Small Business Administration
Preliminary Views on Issues Related to the Women's Business Center Program
Gao ID: GAO-07-1244T September 20, 2007
The Small Business Administration (SBA) provides training and counseling services to women entrepreneurs through the Women's Business Center (WBC) program. With approximately $12 million in fiscal year 2007, SBA funded awards to 99 WBCs. However, Congress and WBCs have expressed concerns about the uncertain nature of the program's funding structure. Concerns have also been raised about the possibility that the WBC and two other SBA programs, the Small Business Development Center (SBDC) and SCORE programs, are duplicating each other's efforts. This testimony discusses preliminary views on (1) uncertainties associated with the funding process for WBCs; (2) SBA's oversight of the WBC program; and (3) actions that SBA and WBCs have taken to avoid duplication among the WBC, SBDC, and SCORE programs. GAO reviewed policies, procedures, examinations, and studies related to the funding, oversight, and services of WBCs and interviewed SBA, WBC, SBDC, and SCORE officials.
Until 2007, WBCs were funded on a temporary basis for up to 10 years, at which time it was expected that the centers would become self-sustaining. Beginning in 1997, SBA made annual awards to WBCs for up to 5 years. Because of concerns that WBCs could not sustain their operations without continued SBA funding, in 1999, Congress created a pilot program to extend funding an additional 5 years. Due to continued uncertainty about WBCs' ability to sustain operations without SBA funding, in May 2007, Congress passed legislation authorizing renewable 3-year awards to WBCs that "graduated" from the program after 10 years, as well as to current program participants. Like the current awards, the 3-year awards are competitive, and more centers may be applying for limited dollars. SBA is currently revising its award process to incorporate the new program changes. Though SBA has oversight procedures in place to monitor WBCs' performance and use of federal funds, staff shortages from the agency's downsizing and limited communication may hinder SBA's oversight efforts. SBA relies extensively on district office technical representatives (DOTRs) to oversee WBCs, but these staff members also have other job responsibilities and may not have the needed expertise to conduct some oversight procedures. SBA provides annual training and has taken steps to adjust its oversight procedures to adapt to staffing changes, but concerns remain. Some WBCs also cited communication problems, and one study reported that 54 percent of 52 WBCs responding to the study's survey said that SBA could improve its communication with the centers. For example, some WBCs told us that SBA did not provide sufficient feedback on their performance. Under the terms of the WBC award, the centers are required to coordinate with local SBDCs and SCORE chapters. SBA officials told us that they expected district offices to ensure that the programs did not duplicate each other. However, based on our preliminary review, we found that SBA provided limited guidance on how to successfully carry out coordination efforts. Most of the WBCs that we spoke with explained that in some situations they referred clients to an SBDC or SCORE counselor, and some WBCs also took steps to more actively coordinate with local SBDCs and SCORE chapters to avoid duplication and leverage resources. However, some WBCs told us that coordinating services was difficult, as the programs were each measured by the number of clients served and could end up competing for clients. Such concerns thwart coordination efforts and could increase the risk of duplication in some geographic areas.
GAO-07-1244T, Small Business Administration: Preliminary Views on Issues Related to the Women's Business Center Program
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-1244T
entitled 'Small Business Administration: Preliminary Views on Issues
Related to the Women's Business Center Program' which was released on
September 20, 2007.
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.
Testimony:
Before the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, U.S.
Senate:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT:
Thursday, September 20, 2007:
Small Business Administration:
Preliminary Views on Issues Related to the Women's Business Center
Program:
Statement of William B. Shear, Director:
Financial Markets and Community Investments:
Women's Business Center Program:
GAO-07-1244T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-07-1244T, a testimony before the Committee on Small
Business and Entrepreneurship, U.S. Senate.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Small Business Administration (SBA) provides training and
counseling services to women entrepreneurs through the Women‘s Business
Center (WBC) program. With approximately $12 million in fiscal year
2007, SBA funded awards to 99 WBCs. However, Congress and WBCs have
expressed concerns about the uncertain nature of the program‘s funding
structure. Concerns have also been raised about the possibility that
the WBC and two other SBA programs, the Small Business Development
Center (SBDC) and SCORE programs, are duplicating each other‘s efforts.
