This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-734SP 
entitled 'Empowerment Zone And Enterprise Community Program: Survey of 
Round I Federal Enterprise Communities' which was released on September 
1, 2006.

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. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to Congressional Committees: 

September 2006: 

Empowerment Zone And Enterprise Community Program: 

Survey of Round I Federal Enterprise Communities: 

GAO-06-734SP: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Survey of Round I Federal Enterprise Communities: 

This document presents the results of GAO’s survey of federal Enterprise
Communities (EC) that were designated in the first round of the
Empowerment Zone and Enterprise Community program in 1994. [Footnote 1] 
Round I ECs received $2.95 million in program grants and businesses in 
the ECs could use a program tax-exempt bond. The purpose of our survey 
was to collect data describing how Round I ECs implemented the program.
Questionnaire items covered the types of governance structures ECs
established, number of programs they implemented, usage of the program
tax-exempt bond, and perceptions of factors influencing changes observed
in poverty, unemployment, and economic growth in the ECs. We
administered an e-mail survey to officials from the 60 Round I ECs—33
urban and 27 rural—that were still in operation as of June 2005 and did 
not receive additional designations under the Empowerment Zone or 
Renewal Community programs. [Footnote 2] We chose to exclude ECs that 
received subsequent designations, because we did not want their 
responses to be influenced by the benefits received under the 
additional designations. We created two versions of the questionnaire, 
one for urban ECs and another for rural ECs, to tailor items to urban 
or rural sites. For example, the urban version contained questions 
about the Enhanced EC designation, which was not asked of rural sites 
since the Enhanced EC designation was not applicable for rural areas. 
[Footnote 3] 

We e-mailed the questionnaire to each EC on August 25, 2005; collection 
of survey data ended on December 20, 2005. We gave participants the 
option to respond via e-mail, fax, or post-mail. Fifty-eight ECs 
returned the survey for a response rate of 97 percent; the response 
rate for rural ECs was 100 percent and the response rate of urban ECs 
was 94 percent. We did not attempt to verify the respondents’ answers 
against an independent source of information; however, we used two 
techniques to verify the reliability of questionnaire items. First, we 
used in-depth interviewing techniques to evaluate the answers of 
pretest participants, and interviewers judged that all the respondents’ 
answers to the questions were based on reliable information. Second, 
for the items that asked about changes to poverty, unemployment, and 
economic growth in the EC, we asked respondents to provide a source of 
data for their response. Responses to these questions that did not 
include a data source were excluded from our analysis of those items. A 
more detailed discussion of our scope and methodology and a discussion 
of the survey results are contained in our report, Empowerment Zone and 
Enterprise Community Program: Improvements Occurred in Communities, but 
the Effect of the Program Is Unclear. Clicking on the following link 
will provide access to this report [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-06-727]. We conducted our survey work from March 2005 
through April 2006 in accordance with generally accepted government 
auditing standards. 

[End of section] 

U.S. Government Accountability Office: 

Survey of Federal Enterprise Communities and Enhanced Enterprise 
Communities: 

Introduction: 

In response to a Congressional mandate, the Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) is conducting a study of the Round I Empowerment Zone and 
Enterprise Community program. As part of this study, GAO is surveying 
all Round I Enterprise Communities that did not subsequently receive a 
Round II or Round III Empowerment Zone or Renewal Community 
Designation. 

The purpose of this survey is to obtain descriptive information about 
how designees implemented their programs and changes they observed in 
their Enterprise Communities. Results of the survey will be used in our 
report to the Congress and will help them understand how the program was
implemented and what effect it had on the designated communities. 

How to Complete the Survey: 

Completing the survey should take no longer than 45 minutes. You may 
want to talk with others in your Enterprise Community/Enhanced 
Enterprise Community who are familiar with these topics in order to 
provide us with the most accurate information possible about your site. 
You may complete the survey in Microsoft Word and e-mail it to us, or 
you may print it out and fax or mail it to us. Please return your 
survey within 2 weeks of receipt. 

To complete the survey electronically: 

1. Save this document to your computer’s hard drive in Microsoft Word. 
2. Using the Microsoft Word document, fill out the survey. Save the 
document before closing it. 
3. Return the completed survey as an attachment to ECSurvey@gao.gov. 

To complete a paper copy of the survey, save the survey to your hard 
drive, print it out, and complete it. You may fax the survey to (404) 
679-2021 or mail it to: 

[GAO staff name here]
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
2635 Century Parkway, Suite 700: 
Atlanta, GA 30345: 

If you would like a stamped business reply envelope, or if you have any 
questions, please contact [GAO staff name here] (staff phone number and 
e-mail address here) or [GAO staff name here] (staff phone number and e-
mail address here). 

How to Use the Electronic Survey: 

1. For each question, click on the gray-shaded answer box or check box. 
2. To change a check box response, click on the box. The response will 
disappear. 
3. Do not “unlock” this document, as doing so will erase your answers. 
4. Save your document often so that you do not lose any answers. 

