ, their outcomes are ultimately distinct. At
the same time, these investments complement each other in such a way
as to maximize the economic potential of the United States.
GAO identified nine activities which they felt represented economic
development. Using this lens, many of the Departments/Agencies
examined appeared to be duplicative. However, EDA's framework for
investing in these economic development activities is substantially
different from that of other Federal agencies as it is based on
regional collaboration and innovation.
* Over the last several years, EDA has funded seminal research
regarding regional collaboration and innovation, such as supporting
Dr. Michael Porter and his team to identify and map regional
innovation clusters across the Nation. Because of research such as
this, EDA is focused on making strategic 21' century investments that
help communities leverage their comparative strengths to spur
innovation and investment that will ultimately lead to long-term
economic prosperity. FDA's regional bottom-up approach to economic
development allows it to utilize its broad array of tools to most
effectively address local needs in order to support economic
development.[Footnote 1]
* Additionally, EDA plays a key role in shaping Federal policy for
fostering collaborative economic development. In this leadership role,
EDA has built upon its long practice of coordinating with other
Federal agencies and its knowledge of best practices in economic
development to create several new initiatives designed to more
strategically advance regional economic development These initiatives
formally leverage each partner's complementary activities to advance
regional economic development in the broadest sense, including
infrastructure, housing, social and community development, a skilled
workforce, entrepreneurial talent, technology, and access to capital.
- For example, EDA recently collaborated with the Small Business
Administration, the Department of Labor, the Department of Energy, the
National Science Foundation, the Department of Education, and the
National Institute of Standards and Technology on the Energy Regional
Innovation Cluster Initiative to develop and implement a cross-
cutting, collaborative approach built on best practices to stimulate
sustainable economic development. Because all of these agencies have
varying focuses, programmatic objectives, and eligible recipient
entities, they all have unique and complementary niches related to
economic development. The strategic collaboration of these six
agencies allows the Federal Government to support a more overarching
vision for economic development.
- Another example is the recent release of EDA's Federal Funding
Opportunity for the i6 Green Challenge, where EDA funding is
coordinated with funding opportunities provided by other Federal
partner agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, the
Department of Energy, the Department of Agriculture's National
Institute of Food and Agriculture, or the National Science Foundation.
Each of these agencies will provide additional funding opportunities
to i6 Green Challenge winners for complimentary activities resulting
in the development of proof of concept centers for green technology.
The funding from our partner agencies will not duplicate or overlap
with EDA funding, but provide supplemental funding opportunities to
winning grantees because the range of activities expected to be
undertaken ” from research and technology transfer to
commercialization ” is expected to be diverse, wide-ranging, and
performed by multiple collaborating public and private entities at the
local level.
With regard to outcome measurement, accurate program outcomes are
critical to evaluating the impact of Federal economic development
efforts. While GAO highlighted potential improvements that EDA could
make to its performance measures, EDA was the only agency that GAO
cited which collected, tracked, or reported data on long-term
performance of their programs. EDA prides itself on its efforts to
continuously improve its performance measures and validation
processes. EDA's current performance metrics were founded on an
independent study of EDA investments carried out by Rutgers in 1996.
Unacknowledged in the GAO report is that this study was updated and
validated in 2008 through a separate study conducted by Grant
Thornton. The Grant Thornton study adopted EDA's method for conducting
site visits to validate performance measures and validated the data in
the 1996 Rutgers report.
EDA continues to work to strengthen its internal validation protocols
and strives to conduct as many site visits as resources permit to
verify performance outcomes. While EDA could always spend additional
resources to conduct more site visits and take even more steps to
further bolster its performance reporting, in fact, EDA's outcomes
have been validated sufficiently. We believe that EDA budget proposals
identify the appropriate level of support for performance reporting.
Rather than increase salaries and expenses for unnecessary fine tuning
of performance measures, we believe those funds are better allocated
to the program account where they can help communities innovate their
economies and create jobs.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
John R. Fernandez:
Footnote:
[1] Additional EDA-funded research examples: Unlocking Rural
Competitiveness: The Role of Regional Clusters ” Report & interactive
Website (2006 through present); Know Your Region Project ” Curriculum &
Interactive Website (2006-present); Crossing the Next Regional
Frontier: Information and Analytics Linking Regional Competitiveness
to Investment in a Knowledge-Based Economy -- Occupational Clusters
(10/2009-present).
[End of enclosure]
Enclosure II: Comments from the Small Business Administration:
U.S. Small Business Administration:
Washington, D.C. 20416:
April 29, 2011:
Via Electronic Mail:
Andrew E. Finkel:
Assistant Director:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Finkel:
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the draft GAO report on
potential duplication among federal economic development programs
("Efficiency and Effectiveness of Fragmented Economic Development
Programs Are Unclear") as it relates to the U.S. Small Business
Administration (SBA).
SBA appreciates the opportunity to participate in GAO's survey of
economic development programs, and agrees that programs should be
reviewed regularly to avoid waste and duplication. We agree that there
is value in identifying the categories into which programs fall in
order to target effective means at approaching the entrepreneurial
development challenge in each category. At the same time, we believe
the report (and any further similar study in the future) would benefit
from having a sufficient number and breadth of categories or fields to
properly capture the data necessary to differentiate between each
program and its intended scope and target.
We encourage GAO to reconsider how it describes the results of this
survey and to explain that this survey is limited to nine, very broad
categories and that the survey did not attempt to set forth specific
data about the differences in focus, target recipients, delivery
mechanisms, and other features of each program. As a result, the only
inferences one can reasonably draw from the survey are that the four
agencies each provide programs that cover one of the nine areas and
further investigation is necessary to truly determine where programs
may be duplicative. Viewed in this light, the GAO survey provides an
initial starting point by giving us a broad category road map for
further investigation into individual programs.
With regard to specific findings made by GAO in the draft report, SBA
respectfully submits the following comments.
Page 5: "Preliminary results from [GAO's] work to date show that
Commerce, HUD, SBA, and USDA appear to have taken actions to implement
some of the collaborative practices, such as defining and articulating
common outcomes, for some of their related programs. However, the four
agencies have offered little evidence so far that they have taken
steps to develop compatible policies or procedures with other federal
agencies or to search for opportunities to leverage physical and
administrative resources with their federal partners."
SBA Comment. Collaboration with HUD and USDA:
SBA does not agree with these findings. In December 2010, SBA started
a process of exploring collaborating with the Offices of Policy
Development and Research (PD&R) and the Community Planning and
Development Program (CPD) at HUD on the following issues:
* HUBZone and HUD recently signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU).
In the MOU, HUD has committed to provide geocoding services to the
HUBZone Program. This support will provide a standard, consistent
source of geocoded data to SBA.
*Explore the possibility of outsourcing the HUBZone web base mapping
to HUD (In the summer 2011 we will have an assessment of the cost and
benefits of the effort).
* Cooperate with HUD in their development of a map with their own
layers of places benefiting from HUD place-based economic development
programs (e.g., Empowerment Zones, Community Renewal, etc.), providing
them with layers of HUBZone designated areas. In this way, the public
will be able to see areas that are benefiting from programs of both
agencies.
* Develop a methodology to evaluate the impact of both agencies on the
economic development of areas receiving funds or benefits from them.
Additionally, last year SBA and USDA entered into an MOU, under which
SBA has facilitated meetings with USDA Rural Development and our major
resource partners (Small Business Development Centers, Women's
Business Centers, and SCORE) to disseminate information about RD
programs. This has led to the development of referral networks among
these federal and non-federal entities. In addition:
* As a part of SBA's ongoing efforts to coordinate outreach to local
and national financial institutions, SBA and USDA have co-hosted
several national and local lender forums around the country.
* SBA and USDA have collaborated in strategic outreach to tradeshows,
conventions, Congressional members, and media outlets.
* USDA and SBA have developed working relationships with other
Federal, state, county and local agencies, as well as private
organizations, to facilitate and support the development of strong
rural businesses.
* This collaboration is the model for SBA's participation in the
Appalachian Regional Development Initiative and several local working
groups comprised of rural development organizations such as the Iowa
Rural Development Council.
Page 6: "Agencies need to collect accurate and complete data on
program outcomes and use the information to assess each program's
effectiveness. In June 2008 [GAO] made a similar recommendation to SBA
about its HUBZone program, but the agency has taken limited action
thus far."
SBA Comment:
SBA believes it has taken significant actions to collect accurate and
complete data on HUBZone program outcomes that will help assess
program effectiveness. For instance, SBA tracks a number of
performance measures for the HUBZone program, including small
businesses approved, denied and withdrawn from the initial
certification process, in addition to previously certified firms that
have recertified, voluntarily decertified and decertified by SBA. A
key evaluation is based on the fact that the Congress has set a 3%
federal government-wide goat for HUBZone federal contract dollars. A
primary focus of the SBA has been on this outcome measure. In FY2000,
0.35% of federal contract dollars went to HUBZone contracts. That
percentage has steadily increased to 2.81% by FY2009.