This testimony discusses preliminary views on (1) uncertainties
associated with the funding process for WBCs; (2) SBA‘s oversight of
the WBC program; and (3) actions that SBA and WBCs have taken to avoid
duplication among the WBC, SBDC, and SCORE programs. GAO reviewed
policies, procedures, examinations, and studies related to the funding,
oversight, and services of WBCs and interviewed SBA, WBC, SBDC, and
SCORE officials.
What GAO Found:
Until 2007, WBCs were funded on a temporary basis for up to 10 years,
at which time it was expected that the centers would become self-
sustaining. Specifically, since 1997, SBA made annual awards to WBCs
for up to 5 years. Because of concerns that WBCs could not sustain
operations without continued SBA funding, in 1999, Congress created a
pilot program to extend funding an additional 5 years. Due to continued
uncertainty about WBCs‘ ability to sustain operations without SBA
funding, in May 2007, Congress passed legislation authorizing renewable
3-year awards to WBCs that ’graduated“ from the program after 10 years,
as well as to current program participants. Like the current awards,
the 3-year awards are competitive, and more centers may be applying for
limited dollars. SBA is currently revising its award process to
incorporate the new program changes.
Though SBA has oversight procedures in place to monitor WBCs‘
performance and use of federal funds, staff shortages from the agency‘s
downsizing and limited communication may hinder SBA‘s oversight
efforts. SBA relies extensively on district office technical
representatives (DOTRs) to oversee WBCs, but these staff members also
have other job responsibilities and may not have the needed expertise
to conduct some oversight procedures. SBA provides annual training and
has taken steps to adjust its oversight procedures to adapt to staffing
changes, but concerns remain. Some WBCs also cited problems with
communication, and one study reported that 54 percent of 52 WBCs
responding to the study‘s survey said that SBA could improve its
communication with the centers. For example, some WBCs told us that SBA
did not provide sufficient feedback on their performance.
Under the terms of the WBC award, the centers are required to
coordinate with local SBDCs and SCORE chapters. SBA officials told us
that they expected district offices to ensure that the programs did not
duplicate each other. However, based on our preliminary review, we
found that SBA provided limited guidance on how to successfully carry
out coordination efforts. Most of the WBCs that we spoke with explained
that in some situations they referred clients to an SBDC or SCORE
counselor, and some WBCs also took steps to more actively coordinate
with local SBDCs and SCORE chapters to avoid duplication and leverage
resources. However, some WBCs told us that coordinating services was
difficult, as the programs were each measured by the number of clients
served and could end up competing for clients. Such concerns thwart
coordination efforts and could increase the risk of duplication in some
geographic areas.
What GAO Recommends:
Because this testimony is based on an ongoing engagement, it does not
include recommendations. GAO anticipates making recommendations in its
final report.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1244T].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact William B. Shear at (202)
512-8678 or shearw@gao.gov
[End of section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
I am pleased to have the opportunity to be here today to discuss the
Women's Business Center (WBC) Program. The WBC program, one of several
business assistance programs offered by the Small Business
Administration (SBA), provides long-term training, counseling,
networking, and mentoring to women entrepreneurs, especially those who
are socially and economically disadvantaged. With a budget of
approximately $12 million in fiscal year 2007, SBA funded awards to 99
WBCs in amounts ranging from $90,000 to $150,000. However, Congress and
WBCs under the program have expressed concerns about whether WBCs could
continue operations without SBA funding and the uncertain funding
structure of the program. The 5-year funding cycle for regular awards,
which many did not believe offered WBCs enough time to become self-
sustaining, was later supplemented by a pilot program that provided for
an additional 5-year funding cycle for sustainability awards, but it
too raised concerns because of uncertainty about the pilot's
reauthorization and funding.[Footnote 1] In May 2007, to address the
uncertainties about the pilot program, Congress replaced it by allowing
WBCs--including those that had graduated from the program--to receive 3-
year renewable awards.[Footnote 2]
As you know, Congress created the WBC program in part due to the
finding that existing business assistance programs for small business
owners were not considered adequate to address women's needs, but
concerns have also been raised about whether SBA's business assistance
programs are duplicating each other's efforts. The two other primary
business assistance programs that SBA administers are the Small
Business Development Center (SBDC) and SCORE (formerly called the
Service Corps of Retired Executives) programs. These programs also
provide training and counseling services to aspiring and existing small
business owners but are not expected to target a particular group.
Under the terms of the SBA award, WBCs are required to coordinate with
local SBDCs and SCORE chapters when appropriate.
