This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-477R 
entitled 'Efficiency and Effectiveness of Fragmented Economic 
Development Programs Are Unclear' which was released on May 19, 2011. 

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-11-477R: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

May 19, 2011: 

Congressional Addressees: 

Subject: Efficiency and Effectiveness of Fragmented Economic 
Development Programs Are Unclear: 

One of the areas included in our recent report on potential 
duplication among federal programs was economic development.[Footnote 
1] If economic development programs are administered efficiently and 
effectively, they can contribute to the well-being of our nation's 
economy at the least cost to taxpayers. Absent a common definition for 
economic development, we had previously developed a list of nine 
activities most often associated with economic development.[Footnote 
2] These activities include planning and developing strategies for job 
creation and retention, developing new markets for existing products, 
building infrastructure by constructing roads and sewer systems to 
attract industry to undeveloped areas, and establishing business 
incubators to provide facilities for new businesses' operations, among 
others. 

Our recent work included information on 80 economic development 
programs at four agencies--the Departments of Commerce (Commerce), 
Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Agriculture (USDA), and the Small 
Business Administration (SBA). This work examined (1) the potential 
for overlap in the design of the programs, (2) the extent to which the 
four agencies collaborate to achieve common goals, and (3) the extent 
to which the agencies have developed measures to determine the 
programs' effectiveness. According to the agencies, funding provided 
for these 80 programs in fiscal year 2010 amounted to $6.2 billion, of 
which about $2.9 billion was for economic development efforts, largely 
in the form of grants, loan guarantees, and direct loans.[Footnote 3] 
Some of these 80 programs can fund a variety of activities, including 
those focused on noneconomic development activities, such as 
rehabilitating housing and building community parks. 

In February 2011 we briefed staff of the House and Senate Small 
Business Committees on the results of this work to date. See enclosure 
III for the briefing presented to the congressional staff. We will 
perform additional analysis of some of these programs and will report 
on them at a later date. 

Summary: 

Our work to date suggests that the design of each of these 80 economic 
development programs appears to overlap with that of at least one 
other program in terms of the economic development activity that they 
are authorized to fund. For example, as shown in figure 1, the four 
agencies administer a total of 54 programs that can fund 
"entrepreneurial efforts," which includes helping businesses to 
develop business plans and identify funding resources. 

Figure 1: Economic Development Activities by Agency: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated table] 

Number of programs by agency: 

Entrepreneurial efforts: 
Commerce: 9; 
HUD: 12; 
SBA: 19; 
USDA[A]: 14; 
Total: 54. 

Infrastructure: 
Commerce: 4; 
HUD: 12; 
SBA: 1; 
USDA[A]: 18; 
Total: 35. 

Plans and strategies: 
Commerce: 7; 
HUD: 13; 
SBA: 13; 
USDA[A]: 7; 
Total: 40. 

Commercial buildings: 
Commerce: 4; 
HUD: 12; 
SBA: 4; 
USDA[A]: 7; 
Total: 27. 

New markets: 
Commerce: 6; 
HUD: 10; 
SBA: 6; 
USDA[A]: 6; 
Total: 28. 

Telecommunications: 
Commerce: 3; 
HUD: 11; 
SBA: 2; 
USDA[A]: 8; 
Total: 24. 

Business incubators: 
Commerce: 5; 
HUD: 12; 
SBA: 0; 
USDA[A]: 7; 
Total: 24. 

Industrial parks: 
Commerce: 5; 
HUD: 11; 
SBA: 0; 
USDA[A]: 5; 
Total: 21. 

Tourism: 
Commerce: 5; 
HUD: 10; 
SBA: 0; 
USDA[A]: 4; 
Total: 19. 

Source: GAO analysis of information from Commerce, HUD, SBA,and USDA. 

Interactive content: Hover over numbers to see program names. 

[A] In December 2010, USDA officials provided us information on the 
economic activities that each of their economic development programs 
can fund, which we reported in our March 2011 report (GAO-11-318SP). 
In April 2011, they provided revised information for six of their 
programs and we incorporated the information into this product. We 
identify these six programs in Enclosure V. 

[End of figure] 

Enclosure IV lists the specific programs in figure 1 that can fund 
each economic activity, grouped by agency and activity type. 

We have also identified the ways each agency is able to distribute 
economic development funding, as well as the geographic regions based 
on population density that the agencies target (see figures 2 and 3). 

Figure 2: Program Award Distribution Type by Agency: 

[Refer to PDF for image: 4 pie-charts] 

Commerce: 
Grant or direct payment: 91%; 
Grant and services/technical assistance: 9%. 

HUD: 
Grant or direct payment: 93%; 
Loan (direct or guaranteed): 7%. 

SBA: 
Grant or direct payment: 47%; 
Loan (direct or guaranteed): 26%; 
Advantages for federal contract competition: 11%; 
Grant and loan: 11%; 
Services/technical assistance and advantages for federal contract 
competition: 5%. 

USDA: 
Grant or direct payment: 44%; 
Loan (direct or guaranteed): 19%; 
Grant and loan: 25%; 
Grant and services/technical assistance: 11%. 

Source: GAO analysis of information from Commerce, HUD, SBA,and USDA. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 3: Percentage of Programs Designated toward Urban and Rural 
Communities: 

[Refer to PDF for image: 4 pie-charts] 

Commerce: 
Not specified: 100%. 

HUD: 
Not specified: 79%; 
Urban only: 7%; 
Rural only: 14%. 

SBA: 
Not specified: 100%. 

USDA: 
Not specified: 14%; 
Rural only: 86%. 

Source: GAO analysis of information from Commerce, HUD, SBA,and USDA. 

[End of figure] 

Enclosure V provides additional details on each of the 80 economic 
development programs, including administering agency, funding received 
in fiscal year 2010, economic activities eligible for funding, area 
served based on population density, primary recipients targeted by 
program, and award type. 

To address issues arising from potential overlap and fragmentation in 
economic development programs, we previously identified collaborative 
practices agencies should consider implementing in order to maximize 
performance and results of federal programs that share common outcomes. 
[Footnote 4] Results from our work to date show that Commerce, HUD, 
SBA, and USDA appear to have taken actions to implement some of the 
collaborative practices, such as defining and articulating common 
outcomes, for some of their related programs. However, the four 
agencies have offered little evidence so far that they have taken 
steps to develop compatible policies or procedures with other federal 
agencies or to search for opportunities to leverage physical and 
administrative resources with their federal partners. 

In addition, a lack of information on program outcomes is both a 
current and long-standing concern. We identified such weaknesses at 
the four agencies we reviewed. Better information on program outcomes 
is needed to determine whether this potential overlap and 
fragmentation are resulting in ineffective or inefficient programs. 
See our March 2011 report for more information on our preliminary 
results related to the extent to which these four agencies collaborate 
and how they determine the effectiveness of some of their programs. 
[Footnote 5] 

Actions Needed and Potential Financial or Other Benefits: 

In previous reports we identified areas of concern related to the 
extent to which agencies collaborate and assess the effectiveness of 
their programs. These areas can benefit from continued attention. 

* Agencies need to further utilize promising practices for enhanced 
collaboration. We first made this recommendation to SBA and USDA in 
September 2008, but these agencies have taken only limited steps to 
fully address our concerns.[Footnote 6] The actions that the four 
agencies should consider include seeking more opportunities for 
resource sharing across economic development programs with shared 
outcomes and identifying ways to leverage each program's strengths to 
improve existing collaborative efforts. Continuing to explore the 
extent to which these agencies collaborate could help identify 
promising practices that may result in more effective and efficient 
delivery of economic development programs to economically distressed 
areas. 

* Agencies need to collect accurate and complete data on program 
outcomes and use the information to assess each program's 
effectiveness. In June 2008 we made a similar recommendation to SBA 
about its HUBZone program, but the agency has taken limited action 
thus far.[Footnote 7] 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to Commerce, SBA, USDA and HUD for 
review and comment. Commerce's Assistant Secretary for Economic 
Development and SBA's Assistant Administrator for Congressional and 
Legislative Affairs provided written comments that are presented in 
Enclosures I and II. In addition, Commerce, SBA, and USDA provided 
technical comments, which we incorporated where appropriate. HUD did 
not provide written or technical comments. 

Commerce's Assistant Secretary states that prior GAO reports have 
focused on the types of investments made without an appropriate 
definition of economic development. Because federal agencies do not 
have a standard definition of what constitutes economic development, 
we used a list of activities as criteria for identifying programs that 
are generally accepted as being directly related to economic 
development. Our list includes economic activities that we first 
identified for our 2000 report on economic development issues and then 
updated for our 2006 report on rural economic development.[Footnote 
8]The list was developed based on a general consensus of officials, 
including officials from the Department of Commerce's EDA, along with 
other federal agencies involved with economic development and several 
national associations familiar with economic development. In general, 
we focused on activities that directly affected the overall 
development of an area, such as job creation, rather than on 
activities that improved individuals' quality of life, such as housing 
and education. The Assistant Secretary also stated that only an 
evaluation of programs that considers goals and the outcomes of each 
program can accurately identify duplication. We agree that accurate 
program outcomes are critical to evaluating the impact of federal 
economic development efforts. Our report states that these programs 
appear to overlap in terms of their design and authorization; it does 
not state that programs overlap in terms of outcomes. We have not 
concluded that duplication exists among programs and plan to address 
these issues in our future work on overlap and duplication, which will 
further examine the services that each program provides, program 
outcome measures, and collaborative procedures. 

SBA's Assistant Administrator for Congressional and Legislative 
Affairs made a similar point. He wrote that while our report provides 
an initial starting point by presenting a road map for further 
investigation into individual programs, it does not attempt to set 
forth specific data about the differences in focus, target recipients, 
delivery mechanisms, and other features of each program. We agree that 
more work is required before concluding that duplication and related 
waste or inefficiencies exist. In this report, we took an initial step 
to differentiate the 80 programs by identifying the primary targeted 
recipient for each program. In our work going forward, we plan to take 
further steps to identify the unique value that each program provides. 
The Assistant Administrator also stated that he disagreed with our 
finding related to the extent to which SBA collaborates with other 
agencies. He noted, for example, that SBA's HUBZone program office 
recently signed a memorandum of understanding with HUD on sharing 
geocoding services related to its HUBZone map. The new information 
that the Assistant Administrator provided does not change our finding. 
We found that the agencies, including SBA, appear to have taken 
actions to implement some of the collaborative practices, such as 
defining and articulating common outcomes. However, SBA has offered 
little evidence to date that it has implemented some of the other key 
collaborative practices, such as developing compatible policies or 
procedures that help to facilitate collaboration between its federal 
partners. As we continue work in these areas, we plan to, for example, 
further monitor and assess SBA's collaborative practices. SBA also 
provided revised fiscal year 2010 funding figures for each of their 
programs. These revised figures were significantly different from the 
ones they provided to us in December 2010, which we incorporated into 
our March 2011 reports.[Footnote 9] SBA officials could not identify 
the source for the inaccurate figures. They did state that the 
majority of their programs do not receive program-specific 
appropriations and that they rely on estimates provided by SBA staff 
to determine the costs associated with each program. We noted the 
programs for which this is the case. As stated in our scope and 
methodology, we relied on the agencies for program-specific funding 
data because the agencies are the only source for that information. 
Although we assessed the reliability of program-specific information 
that we used to support our findings (such as, the primary targeted 
recipient), we did not verify the reliability of either the original 
or revised program-specific funding figures because we did not rely on 
them to support any of our findings. However, as we continue our work, 
we plan to obtain a better understanding of how the agencies that we 
review, including SBA, determine the costs of their programs. 

