Small Business Management and Technical Assistance Training Programs

Summary: The Small Business Administration (SBA) has provided technical and managerial assistance to small businesses since it began operations in 1953. Initially, the SBA provided its own small business management and technical assistance training programs. Over time, the SBA has relied increasingly on third parties to provide that training.

Summary: Congressional interest in the SBA's management and technical assistance training programs ($226.7 million in FY2019) has increased in recent years, primarily because these programs are viewed as a means to assist small businesses create and retain jobs. These programs fund about "14,000 resource partners," including 63 lead small business development centers (SBDCs) and nearly 900 SBDC local outreach locations, 128 women's business centers (WBCs), and 350 chapters of the mentoring program, SCORE. The SBA reports that more than 1.2 million aspiring entrepreneurs and small business owners receive training from an SBA-supported resource partner each year.

Summary: The Department of Commerce also provides management and technical assistance training for small businesses. For example, its Minority Business Development Agency provides training to minority business owners to assist them in obtaining contracts and financial awards.

Summary: Some have argued that the SBA could improve program efficiency by eliminating duplication of services across federal agencies and improving cooperation and coordination among the SBA's resource partners. Congress has also explored ways to improve the SBA's measurement of these programs' effectiveness.

Summary: This report examines the historical development of federal small business management and technical assistance training programs; describes their current structures, operations, and budgets; and assesses their administration and oversight and the measures used to determine their effectiveness. It also discusses legislation to improve program performance, including

Summary: P.L. 114-88, the Recovery Improvements for Small Entities After Disaster Act of 2015 (RISE After Disaster Act of 2015), which, among other things, authorizes the SBA to provide up to two years of additional funding to its resource partners to assist small businesses located in a presidentially declared major disaster area and authorizes SBDCs to provide assistance outside the SBDC's state, without regard to geographical proximity to the SBDC, if the small business is in a presidentially declared major disaster area. This assistance can be provided "for a period of not more than two years after the date on which the President" has declared the area a major disaster; and P.L. 115-141, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018, among other provisions, relaxed requirements that Microloan intermediaries may spend no more than 25% of Microloan technical assistance grant funds on prospective borrowers and no more than 25% of those funds on contracts with third parties to provide that technical assistance by increasing those percentages to no more than 50%.

Federal Management and Technical Assistance Training Programs

The Small Business Administration (SBA) administers several programs to support small businesses, including loan guaranty programs to enhance small business access to capital; programs to increase small business opportunities in federal contracting; direct loans for businesses, homeowners, and renters to assist their recovery from natural disasters; and access to entrepreneurial education to assist with business formation and expansion. The SBA has provided "technical and managerial aides to small-business concerns, by advising and counseling on matters in connection with government procurement and on policies, principles and practices of good management" since it began operations in 1953.

Initially, the SBA provided its own management and technical assistance training programs. Over time, the SBA has relied increasingly on third parties to provide that training. More than 1.2 million aspiring entrepreneurs and small business owners receive training from an SBA-supported resource partner each year.

The SBA has argued that its support of management and technical assistance training for small businesses has contributed "to the long-term success of these businesses and their ability to grow and create jobs." It currently provides financial support to about 14,000 resource partners, including 63 small business development centers (SBDCs) and nearly 900 SBDC local outreach locations, 128 women's business centers (WBCs), and 350 chapters of the mentoring program, SCORE (Service Corps of Retired Executives).

The SBA receives an annual appropriation for entrepreneurial development/noncredit programs collectively (currently $247.7 million). The SBA uses these funds for its management and training programs ($226.7 million in FY2019), administration of the HUBZone program ($3.0 million), and the State Trade and Export Promotion program ($18.0 million). Congress specifies the appropriation amount for SBDCs (currently $131.0 million) and the Microloan Technical Assistance Program (currently $31.0 million) in its annual appropriation act and includes recommended appropriation amounts for the SBA's other management and training programs in either the explanatory statement or the committee report accompanying the appropriations act. The SBA is not legally required to adhere to the recommended amounts but has traditionally done so in the past.

Table 1 shows the appropriation amounts Congress specified for SBDCs and the Microloan Technical Assistance Program and the appropriation amounts Congress recommended for the SBA's other management and training programs in FY2015 ($198.6 million), FY2016 ($210.1 million), FY2017 ($224.1 million), FY2018 ($226.1 million), and FY2019 ($226.7 million).

The Department of Commerce also provides management and technical assistance training for small businesses. For example, the Department of Commerce's Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA) provides training to minority business owners to assist them in obtaining contracts and financial awards. In addition, the Department of Commerce's Economic Development Administration's Local Technical Assistance Program promotes efforts to build and expand local organizational capacity in economically distressed areas. As part of that effort, it funds projects that focus on technical or market feasibility studies of economic development projects or programs, which often include consultation with small businesses.

For many years, a recurring theme at congressional hearings concerning the SBA's management and technical assistance training programs has been the perceived need to improve program efficiency by eliminating duplication of services and increasing cooperation and coordination both within and among its training resource partners. For example, the Obama Administration recommended in its FY2012-FY2017 budget recommendations that funding for the PRIME technical assistance program end. The Administration argued that PRIME overlaps and duplicates "the technical assistance provided by SBA's microlending intermediaries." The Trump Administration has also requested the program's elimination.

The House Committee on Small Business has argued that the SBA's various management and technical assistance training programs should be "folded into the mission of the SBDC program or their responsibilities should be taken over by other agencies" because they "overlap each other and duplicate the educational services provided by other agencies." Congress has also explored ways to improve the SBA's measurement of these programs' effectiveness.

This report examines the historical development of federal small business management and technical assistance training programs; describes their current structures, operations, and budgets; and assesses their administration and oversight, including measures used to determine their effectiveness.

This report also examines legislation to improve SBA program performance and oversight, including

P.L. 114-88 , the Recovery Improvements for Small Entities After Disaster Act of 2015 (RISE After Disaster Act of 2015), which, among other things, authorizes the SBA to provide up to two years of additional financial assistance, on a competitive basis, to SBDCs, WBCs, SCORE, or any proposed consortium of such individuals or entities to assist small businesses located in a presidentially declared major disaster area and authorizes SBDCs to provide assistance to small businesses outside the SBDC's state, without regard to geographical proximity to the SBDC, if the small business is in a presidentially declared major disaster area. This assistance can be provided "for a period of not more than two years after the date on which the President" has declared the area a major disaster; and P.L. 115-141 , the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018, among other provisions, relaxed requirements that Microloan intermediaries may spend no more than 25% of Microloan technical assistance grant funds on prospective borrowers and no more than 25% of those funds on contracts with third parties to provide that technical assistance by increasing those percentages to no more than 50% (originally in H.R. 2056 , the Microloan Modernization Act of 2017, and S. 526 , the Microloan Modernization Act of 2018).

In addition, it discusses H.R. 1774 , the Developing the Next Generation of Small Businesses Act of 2017, which was introduced during the 115 th Congress. The bill would have required the SBA to only use authorized entrepreneurial development programs (SCORE, WBCs, SBDCs, etc.) to deliver specified entrepreneurial development services; added data collection and reporting requirements for SBDCs; authorized to be appropriated $21.75 million for WBCs for each of FY2018-FY2021 (WBCs were appropriated $18.0 million in FY2018); increased the WBC annual grant award from not more than $150,000 to not more than $185,000 (adjusted annually to reflect change in inflation); authorized the award of an additional $65,000 to WBCs under specified circumstances; authorized the SBA to waive, in whole or in part, the WBC nonfederal matching requirement for up to two consecutive fiscal years under specified circumstances; modified SCORE program requirements with respect to the role of participating volunteers, program plans and goals, and reporting; and added language concerning the provision and reporting of online counseling by SCORE.

SBA Management and Technical Assistance Training Programs

The SBA supports a number of management and technical assistance training programs, including the following:

Small Business Development Center Grants Program, Microloan Technical Assistance Program, Women's Business Center Grants Program, Veterans Business Development Programs, SCORE (Service Corps of Retired Executives), PRIME Technical Assistance Program, 7(j) Technical Assistance Program, Native American Outreach Program, and Several initiatives, including the Entrepreneurial Development Initiative (Regional Innovation Clusters), Boots to Business, Entrepreneurial Education, and Growth Accelerators.