SBA believes evaluating this measure is critical to meeting the
HUBZone program's stated purpose which "is to provide federal
contracting assistance for qualified SBCs located in historically
underutilized business zones in an effort to increase employment
opportunities, investment, and economic development in such areas."
Monitoring this measure enables SBA to proactively engage in
activities that increase HUBZone contract dollars.
Although SBA expected to work towards finalizing more outcome measures
that link to the mission of the HUBZone program, the circumstances and
the Program's focus has precluded us from doing so. The efforts of the
HUBZone program for the FY2009 and FY2010 were focused on thoroughly
reengineering the initial certification process, reviewing its
portfolio of firms, expanding the number of site visits, and improving
its monitoring of participating firms with dollars awarded.
In FY2011, SBA is undertaking a legacy portfolio review where we will
be spending substantive resource doing an extensive full document
review of HUBZone certified firms that have not yet received such a
review. Once this initiative is completed, every HUBZone firm will
have been analyzed for meeting the Program's continuing eligibility
requirements. In FY2011, SBA will also continue to spend significant
time and resource enhancing the certification process and undertaking
site visits. These efforts rigorously and systemically reduce fraud,
waste and abuse.
Analyzing other outcome measures such as (1) the economic
characteristics of the HUBZone areas and (2) contracts being counted
under multiple socioeconomic subcategories are complicated matters
which require careful setting up of the research methods and
approaches as well as significant staff and budget. Given limited
resources, SBA is not able to commit to finalizing the additional
outcome measures and conduct a program evaluation using those elements
at this time. Focusing resources on (1) initiatives that reduce fraud,
waste and abuse as well as (2) activities that increase HUBZone
federal contract dollars makes wise sense given the resources SBA has
and the circumstances of the HUBZone program.
Page 16: "Although SBA continues to agree that evaluating program
outcomes is important, to date the agency has not yet appeared to make
a meaningful resource commitment for such an evaluation."
SBA Comment:
See comment above.
Enclosure II; SBA Technical Correction Requests:
Page 1:
Reference to OWBO (Office of Women's Business Ownership) should be
changed to "Women's Business Centers" (to correspond to other programs
noted, such as SBDC and SCORE).
Page 4:
Reference to OWBO (Office of Women's Business Ownership) should be
changed to "Women's Business Centers" (to correspond to other programs
noted such as SBDC and SCORE).
Enclosure III:
[See attached spreadsheet with SBA's suggested edits.]
Should you or any of your colleagues at GAO have questions about SBA's
comments, please contact me at (202) 205-6335. Thank you again for
this opportunity to comment on the draft report.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Nicholas J. Coutsos:
Assistant Administrator:
SBA Congressional & Legislative Affairs:
[End of enclosure]
Enclosure III:
Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs,
Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue:
Preliminary Results of GAO's Review of Selected Economic Development
Programs:
Objectives:
Our objectives for this briefing are to provide preliminary results of
the extent to which:
1. the design of 80 economic development programs administered by four
federal agencies overlap in terms of the economic activities they can
fund,
2. the four federal agencies GAO reviewed collaborate to administer
economic development programs that share common outcomes, and,
3. the agencies evaluate the outcomes of the economic development
programs.
Why GAO Is Focusing on this Area:
Efficient and effective economic development programs can contribute
to the well-being of our nation's economy at the least cost to
taxpayers.
The federal government spent $6.5 billion in fiscal year 2010 on the
80 economic development programs that GAO is examining at U.S.
Department of Commerce, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD), U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA), and the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), of which about $3.2 billion was
for economic development efforts, largely in the form of grants, loan
guarantees, and direct loans.
Definition of Economic Development:
Absent a common definition for economic development, GAO has
previously developed a list of nine activities most often associated
with economic development that we relied on in this effort. These
activities include:
* planning and developing strategies for job creation and retention,
* developing new markets for existing products,
* building infrastructure by constructing roads and sewer systems to
attract industry to undeveloped areas, and,
* establishing business incubators to provide facilities for new
businesses' operations.
Preliminary Results: Design of Economic Development Programs Appear to
Overlap:
The design of each of the 80 economic development programs appears to
overlap with that of at least one other program in terms of the
economic activities they are authorized to fund.
The most common economic activity that these programs (52 of the 80
programs) can fund is entrepreneurial efforts, which include:
* helping businesses to develop business plans and identify funding
sources, and,
* providing marketing assistance.
Table: Potential Overlap and Fragmentation among Selected Agencies
Authorized to Fund Economic Development Activities:
Programs by agency:
Activity: Entrepreneurial efforts;
Commerce: 9;
HUD: 12;
SBA: 19;
USDA: 12;
Total: 52;
Activity: Infrastructure;
Commerce: 4;
HUD: 12;
SBA: 1;
USDA: 18;
Total: 35;
Activity: Plans and strategies;
Commerce: 7;
HUD: 13;
SBA: 13;
USDA: 6;
Total: 39;
Activity: Commercial buildings;
Commerce: 4;
HUD: 12;
SBA: 4;
USDA: 7;
Total: 27;
Activity: New markets;
Commerce: 6;
HUD: 10;
SBA: 6;
USDA: 6;
Total: 28;
Activity: Telecommunications;
Commerce: 3;
HUD: 11;
SBA: 2;
USDA: 10;
Total: 26;
Activity: Business incubators;
Commerce: 5;
HUD: 12;
SBA: 0;
USDA: 3;
Total: 20;
Activity: Industrial parks;
Commerce: 5;
HUD: 11;
SBA: 0;
USDA: 3;
Total: 19;
Activity: Tourism;
Commerce: 5;
HUD: 10;
SBA: 0;
USDA: 4;
Total: 19;
Source: GAO.
Note: Numbers of programs by agency do not total to 80 since an
individual program may fund several activities.
[End of table]
Smaller, Limited-Scope Economic Development Programs Appear to Overlap:
Sixty percent of the programs (46 of the 80 programs reviewed) are
more limited in scope and can fund only one or two of the nine
economic development activities.
For example, many of these programs that are limited in scope appear
to overlap because they can:
* fund only entrepreneurial efforts and,
* target similar geographic areas.
Legislative and Regulatory Reasons for Potential Overlap and
Fragmentation:
Many of the economic development programs are differentiated by
legislative or regulatory restrictions.
These restrictions target funding on the basis of characteristics such
as:
* geography,
* income levels, and,
* population density (rural or urban).
Collaborative Practices Agencies Should Consider Implementing to
Maximize the Performance of Federal Programs That Share Common
Outcomes:
* Define and articulate common outcomes.
* Leverage physical and administrative resources to address resource
needs and potentially produce cost savings.
* Facilitate collaboration by establishing compatible standards,
policies and procedures for the collaborative effort to operate across
agency boundaries.
* Create the means to monitor and evaluate collaborative efforts and
report on these activities to identify areas for improving policy and
operational effectiveness.
Source: Results Oriented Government Practices That Can HO Enhance and
Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington,
D.C.:_October 21, 2005).
Preliminary Results: Agencies Are Collaborating on a Limited Basis:
The four agencies appear to have taken actions to define and
articulate common outcomes for some of their economic development
efforts.
* In response to a September 2008 recommendation that GAO made to SBA
and USDA related to improving their collaboration, the two agencies
entered into a memorandum of understanding (M) in 2010 so they can use
their respective resources to provide small businesses in rural areas
with loan guarantees and technical assistance to achieve outcomes such
as building diverse and sustainable rural economies, reversing
population decline in rural areas, creating and sustaining jobs, and
improving quality of life.
* HUD, SBA, USDA, Commerce, and other federal agencies recently
entered into a MOU in order to achieve outcomes that include
strengthening and diversifying the Appalachian economy, improving the
health and welfare o1 people in the Appalachian region, and protecting
the environment of the region.
* Several agencies ,including Commerce and SBA, joined the regional
innovation cluster effort initiated by President Obama in 2010 that
focuses on outcomes that include creating and retaining jobs;
accelerating the formation of new, high-growth businesses; and
increasing regional prosperity.
Agencies offered little evidence that they have taken steps to develop
compatible policies or procedures or leverage physical and
administrative resources with other federal agencies.
Collaborative efforts identified to date appear to occur on a
case-by-case basis in field offices.
Agencies have not developed mechanisms to consistently and effectively
monitor, evaluate, and report on the results of collaborative efforts.
Preliminary Results: A Lack of Information on Programs Outcomes Is a
Long Standing Concern:
Commerce's Economic Development Administration's (EDA) estimates about
the results of its grants may not be accurate.
USDA does not collect data to measure the accomplishments of one of
its largest rural business programs”the Business and Industry loan
program.
HUD does not track measures on the long-term performance of its
Section 108 program.
SBA has not developed outcome measures that directly link to the
mission of its HUBZone program.
EDA Grants:
GAO first reported in March 1999 and then again in October 2005 that
EDA relies on a potentially incomplete set of variables and self-
reported data to assess the effectiveness of its grants.
Agency progress:
* In December 2006 EDA issued revised operational guidance that
included a new methodology that regional offices use to calculate
estimated jobs and private sector investment attributable to EDA
grants.