Thank you for taking the time to fill out this important survey. Your 
responses will make a difference. 

[End of introduction] 

Governance And Community Involvement: 

1. Which of the following best describes the entity that managed your 
Enterprise Community (EC) program? (n=58): 

A nonprofit organization that existed prior to the EC designation: 
13.8%, (8); 
A nonprofit specifically created for the EC: 27.6%, (16); 
A part of the city, county, or other local government: 55.2%, (32); 
Other, please describe (Click on the gray answer box and type. The 
answer box will expand): 3.4%, (2). 

2. Before your community received the EC designation, did EC residents 
do any of the following? 

a. Attend listening sessions about the EC program (n=58); 96.6%, (56), 
Yes; 3.4%, (2), No.
b. Generate ideas for EC activities (n=57); 98.2%, (56), Yes; 1.8%, 
(1), No. 

c. Establish EC priorities (n=57); 98.2%, (56), Yes; 1.8%, (1), No. 

d. Write the strategic plan (n=57); 77.2%, (44), Yes; 22.8%, (13), No. 

e. Gather information on community needs from residents (n=58); 91.4%, 
(53), Yes; 8.6%, (5), No. 

f. Disseminate EC program information to residents (n=56); 91.1%, (51), 
Yes; 8.9%, (5), No. 

g. Other, please describe: (n=57); 1.8%, (1), Yes; 98.2%, (56), No. 

3. Which of the following participated in the strategic planning 
process for your EC? 

a. City government (n=54); 96.3%, (52), Yes; 0, No; 3.7%, (2), NA. 

b. County government (n=52); 80.8%, (42), Yes; 11.5%, (6), No; 7.7%, 
(4), NA. 

c. State government (n=52); 69.2%, (36), Yes; 26.9%, (14), No; 3.8%, 
(2), NA. 

d. Regional government (n=46); 41.3%, (19), Yes; 30.4%, (14), No; 
28.3%, (13), NA. 

e. Elected officials (n=54); 100%, (54), Yes; 0, No; 0, NA. 

f. Local colleges or universities (n=51); 84.3%, (43), Yes; 13.7%, (7), 
No; 2.0%, (1), NA. 

g. Local development corporations (n=52); 80.8%, (42), Yes; 9.6%, (5), 
No; 9.6%, (5), NA. 

h. Residents of the EC (n=58); 100%, (58), Yes; 0, No; 0; NA. 

i. Private businesses (n=53); 88.7%, (47), Yes; 9.4%, (5), No; 1.9%, 
(1), NA. 

j. Community-based organizations (n=57); 100%, (57), Yes; 0, No; 0, NA. 

k. Religious organizations (n=50); 86.0%, (43), Yes; 14.0%, (7), No; 0, 
NA. 

l. Neighborhood associations (n=53); 81.1%, (43), Yes; 7.5%, (4), No; 
11.3%, (6), NA. 

m. Parent-teacher organizations (n=41); Yes; No; NA. 

n. Other, please describe: (n=56); 5.4%, (3), Yes; 87.5%, (49), No; 
7.1%, (4), NA. 

4. After your community received the EC designation, did EC residents 
do any of the following? 

a. Attend listening sessions about the EC program (n=54); 92.6%, (50), 
Yes; 7.4%, (4), No. 

b. Generate ideas for EC activities (n=58); 96.6%, (56), Yes; 3.4%, 
(2), No. 
c. Establish EC priorities (n=58); 89.7%, (52), Yes; 10.3%, (6), No. 

d. Participate on the EC governing board (n=58); 98.3%, (57), Yes; 
1.7%, (1), No. 

e. Gather information on community needs from residents (n=55); 89.1%, 
(49), Yes; 10.9%, (6), No. 

f. Disseminate EC program information to residents (n=56); 96.4%, (54), 
Yes; 3.6%, (2), No. 

g. Implement EC activities (n=56); 92.9%, (52), Yes; 7.1%, (4), No. 

h. Other, please describe:(n=57); 1.8%, (1), Yes; 98.2%, (56), No. 

5. After your community received the EC designation, which of the 
following participated in implementing the strategic plan? 

a. City government (n=54); 96.3%, (52), Yes; 1.9%, (1), No; 1.9%, (1), 
NA. 

b. County government (n=51); 74.5%, (38), Yes; 13.7%, (7), No; 11.8%, 
(6), NA. 

c. State government (n=53); 66.0%, (35), Yes; 30.2%, (16), No; 3.8%, 
(2), NA. 

d. Regional government (n=45); 40.0%, (18), Yes; 31.1%, (14), No; 
28.9%, (13), NA. 

e. Elected officials (n=55); 98.2%, (54), Yes; 1.8%, (1), No; 0, NA. 

f. Local colleges or universities (n=53); 84.9%, (45), Yes; 15.1%, (8), 
No; 0, NA. 

g. Local development corporations (n=50); 84.0%, (42), Yes; 6.0%, (3), 
No; 10.0%, (5), NA. 