The legislative history and current operating structures, functions, and budget for each of these programs is presented in this report. In addition, if the data are available, the program's performance based on outcome-based measures, such as their effect on small business formation, survivability, and expansion, and on job creation and retention, is also presented. Also, a brief description of each of these programs is provided in the Appendix .

In 1976, the SBA created the University Business Development Center pilot program to establish small business centers within universities to provide counseling and training for small businesses. The first center was founded at California State Polytechnic University at Pomona in December 1976. Seven more centers were funded over the next six months at universities in seven different states. By 1979, 16 SBDCs received SBA funding and were providing management and technical training assistance to small businesses.

The SBDC program was provided statutory authorization by P.L. 96-302 , the Small Business Development Center Act of 1980. SBDCs were to "rely on the private sector primarily, and the university community, in partnership with the SBA and its other programs, to fill gaps in making quality management assistance available to the small business owner." Although most SBDCs continued to be affiliated with universities, the legislation authorized the SBA to provide funding

to any State government or any agency thereof, any regional entity, any State-chartered development, credit or finance corporation, any public or private institution of higher education, including but not limited to any land-grant college or university, any college or school of business, engineering, commerce, or agriculture, community college or junior college, or to any entity formed by two or more of the above entities.

SBDC funding is allocated on a pro rata basis among the states (defined to include the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa) by a statutory formula "based on the percentage of the population of each State, as compared to the population of the United States." If, as is currently the case, SBDC funding exceeds $90 million, the minimum funding level is "the sum of $500,000, plus a percentage of $500,000 equal to the percentage amount by which the amount made available exceeds $90 million."

In 1984, P.L. 98-395 , the Small Business Development Center Improvement Act of 1984, required SBDCs, as a condition of receiving SBA funding, to contribute a matching amount equal to the grant amount, and that the match must be provided by nonfederal sources and be comprised of not less than 50% cash and not more than 50% of indirect costs and in-kind contributions. It also required SBDCs to have an advisory board and a full-time director who has authority to make expenditures under the center's budget. It also required the SBA to implement a program of onsite evaluations for each SBDC and to make those evaluations at least once every two years.

Today, the SBA provides grants to SBDCs that are "hosted by leading universities, colleges, and state economic development agencies" to deliver management and technical assistance training "to small businesses and nascent entrepreneurs (pre-venture) in order to promote growth, expansion, innovation, increased productivity and management improvement." These services are delivered, in most instances, on a nonfee, one-on-one confidential counseling basis and are administered by 63 lead service centers, one located in each state (four in Texas and six in California), the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa. These lead centers manage nearly 900 service centers located throughout the United States and the territories.

As shown in Table 2 , SBDCs provided technical assistance training services to 443,376 clients in FY2018 (250,926 clients received training and 192,450 clients were advised), and assisted in forming 14,422 new businesses.

SBDCs received an appropriation of $115.0 million in FY2015, $117.0 million in FY2016, $125.0 million in FY2017, $130.0 million in FY2018, and $131.0 million in FY2019 (see Table 1 ). The Trump Administration requested $110.0 million for the program in FY2018 and $110.0 million in FY2019.

In addition, as mentioned earlier, P.L. 114-88 expanded the role of SBDCs by, among other things

authorizing the SBA to provide up to two years of additional financial assistance, on a competitive basis, to SBDCs, WBCs, SCORE, or any proposed consortium of such individuals or entities to assist small businesses located in a presidentially declared major disaster area; and authorizing SBDCs to provide assistance to small businesses outside the SBDC's state, without regard to geographical proximity to the SBDC, if the small business is located in a presidentially declared major disaster area. This assistance can be provided "for a period of not more than two years after the date on which the President" has declared the area a major disaster.

As part of its legislative mandate to evaluate each SBDC, in 2003, the SBA's Office of Entrepreneurial Development designed "a multi-year time series study to assess the impact of the programs it offers to small businesses." The survey has been administered annually in partnership with a private firm.

The 2014 survey was sent to 70,262 SBDC clients who had received five or more hours of counseling assistance in calendar year 2012. The survey was administered in the spring and summer of 2013. A total of 10,407 surveys (14.8% return rate) were completed either by mail, email, or the internet.

The 2014 survey indicated that, of the SBDC clients

90.7% reported that the services they received from SBDC counselors were beneficial; 87.8% reported that the knowledge and expertise of their SBDC counselor was excellent (66.0%) or above average (21.8%); 86.2% reported that their overall working relationship with their SBDC counselor was excellent (68.9%) or above average (17.3%); and 94.4% reported that they would recommend that other businesspersons contact the SBDC.

As mentioned previously, P.L. 114-88 , among other things, authorizes the SBA to provide up to two years of additional funding to its management and training resource partners to assist small businesses located in a presidentially declared major disaster area and authorizes SBDCs to provide assistance outside the SBDC's state, without regard to geographical proximity to the SBDC, if the small business is in a presidentially declared major disaster area. This assistance can be provided "for a period of not more than two years after the date on which the President" has declared the area a major disaster.

Also, H.R. 1774 , the Developing the Next Generation of Small Businesses Act of 2017, introduced during the 115 th Congress, among other provisions, would have required the SBA to only use authorized entrepreneurial development programs (SCORE, WBCs, SBDCs, etc.) "to deliver entrepreneurial development services, entrepreneurial education, support for the development and maintenance of clusters, or business training" and would have added SBDC data collection and reporting requirements. Similar legislation was introduced during the 114 th Congress ( H.R. 207 and S. 999 ).

Congress authorized the SBA's Microloan lending program in 1991 ( P.L. 102-140 , the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1992) to address the perceived disadvantages faced by women, low-income, veteran, and minority entrepreneurs and business owners gaining access to capital for starting or expanding their business. The program became operational in 1992. Its stated purpose is

to assist women, low-income, veteran ... and minority entrepreneurs and business owners and other individuals possessing the capability to operate successful business concerns; to assist small business concerns in those areas suffering from a lack of credit due to economic downturns; ... to make loans to eligible intermediaries to enable such intermediaries to provide small-scale loans, particularly loans in amounts averaging not more than $10,000, to start-up, newly established, or growing small business concerns for working capital or the acquisition of materials, supplies, or equipment; [and] to make grants to eligible intermediaries that, together with non-Federal matching funds, will enable such intermediaries to provide intensive marketing, management, and technical assistance to microloan borrowers.

Initially, the SBA's Microloan program was authorized as a five-year demonstration project. It was made permanent, subject to reauthorization, by P.L. 105-135 , the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 1997.

The SBA's Microloan Technical Assistance Program, which is affiliated with the SBA's Microloan lending program but receives a separate appropriation, provides grants to Microloan intermediaries to provide management and technical training assistance to Microloan program borrowers and prospective borrowers. There are currently 147 active Microloan intermediaries serving 49 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.

Intermediaries are eligible to receive a Microloan technical assistance grant "of not more than 25% of the total outstanding balance of loans made to it" under the Microloan program. Grant funds may be used only to provide marketing, management, and technical assistance to Microloan borrowers, except that no more than 50% of the funds may be used to provide such assistance to prospective Microloan borrowers and no more than 50% of the funds may be awarded to third parties to provide that technical assistance. Grant funds also may be used to attend required training.

In most instances, intermediaries must contribute, solely from nonfederal sources, an amount equal to 25% of the grant amount. In addition to cash or other direct funding, the contribution may include indirect costs or in-kind contributions paid for under nonfederal programs.

The SBA does not require Microloan borrowers to participate in the Microloan Technical Assistance Program. However, intermediaries typically require Microloan borrowers to participate in the training program as a condition of the receipt of a microloan. Combining loan and intensive management and technical assistance training is one of the Microloan program's distinguishing features.

As shown in Table 3 , the Microloan Technical Assistance Program provided counseling services to 21,800 small businesses in FY2018 and there were 147 grant eligible microloan intermediaries.