* EDA officials also stated that they now employ additional checks on
the quality of the self-reported data.
Next step:
* GAO plans to assess the quality and adequacy of the methods the
agency uses to assess the quality of the data.
USDA's Business and Industry Loan Program:
In 2003 the USDA Inspector General (IG) recommended that USDA ensure
data exist to measure the accomplishments of the Business and Industry
loan program.
Agency progress:
* Agency officials stated that they have recently taken steps to
address the open recommendation, including requiring staff to record
actual jobs created rather than estimated jobs created.
* An IG officials said it is too early to tell whether these actions
are sufficient to fully address the recommendation.
Next step:
* GAO plans to monitor the IG's efforts to determine whether the
agency fully addresses the recommendation.
HUD's Section 108 Program:
In 2007 OMB found that HUD did not track long-term performance outcome
measures for its Section 108 program.
Agency progress:
* To date, the agency has no long-term performance outcome measures
for this program.
Next step:
* GAO plans to determine what, if any, actions the agency plans to
take to address this weakness.
SBA's HUBZone Program:
GAO reported in June 2008 that SBA does not track outcome measures
that are directly linked to the program's mission.
Agency progress:
* Although SBA continues to agree that evaluating program outcomes is
important, to date the agency has not yet appeared to make a
meaningful resource commitment for such an evaluation.
Next step:
* GAO plans to evaluate any actions the agency takes to develop
outcome measures.
Preliminary Results:
Agencies need to further utilize promising practices for enhanced
collaboration.
Agencies need to collect accurate and complete data on program
outcomes and use the information to assess each program's
effectiveness.
Additional work to assess progress in collaboration and evaluation
could identify areas for improvement, consolidation, or elimination.
Further, programs that are designed to target similar economic
development activities, locations, and applicants may not be adding
unique value, and more analysis is needed by the agencies and Office
of Management and Budget to determine the actual amount of any
duplicative spending.
Increased attention and oversight by OMB and the Congress could help
to ensure needed actions are taken.
Framework for Analysis:
The information contained in this analysis is based on:
* results of prior GAO products,
* ongoing work following up on the status of recommendations from
those products, and,
* the preliminary results of GAO's ongoing evaluation of
economic development programs at four federal agencies.
Related GAO Products:
Rural Economic Development: Collaboration between SBA and USDA Could
Be Improved, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1123],
September 18, 2008.
Small Business Administration: Additional Actions Are Needed to
Certify and Monitor HUBZone Businesses and Assess Program Results,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-643], June 17, 2008.
Rural Economic Development: More Assurance Is Needed That Grant
Funding Information Is Accurately Reported, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-294], February 24, 2006.
Economic Development Administration: Remediation Activities Account
for a Small Percentage of Total Brownfield Grant Funding, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-7], October 27, 2005.
Economic Development: Multiple Federal Programs Fund Similar Economic
Development Activities [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/RCED/GGD-00-220], September 29, 2000.
Economic Development: Observations Regarding the Economic Development
Administration's May 1998 Final Report on its Public Works Program,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/RCED-99-11R], March 23,
1999.
GAO on the Web:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/]
Contact:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, Public Affairs:
youngc1@gao.gov; (202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Copyright:
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. The published product may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission
from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or
other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary
if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
[End of enclosure]
Enclosure IV: Economic Development Programs Listed in Figure 1:
The following table lists the specific programs that can fund each
economic activity, grouped by agency and activity type. The
information also appears as interactive content in figure 1 in the
body of the report when the report is viewed electronically.
Economic Activity: Entrepreneurial efforts programs:
Commerce:
Community Trade Adjustment Assistance;
Grants for Public Works and Economic Development Facilities;
Economic Development/Technical Assistance;
Economic Adjustment Assistance;
Research and Evaluation Program;
Global Climate Change Mitigation Incentive Fund;
Minority Business Enterprise Centers (renamed Minority Business Center
for FY 2011 award);
Native American Business Enterprise Centers;
Minority Business Opportunity Center.
HUD:
CDBG/Entitlement Grants;
CDBG/Special Purpose/Insular Areas;
CDBG/States;
CDBG/Non-entitlement CDBG Grants in Hawaii;
CDBG/Section 108 Loan Guarantees;
Section 4 Capacity Building for Affordable Housing and Community
Development;
Rural Innovation Fund;
CDBG Disaster Recovery Grants;
Indian CDBG;
Hispanic Serving Institutions Assisting Communities;
Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian Institutions Assisting Communities;
CDBG/Brownfields Economic Development Initiative;
SBA:
8(a) Business Development Program;
7(j) Technical Assistance;
Procurement Assistance to Small Businesses;
Small Business Investment Companies;
7(a) Loan Program;
Surety Bond Guarantee Program;
SCORE;
Small Business Development Centers;
504 Loan Program;
Women‘s Business Centers;
Veterans‘ Business Outreach Centers;
Microloan Program;
PRIME;
New Markets Venture Capital Program;
7(a) Export Loan Guarantees;
HUBZone;
Small Business Technology Transfer Program;
Small Business Innovation Research Program;
Federal and State Technology Partnership Program.
USDA:
Empowerment Zones;
Woody Biomass Utilization Grant Program;
1890 Land Grant Institutions Rural Entrepreneurial Outreach
Program/Rural Business Entrepreneur Development Initiative/BISNET;
Small Business Innovation Research;
Value Added Producer Grants;
Agriculture Innovation Center;
Small Socially-Disadvantaged Producer Grants;
Intermediary Re-lending;
Rural Business Enterprise Grants;
Rural Cooperative Development Grants;
Rural Business Opportunity Grants;
Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program;
Biomass Research and Development Initiative Competitive Grants Program;
Business and Industry Loans.
Economic Activity: Infrastructure programs:
Commerce:
Community Trade Adjustment Assistance;
Grants for Public Works and Economic Development Facilities;
Economic Adjustment Assistance;
Global Climate Change Mitigation Incentive Fund;
HUD:
CDBG/Entitlement Grants;
CDBG/Special Purpose/Insular Areas;
CDBG/States;
CDBG/Non-entitlement CDBG Grants in Hawaii;
CDBG/Brownfields Economic Development Initiative;
CDBG/Section 108 Loan Guarantees;
Section 4 Capacity Building for Affordable Housing and
Community Development;
Rural Innovation Fund;
CDBG Disaster Recovery Grants;
Indian CDBG;
Hispanic Serving Institutions Assisting Communities;
Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian Institutions Assisting Communities;
SBA:
Surety Bond Guarantee Program.
USDA:
Empowerment Zones;
Rural Electrification Loans and Loan Guarantees;
Assistance to High Energy Cost Rural Communities;
Denali Commission Loans and Grants;
State Bulk Fuel Revolving Fund Grants;
Schools and Roads--Grants to States;
Schools and Roads--Grants to Counties;
Community Facilities Loans & Grants;
Water and Waste Disposal Loans & Grants (Section 306C);
Water and Waste Disposal Systems for Rural Communities;
Emergency Community Water Assistance Grants;
Technical Assistance and Training Grants;
Grant Program to Establish a Fund for Financing Water and
Waste Water Projects;
Solid Waste Management Grants;
Business and Industry Loans;
Rural Business Enterprise Grants;
Rural Economic Development Loans and Grants;
Rural Energy for America Program.
Economic activity: Plans and strategies programs:
Commerce:
Community Trade Adjustment Assistance;
Economic Development/Support for Planning Organizations;
Economic Development/Technical Assistance;
Economic Adjustment Assistance;
Research and Evaluation Program;
Trade Adjustment Assistance;
Global Climate Change Mitigation Incentive Fund.
HUD:
CDBG/Entitlement Grants;
CDBG/Special Purpose/Insular Areas;
CDBG/States;
CDBG/Non-entitlement CDBG Grants in Hawaii;
CDBG/Section 108 Loan Guarantees;
Section 4 Capacity Building for Affordable Housing and
Community Development;
Rural Innovation Fund;
CDBG Disaster Recovery Grants;
Indian CDBG;
Hispanic Serving Institutions Assisting Communities;
Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian Institutions Assisting Communities;
Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant Program;
Community Challenge Planning Grant Program.
SBA:
8(a) Business Development Program;
7(j) Technical Assistance;
Procurement Assistance to Small Businesses;
Small Business Investment Companies;
7(a) Loan Program;
SCORE;
Small Business Development Centers;
Veterans‘ Business Outreach Centers;
Microloan Program;
PRIME;
New Markets Venture Capital Program;
HUBZone;
Federal and State Technology Partnership Program.
USDA:
Empowerment Zones;
Woody Biomass Utilization Grant Program;
Intermediary Re-lending;
Rural Business Enterprise Grants;
Rural Business Opportunity Grants;
Rural Economic Development Loans and Grants;
Rural Energy for America Program.
Economic activity: Commercial buildings programs:
Commerce:
Community Trade Adjustment Assistance;
Grants for Public Works and Economic Development Facilities;
Economic Adjustment Assistance;
Global Climate Change Mitigation Incentive Fund.