In my testimony, I will discuss our preliminary views on three issues
affecting the WBC program: (1) the uncertainties associated with the
funding process for WBCs; (2) SBA's oversight of the WBC program,
including policies and procedures for monitoring compliance with
program requirements; and (3) the services that WBCs provide to small
businesses and actions that SBA and WBCs have taken to avoid
duplication of the services offered by the WBC, SBDC, and SCORE
programs. My remarks are based on our ongoing work, which is exploring
these issues in more detail.
In conducting this work, we reviewed the legislative history of the WBC
program, GAO's previous reports, SBA's policies and procedures for
administering the program, and studies of the program conducted by SBA
and external organizations. For the seven WBCs we visited, we reviewed
documentation SBA uses to oversee WBCs and interviewed WBC officials
about their services, relationship with SBA, and coordination with
SBDCs and SCORE. We also interviewed SBA officials about the WBC, SBDC,
and SCORE programs. In addition, we compared the statutory authority
for the three programs, interviewed a random sample of 17 WBCs about
their services, relationship with SBA, and coordination with SBDCs and
SCORE, and visited 6 SBDCs and the SCORE national office. We discussed
the contents of this testimony with SBA. We conducted our work between
August 2006 and September 2007 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.
In summary:
* Until 2007, WBCs were funded on a temporary basis for up to 10 years
at which time it was expected that the centers would become self-
sustaining. When the program was created by Congress in 1988, it began
as a two-year demonstration project and then in 1991 Congress
authorized 3-year projects. In 1997, SBA was authorized to make annual
regular awards to WBCs for up to 5 years. Because of concerns that WBCs
could not sustain operations without continued SBA funding, in 1999,
Congress created a pilot program to extend funding an additional 5
years, allowing successful WBCs to receive SBA funding for a total of
10 years. However, WBCs continued to face funding uncertainties. First,
because WBCs sometimes established their operations with SBA funds and
depended on SBA funds to leverage other support, many were concerned
about whether they could continue operations after 5 to 10 years of
receiving SBA funding. Second, the sustainability funding was a pilot
program, and had to be reauthorized each year, creating uncertainty
about whether there was a commitment to continue the program. Also, in
2007, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reported in its
Performance Assessment Rating Tool (PART) that reviewed the WBC
program, that frequent changes by Congress in the WBC program's funding
structure, delays in extending sustainability funding, and uncertainty
about the future had created challenges for the program.[Footnote 3]
Recent legislation for the WBC program replaced the sustainability
pilot program with 3-year renewable awards. WBCs that have "graduated"
from the program after 10 years as well as those currently in the
regular and pilot sustainability programs will be able to compete for
the new awards, which could increase competition. In addition, exactly
how much funding will be available in each future 3-year cycle is
unclear. But the increased competition also provides an opportunity for
SBA to continue funding high performing centers. Because the WBC
program is a competitive discretionary award program, WBCs in the
program compete annually for the maximum award amount, but continue to
receive SBA funds for the length of the project as long as their
performance is satisfactory. SBA has criteria for ranking new
applicants and existing program participants for awards and is revising
its award process to incorporate the new program changes.
* SBA has developed written procedures for monitoring the performance
and financial management activities of WBCs, but imbalances in its
allocation of staff resources and ineffective communication may be
limiting assurances that WBCs are in compliance and meeting the
program's goals. To ensure that WBCs are meeting program requirements,
SBA conducts semi-annual programmatic and financial examinations and
requires that WBCs submit quarterly reports describing their progress
in meeting annual performance goals and financial reports showing
program expenses that qualify for SBA reimbursement. To carry out these
oversight responsibilities, SBA relies extensively on district office
technical representatives (DOTRs), but the current allocation of
responsibilities for oversight may not be effective, given the staff
levels and expertise in SBA's district offices. First, there are
concerns that DOTRs may have too many responsibilities to be effective.