USDA's Director of the Office of Budget and Program Analysis provided 
comments to our report and emphasized that the President's fiscal year 
2012 budget proposes the termination of several Rural Development and 
Forest Service programs that have been determined to be duplicative of 
other programs as clarified in the terminations, reductions, and 
savings volume of the fiscal year 2012 budget. He said that these 
proposals demonstrate USDA's commitment to reducing duplication and 
improving the program efficiencies of USDA's economic development 
programs. In our work going forward we plan to continue to, for 
example, monitor and assess efforts made by the Administration to 
implement these and other proposals aimed at eliminating duplicative 
federal economic development programs. Among the technical comments 
USDA provided, officials made a number of revisions to the information 
they originally provided to us in December 2010, which was the 
information that we incorporated into one of our March 2011 reports. 
[Footnote 10] Specifically, they asked us to clarify the types of 
economic activities that six of their economic development programs 
can fund. We incorporated the changes to our report and noted the 
programs where this is the case. 

Scope and Methodology: 

To identify areas of potential overlap and best practices to address 
the areas of concern, we utilized information from previous GAO 
products as well as our ongoing work following up on the 
recommendations from those previous products. We also relied on our 
recent evaluation of economic development programs at Commerce, HUD, 
SBA and USDA. During this recent evaluation, we compiled publicly 
available information on each program to determine the economic 
activities that the programs can fund, the ways the agencies 
distribute economic development funding, as well as the geographic areas
and primary recipients that the agencies target. We then relied on the 
agencies to review this information, confirm its accuracy, and provide 
clarifications as necessary. Based on the information we collected and 
the clarifications that the agencies provided, we determined that 
these data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this review. 
Our report also includes self-reported data on program funds from the 
agencies for background and contextual purposes. We relied on the 
agencies for the program-specific funding data because the agencies 
are the only source for this type of information. We met with 
officials from each of the agencies to discuss each of the programs 
and the program missions. Because SBA officials view all of their 
programs as being related to economic development, we included all SBA 
programs in this review. Using the Catalog of Federal Domestic 
Assistance and other agency documents, we identified 80 federal
programs administered by the four agencies that could fund economic 
development activities and determined the primary targeted recipients 
(that is, the end user that the agency is focused on serving) for each 
of the programs. Agency officials reviewed our determinations of the 
primary targeted recipients and they generally agreed with our 
assessments. We did not include tax credit programs aimed at economic 
development in this review. For information on how tax programs can 
contribute to duplication, see the report we issued in March 2011. 
[Footnote 11] We conducted this performance audit from October
2010 through April 2011, 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. 

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 
committees and other interested parties. In addition, this report will 
be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov]. Should you or your staff have any questions 
concerning this report, please contact William B. Shear, Director, at 
(202) 512-8678, or shearw@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 
page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in 
Enclosure VI. 

Signed by: 

William B. Shear: 
Director, Financial Markets and Community Investment: 

Enclosures (6): 

List of Congressional Addressees: 

The Honorable Mary Landrieu: 
Chair: 
The Honorable Olympia Snowe: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Samuel Graves: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Nydia Velazquez: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Small Business: 
House of Representatives: 

[End of section] 

Enclosure I: Comments from the Department of Commerce: 

United States Department of Commerce: 
The Assistant Secretary far Economic Development: 
Washington. D.C. 20230: 

April 26, 2011: 

Mr. William B. Shear: 
Director, Financial Markets and Community Investment: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Shear:	 

In response to your request for comments on the U.S. Government 
Accountability (GAO)	Report 11-477R, "Efficiency and Effectiveness of 
Fragmented Economic Development	Programs Are Unclear," effectively 
evaluating Federal programs that support economic development requires 
a thorough understanding of, not only the types of investments that 
are made, but how, why, and to whom the investments are made. GAO has 
periodically issued several reports that analyzed potential overlap of 
Federal economic development activities. A glaring deficiency in this 
report, however, is GAO's admission on page 1 that there is not a 
common definition of economic development used to guide its analysis. 
Rather, its analysis depends upon a listing of activities to make 
inferences regarding what economic development is, and by extension, 
whether there is duplication of programs.	 

Prior GAO reports have all focused exclusively on the types of 
investments made without considering the goals of each of the 
programs, as well. Without viewing Federal investments in economic 
development through the lens of an appropriate definition and 
development of outcomes arising from that definition, GAO may be 
incorrectly identifying duplication where none exists. As the country 
prepares to address the mounting deficit and reevaluate its 
investments, GAO's new report could have offered important information 
to inform future budget discussions. Instead, this fundamental flaw in 
the methodology employed by GAO to identify duplication and examine 
performance limits the report's value and usability.	 

Economic development is a common term used for many types of 
activities. From the perspective of the Economic Development 
Administration (EDA), in its most distilled form, economic development 
traditionally focuses on the creation or retention of jobs that 
support the growth of income, and by extension, the tax base in a 
geographic region. Creating these jobs, however, requires the 
engagement of a variety of actors at every level within the public and 
private sectors, as well as many inputs, including infrastructure, 
housing, social and community development, a skilled workforce, 
entrepreneurial talent, technology, and access to capital.	
In the Federal Government, the term economic development has become 
synonymous with all of these things.	 

Ensuring that the American public benefits from robust economic 
development requires investments in many economic activities, some of 
which GAO has identified, including business incubators, 
telecommunications, plans and strategies, infrastructure, industrial 
parks, etc. While Federal agencies may appear to make similar types of 
investments based on these categories, because the goals of each 
agency and program differ, their outcomes are ultimately distinct. At 
the same time, these investments complement each other in such a way 
as to maximize the economic potential of the United States. 

GAO identified nine activities which they felt represented economic 
development. Using this lens, many of the Departments/Agencies 
examined appeared to be duplicative. However, EDA's framework for 
investing in these economic development activities is substantially 
different from that of other Federal agencies as it is based on 
regional collaboration and innovation. 

* Over the last several years, EDA has funded seminal research 
regarding regional collaboration and innovation, such as supporting 
Dr. Michael Porter and his team to identify and map regional 
innovation clusters across the Nation. Because of research such as 
this, EDA is focused on making strategic 21' century investments that 
help communities leverage their comparative strengths to spur 
innovation and investment that will ultimately lead to long-term 
economic prosperity. FDA's regional bottom-up approach to economic 
development allows it to utilize its broad array of tools to most 
effectively address local needs in order to support economic 
development.[Footnote 1] 

* Additionally, EDA plays a key role in shaping Federal policy for 
fostering collaborative economic development. In this leadership role, 
EDA has built upon its long practice of coordinating with other 
Federal agencies and its knowledge of best practices in economic 
development to create several new initiatives designed to more 
strategically advance regional economic development These initiatives 
formally leverage each partner's complementary activities to advance 
regional economic development in the broadest sense, including 
infrastructure, housing, social and community development, a skilled 
workforce, entrepreneurial talent, technology, and access to capital. 

-	For example, EDA recently collaborated with the Small Business 
Administration, the Department of Labor, the Department of Energy, the 
National Science Foundation, the Department of Education, and the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology on the Energy Regional 
Innovation Cluster Initiative to develop and implement a cross-
cutting, collaborative approach built on best practices to stimulate 
sustainable economic development. Because all of these agencies have 
varying focuses, programmatic objectives, and eligible recipient 
entities, they all have unique and complementary niches related to 
economic development. The strategic collaboration of these six 
agencies allows the Federal Government to support a more overarching 
vision for economic development. 

- Another example is the recent release of EDA's Federal Funding 
Opportunity for the i6 Green Challenge, where EDA funding is 
coordinated with funding opportunities provided by other Federal 
partner agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, the 
Department of Energy, the Department of Agriculture's National 
Institute of Food and Agriculture, or the National Science Foundation. 
Each of these agencies will provide additional funding opportunities 
to i6 Green Challenge winners for complimentary activities resulting 
in the development of proof of concept centers for green technology. 
The funding from our partner agencies will not duplicate or overlap 
with EDA funding, but provide supplemental funding opportunities to 
winning grantees because the range of activities expected to be 
undertaken — from research and technology transfer to 
commercialization — is expected to be diverse, wide-ranging, and 
performed by multiple collaborating public and private entities at the 
local level. 

With regard to outcome measurement, accurate program outcomes are 
critical to evaluating the impact of Federal economic development 
efforts. While GAO highlighted potential improvements that EDA could 
make to its performance measures, EDA was the only agency that GAO 
cited which collected, tracked, or reported data on long-term 
performance of their programs. EDA prides itself on its efforts to 
continuously improve its performance measures and validation 
processes. EDA's current performance metrics were founded on an 
independent study of EDA investments carried out by Rutgers in 1996. 
Unacknowledged in the GAO report is that this study was updated and 
validated in 2008 through a separate study conducted by Grant 
Thornton. The Grant Thornton study adopted EDA's method for conducting 
site visits to validate performance measures and validated the data in 
the 1996 Rutgers report. 

EDA continues to work to strengthen its internal validation protocols 
and strives to conduct as many site visits as resources permit to 
verify performance outcomes. While EDA could always spend additional 
resources to conduct more site visits and take even more steps to 
further bolster its performance reporting, in fact, EDA's outcomes 
have been validated sufficiently. We believe that EDA budget proposals 
identify the appropriate level of support for performance reporting. 
Rather than increase salaries and expenses for unnecessary fine tuning 
of performance measures, we believe those funds are better allocated 
to the program account where they can help communities innovate their 
economies and create jobs. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

John R. Fernandez: 

Footnote: 

[1] Additional EDA-funded research examples: Unlocking Rural 
Competitiveness: The Role of Regional Clusters — Report & interactive 
Website (2006 through present); Know Your Region Project — Curriculum &
Interactive Website (2006-present); Crossing the Next Regional 
Frontier: Information and Analytics Linking Regional Competitiveness 
to Investment in a Knowledge-Based Economy -- Occupational Clusters 
(10/2009-present). 

[End of enclosure] 

Enclosure II: Comments from the Small Business Administration: 

U.S. Small Business Administration: 
Washington, D.C. 20416: 

April 29, 2011: 

Via Electronic Mail: 

Andrew E. Finkel: 
Assistant Director: 
United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Dear Mr. Finkel: 

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the draft GAO report on 
potential duplication among federal economic development programs 
("Efficiency and Effectiveness of Fragmented Economic Development 
Programs Are Unclear") as it relates to the U.S. Small Business
Administration (SBA). 

SBA appreciates the opportunity to participate in GAO's survey of 
economic development programs, and agrees that programs should be 
reviewed regularly to avoid waste and duplication. We agree that there 
is value in identifying the categories into which programs fall in 
order to target effective means at approaching the entrepreneurial 
development challenge in each category. At the same time, we believe 
the report (and any further similar study in the future) would benefit 
from having a sufficient number and breadth of categories or fields to 
properly capture the data necessary to differentiate between each 
program and its intended scope and target. 

We encourage GAO to reconsider how it describes the results of this 
survey and to explain that this survey is limited to nine, very broad 
categories and that the survey did not attempt to set forth specific 
data about the differences in focus, target recipients, delivery 
mechanisms, and other features of each program. As a result, the only 
inferences one can reasonably draw from the survey are that the four 
agencies each provide programs that cover one of the nine areas and 
further investigation is necessary to truly determine where programs 
may be duplicative. Viewed in this light, the GAO survey provides an 
initial starting point by giving us a broad category road map for 
further investigation into individual programs. 

With regard to specific findings made by GAO in the draft report, SBA 
respectfully submits the following comments. 

Page 5: "Preliminary results from [GAO's] work to date show that 
Commerce, HUD, SBA, and USDA appear to have taken actions to implement 
some of the collaborative practices, such as defining and articulating 
common outcomes, for some of their related programs. However, the four 
agencies have offered little evidence so far that they have taken 
steps to develop compatible policies or procedures with other federal 
agencies or to search for opportunities to leverage physical and 
administrative resources with their federal partners." 

SBA Comment. Collaboration with HUD and USDA: 

SBA does not agree with these findings. In December 2010, SBA started 
a process of exploring collaborating with the Offices of Policy 
Development and Research (PD&R) and the Community Planning and 
Development Program (CPD) at HUD on the following issues: 

* HUBZone and HUD recently signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU). 
In the MOU, HUD has committed to provide geocoding services to the 
HUBZone Program. This support will provide a standard, consistent 
source of geocoded data to SBA. 