HUD:
CDBG/Entitlement Grants;
CDBG/Special Purpose/Insular Areas;
CDBG/States;
CDBG/Non-entitlement CDBG Grants in Hawaii;
CDBG/Brownfields Economic Development Initiative;
CDBG/Section 108 Loan Guarantees;
Section 4 Capacity Building for Affordable Housing and Community
Development;
Rural Innovation Fund;
CDBG Disaster Recovery Grants;
Indian CDBG;
Hispanic Serving Institutions Assisting Communities;
Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian Institutions Assisting Communities.
SBA:
7(a) Loan Program;
Surety Bond Guarantee Program;
504 Loan Program;
7(a) Export Loan Guarantees;
USDA:
Empowerment Zones;
Intermediary Re-lending;
Business and Industry Loans;
Rural Business Enterprise Grants;
Rural Cooperative Development Grants;
Rural Economic Development Loans and Grants;
Biorefinery Assistance Program.
Economic activity: New markets programs:
Commerce:
Community Trade Adjustment Assistance;
Grants for Public Works and Economic Development Facilities;
Economic Development/Technical Assistance;
Economic Adjustment Assistance;
Research and Evaluation Program;
Global Climate Change Mitigation Incentive Fund.
HUD:
CDBG/Entitlement Grants;
CDBG/Special Purpose/Insular Areas;
CDBG/States;
CDBG/Non-entitlement CDBG Grants in Hawaii;
CDBG/Section 108 Loan Guarantees;
Section 4 Capacity Building for Affordable Housing and Community
Development;
CDBG Disaster Recovery Grants;
Indian CDBG;
Hispanic Serving Institutions Assisting Communities;
Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian Institutions Assisting Communities.
SBA:
Small Business Investment Companies;
SCORE;
Small Business Development Centers;
Women‘s Business Centers;
Microloan Program;
7(a) Export Loan Guarantees.
USDA:
Empowerment Zones;
Woody Biomass Utilization Grant Program;
Biobased Products and Bioenergy Program;
Biorefinery Assistance Program;
Rural Energy for America Program;
Business and Industry Loans.
Economic activity: Telecommunications programs:
Commerce:
Community Trade Adjustment Assistance;
Grants for Public Works and Economic Development Facilities;
Economic Adjustment Assistance.
HUD:
CDBG/Entitlement Grants;
CDBG/Special Purpose/Insular Areas;
CDBG/States;
CDBG/Non-entitlement CDBG Grants in Hawaii;
CDBG/Brownfields Economic Development Initiative;
CDBG/Section 108 Loan Guarantees;
Section 4 Capacity Building for Affordable Housing and
Community Development;
CDBG Disaster Recovery Grants;
Indian CDBG;
Hispanic Serving Institutions Assisting Communities;
Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian Institutions Assisting Communities.
SBA:
Small Business Technology Transfer Program;
Small Business Innovation Research Program.
USDA:
Empowerment Zones;
Distance Learning and Telemedicine Loans & Grants;
Rural Telephone Loans and Loan Guarantees;
Public Television Station Digital Transition Grants;
Community Connect Program;
Rural Broadband Access Loans and Loan Guarantees;
Small Business Innovation Research;
Rural Economic Development Loans and Grants.
Economic activity: Business incubators programs:
Commerce:
Community Trade Adjustment Assistance;
Grants for Public Works and Economic Development Facilities;
Economic Development/Technical Assistance;
Economic Adjustment Assistance;
Global Climate Change Mitigation Incentive Fund;.
HUD:
CDBG/Entitlement Grants;
CDBG/Special Purpose/Insular Areas;
CDBG/States;
CDBG/Non-entitlement CDBG Grants in Hawaii;
CDBG/Brownfields Economic Development Initiative;
CDBG/Section 108 Loan Guarantees;
Section 4 Capacity Building for Affordable Housing and Community
Development;
Rural Innovation Fund;
CDBG Disaster Recovery Grants;
Indian CDBG;
Hispanic Serving Institutions Assisting Communities;
Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian Institutions Assisting Communities.
USDA:
Empowerment Zones;
1890 Land Grant Institutions Rural Entrepreneurial Outreach
Program/Rural Business Entrepreneur Development Initiative/BISNET;
Rural Economic Development Loans and Grants;
Intermediary Re-lending;
Business and Industry Loans.
Rural Business Enterprise Grants;
Rural Business Opportunity Grants.
Economic activity: Industrial parks programs;
Commerce:
Community Trade Adjustment Assistance;
Grants for Public Works and Economic Development Facilities;
Economic Development/Technical Assistance;
Economic Adjustment Assistance;
Global Climate Change Mitigation Incentive Fund;
HUD:
CDBG/Entitlement Grants;
CDBG/Special Purpose/Insular Areas;
CDBG/States;
CDBG/Non-entitlement CDBG Grants in Hawaii;
CDBG/Brownfields Economic Development Initiative;
CDBG/Section 108 Loan Guarantees;
Section 4 Capacity Building for Affordable Housing and Community
Development;
CDBG Disaster Recovery Grants;
Indian CDBG;
Hispanic Serving Institutions Assisting Communities;
Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian Institutions Assisting Communities.
USDA:
Empowerment Zones;
Rural Business Opportunity Grants;
Rural Economic Development Loans and Grants;
Intermediary Re-lending;
Rural Business Enterprise Grants.
Economic activity: Tourism programs:
Commerce:
Community Trade Adjustment Assistance;
Economic Development/Technical Assistance;
Economic Adjustment Assistance;
Global Climate Change Mitigation Incentive Fund;
Grants for Public Works and Economic Development Facilities;
HUD:
CDBG/Entitlement Grants;
CDBG/Special Purpose/Insular Areas;
CDBG/States;
CDBG/Non-entitlement CDBG Grants in Hawaii;
CDBG/Section 108 Loan Guarantees;
Section 4 Capacity Building for Affordable Housing and Community
Development;
CDBG Disaster Recovery Grants;
Indian CDBG;
Hispanic Serving Institutions Assisting Communities;
Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian Institutions Assisting Communities.
USDA:
Empowerment Zones;
Small Business Innovation Research;
Intermediary Re-lending;
Business and Industry Loans.
Source: GAO analysis of information from Commerce, HUD, SBA, and USDA.
[End of table]
[End of enclosure]
Enclosure V: 80 Economic Development Programs:
Agency: Commerce:
Program name: Community Trade Adjustment Assistance;
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $0;
Plans and strategies: [Check];
Commercial buildings: [Check];
Business incubators: [Check];
Industrial parks: [Check];
Infrastructure: [Check];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check];
New markets: [Check];
Telecommunications: [Check];
Tourism: [Check];
Urban/rural: Not Specified;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]:
Businesses adversely affected by international trade impacts;
Award Type: grant or direct payment.
Program name: Grants for Public Works and Economic Development
Facilities;
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $158,930,000;
Plans and strategies: [Empty];
Commercial buildings: [Check];
Business incubators: [Check];
Industrial parks: [Check];
Infrastructure: [Check];
Entrepreneurial
efforts: [Check];
New markets: [Check];
Telecommunications: [Check];
Tourism: [Check];
Urban/rural: Not Specified;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Economically distressed areas;
Award Type: grant or direct payment.
Program name: Economic Development/Support for Planning
Organizations;
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $31,391,000;
Plans and strategies: [Check];
Commercial buildings: [Empty];
Business incubators: [Empty];
Industrial parks: [Empty];
Infrastructure: [Empty];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Empty];
New markets: [Empty];
Telecommunications: [Empty];
Tourism: [Empty];
Urban/rural: Not Specified;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Unemployed and underemployed residents
located in economically distressed areas;
Award Type: grant or direct payment.
Program name: Economic Development/Technical Assistance;
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $9,800,000;
Plans and strategies: [Check];
Commercial buildings: [Empty];
Business incubators: [Check];
Industrial parks: [Check];
Infrastructure: [Empty];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check];
New markets: [Check];
Telecommunications: [Empty];
Tourism: [Check];
Urban/rural: Not Specified;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Economically distressed areas;
Award Type: grant or direct payment.
Program name: Economic Adjustment Assistance;
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $45,270,000;
Plans and strategies: [Check];
Commercial buildings: [Check];
Business incubators: [Check];
Industrial parks: [Check];
Infrastructure: [Check];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check];
New markets: [Check];
Telecommunications: [Check];
Tourism: [Check];
Urban/rural: Not Specified;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]:
Economically distressed areas;
Award Type: grant or direct payment.
Program name: Research and Evaluation Program;
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $1,963,000;
Plans and strategies: [Check];
Commercial buildings: [Empty];
Business incubators: [Empty];
Industrial parks: [Empty];
Infrastructure: [Empty];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check];
New markets: [Check];
Telecommunications: [Empty];
Tourism: [Empty];
Urban/rural: Not Specified;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]:
Economically distressed areas;
Award Type: grant or direct payment.
Program name: Trade Adjustment Assistance;
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $18,987,000;
Plans and strategies: [Check];
Commercial buildings: [Empty];
Business incubators: [Empty];
Industrial parks: [Empty];
Infrastructure: [Empty];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Empty];
New markets: [Empty];
Telecommunications: [Empty];
Tourism: [Empty];
Urban/rural: Not Specified;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Businesses adversely affected by
imports;
Award Type: grant and services, technical support.