Those we met with all performed other full-time agency responsibilities
in addition to overseeing WBCs in their districts. Second, DOTRs
conduct the programmatic and financial examinations for SBA, but there
have been some questions about whether DOTRs have the expertise to
conduct the financial component of these examinations. Third, though
most WBCs we interviewed spoke positively of their relationship with
their DOTR, several told us that the reduction in district office
staffing related to SBA's downsizing in recent years had led to staff
changes. Therefore, there are concerns that some of the newer DOTRs
might not have relevant oversight experience. SBA has taken some steps
to adjust its oversight procedures to adapt to the changes in staffing
in the district offices, but DOTRs continue to have a wide range of
responsibilities that they may not be equipped to carry out
effectively. In addition some WBCs told us that communication with SBA
headquarters officials is not meeting all of their needs and one study
we reviewed reported that 54 percent of 52 WBCs surveyed said that SBA
could improve its communication with the centers. To communicate with
WBCs, the Office of Women's Business Ownership (OWBO) conducts monthly
conference calls with WBCs and DOTRs and uses email to communicate
policy changes and information requests. Some WBCs cited problems with
these efforts. For example, some WBCs said that the conference calls
were not a comfortable forum for asking questions, and that some of the
email communications were confusing and did not always explain why
information was being requested. Also, some WBCs said that SBA did not
provide sufficient feedback on their performance.
* We found that the WBCs we spoke with focused on a different type of
client than the SBDCs and SCORE chapters in their areas. Consistent
with the WBC program's statutory authority and SBA requirements, WBCs
tailor services to meet the needs of economically and socially
disadvantaged women. SBA's study of WBCs showed that they tended to
serve clients with businesses that had fewer employees and lower
revenues than clients of SBDCs and SCORE. As described by the terms of
the SBA award, WBCs are required to coordinate with local SBDCs and
SCORE chapters. In addition, SBA officials told us that they expected
district offices to ensure that the programs did not duplicate each
other. However, based on our review, WBCs appear to lack guidance and
information from SBA on how to successfully carry out their
coordination efforts. Most of the WBCs that we spoke with explained
that in some situations they referred clients to an SBDC or SCORE
counselor, and some WBCs also took steps to more actively coordinate
with local SBDCs and SCORE chapters to avoid duplication and leverage
resources. We learned that WBCs used a variety of approaches to
facilitate coordination, such as memorandums of understanding,
information-sharing meetings, and co-locating staff and services.
However, some WBCs expressed concerns related to coordinating services
with SBDC and SCORE. Some WBCs told us that coordinating services could
be difficult because the programs are each measured by the number of
clients they serve, resulting in competition among the service
providers in some locations. Other WBCs told us that they were unsure
how they could effectively co-locate with an SBDC. Such concerns thwart
coordination efforts and could increase the risk of duplication in some
geographic areas.
Background:
The WBC program is administered through the Office of Women's Business
Ownership (OWBO) in SBA's Office of Entrepreneurial Development (OED).
The program was established by the Women's Business Ownership Act of
1988 to provide long-term training, counseling, networking, and
mentoring to women who own businesses or are potential entrepreneurs
because Congress found that existing business assistance programs for
small business owners were not addressing women's needs. The program's
goal is to add more well-trained women entrepreneurs to the U.S.
business community, and to specifically target services to women who
are socially and economically disadvantaged. In fiscal year 2007, SBA
funded 99 WBCs throughout the United States and its territories.
Private nonprofit organizations are eligible to apply for funds to set
up WBCs, and successful applicants are initially awarded cooperative
agreements for a maximum of 5 years. WBCs must raise matching funds
from nonfederal sources such as state and local public funds, private
individuals, corporations and foundations, and program income derived
from WBC services.[Footnote 4] In the first 2 years of the 5-year
award, each WBC is required to match SBA award funding at one
nonfederal dollar for each two federal dollars. In the last 3 years,
the match is one nonfederal dollar for each federal dollar. WBC award
amounts cannot exceed $150,000 each fiscal year per recipient. Award
amounts may vary depending upon a WBC's location, staff size, project
objectives, performance, and agency priorities.
WBC funding is performance-based, and each additional 12-month budget
period beyond the initial award may be exercised at SBA's discretion.
Among the factors involved in deciding whether to exercise an option
for continued funding are the availability of funds, the extent to
which past WBC funds were spent, and satisfactory performance against
SBA-established performance measures, including the number of clients
served and the number of jobs created. WBCs are required to provide
this performance data to SBA in quarterly reports.
In the Women's Business Centers Sustainability Act of 1999, Congress
established the sustainability pilot program because of the concern
that WBCs could not become self-sustaining in 5 years and needed
continued SBA funding. Under the sustainability pilot program, WBCs
that had been receiving funding for 5 years could receive
sustainability awards for an additional 5 years. Criteria for receiving
awards under the pilot program were similar to those for receiving the
initial awards. WBCs were assessed on their record of performance and
had to provide nonfederal matching funds equal to one dollar for each
federal dollar. Unlike the WBC regular award, WBC sustainability award
amounts could not exceed $125,000 each budget year per recipient. As
noted earlier, Congress recently replaced these sustainability awards
with 3-year renewable awards of not more than $150,000 each year per
recipient. SBA has not yet begun making these new awards.