The program was appropriated $22.3 million in FY2015, $25.0 million in FY2016, and $31.0 million in FY2017, FY2018, and FY2019 (see Table 1 ). The Trump Administration requested $25.0 million for the program in FY2018 and $25.0 million in FY2019.

As mentioned previously, P.L. 115-141 , among other provisions, relaxed requirements that Microloan intermediaries may spend no more than 25% of Microloan technical assistance grant funds on prospective borrowers and no more than 25% of those funds on contracts with third parties to provide that technical assistance by increasing those percentages to no more than 50%. These provisions were originally in H.R. 2056 and S. 526 .

During the 114 th Congress, H.R. 2670 and S. 1857 (its Senate companion bill) would have required the SBA administrator to establish a rule enabling intermediaries to apply for a waiver to the requirement that no more than 25% of Microloan technical assistance grant funds may be used to provide technical assistance to prospective borrowers.

The Women's Business Center (WBC) Renewable Grant Program was initially established by P.L. 100-533 , the Women's Business Ownership Act of 1988, as the Women's Business Demonstration Pilot Program. The act directed the SBA to provide financial assistance to private, nonprofit organizations to conduct demonstration projects giving financial, management, and marketing assistance to small businesses, including start-up businesses, owned and controlled by women. Since its inception, the program has targeted the needs of socially and economically disadvantaged women. The WBC program was expanded and provided permanent legislative status by P.L. 109-108 , the Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006.

Since the program's inception, the SBA has awarded WBCs a grant of up to $150,000 per year. Initially, the grant was awarded for one year, with the possibility of being renewed twice, for a total of up to three years. As a condition of the receipt of funds, the WBC was required to raise at least one nonfederal dollar for each two federal dollars during the grant's first year (1:2), one nonfederal dollar for each federal dollar during year two (1:1), and two nonfederal dollars for each federal dollar during year three (2:1). Over the years, Congress has extended the length of the WBC program's grant award and reduced the program's matching requirement.

Today, WBC initial grants are awarded for up to five years, consisting of a base period of 12 months from the date of the award and four 12-month option periods. The SBA determines if the option periods are exercised and makes that determination subject to the continuation of program authority, the availability of funds, and the recipient organization's compliance with federal law, SBA regulations, and the terms and conditions specified in a cooperative agreement. WBCs that successfully complete the initial five-year grant period may apply for an unlimited number of three-year funding intervals.

During their initial five-year grant period, WBCs are now required to provide a nonfederal match of one nonfederal dollar for each two federal dollars in years one and two (1:2), and one nonfederal dollar for each federal dollar in years three, four and five (1:1). After the initial five-year grant period, the matching requirement in subsequent three-year funding intervals is not more than 50% of federal funding (1:1). The nonfederal match may consist of cash, in-kind, and program income.

Today, there are 128 WBCs located throughout most of the United States and the territories. As shown in Table 4 , WBCs provided assistance to 151,861 clients in FY2018 (123,680 clients received technical assistance training services and 28,181 clients were advised), and assisted in the formation of 11,687 new businesses.

Congress recommended that the WBC program receive $15.0 million in FY2015, $17.0 million in FY2016, $18.0 million in FY2017, $18.0 million in FY2018, and $18.5 million in FY2019 (see Table 1 ). The Trump Administration requested $16.0 million for the program for FY2018 and $16.0 million for FY2019.

P.L. 105-135 required the SBA to "develop and implement an annual programmatic and financial examination of each" WBC. As part of its legislative mandate to implement an annual programmatic and financial examination of each WBC, the SBA's Office of Entrepreneurial Development includes WBCs in its previously mentioned multiyear time series study of its programs.

Data from the SBA's 2014 client survey concerning WBCs are not yet available. The firm administering the 2013 survey of SBA management and training clients contacted 2,997 WBC clients and received 529 completed surveys (17.7% return rate). The survey indicated that

80% of WBC clients reported that the services they received from counselors were useful or very useful, 2% had no opinion, and 18% reported that the services they received from counselors were somewhat useful or not useful; 61% of WBC clients reported that they changed their management practices/strategies as a result of the assistance they received; and the top five changes to management practices involved their business plan (56%), marketing plan (46%), general management (36%), cash flow analysis (31%), and financial strategy (30%).

As mentioned earlier, P.L. 114-88 expanded the role of WBCs by authorizing the SBA to provide up to two years of additional financial assistance, on a competitive basis, to SBDCs, WBCs, SCORE, or any proposed consortium of such individuals or entities to assist small businesses located in a presidentially declared major disaster area.

In addition, H.R. 1774 , introduced during the 115 th Congress, would have required the SBA to use only authorized entrepreneurial development programs (SCORE, WBCs, SBDCs, etc.) to deliver specified entrepreneurial development services; authorized to be appropriated $21.75 million for WBCs for each of FY2018-FY2021 (WBCs received $18.0 million in FY2018); increased the WBC annual grant award from not more than $150,000 to not more than $185,000 (adjusted annually to reflect change in inflation); authorized the award of an additional $65,000 to WBCs under specified circumstances; and authorized the SBA to waive, in whole or in part, the WBC nonfederal matching requirement for up to two consecutive fiscal years under specified circumstances. Similar legislation was introduced during the 114 th Congress ( H.R. 207 and S. 2126 ).

The SBA has supported management and technical assistance training for veteran-owned small businesses since its formation as an agency. However, during the 1990s, some in Congress noted that a direct loan program for veterans was eliminated by the SBA in 1995 and that the "training and counseling for veterans dropped from 38,775 total counseling sessions for veterans in 1993 to 29,821 sessions in 1998." Concerned that "the needs of veterans have been diminished systematically at the SBA," Congress adopted P.L. 106-50 , the Veterans Entrepreneurship and Small Business Development Act of 1999.

The act reemphasized the SBA's responsibility "to reach out to and include veterans in its programs providing financial and technical assistance." It also included veterans as a target group for the SBA's 7(a), 504/CDC, and Microloan programs. In addition, it required the SBA to enter into a memorandum of understanding with SCORE to, among other things, establish "a program to coordinate counseling and training regarding entrepreneurship to veterans through the chapters of SCORE throughout the United States." The act also directed the SBA to enter into a memorandum of understanding with SBDCs, the Department of Veteran Affairs, and the National Veterans Business Development Corporation "with respect to entrepreneurial assistance to veterans, including service-disabled veterans." It specified, among other things, that the SBA conduct and distribute studies on the formation, management, financing, marketing, and operation of small business concerns by veterans; provide training and counseling on these topics to veterans; assist veterans regarding procurement opportunities with federal, state, and local agencies, especially agencies funded in whole or in part with federal funds; and provide internet or other distance-learning academic instruction for veterans in business subjects, including accounting, marketing, and business fundamentals.

The SBA's Office of Veterans Business Development (OVBD) was established to address these statutory requirements. The OVBD currently administers several management and training programs to assist veteran-owned businesses, including the following:

The Entrepreneurship Bootcamp for Veterans with Disabilities Consortium of Universities provides "experiential training in entrepreneurship and small business management to post-9/11 veterans with disabilities" at eight universities. The Veteran Women Igniting the Spirit of Entrepreneurship (V-WISE) program, administered through a cooperative agreement with Syracuse University, offers women veterans a 15-day, online course on entrepreneurship skills and the "language of business," followed by a 3-day conference (offered twice a year at varying locations) in which participants "are exposed to successful entrepreneurs and CEOs of Fortune 500 companies and leaders in government" and participate in courses on business planning, marketing, accounting and finance, operations and production, human resources, and work-life balance. The Operation Endure and Grow Program, administered through a cooperative agreement with Syracuse University, offers an eight-week online training program on "the fundamentals of launching and/or growing a small business" and is available to National Guard and reservists and their family members. The Boots to Business program (started in 2012), which is "an elective track within the Department of Defense's revised Training Assistance Program called Transition Goals, Plans, Success (Transition GPS) and has three parts: the Entrepreneurship Track Overview—a 10-minute introductory video shown during the mandatory five-day Transition GPS course which introduces entrepreneurship as a post-service career option; Introduction to Entrepreneurship—a two-day classroom course on entrepreneurship and business fundamentals offered as one of the three Transition GPS elective tracks; and Foundations of Entrepreneurship—an eight-week, instructor-led online course that offers in-depth instruction on the elements of a business plan and tips and techniques for starting a business." The Boots to Business Reboot program (started in 2014) assists veterans who have already transitioned to civilian life. The Veterans Business Outreach Centers (VBOC) program provides veterans and their spouses management and technical assistance training at 22 locations, including assistance with the Boots to Business program, the development and maintenance of a five-year business plan, and referrals to other SBA resource partners when appropriate for additional training or mentoring services.