Program name: Global Climate Change Mitigation Incentive Fund;
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $25,000,000;
Plans and strategies: [Check];
Commercial buildings: [Check];
Business incubators: [Check];
Industrial parks: [Check];
Infrastructure: [Check];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check];
New markets: [Check];
Telecommunications: [Empty];
Tourism: [Check];
Urban/rural: Not Specified;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Economically distressed areas;
Award Type: grant or direct payment.
Program name: Minority Business Enterprise Centers;
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $8,601,193;
Plans and strategies: [Empty];
Commercial buildings: [Empty];
Business incubators: [Empty];
Industrial parks: [Empty];
Infrastructure: [Empty];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check];
New markets: [Empty];
Telecommunications: [Empty];
Tourism: [Empty];
Urban/rural: Not Specified;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Current and prospective minority-owned
businesses;
Award Type: grant or direct payment.
Program name: Native American Business Enterprise Centers;
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $1,351,500;
Plans and strategies: [Empty];
Commercial buildings: [Empty];
Business incubators: [Empty];
Industrial parks: [Empty];
Infrastructure: [Empty];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check];
New markets: [Empty];
Telecommunications: [Empty];
Tourism: [Empty];
Urban/rural: Not Specified;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Current and prospective Native-American
owned businesses;
Award Type: grant or direct payment.
Program name: Minority Business Opportunity Center;
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $1,512,500;
Plans and strategies: [Empty];
Commercial buildings: [Empty];
Business incubators: [Empty];
Industrial parks: [Empty];
Infrastructure: [Empty];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check];
New markets: [Empty];
Telecommunications: [Empty];
Tourism: [Empty];
Urban/rural: Not Specified;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Current and prospective minority-owned
businesses;
Award Type: grant or direct payment.
Agency: USDA:
Program name: Empowerment Zones;
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $500,000;
Plans and strategies: [Check];
Commercial buildings: [Check];
Business incubators: [Check];
Industrial parks: [Check];
Infrastructure: [Check];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check];
New markets: [Check];
Telecommunications: [Check];
Tourism: [Check];
Urban/rural: Rural Only;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Rural communities;
Award Type: grant and services; technical support.
Program name: Woody Biomass Utilization Grant Program;
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $5,000,000;
Economic Activities:
Plans and strategies: [Check];
Commercial buildings: [Empty];
Business incubators: [Empty];
Industrial parks: [Empty];
Infrastructure: [Empty];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check];
New markets: [Check];
Telecommunications: [Empty];
Tourism: [Empty];
Urban/rural: Rural Only;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Rural communities and businesses
located in rural communities near National Forests and involved in
forestry activities on National Forests;
Award Type: grant and services; technical support.
Program name: 1890 Land Grant Institutions Rural Entrepreneurial
Outreach Program/Rural Business Entrepreneur Development Initiative/
BISNET;
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $0;
Economic Activities:
Plans and strategies: [Empty];
Commercial buildings: [Empty];
Business incubators: [Check];
Industrial parks: [Empty];
Infrastructure: [Empty];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check];
New markets: [Empty];
Telecommunications: [Empty];
Tourism: [Empty];
Urban/rural: Rural Only;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Current and prospective small
businesses located in rural communities;
Award Type: grant and services; technical support.
Program name: Distance Learning and Telemedicine Loans & Grants;
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $33,300,000.00;
Economic Activities:
Plans and strategies: [Empty];
Commercial buildings: [Empty];
Business incubators: [Empty];
Industrial parks: [Empty];
Infrastructure: [Empty];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Empty];
New markets: [Empty];
Telecommunications: [Check];
Tourism: [Empty];
Urban/rural: Rural Only;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Rural communities;
Award Type: grant and loan.
Program name: Rural Telephone Loans and Loan Guarantees;
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $0;
Economic Activities:
Plans and strategies: [Empty];
Commercial buildings: [Empty];
Business incubators: [Empty];
Industrial parks: [Empty];
Infrastructure: [Empty];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Empty];
New markets: [Empty];
Telecommunications: [Check];
Tourism: [Empty];
Urban/rural: Rural Only;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Telephone users located in rural
communities;
Award Type: loan (direct or guaranteed).
Program name: Public Television Station Digital Transition
Grants;
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $4,500,000.00;
Economic Activities:
Plans and strategies: [Empty];
Commercial buildings: [Empty];
Business incubators: [Empty];
Industrial parks: [Empty];
Infrastructure: [Empty];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Empty];
New markets: [Empty];
Telecommunications: [Check];
Tourism: [Empty];
Urban/rural: Rural Only;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Television users located in rural
communities;
Award Type: grant or direct payment.
Program name: Community Connect Program;
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $18,000,000.00;
Economic Activities:
Plans and strategies: [Empty];
Commercial buildings: [Empty];
Business incubators: [Empty];
Industrial parks: [Empty];
Infrastructure: [Empty];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Empty];
New markets: [Empty];
Telecommunications: [Check];
Tourism: [Empty];
Urban/rural: Rural Only;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Broadband users located in rural
communities;
Award Type: grant or direct payment.
Program name: Rural Broadband Access Loans and Loan Guarantees;
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $29,000,000.00;
Economic Activities:
Plans and strategies: [Empty];
Commercial buildings: [Empty];
Business incubators: [Empty];
Industrial parks: [Empty];
Infrastructure: [Empty];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Empty];
New markets: [Empty];
Telecommunications: [Check];
Tourism: [Empty];
Urban/rural: Rural Only;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Broadband users located in rural
communities;
Award Type: loan (direct or guaranteed).
Program name: Rural Electrification Loans and Loan Guarantees;
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $0;
Economic Activities:
Plans and strategies: [Empty];
Commercial buildings: [Empty];
Business incubators: [Empty];
Industrial parks: [Empty];
Infrastructure: [Check];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Empty];
New markets: [Empty];
Telecommunications: [Empty];
Tourism: [Empty];
Urban/rural: Rural Only;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Users of services provided by eligible
electrical suppliers;
Award Type: loan (direct or guaranteed).
Program name: Assistance to High Energy Cost Rural Communities;
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $17,500,000;
Economic Activities:
Plans and strategies: [Empty];
Commercial buildings: [Empty];
Business incubators: [Empty];
Industrial parks: [Empty];
Infrastructure: [Check];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Empty];
New markets: [Empty];
Telecommunications: [Empty];
Tourism: [Empty];
Urban/rural: Rural Only;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Rural communities with high energy
costs;
Award Type: grant and loan.
Program name: Denali Commission Loans and Grants;
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $0;
Economic Activities:
Plans and strategies: [Empty];
Commercial buildings: [Empty];
Business incubators: [Empty];
Industrial parks: [Empty];
Infrastructure: [Check];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Empty];
New markets: [Empty];
Telecommunications: [Empty];
Tourism: [Empty];
Urban/rural: Rural Only;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Rural communities located in Alaska
with high energy costs;
Award Type: grant and loan.
Program name: State Bulk Fuel Revolving Fund Grants;
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $0;
Economic Activities:
Plans and strategies: [Empty];
Commercial buildings: [Empty];
Business incubators: [Empty];
Industrial parks: [Empty];
Infrastructure: [Check];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Empty];
New markets: [Empty];
Telecommunications: [Empty];
Tourism: [Empty];
Urban/rural: Rural Only;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Remote rural communities where fuel
cannot be shipped by surface transportation;
Award Type: grant or direct payment.
Program name: Small Business Innovation Research;
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $22,000,000;
Economic Activities:
Plans and strategies: [Empty];
Commercial buildings: [Empty];
Business incubators: [Empty];
Industrial parks: [Empty];
Infrastructure: [Empty];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check];
New markets: [Empty];
Telecommunications: [Check];
Tourism: [Check];
Urban/rural: Not Specified;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Small businesses;
Award Type: grant or direct payment.
Program name: Biomass Research and Development Initiative
Competitive Grants Program[E];
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $0;
Economic Activities:
Plans and strategies: [Empty];
Commercial buildings: [Empty];
Business incubators: [Empty];
Industrial parks: [Empty];
Infrastructure: [Empty];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check];
New markets: [Empty];
Telecommunications: [Empty];
Tourism: [Empty];
Urban/rural: Not Specified;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Research institutions;
Award Type: grant or direct payment.
Program name: Schools and Roads-Grants to States;
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $0;
Economic Activities:
Plans and strategies: [Empty];
Commercial buildings: [Empty];
Business incubators: [Empty];
Industrial parks: [Empty];
Infrastructure: [Check];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Empty];
New markets: [Empty];
Telecommunications: [Empty];
Tourism: [Empty];
Urban/rural: Rural Only;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]:
Schools and entities that manage public roads located in counties
containing national forest lands;
Award Type: grant or direct payment.
