This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-12-547R 
entitled 'Community Development Financial Institutions and New Markets 
Tax Credit Programs in Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Areas' which 
was released on April 26, 2012. 

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-12-547R: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

April 26, 2012: 

The Honorable Richard Durbin:
Chairman:
The Honorable Jerry Moran:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government:
Committee on Appropriations:
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Jo Ann Emerson:
Chairman:
The Honorable Jose E. Serrano:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives: 

Subject: Community Development Financial Institutions and New Markets 
Tax Credit Programs in Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Areas: 

The Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 
1994 created the Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) 
Fund under the Department of the Treasury to help promote access to 
capital and credit in underserved urban and rural communities across 
the country.[Footnote 1] The CDFI Fund carries out this mission 
through two primary programs: the CDFI Program and the New Markets Tax 
Credit (NMTC) Program. The CDFI Program awards financial and technical 
assistance to CDFIs for financial and development services, cash or 
capital reserves, operating expenses, and capacity building. CDFIs are 
specialized financial institutions--including community development 
banks and credit unions and nonregulated institutions such as loan and 
venture capital funds--that operate in markets underserved by 
traditional financial institutions. The NMTC Program, created by the 
Community Renewal Tax Relief Act of 2000, allocates tax credit 
authority (in this report, tax credits) to community development 
entities (CDE), which are domestic corporations or partnerships with a 
primary mission of serving low-income communities or low-income 
persons that act as intermediaries in providing loans, investments, or 
financial counseling in low-income communities.[Footnote 2] CDEs can 
use the tax credits to attract equity investments from investors who 
can, in turn, claim a tax credit over 7 years totaling 39 percent of 
their qualifying equity investment.[Footnote 3] The CDFI Program 
awarded a total of $443 million to CDFIs from fiscal years 2004 
through 2010, while the NMTC Program allocated tax credits worth $27 
billion to CDEs from fiscal years 2003 through 2010.[Footnote 4] Both 
programs' statutes include provisions requiring them to ensure at 
least a minimum level of assistance to nonmetropolitan areas. 

House Report 112-136, referenced by the Consolidated Appropriations 
Act of 2012, requires that we conduct a study on the concentration of 
CDFIs and NMTCs in urban areas and comment on the extent that program 
design, administration, or history contributed to the early 
establishment of CDFIs in urban areas.[Footnote 5] In this report, we 
examine (1) how the CDFI Fund awards funds and allocates tax credits 
to recipients and how program policies affect the amount of funding 
and tax credits to metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas, and (2) the 
extent to which the amounts of program awards and allocations that 
recipients receive differ in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas. 
We used the terms "metropolitan" and "nonmetropolitan" to make 
geographic distinctions between areas that have urban and rural 
characteristics for consistency in presentation and because some of 
the data available in program reports use these designations. 

To address the first objective, we reviewed documentation related to 
the CDFI Fund's policies and procedures for distributing financial and 
technical assistance awards and tax credits to certified CDFIs and 
CDEs, respectively. We also reviewed CDFI Fund documents, laws, and 
regulations, prior GAO reports, and other applicable documentation to 
determine how CDFI and NMTC program policies and other factors have 
affected the amount of funding and tax credits directed to CDFIs and 
CDEs in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas. To address the second 
objective, we analyzed CDFI Fund data on primary geographic areas 
(metropolitan or nonmetropolitan) served by CDFIs that received awards 
or allocations, the total amounts of awards and allocations CDFIs and 
CDEs received, and amounts of funding and investments they deployed to 
metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas. Our review focused on the 
period for which complete transaction-level data were available for 
individual transactions from the CDFI Fund's Community Investment 
Impact System database. Specifically, we examined data from fiscal 
years 2004 through 2010 for the CDFI Program and fiscal years 2003 
through 2010 for the NMTC Program.[Footnote 6] The transaction-level 
data for the CDFI Program represent CDFIs' loans and investments 
outstanding (which we refer to as total portfolio outstanding) at the 
end of each reporting year and reflect CDFI Program awards combined 
with all of the CDFIs' other funding sources. In other words, the data 
do not allow us to identify which loans and investments outstanding, 
or how much of the dollar amount of CDFIs' total portfolios 
outstanding, resulted directly from CDFI Program awards. In addition, 
because not all CDFI awardees must report transaction-level data, we 
cannot generalize the findings to the entire CDFI awardee (recipient) 
population. We examined trends in the amount and number of CDFI-and 
CDE-financed projects in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas. We 
interviewed CDFI Fund officials and reviewed information from the CDFI 
Fund and its data contractors on the steps taken to ensure the 
reliability of their data. For example, we reviewed their processes 
for ensuring consistent data entry and for addressing potentially 
inaccurate data. We also checked the data for extreme values and 
missing data points. We determined that the data were reliable for our 
purposes. 

We conducted this performance audit from January to April 2012 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. Enclosure I 
provides a more-detailed description of our scope and methodology. 

Results in Brief: 

The policies and procedures of the CDFI and NMTC Programs help ensure 
that awards and allocations generally are proportionate to the numbers 
of qualified applicants that serve metropolitan and nonmetropolitan 
areas. The CDFI Program's authorizing legislation and regulations 
require that award recipients constitute a geographically diverse 
group, serving metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas and Native 
communities from different U.S. regions. To meet this requirement, 
CDFI Program officials have used the application review process and 
established a goal of matching the proportion of awards to the 
proportion of qualified applicants that primarily serve 
nonmetropolitan areas. This proportion changed from year to year 
depending on the number of qualified applicants that served 
nonmetropolitan areas. According to officials, revisions to the award 
procedures in the fiscal year 2012 funding round will enhance the CDFI 
Program's ability to achieve proportionality. In 2006, Congress, in 
the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, added a requirement for 
the NMTC Program that nonmetropolitan counties receive a proportional 
allocation of qualified equity investments.[Footnote 7] To meet this 
requirement, in 2008, the NMTC Program implemented two goals in its 
application review process. The first goal requires that a 
proportionate number of tax credits are allocated to recipients that 
principally serve nonmetropolitan counties.[Footnote 8] The second 
goal requires that at least 20 percent of all community investments 
resulting from the annual NMTC allocations are made in eligible 
nonmetropolitan counties. 

The programs awarded the majority of funds and tax credits to 
recipients that served metropolitan areas, but both generally met 
their proportionality goals with regard to ensuring assistance to 
nonmetropolitan areas. From fiscal years 2004 through 2010, CDFI 
Program financial assistance awards to recipients serving primarily 
nonmetropolitan areas were proportional to the number of qualified 
applicants that served those areas in every year except 2008. For 
example, in 2010, 29 percent of award recipients primarily served 
nonmetropolitan areas, exceeding that year's proportionality goal of 
27 percent. Based on recipients' annual reporting for fiscal years 
2004 through 2010, about 18 percent of recipients' total annual loans 
and investments outstanding were in nonmetropolitan areas. For the 
NMTC Program, since implementing the two proportionality goals in the 
calendar year 2008 round, program officials stated that they have been 
successful in helping ensure that a proportional number of tax credits 
went to recipients that serve nonmetropolitan areas and that 20 
percent of all NMTC investments were committed to nonmetropolitan 
areas. From calendar years 2008 through 2011, recipients committed to 
deploy more than $3 billion, or 20 percent of total investments, in 
nonmetropolitan areas. In 2010, the proportion of the dollar amount of 
NMTC projects financed that went to nonmetropolitan areas increased to 
21 percent, which exceeded the program goal of 20 percent. 

Background: 

In general, financial institutions must be certified as CDFIs or CDEs 
before they can receive CDFI Program awards or NMTC allocations, 
respectively. Table 1 lists the criteria that entities must meet to 
become certified. For example, CDFIs and CDEs generally must be legal 
entities that provide the majority of their financial services to low-
income persons or communities and maintain accountability to those 
communities by having members that represent them on their governing 
or advisory boards. The CDFI Fund follows detailed procedures to 
ensure that certified entities meet the criteria. 

Table 1: Eligibility Criteria for CDFI and CDE Certification: 

CDFI: 
* Be a legal entity; 
* Have a primary mission of promoting community development; 
* Primarily provide financial products, development services, or other 
similar financing in arms-length transactions; 
* Primarily serve (direct at least 60 percent of financial product 
activities to) one or more geographic investment areas meeting certain 
poverty or income standards; low-income targeted populations; or other 
targeted populations that lack adequate access to capital and 
historically have been denied credit; 
* Provide development services--such as credit or homebuyer 
counseling--in conjunction with financial products; 
* Maintain accountability to defined target markets through 
representation on governing or advisory board or through outreach 
activities; 
* Be a nongovernment entity and not be under control of any government 
entity (except tribal governments). 

CDE: 
* Be a legal entity and a domestic corporation or partnership for 
federal tax purposes; 
* Have a primary mission of serving or providing investment capital to 
low-income communities or low-income persons and target at least 60 
percent of activities to these groups; 
* Maintain accountability to low-income communities through 
representation on governing or advisory board; 
* Note: Certified CDFIs and Specialized Small Business Investment 
Companies automatically qualify as CDEs and only need to register as 
CDEs rather than apply for certification. 

Sources: CDFI Fund; CDFI and NMTC Program statutes and regulations. 