Prior to FY2016, Congress recommended appropriations for VBOCs and the Boots to Business initiative. Funding for the OVBD's other veterans assistance programs was provided through the SBA's salaries and expenses account.

Starting in FY2016, Congress has recommended a single amount for all OVBD programs (currently $12.7 million) (see Table 1 ). The Trump Administration requested $11.25 million for these programs in FY2018 and $11.25 million in FY2019.

As shown in Table 5 , VBOCs trained or advised 51,945 veterans in FY2018 and 17,167 veterans participated in the Boots to Business Initiative.

SCORE (Service Corps of Retired Executives)

The SBA has partnered with various voluntary business and professional service organizations to provide management and technical assistance training to small businesses since the 1950s. On October 5, 1964, using authority under the Small Business Act to provide "technical and managerial aids to small business concerns" in cooperation with "educational and other nonprofit organizations, associations, and institutions," then-SBA Administrator Eugene P. Foley officially launched SCORE (Service Corps of Retired Executives) as a national, volunteer organization with 2,000 members, uniting more than 50 independent nonprofit organizations into a single, national nonprofit organization. Since then, the SBA has provided financial assistance to SCORE to provide training to small business owners and prospective owners.

Over the years, Congress has authorized the SBA to take certain actions relating to SCORE. For example, P.L. 89-754, the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966, authorized the SBA to permit members of nonprofit organizations use of the SBA's office facilities and services. P.L. 90-104, the Small Business Act Amendments of 1967, added the authority to pay travel and subsistence expenses "incurred at the request of the Administration in connection with travel to a point more than fifty miles distant from the home of that individual in providing gratuitous services to small businessmen" or "in connection with attendance at meetings sponsored by the Administration." P.L. 93-113 , the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973, was the first statute to mention SCORE directly, providing the Director of ACTION authority to work with SCORE to "expand the application of their expertise beyond Small Business Administration clients." P.L. 95-510 , a bill to amend the Small Business Act, provided the SBA explicit statutory authorization to work with SCORE (Section 8(b)(1)(B)). P.L. 106-554 , the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001 (Section 1(a)(9)—the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 2000) authorized SCORE to solicit cash and in-kind contributions from the private sector to be used to carry out its functions.

The SBA currently provides grants to SCORE to provide in-person mentoring, online training, and "nearly 9,000 local training workshops annually" to small businesses. SCORE's 350 chapters and more than 800 branch offices are located throughout the United States and partner with more than 11,000 volunteer counselors, who are working or retired business owners, executives and corporate leaders, to provide management and training assistance to small businesses "at no charge or at very low cost."

As shown in Table 6 , SCORE's volunteer network of business professionals provided assistance to 686,208 clients in FY2018 (559,805 clients received technical assistance training services and 126,403 client received counseling services).

Congress recommended that SCORE receive $8.0 million in FY2015, $10.5 million in FY2016 and FY2017, $11.5 million in FY2018, and $11.7 million in FY2019 (see Table 1 ). The Trump Administration requested $9.9 million for the program in FY2018 and FY2019.

The SBA Office of Entrepreneurial Development includes SCORE in its multiyear time series study to assess its programs' effectiveness. The 2014 survey was sent to 124,612 SCORE clients who had a valid email address and received at least one mentoring session in any form (telephone, online/email, in-person, or other form) during FY2013 (October 2012-September 2013). The survey was initially distributed by email, and telephone calls were used as a follow-up to ensure at least 30 responses were received from each responding SCORE chapter. The survey was administered between October 2013 and December 2013. A total of 13,548 surveys (10.9% return rate) were completed either by email or telephone, representing 318 of SCORE's then-330 chapters.

The 2014 survey indicated that, of the SCORE clients

60.9% reported that they strongly agreed (32.2%) or agreed (28.7%) with the following statement: SCORE is important to my success; 44.8% reported that they strongly agreed (18.4%) or agreed (26.4%) with the following statement: As a result of working with SCORE, I have changed my business strategies or practices; 32.6% reported that they strongly agreed (12.1%) or agreed (20.5%) with the following statement: Working with SCORE helped me add employees in the past year; and 51.8% reported that they strongly agreed (17.0%) or agreed (34.8%) with the following statement: Working with SCORE helped me grow my business revenue.

As mentioned earlier, P.L. 114-88 expanded SCORE's role by authorizing the SBA to provide up to two years of additional financial assistance, on a competitive basis, to SBDCs, WBCs, SCORE, or any proposed consortium of such individuals or entities to assist small businesses located in a presidentially declared major disaster area.

In addition, H.R. 1774 , introduced during the 115 th Congress, would have required the SBA to use only authorized entrepreneurial development programs (SCORE, WBCs, SBDCs, etc.) to deliver specified entrepreneurial development services; modified SCORE program requirements with respect to the role of participating volunteers, program plans and goals, and reporting; and added language concerning the provision and reporting of online counseling by SCORE. Similar legislation was introduced during the 114 th Congress ( H.R. 207 , H.R. 4788 , and S. 1000 ).

Program for Investment in Micro-entrepreneurs (PRIME)

P.L. 106-102 , the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (of 1999) (Subtitle C—Microenterprise Technical Assistance and Capacity Building Program), amended P.L. 103-325 , the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994, to authorize the SBA to "establish a microenterprise technical assistance and capacity building grant program." The program was to "provide assistance from the Administration in the form of grants" to

nonprofit microenterprise development organizations or programs (or a group or collaborative thereof) that has a demonstrated record of delivering microenterprise services to disadvantaged entrepreneurs; an intermediary; a microenterprise development organization or program that is accountable to a local community, working in conjunction with a state or local government or Indian tribe; or an Indian tribe acting on its own, if the Indian tribe can certify that no private organization or program referred to in this paragraph exists within its jurisdiction."

The SBA was directed "to ensure that not less than 50% of the grants … are used to benefit very low-income persons, including those residing on Indian reservations." It was also directed to

(1) provide training and technical assistance to disadvantaged entrepreneurs; (2) provide training and capacity building services to microenterprise development organizations and programs and groups of such organizations to assist such organizations and programs in developing microenterprise training and services; (3) aid in researching and developing the best practices in the field of microenterprise and technical assistance programs for disadvantaged entrepreneurs; and (4) for such other activities as the Administrator determines are consistent with the purposes of this subtitle.

The SBA's PRIME program was designed to meet these legislative requirements by providing assistance to organizations that "help low-income entrepreneurs who lack sufficient training and education to gain access to capital to establish and expand their small businesses." The program offers four types of grants:

Technical Assistance Grants support training and technical assistance to disadvantaged microentrepreneurs, Capacity Building Grants support training and capacity building services to microenterprise development organizations and programs to assist them in developing microenterprise training and services, Research and Development Grants support the development and sharing of best practices in the field of microenterprise development and technical assistance programs for disadvantaged microentrepreneurs, and Discretionary Grants support other activities determined to be consistent with these purposes.

Grants are awarded on an annual basis. Applicants may be approved for option year funding for up to four subsequent years. Award amounts vary depending on the availability of funds. However, no single grantee may receive more than $250,000 or 10% of the total funds made available for the program in a single fiscal year, whichever is less. The minimum grant award for technical assistance and capacity building grants is $50,000. There is no minimum grant award amount for research and development or discretionary grants. The SBA typically awards at least 75% of the grant funds for technical assistance, at least 15% for capacity building, and the remainder for research and development or discretionary activities.