Program name: Schools and Roads-Grants to Counties;
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $0;
Economic Activities:
Plans and strategies: [Empty];
Commercial buildings: [Empty];
Business incubators: [Empty];
Industrial parks: [Empty];
Infrastructure: [Check];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Empty];
New markets: [Empty];
Telecommunications: [Empty];
Tourism: [Empty];
Urban/rural: Rural Only;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]:
Schools and entities that manage public roads located in counties
containing National Grasslands and Land Utilization Projects;
Award Type: grant or direct payment.
Program name: Community Facilities Loans & Grants;
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $36,800,000;
Economic Activities:
Plans and strategies: [Empty];
Commercial buildings: [Empty];
Business incubators: [Empty];
Industrial parks: [Empty];
Infrastructure: [Check];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Empty];
New markets: [Empty];
Telecommunications: [Empty];
Tourism: [Empty];
Urban/rural: Rural Only;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Rural communities;
Award Type: grant and loan.
Program name: Water and Waste Disposal Loans & Grants (Section
306C);
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $489,100,000;
Economic Activities:
Plans and strategies: [Empty];
Commercial buildings: [Empty];
Business incubators: [Empty];
Industrial parks: [Empty];
Infrastructure: [Check];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Empty];
New markets: [Empty];
Telecommunications: [Empty];
Tourism: [Empty];
Urban/rural: Rural Only;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Low-income rural communities;
Award Type: grant and loan.
Program name: Water and Waste Disposal Systems for Rural
Communities[C];
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $0;
Economic Activities:
Plans and strategies: [Empty];
Commercial buildings: [Empty];
Business incubators: [Empty];
Industrial parks: [Empty];
Infrastructure: [Check];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Empty];
New markets: [Empty];
Telecommunications: [Empty];
Tourism: [Empty];
Urban/rural: Rural Only;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Rural communities;
Award Type: grant and loan.
Program name: Emergency Community Water Assistance Grants;
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $13,000,000;
Economic Activities:
Plans and strategies: [Empty];
Commercial buildings: [Empty];
Business incubators: [Empty];
Industrial parks: [Empty];
Infrastructure: [Check];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Empty];
New markets: [Empty];
Telecommunications: [Empty];
Tourism: [Empty];
Urban/rural: Rural Only;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Rural communities with low and moderate
income residents;
Award Type: grant or direct payment.
Program name: Technical Assistance and Training Grants;
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $19,500,000;
Economic Activities:
Plans and strategies: [Empty];
Commercial buildings: [Empty];
Business incubators: [Empty];
Industrial parks: [Empty];
Infrastructure: [Check];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Empty];
New markets: [Empty];
Telecommunications: [Empty];
Tourism: [Empty];
Urban/rural: Rural Only;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Rural communities;
Award Type: grant or direct payment.
Program name: Grant Program to Establish a Fund for Financing
Water and Waste Water Projects;
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $ 500,000;
Economic Activities:
Plans and strategies: [Empty];
Commercial buildings: [Empty];
Business incubators: [Empty];
Industrial parks: [Empty];
Infrastructure: [Check];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Empty];
New markets: [Empty];
Telecommunications: [Empty];
Tourism: [Empty];
Urban/rural: Rural Only;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Rural communities;
Award Type: grant or direct payment.
Program name: Solid Waste Management Grants;
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $3,400,000;
Economic Activities:
Plans and strategies: [Empty];
Commercial buildings: [Empty];
Business incubators: [Empty];
Industrial parks: [Empty];
Infrastructure: [Check];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Empty];
New markets: [Empty];
Telecommunications: [Empty];
Tourism: [Empty];
Urban/rural: Rural Only;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Rural communities;
Award Type: grant or direct payment.
Program name: Value Added Producer Grants;
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $19,400,000;
Economic Activities:
Plans and strategies: [Empty];
Commercial buildings: [Empty];
Business incubators: [Empty];
Industrial parks: [Empty];
Infrastructure: [Empty];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check];
New markets: [Empty];
Telecommunications: [Empty];
Tourism: [Empty];
Urban/rural: Rural Only;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Agricultural businesses;
Award Type: grant and services, technical support.
Program name: Biobased Products and Bioenergy Program;
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $2,000,000;
Economic Activities:
Plans and strategies: [Empty];
Commercial buildings: [Empty];
Business incubators: [Empty];
Industrial parks: [Empty];
Infrastructure: [Empty];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Empty];
New markets: [Check];
Telecommunications: [Empty];
Tourism: [Empty];
Urban/rural: Rural Only;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Current and prospective businesses
located in rural communities;
Award Type: loan (direct or guaranteed).
Program name: Agriculture Innovation Center;
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $0;
Economic Activities:
Plans and strategies: [Empty];
Commercial buildings: [Empty];
Business incubators: [Empty];
Industrial parks: [Empty];
Infrastructure: [Empty];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check];
New markets: [Empty];
Telecommunications: [Empty];
Tourism: [Empty];
Urban/rural: Not Specified;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Agricultural producers;
Award Type: grant or direct payment.
Program name: Small Socially-Disadvantaged Producer Grants;
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $3,500,000;
Economic Activities:
Plans and strategies: [Empty];
Commercial buildings: [Empty];
Business incubators: [Empty];
Industrial parks: [Empty];
Infrastructure: [Empty];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check];
New markets: [Empty];
Telecommunications: [Empty];
Tourism: [Empty];
Urban/rural: Not Specified;
Primary Targeted
Recipient[B]: Small, socially-disadvantaged agricultural producers;
Award Type: grant or direct payment.
Program name: Intermediary Re-lending[E];
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $8,500,000;
Economic Activities:
Plans and strategies: [Check];
Commercial buildings: [Check];
Business incubators: [Check];
Industrial parks: [Check];
Infrastructure: [Empty];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check];
New markets: [Empty];
Telecommunications: [Empty];
Tourism: [Check];
Urban/rural: Rural Only;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Current and prospective businesses
located in rural communities;
Award Type: loan (direct or guaranteed).
Program name: Business and Industry Loans[E];
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $52,900,000;
Economic Activities:
Plans and strategies: [Empty];
Commercial buildings: [Check];
Business incubators: [Check];
Industrial parks: [Empty];
Infrastructure: [Check];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check];
New markets: [Check];
Telecommunications: [Empty];
Tourism: [Check];
Urban/rural: Rural Only;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Current and prospective businesses
located in rural communities;
Award Type: loan (direct or guaranteed).
Program name: Rural Business Enterprise Grants[E];
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $38,700,000;
Plans and strategies: [Check];
Commercial buildings: [Check];
Business incubators: [Check];
Industrial parks: [Check];
Infrastructure: [Check];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check];
New markets: [Empty];
Telecommunications: [Empty];
Tourism: [Empty];
Urban/rural: Rural Only;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Current and prospective small businesses
located in rural communities;
Award Type: grant or direct payment.
Program name: Rural Cooperative Development Grants;
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $8,300,000;
Economic Activities:
Plans and strategies: [Empty];
Commercial buildings: [Check];
Business incubators: [Empty];
Industrial parks: [Empty];
Infrastructure: [Empty];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check];
New markets: [Empty];
Telecommunications: [Empty];
Tourism: [Empty];
Urban/rural: Rural Only;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Business cooperatives located in rural
communities;
Award Type: grant or direct payment.
Program name: Rural Business Opportunity Grants[E];
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $2,500,000;
Economic Activities:
Plans and strategies: [Check];
Commercial buildings: [Empty];
Business incubators: [Check];
Industrial parks: [Check];
Infrastructure: [Empty];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check];
New markets: [Empty];
Telecommunications: [Empty];
Tourism: [Empty];
Urban/rural: Rural Only;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Rural businesses;
Award Type: grant or direct payment.
Program name: Rural Economic Development Loans and Grants;
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $0;
Economic Activities:
Plans and strategies: [Check];
Commercial buildings: [Check];
Business incubators: [Check];
Industrial parks: [Check];
Infrastructure: [Check];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Empty];
New markets: [Empty];
Telecommunications: [Check];
Tourism: [Empty];
Urban/rural: Rural Only;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Current and prospective businesses
located in rural communities;
Award Type: grant and loan.
Program name: Biorefinery Assistance Program;
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $245,000,000;
Economic Activities:
Plans and strategies: [Empty];
Commercial buildings: [Check];
Business incubators: [Empty];
Industrial parks: [Empty];
Infrastructure: [Empty];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Empty];
New markets: [Check];
Telecommunications: [Empty];
Tourism: [Empty];
Urban/rural: Not Specified;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Commercial-scale biorefineries;
Award Type: loan (direct or guaranteed).
Program name: Rural Energy for America Program[E];
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $99,400,000;
Economic Activities:
Plans and strategies: [Check];
Commercial buildings: [Empty];
Business incubators: [Empty];
Industrial parks: [Empty];
Infrastructure: [Check];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Empty];
New markets: [Check];
Telecommunications: [Empty];
Tourism: [Empty];
Urban/rural: Rural Only;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Small businesses located in rural
communities;
Award Type: grant and loan.