h. Residents of the EC (n=56); 98.2%, (55), Yes; 1.8%, (1), No; 0, NA. 

i. Private businesses (n=51); 88.2%, (45), Yes; 9.8%; (5); No; 2.0%, 
(1), NA. 

j. Community-based organizations (n=56); 98.2%, (55), Yes; 0, No; 1.8%, 
(1), NA. 

k. Religious organizations (n=47); 72.3%, (34), Yes; 25.5%, (12), No; 
2.1%, (1), NA. 

l. Neighborhood associations (n=50); 72.0%, (36), Yes; 18.0%, (9), No; 
10.0%, (5), NA. 

m. Parent-teacher organizations (n=41); Yes; No; NA. 

n. Other, please describe: (n=56); 3.6%, (2), Yes; 92.9%, (52), No; 
3.6%, (2), NA. 

Implementation And Sustainability: 

6. Since designation in 1994, how many activities did your EC 
implement? (Activities are actions taken to implement your strategic 
plan.) activities: Mean = 48.94; St. Dev. = 44.04 (n=51). 

7. Of the activities your EC implemented, how many were still operating 
as of December 2004? activities: Mean =18.19; St. Dev. = 23.08 (n=52). 
No EC implemented activities are still in operation. Skip to Question 
10. 

8. In your opinion, how many of the activities in Question 7 will be 
operating 2 years from now? activities: Mean = 17.85; St. Dev. = 22.48 
(n=47); 
No activities will be in operation. Skip to Question 10. 

9. Please provide two examples of activities that will be in operation 
2 years from now. 

10. In your opinion, how helpful were the following EC program 
components to accomplishing your strategic plan goals? 

a. EC grant funds (n=56): 
Not at all helpful: 1.8% (1); 
A little helpful: 1.8% (1); 
Somewhat helpful: 8.9% (5); 
Very helpful: 17.9% (10); 
Extremely helpful: 69.6% (39); 
Don’t know: 0. 

b. Bonus points in other federal programs (n=56): 
Not at all helpful: 5.4% (3); 
A little helpful: 7.1% (4); 
Somewhat helpful: 17.9% (10); 
Very helpful: 30.4% (17); 
Extremely helpful: 35.7% (20); 
Don’t know: 3.6% (2). 

c. Earmarked federal grants and loans (n=56): 
Not at all helpful: 10.7% (6); 
A little helpful: 5.4% (3); 
Somewhat helpful: 12.5% (7); 
Very helpful: 30.4% (17); 
Extremely helpful: 32.1% (18); 
Don’t know: 8.9% (5). 

d. “Enterprise Zone” facility bonds (n=55): 
Not at all helpful: 47.3% (26); 
A little helpful: 7.3% (4); 
Somewhat helpful: 1.8% (1); 
Very helpful: 5.5% (3); 
Extremely helpful: 1.8% (1); 
Don’t know: 36.4% (20). 

e. Regulatory waivers (n=55): 
Not at all helpful: 29.1% (16); 
A little helpful: 12.7% (7); 
Somewhat helpful: 14.5% (8); 
Very helpful: 12.7% (7); 
Extremely helpful: 9.1% (5); 
Don’t know: 21.8% (12). 

11. Did your EC use the EC grant to leverage additional funds? 
(Leveraged funds are other federal and nonfederal dollars attracted 
using the EC grant.) (n=57) 
Additional funds were leveraged: 100% (57); 
Additional funds were not leveraged: 0; Skip to Question 14. 

12. Did your EC obtain leveraged funds for the following types of 
activities? 

a. Capital improvements (for example, land, improvements to land, 
design, permits, acquisition of real property, construction of new 
structures; initial furnishings; and selected equipment like 
ambulances, fire fighting equipment, or library collections) (n=56): 
94.6%, (53), Yes; 5.4%, (3), No. 

b. Social services (for example, job training and placement, education, 
mental/physical health care, child care, financial management programs) 
(n=56): 92.9%, (52), Yes; 7.1%, (4), No. 

c. Funding for businesses (for example, entrepreneurial training, loan 
funds, micro-lending programs) (n=57): 87.7%, (50), Yes; 12.3%, (7), 
No. 

d. Organizational development (for example, leadership development, 
citizen participation, board training) (n=57): 61.4%, (35), Yes; 38.6%, 
(22), No. 

e. Administrative costs (for example, salaries and benefits, rent, 
other operating costs) (n=56): 69.6%, (39), Yes; 30.4%, (17), No. 

13. Did any of your sources of leveraged funds require that you use EC 
funding to match their funding? (n=56): 
Yes: 42.9%; (24). 
No: 57.1%; (32). 

Use Of “enterprise Zone” Facility Bond: 

14. At any time between 1994 and 2004, did your local government issue 
a federal “Enterprise Zone” Facility Bond? (State and local governments 
could issue Enterprise Zone Facility Bonds in ECs to make loans at 
lower interest rates to Enterprise Zone Businesses to finance Qualified 
Zone Property. A business qualified as an Enterprise Zone Business if 
it was located and actively conducted business in an EC, employed 
residents of an EC, and had its employees perform services in the EC.) 
(n=57) 
Bond was issued: 3.5%, (2), Skip to Question 16. 
Bond was not issued: 71.9%, (41). 
Don’t know: 24.6%, (14), Skip to Question 17. 