[End of table] 

As of February 29, 2012, there were a total of 977 certified CDFIs and 
5,500 certified CDEs, including subsidiary CDEs.[Footnote 9] Enclosure 
II lists the numbers of certified CDFIs and CDEs by state. The total 
number of certified CDFIs and CDEs is much higher than the number that 
typically applies for and obtains program awards in any given year. In 
addition, not all financial institutions that seek certification will 
obtain it. Certification rates for CDFIs averaged about 77 percent 
from fiscal years 2004 through 2010, while CDEs obtained certification 
about 91 percent of the time from calendar years 2003 through 2010 
(see table 2). Agency officials told us that, based on their analysis 
of fiscal year 2011 certification data, the most common reasons for 
denying CDFI certification applications were failure to meet the 
criteria for primary service to eligible target markets and 
accountability to those markets. They stated that in prior years, 
these were also two of the most common reasons for denials of 
certification applications. Failure to meet the financing entity 
criteria was also historically a reason for denial. They attributed 
the majority of CDE certification denials to failure to establish 
accountability to low-income communities. 

Table 2: Certification Rates for CDFIs (Fiscal Years 2004-2010) and 
CDEs (Calendar Years 2003-2010): 

CDFIs: Certified; 
2003: N/A; 
2004: 34; 
2005: 72; 
2006: 144; 
2007: 32; 
2008: 32; 
2009: 71; 
2010: 162; 
Total: 547. 

CDFIs: Declined; 
2003: N/A; 
2004: 50; 
2005: 15; 
2006: 11; 
2007: 12; 
2008: 15; 
2009: 32; 
2010: 30; 
Total: 165. 

CDFIs: Certification rate; 
2003: N/A; 
2004: 40%; 
2005: 83%; 
2006: 93%; 
2007: 73%; 
2008: 68%; 
2009: 69%; 
2010: 84%; 
Total: 77%. 

CDEs: Certified; 
2003: 211; 
2004: 153; 
2005: 155; 
2006: 33; 
2007: 121; 
2008: 100; 
2009: 104; 
2010: 134; 
Total: 1,011. 

CDEs: Declined; 
2003: 18; 
2004: 14; 
2005: 12; 
2006: 3; 
2007: 9; 
2008: 9; 
2009: 16; 
2010: 21; 
Total: 102. 

CDEs: Certification rate; 
2003: 92%; 
2004: 92%; 
2005: 93%; 
2006: 92%; 
2007: 93%; 
2008: 92%; 
2009: 87%; 
2010: 86%; 
Total: 91%. 

Source: GAO analysis of CDFI Fund data. 

Note: The CDE certification rates in this table include only 
"applicant CDEs" and exclude subsidiary CDEs. 

[End of table] 

The CDFI Program provides financial or technical assistance to CDFIs 
to enhance their ability to make loans and investments and provide 
services for the benefit of designated investment areas, targeted 
populations, or both.[Footnote 10] CDFIs can apply for (1) financial 
assistance awards, which can be used for financial products or 
services such as loans and checking and savings accounts, development 
services such as financial or homeownership counseling, loan loss and 
capital reserves, and operations; or (2) technical assistance awards, 
which can be used for capacity-building purposes such as personnel 
salary, professional services, travel, training, and equipment and 
supplies. As shown in table 3, financial assistance applicants may 
apply as regular applicants or as Small and Emerging CDFI Assistance 
(SECA) applicants. SECA applicants are CDFIs that have smaller assets 
or have been operating for fewer than 5 years. However, regular 
applicants can apply for more financial assistance funding (for the 
fiscal year 2011 funding round, up to $2 million) than SECA applicants 
(which can apply for $600,000). Technical assistance awards were 
capped in fiscal year 2011 at $100,000 per awardee. Since 1994, the 
CDFI Program has disbursed more than $1 billion in financial and 
technical assistance awards. 

Table 3: CDFI Financial and Technical Assistance Program Details: 

Funding and applicant type: Financial Assistance; 
Funding and applicant type: Regular; 
Applicant criteria: Certified or certifiable CDFI[B]; 
Eligible uses for funds: 
* Financial products; 
* Financial services; 
* Development services; 
* Loan loss reserves; 
* Capital reserves; 
* Operations; 
Fiscal year 2011 award cap: $2,000,000; 
Matching fund requirement[A]: 100% match from nonfederal sources. 

Funding and applicant type: Financial Assistance; 
Funding and applicant type: Small and Emerging CDFI Assistance (SECA); 
Applicant criteria: 
* Certified or certifiable CDFI; 
* Total assets of up to $5 million (up to $250 million for community 
development banks and up to $10 million for insured credit unions and 
venture capital funds) or in operation for fewer than 5 years; 
Eligible uses for funds: 
* Financial products; 
* Financial services; 
* Development services; 
* Loan loss reserves; 
* Capital reserves; 
* Operations; 
Fiscal year 2011 award cap: $600,000; 
Matching fund requirement[A]: 100% match from nonfederal sources. 

Funding and applicant type: Technical assistance; 
Funding and applicant type: [Empty]; 
Applicant criteria: Certified, certifiable or emerging CDFI[C]; 
Eligible uses for funds: 
* Personnel (salary and fringe benefits); 
* Professional services; 
* Travel; 
* Training; 
* Equipment; 
* Materials/supplies; 
* Other; 
Fiscal year 2011 award cap: $100,000; 
Matching fund requirement[A]: None. 

Source: CDFI Fund 2011 Notice of Funding Availability, 76 Fed. Reg. 
68,831. 

Notes: 

[A] Matching funds must be comparable in form and value to the 
financial assistance award. Congress waived the matching funds 
requirement in the fiscal year 2009, 2010, and 2011 federal budgets. 

[B] A certifiable CDFI has submitted an application to the CDFI Fund 
demonstrating that it meets the certification requirements, but the 
CDFI Fund has not yet officially certified the entity. 

[C] An emerging CDFI is an entity that demonstrates to the CDFI Fund 
that it has an acceptable plan to become a certified CDFI within 
approximately 3 years. 

[End of table] 

Congress created the NMTC Program in 2000 under the CDFI Fund to 
encourage investors to make investments in impoverished, low-income 
communities that traditionally lack access to capital. CDEs may apply 
for and receive tax credits, at which point investors can make 
qualified equity investments by acquiring stock or a capital interest 
in the CDEs in exchange for the ability to claim the tax credits on a 
portion of their investment. The CDEs, in turn, must use at least 85 
percent of the investment proceeds for community investments, which 
can be in qualified low-income community businesses and used for 
residential, commercial, and industrial projects or can be used for 
other types of activities, such as purchasing loans from other 
CDEs.[Footnote 11] Since its inception, the NMTC Program has awarded 
$33 billion in tax credits to CDEs. The program expired at the end of 
2011, but legislation has been proposed to extend it and the 
administration has asked for an extension in its 2013 budget proposal. 
[Footnote 12] 

The CDFI and NMTC Programs use varying terminology to describe program 
activity geographically, depending on the program stage. For example, 
in the application stage, both programs ask applicants to indicate 
whether they primarily serve major urban, minor urban, or rural 
(nonmetropolitan for the NMTC Program) areas.[Footnote 13] The 
programs also require awardees and allocatees to commit to the areas 
that they will serve with their awards and tax credits. At this point, 
the terminologies diverge. While the CDFI Program continues to use the 
major and minor urban and rural classifications, the NMTC Program uses 
the metropolitan and nonmetropolitan classifications as defined by the 
1999 Office of Management and Budget bulletin, with the former term 
referring to a metropolitan statistical area with a core city or urban 
center of population 50,000 or more and its surrounding communities 
and the latter term referring to anything other than a metropolitan 
area.[Footnote 14] Finally, when agency officials collect annual data 
from awardees and allocatees on the use of their funds, both the CDFI 
Program data and the NMTC Program data are classified using the 1999 
Office of Management and Budget bulletin (the "metropolitan" and 
"nonmetropolitan" system). To simplify the discussion, this report 
generally uses metropolitan and nonmetropolitan for both programs, as 
defined by the Office of Management and Budget.[Footnote 15] As of 
2011, approximately 16 percent of the U.S. population resided in 
nonmetropolitan areas.[Footnote 16] 

Program Policies and Procedures Aim to Make Awards and Allocations 
Proportionate to Numbers of Applicants That Serve Nonmetropolitan 
Areas: 

CDFI Program: 

The CDFI Program's policies and procedures for reviewing funding 
applications and making financial and technical assistance awards are 
intended to encourage assistance to nonmetropolitan areas. After CDFI 
Program staff checks all applications for completeness and applicant 
eligibility, reviewers from outside of the CDFI Fund (three reviewers 
per financial assistance application and one reviewer per technical 
assistance application) evaluate the applications. Specifically, 
financial and technical assistance applicants are scored on and can 
receive up to 100 points from each reviewer for criteria such as how 
they meet the needs of their target market and their delivery 
capacity. As shown in figure 1, applicants that meet or exceed an 
overall scoring threshold and a threshold in each of the application 
sections advance to the second phase of the application review process 
in which CDFI Program officials determine--based on a final ranking 
score--which applicants will receive awards and how much they will 
receive. 

Figure 1: CDFI Program Financial and Technical Assistance Award 
Process: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Intake and evaluation: 

CDFIs: 
Application: 

CDFI Program: Completeness and eligibility screening: 
Incomplete or ineligible: Application denied; 
Complete and eligible: continue. 

External reviewers: Assessment and scoring (1 to 100): 
Scores of 1 to 49 (non-qualified applicants): Application denied; 
Qualified applicants: Scores of 50 or more (ranked highest to lowest). 

Award decisions: 

Qualified applicants:  

"Highly qualified" (top 20%): 
Administrative award review and processing (award amounts determined 
as appropriate starting with highest scoring applicants): 
Is number of awardees serving nonmetropolitan areas proportional to 
qualified applicant pool primarily serving nonmetropolitan areas?[A] 
No: Reduce award amounts; 
Yes: Make awards. 
                