Program name: Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program;
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $9,000,000;
Economic Activities:
Plans and strategies: [Empty];
Commercial buildings: [Empty];
Business incubators: [Empty];
Industrial parks: [Empty];
Infrastructure: [Empty];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check];
New markets: [Empty];
Telecommunications: [Empty];
Tourism: [Empty];
Urban/rural: Rural Only;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Small businesses;
Award Type: grant and loan.
Agency: HUD:
Program name: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG); Entitlement
Grants;
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $2,760,223,970;
Economic Activities:
Plans and strategies: [Check];
Commercial buildings: [Check];
Business incubators: [Check];
Industrial parks: [Check];
Infrastructure: [Check];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check];
New markets: [Check];
Telecommunications: [Check];
Tourism: [Check];
Urban/rural: Urban Only;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Low and moderate income
families;
Award Type: grant or direct payment.
Program name: CDBG/Special Purpose/Insular Areas;
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $6,930,000;
Economic Activities:
Plans and strategies: [Check];
Commercial buildings: [Check];
Business incubators: [Check];
Industrial parks: [Check];
Infrastructure: [Check];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check];
New markets: [Check];
Telecommunications: [Check];
Economic Activities: Tourism: [Check];
Urban/rural: Not Specified;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Low and moderate income families
located in American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and the
Virgin Islands;
Award Type: grant or direct payment.
Program name: CDBG/States;
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $1,176,594,747;
Economic Activities:
Plans and strategies: [Check];
Commercial buildings: [Check];
Business incubators: [Check];
Industrial parks: [Check];
Infrastructure: [Check];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check];
New markets: [Check];
Telecommunications: [Check];
Tourism: [Check];
Urban/rural: Rural Only;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Low and moderate income families;
Award Type: grant or direct payment.
Program name: CDBG/Non-entitlement CDBG Grants in Hawaii;
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $5,791,797;
Economic Activities:
Plans and strategies: [Check];
Commercial buildings: [Check];
Business incubators: [Check];
Industrial parks: [Check];
Infrastructure: [Check];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check];
New markets: [Check];
Telecommunications: [Check];
Tourism: [Check];
Urban/rural: Not Specified;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Low and moderate income families
located in Hawaii;
Award Type: grant or direct payment.
Program name: CDBG/Brownfields Economic Development Initiative;
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $17,500,000;
Economic Activities:
Plans and strategies: [Empty];
Commercial buildings: [Check];
Business incubators: [Check];
Industrial parks: [Check];
Infrastructure: [Check];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check];
New markets: [Empty];
Telecommunications: [Check];
Tourism: [Empty];
Urban/rural: Not Specified;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Public entities overseeing economic
redevelopment projects;
Award Type: grant or direct payment.
Program name: CDBG/Section 108 Loan Guarantees;
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $6,000,000;
Economic Activities:
Plans and strategies: [Check];
Commercial buildings: [Check];
Business incubators: [Check];
Industrial parks: [Check];
Infrastructure: [Check];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check];
New markets: [Check];
Telecommunications: [Check];
Tourism: [Check];
Urban/rural: Not Specified;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Low and moderate income families;
Award Type: loan (direct or guaranteed).
Program name: Section 4 Capacity Building for Affordable Housing
and Community Development;
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $50,000,000;
Economic Activities:
Plans and strategies: [Check];
Commercial buildings: [Check];
Business incubators: [Check];
Industrial parks: [Check];
Infrastructure: [Check];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check];
New markets: [Check];
Telecommunications: [Check];
Tourism: [Check];
Urban/rural: Not Specified;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Low-income families;
Award Type: grant or direct payment.
Program name: Rural Innovation Fund;
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $25,000,000;
Economic Activities:
Plans and strategies: [Check];
Commercial buildings: [Check];
Business incubators: [Check];
Industrial parks: [Empty];
Infrastructure: [Check];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check];
New markets: [Empty];
Telecommunications: [Empty];
Tourism: [Empty];
Urban/rural: Rural Only;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Low and moderate income families and
businesses located in rural communities;
Award Type: grant or direct payment.
Program name: CDBG Disaster Recovery Grants;
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $100,000,000;
Economic Activities:
Plans and strategies: [Check];
Commercial buildings: [Check];
Business incubators: [Check];
Industrial parks: [Check];
Infrastructure: [Check];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check];
New markets: [Check];
Telecommunications: [Check];
Tourism: [Check];
Urban/rural: Not Specified;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]:
Low and moderate income families located in and around communities that
have experienced a natural disaster;
Award Type: grant or direct payment.
Program name: Indian CDBG;
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $65,000,000;
Economic Activities:
Plans and strategies: [Check];
Commercial buildings: [Check];
Business incubators: [Check];
Industrial parks: [Check];
Infrastructure: [Check];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check];
New markets: [Check];
Telecommunications: [Check];
Tourism: [Check];
Urban/rural: Not Specified;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Indian tribes and Alaskan Native
villages;
Award Type: grant or direct payment.
Program name: Hispanic Serving Institutions Assisting
Communities;
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $6,250,000;
Economic Activities:
Plans and strategies: [Check];
Commercial buildings: [Check];
Business incubators: [Check];
Industrial parks: [Check];
Infrastructure: [Check];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check];
New markets: [Check];
Telecommunications: [Check];
Tourism: [Check];
Urban/rural: Not Specified;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Low and moderate income families and
small businesses located in communities surrounding Hispanic-serving
institutions of higher education;
Award Type: grant or direct payment.
Program name: Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian Institutions Assisting
Communities;
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $3,265,000;
Economic Activities:
Plans and strategies: [Check];
Commercial buildings: [Check];
Business incubators: [Check];
Industrial parks: [Check];
Infrastructure: [Check];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check];
New markets: [Check];
Telecommunications: [Check];
Tourism: [Check];
Urban/rural:
Not Specified;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Low and moderate income families and
small businesses located in communities served by institutions for
higher education in Alaska and Hawaii;
Award Type: grant or direct payment.
Program name: Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant Program;
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $98,000,000;
Economic Activities:
Plans and strategies: [Check];
Commercial buildings: [Empty];
Business incubators: [Empty];
Industrial parks: [Empty];
Infrastructure: [Empty];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Empty];
New markets: [Empty];
Telecommunications: [Empty];
Tourism: [Empty];
Urban/rural: Not Specified;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Community and regional planning
grantees;
Award Type: grant or direct payment.
Program name: Community Challenge Planning Grant Program;
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $40,000,000;
Economic Activities:
Plans and strategies: [Check];
Commercial buildings: [Empty];
Business incubators: [Empty];
Industrial parks: [Empty];
Infrastructure: [Empty];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Empty];
New markets: [Empty];
Telecommunications: [Empty];
Tourism: [Empty];
Urban/rural: Not Specified;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Community and regional planning grantees;
Award Type: grant or direct payment.
Agency: SBA[F]:
Program name: 8(a) Business Development Program[D];
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $56,817,000;
Economic Activities:
Plans and strategies: [Check];
Commercial buildings: [Empty];
Business incubators: [Empty];
Industrial parks: [Empty];
Infrastructure: [Empty];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check];
New markets: [Empty];
Telecommunications: [Empty];
Tourism: [Empty];
Urban/rural: Not Specified;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Small and disadvantaged businesses;
Award Type: services; technical support; advantages for federal
contract competition.
Program name: 7(j) Technical Assistance;
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $3,400,000;
Economic Activities:
Plans and strategies: [Check];
Commercial buildings: [Empty];
Business incubators: [Empty];
Industrial parks: [Empty];
Infrastructure: [Empty];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check];
New markets: [Empty];
Telecommunications: [Empty];
Tourism: [Empty];
Urban/rural: Not Specified;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Small disadvantaged businesses and
small businesses operating in areas of low income or high unemployment;
Award Type: grant or direct payment.
Program name: Procurement Assistance to Small Businesses[D];
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $3,164,000;
Economic Activities:
Plans and strategies: [Check];
Commercial buildings: [Empty];
Business incubators: [Empty];
Industrial parks: [Empty];
Infrastructure: [Empty];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check];
New markets: [Empty];
Telecommunications: [Empty];
Tourism: [Empty];
Urban/rural: Not Specified;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Small businesses interested in
government contracting opportunities;
Award Type: advantages for federal contract competition.
Program name: Small Business Investment Companies[D];
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $24,262,000;
Economic Activities:
Plans and strategies: [Check];
Commercial buildings: [Empty];
Business incubators: [Empty];
Industrial parks: [Empty];
Infrastructure: [Empty];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check];
New markets: [Check];
Telecommunications: [Empty];
Tourism: [Empty];
Urban/rural: Not Specified;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Small businesses in start up and growth
situations;
Award Type: loan (direct or guaranteed).
Program name: 7(a) Loan Program[D];
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $95,090,000;
Economic Activities:
Plans and strategies: [Check];
Commercial buildings: [Check];
Business incubators: [Empty];
Industrial parks: [Empty];
Infrastructure: [Empty];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check];
New markets: [Empty];
Telecommunications: [Empty];
Tourism: [Empty];
Urban/rural: Not Specified;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Current and prospective small businesses;
Award Type: loan (direct or guaranteed).