15. (If bond not issued) What were reasons that the “Enterprise Zone” 
Facility Bond was not used? 

16. (If bond was issued) Was more than one “Enterprise Zone” Facility 
Bond issued? (n=2) 
More than one bond was issued: 0. 
Only one bond was issued: 100%, (2). 

U.S. Department Of Housing And Urban Development (HUD) And Your EC: 
Note: 31 urban sites completed the survey. 

17. Did HUD headquarters or local office staff assist your EC with any 
of the following? 
a. Provide information on other funding opportunities (n=29): 96.6%, 
(28), Yes; 3.4%, (1), No. 

b. Provide program information (for example, guidebooks pamphlets, web-
based information) (n=29): 96.6%, (28), Yes; 3.4%, (1), No. 

c. Hold conferences on the EZ/EC program (n=28): 71.4%, (20), Yes; 
28.6%, (8), No. 

d. Sponsor trainings (for example, effective strategic planning, 
economic development promotion, future designation application) on the 
EZ/EC program (n=29): 55.2%, (16), Yes; 44.8%, (13), No. 

e. Attend 50 percent or more of board meetings (n=28): 25.0%, (7), Yes; 
75.0%, (21), No. 

f. Provide technical assistance for reporting in the Performance 
Measurement System (PERMS) (n=28): 82.1%, (23), Yes; 17.9%, (5), No. 

g. Provide other technical assistance, please describe: (n=29): 10.3%, 
(3), Yes; 89.7%, (26), No. 

U.S. Department Of Agriculture (USDA) And Your EC: 
Note: 27 rural sites completed the survey. 

17. Did HUD headquarters or local office staff assist your EC with any 
of the following? 

a. Provide information on other funding opportunities (n=27): 100%, 
(27), Yes; 0, No. 

b. Provide program information (for example, guidebooks pamphlets, web-
based information) (n=27): 100%, (27), Yes; 0, No. 

c. Hold conferences on the EZ/EC program (n=26): 92.3%, (24), Yes; 
7.7%, (2), No. 

d. Sponsor trainings (for example, effective strategic planning,
economic development promotion, future designation application) on the 
EZ/EC program (n=27): 92.6%, (25), Yes; 7.4%, (2), No. 

e. Attend 50 percent or more of board meetings (n=27): 70.4%, (19), 
Yes; 29.6%, (8), No. 

f. Provide technical assistance for reporting in the Benchmarking 
Management System (BMS) (n=27): 100%, (27), Yes; 0, No. 

g. Provide other technical assistance, please describe: (n=27): 29.6%, 
(8), Yes; 70.4%, (19), No. 

Changes In The EC: 

The following questions seek information on changes that have occurred 
in the EC and affect the EC. 

18. What data are available that describe changes in the poverty rate 
of EC residents? 

19. According to the data described in Question 18, did the poverty 
rate of EC residents show a net increase, no net change, or net 
decrease between 1994 and 2004? (n=49): 
Large net increase: 0; 
Some net increase: 16.3%, (8); 
No net change: 16.3%, (8); Skip to Question 21; 
Some net decrease: 53.1% (26); Skip to Question 22; 
Large net decrease: 14.3% (7); Skip to Question 22. 

Responses to questions 20 and 22 were used in conjunction with Census 
data for reporting purposes; therefore, results are presented 
separately at the end of this document. 

20. If the poverty rate increased, in your opinion, were any of the 
following contributing factors? 
a. Decrease in the number of area jobs: Yes; No. 

b. Decrease in the number of area jobs with benefits: Yes; No. 

c. Loss of existing social services (for example, child care,
programs for the homeless, substance abuse treatment): Yes; No. 

d. Loss of existing adult educational services (for example,
job training, ESL classes, GED classes): Yes; No. 
e. Increased housing costs: Yes; No. 

f. Increased utility costs: Yes; No. 

g. Out-migration of residents with middle or high incomes: Yes; No. 

h. In-migration of residents with low incomes: Yes; No. 

i. In-migration of residents with limited job skills: Yes; No. 

j. In-migration of residents with limited English language skills: Yes; 
No. 

k. Increase in area crime rate: Yes; No. 
l. Welfare reform: Yes; No. 

m. Other: Please describe: Yes; No; Skip to Question 23. 