Not "highly qualified" (lower 80%):          
Waiting list; 
Add qualified applicants from waiting list[B]: 
Make awards. 

Source: GAO analysis of CDFI Fund data. 

[A] CDFI Program officials also check for diversity with regard to 
geographic region and institution type. 

[B] Until the fiscal year 2012 funding round, this process might not 
have resulted in full proportionality with regard to nonmetropolitan 
areas. Because reducing award amounts to allow for additional awards 
could decrease the awards' significance to CDFIs, CDFI Program 
officials must consider whether award reductions to achieve 
proportionality are in the best interest of the overall awardee pool. 

[End of figure] 

The CDFI Program's authorizing legislation and regulations require 
that awardees represent a geographically diverse group, serving 
metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas and Native communities. 
[Footnote 17] According to CDFI Program officials, to meet this 
requirement, they have tried to match the proportion of awards to the 
proportion of the qualified applicant pool with nonmetropolitan 
service areas during the application review process. For example, if 
25 percent of qualified applicants in a given funding round indicated 
a nonmetropolitan service area, the CDFI Program would strive to make 
25 percent of the total aggregate number of financial and technical 
assistance awards to CDFIs with nonmetropolitan service areas. This 
proportion can change from year to year depending on the number of 
applicants that serve nonmetropolitan areas and meet the minimum 
scoring threshold. Until recently, the CDFI Program's procedures did 
not allow officials to bypass other qualified applicants to select 
those with nonmetropolitan service areas, which impeded the program's 
ability to meet desired proportionality goals in certain years. 
However, for the fiscal year 2012 funding round, the CDFI Program's 
procedures have been revised to better support goal achievement. That 
is, CDFI Program officials can now bypass certain applicants on the 
ordered ranking list to select qualified but lower-ranked applicants 
to achieve geographic and institutional diversity. 

In addition, according to CDFI Program officials, the SECA category 
for financial assistance awards, as well as the technical assistance 
awards, is helpful to CDFIs located in or serving nonmetropolitan 
areas. Officials stated that CDFIs in nonmetropolitan communities are 
often smaller in asset size and typically have fewer employees than 
their counterparts in metropolitan communities. The SECA category for 
financial assistance funding allows CDFIs with assets of less than a 
certain amount or in operation for fewer than 5 years to apply and 
compete separately from larger and more established CDFIs. In 
addition, program officials noted that technical assistance funding is 
useful to smaller and less established organizations because it can 
help them build capacity. Technical assistance awards can be used for 
such items as staff salaries and benefits, consultants, professional 
services, and computer equipment.[Footnote 18] 

NMTC Program: 

The NMTC Program's process for making NMTC awards reflects a recent 
policy change that ensures investment commitments in nonmetropolitan 
areas. In 2006, Congress required the NMTC Program to ensure that 
nonmetropolitan counties receive a proportional allocation of 
qualified equity investments.[Footnote 19] To guide its implementation 
of the requirement, in 2007, the CDFI Fund published a Request for 
Public Comments to obtain feedback on how to define, measure, and 
ensure "proportionality." Based on the public comments received, NMTC 
Program officials developed two goals, which they implemented in the 
calendar year 2008 funding round, to ensure compliance with the new 
requirement. First, program officials must review the annual 
allocation decisions and add additional allocatees if necessary to 
ensure that a proportionate number of applicants that are "rural 
CDEs"--CDEs that principally serve nonmetropolitan counties--receive 
tax credits. Second, program officials attempt to ensure through 
consideration of applicants' commitments to invest in nonmetropolitan 
areas that at least 20 percent of the aggregate investments made with 
each round of NMTC allocations are made in eligible nonmetropolitan 
counties. With regard to the second goal, although public commentators 
suggested a variety of benchmarks for the minimum proportion to be 
committed to nonmetropolitan areas, program officials chose 20 percent 
because it approximated the percentage of the U.S. population that--
according to the CDFI Fund's analysis--resided in nonmetropolitan 
counties.[Footnote 20] Thus, in recent years, NMTC Program officials 
have used the review process to ensure proportionate selection on two 
levels--in terms of areas served and amount of investment committed in 
those areas. 

For the current review process, the NMTC Program first selects a group 
of three external reviewers with demonstrated experience in business, 
real estate, or community development finance. Applications are scored 
on a scale of 100 points for sections on business strategy, community 
impact, management capacity, and capitalization strategy. Applicants 
also can receive up to 10 "priority" points by demonstrating a record 
of successful investment in disadvantaged communities or businesses 
and by investing in businesses unrelated to the applicant.[Footnote 21] 

CDEs that meet or exceed an overall scoring threshold and a threshold 
in each of the four application sections listed previously advance to 
the second phase of the review, in which a panel of up to three NMTC 
Program officials determine--based on a final ranking score--which 
CDEs will receive allocations and how much they will receive. NMTC 
Program staff review the amount of tax credits that the CDEs requested 
and, based on the information in the application materials, award 
preliminary allocation amounts in the order of CDEs' final ranking 
scores until the allocations are exhausted. Not all of the CDEs that 
satisfy the minimum application score thresholds receive allocations. 
[Footnote 22] 

After making award decisions, the NMTC Program analyzes the allocatee 
pool to determine whether it has met the two proportionality goals. If 
the percentage of allocatees that are rural CDEs is not at least equal 
to the percentage of qualified applicants that are rural CDEs, the 
fund provides allocations to additional qualified rural CDEs from that 
pool in descending order of their final ranking score until it 
achieves the appropriate percentage balance. If necessary to 
accommodate the additional allocatees without exceeding the available 
tax credits, NMTC Program officials apply a reduction to all 
allocations to CDEs that have not committed to make at least 20 
percent of their community investments in nonmetropolitan areas. For 
the second proportionality goal, all applicants must specify a minimum 
and maximum percentage of their community investments that they are 
willing to commit to nonmetropolitan areas. For example, an applicant 
might indicate that it will commit to making at least 15 percent but 
no more than 30 percent of its community investments in 
nonmetropolitan areas, while another applicant might indicate that it 
will make all of its community investments in metropolitan areas. NMTC 
Program officials calculate the minimum amount of community 
investments that all allocatees have committed to nonmetropolitan 
areas. If allocatees have not committed to making at least 20 percent 
of their aggregate community investments in nonmetropolitan areas, the 
NMTC Program can require allocatees to direct more investments--up to 
the maximum percentages they indicated in their applications--to 
nonmetropolitan areas. If, after applying the maximum percentages, the 
aggregate commitment to nonmetropolitan areas still does not equal at 
least 20 percent, the NMTC Program can award additional allocations to 
rural CDEs in descending order of their final ranking score, applying 
a formula reduction to all allocations for which allocatees have not 
committed at least 20 percent of investments to nonmetropolitan areas. 
Figure 2 illustrates the NMTC allocation process with a hypothetical 
example. 

Figure 2: Illustration of the NMTC Program Allocation Process: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Applicants reviewed and scored: 
Total applicants: 250; 
Total tax credit allocations available: $3 billion. 

Highly qualified applicants (rank-ordered): 
Highly qualified applicants: 150; 
Rural CDEs: 15 (10%); 
Total committed community investments: $2.85 billion. 

Preliminary allocation determinations: 
Preliminary number of allocatees: 100; 
Rural CDEs: 10 (10%); 
Minimum aggregate community investment commitments to nonmetropolitan 
areas: $513 million (18% of total community investments). 

Assessment of preliminary allocatee pool for proportionality goals: 

Goal 1: Is the percentage of rural CDEs at least proportional to the 
percentage of rural CDEs in the highly qualified applicant pool? 
Yes: No further action needed for goal. 

Goal 2: Are community investment commitments to nonmetropolitan areas 
at least 20% of total community investments? 

Non-metropolitan commitments = 18% = $513 million: 
Less than 20% of total community investments = $570 million: 
No: Adjustments required. 

Non-metropolitan commitments = 20.2% = $575 million: 
Greater than 20% of total community investments = $570 million + $62 
million adjustment[A]: 
Yes: No further action needed for goal. 

Make final tax credit allocations totaling $3 billion. 

Source: GAO analysis of CDFI Fund data.             

Notes: This figure is an example of applying NMTC Program 
proportionality goals to hypothetical application information. 

[A] Require any or all allocatees to direct additional community 
investments to nonmetropolitan areas (up to the maximum percentage 
they committed to in their applications). Based on track records and 
ability to deploy investments in nonmetropolitan areas, require eight 
allocatees to direct an additional $62 million in community 
investments to nonmetropolitan areas. 