In addition to the WBC program, SBA's SBDC and SCORE programs also
provide training and counseling services to small business clients. The
SBDC program was created by Congress in 1980. SBDC services include,
but are not limited to, assisting prospective and existing small
businesses with financial, marketing, production, organization,
engineering, and technical problems and feasibility studies. Each state
and U.S. territory has a lead organization that sponsors and manages
the SBDC program. The lead organization coordinates program services
offered to small businesses through a network of centers and satellite
locations in each state. Centers and satellites are located at
colleges, universities, community colleges, vocational schools,
chambers of commerce and economic development corporations. In fiscal
year 2007, the SBDC program received $87 million to make awards to 63
lead SBDCs throughout the United States.[Footnote 5]
The SCORE program was founded in 1964 as a nonprofit organization.
Pursuant to the Small Business Act, as amended, SCORE is sponsored by
and may receive appropriations through SBA. The SCORE program is
designed to provide free expert advice to prospective and existing
small businesses in all aspects of business formation, advancement, and
problem solving. SCORE counselors are volunteers who assist clients
through a Web site, SCORE chapter offices, SBA district offices, and
other establishments. In fiscal year 2007, the SCORE program received
$5 million to support its activities and currently has 389 SCORE
chapters throughout the United States.
Recent Legislation Addresses Some Concerns about the WBC Program's
Funding:
Recent legislation addresses concerns about long-term funding for WBCs,
but prior to this legislation, the WBC program's funding structure had
been in flux since its inception in 1988. In establishing the WBC
program in 1988, Congress authorized SBA to help private nonprofit
organizations conduct projects that benefit small business concerns
owned and controlled by women. The 1988 act allowed for demonstration
projects that terminated in 1991. However, in 1991, Congress authorized
SBA to make awards for 3-year projects and in 1997, Congress authorized
SBA to make awards to WBCs for 5-year projects. In its 1999
reauthorization of the WBC program, as noted earlier, Congress added 5-
year sustainability funding for WBCs that successfully completed five-
year projects to provide additional time to become self-sustaining.
Because the WBC program is a competitive discretionary award program,
WBCs in the program compete annually for the maximum award amount, but
continue to receive SBA funds as long as their performance is
satisfactory.
WBCs that we spoke with identified two related factors that have
largely been responsible for their funding uncertainties. First,
because until recently the WBC program offered limited term funding--in
contrast to the SBDC and SCORE programs that receive continuous
funding--WBCs "graduated" from SBA support after 5 or 10 years. Several
WBCs that we spoke with expressed concern about funding term limits and
pointed out that the SBDC and SCORE programs do not have the same
limits, even though SBA also administers those programs. Some WBCs in
both the regular and sustainability programs also said that they were
concerned about their ability to continue operations after losing SBA
support. Second, Congress did not make the additional 5-year term for
sustainability funding permanent. Instead, Congress extended the pilot
program with each SBA reauthorization creating uncertainty that limited
SBA's ability to manage the program effectively and causing concern
among the WBCs themselves. Several WBCs said that they were concerned
that sustainability funding was not a permanent aspect of the WBC
program.
Several of the WBCs that we spoke with said that funding uncertainties
made it difficult to establish a program budget with performance goals
annually. Each year, SBA requires that WBCs participating in its
program submit project year proposals with performance goals in
anticipation of an award. WBCs are not guaranteed funding each year
because SBA makes awards each year at its discretion. Also, because the
program is competitive and performance based, WBCs may receive varying
award amounts each year. As noted, WBCs in the regular program can
receive annual awards up to $150,000, and those in the sustainability
program can receive annual awards up to $125,000.
OMB's 2007 PART report found that frequent changes by Congress in the
WBC program's funding structure, delays in extending sustainability
funding, and uncertainty about the future had created challenges for
the program.[Footnote 6] OMB's report also noted that SBA had taken
steps to foster more consistent management of the WBC program, but
added that long-term planning was problematic because of the program's
funding structure. When we spoke with officials at OMB, they emphasized
that SBA appeared to be making a significant effort to assist WBCs,
given the program's limitations. They also noted that the funding
challenges that WBCs faced after graduating from the sustainability
pilot could be related to the fact that these organizations operate
resource-intensive programs and collect nominal revenues in program
fees, largely because of their focus on economically disadvantaged
clients, causing them to rely heavily on external support.
