	Background

RUS, an agency in USDA’s Rural Development mission area, oversees  three programs for deploying broadband infrastructure in rural  communities. RUS’s Management Procedures and Activities for Broadband Loan and Grant Programs Are Consistent or Partially Consistent with Leading Practices, and Could Improve in Some Areas

Overall, RUS has procedures and activities addressing the leading  practices we identified, including the key activities associated with these  practices, as part of its management of the rural broadband programs. RUS has procedures and activities that are partially  consistent with leading practices for conducting program performance  measurement, conducting risk assessments, mapping, monitoring loan  and grant infrastructure projects, communicating internally, and providing  written program documentation. Through our review of  USDA and RUS documentation, we identified a goal set by USDA at the  Rural Development mission area level. Outside of this  one high-level strategic goal and performance measure, RUS officials told  us they do not have formal documented program performance goals and  measures for the individual loan and grant programs. Risk Assessment

RUS has procedures and activities that are partially consistent with the  leading practice of risk assessment because RUS conducts a variety of  risk assessment activities at the application and the individual project  level, as well as having procedures to guard against fraud; however, RUS  has not established procedures to conduct risk assessment activities at  the program level. But a higher-level,  programmatic risk assessment would provide a holistic look at the  programs’ core processes and practices and assess internal controls over  each program. Mapping

Currently, RUS’s procedures and activities are partially consistent with  the leading practice of mapping because RUS has two mapping systems  in place, but its mapping information is not complete and the agency has  efforts under way to improve its mapping activities. Second, applicants can also use the  RUS mapping tool, which predates the RDApply mapping system. RUS officials told us that they do not have a mapping system  that houses extensive broadband service-area data. For example,  we found that, over the past 5 years, RUS has held a number of external  training and outreach events, such as workshops and seminars, to  provide a range of information about its broadband loan and grant  programs to rural communities and prospective applicants. Project Monitoring

RUS’s procedures and activities are partially consistent with the leading  practice of project monitoring because RUS has in place a number of  monitoring and oversight activities of program recipients, but RUS does  not currently evaluate Community Connect project results. However, not periodically evaluating grant  project results affects RUS’s ability to measure the outcomes and  success of its grant program. Without analysis of post-award project  successes or failures, Community Connect program managers are  missing information that could be used to determine if programmatic  changes might improve the selection of grant recipients or the results of  grant awards. To reach out to others,  RUS’s website contains information on its programs, including information  about eligibility criteria, corresponding regulations, time frames, and  frequently asked questions. However, RUS falls short of this leading  practice in that it does not have a centralized system to obtain relevant  data to monitor grant awards and loans, including correspondence and  deliverables. Although RUS has effectively developed  written documentation to communicate to program applicants and  recipients, we found that RUS has not consistently updated its written  policies and procedures to retain organizational knowledge and to  communicate loan- and grant-management knowledge internally among  its staff. For the Broadband Program, RUS  provided us with the program’s initial application review report. RUS has established procedures and activities that are consistent with  leading practices in the management of its broadband infrastructure loan  and grant programs in several areas, including its application review  process, its external training of and communication with program  participants, and its collaboration with other federal entities on efforts  related to broadband deployment. With regard to mapping, we believe  that RUS’s plan to obtain mapping information from recipients going  forward will help RUS to better align with the leading practice in this area. Establish a timeline for implementing a centralized internal system for  staff to obtain relevant and timely program data for use in managing  and monitoring loans and grant awards. USDA agreed with our recommendations. Require periodic reviews, including progress  reports. Establish procedures for outreach efforts to  potential applicants.
Why GAO Did This Study

RUS provides loans and grants to help finance the construction of broadband infrastructure in rural America. GAO was asked to review RUS's management of its programs to fund broadband deployment, including consistency with leading practices for federal funding, program management, and broadband deployment.
This report examines the extent to which RUS's procedures and activities are consistent with leading practices and how, if at all, its management practices could be improved. GAO synthesized, from federal guidance and relevant literature, a set of 10 leading practices that would be appropriate for the management of broadband loan and grant programs. GAO validated its set of practices with states that have programs similar to the RUS programs. GAO then reviewed RUS documentation and interviewed RUS officials and six program recipients, selected for having geographically dispersed projects currently under construction. Based on this information, GAO determined whether RUS's procedures and activities were consistent, partially consistent, or not consistent with each leading practice.

What GAO Found

The Rural Utilities Service (RUS), an agency within the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), has procedures and activities that are consistent with four leading practices and partially consistent with six leading practices in managing two loan programs and one grant program aimed at funding broadband infrastructure projects in rural communities.
Consistent with Leading Practices: With regard to reviewing applications, RUS has procedures for training reviewers, guarding against conflicts of interest, and conducting multiple levels of review. For external training and external communication, RUS holds workshops and seminars to inform rural communities and applicants about its programs. RUS's website contains program information, including eligibility criteria, time frames, and frequently asked questions. Applicants can also seek assistance from the RUS general field representative (GFR) assigned to their area. Program recipients whom GAO interviewed often spoke positively of the help provided by GFRs. As to coordination mechanisms, RUS has worked with other federal agencies on rural broadband-deployment efforts, including having a memorandum of understanding with the Federal Communications Commission.
Partially Consistent with Leading Practices: While USDA has a high-level goal and a performance metric for measuring the benefits to rural communities of the broadband loans and grants, RUS has not developed specific program-level goals or performance measures for its individual programs. Without specific measureable goals for each loan and grant program, RUS will have difficulty determining how well the programs are performing. Regarding risk assessment, RUS conducts a variety of risk assessment activities at the loan and grant application and project level, but has not conducted a risk assessment at the program level. A higher-level, programmatic risk assessment would provide a holistic look at the programs' core processes and internal controls. For broadband programs, another leading practice is establishing mapping systems that can provide program data and reveal areas that lack service. RUS has mapping tools and systems in place, but does not have complete mapping information. RUS has efforts under way to improve its mapping data going forward. These efforts should increase RUS's understanding of broadband coverage and help RUS begin to identify possible unserved areas for outreach. For project monitoring, RUS currently oversees loan and grant recipients' projects through GFR site visits, progress reports, and audits. However, RUS does not evaluate its grant projects post-completion and is therefore missing information that could be used to improve the selection of grant recipients or the results of grant awards. RUS has established an organizational structure that supports internal communication, but does not have a centralized system to monitor loan and grant data. RUS officials said USDA is working toward such a system, but they did not have established deliverables or time frames. RUS generally has external written documentation for recipients, but internal written documentation is often outdated, affecting RUS's ability to share knowledge among its staff and retain institutional knowledge.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that RUS develop program performance goals and measures, conduct program risk assessments, evaluate completed grant projects, establish a timeline for implementing a centralized internal data system, and update written policies and procedures for RUS staff. USDA agreed with the recommendations.