[End of figure] 

To address potential challenges in implementing NMTC projects in 
nonmetropolitan communities, the NMTC Program gives rural CDEs an 
extra year to raise qualified equity investments and deploy the 
proceeds for community investments. Specifically, most CDEs must raise 
at least 20 percent of their qualified equity investments (in exchange 
for the tax credits that they can provide to investors) within 1 year 
after they receive their allocations, and they must deploy the 
proceeds of those qualified equity investments to qualified businesses 
within 1 year after raising the investments. However, rural CDEs 
receive an extra year to meet these requirements because of the 
potential difficulties in carrying out NMTC projects in 
nonmetropolitan areas. In particular, we have previously reported that 
CDEs can face challenges in using NMTCs to invest in smaller projects 
because transaction costs, such as legal fees or compliance monitoring 
costs, tend to be fixed (thus, smaller transactions would not incur 
lower transaction costs relative to the size of the project).[Footnote 
23] Because of high transaction costs, NMTC Program officials said 
that the minimum investment size of an NMTC transaction is commonly $5 
million to $6 million. They explained that the federal tax structure 
related to the NMTC Program tends to benefit larger-size projects or 
deals. This structure may put CDEs that wish to invest in 
nonmetropolitan areas--where projects can be smaller than in 
metropolitan areas--at a disadvantage.[Footnote 24] 

Both Programs Directed Most Awards and Tax Credits to Metropolitan 
Areas, but Generally Met Proportionality Goals for Nonmetropolitan 
Areas: 

The CDFI and NMTC Programs awarded the majority of funds and tax 
credits to recipients that served metropolitan areas, but both 
generally met their goals with regard to proportionality in 
nonmetropolitan areas. For both programs, we looked at the differences 
in the level of assistance provided to metropolitan and 
nonmetropolitan areas. Specifically, for each of the programs, we 
looked at the metropolitan and nonmetropolitan distributions of (1) 
awards and commitments, and (2) total portfolio outstanding (CDFI 
Program) and projects financed (NMTC Program). 

CDFI Program: 

CDFI Program officials stated that they typically had been able to 
meet their goal of making awards proportionate to the number of 
qualified applicants that primarily serve nonmetropolitan areas. We 
analyzed the financial assistance award data for fiscal years 2004 
through 2010 to determine the extent to which the CDFI Program met the 
geographic diversity goal. During this period, the proportion of 
awardees that primarily served nonmetropolitan areas equaled or 
exceeded the proportion of qualified applicants that served these 
areas every year except in 2008, when awardees serving nonmetropolitan 
areas represented 26 percent of all awardees compared with 35 percent 
of all qualified applicants (see table 4). 

Table 4: Proportion of Qualified Applicants and Awardees Serving 
Nonmetropolitan Areas for CDFI Program, Fiscal Years 2004-2010: 

Fiscal year: 2004[A]; 
Qualified applicants: 
Total: 78; 
Number serving nonmetropolitan areas: 21; 
Percentage serving nonmetropolitan areas: 27%;
Awardees: 
Total: 67; 
Number serving nonmetropolitan areas: 19; 
Percentage serving nonmetropolitan areas: 28%. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Qualified applicants: 
Total: 124; 
Number serving nonmetropolitan areas: 37; 
Percentage serving nonmetropolitan areas: 30%; 
Awardees: 
Total: 48; 
Number serving nonmetropolitan areas: 17; 
Percentage serving nonmetropolitan areas: 35%. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Qualified applicants: 
Total: 121; 
Number serving nonmetropolitan areas: 28; 
Percentage serving nonmetropolitan areas: 23%; 
Awardees: 
Total: 52; 
Number serving nonmetropolitan areas: 15; 
Percentage serving nonmetropolitan areas: 29%. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
Qualified applicants: 
Total: 119; 
Number serving nonmetropolitan areas: 26; 
Percentage serving nonmetropolitan areas: 22%; 
Awardees: 
Total: 49; 
Number serving nonmetropolitan areas: 11; 
Percentage serving nonmetropolitan areas: 22%. 

Fiscal year: 2008; 
Qualified applicants: 
Total: 158; 
Number serving nonmetropolitan areas: 56; 
Percentage serving nonmetropolitan areas: 35%; 
Awardees: 
Total: 66; 
Number serving nonmetropolitan areas: 17; 
Percentage serving nonmetropolitan areas: 26%. 

Fiscal year: 2009; 
Qualified applicants: 
Total: 337; 
Number serving nonmetropolitan areas: 89; 
Percentage serving nonmetropolitan areas: 26%; 
Awardees: 
Total: 121; 
Number serving nonmetropolitan areas: 33; 
Percentage serving nonmetropolitan areas: 27%. 

Fiscal year: 2010; 
Qualified applicants: 
Total: 292; 
Number serving nonmetropolitan areas: 79; 
Percentage serving nonmetropolitan areas: 27%; 
Awardees: 
Total: 147; 
Number serving nonmetropolitan areas: 42; 
Percentage serving nonmetropolitan areas: 29%. 

Source: GAO analysis of CDFI Fund data. 

Notes: The data in the table reflect the CDFI Program's financial 
assistance awards only. Data on technical assistance awards were not 
readily available within the time frames of this review. According to 
an official, recipients of technical assistance awards are more likely 
to serve nonmetropolitan areas. As a result, the percentages in the 
table are likely understated, but the extent of this difference is 
limited since the CDFI Program makes considerably fewer technical 
assistance awards compared with financial assistance awards. 

[A] The CDFI Program utilized a different scoring method for regular 
and Small and Emerging CDFI Assistance (SECA) applicants and a 
different applicant grouping process to categorize the two applicant 
types in fiscal year 2004. However, because applicants in 2004 still 
had to meet a minimum scoring threshold to be considered qualified, we 
believe that this does not significantly impact our analysis. 

[End of table] 

The total financial and technical assistance award amounts varied for 
CDFIs primarily serving nonmetropolitan areas.[Footnote 25] From 
fiscal years 2004 through 2010, awards to CDFIs that indicated they 
primarily served nonmetropolitan areas totaled about $126 million, or 
about 29 percent of the $436 million in all awards for that period, 
compared with about $311 million (71 percent) that went to CDFIs 
serving primarily metropolitan areas.[Footnote 26] As shown in figure 
3, the proportion of awards to these CDFIs varied considerably over 
the review period. However, it averaged just under 30 percent across 
that time period. 

Figure 3: Total Financial and Technical Assistance Award Amounts by 
CDFIs' Primary Service Area, Fiscal Years 2004-2010: 

[Refer to PDF for image: combined vertical bar and line graph] 

Year: 2004; 
Nonmetropolitan: $10.03 million (23%); 
Metropolitan: $34.46 million (77%). 

Year: 2005; 
Nonmetropolitan: $11.42 million (33%); 
Metropolitan: $23.48 million (67%). 

Year: 2006; 
Nonmetropolitan: $7.84 million (34%); 
Metropolitan: $14.96 million (66%). 

Year: 2007; 
Nonmetropolitan: $6.68 million (24%); 
Metropolitan: $20.65 million (76%). 

Year: 2008; 
Nonmetropolitan: $11.5 million (21%); 
Metropolitan: $42.75 million (79%). 

Year: 2009; 
Nonmetropolitan: $47.79 million (33%); 
Metropolitan: $98.17 million (67%). 

Year: 2010; 
Nonmetropolitan: $30.41 million (29%); 
Metropolitan: $74.13 million (71%). 

Source: GAO analysis of CDFI Fund data. 

[End of figure] 

Note: The increase in funding amount in the last 2 years of the period 
is a result of additional funding from the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act in 2009 and a higher appropriation in 2010 than in 
previous years. 

For fiscal years 2004 through 2010, CDFIs' total loans and investments 
outstanding in nonmetropolitan areas annually averaged about 18 
percent of their total portfolios outstanding, reflecting an increase 
to nonmetropolitan areas in recent years (see fig. 4). As stated 
earlier, CDFIs must report all of their loans and investments 
outstanding, which includes program awards combined with all of their 
other sources of funding.[Footnote 27] From a low of about $55 million 
in 2004, the dollar amount of CDFIs' total loans and investments 
outstanding in nonmetropolitan areas grew fivefold in 2005 and then 
increased steadily until 2009 and marginally decreased in 2010. From 
2008 through 2010, CDFIs' total loans and investments outstanding in 
nonmetropolitan areas exceeded $1 billion annually. As a percentage of 
CDFIs' total portfolios, the dollar amounts to nonmetropolitan areas 
remained fairly stable throughout this period. A similar trend 
occurred in metropolitan areas for the same period, as the total loans 
and investments outstanding increased fivefold from 2004 to 2005, 
steadily increased for 3 years, and plateaued at approximately $4.3 
billion annually from 2008 through 2010. CDFI Fund officials stated 
that the growth in both metropolitan and nonmetropolitan total loans 
and investments outstanding was a result of two factors. First, the 
overall level of CDFI Program awards increased substantially over the 
time period. In 2004, total financial and technical assistance awards 
were about $46 million, and in 2010 the combined awards totaled almost 
$105 million. Second, partly because of the increase in total awards, 
the size of the individual CDFIs' assets increased, as reflected by 
the number and amount of loans and investments made by reporting 
CDFIs. For example, the total portfolio outstanding for both 
metropolitan and nonmetropolitan CDFIs in 2004 was $330 million, and 
the total portfolio outstanding in 2010 was over $5 billion. See 
enclosure III for more details on CDFIs' loans and investments 
outstanding in nonmetropolitan areas, by state. 

Figure 4: Total Dollar Amount and Number of CDFI Loans and Investments 
Outstanding in Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Areas, Fiscal Years 
2004-2010: 

[Refer to PDF for image: 2 combined vertical bar and line graphs] 

Dollar amount of CDFI loans and investments: 

Year: 2004; 
Nonmetropolitan: $0.05 billion (16.5%); 
Metropolitan: $0.28 billion (83.5%). 

Year: 2005; 
Nonmetropolitan: $0.28 billion (15.8%); 
Metropolitan: $1.49 billion (84.2%). 

Year: 2006; 
Nonmetropolitan: $0.59 billion (14.4%); 
Metropolitan: $3.48 billion (85.6%). 

Year: 2007; 
Nonmetropolitan: $0.71 billion (15.8%); 
Metropolitan: $3.80 billion (84.2%). 

Year: 2008; 
Nonmetropolitan: $1.00 billion (18.9%); 
Metropolitan: $4.29 billion (81.1%). 

Year: 2009; 
Nonmetropolitan: $1.12 billion (20.6%); 
Metropolitan: $4.31 billion (79.4%). 

Year: 2010; 
Nonmetropolitan: $1.02 billion (19.1%); 
Metropolitan: $4.35 billion (80.9%). 

Number of CDFI loans and investments: 

Year: 2004; 
Nonmetropolitan: 701,000 (11%); 
Metropolitan: 5,714,000 (89%). 

Year: 2005; 
Nonmetropolitan: 9,364,000 (28%); 
Metropolitan: 23,956,000 (72%). 

Year: 2006; 
Nonmetropolitan: 19,183,000 (35%); 
Metropolitan: 36,374,000 (65%). 

Year: 2007; 
Nonmetropolitan: 20,289,000 (30%); 
Metropolitan: 47,656,000 (70%). 

Year: 2008; 
Nonmetropolitan: 24,147,000 (27%); 
Metropolitan: 65,369,000 (73%). 

Year: 2009; 
Nonmetropolitan: 23,620,000 (23%); 
Metropolitan: 77,257,000 (77%). 

Year: 2010; 
Nonmetropolitan: 11,741,000 (24%); 
Metropolitan: 38,144,000 (76%). 

Source: GAO analysis of CDFI Fund data. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 4 also shows the number of loans and investments that CDFIs 
made in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas from fiscal years 2004 
through 2010. CDFIs made more than 290,000 loans and investments in 
metropolitan areas (73 percent) and more than 109,000 loans and 
investments in nonmetropolitan areas (27 percent) over the entire 
period. In addition, the proportion of loans and investments (27 
percent) was greater than the proportion dollar amounts (18 percent) 
of those loans and investments in nonmetropolitan areas for the same 
period. The percentage of loans and investments in nonmetropolitan 
areas steadily decreased from its peak at 34 percent in 2006 to 23 
percent in 2009. 

NMTC Program: 

Policy changes to the NMTC Program have helped to ensure that about 20 
percent of CDEs' community investments were committed to 
nonmetropolitan areas in recent years. Since the two goals related to 
the proportionality requirement were implemented in the 2008 funding 
round, the NMTC Program has met the proportionality requirement. For 
the first proportionality goal, NMTC Program officials stated that 
they have been able to ensure that a proportional number of rural CDEs 
received tax credits and, for the second proportionality goal, that 20 
percent of all NMTC community investments were committed to 
nonmetropolitan counties. From calendar years 2008 through 2011, rural 
CDEs received tax credits totaling almost $2 billion. On the basis of 
their designation as rural CDEs, they were obligated to deploy at 
least 50 percent of this amount in nonmetropolitan areas. During the 
same time period, CDEs (including both rural and nonrural CDEs) 
committed to deploy more than $3 billion, or 20 percent of total 
investments, in nonmetropolitan areas (see table 5). Data on 
investment commitments by areas served are not available prior to 2008 
because the NMTC Program did not track this information. 

Table 5: Total CDE Community Investment Commitments to Nonmetropolitan 
Counties, Calendar Years 2008-2011: 

Dollars in millions: 

Calendar year: 2008[B]; 
Total community investments: $4,895; 
Number of CDEs making nonmetropolitan commitments[A]: 60; 
Total investments committed to nonmetropolitan counties: $989; 
Percentage of total investments committed to nonmetropolitan counties: 
20%. 

Calendar year: 2009; 
Total community investments: $4,880; 
Number of CDEs making nonmetropolitan commitments[A]: 49; 
Total investments committed to nonmetropolitan counties: $971; 
Percentage of total investments committed to nonmetropolitan counties: 
20%. 

Calendar year: 2010; 
Total community investments: $3,409; 
Number of CDEs making nonmetropolitan commitments[A]: 46; 
Total investments committed to nonmetropolitan counties: $682; 
Percentage of total investments committed to nonmetropolitan counties: 
20%. 

Calendar year: 2011[C]; 
Total community investments: $3,526; 
Number of CDEs making nonmetropolitan commitments[A]: 34; 
Total investments committed to nonmetropolitan counties: $708; 
Percentage of total investments committed to nonmetropolitan counties: 
20%. 

Calendar year: Totals; 
Total community investments: $16,710; 
Number of CDEs making nonmetropolitan commitments[A]: 189; 
Total investments committed to nonmetropolitan counties: $3,350; 
Percentage of total investments committed to nonmetropolitan counties: 
20%. 

Source: GAO analysis of CDFI Fund data. 

[A] The numbers in this column reflect only CDEs that committed to 
make a minimal percentage of their investments in nonmetropolitan 
counties, including rural CDEs. CDEs do not have to commit to 
investments in nonmetropolitan counties. However, if CDEs do so, they 
must uphold the commitments. 

[B] There were two NMTC allocation rounds for applicants that applied 
in 2008: the regular NMTC annual allocation round and an additional 
allocation round authorized by the American Recovery and Reinvestment 
Act. Data in the 2008 row reflect both allocation rounds. 

[C] The NMTC Program announced the results of the calendar year 2011 
allocation round in February 2012 and provided publicly available data 
on tax credits to rural CDEs and overall investment commitments to 
nonmetropolitan counties. 

[End of table] 

Based on our review of annual data reported by CDEs through the fiscal 
year 2010 reporting period, the proportion of NMTC projects financed 
in nonmetropolitan areas varied from 2003 through 2010 but increased 
appreciably in 2010 following the 2008 policy change requiring 
proportional investments in these areas (see fig. 5).[Footnote 28] 
From 2003 to 2005, the dollar amount of projects financed in 
nonmetropolitan areas increased from about $9 million to $239 million 
(or from 11 percent of total projects financed to 16 percent of total 
projects financed). During 2006 to 2009, the dollar amount of projects 
financed in nonmetropolitan areas fluctuated between a low of $108 
million to a high of $401 million. In the last year of the review 
period, the dollar amount of projects financed in nonmetropolitan 
areas increased to over $1 billion (or 21 percent of the total amount 
of projects financed). The dollar amount of projects financed in 
metropolitan areas also varied throughout the review period but 
totaled over $4 billion in both fiscal years 2009 and 2010. See 
enclosure IV for more details on CDEs' projects financed in 
nonmetropolitan areas, by state. 

Figure 5: Dollar Amount and Number of CDE Projects Financed in 
Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Areas, Fiscal Years 2003-2010: 

[Refer to PDF for image: 2 combined vertical bar and line graphs] 

Dollar amount of CDE projects financed: 

Year: 2003; 
Nonmetropolitan: $0.01 billion (11%); 
Metropolitan: $0.07 billion (89%). 

Year: 2004; 
Nonmetropolitan: $0.1 billion (15%); 
Metropolitan: $0.55 billion (85%). 

Year: 2005; 
Nonmetropolitan: $0.24 billion (16%); 
Metropolitan: $1.33 billion (84%). 

Year: 2006; 
Nonmetropolitan: $0.11 billion (4%); 
Metropolitan: $2.33 billion (96%). 

Year: 2007; 
Nonmetropolitan: $0.32 billion (9%); 
Metropolitan: $3.19 billion (91%). 

Year: 2008; 
Nonmetropolitan: $0.28 billion (10%); 
Metropolitan: $2.56 billion (90%). 

Year: 2009; 
Nonmetropolitan: $0.4 billion (9%); 
Metropolitan: $4.17 billion (91%). 

Year: 2010; 
Nonmetropolitan: $1.14 billion (21%); 
Metropolitan: $4.19 billion (79%). 

Number of CDE projects financed: 

Year: 2003; 
Nonmetropolitan: 2 (15%); 
Metropolitan: 11 (85%). 

Year: 2004; 
Nonmetropolitan: 49 (31%); 
Metropolitan: 110 (69%). 

Year: 2005; 
Nonmetropolitan: 56 (18%); 
Metropolitan: 253 (82%). 

Year: 2006; 
Nonmetropolitan: 66 (14%); 
Metropolitan: 392 (86%). 

Year: 2007; 
Nonmetropolitan: 80 (13%); 
Metropolitan: 522 (87%). 

Year: 2008; 
Nonmetropolitan: 102 (20%); 
Metropolitan: 398 (80%). 

Year: 2009; 
Nonmetropolitan: 76 (15%); 
Metropolitan: 432 (85%). 

Year: 2010; 
Nonmetropolitan: 95 (19%); 
Metropolitan: 416 (81%). 

Source: GAO analysis of CDFI Fund data. 

[End of figure] 

According to an NMTC Program official, for several reasons, NMTC 
Program data do not immediately reflect the increased investments in 
nonmetropolitan areas that would be expected to follow from the 
proportionality goals instituted in 2008. First, some of the 2008 
awards were not closed until 2009 under the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act of 2009. Second, rural CDEs have an additional year 
to raise qualified equity investments and deploy the proceeds as 
community investments. Lastly, CDEs have up to 180 days after the end 
of their fiscal year to report to the CDFI Fund on projects financed. 
Consequently, in 2010, the data for projects financed in 
nonmetropolitan areas reflect a substantial increase following from 
the 2008 policy change. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to the Secretary of the Treasury 
for review and comment. In its written comments, reproduced in 
enclosure V, Treasury concurred with the report's observations 
regarding the process and distribution of assistance to metropolitan 
and nonmetropolitan areas for both programs. Treasury also provided 
technical comments that we incorporated into the report, as 
appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 
committees and the Secretary of the Treasury. In addition, the report 
is available at no charge on the GAO website at [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov]. 

f you or your staff have any questions about this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-8678 or garciadiazd@gao.gov. Contact points 
for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be 
found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key 
contributions to this report are listed in enclosure VI. 

Signed by: 

Daniel Garcia-Diaz Acting: 
Director, Financial Markets and Community Investment: 

Enclosures: 

[End of section] 

Enclosure I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

The objectives of this report were to assess (1) how the Community 
Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) Fund awards funds and 
allocates tax credits to recipients and how program policies affect 
the amount of funding and tax credits to metropolitan and 
nonmetropolitan areas, and (2) the extent to which the amounts of 
program awards and allocations that recipients receive differ in 
metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas. 

To address the first objective, we reviewed the CDFI and New Markets 
Tax Credit (NMTC) Programs' policies and procedures for distributing 
financial and technical assistance awards and tax credits to certified 
CDFIs and community development entities (CDE), respectively. We 
reviewed how the programs' policies and procedures considered and 
weighed applicants' geographic location in making funding and tax 
credit allocation decisions. We also reviewed annual notices of 
funding and allocation availability, reports on annual awards and 
allocations, applicable laws and regulations, prior GAO reports, and 
other documentation. We further reviewed the CDFI Fund's guidance for 
certifying CDFIs and CDEs because financial institutions generally 
must apply to the CDFI Fund for certification as CDFIs or CDEs before 
they can apply for CDFI awards or NMTC allocations, respectively. We 
also obtained program data to determine the numbers of approved and 
denied applicants for CDFI and CDE certification. The CDFI 
certification data covered fiscal years 2004 through 2010 and the CDE 
certification data covered calendar years 2003 through 2010. We 
reviewed lists of all certified CDFIs and CDEs as of February 29, 
2012, from the CDFI Fund's website. We also interviewed CDFI Fund 
officials. 

Both programs used varying terms to describe geographic areas such as 
urban and rural areas. To simplify presentation of geographic 
designations and develop consistent terminology for use in our report, 
we consulted with agency officials and agreed to report information 
using "metropolitan" and "nonmetropolitan" categories. Specifically, 
the CDFI and NMTC Program applications require applicants to indicate 
the types of geographic areas they primarily serve--major urban, minor 
urban, or rural.[Footnote 29] For CDFI and NMTC Program applicants and 
awardees that indicated they served primarily major or minor urban 
areas, we reclassified them as serving metropolitan areas. For 
applicants and awardees that indicated they served primarily rural 
areas, we reclassified them as serving nonmetropolitan areas. The 
transaction-level data we received on CDFIs' loans and investments 
outstanding and CDEs' projects financed already were presented in 
metropolitan and nonmetropolitan terms and therefore did not require 
reclassification. 

To address the second objective, we compared program data for 
metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas on (1) the number of CDFIs that 
received awards by primary geographic service area, (2) the total 
amounts of awards and allocations CDFIs and CDEs received, and (3) the 
total amounts of funding and investments deployed. We reviewed CDFI 
and NMTC Program documentation to better understand each program's 
proportionality goal. We conducted interviews with program officials, 
including the CDFI Fund Office for Financial Strategies and Research 
and Office of Certification, Compliance Monitoring and Evaluation to 
discuss the data captured by the various databases. 

Analysis of CDFI Program Awards: 

The CDFI Program regulations require that awardees represent a 
geographically diverse group serving metropolitan and nonmetropolitan 
areas. To assess the CDFI Program's progress toward its geographic 
diversity goal, we analyzed the proportion of qualified applicants to 
the proportion of CDFI awardees serving nonmetropolitan areas for 
fiscal years 2004 through 2010. From the CDFI Program, we obtained 
financial assistance application and award data on the total number of 
qualified applicants and awardees. We calculated the percentage of 
qualified applicants and awardees serving nonmetropolitan areas. We 
used financial assistance award data and not technical assistance 
award data in our analysis of the geographic diversity goal because of 
time constraints to collect the qualified applicant data broken down 
by primary areas served. Our analysis of overall award data indicated 
that recipients of technical assistance awards are slightly more 
likely to serve nonmetropolitan areas. As a result, our discussion of 
proportionality in the CDFI Program may understate the percentage of 
awards that went to CDFIs serving nonmetropolitan areas. However, the 
extent of this difference is limited since the CDFI Program makes 
fewer technical assistance awards than financial assistance awards. 
CDFI Program officials told us that in fiscal year 2004, they used a 
different scoring method and a different applicant grouping process to 
categorize regular and Small and Emerging CDFI Assistance (SECA) 
applicants.[Footnote 30] We note these differences in our presentation 
of the 2004 data on proportions of qualified CDFI Program applicants 
and awardees serving nonmetropolitan areas. 

To assess the primary geographic areas that CDFIs reported they 
served, we analyzed CDFI Program data on award amounts for financial 
and technical assistance by CDFIs' reported primary geographic market 
served (metropolitan and nonmetropolitan). We obtained historical 
application and award data from the CDFI Fund on awardee, primary 
geographic market, amount of technical assistance funding, and amount 
of financial assistance funding for fiscal years 2004 through 2010. 
The applications for financial and technical assistance capture the 
primary geographic market variable. Applicants can serve a combination 
of geographic markets (metropolitan or nonmetropolitan) but can self-
select the geographic market that they primarily serve. Because 
applicants choose only one area as "primarily" served, the data do not 
necessarily capture where CDFIs ultimately make loans and investments 
or capture CDFIs that self-identify as primarily serving metropolitan 
areas but also make loans and investments in nonmetropolitan areas. 
Therefore, we cannot say with certainty that CDFIs invest all of their 
awards in the areas that they select as their primary geographic 
markets. In addition, for 2004, data on the primary geographic market 
for technical assistance applicants were not readily available because 
the 2004 applications were paper based. As a result, we did not 
include 100 awardees from 2004 in our data set. In addition to these 
limitations, the data do not reflect de-obligation of awards completed 
before May 2008 because the CDFI Fund did not have any electronic 
system to record de-obligations before that time. 

To assess the amounts and number of investments and loans that CDFIs 
deployed to metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas, we obtained 
transaction-level program data. Our review focused on fiscal years 
2004 through 2010, for which complete transaction-level data were 
available for individual transactions (for example, a loan made to a 
local business) from the Community Investment Impact System (CIIS) 
database. We obtained aggregate data on the number and dollar amount 
of loans and investments outstanding, as well as the percentage of 
transactions and percentage of dollars outstanding by year and 
metropolitan status. There are two main limitations to the data set. 
First, the transaction-level data for the CDFI Program represent 
CDFIs' loans and investments outstanding (to which we also refer as 
total portfolio outstanding) at the end of each reporting year and 
reflect CDFI Program awards combined with the CDFIs' other funding 
sources. Therefore, the data do not allow us to identify which loans 
and investments resulted directly from CDFI Program awards. In 
addition, the program does not require certain types of financial 
institutions (for example, regulated depository institutions such as 
banks, bank holding companies, and credit unions) to report loan and 
investment data because bank call reports (quarterly reports that 
collect basic financial data from commercial banks) already capture 
this information. Technical assistance awardees also are not required 
to submit transaction-level reports because these awards are intended 
for internal capacity-building activities rather than for providing 
financial and developmental services to the community. However, some 
of these CDFIs voluntarily submit transaction-level data to the CDFI 
Fund. For example, program officials stated that in fiscal year 2011, 
21 of 37 regulated depository institutions, or about 57 percent, 
voluntarily submitted these data reports. They also stated that, in 
general, 70 percent of all financial and technical assistance awardees 
submitted these reports, as did approximately 85 percent of all 
financial assistance awardees. But because not all CDFI awardees must 
report transaction-level data, we cannot generalize the findings to 
the entire CDFI awardee population. 

Analysis of NMTC Program Allocations: 

The NMTC Program ensures that a proportionate number of applicants 
that are "rural CDEs"--CDEs that principally serve nonmetropolitan 
areas--receive tax credits. It also attempts to ensure that at least 
20 percent of the aggregate investments made with each round of NMTC 
allocations are made in eligible nonmetropolitan areas. To describe 
the extent to which the NMTC Program allocated tax credits to rural 
CDEs, we reviewed annual allocation reports. To assess the extent to 
which the NMTC Program has met the proportionality goal for 
investments in nonmetropolitan areas, we analyzed the total CDE 
community investments to nonmetropolitan areas for calendar years 2008 
through 2011. Using the annual NMTC Program allocation reports, we 
compiled data on total funding, the number of CDEs making investments 
in nonmetropolitan areas, and total investments committed to 
nonmetropolitan areas for the years the policy was in place (from 
2008). We calculated the percentage of the total investments committed 
to nonmetropolitan areas and present the data in terms of calendar 
years because the program conducts its allocation rounds on a calendar 
year basis. 

To assess the amounts and number of investments and loans that CDEs 
deployed to metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas, we analyzed the 
dollar amount and number of CDE projects financed in metropolitan and 
nonmetropolitan areas for fiscal years 2003 through 2010. The NMTC 
Program provided us with aggregate transaction-level data on the total 
amount of qualified low-income community investment and with the 
metropolitan statistical area and combined metropolitan statistical 
area of the project location (MSACMSA code). To sort the data by 
metropolitan and nonmetropolitan, we created a new variable based on 
the MSACMSA code. We calculated the percentage of dollars and 
percentage of community investments for fiscal years 2003 through 
2010. We present this information in terms of fiscal years because 
this is how the NMTC Program collects the data. 

For all the analysis on CDFI and NMTC programs, we used data obtained 
from the CDFI Fund's CIIS and internal certification, application, and 
award databases. We conducted a reliability assessment of the data by 
reviewing documentation from the CDFI Fund and its data contractor, 
Kearney & Company, which maintains and manages the CIIS database. 
Specifically, we reviewed their processes for ensuring consistent data 
entry and for addressing potentially inaccurate data. We also 
interviewed officials from the CDFI Fund to address questions about 
the reliability of the information and checked the data for extreme 
values and missing data points. We found the data to be sufficiently 
reliable for our purposes. 

We conducted this performance audit from January to April 2012 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. 

[End of section] 

Enclosure II: Certified CDFIs and CDEs by State or Territory as of 
February 29, 2012: 

Figure 6 lists all certified Community Development Financial 
Institutions (CDFI) and Community Development Entities (CDE) as of 
February 29, 2012. The numbers of CDEs represent both the applicant 
CDEs and their subsidiaries, which are legal entities that applicant 
CDEs own or directly control and to which CDEs can transfer all or 
part of their allocation authority. 

Figure 6: Certified CDFIs and CDEs by State or Territory as of 
February 29, 2012: 

[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph] 

Alabama: 
CDFIs: 20; 
CDEs: 45. 

Alaska: 
CDFIs: 10; 
CDEs: 18. 

American Samoa: 
CDFIs: 0; 
CDEs: 0. 

Arizona: 
CDFIs: 17; 
CDEs: 69. 

Arkansas: 
CDFIs: 9; 
CDEs: 32. 

California: 
CDFIs: 86; 
CDEs: 475. 

Colorado: 
CDFIs: 14; 
CDEs: 105. 

Connecticut: 
CDFIs: 15; 
CDEs: 40. 

Delaware: 
CDFIs: 3; 
CDEs: 17. 

District of Columbia: 
CDFIs: 19; 
CDEs: 196. 

Florida: 
CDFIs: 24; 
CDEs: 148. 

Georgia: 
CDFIs: 23; 
CDEs: 96. 

Guam: 
CDFIs: 1; 
CDEs: 0. 

Hawaii: 
CDFIs: 23; 
CDEs: 22. 

Idaho: 
CDFIs: 4; 
CDEs: 4. 

Illinois: 
CDFIs: 42; 
CDEs: 207. 

Indiana: 
CDFIs: 8; 
CDEs: 185. 

Iowa: 
CDFIs: 8; 
CDEs: 70. 

Kansas: 
CDFIs: 1; 
CDEs: 10. 

Kentucky: 
CDFIs: 14; 
CDEs: 68. 

Louisiana: 
CDFIs: 31; 
CDEs: 374. 

Maine: 
CDFIs: 11; 
CDEs: 66. 

Maryland: 
CDFIs: 18; 
CDEs: 224. 

Massachusetts: 
CDFIs: 30; 
CDEs: 196. 

Michigan: 
CDFIs: 19; 
CDEs: 117. 

Minnesota: 
CDFIs: 38; 
CDEs: 108. 

Mississippi: 
CDFIs: 38; 
CDEs: 57. 

Missouri: 
CDFIs: 12; 
CDEs: 334. 

Montana: 
CDFIs: 17; 
CDEs: 28. 

Nebraska: 
CDFIs: 5; 
CDEs: 20. 

Nevada: 
CDFIs: 3; 
CDEs: 11. 

New Hampshire: 
CDFIs: 3; 
CDEs: 14. 

New Jersey: 
CDFIs: 16; 
CDEs: 97. 

New Mexico: 
CDFIs: 12; 
CDEs: 25. 

New York: 
CDFIs: 80; 
CDEs: 486. 

North Carolina: 
CDFIs: 21; 
CDEs: 96. 

North Dakota: 
CDFIs: 6; 
CDEs: 2. 

Northern Marianas Islands: 
CDFIs: 0; 
CDEs: 0. 

Ohio: 
CDFIs: 24; 
CDEs: 206. 

Oklahoma: 
CDFIs: 18; 
CDEs: 67. 

Oregon: 
CDFIs: 19; 
CDEs: 103. 

Pennsylvania: 
CDFIs: 34; 
CDEs: 220. 

Rhode Island: 
CDFIs: 4; 
CDEs: 4. 

South Carolina: 
CDFIs: 10; 
CDEs: 77. 

South Dakota: 
CDFIs: 16; 
CDEs: 33. 

Tennessee: 
CDFIs: 17; 
CDEs: 61. 

Texas: 
CDFIs: 40; 
CDEs: 174. 

Utah: 
CDFIs: 5; 
CDEs: 12. 

Vermont: 
CDFIs: 6; 
CDEs: 16. 

Virgin Islands: 
CDFIs: 1; 
CDEs: 1. 

Virginia: 
CDFIs: 19; 
CDEs: 201. 

Washington: 
CDFIs: 24; 
CDEs: 77. 

West Virginia: 
CDFIs: 4; 
CDEs: 12. 

Wisconsin: 
CDFIs: 20; 
CDEs: 177. 

Wyoming: 
CDFIs: 4; 
CDEs: 0. 

Total: 
CDFIs: 977; 
CDEs: 5,500. 

[End of figure] 

[End of section] 

Enclosure III: CDFIs' Percentages of Total Portfolios Outstanding in 
Nonmetropolitan Areas by State, Fiscal Years 2004-2010: 

[End of figure] 

We obtained data from the CDFI Program on the total dollar amount of 
CDFIs' loans and investments outstanding (also referred to as total 
portfolio outstanding) by state and metropolitan or nonmetropolitan 
status for fiscal years 2004 through 2010. Figure 7 represents the 
percentage of total portfolios outstanding in nonmetropolitan areas in 
each state over this time period. 

Figure 7: CDFIs' Percentages of Total Portfolios Outstanding in 
Nonmetropolitan Areas by State, Fiscal Years 2004-2010: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated U.S. map] 

Projects financed in nonmetropolitan areas: 

Percentages of Total Portfolios Outstanding: 0; 
District of Columbia: 
New Jersey: 
Rhode Island: 

Percentages of Total Portfolios Outstanding: 1%-20%; 
Alabama: 
California: 
Connecticut: 
Delaware: 
Florida: 
Georgia: 
Illinois: 
Indiana: 
Kansas: 
Louisiana: 
Maryland: 
Massachusetts: 
Missouri: 
New Mexico: 
New York: 
North Carolina: 
North Dakota: 
Ohio: 
Pennsylvania: 
Tennessee: 
Texas: 
Virginia: 
Washington: 
Wisconsin: 

Percentages of Total Portfolios Outstanding: 21%-40%; 
Arizona: 
Mississippi: 
Nevada: 
Oklahoma: 
Oregon: 
South Carolina: 

Percentages of Total Portfolios Outstanding: 41%-60%; 
Alaska: 
Colorado: 
Idaho: 
Maine: 
Michigan: 
New Hampshire: 
Utah: 
Vermont: 

Percentages of Total Portfolios Outstanding: 61%-80%; 
Iowa: 
Minnesota: 
Montana: 
Nebraska: 

Percentages of Total Portfolios Outstanding: 81%-100%; 
Arkansas: 
Hawaii: 
Kentucky: 
South Dakota: 
West Virginia: 
Wyoming: 

Source: GAO analysis of CDFI fund data; map (MapInfo). 

[End of figure] 

[End of section] 

Enclosure IV: CDEs' Percentages of Projects Financed in 
Nonmetropolitan Areas by State, Fiscal Years 2003-2010: 

We obtained data from the NMTC Program on the dollar amount of 
projects financed by CDEs by state and nonmetropolitan status for 
fiscal years 2004 through 2010. Figure 8 represents the percentage of 
projects financed in nonmetropolitan areas in each state over this 
time period. 

Figure 8: CDEs' Percentages of Projects Financed in Nonmetropolitan 
Areas by State, Fiscal Years 2003-2010: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated U.S. map] 

Projects financed in nonmetropolitan areas: 0%; 
Connecticut: 
Delaware: 
District of Columbia: 
Massachusetts: 
Nebraska: 
Nevada: 
New Jersey: 
Rhode Island: 

Projects financed in nonmetropolitan areas: 1%-20%; 
Alabama: 
Arizona: 
California: 
Colorado: 
Florida: 
Georgia: 
Idaho: 
Illinois: 
Indiana: 
Louisiana: 
Maryland: 
Missouri: 
New York: 
North Carolina: 
Ohio: 
Oregon: 
Pennsylvania: 
South Carolina: 
Tennessee: 
Texas: 
Utah: 
Virginia: 
Washington: 

Projects financed in nonmetropolitan areas: 21%-40%; 
Alaska: 
Kansas: 
Kentucky: 
Iowa: 
Michigan: 
Minnesota: 
Mississippi: 
New Mexico: 
Oklahoma: 
Wisconsin: 

Projects financed in nonmetropolitan areas: 41%-60%; 
Arkansas: 
Montana: 
New Hampshire: 

Projects financed in nonmetropolitan areas: 61%-80%; 
Wyoming: 

Projects financed in nonmetropolitan areas: 81%-100%; 
Hawaii: 
Maine: 
North Dakota: 
South Dakota: 
Vermont: 
West Virginia: 

Source: GAO analysis of CDFI fund data; map (MapInfo). 

[End of figure] 

[End of section] 

Enclosure V: Comments from the Department of the Treasury: 

Department Of The Treasury: 
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund: 
601 Thirteenth Street, NW, Suite 200 South: 
Washington, DC 20005: 

April 18, 2012: 

Mr. Daniel Garcia-Diaz: 
Acting Director, Financial Markets and Community Development: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Dear Mr. Garcia-Diaz: 

Thank you for providing the Community Development Financial 
Institutions (CDFI) Fund with the opportunity to comment on the draft 
GAO report, "Community Development Financial Institutions and New 
Markets Tax Credit Programs in Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Areas" 
required under House Report 112436, referenced by the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act of 2012. 

As always, we appreciate your team's familiarity with the programs 
that are administered by the CDFI Fund. The CDFI Fund concurs with the 
observations made by the GAO regarding the process and distribution of 
assistance to metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas. Therefore, we 
have only a few edits we would like the GAO to take into consideration 
(please see attachment). 

Thank you again for the opportunity to review and comment upon your 
draft report. We appreciate your efforts and collaboration during this 
review. Please do not hesitate to contact me or my staff should you 
wish to have any further discussion on the draft report. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Donna J. Gambrell: 
Director: 

Attachment: CDFI Fund Comments. 

[End of section] 

Enclosure VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Daniel Garcia-Diaz, (202) 512-8678 or garciadiazd@gao.gov. 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, Paul Schmidt, Assistant 
Director; William R. Chatlos; Elizabeth Jimenez; Marc Molino; Patricia 
Moye; Lisa Reynolds; and Barbara Roesmann made key contributions to 
this report. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] The Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 
1994, Pub. L. No. 103-325, 108 Stat. 2160 (1994). 

[2] The Community Renewal Tax Relief Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-554, 
§ 121, 114 Stat. 2763 (2000). The Act generally defines low-income 
communities as census tracts with poverty rates of at least 20 percent 
or median family incomes of no more than 80 percent of statewide 
median family income. The NMTC Program generally defines low-income 
persons as individuals with income of not more than 80 percent of the 
area median family income. 

[3] A qualified equity investment is any equity investment in a CDE 
that an investor acquires at its original issue solely in exchange for 
cash. The CDE must use at least 85 percent of the cash to make 
investments in NMTC-eligible low-income communities. 

[4] The time periods for these data reflect the periods for which 
public release data were available from the CDFI Fund's Community 
Investment Impact System. The CDFI and NMTC Programs began making 
awards in 1994 and 2002, respectively. 

[5] Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-74, 125 
Stat. 786 (2012); H.R. Rep. No. 112-136, at 14 (2012). 

[6] Although we present CDE transaction-level data on a fiscal year 
basis, the NMTC Program conducts its allocation rounds on a calendar 
year basis. Therefore, this report presents NMTC Program allocation 
data (in other words, information on tax credit allocations the NMTC 
Program made to CDEs) in terms of calendar years. 

[7] Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-432, Div. 
A, Tit. I, § 102(b), 120 Stat. 2922 (2006). 

[8] Specifically, such a recipient is one that, over the past 5 years, 
has dedicated at least 50 percent of its direct financing dollars to 
nonmetropolitan counties and has committed in its application to 
dedicate at least 50 percent of its future NMTC direct financing 
dollars to such areas. The recipient is not required to be physically 
located in a nonmetropolitan area to be designated as such. 

[9] Subsidiary CDEs are legal entities that applicant CDEs own or 
directly control and to which CDEs can transfer all or part of their 
allocation authority. 

[10] Financial assistance can be in the form of grants, loans, credit 
union shares, equity investments, and deposits to CDFIs. However, most 
financial assistance awards are in the form of grants. Investment 
areas and targeted populations are defined in 12 C.F.R. § 
1805.201(b)(3). 

[11] CDEs make community investments with the proceeds of qualified 
equity investments from outside investors. The community investments 
can include any capital or equity investments in, or loans to, 
qualified active low-income community businesses; loans purchased from 
other CDEs; financial counseling and other services to qualified 
active low-income community businesses, or to residents of a low-
income community; or equity investments in, or loans to, other CDEs. 
For more information about the NMTC investment process, see GAO, New 
Markets Tax Credit: The Credit Helps Fund a Variety of Projects in Low-
Income Communities, but Could Be Simplified, GAO-10-334 (Washington, 
D.C.: Jan. 29, 2010). 

[12] See S. 996, 112th Cong. (2011); H.R. 2655, 112th Cong. (2011); 
Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President, 
Fiscal Year 2013 Budget of the U.S. Government (2012). 

[13] According to the CDFI Fund, a major urban area is a metropolitan 
statistical area with a population equal to or greater than 1 million, 
including both central city and surrounding suburbs. A minor urban 
area is a metropolitan statistical area with a population of more than 
50,000 and less than 1 million, including both central city and 
surrounding suburbs. A rural area is any area not contained in a major 
or minor urban area. 

[14] See OMB Bulletin No. 99-04. 

[15] See enclosure I for more detail on how we classified geographic 
areas in this report. 

[16] U.S. Census Bureau, Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA) Status for 
the United States, Regions, and Divisions, and for Puerto Rico: 2010 
and 2011, CBSA-EST2011-12 (Washington, D.C.: April 2012). 

[17] 12 CFR §1805.700(d). 

[18] While not within the scope of this report, the CDFI Fund's Native 
American CDFI Assistance Program provides similar awards to CDFIs and 
organizations that serve economically distressed Native communities. 
According to the CDFI Fund, these organizations serve mostly rural 
communities. In 2009, the CDFI Fund also implemented a Capacity 
Building Initiative to provide technical assistance and training 
opportunities for CDFIs. The initiative also focuses on extending CDFI 
coverage to underserved communities, including a specialized focus in 
rural areas. 

[19] Pub. L. No. 109-432, Div. A, Tit. I, § 102(b). 

[20] The NMTC Program applies the 1999 Office of Management and Budget 
bulletin definition of nonmetropolitan areas to 2000 data to determine 
eligibility. According to this classification system, 19.6 percent of 
the U.S. population lived in nonmetropolitan counties in 2000. 

[21] The NMTC Program's review process is similar to the CDFI 
program's review process; see figure 1. 

[22] For a more-detailed description of the criteria used to evaluate 
NMTC Program applications, see GAO, New Markets Tax Credit: Minority 
Entities Are Less Successful in Obtaining Awards Than Non-Minority 
Entities, GAO-09-536 (Washington, D.C., Apr. 30, 2009). 

[23] GAO-10-334. 

[24] Under IRC §45D(g)(3), there is a recapture provision by which an 
investor can lose the right to claim the NMTC if certain conditions 
are not met throughout the seven-year period after the qualified 
equity investment is made. In its February 6, 2012 response to the 
CDFI Fund's Request for Public Comments on the NMTC Program, 
Novogradac and Company stated on behalf of the NMTC Working Group that 
the recapture provision increases transaction costs and discourages 
investments in specific types of businesses, including non-real estate 
businesses. The Internal Revenue Service recently indicated that non-
real estate investments may be smaller than real estate investments, 
and it has proposed regulations that would modify the NMTC Program to 
facilitate and encourage investments in non-real-estate businesses in 
low-income communities. In addition, it requested comments on 
potential regulatory changes that would simplify the substantiation 
requirements in cases where CDEs invest qualified equity investment 
proceeds in other CDEs that then make smaller (i.e., less than 
$250,000) loans to non-real-estate businesses in low-income 
communities. 

[25] From fiscal years 2004 through 2010, the CDFI program awarded a 
total of $436 million, of which approximately $414 million (95 
percent) was in financial assistance awards and $23 million (5 
percent) was in technical assistance awards. Dollar amounts have been 
rounded. 

[26] Amounts do not sum to $436 million because of rounding. As part 
of the CDFI application for combined financial and technical awards, 
applicants select the primary geographic market they serve, although 
they may also serve a combination of metropolitan and nonmetropolitan 
markets. 

[27] According to CDFI Fund officials, the Fund does not require 
certain types of financial institutions (for example, regulated 
depository institutions such as banks, bank holding companies, and 
credit unions) to report loan and investment data because call reports 
capture this information. In addition, technical assistance awardees 
are not required to submit detailed data because these awards are to 
be used for internal capacity-building activities rather than for 
financial and developmental services to the community. However, some 
of these awardees voluntarily submit the data to the CDFI Fund. For 
example, CDFI Fund officials stated that in fiscal year 2011, 21 of 37 
regulated depository institutions, or about 57 percent, voluntarily 
submitted these data reports. They also stated that, in general, 70 
percent of all financial and technical assistance awardees submit 
these reports, as do approximately 85 percent of all financial 
assistance awardees. 

[28] The number of projects that CDEs financed in nonmetropolitan 
areas from fiscal years 2003 through 2010 remained relatively steady 
as a percentage of all projects financed (approximately 17 percent). 

[29] According to the CDFI Fund, a major urban area is a metropolitan 
statistical area with a population equal to or greater than 1 million, 
including both central city and surrounding suburbs. A minor urban 
area is a metropolitan statistical area with a population of more than 
50,000 and less than 1 million, including both central city and 
surrounding suburbs. A rural area is any area not contained in a major 
or minor urban area. In the NMTC Program application, applicants must 
indicate whether they serve major urban, minor urban, or 
nonmetropolitan areas. 

[30] The SECA category allows CDFIs with assets of less than a certain 
amount or in operation for fewer than 5 years to apply separately from 
larger and more established (regular) CDFIs. From fiscal years 2004 
through 2010, SECA applicants received approximately 13 percent of the 
total dollar amount of financial assistance awards, while regular 
applicants received approximately 87 percent of financial assistance 
funding. 

[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 website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, 
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products, 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 
website, [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. 

Connect with GAO: 

Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 
Website: [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: 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, DC 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, DC 20548.