Our preliminary review indicates that WBCs that perform satisfactorily
continue to receive funds until they complete the program, and SBA
indicates that it will fund WBCs through the project term subject to
availability of funds. But SBA officials in headquarters and the
district offices were aware of the challenges WBCs faced in planning
annual budgets without knowing how much they would receive or whether
sustainability funds would continue to be available. In discussing the
WBC program's limited term funding, some SBA district office officials
emphasized that the agency had invested in creating successful WBCs and
should be working to make those that performed well permanent SBA
partners.
Recent legislation for the WBC program replaces the sustainability
pilot program with three-year renewable awards, providing an
opportunity for SBA to continue funding WBCs. Current program
participants and those that have successfully graduated will be
eligible to apply for continuous funding through these awards. The
award process will remain competitive and the number of organizations
competing could increase while SBA's annual budget for the WBC program
may not increase beyond the approximate $12 million provided in the
last five years. However, increased award competition provides an
opportunity for SBA to continue funding high performing centers. Prior
to the new program changes, SBA officials emphasized that the WBC
program is the agency's only performance based program and said that
they believed this provided an incentive for WBCs to continuously
improve. SBA officials told us that by the end of fiscal year 2007, 26
WBCs would have graduated since the beginning of the program. SBA has
criteria for ranking new award applicants, and performance based
criteria for placing existing program participants into three funding
categories for annual awards. As a result of the new legislation, which
allows graduated WBCs to re-enter the pool of applicants for continuous
funding and which changes the existing five-year sustainability project
terms going forward, SBA has begun revising its existing award process.
SBA just completed making WBC awards for fiscal year 2007 to fund
activities in fiscal year 2008, and SBA officials told us that they
plan to begin providing the three-year renewable awards in fiscal year
2008.
Imbalances in SBA's Staff Resources and Ineffective Communication with
WBCs Could Reduce the Effectiveness of Oversight Procedures:
Our preliminary review found that SBA has developed written procedures
for monitoring the performance and financial management activities of
WBCs and has taken steps to measure the WBC program's effectiveness.
Since 1997, as a condition of continued funding, SBA is required to
assess WBCs' performance at least annually through programmatic and
financial examinations.[Footnote 7] SBA also requires that WBCs submit
performance and financial reports quarterly to describe their progress
in meeting annual performance goals and detail program expenses that
qualify for SBA reimbursement. Some of the performance data that SBA
collects from WBCs are reported in the agency's annual performance
reports through several output and outcome measures that are meant to
evaluate the WBC program's performance and effectiveness. As part of a
broader impact assessment of its business assistance programs, in 2004,
SBA initiated a 3-year longitudinal study of the WBC program, surveying
clients served by WBCs nationwide.
SBA relies heavily on District Office Technical Representatives (DOTRs)
to carry out oversight responsibilities, but our preliminary review
suggests that downsizing of SBA's staffing may have created challenges
for DOTRs to fulfill assigned responsibilities. District directors
currently assign the role of DOTR as a collateral duty to district
office staff. In 2001, we reported that DOTRs had been given an
increased role in assessing WBCs' performance to ensure that their
programs were fiscally sound and functioning smoothly. To this end, we
reported that DOTRs were receiving intensive training each year at the
postaward conference at SBA headquarters on how to monitor the WBCs'
programmatic and financial activities. DOTRs are expected to conduct
the WBC's programmatic and financial examinations semiannually, but
also have other program duties and full-time agency responsibilities.
SBA has a list of 25 responsibilities for the DOTR, some of which
involve oversight, including reviewing the WBC's requests for project
revisions, determining the extent to which the WBC is meeting the match
requirement, reviewing the scope and quality of services provided to
clients, reviewing all WBC signage and media, and helping to resolve
problems. The DOTR is also expected to act as advocate for the WBC
within the district. Some of the DOTR responsibilities related to this
role and in the list of DOTR responsibilities include (1) ensuring that
the district office displays and distributes the WBC's brochures; (2)
collecting success stories from the WBC to be used for publicizing the
program; and (3) including the WBC in district office conferences,
workshops, and other events for women business owners.