Recipients must match 50% of the funding from nonfederal sources. Revenue from fees, grants, and gifts; income from loan sources; and in-kind resources from nonfederal public or private sources may be used to comply with the matching requirement. SBA regulations indicate that "applicants or grantees with severe constraints on available sources of matching funds may request that the Administrator or designee reduce or eliminate the matching requirements." Any reductions or eliminations must not exceed 10% of the aggregate of all PRIME grant funds made available by SBA in any fiscal year.

Table 7 provides the number and amount of PRIME awards from FY2014 to FY2018.

Congress has recommended that the PRIME program receive $5.0 million in each fiscal year since FY2015 (see Table 1 ).

As mentioned previously, the Obama Administration recommended in its FY2012-FY2017 budget requests that funding for the PRIME program be eliminated. It argued that the PRIME program overlaps and duplicates the SBA's Microloan Technical Assistance Program. The Trump Administration requested that the program receive no funding in FY2018 and FY2019.

7(j) Management and Technical Assistance Program

Using what it viewed as broad statutory powers granted under Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act of 1958, as amended, the SBA issued regulations in 1970 creating the 8(a) contracting program to "assist small concerns owned by disadvantaged persons to become self-sufficient, viable businesses capable of competing effectively in the market place." Using its statutory authority under Section 7(j) of the Small Business Act to provide management and technical assistance through contracts, grants, and cooperative agreement to qualified service providers, the regulations specified that "the SBA may provide technical and management assistance to assist in the performance of the subcontracts."

On October 24, 1978, P.L. 95-507 , to amend the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, provided the SBA explicit statutory authority to extend financial, management, technical, and other services to socially and economically disadvantaged small businesses. The SBA's current regulations indicate that the 7(j) Management and Technical Assistance Program, named after the section of the Small Business Act of 1958, as amended, authorizing the SBA to provide management and technical assistance training, will, "through its private sector service providers" deliver "a wide variety of management and technical assistance to eligible individuals or concerns to meet their specific needs, including: (a) counseling and training in the areas of financing, management, accounting, bookkeeping, marketing, and operation of small business concerns; and (b) the identification and development of new business opportunities." Eligible individuals and businesses include "8(a) certified firms, small disadvantaged businesses, businesses operating in areas of high unemployment, or low income or firms owned by low income individuals."

As shown on Table 8 , the 7(j) program assisted 6,483 small business owners in FY2018.

Congress has recommended that the 7(j) program receive $2.8 million in each fiscal year since FY2015 (see Table 1 ). The Trump Administration requested $2.8 million for the program in FY2018 and FY2019.

The SBA established the Office of Native American Affairs in 1994 to "address the unique needs of America's First people." It oversees the Native American Outreach Program, which provides management and technical educational assistance to American Indians, Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and "the indigenous people of Guam and American Samoa … to promote entity-owned and individual 8(a) certification, government contracting, entrepreneurial education, and capital access." The program's management and technical assistance services are available to members of these groups living in most areas of the nation. However, "for Native Americans living in much of Indian Country, actual reservations communities where the land is held in trust by the U.S. federal government, SBA loan guaranties and technical assistance services are not available."

In FY2018, the SBA's Office of Native American Affairs assisted 1,549 small businesses. It provided workshops on business development and financial literacy, training webinars, incubator training, and online classes for Native American entrepreneurs.

Congress has recommended that the Native American Outreach Program receive $2.0 million in each fiscal year since FY2015 (see Table 1 ). The Trump Administration requested $1.5 million for the program in FY2018 and FY2019.

In addition to the Boots to Business initiative discussed under " Veterans Business Development Programs ," Congress has recommended appropriations for the following three Obama Administration management and training initiatives: the Entrepreneurial Development Initiative (Regional Innovation Clusters), Entrepreneurial Education, and Growth Accelerators.

Entrepreneurial Development Initiative (Regional Innovation Clusters)

The SBA has supported regional innovation clusters since FY2009, when it partnered with small business suppliers working in the field of robotics in Michigan. In FY2010, the SBA was involved in the rollouts of two additional clusters: another robotics cluster in southeast Virginia and a cluster involving a partnership with the Department of Energy and several other federal agencies with the goal of developing a regional cluster in energy efficiency homes and businesses. In FY2011, SBA awarded funds to 10 regional innovation clusters. In FY2012, these clusters "spurred $48 million in private capital raised through venture and angel capital sources, $6.5 million in early stage investment from SBIR [Small Business Innovation Research program] and STTR [Small Business Technology Transfer program] awards, and over $217 million in contracts or subcontracts from the federal government."

President Obama requested, and Congress recommended, an appropriation of $5.0 million for the SBA's Entrepreneurial Development Initiative (Regional Innovation Clusters) in FY2014. Congress recommended that the program receive $6.0 million in FY2015, $6.0 million in FY2016, and $5.0 million in each fiscal year since FY2017 (see Table 1 ). The Trump Administration requested that the program receive no funds in FY2018 and in FY2019.

The SBA reports that there are currently 56 federally supported regional innovation clusters, with the SBA directly involved in 40 of them.

The SBA describes regional innovation clusters as "on-the-ground collaborations between business, research, education, financing and government institutions that work to develop and grow a particular industry or related set of industries in a particular geographic region." Targeted activities for the 40 clusters currently being supported by the SBA include "business development, intellectual property matters, export and import development, finance, marketing, commercialization of new technology and federal and private-sector supply chain opportunities."

The SBA started its Entrepreneurship Education initiative in 2008. At that time, it was called the Emerging 200 Underserved initiative (E200), reflecting the initiative's provision of assistance to 200 inner city small businesses. In FY2009, it was renamed the Emerging Leaders initiative to reflect the SBA's decision to increase the number of small businesses participating in the initiative. It was renamed the Entrepreneurial Education initiative in FY2013, and it is funded under that name in appropriation acts, but the SBA, and others, often still call it the Emerging Leaders Initiative. The initiative currently

offers high‐growth small businesses in underserved communities a seven‐month executive leader education series that elevates their growth trajectory, creates jobs, and contributes to the economic well‐being of their local communities. Participants receive more than 100 hours of specialized training, technical resources, a professional networking system, and other resources to strengthen their business model and promote economic development within urban communities. At the conclusion of the training, participants produce a three‐year strategic growth action plan with benchmarks and performance targets that help them access the necessary support and resources to move forward for the next stage of business growth.

The Entrepreneurial Education initiative was initially offered in 10 communities (Albuquerque, Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Des Moines, Memphis, Milwaukee, New Orleans, and Philadelphia) and provided training to 200 inner city small businesses. The program was funded through the SBA's Office of Entrepreneurship Education. Since the initiative's inception, the SBA has requested separate appropriations to fund and expand the initiative. In FY2012, the initiative offered training in 27 communities, with more than 450 small businesses participating.

The Obama Administration requested $40.0 million in its FY2014 budget request to sponsor entrepreneur training in 40 locations and to create an online entrepreneurship training program. Congress included the Entrepreneurship Education initiative in its list of SBA entrepreneurial development/noncredit programs to be funded in FY2014. This was the first time that the initiative was included in the list. In the explanatory statement accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, Congress recommended that the initiative receive $5.0 million in FY2014. Congress recommended that the program receive $7.0 million in FY2015, $10.0 million in FY2016 and FY2017, $6.0 million in FY2018, and $3.5 million in FY2019 (see Table 1 ). The Trump Administration requested $2.0 million for the program in FY2018 and FY2019.

The Entrepreneurship Education initiative was offered in 60 cities in FY2018 and served more than 800 small business owners. These owners are required to have been in business for at least three years, have annual revenue of at least $400,000, and have at least one employee, other than the owner, to participate in the initiative. There is no cost to the participants.

The SBA describes growth accelerators as "organizations that help entrepreneurs start and scale their businesses." Growth accelerators are typically run by experienced entrepreneurs and help small businesses access seed capital and mentors. The SBA claims that growth accelerators "help accelerate a startup company's path towards success with targeted advice on revenue growth, job, and sourcing outside funding."

In FY2012, the SBA sponsored several meetings with university officials and faculty, entrepreneurs, and representatives of growth accelerators to discuss mentoring and how to best assist "high-growth" entrepreneurs. These meetings "culminated with a White House event co‐hosted by the SBA and the Department of Commerce to help formalize the network of universities and accelerators, provide a series of 'train the trainers' events on various government programs that benefit high‐growth entrepreneurs, and provide a playbook of best practices on engaging universities on innovation and entrepreneurship."

In FY2014, the Obama Administration requested $5.0 million, and Congress recommended an appropriation of $2.5 million, for the growth accelerator initiative. The Obama Administration proposed to use the funding to provide matching grants to universities and private sector accelerators "to start a new accelerator program (based on successful models) or scale an existing program." The Obama Administration also indicated that it planned to request funding for five years ($25 million in total funding) and feature a required 4:1 private-sector match. However, because it received half of its budget request ($2.5 million), the SBA decided to reconsider the program's requirements. As part of that reconsideration, the SBA decided to drop the 4:1 private-sector match in an effort to enable the program to have a larger effect.

The SBA announced the availability of 50 growth accelerator grants of $50,000 each on May 12, 2014, and received more than 800 applications by the August 2, 2014, deadline. The 50 awards were announced in September 2014.

Congress recommended that the program receive $4.0 million in FY2015, $1.0 million in FY2016, FY2017, and FY2018, and $2 million in FY2019 (see Table 1 ). Congress also directed the SBA in its explanatory statements accompanying P.L. 113-235 and P.L. 114-113 to "require $4 of matching funds for every $1 awarded under the growth accelerators program." The Trump Administration requested that the program receive no funding in FY2018 and FY2019.

The SBA announced the award of 80 growth accelerator grants of $50,000 each on August 4, 2015 ($4.0 million), 68 growth accelerator grants of $50,000 each on August 31, 2016 ($3.4 million), and 20 growth accelerator grants of $50,000 each on October 30, 2017 ($1 million).

The SBA did not issue a competitive announcement for Growth Accelerator awards in FY2018. The SBA plans to make Growth Accelerator awards in FY2019 using both the FY2018 and FY2019 funding amounts.

Department of Commerce Small Business Management and Technical Assistance Training Programs

As mentioned previously, the Department of Commerce's Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA) provides training to minority business owners to assist them in obtaining contracts and financial awards. In addition, the Department of Commerce's Economic Development Administration's Local Technical Assistance Program promotes efforts to build and expand local organizational capacity in distressed areas. As part of that effort, it funds projects that focus on technical or market feasibility studies of economic development projects or programs, which often include consultation with small businesses.

The Minority Business Development Agency

The MBDA was established by President Richard M. Nixon by Executive Order 11625, issued on October 13, 1971, and published in the Federal Register the next day. It clarified the authority of the Secretary of Commerce to

implement federal policy in support of the minority business enterprise program, provide additional technical and management assistance to disadvantaged businesses, assist in demonstration projects, and coordinate the participation of all federal departments and agencies in an increased minority enterprise effort.

The MBDA received an appropriation of $30.0 million in FY2015, $32.0 million in FY2016, $34.0 million in FY2017, $39.0 million in FY2018, and $40 million in FY2019. The Trump Administration requested $6.0 million to close the agency in FY2018 and a reduction to $10.0 million in FY2019.

As part of its mission, the MBDA seeks to train minority business owners to become first- or second-tier suppliers to private corporations and the federal government. Progress is measured in the business's increased gross receipts, number of employees, and size and scale of the firms associated with minority business enterprises.

The MBDA reported that in FY2015 it helped to create and retain 36,896 jobs and assisted minority-owned and operated businesses in obtaining more than $5.9 billion in contracts and capital awards.

The EDA Local Technical Assistance Program

P.L. 89-186, the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, authorized the Department of Commerce's Economic Development Administration (EDA) to provide financial assistance to economically distressed areas in the United States that are characterized by high levels of unemployment and low per-capita income. The EDA currently administers seven Economic Development Assistance Programs (EDAPs) that award matching grants for public works, economic adjustment, planning, technical assistance, research and evaluation, trade adjustment assistance, and global climate change mitigation.

Grants awarded under the EDA's Local Technical Assistance Program are designed to help solve specific economic development problems, respond to development opportunities, and build and expand local organizational capacity in distressed areas. The majority of local technical assistance projects focus on technical or market feasibility studies of economic development projects or programs, including consultation with small businesses. The EDA's Local Technical Assistance Program received an appropriation of $11.0 million in FY2015, $10.5 million in FY2016, $9.0 million in FY2017, and $9.5 million in FY2018 and FY2019. The Trump Administration requested $30.0 million to close the EDA in FY2018 and $14.9 million to close it in FY2019.

For many years, a recurring theme at congressional hearings concerning the SBA's management and technical assistance training programs has been the perceived need to improve program efficiency by eliminating duplication of services or increasing cooperation and coordination both within and among SCORE, WBCs, and SBDCs. For example, the House Committee on Small Business has argued that the SBA's various management and technical assistance training programs should be "folded into the mission of the SBDC program or their responsibilities should be taken over by other agencies" because they "overlap each other and duplicate the educational services provided by other agencies."

In addition, as mentioned previously, the Obama Administration recommended that the PRIME program be eliminated, arguing that it overlaps and duplicates the SBA's Microloan Technical Assistance Program. The Trump Administration has also recommended that the PRIME program, the Growth Accelerators Initiative, and the Entrepreneurial Development Initiative (Regional Innovation Clusters) be eliminated because they overlap private-sector "mechanisms to foster local business development and investment" or are "duplicative of other federal programs."

In contrast, Congress has approved continued funding for these programs and the Boots to Business and Boots to Business: Reboot initiatives. In recent years, Congress has also explored ways to improve the SBA's measurement of its management and training programs' effectiveness.

In 2007, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) was asked to assess the SBA's oversight of WBCs and the coordination and duplication of services among the SBA's management and technical training assistance programs. GAO found that

As described in the terms of the SBA award, WBCs are required to coordinate with local SBDCs and SCORE chapters. In addition, SBA officials told us that they expected district offices to ensure that the programs did not duplicate each other. However, based on our review, WBCs lacked guidance and information from SBA on how to successfully carry out their coordination efforts. Most of the WBCs that we spoke with explained that in some situations they referred clients to an SBDC or SCORE counselor, and some WBCs also took steps to more actively coordinate with local SBDCs and SCORE chapters to avoid duplication and leverage resources. We learned that WBCs used a variety of approaches to facilitate coordination, such as memorandums of understanding, information-sharing meetings, and co-locating staff and services. However, some WBCs told us that they faced challenges in coordinating services with SBDC and SCORE, in part because the programs have similar performance measures, and this could result in competition among the service providers in some locations. We also found that on some occasions SBA encouraged WBCs to provide services that were similar to services already provided by SBDCs in their district. Such challenges thwart coordination efforts and could increase the risk of duplication in some geographic areas.

Some organizations have argued that the SBA's management and technical assistance training programs should be merged. For example, the U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce argued that

over the last 50 years, the SBA entrepreneurial development system has grown into a fragmented array of programs, which has resulted in a disorganized, overlapping, and [in] efficient delivery of service through a system that is ill-prepared to effectively address the challenges of our economy….

if we are to serve the needs of American entrepreneurs, we must commit to a top to bottom restructuring of the delivery of the entrepreneurial services of the SBA. The myriad of entrepreneurial development programs should be unified into one centrally managed organization that has the flexibility to provide services when and where they are needed.

These organizations argue that merging the SBA's management and technical assistance training programs would provide greater coordination of services and "one clear channel for assistance" that "is paramount to the average business owner seeking help." Advocates of merging the SBA's management and technical assistance training programs often mention merging them into the SBDC Program because, in their view, it has the advantage of having a broader connection to mainstream resources and its locations are "greater and more diverse" than other SBA management and technical assistance training programs.

Others argue that providing separate management and training assistance programs for specific groups is the best means to ensure that those groups' unique challenges are recognized and their unique needs are met. For example, when asked at a congressional hearing about the rationale for having separate management and technical assistance training programs for specific groups, a representative of the Association of Women's Business Centers stated,

I think that there is tremendous rationale for having different programs…. The women's business center programs really target a very different kind of population than the SBDCs.… We serve very different clientele…. We create a very different culture at the women's business center. We really have made it a welcoming place where … they feel comfortable.… And it's very important to me that the woman have a place where they feel comfortable … and where they see other women like themselves who are aspiring to reach their dreams.

At another congressional hearing, the Association of Women's Business Centers' executive director argued that "the new three-year funding arrangement" for WBCs had enabled them to "concentrate on better serving their clients and growing their programs" and that WBCs should be provided continued and expanded funding because they provide effective services:

We know that when our program performance is measured against any other enterprise assistance program, we will meet or exceed any performance measures. Indeed, the SBA's own client-based performance reviews have shown our clients to be just as satisfied or in some cases more satisfied with the services they have received compared to the SBA's other entrepreneurial development efforts.

Instead of merging programs, some argue that improved communication among the SBA's management and technical assistance training resource partners and enhanced SBA program oversight is needed. For example, during the 111 th Congress, the House passed H.R. 2352 , the Job Creation Through Entrepreneurship Act of 2009, on May 20, 2009, by a vote of 406-15. The Senate did not take action on the bill. In its committee report accompanying the bill, the House Committee on Small Business concluded that

Each ED [Entrepreneurial Development] program has a unique mandate and service delivery approach that is customized to its particular clients. However, as a network, the programs have established local connections and resources that benefit entrepreneurs within a region. Enhanced coordination among this network is critical to make the most of scarce resources available for small firms. It can also ensure that best practices are shared amongst providers that have similar goals but work within different contexts.

In an effort to enhance the oversight and coordination of the SBA's management and technical assistance training programs, the Job Creation Through Entrepreneurship Act of 2009 would have required the SBA to

create a new online, multilingual distance training and education program that was fully integrated into the SBA's existing management and technical assistance training programs and "allows entrepreneurs and small business owners the opportunity to exchange technical assistance through the sharing of information." coordinate its management and technical assistance training programs "with State and local economic development agencies and other federal agencies as appropriate." "report annually to Congress, in consultation with other federal departments and agencies as appropriate, on opportunities to foster coordination, limit duplication, and improve program delivery for federal entrepreneurial development activities."

During the 112 th Congress, S. 3442 , the SUCCESS Act of 2012, and S. 3572 , the Restoring Tax and Regulatory Certainty to Small Businesses Act of 2012, sought to address the coordination issue by requiring the SBA, in consultation with other federal departments and agencies, to submit an annual report to Congress "describing opportunities to foster coordination of, limit duplication among, and improve program delivery for federal entrepreneurial development programs." The SUCCESS Act of 2012 was referred to the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, which held hearings on the bill. The Restoring Tax and Regulatory Certainty to Small Businesses Act of 2012 was referred to the Senate Committee on Finance.

There has also been some discussion of merging SBA's small business management and training programs with business management and training programs offered by other federal agencies, both as a means to improve program performance and to achieve savings. For example, P.L. 111-139 , Increasing the Statutory Limit on the Public Debt, requires GAO to "conduct routine investigations to identify programs, agencies, offices, and initiatives with duplicative goals and activities within Departments and governmentwide and report annually to Congress on the findings." GAO identified 51 programmatic areas in its 2012 annual report on federal duplication "where programs may be able to achieve greater efficiencies or become more effective in providing government services." GAO identified management and training assistance provided to businesses by the SBA and the Departments of Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, and Agriculture as one of these areas. GAO identified 53 business management and technical assistance programs sponsored by the SBA and these three departments. GAO reported that "the number of programs that support entrepreneurs—53—and the overlap among these programs raise questions about whether a fragmented system is the most effective way to support entrepreneurs. By exploring alternatives, agencies may be able to determine whether there are more efficient ways to continue to serve the unique needs of entrepreneurs, including consolidating various programs."

As mentioned previously, the House Committee on Small Business has argued that "given tight budgetary constraints" the SBA's various management and technical assistance training programs "should be folded into the mission of the SBDC program or their responsibilities should be taken over by other agencies." The House Committee on Small Business has also indicated its opposition to the Obama Administration's increased use of, and requests for increased funding for, management and training initiatives. For example, Representative Sam Graves, then-chair of the House Committee on Small Business, indicated in his opening remarks at a congressional hearing in April 2014 that

Despite reports that the federal government is riddled with redundant [management and training] programs for entrepreneurs, the SBA has increasingly spawned its own entrepreneurial development initiatives. In doing so, the SBA has repeatedly requested increased funding for its own initiatives while allowing funding for statutorily authorized programs, such as SBDCs, to remain static.… I continue to question the necessity of these initiatives given the potential overlap with both private and public sector efforts already in existence.

In addition, as mentioned previously, H.R. 1774 would, among other provisions, require the SBA to only use authorized entrepreneurial development programs (SCORE, WBCs, SBDCs, etc.) to deliver specified entrepreneurial development services.

GAO noted in its 2007 assessment of the SBA's management and technical assistance training programs that, in addition to its annual survey of WBC, SBDC, and SCORE participants, the SBA requires WBCs to provide quarterly performance reports that include "the WBCs' actual accomplishments, compared with their performance goals for the reporting period; actual budget expenditures, compared with an estimated budget; cost of client fees; success stories; and names of WBC personnel and board members." GAO also noted that WBCs are also required to issue fourth quarter performance reports that "also include a summary of the year's activities and economic impact data that the WBCs collect from their clients, such as number of business start-ups, number of jobs created, and gross receipts." SBDCs have similar reporting requirements.

In recent years, Congress has considered requiring the SBA to expand its use of outcome-based measures to determine the effectiveness of its management and technical training assistance programs. For example, during the 111 th Congress, the previously mentioned Job Creation Through Entrepreneurship Act of 2009 would have required the SBA to create "outcome-based measures of the amount of job creation or economic activity generated in the local community as a result of efforts made and services provided by each women's business center." It would also have required the SBA to "develop and implement a consistent data collection process to cover all entrepreneurial development programs" including "data relating to job creation, performance, and any other data determined appropriate by the Administrator with respect to the Administration's entrepreneurial development programs."

During the 112 th Congress, the SUCCESS Act of 2012 and Restoring Tax and Regulatory Certainty to Small Businesses Act of 2012 would have required the SBA to "promulgate a rule to develop and implement a consistent data collection process for the entrepreneurial development programs" that included data "relating to job creation and performance and any other data determined appropriate by the Administrator."

During the 114 th Congress, H.R. 207 would have required the SBA to issue an annual report concerning "all entrepreneurial development activities undertaken in the current fiscal year." This report would include a description and operating details for each program and activity; operating circulars, manuals, and standard operating procedures for each program and activity; a description of the process used to award grants under each program and activity; a list of all awardees, contractors, and vendors and the amount of awards provided for the current fiscal year for each program and activity; the amount of funding obligated for the current fiscal year for each program and activity; and the names and titles for those individuals responsible for each program and activity. This legislative language was reintroduced during the 115 th Congress in H.R. 1774 , the Developing the Next Generation of Small Businesses Act of 2017.

Congressional interest in the federal government's small business management and technical assistance training programs has increased in recent years. One of the reasons for the heightened level of interest in these programs is that small business has led job formation and retention during previous economic recoveries. It has been argued that effective small business management and technical assistance training programs are needed if small businesses are to lead job creation and retention during the current economic recovery. As then-Representative Heath Shuler stated during a congressional hearing in 2009:

We often talk about the role that small business plays in the creation of jobs and with good reason. Small firms generate between 60 and 80 percent of new positions. Following the recession in the mid-1990s, they created 3.8 million jobs…. we could use that growth today. But unfortunately, many firms are struggling to make ends meet. Let's allow them to hire new workers. In the face of historic economic challenges, we should be investing in America's job creators. SBA's Entrepreneurial Development Programs, or ED, do just that. Of all the tools in the small business toolbox, these are some of the most critical. They help small firms do everything from draft business plans to access capital.

The general consensus is that federal management and technical assistance training programs serve an important purpose and, for the most part, are providing needed services that are not available elsewhere. As Karen Mills, then-SBA administrator, stated during a press interview in 2010:

We find that our counseling operations are equally important as our credit operations because small businesses really need help and advice, and when they get it, they tend to have more sales and more profits and more longevity, and they hire more people. So we have looked forward and said, "How do we get all the tools small businesses need into their hands?" Maybe they want to export. Maybe they want to know how to use broadband. Maybe they are veterans who are coming back and want to start a business or grow their business. Our job is to make sure all that information and opportunity is accessible for small businesses so they can do what they do, which is keep our economy strong.

There is also a general consensus that making federal management and technical assistance training programs more effective and responsive to the needs of small business would assist the national economic recovery. However, there are disagreements over how to achieve that goal.

Some advocate (1) increasing funding for existing programs to enable them to provide additional training opportunities for small businesses while, at the same time, maintaining separate training programs for specific demographic groups as a means to ensure that those groups' specific needs are met; (2) requiring the SBA to make more extensive use of outcome-based measures to better determine the programs' effect on small business formation and retention, job creation and retention, and the generation of wealth; and (3) temporarily reducing or eliminating federal matching requirements to enable SBA's management and technical assistance training resource partners to focus greater attention to service delivery and less to fund raising. Others argue for a merger of existing programs to reduce costs and improve program efficiency, to focus available resources on augmenting the capacity of SBDCs to meet the needs of all small business groups, and require the SBA to make more extensive use of outcome-based performance measures to determine program effectiveness.

No case studies or empirical data are available concerning the efficiencies that might be gained by merging the SBA's management and technical assistance training programs. Advocates argue that merging the programs would improve communications, reduce confusion by business owners seeking assistance by ensuring that all small business management and technical assistance training centers serve all small business owners and aspiring entrepreneurs, lead to more sustainable and predictable funding for the programs from nonfederal sources, and result in more consistent and standard operating procedures throughout the country. Opponents argue that any gains in program efficiency that might be realized would be more than offset by the loss of targeted services for constituencies that often require different information and training to meet their unique challenges and needs.

Appendix. Brief Descriptions of SBA Management and Technical Assistance Training Programs


FY2018 State Grants Under Title I-A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)

Summary: The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), most recently comprehensively amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA; P.L. 114-95), is the primary source of federal aid to K-12 education. The Title I-A program is the largest grant program authorized under the ESEA and was funded at $15.8 billion for FY2018. It is designed to provide supplementary educational and related services to low-achieving and other students attending elementary and secondary schools with relatively high concentrations of students from low-income families.

Summary: Under current law, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) determines Title I-A grants to local educational agencies (LEAs) based on four separate funding formulas: Basic Grants, Concentration Grants, Targeted Grants, and Education Finance Incentive Grants (EFIG). The four Title I-A formulas have somewhat distinct allocation patterns, providing varying shares of allocated funds to different types of states. Thus, for some states, certain formulas are more favorable than others.

Summary: This report provides FY2018 state grant amounts under each of the four formulas used to determine Title I-A grants. Overall, California received the largest FY2018 Title I-A grant amount ($2.0 billion, or 12.76% of total Title I-A grants). Wyoming received the smallest FY2018 Title I-A grant amount ($35.9 million, or 0.23% of total Title I-A grants).

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), most recently comprehensively amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA; P.L. 114-95 ), is the primary source of federal aid to elementary and secondary education. Title I-A is the largest program in the ESEA, funded at $15.8 billion for FY2018. Title I-A is designed to provide supplementary educational and related services to low-achieving and other students attending elementary and secondary schools with relatively high concentrations of students from low-income families. The U.S. Department of Education (ED) determines Title I-A grants to local educational agencies (LEAs) based on four separate funding formulas: Basic Grants, Concentration Grants, Targeted Grants, and Education Finance Incentive Grants (EFIG).

This report provides estimated FY2018 state grant amounts under each of the four formulas used to determine Title I-A grants. For a general overview of the Title I-A formulas, see CRS Report R44164, ESEA Title I-A Formulas: In Brief . For a more detailed discussion of the Title I-A formulas, see CRS Report R44461, Allocation of Funds Under Title I-A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act .

Under Title I-A, funds are allocated to LEAs via state educational agencies (SEAs) using the four Title I-A formulas. Annual appropriations bills specify portions of each year's Title I-A appropriation to be allocated to LEAs and states under each of the formulas. In FY2018, about 41% of Title I-A appropriations were allocated through the Basic Grants formula, 9% through the Concentration Grants formula, and 25% each through the Targeted Grants and EFIG formulas. Once funds reach LEAs, the amounts allocated under the four formulas are combined and used jointly.

For each formula, a maximum grant is calculated by multiplying a "formula child count," consisting primarily of estimated numbers of school-age children living in families in poverty, by an "expenditure factor" based on state average per pupil expenditures for public elementary and secondary education. In some of the Title I-A formulas, additional factors are multiplied by the formula child count and expenditure factor to determine a maximum grant amount. These maximum grants are then reduced to equal the level of available appropriations for each formula, taking into account a variety of state and LEA minimum grant provisions. In general, LEAs must have a minimum number of formula children and/or a minimum formula child rate to be eligible to receive a grant under a specific Title I-A formula. Some LEAs may qualify for a grant under only one formula, while other LEAs may be eligible to receive grants under multiple formulas.

Under three of the formulas—Basic, Concentration, and Targeted Grants—funds are initially calculated at the LEA level. State grants are the total of allocations for all LEAs in the state, adjusted for state minimum grant provisions. Under EFIG, grants are first calculated for each state overall and then are subsequently suballocated to LEAs within the state using a different formula.

FY2018 grants included in this report were calculated by ED. The percentage share of funds allocated under each of the Title I-A formulas was calculated by CRS for each state by dividing the total grant received by the total amount allocated under each formula.

Table 1 provides each state's estimated grant amount and percentage share of funds allocated under each of the Title I-A formulas for FY2018. Total Title I-A grants for each state, calculated by summing the state level grant for each of the four formulas, are also shown in Table 1 .

Overall, California received the largest total Title I-A grant amount ($2.0 billion) and, as a result, the largest percentage share (12.76%) of Title I-A grants. Wyoming received the smallest total Title I-A grant amount ($35.9 million) and, as a result, the smallest percentage share (0.23%) of Title I-A grants.

In general, grant amounts for states vary among formulas due to the different allocation amounts for the formulas. For example, the Basic Grant formula receives a greater share of overall Title I-A appropriations than the Concentration Grant formula, so states generally receive higher estimated grant amounts under the Basic Grant formula than under the Concentration Grant formula.

Among states, Title I-A grant amounts and the percentage shares of funds vary due to the different characteristics of each state. For example, Texas has a larger population of children included in the formula calculations than North Carolina and, therefore, is estimated to receive a higher estimated grant amount and larger share of Title I-A funds.

Within a state, the percentage share of funds allocated may vary by formula, as certain formulas are more favorable to certain types of states (e.g., EFIG is generally more favorable to states with comparatively equal levels of spending per pupil among their LEAs). If a state's share of a given Title I-A formula exceeds its share of overall Title I-A funds, this is generally an indication that this particular formula is more favorable to the state than formulas under which the state's share of funds is below its overall share of Title I-A funds. For example, Florida, Nevada, New York, and Texas are estimated to receive a higher percentage share of Targeted Grants than of overall Title I-A funds, indicating that the Targeted Grant formula is more favorable to them than other Title I-A formulas may be. At the same time, all four states are estimated to receive a smaller percentage share of Basic Grants than of overall Title I-A funds, indicating that the Basic Grant formula is less favorable to them than other Title I-A formulas may be.

In states that are estimated to receive a minimum grant under all four formulas (North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming), the shares under the Targeted Grant and EFIG formulas are greater than under the Basic Grant or Concentration Grant formulas, due to higher state minimums under these formulas. If a state received the minimum grant under a given Title I-A formula, the grant amount is denoted with an asterisk (*) in Table 1 .