Program name: Surety Bond Guarantee Program;
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $1,000,000;
Economic Activities:
Plans and strategies: [Empty];
Commercial buildings: [Check];
Business incubators: [Empty];
Industrial parks: [Empty];
Infrastructure: [Check];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check];
New markets: [Empty];
Telecommunications: [Empty];
Tourism: [Empty];
Urban/rural: Not Specified;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Small and emerging small business
contractors;
Award Type: loan (direct or guaranteed).
Program name: SCORE;
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $7,000,000;
Economic Activities:
Plans and strategies: [Check];
Commercial buildings: [Empty];
Business incubators: [Empty];
Industrial parks: [Empty];
Infrastructure: [Empty];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check];
New markets: [Check];
Telecommunications: [Empty];
Tourism: [Empty];
Urban/rural: Not Specified;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Current and prospective businesses;
Award Type: grant or direct payment.
Program name: Small Business Development Centers;
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $113,000,000;
Economic Activities:
Plans and strategies: [Check];
Commercial buildings: [Empty];
Business incubators: [Empty];
Industrial parks: [Empty];
Infrastructure: [Empty];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check];
New markets: [Check];
Telecommunications: [Empty];
Tourism: [Empty];
Urban/rural: Not Specified;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Current and prospective businesses;
Award Type: grant or direct payment.
Program name: 504 Loan Program[D];
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $36,232,000;
Economic Activities:
Plans and strategies: [Empty];
Commercial buildings: [Check];
Business incubators: [Empty];
Industrial parks: [Empty];
Infrastructure: [Empty];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check];
New markets: [Empty];
Telecommunications: [Empty];
Tourism: [Empty];
Urban/rural: Not Specified;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Small businesses;
Award Type: loan (direct or guaranteed).
Program name: Women's Business Centers;
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $14,000,000;
Economic Activities:
Plans and strategies: [Empty];
Commercial buildings: [Empty];
Business incubators: [Empty];
Industrial parks: [Empty];
Infrastructure: [Empty];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check];
New markets: [Check];
Telecommunications: [Empty];
Tourism: [Empty];
Urban/rural: Not Specified;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Women-owned small businesses;
Award Type: grant or direct payment.
Program name: Veterans' Businesses Outreach Centers;
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $2,500,000;
Economic Activities:
Plans and strategies: [Check];
Commercial buildings: [Empty];
Business incubators: [Empty];
Industrial parks: [Empty];
Infrastructure: [Empty];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check];
New markets: [Empty];
Telecommunications: [Empty];
Tourism: [Empty];
Urban/rural: Not Specified;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Current and prospective veteran-owned
small businesses;
Award Type: grant or direct payment.
Program name: Microloan Program[D];
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $25,315,000;
Economic Activities:
Plans and strategies: [Check];
Commercial buildings: [Empty];
Business incubators: [Empty];
Industrial parks: [Empty];
Infrastructure: [Empty];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check];
New markets: [Check];
Telecommunications: [Empty];
Tourism: [Empty];
Urban/rural: Not Specified;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Small businesses and not-for-profit
child care centers;
Award Type: grant and loan.
Program name: PRIME;
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $8,000,000;
Economic Activities:
Plans and strategies: [Check];
Commercial buildings: [Empty];
Business incubators: [Empty];
Industrial parks: [Empty];
Infrastructure: [Empty];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check];
New markets: [Empty];
Telecommunications: [Empty];
Tourism: [Empty];
Urban/rural: Not Specified;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Small businesses owned by disadvantaged
individuals;
Award Type: grant or direct payment.
Program name: New Markets Venture Capital Program[D];
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $0;
Economic Activities:
Plans and strategies: [Check];
Commercial buildings: [Empty];
Business incubators: [Empty];
Industrial parks: [Empty];
Infrastructure: [Empty];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check];
New markets: [Empty];
Telecommunications: [Empty];
Tourism: [Empty];
Urban/rural: Not Specified;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Small businesses located in areas with
low income or high unemployment;
Award Type: grant and loan.
Program name: 7(a) E[Check]port Loan Guarantees[D];
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $0;
Economic Activities:
Plans and strategies: [Empty];
Commercial buildings: [Check];
Business incubators: [Empty];
Industrial parks: [Empty];
Infrastructure: [Empty];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check];
New markets: [Check];
Telecommunications: [Empty];
Tourism: [Empty];
Urban/rural: Not Specified;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Small business e[Check]porters in
operation for at least 12 months;
Award Type: loan (direct or guaranteed).
Program name: HUBZone;
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $2,200,000;
Economic Activities:
Plans and strategies: [Check];
Commercial buildings: [Empty];
Business incubators: [Empty];
Industrial parks: [Empty];
Infrastructure: [Empty];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check];
New markets: [Empty];
Telecommunications: [Empty];
Tourism: [Empty];
Urban/rural: Not Specified;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Small businesses located in
economically distressed areas;
Award Type: advantages for federal contract competition.
Program name: Small Business Technology Transfer Program;
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $0;
Economic Activities:
Plans and strategies: [Empty];
Commercial buildings: [Empty];
Business incubators: [Empty];
Industrial parks: [Empty];
Infrastructure: [Empty];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check];
New markets: [Empty];
Telecommunications: [Check];
Tourism: [Empty];
Urban/rural: Not Specified;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Small businesses in technology
industries and research institution partners;
Award Type: grant or direct payment.
Program name: Small Business Innovation Research Program;
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $0;
Economic Activities:
Plans and strategies: [Empty];
Commercial buildings: [Empty];
Business incubators: [Empty];
Industrial parks: [Empty];
Infrastructure: [Empty];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check];
New markets: [Empty];
Telecommunications: [Check];
Tourism: [Empty];
Urban/rural: Not Specified;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Small businesses in technology
industries;
Award Type: grant or direct payment.
Program name: Federal and State Technology Partnership Program;
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $2,000,000;
Economic Activities:
Plans and strategies: [Check];
Commercial buildings: [Empty];
Business incubators: [Empty];
Industrial parks: [Empty];
Infrastructure: [Empty];
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check];
New markets: [Empty];
Telecommunications: [Empty];
Tourism: [Empty];
Urban/rural: Not Specified;
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Small
businesses in technology industries and research institution partners;
Award Type: grant or direct payment.
Program name: Grand Total;
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $6,238,641,707.
Source: GAO analysis of information from Commerce, HUD, SBA, and USDA.
[A] According to agency officials, the programs listed above that did
not receive funding in fiscal year 2010 are still active programs. They
are denoted by "0" in the table.
[B] Primary targeted recipient is the end user that the agencies are
focused on serving. In some cases, the agencies provide the program
dollars to an entity such as a nonprofit or local government that
administers the funds to serve the primary targeted recipient.
[C] This program funded the Recovery Act portion of the Water and Waste
Disposal Loans and Grants program. USDA considered it as a separate
program. Funds were available for obligation through September 30,
2010.
[D] According to SBA officials, this program does not receive a
specific line item appropriation. As a result, the specific program
funding information is based on results from the agency's cost
allocation model.
[E] In December 2010, USDA officials provided us information on the
economic activities that each of their economic development programs
can fund and we reported the information in our March 2011 report (GAO-
11-318SP). In April 2011, they provided revised information for six of
their programs that we incorporated into this product.
[F] SBA officials provided revised fiscal year 2010 funding figures for
18 of their 19 economic development programs since their original
submission to us in December 2010.
[End of table]
[End of enclosure]
Enclosure VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
William B. Shear (202) 512-8678 or ShearW@gao.gov.
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, Andy Finkel (Assistant
Director), Matthew Alemu, Aimee Elivert, Geoffrey King, Terence Lam,
Triana McNeil, Marc Molino, Roberto Piņero, and Jennifer Schwartz made
key contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] GAO, Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government
Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-318SP] (Washington D.C.: Mar. 1,
2011).
[2] GAO, Rural Economic Development: More Assurance Is Needed That
Grant Funding Information Is Accurately Reported, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-294] (Washington D.C.: Feb. 24,
2006), 7.
[3] In March 2011, we reported that the funding provided for these 80
programs in fiscal year 2010 amounted to $6.5 billion, of which about
$3.2 billion was for economic development efforts, according to the
agencies (See GAO-11-318SP and GAO, List of Selected Federal Programs
That Have Similar or Overlapping Objectives, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-474R] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 18,
2011). We are reporting different funding figures in this product
because SBA revised the original information they provided to us in
December 2010.
[4] GAO, Rural Economic Development: Collaboration between SBA and
USDA Could Be Improved, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1123] (Washington D.C.: Sept. 18,
2008).
[5] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-318SP], 44-45.
[6] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1123].
[7] GAO, Small Business Administration: Additional Actions Are Needed
to Certify and Monitor HUBZone Businesses and Assess Program Results,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-964] (Washington D.C.:
June 17, 2008).
[8] GAO, Economic Development: Multiple Federal Programs Fund Similar
Economic Development Activities, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/RCED/GGD-00-220] (Washington, D.C.:
Sept. 29, 2000) and [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-294].
[9] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-318SP] and
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-474R].
[10] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-318SP].
[11] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-318SP], 75.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