The DOTRs' total responsibilities for the WBC program appear to be
substantial, particularly since this oversight is a collateral role for
each DOTR. Given SBA's downsizing in recent years, some DOTRs may have
more responsibilities than they had in the past to be effective in
performing their WBC program duties, and others new to the role may
lack the experience and training required to effectively carry out
their duties. Although most WBCs we interviewed spoke positively of
their relationship with the DOTR, several told us that the reduction in
district office staffing had led to changes, including assigning DOTR
responsibilities to a different district office staff member. DOTRs
still attend required training for the WBC program annually at SBA
headquarters, and SBA provides them with a handbook to assist them in
performing their duties. However, district office staff at one location
felt that DOTRs were not adequately trained to conduct the financial
component of WBC programmatic and financial examinations and told us
that SBA headquarters had previously coordinated financial examinations
for WBCs.[Footnote 8] When we followed up with OWBO officials, they
said that in 2004, a requirement was added that WBC financial records
be certified annually by a certified public accountant (CPA), both
because the agency recognized that some DOTRs lacked this expertise and
because of isolated incidents of mismanagement of WBC award funds. OWBO
officials also said that they were coordinating with SBA's Office of
SBDCs, which is also under OED, to use SBDC financial examiners for the
onsite financial reviews of WBCs but that recently there had not been
enough staff to do all of the reviews. The officials also said that OED
was reviewing how future financial audits for all of SBA's business
assistance programs would be conducted.
Our preliminary review found that SBA had taken some steps to adapt
program oversight procedures to staffing changes in district offices.
For example, before January 2007 DOTRs conducted programmatic and
financial examinations four times a year, and SBA switched to
semiannual examinations to conserve its staff resources. In March 2007,
SBA also revised its reporting procedures for WBCs to streamline
communication and reduce review and processing times. For example, WBCs
had previously submitted quarterly financial reports with reimbursement
requests through the district office but now submit them directly to
OWBO and copy the district office. These and other revisions that SBA
has made to date appear to have been made on an as-needed basis and
were not part of a strategic process or plan to revise its oversight
activities.
WBCs also cited concerns about communication with SBA and one study we
reviewed reported that 54 percent of 52 WBCs surveyed said that SBA
could improve its communication with them.[Footnote 9] OWBO, who
administers the program, conducts monthly conference calls with the
WBCs and DOTRs, but some WBCs said that the calls were not a good forum
for asking questions though the topics covered in the call may raise
questions. OWBO also uses email to communicate policy changes and make
interim information requests, but several WBCs said these
communications often came without sufficient explanation and mentioned
areas in which policy changes or program requirements were unclear. The
study specifically highlighted that better communication should include
an effort to seek information from WBCs on how SBA's frequent
information requests and policy changes impact WBC operations. Some
WBCs also told us that they were not sure how well they were performing
because they did not receive feedback on semi-annual examinations or
the reports they submitted quarterly to SBA. SBA officials told us that
they are aware of this concern and are taking steps to make the
performance-based funding process more transparent.
WBCs Make Some Efforts to Coordinate with SBDCs and SCORE but Appear to
Lack Needed Guidance to Improve These Efforts:
Based on our preliminary review, we found that the WBCs we spoke with
focused on a different type of client than the SBDCs and SCORE chapters
in their areas, and several of them actively coordinated with the other
programs to avoid duplicating services. But based on our review to
date, the centers appear to lack guidance and information from SBA on
how to successfully coordinate. Consistent with the WBC program's
statutory authority and SBA requirements, WBCs tailor services to meet
the needs of economically and socially disadvantaged women. According
to one academic study and WBCs we reviewed, WBCs offered services
emphasizing financial literacy and more intensive long-term business
plan training.[Footnote 10] Through our work, we also found that WBCs
tended to serve smaller businesses with fewer employees and lower
revenues than SBDCs and SCORE. According to an SBA study of WBCs, WBC
clients had businesses with an average of 2.5 employees that produced
average annual revenue of $64,694, while other SBA business assistance
programs served businesses with an average of 4.5 employees and
$175,076 in annual revenue.[Footnote 11]
Most WBCs told us that they referred clients to the SBDCs and SCORE
when appropriate, and several coordinated services with the other
programs to leverage resources and avoid duplication. SBA officials
told us that they expected district offices to ensure that the programs
did not duplicate each other, and the program requirement suggests that
WBCs can promote coordination through co-sponsorship arrangements or
memorandums of understanding. However, SBA has not provided detailed
guidance explaining how WBCs could effectively coordinate with SBDC and
SCORE. Lacking such guidance, WBCs used a variety of approaches to
facilitate coordination. Some coordination efforts were initiated by
the local business assistance providers, including WBCs, and involved a
memorandum of understanding or regularly scheduled meetings. For
example, a WBC in Wisconsin coordinated with SBDC, SCORE, and other
small business service providers in the area to develop a detailed
triage system for small business clients in their area. In order to
better coordinate services, the WBC and other Wisconsin business
assistance providers developed a flow chart to help service providers
divide resources and determine where to refer customers. In some cases,
we found that the SBA district office was active in the coordination
effort and participated in regular meetings or organized events that
included all of the programs. Several WBCs were co-located with an
SBDC, allowing the two programs to benefit from shared office space and
other resources.