*Explore the possibility of outsourcing the HUBZone web base mapping 
to HUD (In the summer 2011 we will have an assessment of the cost and 
benefits of the effort). 

* Cooperate with HUD in their development of a map with their own 
layers of places benefiting from HUD place-based economic development 
programs (e.g., Empowerment Zones, Community Renewal, etc.), providing 
them with layers of HUBZone designated areas. In this way, the public 
will be able to see areas that are benefiting from programs of both 
agencies. 

* Develop a methodology to evaluate the impact of both agencies on the 
economic development of areas receiving funds or benefits from them. 

Additionally, last year SBA and USDA entered into an MOU, under which 
SBA has facilitated meetings with USDA Rural Development and our major 
resource partners (Small Business Development Centers, Women's 
Business Centers, and SCORE) to disseminate information about RD 
programs. This has led to the development of referral networks among 
these federal and non-federal entities. In addition: 

* As a part of SBA's ongoing efforts to coordinate outreach to local 
and national financial institutions, SBA and USDA have co-hosted 
several national and local lender forums around the country. 

* SBA and USDA have collaborated in strategic outreach to tradeshows, 
conventions, Congressional members, and media outlets. 

* USDA and SBA have developed working relationships with other 
Federal, state, county and local agencies, as well as private 
organizations, to facilitate and support the development of strong 
rural businesses. 

* This collaboration is the model for SBA's participation in the 
Appalachian Regional Development Initiative and several local working 
groups comprised of rural development organizations such as the Iowa 
Rural Development Council. 

Page 6: "Agencies need to collect accurate and complete data on 
program outcomes and use the information to assess each program's 
effectiveness. In June 2008 [GAO] made a similar recommendation to SBA 
about its HUBZone program, but the agency has taken limited action 
thus far." 

SBA Comment: 

SBA believes it has taken significant actions to collect accurate and 
complete data on HUBZone program outcomes that will help assess 
program effectiveness. For instance, SBA tracks a number of 
performance measures for the HUBZone program, including small 
businesses approved, denied and withdrawn from the initial 
certification process, in addition to previously certified firms that 
have recertified, voluntarily decertified and decertified by SBA. A 
key evaluation is based on the fact that the Congress has set a 3% 
federal government-wide goat for HUBZone federal contract dollars. A 
primary focus of the SBA has been on this outcome measure. In FY2000, 
0.35% of federal contract dollars went to HUBZone contracts. That 
percentage has steadily increased to 2.81% by FY2009. 

SBA believes evaluating this measure is critical to meeting the 
HUBZone program's stated purpose which "is to provide federal 
contracting assistance for qualified SBCs located in historically 
underutilized business zones in an effort to increase employment 
opportunities, investment, and economic development in such areas." 
Monitoring this measure enables SBA to proactively engage in 
activities that increase HUBZone contract dollars. 

Although SBA expected to work towards finalizing more outcome measures 
that link to the mission of the HUBZone program, the circumstances and 
the Program's focus has precluded us from doing so. The efforts of the 
HUBZone program for the FY2009 and FY2010 were focused on thoroughly 
reengineering the initial certification process, reviewing its 
portfolio of firms, expanding the number of site visits, and improving 
its monitoring of participating firms with dollars awarded. 

In FY2011, SBA is undertaking a legacy portfolio review where we will 
be spending substantive resource doing an extensive full document 
review of HUBZone certified firms that have not yet received such a 
review. Once this initiative is completed, every HUBZone firm will 
have been analyzed for meeting the Program's continuing eligibility 
requirements. In FY2011, SBA will also continue to spend significant 
time and resource enhancing the certification process and undertaking 
site visits. These efforts rigorously and systemically reduce fraud, 
waste and abuse. 

Analyzing other outcome measures such as (1) the economic 
characteristics of the HUBZone areas and (2) contracts being counted 
under multiple socioeconomic subcategories are complicated matters 
which require careful setting up of the research methods and 
approaches as well as significant staff and budget. Given limited 
resources, SBA is not able to commit to finalizing the additional 
outcome measures and conduct a program evaluation using those elements 
at this time. Focusing resources on (1) initiatives that reduce fraud, 
waste and abuse as well as (2) activities that increase HUBZone 
federal contract dollars makes wise sense given the resources SBA has 
and the circumstances of the HUBZone program. 

Page 16: "Although SBA continues to agree that evaluating program 
outcomes is important, to date the agency has not yet appeared to make 
a meaningful resource commitment for such an evaluation." 

SBA Comment: 

See comment above. 

Enclosure II; SBA Technical Correction Requests: 

Page 1: 
Reference to OWBO (Office of Women's Business Ownership) should be 
changed to "Women's Business Centers" (to correspond to other programs 
noted, such as SBDC and SCORE). 

Page 4: 
Reference to OWBO (Office of Women's Business Ownership) should be 
changed to "Women's Business Centers" (to correspond to other programs 
noted such as SBDC and SCORE). 

Enclosure III: 
[See attached spreadsheet with SBA's suggested edits.] 

Should you or any of your colleagues at GAO have questions about SBA's 
comments, please contact me at (202) 205-6335. Thank you again for 
this opportunity to comment on the draft report. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Nicholas J. Coutsos: 
Assistant Administrator: 
SBA Congressional & Legislative Affairs: 

[End of enclosure] 

Enclosure III: 

Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs,
Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue: 

Preliminary Results of GAO's Review of Selected Economic Development 
Programs: 

Objectives: 

Our objectives for this briefing are to provide preliminary results of 
the extent to which: 

1. the design of 80 economic development programs administered by four 
federal agencies overlap in terms of the economic activities they can 
fund, 

2. the four federal agencies GAO reviewed collaborate to administer 
economic development programs that share common outcomes, and, 

3. the agencies evaluate the outcomes of the economic development 
programs. 

Why GAO Is Focusing on this Area: 

Efficient and effective economic development programs can contribute 
to the well-being of our nation's economy at the least cost to 
taxpayers. 

The federal government spent $6.5 billion in fiscal year 2010 on the 
80 economic development programs that GAO is examining at U.S. 
Department of Commerce, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 
Development (HUD), U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA), and the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), of which about $3.2 billion was 
for economic development efforts, largely in the form of grants, loan 
guarantees, and direct loans. 

Definition of Economic Development: 

Absent a common definition for economic development, GAO has 
previously developed a list of nine activities most often associated 
with economic development that we relied on in this effort. These 
activities include: 

* planning and developing strategies for job creation and retention, 

* developing new markets for existing products, 

* building infrastructure by constructing roads and sewer systems to 
attract industry to undeveloped areas, and, 

* establishing business incubators to provide facilities for new 
businesses' operations. 

Preliminary Results: Design of Economic Development Programs Appear to 
Overlap: 

The design of each of the 80 economic development programs appears to 
overlap with that of at least one other program in terms of the 
economic activities they are authorized to fund. 

The most common economic activity that these programs (52 of the 80 
programs) can fund is entrepreneurial efforts, which include: 

* helping businesses to develop business plans and identify funding 
sources, and, 

* providing marketing assistance. 

Table: Potential Overlap and Fragmentation among Selected Agencies 
Authorized to Fund Economic Development Activities: 

Programs by agency: 

Activity: Entrepreneurial efforts; 
Commerce: 9; 
HUD: 12; 
SBA: 19; 
USDA: 12; 
Total: 52; 

Activity: Infrastructure; 
Commerce: 4; 
HUD: 12; 
SBA: 1; 
USDA: 18; 
Total: 35; 

Activity: Plans and strategies; 
Commerce: 7; 
HUD: 13; 
SBA: 13; 
USDA: 6; 
Total: 39; 

Activity: Commercial buildings; 
Commerce: 4; 
HUD: 12; 
SBA: 4; 
USDA: 7; 
Total: 27; 

Activity: New markets; 
Commerce: 6; 
HUD: 10; 
SBA: 6; 
USDA: 6; 
Total: 28; 

Activity: Telecommunications; 
Commerce: 3; 
HUD: 11; 
SBA: 2; 
USDA: 10; 
Total: 26; 

Activity: Business incubators; 
Commerce: 5; 
HUD: 12; 
SBA: 0; 
USDA: 3; 
Total: 20; 

Activity: Industrial parks; 
Commerce: 5; 
HUD: 11; 
SBA: 0; 
USDA: 3; 
Total: 19; 

Activity: Tourism; 
Commerce: 5; 
HUD: 10; 
SBA: 0; 
USDA: 4; 
Total: 19; 

Source: GAO. 

Note: Numbers of programs by agency do not total to 80 since an 
individual program may fund several activities. 

[End of table] 

Smaller, Limited-Scope Economic Development Programs Appear to Overlap: 

Sixty percent of the programs (46 of the 80 programs reviewed) are 
more limited in scope and can fund only one or two of the nine 
economic development activities. 

For example, many of these programs that are limited in scope appear 
to overlap because they can: 

* fund only entrepreneurial efforts and, 

* target similar geographic areas. 

Legislative and Regulatory Reasons for Potential Overlap and 
Fragmentation: 

Many of the economic development programs are differentiated by 
legislative or regulatory restrictions. 

These restrictions target funding on the basis of characteristics such 
as: 

* geography, 

* income levels, and, 

* population density (rural or urban). 

Collaborative Practices Agencies Should Consider Implementing to 
Maximize the Performance of Federal Programs That Share Common 
Outcomes: 

* Define and articulate common outcomes. 

* Leverage physical and administrative resources to address resource 
needs and potentially produce cost savings. 

* Facilitate collaboration by establishing compatible standards, 
policies and procedures for the collaborative effort to operate across 
agency boundaries. 

* Create the means to monitor and evaluate collaborative efforts and 
report on these activities to identify areas for improving policy and 
operational effectiveness. 

Source: Results Oriented Government Practices That Can HO Enhance and 
Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington,
D.C.:_October 21, 2005). 

Preliminary Results: Agencies Are Collaborating on a Limited Basis: 

The four agencies appear to have taken actions to define and 
articulate common outcomes for some of their economic development 
efforts. 

* In response to a September 2008 recommendation that GAO made to SBA 
and USDA related to improving their collaboration, the two agencies 
entered into a memorandum of understanding (M) in 2010 so they can use 
their respective resources to provide small businesses in rural areas 
with loan guarantees and technical assistance to achieve outcomes such 
as building diverse and sustainable rural economies, reversing 
population decline in rural areas, creating and sustaining jobs, and 
improving quality of life. 

* HUD, SBA, USDA, Commerce, and other federal agencies recently 
entered into a MOU in order to achieve outcomes that include 
strengthening and diversifying the Appalachian economy, improving the 
health and welfare o1 people in the Appalachian region, and protecting 
the environment of the region. 

* Several agencies ,including Commerce and SBA, joined the regional 
innovation cluster effort initiated by President Obama in 2010 that 
focuses on outcomes that include creating and retaining jobs; 
accelerating the formation of new, high-growth businesses; and 
increasing regional prosperity. 

Agencies offered little evidence that they have taken steps to develop 
compatible policies or procedures or leverage physical and 
administrative resources with other federal agencies. 

Collaborative efforts identified to date appear to occur on a
case-by-case basis in field offices. 

Agencies have not developed mechanisms to consistently and effectively 
monitor, evaluate, and report on the results of collaborative efforts. 

Preliminary Results: A Lack of Information on Programs Outcomes Is a 
Long Standing Concern: 

Commerce's Economic Development Administration's (EDA) estimates about 
the results of its grants may not be accurate. 

USDA does not collect data to measure the accomplishments of one of 
its largest rural business programs—the Business and Industry loan 
program. 

HUD does not track measures on the long-term performance of its 
Section 108 program. 

SBA has not developed outcome measures that directly link to the 
mission of its HUBZone program. 

EDA Grants: 

GAO first reported in March 1999 and then again in October 2005 that 
EDA relies on a potentially incomplete set of variables and self-
reported data to assess the effectiveness of its grants. 

Agency progress: 

* In December 2006 EDA issued revised operational guidance that 
included a new methodology that regional offices use to calculate 
estimated jobs and private sector investment attributable to EDA 
grants. 

* EDA officials also stated that they now employ additional checks on 
the quality of the self-reported data. 

Next step: 

* GAO plans to assess the quality and adequacy of the methods the 
agency uses to assess the quality of the data. 

USDA's Business and Industry Loan Program: 

In 2003 the USDA Inspector General (IG) recommended that USDA ensure 
data exist to measure the accomplishments of the Business and Industry 
loan program. 

Agency progress: 

* Agency officials stated that they have recently taken steps to 
address the open recommendation, including requiring staff to record 
actual jobs created rather than estimated jobs created. 

* An IG officials said it is too early to tell whether these actions 
are sufficient to fully address the recommendation. 

Next step: 

* GAO plans to monitor the IG's efforts to determine whether the 
agency fully addresses the recommendation. 

HUD's Section 108 Program: 

In 2007 OMB found that HUD did not track long-term performance outcome 
measures for its Section 108 program. 

Agency progress: 

* To date, the agency has no long-term performance outcome measures 
for this program. 

Next step: 

* GAO plans to determine what, if any, actions the agency plans to 
take to address this weakness. 

SBA's HUBZone Program: 

GAO reported in June 2008 that SBA does not track outcome measures 
that are directly linked to the program's mission.	 

Agency progress:	 

* Although SBA continues to agree that evaluating program outcomes is 
important, to date the agency has not yet appeared to make a 
meaningful resource commitment for such an evaluation.	 

Next step:	 

* GAO plans to evaluate any actions the agency takes to develop 
outcome measures.	 

Preliminary Results: 

Agencies need to further utilize promising practices for enhanced 
collaboration. 

Agencies need to collect accurate and complete data on program 
outcomes and use the information to assess each program's 
effectiveness. 

Additional work to assess progress in collaboration and evaluation 
could identify areas for improvement, consolidation, or elimination. 
Further, programs that are designed to target similar economic 
development activities, locations, and applicants may not be adding 
unique value, and more analysis is needed by the agencies and Office 
of Management and Budget to determine the actual amount of any 
duplicative spending. 

Increased attention and oversight by OMB and the Congress could help 
to ensure needed actions are taken. 

Framework for Analysis: 

The information contained in this analysis is based on: 

* results of prior GAO products, 

* ongoing work following up on the status of recommendations from 
those products, and, 

* the preliminary results of GAO's ongoing evaluation of
economic development programs at four federal agencies. 

Related GAO Products: 

Rural Economic Development: Collaboration between SBA and USDA Could 
Be Improved, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1123], 
September 18, 2008. 

Small Business Administration: Additional Actions Are Needed to 
Certify and Monitor HUBZone Businesses and Assess Program Results, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-643], June 17, 2008. 

Rural Economic Development: More Assurance Is Needed That Grant 
Funding Information Is Accurately Reported, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-294], February 24, 2006. 

Economic Development Administration: Remediation Activities Account 
for a Small Percentage of Total Brownfield Grant Funding, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-7], October 27, 2005. 

Economic Development: Multiple Federal Programs Fund Similar Economic 
Development Activities [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/RCED/GGD-00-220], September 29, 2000. 

Economic Development: Observations Regarding the Economic Development 
Administration's May 1998 Final Report on its Public Works Program, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/RCED-99-11R], March 23, 
1999. 

GAO on the Web: 

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

Contact: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, Public Affairs: 
youngc1@gao.gov; (202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Copyright: 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. The published product may be 
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission 
from GAO. However, 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. 

[End of enclosure] 

Enclosure IV: Economic Development Programs Listed in Figure 1: 

The following table lists the specific programs that can fund each 
economic activity, grouped by agency and activity type. The 
information also appears as interactive content in figure 1 in the 
body of the report when the report is viewed electronically. 

Economic Activity: Entrepreneurial efforts programs: 

Commerce: 
Community Trade Adjustment Assistance; 
Grants for Public Works and Economic Development Facilities; 
Economic Development/Technical Assistance; 
Economic Adjustment Assistance; 
Research and Evaluation Program; 
Global Climate Change Mitigation Incentive Fund; 
Minority Business Enterprise Centers (renamed Minority Business Center 
for FY 2011 award); 
Native American Business Enterprise Centers; 
Minority Business Opportunity Center. 

HUD: 
CDBG/Entitlement Grants; 
CDBG/Special Purpose/Insular Areas; 
CDBG/States; 
CDBG/Non-entitlement CDBG Grants in Hawaii; 
CDBG/Section 108 Loan Guarantees; 
Section 4 Capacity Building for Affordable Housing and Community
Development; 
Rural Innovation Fund; 
CDBG Disaster Recovery Grants; 
Indian CDBG; 
Hispanic Serving Institutions Assisting Communities; 
Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian Institutions Assisting Communities; 
CDBG/Brownfields Economic Development Initiative; 

SBA: 
8(a) Business Development Program; 
7(j) Technical Assistance; 
Procurement Assistance to Small Businesses; 
Small Business Investment Companies; 
7(a) Loan Program; 
Surety Bond Guarantee Program; 
SCORE; 
Small Business Development Centers; 
504 Loan Program; 
Women’s Business Centers; 
Veterans’ Business Outreach Centers; 
Microloan Program; 
PRIME; 
New Markets Venture Capital Program; 
7(a) Export Loan Guarantees; 
HUBZone; 
Small Business Technology Transfer Program; 
Small Business Innovation Research Program; 
Federal and State Technology Partnership Program. 

USDA: 
Empowerment Zones; 
Woody Biomass Utilization Grant Program; 
1890 Land Grant Institutions Rural Entrepreneurial Outreach 
Program/Rural Business Entrepreneur Development Initiative/BISNET; 
Small Business Innovation Research; 
Value Added Producer Grants; 
Agriculture Innovation Center; 
Small Socially-Disadvantaged Producer Grants; 
Intermediary Re-lending; 
Rural Business Enterprise Grants; 
Rural Cooperative Development Grants; 
Rural Business Opportunity Grants; 
Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program; 
Biomass Research and Development Initiative Competitive Grants Program; 
Business and Industry Loans. 

Economic Activity: Infrastructure programs: 

Commerce: 
Community Trade Adjustment Assistance; 
Grants for Public Works and Economic Development Facilities; 
Economic Adjustment Assistance; 
Global Climate Change Mitigation Incentive Fund; 

HUD: 
CDBG/Entitlement Grants; 
CDBG/Special Purpose/Insular Areas; 
CDBG/States; 
CDBG/Non-entitlement CDBG Grants in Hawaii; 
CDBG/Brownfields Economic Development Initiative; 
CDBG/Section 108 Loan Guarantees; 
Section 4 Capacity Building for Affordable Housing and
Community Development; 
Rural Innovation Fund; 
CDBG Disaster Recovery Grants; 
Indian CDBG; 
Hispanic Serving Institutions Assisting Communities; 
Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian Institutions Assisting Communities; 

SBA: 
Surety Bond Guarantee Program. 

USDA: 
Empowerment Zones; 
Rural Electrification Loans and Loan Guarantees; 
Assistance to High Energy Cost Rural Communities; 
Denali Commission Loans and Grants; 
State Bulk Fuel Revolving Fund Grants; 
Schools and Roads--Grants to States; 
Schools and Roads--Grants to Counties; 
Community Facilities Loans & Grants; 
Water and Waste Disposal Loans & Grants (Section 306C); 
Water and Waste Disposal Systems for Rural Communities; 
Emergency Community Water Assistance Grants; 
Technical Assistance and Training Grants; 
Grant Program to Establish a Fund for Financing Water and
Waste Water Projects; 
Solid Waste Management Grants; 
Business and Industry Loans; 
Rural Business Enterprise Grants; 
Rural Economic Development Loans and Grants; 
Rural Energy for America Program. 

Economic activity: Plans and strategies programs: 

Commerce: 
Community Trade Adjustment Assistance; 
Economic Development/Support for Planning Organizations; 
Economic Development/Technical Assistance; 
Economic Adjustment Assistance; 
Research and Evaluation Program; 
Trade Adjustment Assistance; 
Global Climate Change Mitigation Incentive Fund. 

HUD: 
CDBG/Entitlement Grants; 
CDBG/Special Purpose/Insular Areas; 
CDBG/States; 
CDBG/Non-entitlement CDBG Grants in Hawaii; 
CDBG/Section 108 Loan Guarantees; 
Section 4 Capacity Building for Affordable Housing and
Community Development; 
Rural Innovation Fund; 
CDBG Disaster Recovery Grants; 
Indian CDBG; 
Hispanic Serving Institutions Assisting Communities; 
Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian Institutions Assisting Communities; 
Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant Program; 
Community Challenge Planning Grant Program. 

SBA: 
8(a) Business Development Program; 
7(j) Technical Assistance; 
Procurement Assistance to Small Businesses; 
Small Business Investment Companies; 
7(a) Loan Program; 
SCORE; 
Small Business Development Centers; 
Veterans’ Business Outreach Centers; 
Microloan Program; 
PRIME; 
New Markets Venture Capital Program; 
HUBZone; 
Federal and State Technology Partnership Program. 

USDA: 
Empowerment Zones; 
Woody Biomass Utilization Grant Program; 
Intermediary Re-lending; 
Rural Business Enterprise Grants; 
Rural Business Opportunity Grants; 
Rural Economic Development Loans and Grants; 
Rural Energy for America Program. 

Economic activity: Commercial buildings programs: 

Commerce: 
Community Trade Adjustment Assistance; 
Grants for Public Works and Economic Development Facilities; 
Economic Adjustment Assistance; 
Global Climate Change Mitigation Incentive Fund. 

HUD: 
CDBG/Entitlement Grants; 
CDBG/Special Purpose/Insular Areas; 
CDBG/States; 
CDBG/Non-entitlement CDBG Grants in Hawaii; 
CDBG/Brownfields Economic Development Initiative; 
CDBG/Section 108 Loan Guarantees; 
Section 4 Capacity Building for Affordable Housing and Community
Development; 
Rural Innovation Fund; 
CDBG Disaster Recovery Grants; 
Indian CDBG; 
Hispanic Serving Institutions Assisting Communities; 
Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian Institutions Assisting Communities. 

SBA: 
7(a) Loan Program; 
Surety Bond Guarantee Program; 
504 Loan Program; 
7(a) Export Loan Guarantees; 

USDA: 
Empowerment Zones; 
Intermediary Re-lending; 
Business and Industry Loans; 
Rural Business Enterprise Grants; 
Rural Cooperative Development Grants; 
Rural Economic Development Loans and Grants; 
Biorefinery Assistance Program. 

Economic activity: New markets programs: 

Commerce: 
Community Trade Adjustment Assistance; 
Grants for Public Works and Economic Development Facilities; 
Economic Development/Technical Assistance; 
Economic Adjustment Assistance; 
Research and Evaluation Program; 
Global Climate Change Mitigation Incentive Fund. 

HUD: 
CDBG/Entitlement Grants; 
CDBG/Special Purpose/Insular Areas; 
CDBG/States; 
CDBG/Non-entitlement CDBG Grants in Hawaii; 
CDBG/Section 108 Loan Guarantees; 
Section 4 Capacity Building for Affordable Housing and Community
Development; 
CDBG Disaster Recovery Grants; 
Indian CDBG; 
Hispanic Serving Institutions Assisting Communities; 
Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian Institutions Assisting Communities. 

SBA: 
Small Business Investment Companies; 
SCORE; 
Small Business Development Centers; 
Women’s Business Centers; 
Microloan Program; 
7(a) Export Loan Guarantees. 

USDA: 
Empowerment Zones; 
Woody Biomass Utilization Grant Program; 
Biobased Products and Bioenergy Program; 
Biorefinery Assistance Program; 
Rural Energy for America Program; 
Business and Industry Loans. 

Economic activity: Telecommunications programs: 

Commerce: 
Community Trade Adjustment Assistance; 
Grants for Public Works and Economic Development Facilities; 
Economic Adjustment Assistance. 

HUD: 
CDBG/Entitlement Grants; 
CDBG/Special Purpose/Insular Areas; 
CDBG/States; 
CDBG/Non-entitlement CDBG Grants in Hawaii; 
CDBG/Brownfields Economic Development Initiative; 
CDBG/Section 108 Loan Guarantees; 
Section 4 Capacity Building for Affordable Housing and
Community Development; 
CDBG Disaster Recovery Grants; 
Indian CDBG; 
Hispanic Serving Institutions Assisting Communities; 
Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian Institutions Assisting Communities. 

SBA: 
Small Business Technology Transfer Program; 
Small Business Innovation Research Program. 

USDA: 
Empowerment Zones; 
Distance Learning and Telemedicine Loans & Grants; 
Rural Telephone Loans and Loan Guarantees; 
Public Television Station Digital Transition Grants; 
Community Connect Program; 
Rural Broadband Access Loans and Loan Guarantees; 
Small Business Innovation Research; 
Rural Economic Development Loans and Grants. 

Economic activity: Business incubators programs: 

Commerce: 
Community Trade Adjustment Assistance; 
Grants for Public Works and Economic Development Facilities; 
Economic Development/Technical Assistance; 
Economic Adjustment Assistance; 
Global Climate Change Mitigation Incentive Fund;. 

HUD: 
CDBG/Entitlement Grants; 
CDBG/Special Purpose/Insular Areas; 
CDBG/States; 
CDBG/Non-entitlement CDBG Grants in Hawaii; 
CDBG/Brownfields Economic Development Initiative; 
CDBG/Section 108 Loan Guarantees; 
Section 4 Capacity Building for Affordable Housing and Community 
Development; 
Rural Innovation Fund; 
CDBG Disaster Recovery Grants; 
Indian CDBG; 
Hispanic Serving Institutions Assisting Communities; 
Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian Institutions Assisting Communities. 

USDA: 
Empowerment Zones; 
1890 Land Grant Institutions Rural Entrepreneurial Outreach 
Program/Rural Business Entrepreneur Development Initiative/BISNET; 
Rural Economic Development Loans and Grants; 
Intermediary Re-lending; 
Business and Industry Loans. 
Rural Business Enterprise Grants; 
Rural Business Opportunity Grants. 

Economic activity: Industrial parks programs; 

Commerce: 
Community Trade Adjustment Assistance; 
Grants for Public Works and Economic Development Facilities; 
Economic Development/Technical Assistance; 
Economic Adjustment Assistance; 
Global Climate Change Mitigation Incentive Fund; 

HUD: 
CDBG/Entitlement Grants; 
CDBG/Special Purpose/Insular Areas; 
CDBG/States; 
CDBG/Non-entitlement CDBG Grants in Hawaii; 
CDBG/Brownfields Economic Development Initiative; 
CDBG/Section 108 Loan Guarantees; 
Section 4 Capacity Building for Affordable Housing and Community 
Development; 
CDBG Disaster Recovery Grants; 
Indian CDBG; 
Hispanic Serving Institutions Assisting Communities; 
Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian Institutions Assisting Communities. 

USDA: 
Empowerment Zones; 
Rural Business Opportunity Grants; 
Rural Economic Development Loans and Grants; 
Intermediary Re-lending; 
Rural Business Enterprise Grants. 

Economic activity: Tourism programs: 

Commerce: 
Community Trade Adjustment Assistance; 
Economic Development/Technical Assistance; 
Economic Adjustment Assistance; 
Global Climate Change Mitigation Incentive Fund; 
Grants for Public Works and Economic Development Facilities; 

HUD: 
CDBG/Entitlement Grants; 
CDBG/Special Purpose/Insular Areas; 
CDBG/States; 
CDBG/Non-entitlement CDBG Grants in Hawaii; 
CDBG/Section 108 Loan Guarantees; 
Section 4 Capacity Building for Affordable Housing and Community 
Development; 
CDBG Disaster Recovery Grants; 
Indian CDBG; 
Hispanic Serving Institutions Assisting Communities; 
Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian Institutions Assisting Communities. 

USDA: 
Empowerment Zones; 
Small Business Innovation Research; 
Intermediary Re-lending; 
Business and Industry Loans. 

Source: GAO analysis of information from Commerce, HUD, SBA, and USDA. 

[End of table] 

[End of enclosure] 

Enclosure V: 80 Economic Development Programs: 

Agency: Commerce: 

Program name: Community Trade Adjustment Assistance; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $0; 

Plans and strategies: [Check]; 
Commercial buildings: [Check]; 
Business incubators: [Check]; 
Industrial parks: [Check]; 
Infrastructure: [Check]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check]; 
New markets: [Check]; 
Telecommunications: [Check]; 
Tourism: [Check]; 
Urban/rural: Not Specified; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: 
Businesses adversely affected by international trade impacts; 
Award Type: grant or direct payment. 

Program name: Grants for Public Works and Economic Development 
Facilities; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $158,930,000; 

Plans and strategies: [Empty]; 
Commercial buildings: [Check]; 
Business incubators: [Check]; 
Industrial parks: [Check]; 
Infrastructure: [Check]; 
Entrepreneurial 
efforts: [Check]; 
New markets: [Check]; 
Telecommunications: [Check]; 
Tourism: [Check]; 
Urban/rural: Not Specified; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Economically distressed areas; 
Award Type: grant or direct payment. 

Program name: Economic Development/Support for Planning 
Organizations; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $31,391,000; 

Plans and strategies: [Check]; 
Commercial buildings: [Empty]; 
Business incubators: [Empty]; 
Industrial parks: [Empty]; 
Infrastructure: [Empty]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Empty]; 
New markets: [Empty]; 
Telecommunications: [Empty]; 
Tourism: [Empty]; 
Urban/rural: Not Specified; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Unemployed and underemployed residents 
located in economically distressed areas; 
Award Type: grant or direct payment. 

Program name: Economic Development/Technical Assistance; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $9,800,000; 

Plans and strategies: [Check]; 
Commercial buildings: [Empty]; 
Business incubators: [Check]; 
Industrial parks: [Check]; 
Infrastructure: [Empty]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check]; 
New markets: [Check]; 
Telecommunications: [Empty]; 
Tourism: [Check]; 
Urban/rural: Not Specified; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Economically distressed areas; 
Award Type: grant or direct payment. 

Program name: Economic Adjustment Assistance; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $45,270,000; 

Plans and strategies: [Check]; 
Commercial buildings: [Check]; 
Business incubators: [Check]; 
Industrial parks: [Check]; 
Infrastructure: [Check]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check]; 
New markets: [Check]; 
Telecommunications: [Check]; 
Tourism: [Check]; 
Urban/rural: Not Specified; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: 
Economically distressed areas; 
Award Type: grant or direct payment. 

Program name: Research and Evaluation Program; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $1,963,000; 
Plans and strategies: [Check]; 
Commercial buildings: [Empty]; 

Business incubators: [Empty]; 
Industrial parks: [Empty]; 
Infrastructure: [Empty]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check]; 
New markets: [Check]; 
Telecommunications: [Empty]; 
Tourism: [Empty]; 
Urban/rural: Not Specified; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: 
Economically distressed areas; 
Award Type: grant or direct payment. 

Program name: Trade Adjustment Assistance; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $18,987,000; 

Plans and strategies: [Check]; 
Commercial buildings: [Empty]; 
Business incubators: [Empty]; 
Industrial parks: [Empty]; 
Infrastructure: [Empty]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Empty]; 
New markets: [Empty]; 
Telecommunications: [Empty]; 
Tourism: [Empty]; 
Urban/rural: Not Specified; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Businesses adversely affected by 
imports; 
Award Type: grant and services, technical support. 

Program name: Global Climate Change Mitigation Incentive Fund; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $25,000,000; 

Plans and strategies: [Check]; 
Commercial buildings: [Check]; 
Business incubators: [Check]; 
Industrial parks: [Check]; 
Infrastructure: [Check]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check]; 
New markets: [Check]; 
Telecommunications: [Empty]; 
Tourism: [Check]; 
Urban/rural: Not Specified; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Economically distressed areas; 
Award Type: grant or direct payment. 

Program name: Minority Business Enterprise Centers; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $8,601,193; 

Plans and strategies: [Empty]; 
Commercial buildings: [Empty]; 
Business incubators: [Empty]; 
Industrial parks: [Empty]; 
Infrastructure: [Empty]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check]; 
New markets: [Empty]; 
Telecommunications: [Empty]; 
Tourism: [Empty]; 
Urban/rural: Not Specified; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Current and prospective minority-owned 
businesses; 
Award Type: grant or direct payment. 

Program name: Native American Business Enterprise Centers; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $1,351,500; 

Plans and strategies: [Empty]; 
Commercial buildings: [Empty]; 
Business incubators: [Empty]; 
Industrial parks: [Empty]; 
Infrastructure: [Empty]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check]; 
New markets: [Empty]; 
Telecommunications: [Empty]; 
Tourism: [Empty]; 
Urban/rural: Not Specified; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Current and prospective Native-American 
owned businesses; 
Award Type: grant or direct payment. 

Program name: Minority Business Opportunity Center; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $1,512,500; 

Plans and strategies: [Empty]; 
Commercial buildings: [Empty]; 
Business incubators: [Empty]; 
Industrial parks: [Empty]; 
Infrastructure: [Empty]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check]; 
New markets: [Empty]; 
Telecommunications: [Empty]; 
Tourism: [Empty]; 
Urban/rural: Not Specified; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Current and prospective minority-owned 
businesses; 
Award Type: grant or direct payment. 

Agency: USDA: 

Program name: Empowerment Zones; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $500,000; 
Plans and strategies: [Check]; 
Commercial buildings: [Check]; 
Business incubators: [Check]; 
Industrial parks: [Check]; 
Infrastructure: [Check]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check]; 
New markets: [Check]; 
Telecommunications: [Check]; 
Tourism: [Check]; 
Urban/rural: Rural Only; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Rural communities; 
Award Type: grant and services; technical support. 

Program name: Woody Biomass Utilization Grant Program; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $5,000,000; 
Economic Activities: 
Plans and strategies: [Check]; 
Commercial buildings: [Empty]; 
Business incubators: [Empty]; 
Industrial parks: [Empty]; 
Infrastructure: [Empty]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check]; 
New markets: [Check]; 
Telecommunications: [Empty]; 
Tourism: [Empty]; 
Urban/rural: Rural Only; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Rural communities and businesses 
located in rural communities near National Forests and involved in 
forestry activities on National Forests; 
Award Type: grant and services; technical support. 

Program name: 1890 Land Grant Institutions Rural Entrepreneurial 
Outreach Program/Rural Business Entrepreneur Development Initiative/
BISNET; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $0; 
Economic Activities: 
Plans and strategies: [Empty]; 
Commercial buildings: [Empty]; 
Business incubators: [Check]; 
Industrial parks: [Empty]; 
Infrastructure: [Empty]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check]; 
New markets: [Empty]; 
Telecommunications: [Empty]; 
Tourism: [Empty]; 
Urban/rural: Rural Only; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Current and prospective small 
businesses located in rural communities; 
Award Type: grant and services; technical support. 

Program name: Distance Learning and Telemedicine Loans & Grants; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $33,300,000.00; 
Economic Activities: 
Plans and strategies: [Empty]; 
Commercial buildings: [Empty]; 
Business incubators: [Empty]; 
Industrial parks: [Empty]; 
Infrastructure: [Empty]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Empty]; 
New markets: [Empty]; 
Telecommunications: [Check]; 
Tourism: [Empty]; 
Urban/rural: Rural Only; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Rural communities; 
Award Type: grant and loan. 

Program name: Rural Telephone Loans and Loan Guarantees; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $0; 
Economic Activities: 
Plans and strategies: [Empty]; 
Commercial buildings: [Empty]; 
Business incubators: [Empty]; 
Industrial parks: [Empty]; 
Infrastructure: [Empty]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Empty]; 
New markets: [Empty]; 
Telecommunications: [Check]; 
Tourism: [Empty]; 
Urban/rural: Rural Only; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Telephone users located in rural 
communities; 
Award Type: loan (direct or guaranteed). 

Program name: Public Television Station Digital Transition 
Grants; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $4,500,000.00; 
Economic Activities: 
Plans and strategies: [Empty]; 
Commercial buildings: [Empty]; 
Business incubators: [Empty]; 
Industrial parks: [Empty]; 
Infrastructure: [Empty]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Empty]; 
New markets: [Empty]; 
Telecommunications: [Check]; 
Tourism: [Empty]; 
Urban/rural: Rural Only; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Television users located in rural 
communities; 
Award Type: grant or direct payment. 

Program name: Community Connect Program; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $18,000,000.00; 
Economic Activities: 
Plans and strategies: [Empty]; 
Commercial buildings: [Empty]; 
Business incubators: [Empty]; 
Industrial parks: [Empty]; 
Infrastructure: [Empty]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Empty]; 
New markets: [Empty]; 
Telecommunications: [Check]; 
Tourism: [Empty]; 
Urban/rural: Rural Only; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Broadband users located in rural 
communities; 
Award Type: grant or direct payment. 

Program name: Rural Broadband Access Loans and Loan Guarantees; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $29,000,000.00; 
Economic Activities: 
Plans and strategies: [Empty]; 
Commercial buildings: [Empty]; 
Business incubators: [Empty]; 
Industrial parks: [Empty]; 
Infrastructure: [Empty]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Empty]; 
New markets: [Empty]; 
Telecommunications: [Check]; 
Tourism: [Empty]; 
Urban/rural: Rural Only; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Broadband users located in rural 
communities; 
Award Type: loan (direct or guaranteed). 

Program name: Rural Electrification Loans and Loan Guarantees; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $0; 
Economic Activities: 
Plans and strategies: [Empty]; 
Commercial buildings: [Empty]; 
Business incubators: [Empty]; 
Industrial parks: [Empty]; 
Infrastructure: [Check]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Empty]; 
New markets: [Empty]; 
Telecommunications: [Empty]; 
Tourism: [Empty]; 
Urban/rural: Rural Only; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Users of services provided by eligible 
electrical suppliers; 
Award Type: loan (direct or guaranteed). 

Program name: Assistance to High Energy Cost Rural Communities; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $17,500,000; 
Economic Activities: 
Plans and strategies: [Empty]; 
Commercial buildings: [Empty]; 
Business incubators: [Empty]; 
Industrial parks: [Empty]; 
Infrastructure: [Check]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Empty]; 
New markets: [Empty]; 
Telecommunications: [Empty]; 
Tourism: [Empty]; 
Urban/rural: Rural Only; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Rural communities with high energy 
costs; 
Award Type: grant and loan. 

Program name: Denali Commission Loans and Grants; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $0; 
Economic Activities: 
Plans and strategies: [Empty]; 
Commercial buildings: [Empty]; 
Business incubators: [Empty]; 
Industrial parks: [Empty]; 
Infrastructure: [Check]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Empty]; 
New markets: [Empty]; 
Telecommunications: [Empty]; 
Tourism: [Empty]; 
Urban/rural: Rural Only; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Rural communities located in Alaska 
with high energy costs; 
Award Type: grant and loan. 

Program name: State Bulk Fuel Revolving Fund Grants; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $0; 
Economic Activities: 
Plans and strategies: [Empty]; 
Commercial buildings: [Empty]; 
Business incubators: [Empty]; 
Industrial parks: [Empty]; 
Infrastructure: [Check]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Empty]; 
New markets: [Empty]; 
Telecommunications: [Empty]; 
Tourism: [Empty]; 
Urban/rural: Rural Only; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Remote rural communities where fuel 
cannot be shipped by surface transportation; 
Award Type: grant or direct payment. 

Program name: Small Business Innovation Research; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $22,000,000; 
Economic Activities: 
Plans and strategies: [Empty]; 
Commercial buildings: [Empty]; 
Business incubators: [Empty]; 
Industrial parks: [Empty]; 
Infrastructure: [Empty]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check]; 
New markets: [Empty]; 
Telecommunications: [Check]; 
Tourism: [Check]; 
Urban/rural: Not Specified; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Small businesses; 
Award Type: grant or direct payment. 

Program name: Biomass Research and Development Initiative 
Competitive Grants Program[E]; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $0; 
Economic Activities: 
Plans and strategies: [Empty]; 
Commercial buildings: [Empty]; 
Business incubators: [Empty]; 
Industrial parks: [Empty]; 
Infrastructure: [Empty]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check]; 
New markets: [Empty]; 
Telecommunications: [Empty]; 
Tourism: [Empty]; 
Urban/rural: Not Specified; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Research institutions; 
Award Type: grant or direct payment. 

Program name: Schools and Roads-Grants to States; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $0; 
Economic Activities: 
Plans and strategies: [Empty]; 
Commercial buildings: [Empty]; 
Business incubators: [Empty]; 
Industrial parks: [Empty]; 
Infrastructure: [Check]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Empty]; 
New markets: [Empty]; 
Telecommunications: [Empty]; 
Tourism: [Empty]; 
Urban/rural: Rural Only; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: 
Schools and entities that manage public roads located in counties 
containing national forest lands; 
Award Type: grant or direct payment. 

Program name: Schools and Roads-Grants to Counties; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $0; 
Economic Activities: 
Plans and strategies: [Empty]; 
Commercial buildings: [Empty]; 
Business incubators: [Empty]; 
Industrial parks: [Empty]; 
Infrastructure: [Check]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Empty]; 
New markets: [Empty]; 
Telecommunications: [Empty]; 
Tourism: [Empty]; 
Urban/rural: Rural Only; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: 
Schools and entities that manage public roads located in counties 
containing National Grasslands and Land Utilization Projects; 
Award Type: grant or direct payment. 

Program name: Community Facilities Loans & Grants; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $36,800,000; 
Economic Activities: 
Plans and strategies: [Empty]; 
Commercial buildings: [Empty]; 
Business incubators: [Empty]; 
Industrial parks: [Empty]; 
Infrastructure: [Check]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Empty]; 
New markets: [Empty]; 
Telecommunications: [Empty]; 
Tourism: [Empty]; 
Urban/rural: Rural Only; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Rural communities; 
Award Type: grant and loan. 

Program name: Water and Waste Disposal Loans & Grants (Section 
306C); 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $489,100,000; 
Economic Activities: 
Plans and strategies: [Empty]; 
Commercial buildings: [Empty]; 
Business incubators: [Empty]; 
Industrial parks: [Empty]; 
Infrastructure: [Check]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Empty]; 
New markets: [Empty]; 
Telecommunications: [Empty]; 
Tourism: [Empty]; 
Urban/rural: Rural Only; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Low-income rural communities; 
Award Type: grant and loan. 

Program name: Water and Waste Disposal Systems for Rural 
Communities[C]; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $0; 
Economic Activities: 
Plans and strategies: [Empty]; 
Commercial buildings: [Empty]; 
Business incubators: [Empty]; 
Industrial parks: [Empty]; 
Infrastructure: [Check]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Empty]; 
New markets: [Empty]; 
Telecommunications: [Empty]; 
Tourism: [Empty]; 
Urban/rural: Rural Only; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Rural communities; 
Award Type: grant and loan. 

Program name: Emergency Community Water Assistance Grants; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $13,000,000; 
Economic Activities: 
Plans and strategies: [Empty]; 
Commercial buildings: [Empty]; 
Business incubators: [Empty]; 
Industrial parks: [Empty]; 
Infrastructure: [Check]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Empty]; 
New markets: [Empty]; 
Telecommunications: [Empty]; 
Tourism: [Empty]; 
Urban/rural: Rural Only; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Rural communities with low and moderate 
income residents; 
Award Type: grant or direct payment. 

Program name: Technical Assistance and Training Grants; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $19,500,000; 
Economic Activities: 
Plans and strategies: [Empty]; 
Commercial buildings: [Empty]; 
Business incubators: [Empty]; 
Industrial parks: [Empty]; 
Infrastructure: [Check]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Empty]; 
New markets: [Empty]; 
Telecommunications: [Empty]; 
Tourism: [Empty]; 
Urban/rural: Rural Only; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Rural communities; 
Award Type: grant or direct payment. 

Program name: Grant Program to Establish a Fund for Financing 
Water and Waste Water Projects; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $ 500,000; 
Economic Activities: 
Plans and strategies: [Empty]; 
Commercial buildings: [Empty]; 
Business incubators: [Empty]; 
Industrial parks: [Empty]; 
Infrastructure: [Check]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Empty]; 
New markets: [Empty]; 
Telecommunications: [Empty]; 
Tourism: [Empty]; 
Urban/rural: Rural Only; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Rural communities; 
Award Type: grant or direct payment. 

Program name: Solid Waste Management Grants; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $3,400,000; 
Economic Activities: 
Plans and strategies: [Empty]; 
Commercial buildings: [Empty]; 
Business incubators: [Empty]; 
Industrial parks: [Empty]; 
Infrastructure: [Check]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Empty]; 
New markets: [Empty]; 
Telecommunications: [Empty]; 
Tourism: [Empty]; 
Urban/rural: Rural Only; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Rural communities; 
Award Type: grant or direct payment. 

Program name: Value Added Producer Grants; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $19,400,000; 
Economic Activities: 
Plans and strategies: [Empty]; 
Commercial buildings: [Empty]; 
Business incubators: [Empty]; 
Industrial parks: [Empty]; 
Infrastructure: [Empty]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check]; 
New markets: [Empty]; 
Telecommunications: [Empty]; 
Tourism: [Empty]; 
Urban/rural: Rural Only; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Agricultural businesses; 
Award Type: grant and services, technical support. 

Program name: Biobased Products and Bioenergy Program; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $2,000,000; 
Economic Activities: 
Plans and strategies: [Empty]; 
Commercial buildings: [Empty]; 
Business incubators: [Empty]; 
Industrial parks: [Empty]; 
Infrastructure: [Empty]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Empty]; 
New markets: [Check]; 
Telecommunications: [Empty]; 
Tourism: [Empty]; 
Urban/rural: Rural Only; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Current and prospective businesses 
located in rural communities; 
Award Type: loan (direct or guaranteed). 

Program name: Agriculture Innovation Center; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $0; 
Economic Activities: 
Plans and strategies: [Empty]; 
Commercial buildings: [Empty]; 
Business incubators: [Empty]; 
Industrial parks: [Empty]; 
Infrastructure: [Empty]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check]; 
New markets: [Empty]; 
Telecommunications: [Empty]; 
Tourism: [Empty]; 
Urban/rural: Not Specified; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Agricultural producers; 
Award Type: grant or direct payment. 

Program name: Small Socially-Disadvantaged Producer Grants; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $3,500,000; 
Economic Activities: 
Plans and strategies: [Empty]; 
Commercial buildings: [Empty]; 
Business incubators: [Empty]; 
Industrial parks: [Empty]; 
Infrastructure: [Empty]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check]; 
New markets: [Empty]; 
Telecommunications: [Empty]; 
Tourism: [Empty]; 
Urban/rural: Not Specified; 
Primary Targeted 
Recipient[B]: Small, socially-disadvantaged agricultural producers; 
Award Type: grant or direct payment. 

Program name: Intermediary Re-lending[E]; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $8,500,000; 
Economic Activities: 
Plans and strategies: [Check]; 
Commercial buildings: [Check]; 
Business incubators: [Check]; 
Industrial parks: [Check]; 
Infrastructure: [Empty]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check]; 
New markets: [Empty]; 
Telecommunications: [Empty]; 
Tourism: [Check]; 
Urban/rural: Rural Only; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Current and prospective businesses 
located in rural communities; 
Award Type: loan (direct or guaranteed). 

Program name: Business and Industry Loans[E]; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $52,900,000; 
Economic Activities: 
Plans and strategies: [Empty]; 
Commercial buildings: [Check]; 
Business incubators: [Check]; 
Industrial parks: [Empty]; 
Infrastructure: [Check]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check]; 
New markets: [Check]; 
Telecommunications: [Empty]; 
Tourism: [Check]; 
Urban/rural: Rural Only; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Current and prospective businesses 
located in rural communities; 
Award Type: loan (direct or guaranteed). 

Program name: Rural Business Enterprise Grants[E]; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $38,700,000; 
Plans and strategies: [Check]; 
Commercial buildings: [Check]; 
Business incubators: [Check]; 
Industrial parks: [Check]; 
Infrastructure: [Check]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check]; 
New markets: [Empty]; 
Telecommunications: [Empty]; 
Tourism: [Empty]; 
Urban/rural: Rural Only; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Current and prospective small businesses 
located in rural communities; 
Award Type: grant or direct payment. 

Program name: Rural Cooperative Development Grants; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $8,300,000; 
Economic Activities: 
Plans and strategies: [Empty]; 
Commercial buildings: [Check]; 
Business incubators: [Empty]; 
Industrial parks: [Empty]; 
Infrastructure: [Empty]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check]; 
New markets: [Empty]; 
Telecommunications: [Empty]; 
Tourism: [Empty]; 
Urban/rural: Rural Only; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Business cooperatives located in rural 
communities; 
Award Type: grant or direct payment. 

Program name: Rural Business Opportunity Grants[E]; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $2,500,000; 
Economic Activities: 
Plans and strategies: [Check]; 
Commercial buildings: [Empty]; 
Business incubators: [Check]; 
Industrial parks: [Check]; 
Infrastructure: [Empty]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check]; 
New markets: [Empty]; 
Telecommunications: [Empty]; 
Tourism: [Empty]; 
Urban/rural: Rural Only; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Rural businesses; 
Award Type: grant or direct payment. 

Program name: Rural Economic Development Loans and Grants; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $0; 
Economic Activities: 
Plans and strategies: [Check]; 
Commercial buildings: [Check]; 
Business incubators: [Check]; 
Industrial parks: [Check]; 
Infrastructure: [Check]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Empty]; 
New markets: [Empty]; 
Telecommunications: [Check]; 
Tourism: [Empty]; 
Urban/rural: Rural Only; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Current and prospective businesses 
located in rural communities; 
Award Type: grant and loan. 

Program name: Biorefinery Assistance Program; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $245,000,000; 
Economic Activities: 
Plans and strategies: [Empty]; 
Commercial buildings: [Check]; 
Business incubators: [Empty]; 
Industrial parks: [Empty]; 
Infrastructure: [Empty]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Empty]; 
New markets: [Check]; 
Telecommunications: [Empty]; 
Tourism: [Empty]; 
Urban/rural: Not Specified; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Commercial-scale biorefineries; 
Award Type: loan (direct or guaranteed). 

Program name: Rural Energy for America Program[E]; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $99,400,000; 
Economic Activities: 
Plans and strategies: [Check]; 
Commercial buildings: [Empty]; 
Business incubators: [Empty]; 
Industrial parks: [Empty]; 
Infrastructure: [Check]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Empty]; 
New markets: [Check]; 
Telecommunications: [Empty]; 
Tourism: [Empty]; 
Urban/rural: Rural Only; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Small businesses located in rural 
communities; 
Award Type: grant and loan. 

Program name: Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $9,000,000; 
Economic Activities: 
Plans and strategies: [Empty]; 
Commercial buildings: [Empty]; 
Business incubators: [Empty]; 
Industrial parks: [Empty]; 
Infrastructure: [Empty]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check]; 
New markets: [Empty]; 
Telecommunications: [Empty]; 
Tourism: [Empty]; 
Urban/rural: Rural Only; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Small businesses; 
Award Type: grant and loan. 

Agency: HUD: 

Program name: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG); Entitlement 
Grants; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $2,760,223,970; 
Economic Activities: 
Plans and strategies: [Check]; 
Commercial buildings: [Check]; 
Business incubators: [Check]; 
Industrial parks: [Check]; 
Infrastructure: [Check]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check]; 
New markets: [Check]; 
Telecommunications: [Check]; 
Tourism: [Check]; 
Urban/rural: Urban Only; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Low and moderate income 
families; 
Award Type: grant or direct payment. 

Program name: CDBG/Special Purpose/Insular Areas; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $6,930,000; 
Economic Activities: 
Plans and strategies: [Check]; 
Commercial buildings: [Check]; 
Business incubators: [Check]; 
Industrial parks: [Check]; 
Infrastructure: [Check]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check]; 
New markets: [Check]; 
Telecommunications: [Check]; 
Economic Activities: Tourism: [Check]; 
Urban/rural: Not Specified; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Low and moderate income families 
located in American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and the 
Virgin Islands; 
Award Type: grant or direct payment. 

Program name: CDBG/States; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $1,176,594,747; 
Economic Activities: 
Plans and strategies: [Check]; 
Commercial buildings: [Check]; 
Business incubators: [Check]; 
Industrial parks: [Check]; 
Infrastructure: [Check]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check]; 
New markets: [Check]; 
Telecommunications: [Check]; 
Tourism: [Check]; 
Urban/rural: Rural Only; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Low and moderate income families; 
Award Type: grant or direct payment. 

Program name: CDBG/Non-entitlement CDBG Grants in Hawaii; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $5,791,797; 
Economic Activities: 
Plans and strategies: [Check]; 
Commercial buildings: [Check]; 
Business incubators: [Check]; 
Industrial parks: [Check]; 
Infrastructure: [Check]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check]; 
New markets: [Check]; 
Telecommunications: [Check]; 
Tourism: [Check]; 
Urban/rural: Not Specified; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Low and moderate income families 
located in Hawaii; 
Award Type: grant or direct payment. 

Program name: CDBG/Brownfields Economic Development Initiative; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $17,500,000; 
Economic Activities: 
Plans and strategies: [Empty]; 
Commercial buildings: [Check]; 
Business incubators: [Check]; 
Industrial parks: [Check]; 
Infrastructure: [Check]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check]; 
New markets: [Empty]; 
Telecommunications: [Check]; 
Tourism: [Empty]; 
Urban/rural: Not Specified; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Public entities overseeing economic 
redevelopment projects; 
Award Type: grant or direct payment. 

Program name: CDBG/Section 108 Loan Guarantees; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $6,000,000; 
Economic Activities: 
Plans and strategies: [Check]; 
Commercial buildings: [Check]; 
Business incubators: [Check]; 
Industrial parks: [Check]; 
Infrastructure: [Check]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check]; 
New markets: [Check]; 
Telecommunications: [Check]; 
Tourism: [Check]; 
Urban/rural: Not Specified; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Low and moderate income families; 
Award Type: loan (direct or guaranteed). 

Program name: Section 4 Capacity Building for Affordable Housing 
and Community Development; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $50,000,000; 
Economic Activities: 
Plans and strategies: [Check]; 
Commercial buildings: [Check]; 
Business incubators: [Check]; 
Industrial parks: [Check]; 
Infrastructure: [Check]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check]; 
New markets: [Check]; 
Telecommunications: [Check]; 
Tourism: [Check]; 
Urban/rural: Not Specified; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Low-income families; 
Award Type: grant or direct payment. 

Program name: Rural Innovation Fund; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $25,000,000; 
Economic Activities: 
Plans and strategies: [Check]; 
Commercial buildings: [Check]; 
Business incubators: [Check]; 
Industrial parks: [Empty]; 
Infrastructure: [Check]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check]; 
New markets: [Empty]; 
Telecommunications: [Empty]; 
Tourism: [Empty]; 
Urban/rural: Rural Only; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Low and moderate income families and 
businesses located in rural communities; 
Award Type: grant or direct payment. 

Program name: CDBG Disaster Recovery Grants; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $100,000,000; 
Economic Activities: 
Plans and strategies: [Check]; 
Commercial buildings: [Check]; 
Business incubators: [Check]; 
Industrial parks: [Check]; 
Infrastructure: [Check]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check]; 
New markets: [Check]; 
Telecommunications: [Check]; 
Tourism: [Check]; 
Urban/rural: Not Specified; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: 
Low and moderate income families located in and around communities that 
have experienced a natural disaster; 
Award Type: grant or direct payment. 

Program name: Indian CDBG; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $65,000,000; 
Economic Activities: 
Plans and strategies: [Check]; 
Commercial buildings: [Check]; 
Business incubators: [Check]; 
Industrial parks: [Check]; 
Infrastructure: [Check]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check]; 
New markets: [Check]; 
Telecommunications: [Check]; 
Tourism: [Check]; 
Urban/rural: Not Specified; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Indian tribes and Alaskan Native 
villages; 
Award Type: grant or direct payment. 

Program name: Hispanic Serving Institutions Assisting 
Communities; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $6,250,000; 
Economic Activities: 
Plans and strategies: [Check]; 
Commercial buildings: [Check]; 
Business incubators: [Check]; 
Industrial parks: [Check]; 
Infrastructure: [Check]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check]; 
New markets: [Check]; 
Telecommunications: [Check]; 
Tourism: [Check]; 
Urban/rural: Not Specified; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Low and moderate income families and 
small businesses located in communities surrounding Hispanic-serving 
institutions of higher education; 
Award Type: grant or direct payment. 

Program name: Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian Institutions Assisting 
Communities; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $3,265,000; 
Economic Activities: 
Plans and strategies: [Check]; 
Commercial buildings: [Check]; 
Business incubators: [Check]; 
Industrial parks: [Check]; 
Infrastructure: [Check]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check]; 
New markets: [Check]; 
Telecommunications: [Check]; 
Tourism: [Check]; 
Urban/rural: 
Not Specified; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Low and moderate income families and 
small businesses located in communities served by institutions for 
higher education in Alaska and Hawaii; 
Award Type: grant or direct payment. 

Program name: Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant Program; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $98,000,000; 
Economic Activities: 
Plans and strategies: [Check]; 
Commercial buildings: [Empty]; 
Business incubators: [Empty]; 
Industrial parks: [Empty]; 
Infrastructure: [Empty]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Empty]; 
New markets: [Empty]; 
Telecommunications: [Empty]; 
Tourism: [Empty]; 
Urban/rural: Not Specified; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Community and regional planning 
grantees; 
Award Type: grant or direct payment. 

Program name: Community Challenge Planning Grant Program; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $40,000,000; 
Economic Activities: 
Plans and strategies: [Check]; 
Commercial buildings: [Empty]; 
Business incubators: [Empty]; 
Industrial parks: [Empty]; 
Infrastructure: [Empty]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Empty]; 
New markets: [Empty]; 
Telecommunications: [Empty]; 
Tourism: [Empty]; 
Urban/rural: Not Specified; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Community and regional planning grantees; 
Award Type: grant or direct payment. 

Agency: SBA[F]: 

Program name: 8(a) Business Development Program[D]; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $56,817,000; 
Economic Activities: 
Plans and strategies: [Check]; 
Commercial buildings: [Empty]; 
Business incubators: [Empty]; 
Industrial parks: [Empty]; 
Infrastructure: [Empty]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check]; 
New markets: [Empty]; 
Telecommunications: [Empty]; 
Tourism: [Empty]; 
Urban/rural: Not Specified; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Small and disadvantaged businesses; 
Award Type: services; technical support; advantages for federal 
contract competition. 

Program name: 7(j) Technical Assistance; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $3,400,000; 
Economic Activities: 
Plans and strategies: [Check]; 
Commercial buildings: [Empty]; 
Business incubators: [Empty]; 
Industrial parks: [Empty]; 
Infrastructure: [Empty]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check]; 
New markets: [Empty]; 
Telecommunications: [Empty]; 
Tourism: [Empty]; 
Urban/rural: Not Specified; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Small disadvantaged businesses and 
small businesses operating in areas of low income or high unemployment; 
Award Type: grant or direct payment. 

Program name: Procurement Assistance to Small Businesses[D]; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $3,164,000; 
Economic Activities: 
Plans and strategies: [Check]; 
Commercial buildings: [Empty]; 
Business incubators: [Empty]; 
Industrial parks: [Empty]; 
Infrastructure: [Empty]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check]; 
New markets: [Empty]; 
Telecommunications: [Empty]; 
Tourism: [Empty]; 
Urban/rural: Not Specified; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Small businesses interested in 
government contracting opportunities; 
Award Type: advantages for federal contract competition. 

Program name: Small Business Investment Companies[D]; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $24,262,000; 
Economic Activities: 
Plans and strategies: [Check]; 
Commercial buildings: [Empty]; 
Business incubators: [Empty]; 
Industrial parks: [Empty]; 
Infrastructure: [Empty]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check]; 
New markets: [Check]; 
Telecommunications: [Empty]; 
Tourism: [Empty]; 
Urban/rural: Not Specified; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Small businesses in start up and growth 
situations; 
Award Type: loan (direct or guaranteed). 

Program name: 7(a) Loan Program[D]; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $95,090,000; 
Economic Activities: 
Plans and strategies: [Check]; 
Commercial buildings: [Check]; 
Business incubators: [Empty]; 
Industrial parks: [Empty]; 
Infrastructure: [Empty]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check]; 
New markets: [Empty]; 
Telecommunications: [Empty]; 
Tourism: [Empty]; 
Urban/rural: Not Specified; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Current and prospective small businesses; 
Award Type: loan (direct or guaranteed). 

Program name: Surety Bond Guarantee Program; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $1,000,000; 
Economic Activities: 
Plans and strategies: [Empty]; 
Commercial buildings: [Check]; 
Business incubators: [Empty]; 
Industrial parks: [Empty]; 
Infrastructure: [Check]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check]; 
New markets: [Empty]; 
Telecommunications: [Empty]; 
Tourism: [Empty]; 
Urban/rural: Not Specified; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Small and emerging small business 
contractors; 
Award Type: loan (direct or guaranteed). 

Program name: SCORE; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $7,000,000; 
Economic Activities: 
Plans and strategies: [Check]; 
Commercial buildings: [Empty]; 
Business incubators: [Empty]; 
Industrial parks: [Empty]; 
Infrastructure: [Empty]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check]; 
New markets: [Check]; 
Telecommunications: [Empty]; 
Tourism: [Empty]; 
Urban/rural: Not Specified; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Current and prospective businesses; 
Award Type: grant or direct payment. 

Program name: Small Business Development Centers; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $113,000,000; 
Economic Activities: 
Plans and strategies: [Check]; 
Commercial buildings: [Empty]; 
Business incubators: [Empty]; 
Industrial parks: [Empty]; 
Infrastructure: [Empty]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check]; 
New markets: [Check]; 
Telecommunications: [Empty]; 
Tourism: [Empty]; 
Urban/rural: Not Specified; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Current and prospective businesses; 
Award Type: grant or direct payment. 

Program name: 504 Loan Program[D]; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $36,232,000; 
Economic Activities: 
Plans and strategies: [Empty]; 
Commercial buildings: [Check]; 
Business incubators: [Empty]; 
Industrial parks: [Empty]; 
Infrastructure: [Empty]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check]; 
New markets: [Empty]; 
Telecommunications: [Empty]; 
Tourism: [Empty]; 
Urban/rural: Not Specified; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Small businesses; 
Award Type: loan (direct or guaranteed). 

Program name: Women's Business Centers; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $14,000,000; 
Economic Activities: 
Plans and strategies: [Empty]; 
Commercial buildings: [Empty]; 
Business incubators: [Empty]; 
Industrial parks: [Empty]; 
Infrastructure: [Empty]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check]; 
New markets: [Check]; 
Telecommunications: [Empty]; 
Tourism: [Empty]; 
Urban/rural: Not Specified; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Women-owned small businesses; 
Award Type: grant or direct payment. 

Program name: Veterans' Businesses Outreach Centers; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $2,500,000; 
Economic Activities: 
Plans and strategies: [Check]; 
Commercial buildings: [Empty]; 
Business incubators: [Empty]; 
Industrial parks: [Empty]; 
Infrastructure: [Empty]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check]; 
New markets: [Empty]; 
Telecommunications: [Empty]; 
Tourism: [Empty]; 
Urban/rural: Not Specified; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Current and prospective veteran-owned 
small businesses; 
Award Type: grant or direct payment. 

Program name: Microloan Program[D]; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $25,315,000; 
Economic Activities: 
Plans and strategies: [Check]; 
Commercial buildings: [Empty]; 
Business incubators: [Empty]; 
Industrial parks: [Empty]; 
Infrastructure: [Empty]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check]; 
New markets: [Check]; 
Telecommunications: [Empty]; 
Tourism: [Empty]; 
Urban/rural: Not Specified; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Small businesses and not-for-profit 
child care centers; 
Award Type: grant and loan. 

Program name: PRIME; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $8,000,000; 
Economic Activities: 
Plans and strategies: [Check]; 
Commercial buildings: [Empty]; 
Business incubators: [Empty]; 
Industrial parks: [Empty]; 
Infrastructure: [Empty]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check]; 
New markets: [Empty]; 
Telecommunications: [Empty]; 
Tourism: [Empty]; 
Urban/rural: Not Specified; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Small businesses owned by disadvantaged 
individuals; 
Award Type: grant or direct payment. 

Program name: New Markets Venture Capital Program[D]; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $0; 
Economic Activities: 
Plans and strategies: [Check]; 
Commercial buildings: [Empty]; 
Business incubators: [Empty]; 
Industrial parks: [Empty]; 
Infrastructure: [Empty]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check]; 
New markets: [Empty]; 
Telecommunications: [Empty]; 
Tourism: [Empty]; 
Urban/rural: Not Specified; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Small businesses located in areas with 
low income or high unemployment; 
Award Type: grant and loan. 

Program name: 7(a) E[Check]port Loan Guarantees[D]; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $0; 
Economic Activities: 
Plans and strategies: [Empty]; 
Commercial buildings: [Check]; 
Business incubators: [Empty]; 
Industrial parks: [Empty]; 
Infrastructure: [Empty]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check]; 
New markets: [Check]; 
Telecommunications: [Empty]; 
Tourism: [Empty]; 
Urban/rural: Not Specified; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Small business e[Check]porters in 
operation for at least 12 months; 
Award Type: loan (direct or guaranteed). 

Program name: HUBZone; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $2,200,000; 
Economic Activities: 
Plans and strategies: [Check]; 
Commercial buildings: [Empty]; 
Business incubators: [Empty]; 
Industrial parks: [Empty]; 
Infrastructure: [Empty]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check]; 
New markets: [Empty]; 
Telecommunications: [Empty]; 
Tourism: [Empty]; 
Urban/rural: Not Specified; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Small businesses located in 
economically distressed areas; 
Award Type: advantages for federal contract competition. 

Program name: Small Business Technology Transfer Program; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $0; 
Economic Activities: 
Plans and strategies: [Empty]; 
Commercial buildings: [Empty]; 
Business incubators: [Empty]; 
Industrial parks: [Empty]; 
Infrastructure: [Empty]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check]; 
New markets: [Empty]; 
Telecommunications: [Check]; 
Tourism: [Empty]; 
Urban/rural: Not Specified; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Small businesses in technology 
industries and research institution partners; 
Award Type: grant or direct payment. 

Program name: Small Business Innovation Research Program; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $0; 
Economic Activities: 
Plans and strategies: [Empty]; 
Commercial buildings: [Empty]; 
Business incubators: [Empty]; 
Industrial parks: [Empty]; 
Infrastructure: [Empty]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check]; 
New markets: [Empty]; 
Telecommunications: [Check]; 
Tourism: [Empty]; 
Urban/rural: Not Specified; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Small businesses in technology 
industries; 
Award Type: grant or direct payment. 

Program name: Federal and State Technology Partnership Program; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $2,000,000; 
Economic Activities: 
Plans and strategies: [Check]; 
Commercial buildings: [Empty]; 
Business incubators: [Empty]; 
Industrial parks: [Empty]; 
Infrastructure: [Empty]; 
Entrepreneurial efforts: [Check]; 
New markets: [Empty]; 
Telecommunications: [Empty]; 
Tourism: [Empty]; 
Urban/rural: Not Specified; 
Primary Targeted Recipient[B]: Small 
businesses in technology industries and research institution partners; 
Award Type: grant or direct payment. 

Program name: Grand Total; 
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted appropriation[A]: $6,238,641,707. 

Source: GAO analysis of information from Commerce, HUD, SBA, and USDA. 

[A] According to agency officials, the programs listed above that did 
not receive funding in fiscal year 2010 are still active programs. They 
are denoted by "0" in the table. 

[B] Primary targeted recipient is the end user that the agencies are 
focused on serving. In some cases, the agencies provide the program 
dollars to an entity such as a nonprofit or local government that 
administers the funds to serve the primary targeted recipient. 

[C] This program funded the Recovery Act portion of the Water and Waste 
Disposal Loans and Grants program. USDA considered it as a separate 
program. Funds were available for obligation through September 30, 
2010. 

[D] According to SBA officials, this program does not receive a 
specific line item appropriation. As a result, the specific program 
funding information is based on results from the agency's cost 
allocation model. 

[E] In December 2010, USDA officials provided us information on the 
economic activities that each of their economic development programs 
can fund and we reported the information in our March 2011 report (GAO-
11-318SP). In April 2011, they provided revised information for six of 
their programs that we incorporated into this product. 

[F] SBA officials provided revised fiscal year 2010 funding figures for 
18 of their 19 economic development programs since their original 
submission to us in December 2010. 

[End of table] 

[End of enclosure] 

Enclosure VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

William B. Shear (202) 512-8678 or ShearW@gao.gov. 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, Andy Finkel (Assistant 
Director), Matthew Alemu, Aimee Elivert, Geoffrey King, Terence Lam, 
Triana McNeil, Marc Molino, Roberto Piñero, and Jennifer Schwartz made 
key contributions to this report. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] GAO, Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government 
Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-318SP] (Washington D.C.: Mar. 1, 
2011). 

[2] GAO, Rural Economic Development: More Assurance Is Needed That 
Grant Funding Information Is Accurately Reported, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-294] (Washington D.C.: Feb. 24, 
2006), 7. 

[3] In March 2011, we reported that the funding provided for these 80 
programs in fiscal year 2010 amounted to $6.5 billion, of which about 
$3.2 billion was for economic development efforts, according to the 
agencies (See GAO-11-318SP and GAO, List of Selected Federal Programs 
That Have Similar or Overlapping Objectives, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-474R] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 18, 
2011). We are reporting different funding figures in this product 
because SBA revised the original information they provided to us in 
December 2010. 

[4] GAO, Rural Economic Development: Collaboration between SBA and 
USDA Could Be Improved, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1123] (Washington D.C.: Sept. 18, 
2008). 

[5] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-318SP], 44-45. 

[6] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1123]. 

[7] GAO, Small Business Administration: Additional Actions Are Needed 
to Certify and Monitor HUBZone Businesses and Assess Program Results, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-964] (Washington D.C.: 
June 17, 2008). 

[8] GAO, Economic Development: Multiple Federal Programs Fund Similar 
Economic Development Activities, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/RCED/GGD-00-220] (Washington, D.C.: 
Sept. 29, 2000) and [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-294]. 

[9] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-318SP] and 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-474R]. 

[10] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-318SP]. 

[11] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-318SP], 75. 

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

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: 

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