21. If the poverty rate showed no net change, in your opinion, what 
were the contributing factors? Skip to Question 23. 

22. If the poverty rate decreased, in your opinion, were any of the 
following contributing factors? 

a. Increase in the number of area jobs: Yes; No. 

b. Increase in the number of area jobs with benefits: Yes; No. 

c. Increase in social services (for example, child care, programs for 
the homeless, substance abuse treatment): Yes; No. 

d. Increase in adult educational services (for example, job training, 
ESL classes, GED classes): Yes; No. 
e. Decreased housing costs: Yes: No. 
f. Decreased utility costs: Yes; No. 
g. Increased homeownership: Yes; No. 
h. In-migration of residents with middle or high incomes: Yes; No. 
i. Out-migration of residents with low incomes: Yes; No. 
j. Decrease in area crime rate: Yes; No. 
k. Physical improvements made in area neighborhoods: Yes; No. 
l. Welfare reform: Yes; No. 

m. Other: Please describe: Yes; No. 

23. What data are available that describe changes in the unemployment 
rate of EC residents? 

24. According to the data described in Question 23, did the 
unemployment rate of EC residents show a net increase, no net change, 
or net decrease between 1994 and 2004? (n=49) 
Large net increase: 0; 
Some net increase: 14.3%, (7); 
No net change: 12.2%. (6); Skip to Question 26; 
Some net decrease: 55.1%, (27); Skip to Question 27; 
Large net decrease: 18.4%, (9); Skip to Question 27. 

Responses to questions 25 and 27 were used in conjunction with Census 
data for reporting purposes; therefore, results are presented 
separately at the end of this document. 

25. If the unemployment rate increased, in your opinion, were any of 
the following contributing factors? 

a. Decrease in the number of area jobs: Yes; No. 

b. Decrease in the number of area jobs with benefits: Yes; No. 

c. Increase in the number of jobs requiring skills that EC
residents did not have: Yes; No. 

d. Loss of existing social services (for example, child care,
programs for the homeless, substance abuse treatment): Yes; No. 

e. Loss of existing adult educational services (for example,
job training, ESL classes, GED classes): Yes; No. 

f. In-migration of unemployed residents: Yes; No. 

g. Out-migration of employed residents: Yes; No. 

h. In-migration of residents with limited job skills; Yes; No. 

i. In-migration of residents with limited English language skills: Yes; 
No. 

j. Other: Please describe: Yes; No. Skip to Question 28. 

26. If the unemployment rate showed no net change, in your opinion, 
what were the contributing factors? Skip to Question 28. 

27. If the unemployment rate decreased, in your opinion, were any of 
the following contributing factors? 

a. Increase in the number of area jobs: Yes; No. 

b. Increase in the number of jobs with benefits: Yes; No. 

c. Increased skill level of area residents: Yes; No. 

d. Increase in social services (for example, child care,
programs for the homeless, substance abuse treatment): Yes; No. 

e. Increase in adult educational services (for example, job training, 
ESL classes, GED classes): Yes; No. 

f. Out-migration of unemployed residents: Yes; No. 

g. In-migration of employed residents: Yes; No. 

h. In-migration of residents with job skills: Yes; No. 

i. Other: Please describe: Yes; No. 

28. We define economic growth to include increases in new businesses, 
business expansion, and job creation in an area. What data are 
available that describe changes in the economic growth of your EC? 

29. According to the data described in Question 28, did your EC 
experience a net increase in economic growth, no net change, or a net 
decrease in economic growth between 1994 and 2004? (n=39) 
Large net increase: 20.5%, (8); 
Some net increase: 51.3%, (20); 
No net change: 12.8%, (5); Skip to Question 31; 
Some net decrease: 15.4%, (6); Skip to Question 32; 
Large net decrease: 0; Skip to Question 32. 

Responses to questions 30 and 32 were used in conjunction with Claritas 
data for reporting purposes; therefore, results are presented 
separately at the end of this document. 

30. If economic growth increased, in your opinion, were any of the 
following contributing factors? 

a. Increase in the number of new area businesses: Yes; No. 

b. Expansion of existing area businesses: Yes; No. 

c. Increase in financial assistance for area businesses (for example, 
loan funds, facility bonds, micro-lending programs): Yes; No. 

d. Increase in technical assistance for area businesses (for example, 
entrepreneurial training programs, a one-stop capital shop, business 
consulting services): Yes; No. 

e. Availability of tax benefits (federal, state, local): Yes; No. 

f. Favorable state tax rates; Yes; No. 

g. Favorable local tax rates; Yes; No. 

h. Improved local infrastructure; Yes; No. 

i. Physical improvements made in area neighborhoods: Yes; No. 

j. Decrease in area crime rate: Yes; No. 

k. Increased availability of low-cost commercial space in area: Yes; 
No. 

l. Increased skill level of area residents: Yes; No. 

m. National economic trends: Yes; No. 

n. Other: Please describe: Yes; No. Skip to Question 33. 

31. If economic growth in your EC showed no net change, in your 
opinion, what were the contributing factors? Skip to Question 33. 

32. If economic growth decreased, were any of the following 
contributing factors? 

a. Decrease in the number of new area businesses: Yes; No. 

b. Downsizing of existing area businesses: Yes; No. 

c. Decrease in financial assistance for area businesses (for example, 
loan funds, facility bonds, microlending programs): Yes; No. 

d. Decrease in technical assistance for area businesses (for example, 
entrepreneurial training programs, a one-stop capital shop, business 
consulting services): Yes; No. 

e. Unfavorable state tax rates: Yes; No. 

f. Unfavorable local tax rates; Yes; No. 
g. Deteriorating local infrastructure: Yes; No. 

h. Increased physical deterioration in area neighborhoods: Yes; No. 

i. Increase in area crime rate: Yes; No. 

j. Decreased availability of low-cost commercial space in area: Yes; 
No. 

k. Decreased skill level of area residents: Yes; No. 

l. National economic trends: Yes; No. 

m. Other: Please describe: Yes; No. 

33. In your opinion, did your EC play a role in the changes in poverty, 
unemployment, and economic growth you indicated in Questions 19, 24, 
and 29? (n=55) 
EC played a role: 87.3%, (48); 
EC did not play a role: 12.7%, (7). 

34. In your opinion, why or why didn’t your EC play a role in the 
changes you described in poverty, unemployment, and economic growth? 

About Your EC: 

35. How many employees did your EC have on: 

a. December 31, 1995?(n=49); Mean= 1.6; St. Dev.= 3.6; 
full-time employees: 
part-time employees: 

b. December 31, 1999? (n=49); Mean= 2.7; St. Dev. =5.5; 
full-time employees: 
part-time employees: 

c. December 31, 2004? (n=46); Mean= 1.6; St. Dev. =2.4; 
full-time employees: 
part-time employees: 

Note: The response rate for part-time employees was low; therefore data 
are not reported. 

36. How many board members did your EC have on: 

a. December 31, 1995? (n=50); Mean = 17.8; St. Dev. = 11.2 members; 

b. December 31, 1999? (n=51); Mean = 16.9; St. Dev. = 9.4 members; 
c. December 31, 2004? (n=52); Mean = 13.0; St. Dev. = 8.5 members. 

37. We define administrative costs as general costs associated with 
administering a program, such as program operating costs and the 
salaries and benefits of those who work on the EC. What amount of the 
EC grant was used for EC administrative costs? (If no EC grant money 
was used for administrative costs, enter “0.”) 
Mean = $355,069; 
St. Dev. = $513,125 (n=50). 

38. In 1994, which designation did your community seek when applying to 
the Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Community program? (n=55)
Empowerment Zone: 34.5%, (19); 
Enterprise Community: 65.5%, (36). 

39. In 1998, did your EC apply for a Round II Empowerment Zone 
designation? (n=54) 
Applied: 57.4%, (31); 
Did not apply: 42.6%, (23). 

40. In 2000, did your EC apply for a Round III Empowerment Zone 
designation? (n=53) 
Applied: 18.9%, (10); 
Did not apply: 81.1%, (43). 

41. In 2000, did your EC apply for a Renewal Community designation? 
(n=53)
Applied: 15.1%, (8); 
Did not apply: 84.9%, (45). 

42. From 1994 to 2004, were any external evaluations of your EC 
conducted by outside researchers? (n=52)
Yes: 40.4%, (21); 
No: 59.6%, (31). 

43. Are you an Enterprise Community (EC) or an Enhanced Enterprise 
Community (EEC)? (n=30)
Enterprise Community: Skip to Question 50; 
Enhanced Enterprise Community: 
Note: The response rate for question 43 was low; therefore data are not 
reported. However, the three sites with EEC designations correctly 
responded to this item and no sites indicated they had EEC designation 
when they did not. 

44. (For EEC) Did your EEC receive Economic Development Initiative 
grants provided under the federal Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Community 
(EZ/EC) program? (n=3)
Economic Development Initiative grants were received: 100%, (3); 
Economic Development Initiative grants were not received: 0; Skip to 
Question 47. 

45. (If received) How did your EEC use the Economic Development 
Initiative grants? 

46. In your opinion, how helpful were the Economic Development 
Initiative grants to accomplishing your strategic plan goals? (n=3)
Extremely helpful: 33.3%, (1); 
Very helpful: 0; 
Somewhat helpful: 66.7%, (2); 
A little helpful: 0; 
Not at all helpful: 0. 

47. Did your EEC receive Section 108 Loan Guarantees provided under the 
EZ/EC program? (n=3)
Yes, we received Section 108 Loan Guarantees: 100%, (3); 
No, we did not receive Section 108 Loan Guarantees: 0; Skip to Question 
50. 

48. (If received) How did your EEC use the Section 108 Loan Guarantees? 

49. In your opinion, how helpful were the Section 108 Loan Guarantees 
to accomplishing your strategic plan goals? (n=3) 
Extremely helpful: 33.3%, (1); 
Very helpful: 0; 
Somewhat helpful: 66.7%, (2); 
A little helpful: 0; 
Not at all helpful: 0. 

Participant Contact Information: 

50. Who is completing this questionnaire? 
Name: 
Title: 
Name of Enterprise Community (EC) or Enhanced Enterprise Community 
(EEC): 
Address: 
City, State, Zipcode: 
(Area Code) Phone Number: 
E-mail Address: 

51. For how many years have you held your current position at this 
EC/EEC? (n=54) 
Mean = 7.7; 
St. Dev. = 6.5 (n=54). 

52. What are the responsibilities of your position relative to the 
EC/EEC? 

53. Before you, how many people have held this position with the 
EC/EEC? (n=55) 
Mean = 1.35 people; 
St. Dev. = 1.6 people (n=55). 

54. Is there anything else you would like to tell us about the 
Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Community program or this survey? 

Note: The following frequencies are based on n = 1, which is the number 
of ECs in which Census data showed an increase in poverty and where the 
respondent answered Question 19 with “large net increase” or “some net 
increase”. 

20. If the poverty rate increased, in your opinion, were any of the 
following contributing factors? 

a. Decrease in the number of area jobs: 
Yes: 1; 
No: 0. 

b. Decrease in the number of area jobs with benefits: 
Yes: 1; 
No: 0. 

c. Loss of existing social services (for example, child care, programs 
for the homeless, substance abuse treatment): 
Yes: 0; 
No: 1. 

d. Loss of existing adult educational services (for example, job 
training, ESL classes, GED classes): 
Yes: 0; 
No: 1. 

e. Increased housing costs:
Yes: 1; 
No: 0. 

f. Increased utility costs: 
Yes: 1; 
No: 0. 

g. Out-migration of residents with middle or high incomes: 
Yes: 1; 
No: 0. 

h. In-migration of residents with low incomes: 
Yes: 0; 
No: 1. 

i. In-migration of residents with limited job skills: 
Yes: 0; 
No: 1. 

j. In-migration of residents with limited English language skills: 
Yes: 0; 
No: 1. 

k. Increase in area crime rate: 
Yes: 0; 
No: 1. 

l. Welfare reform: 
Yes: 0; 
No: 1. 

m. Other: Please describe: 
Yes: 1; 
No: 0. 

Note: The following frequencies are based on n = 28, which is the 
number of ECs in which Census data showed an decrease in poverty and 
where the respondent answered Question 19 with “large net decrease”
or “some net decrease.” Data for items with a response rate less than 
70% are not reported. 

22. If the poverty rate decreased, in your opinion, were any of the 
following contributing factors? 

a. Increase in the number of area jobs: 
Yes: 25; 
No: 1. 

b. Increase in the number of area jobs with benefits: 
Yes: 23; 
No: 1. 

c. Increase in social services (for example, child care, programs for 
the homeless, substance abuse treatment): 
Yes: 18; 
No: 4. 

d. Increase in adult educational services (for example, job training, 
ESL classes, GED classes):
Yes: 19; 
No: 3. 

e. Decreased housing costs: 
Yes: 2; 
No: 18. 

f. Decreased utility costs: 
Yes: 
No: 

g. Increased homeownership: 
Yes: 16; 
No: 9. 

h. In-migration of residents with middle or high incomes: 
Yes: 14; 
No: 11. 

i. Out-migration of residents with low incomes: 
Yes: 4; 
No: 16. 

j. Decrease in area crime rate: 
Yes: 10; 
No: 11. 

k. Physical improvements made in area neighborhoods: 
Yes: 22; 
No: 2. 

l. Welfare reform: 
Yes: 
No: 

m. Other: Please describe: 
Yes: 3; 
No: 23. 

Note: The following frequencies are based on n = 4, which is the number 
of ECs in which Census data showed an increase in unemployment and 
where the respondent answered Question 24 with “large net increase” or 
“some net increase.” 

25. If the unemployment rate increased, in your opinion, were any of 
the following contributing factors? 

a. Decrease in the number of area jobs: 
Yes: 3; 
No: 1. 

b. Decrease in the number of area jobs with benefits: 
Yes: 3; 
No: 1. 

c. Increase in the number of jobs requiring skills that EC residents 
did not have: 
Yes: 3; 
No: 1. 

d. Loss of existing social services (for example, child care, programs 
for the homeless, substance abuse treatment): 
Yes: 1; 
No: 3. 

e. Loss of existing adult educational services (for example, job 
training, ESL classes, GED classes): 
Yes: 0; 
No: 4. 

f. In-migration of unemployed residents: 
Yes: 1; 
No: 3. 

g. Out-migration of employed residents: 
Yes: 2; 
No: 2. 

h. In-migration of residents with limited job skills: 
Yes: 2; 
No: 2. 

i. In-migration of residents with limited English language skills: 
Yes: 1; 
No: 3. 

j. Other: Please describe: 
Yes: 1; 
No: 3. 

Note: The following frequencies are based on n = 26, which is the 
number of ECs in which Census data showed an decrease in unemployment 
and where the respondent answered Question 24 with “large net decrease” 
or “some net decrease.” Data for items with a response rate less than 
70% are not reported. 

27. If the unemployment rate decreased, in your opinion, were any of 
the following contributing factors? 

a. Increase in the number of area jobs: 
Yes: 24; 
No: 1. 

b. Increase in the number of jobs with benefits: 
Yes: 21; 
No: 2. 

c. Increased skill level of area residents: 
Yes: 16; 
No: 6. 

d. Increase in social services (for example, child care, programs for 
the homeless, substance abuse treatment): 
Yes: 15; 
No: 6. 

e. Increase in adult educational services (for example, job training, 
ESL classes, GED classes): 
Yes: 17; 
No: 5. 

f. Out-migration of unemployed residents: 
Yes: 
No: 

g. In-migration of employed residents: 
Yes: 11; 
No: 8. 

h. In-migration of residents with job skills: 
Yes: 
No: 

i. Other: Please describe: 
Yes: 2; 
No: 21. 

Note: The following frequencies are based on n = 23, which is the 
number of ECs in which Claritas data showed an increase in the number 
of jobs or the number of businesses in the EC and where the respondent
answered Question 29 with “large net increase” or “some net increase.” 

30. If economic growth increased, in your opinion, were any of the 
following contributing factors? 

a. Increase in the number of new area businesses: 
Yes: 22; 
No: 1. 

b. Expansion of existing area businesses: 
Yes: 22; 
No: 1. 

c. Increase in financial assistance for area businesses (for example, 
loan funds, facility bonds, micro-lending programs): 
Yes: 19; 
No: 4. 

d. Increase in technical assistance for area businesses (for example, 
entrepreneurial training programs, a one-stop capital shop, business 
consulting services): 
Yes: 21; 
No: 2. 

e. Availability of tax benefits (federal, state, local): 
Yes: 13; 
No: 9. 

f. Favorable state tax rates: 
Yes: 10; 
No: 11. 

g. Favorable local tax rates: 
Yes: 9; 
No: 12. 

h. Improved local infrastructure: 
Yes: 19; 
No: 4. 

i. Physical improvements made in area neighborhoods: 
Yes: 18; 
No: 5. 

j. Decrease in area crime rate: 
Yes: 9; 
No: 12. 

k. Increased availability of low-cost commercial space in area: 
Yes: 12; 
No: 9. 

l. Increased skill level of area residents: 
Yes: 14; 
No: 7. 

m. National economic trends: 
Yes: 13; 
No: 7. 

n. Other: Please describe: 
Yes: 4; 
No: 19. 

Note: The following frequencies are based on n = 2, which is the number 
of ECs in which Claritas data showed a decrease in the number of jobs 
or the number of businesses in the EC and where the respondent answered 
Question 29 with “large net decrease” or “some net decrease.” Data for 
items with a response rate less than 70% are not reported. 

32. If economic growth decreased, were any of the following 
contributing factors? 

a. Decrease in the number of new area businesses: 
Yes: 2; 
No: 0. 

b. Downsizing of existing area businesses: 
Yes: 2; 
No: 0. 

c. Decrease in financial assistance for area businesses (for
example, loan funds, facility bonds, microlending programs): 
Yes: 
No: 

d. Decrease in technical assistance for area businesses (for example, 
entrepreneurial training programs, a one-stop capital shop, business 
consulting services): 
Yes: 
No: 

e. Unfavorable state tax rates: 
Yes: 0; 
No: 2. 

f. Unfavorable local tax rates: 
Yes: 0; 
No: 2. 

g. Deteriorating local infrastructure: 
Yes: 1; 
No: 1. 

h. Increased physical deterioration in area neighborhoods: 
Yes: 1; 
No: 1. 

i. Increase in area crime rate: 
Yes: 1; 
No: 1. 

j. Decreased availability of low-cost commercial space in area: 
Yes: 1; 
No: 1. 

k. Decreased skill level of area residents: 
Yes: 0; 
No: 2. 

l. National economic trends: 
Yes: 1; 
No: 1. 

m. Other: Please describe: 
Yes: 0; 
No: 2. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] One urban EC was no longer in operation as of June 2005. There were 
two additional rounds of designation under the Empowerment Zone and 
Enterprise Community program in 1998 and 2002. Communities designated 
in subsequent rounds of the program received a smaller amount of 
federal funding and more tax benefits. 

[2] The Renewal Community program, initiated in 2000, had objectives 
similar to the Empowerment Zone and Enterprise Community program. 
Communities received Renewal Community designations in 2002, which 
offered them an expanded package of tax benefits. 

[3] Four urban ECs also received Enhanced EC designations, which 
provided them with some Economic Development Initiative grants and 
Section 108 Loan Guarantees, which could be used for certain economic 
development or revitalization projects. One of the Enhanced ECs 
received a subsequent designation and was not included in our sample. 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the 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 the Internet. GAO's Web site [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov] contains abstracts and full-text files of current 
reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older products. The 
Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents using 
key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 
including charts and other graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" 
under the "Order GAO Products" heading. 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room LM: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: 

Voice: (202) 512-6000: 
TDD: (202) 512-2537: 
Fax: (202) 512-6061: 

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

Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov 

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: