There are currently 10 TRS  providers that are compensated from the federal TRS Fund. Total TRS Minutes and Costs Have Grown Significantly since 2002 due to Internet-Based TRS and Increased Usage

According to officials from FCC, most of the TRS providers, and all of the  consumer groups that we interviewed, the development of Internet-based  TRS technologies and increased usage of these technologies have led to  growth in overall program minutes and costs. TRS program data show  that total TRS minutes have grown from about 53 million in rate year  2002–2003 to about 249 million in rate year 2013–2014, an almost five- fold increase. Total TRS costs have grown from about $104 million in  2002 to about $818 million in rate year 2013–2014, an almost eight-fold  increase (see fig. Figure 5 shows changes in  minutes of use from rate years 2002–2003 through 2013–2014 for each  form of TRS. According to FCC, one provider and one consumer group, reducing fraud  also has played a role in reducing costs for some forms of TRS. With regard to the TRS program, the ADA directs FCC to ensure that  telecommunications services are available, to the extent possible and in  the most efficient manner, to persons with a hearing or speech disability,  and that such services are “functionally equivalent” to the  telecommunications services available to individuals without a hearing or  speech disability.that the high-level purpose of the TRS program is this provision of  functionally equivalent telecommunications to people with hearing or  speech disabilities, but FCC has not established specific performance  goals to guide its efforts toward achieving that purpose. TRS calls (except VRS) must be answered by CAs within 10 seconds  85 percent of the time. Although FCC has established some TRS performance measures, these  measures are not linked to any TRS or universal-service performance  goals. By establishing performance measures before establishing  performance goals, FCC may be spending its time and resources, and  those of the service providers or program administrator, on efforts not well  linked to key dimensions of the program. Because  of the lack of specific TRS performance goals—and specific performance  measures that are crafted around those goals—it is difficult to determine  in an objective, quantifiable way if TRS is fulfilling its purpose of making  available functionally equivalent telecommunications services to persons  with hearing and speech disabilities, and it is difficult for FCC to manage  the program in a proactive, results-oriented manner. FCC Lacks a Comprehensive Internal Control System to Manage TRS Program Risks

FCC has designed some internal controls for the TRS program,  particularly with respect to program compliance; however, as previously  discussed, FCC does not have clear program performance goals. Risk Assessment: Internal control standards call for a risk  assessment that will identify risks, both internal and external, and  analyze the risks for possible effects. FCC’s risk assessment of  the TRS program was a one-page document that did not  comprehensively identify risks or considerations of all interactions  between FCC and external parties. Information and communication: Internal control standards call for  effective external communications to those groups that can have an  impact on programs; such groups in the case of TRS, would include  TRS users and service providers. TRS rules are contained in federal  regulations, and FCC program policies are explained across  numerous reports and orders. Following the establishment of TRS’s performance goals, conduct a  robust risk assessment that can help FCC design a comprehensive  internal-control system. Improve FCC’s communication of TRS rules and procedures to the  community of individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or have  speech disabilities and the companies providing TRS services through  the creation and dissemination of a handbook, program manual, or  other consolidation of TRS rules and procedures. FCC agreed with our recommendations and discussed actions  it plans to take to implement the recommendations. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix V.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

The objectives of this report were to examine (1) how the services and  costs of the Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS) program have  changed since 2002; (2) the Federal Communication Commission’s  (FCC) performance goals and measures for the TRS program and how  they compare with key characteristics of successful performance goals  and measures; (3) the extent to which the design of the TRS program’s  internal control system identifies and considers program risks; and (4) the  challenges, if any, that exist in ensuring quality services for users and a  competitive environment for providers. To assess  program goals and measures, we compared FCC’s performance goals  and measures to key characteristics of successful performance goals and  measures that GAO developed in prior work, as well as to requirements  contained in the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, as  amended by the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010. We  identified what controls were in place and then compared the design of  the internal control system with the requirements contained in the GAO  Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government (the Green  Book). 10.
Why GAO Did This Study

TRS allows persons with hearing or speech disabilities to place and receive telephone calls, often with the help of a communications assistant who acts as a translator or facilitator between the two parties having the conversation. FCC is the steward of the TRS program and the federal TRS Fund, which reimburses TRS providers.
GAO was asked to examine FCC's management of the TRS program. This report examines, among other things, (1) changes in TRS services and costs since 2002, (2) FCC's TRS performance goals and measures and how they compare with key characteristics of successful performance goals and measures, and (3) the extent to which the design of the program's internal control system identifies and considers program risks. GAO analyzed 2002 through 2014 service and cost data, compared TRS performance goals and measures to key characteristics of successful performance goals and measures, compared the design of the TRS's internal control system with GAO's standards for internal control, and interviewed officials from FCC, the 10 companies providing interstate TRS, and associations representing the deaf and hard of hearing.

What GAO Found

Since 2002, the overall minutes of use and costs for the Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS) program have grown significantly due to the advent of Internet-based forms of TRS and increased usage by the deaf and hard-of-hearing communities. Program data show that total TRS minutes have grown from about 53 million in “rate year” (July-to-June) 2002–2003 to about 249 million in rate year 2013–2014, an almost five-fold increase. Total TRS costs have grown from about $104 million in the 2002–2003 rate year to about $818 million in the 2013–2014 rate year, an almost eight-fold increase. These increases stem from the popularity of new forms of TRS that use the Internet—such as Video Relay Service (VRS) and Internet Protocol Captioned Telephone Service—and the growth in consumers' use of them, according to FCC, some providers, and one consumer group that GAO interviewed.
The purpose of the TRS program under federal law is to provide persons who are deaf or hard of hearing or have a speech disability with telecommunications services that are “functionally equivalent” to those provided to persons without a hearing or speech disability, but FCC has not established specific performance goals to guide its efforts. FCC has established some performance measures for TRS in the form of minimum performance standards for TRS providers, such as regulations requiring that TRS communications assistants must answer 85 percent of TRS calls (except VRS) within 10 seconds; however, these standards are not linked to higher-level performance goals. By establishing performance measures before establishing performance goals, FCC may be spending time and resources on efforts not well linked to key dimensions of the program. Because of the lack of specific TRS performance goals—and specific performance measures crafted around those goals—it is difficult to determine in an objective, quantifiable way if TRS is making available functionally equivalent telecommunications services, and it is difficult for FCC to manage the program in a proactive, results-oriented manner.
FCC has designed some internal controls for the TRS program, but lacks a comprehensive internal-control system to manage program risks. To address fraud, FCC has designed numerous controls to address compliance risks. For example, FCC eliminated the ability of TRS providers to use subcontractors in 2011 and strengthened TRS's provider-certification rules and user registration rules in 2013. Internal control standards call for the completion of a risk assessment to identify and analyze program risks. FCC's last risk assessment, in 2013, was a one-page document that did not comprehensively identify programmatic risks. A robust risk assessment would help FCC identify risks to providing functionally equivalent services and inform the development of the overall internal-control system. Internal control standards also call for effective external communications to groups that can impact the program, such as TRS's users and providers. FCC's program policies are spread across numerous reports and orders. Six of 10 TRS providers told us they experienced difficulties understanding TRS rules. FCC has sought comment on how best to reorganize its rules to improve clarity, but has not yet adopted any such changes. Doing so could improve FCC's communication of TRS rules and procedures to the deaf community and the companies providing services.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that FCC develop specific TRS performance goals and measures, conduct a robust program risk assessment, and improve the communication of TRS's rules and procedures. In commenting on a draft of this report, FCC agreed with the recommendations and discussed actions it plans to take to implement them.