However, our preliminary review also found that some WBCs experienced
challenges in their attempts to coordinate services with SBDC and
SCORE. Some WBCs told us that coordinating services could be difficult.
Several WBCs told us that they had considered co-locating or sharing
space with an SBDC or SCORE chapter in order to reduce costs but feared
that co-location would inhibit the WBC's ability to maintain its
identity and reach its target client group of low-income women. WBCs
and SBDCs are both measured on the number of clients that participate
in small business training and counseling services, and one WBC told us
that co-location would cause WBCs to compete for clients. Also, in some
instances SBA encouraged WBCs to provide services similar to those that
SBDCs were already providing to small businesses. For example, one WBC
told us that staff were encouraged to develop a government procurement
curriculum when an SBDC in their area was already providing this
service to small business clients. These concerns and uncertainties
thwart coordination efforts and could increase the risk of service
duplication in some geographic areas.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased
to respond to any questions that you or other members of the Committee
may have.
GAO Contact and Acknowledgements:
For additional information about this testimony, please contact William
B. Shear at (202) 512-8678 or Shearw@gao.gov. Contact points for our
Offices of Congressional Affairs and Public Affairs may be found on the
last page of this statement. Individuals making key contributions to
this testimony include Kay Kuhlman, Assistant Director; Bernice Benta,
Michelle Bracy, Tania Calhoun, and Emily Chalmers.
Footnotes:
[1] The Women's Business Ownership Act of 1988, Pub. L. No. 100-533, §
201, 102 Stat. 2689, 2690 (1988), creating the Women's Business Center
program with demonstration projects that would expire in 1991; the
Women's Business Development Act of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-191, § 2, 105
Stat. 1589 (1991), made them 3-year projects. In the Small Business
Reauthorization Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105-135, § 308, 111 Stat.
2592, 2611 (1997), the projects were extended to five years. The
Women's Business Centers Sustainability Act of 1999, Pub. L. No. 106-
165, § 4, 113 Stat. 1795, 1796 (1999), created 5-year sustainability
pilot projects awarded to WBCs who had completed the first 5-year
project.
[2] The U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and
Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-28, §
8305, 121 Stat. 112, 209 (2007), amends the Small Business Act to
repeal the sustainability pilot program and to permit WBCs to receive
SBA funding on a continual basis. WBCs currently in the program and
those that have successfully graduated will be eligible to apply for
continuous award funding through 3-year renewable awards of up to
$150,000 per year.
[3] OMB, Program Assessment: Women's Business Centers, [hyperlink,
http://www.expectmore.gov] (accessed February, 6, 2007).
[4] When permissible under the terms of the Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) program, CDBG funds may also be used to match a WBC award.
[5] The 63 lead centers include one in every state (Texas has four and
California has six), the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, Samoa
and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
[6] OMB, Program Assessment: Women's Business Centers, [hyperlink,
http://www.expectmore.gov] (accessed, February 6, 2007).
[7] Small Business Reauthorization Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105-135,
Section § 308(a), 111 Stat. 2592, 2611 (1997); see also 15 U.S.C.
Section § 656(h).
[8] SBA headquarters still coordinates bi-annual financial audits for
SBDCs.
[9] The Impact and Influence of Women's Business Centers in the United
States," Center for Women's Leadership at Babson College, April 2005.
[10] The Impact and Influence of Women's Business Centers in the United
States," Center for Women's Leadership at Babson College, April 2005.
[11] Initial Impact Study of Entrepreneurial Development Resources,"
Small Business Administration, Office of Entrepreneurial Development,
November 29, 2004.
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 "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
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:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Susan Becker, Acting Director, Beckers@gao.gov (202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548: