By Bob Williams
WASHINGTON, January 9, 2003 A $2.25 billion federal program that helps schools and libraries connect to the Internet is honeycombed with fraud and financial shenanigans, but the government officials in charge say they don't have the resources to fix it.
A Center for Public Integrity investigation reveals the huge program, funded by everyone who pays a phone bill, is in financial disarray.
A new report to Congress on the fund by the FCC Inspector General's office
says the program, known as the E-Rate fund, is virtually out of control. (The
full report is available at the
FCC's website.
)
"It's not unfair to say we have found something wrong everywhere we have
looked," says Tom Cline, an auditor in the FCC Inspector General's Office. "It
appears to be both intentional and unintentional."
The Universal Service Fund was originally created to help rural areas get
phone service at affordable prices. In 1996, the fund's mission was expanded to
help schools and libraries connect to the Internet. The fund comes from a fee
added to the phone bills of millions of Americans and controlled by a telecom
industry-dominated, non-profit corporation sanctioned by the FCC.
Program officials last month began denying or delaying applications involving
IBM Corp., by far the largest recipient of the fund's largesse. Program
officials said they were taking the action because the schools, libraries and/or
IBM had not followed proper competitive bidding procedures, rules that usually
act as the first line of defense against fraud and financial mismanagement in
such government programs.
"The whole program is based on a competitive bidding process," says Mel
Blackwell, a spokesman for the E-Rate program. "We found many of the
applications involving IBM had problems in that area."
An IBM spokesman says the action caught the company off guard.
"We learned about it when a reporter called us," said IBM spokesman Andy
Kendzie. "We are very aware of all guidelines, and, quite frankly, we were
surprised. We are hoping to get this thing resolved very quickly."
Consumer groups say the apparent level of fraud and other financial fakery
suspected by auditors within the fund is inexcusable, particularly for a program
intended to help some of the country's poorest schools and libraries.
"Obviously, it hurts everyone when there are things like this going on," says
Chris Murray, a telecommunications specialist at Consumers Union, the publisher
of Consumer Reports Magazine. "Telephone customers are getting bilked out of a
lot of money and some very deserving schools and libraries are probably not
getting the funds they need because some bad apples are not being dealt with."
What is it?
The Universal Service Fund was established by the federal government in 1983
to subsidize telephone service in low income communities, as well as rural
areas of the country where the cost of providing basic telephone service is
high. In the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress expanded the reach of
the Universal Service Fund to provide support for rural health care
providers, schools and libraries.
Where does the money come from?
Consumers pay for the fund. The FCC levies universal service fees on
local and long distance phone companies, wireless and paging companies and
payphone providers. Some companies, such as AT&T and MCI, pass the fee
directly on to customers through a line item on their phone bills usually
called a universal service charge or universal connectivity fee. Others
just roll the fees into other customer charges.
Where does the money go?
There are four programs funded by the Universal Service Fund, which
collected about $5 billion last year.
- Schools and Libraries Program: Popularly known as the E-Rate program,
this fund provides subsidies to schools and libraries to install and
operate telecommunication services (local and long distance calling, high
speed lines), Internet access and internal connections (routers, computers
and other equipment). The subsidies range from 20-90 percent, depending on
the local poverty level and other barometers of need.
- High Cost Program: Provides subsidies to telephone companies that
serve high cost communities, primarily rural areas.
- Low Income Program: Provides subsidies to low-income customers to pay
for connection and monthly telephone charges.
- Rural Health Care Program: Provides subsidies to rural health care
providers for telecommunications services.
Who collects, distributes money?
Although the Federal Communications Commission is ultimately responsible for
the Universal Service Fund, the agency contracts with a non-profit
corporation called the Universal Service Administration Company to collect
the fees and process and award subsidy applications. USAC is a subsidiary of
the National Exchange Carrier Association, NECA, a non-profit corporation
hired by the FCC to oversee the collection and administration of the
Universal Service Fund following the breakup of AT&T in 1984.
Who runs USAC and NECA?
A board of directors governs USAC and oversees the actions taken by
management and board committees. The USAC Board of Directors is comprised of
19 members and includes representation from the telecommunications and
information services industry, state telecommunications regulators, state
consumer advocates, low-income consumers, education and library community
representatives and the USAC CEO. The board manages the business and affairs
of USAC. The board has established executive and program committees to
oversee each USAC division. These committees oversee the budgets and major
administrative decisions of their respective divisions.
-- Bob Williams |
The Federal Communications Commission's Schools and Libraries program, also
known as the "E-Rate" program, is supported by virtually anyone who uses a
telephone. Telecommunication companies routinely pass along the FCC-imposed fees
to consumers as "universal service fees" or "universal connectivity charges" on
customer bills. Customers pay around 10 percent of their monthly telephone bill
to help support the program, although some companies charge higher rates.
In addition, the FCC last month agreed to double the fees that wireless
communication companies have to pay into the fund. That means a cell phone user
who has a $50-a-month bill will see his monthly universal service fee rise from
50 cents to about a dollar beginning in April.
The six-year-old fund provides subsidies as high as 90 percent to schools and
libraries for their costs associated with connecting to the Internet. While
controversial, the program has been credited with speeding up connection to the
Internet for thousands of schools and libraries nationwide, particularly in
rural and low-income communities.
Approximately 86 percent of the nation's public schools, 21 percent of
private schools (including Catholic diocesan schools), and 65 percent of
libraries have received discounted services since the program began.
A list of the top service providers to the E-Rate program reads like a who's
who of America's telecom and technology companies. At the top is IBM, which
received payments of nearly $352 million in 2001. Also high on the list with
payments of more than $100 million are telecom giants SBC, Verizon, Bellsouth
and Qwest. (See a list of the top 25 E-Rate recipients)
The FCC report to Congress says other wrongdoing uncovered so far within the
program ranges from simple paperwork and reporting errors to false billing and
other fraud potentially involving hundreds of millions of dollars.
At a recent conference, an E-Rate official talked about one case under
investigation. In that scheme, a piece of computer networking equipment with a
purchase price of $20,000 was allegedly being leased to an E-Rate applicant for
$20,000 per year. The applicant also had a maintenance agreement on the
equipment of $96,000 per year.
Several other cases are currently under investigation by the FBI, the Justice
Department and other federal agencies for possible civil or criminal
prosecution, according to the report.
But the report stresses that FCC auditors have barely been able to scratch
the surface of potential fraud and other financial abuse within the E-Rate
program. Only two FCC auditors are assigned to oversee the program, which
subsidizes an average of 30,000 Internet connection projects each year.
"Until such time as resources and funding are available to provide adequate
oversight (for the schools and libraries program), we are unable to give the
(FCC) chairman, Congress and the public any level of assurance that the program
is protected from fraud, waste and abuse," says the report.
First Criminal Case
Federal prosecutors filed the first criminal case involving the schools and
libraries fund last month, charging the owner and three employees of a Staten
Island, N.Y., Internet services company with conspiring to defraud the program
of millions of dollars. For more information visit
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/19/nyregion/19FRAU.html
Prosecutors say the defendants, who worked for Connect2 Internet Networks Inc, preyed upon some of the New York City area's poorest schools, which qualified for the 90 percent subsidy under the E-Rate program. (More information on Connect2 is available at the company's website)
The complaint says the company sometimes told the targeted schools that a
foundation would pay their required 10 percent share, meaning the expensive new
equipment and services used to connect to the Internet would cost the schools
nothing.
Connect2 then convinced the schools to install much more expensive equipment
and services than they would have if they had been forced to foot at least a
small portion of the bill, as required by the E-Rate program, according to
prosecutors.
In some cases, Connect2 asked school officials to write a check for their 10
percent share. Then the company either did not cash the check or wrote a check
back to the school for the same amount, prosecutors allege.
The company also asked some school officials to lie in order to help cover up
the scheme, according to the complaint. Connect2 sometimes prepared fake
invoices and other phony billing documents to make it appear the company had
properly billed the schools for their portion of the costs.
"In this way, the defendants were able to sell almost limitless quantities of
E-Rate eligible goods and services to schools across the New York City area,
with little or no control on the price they charged, and impose the entire cost
on the government," the complaint states.
E-Rate program officials say Connect2 has collected nearly $9 million from
the E-Rate fund to wire about three dozen New York-area schools to the Internet
since 1998.
Program Not Run By FCC
Although the FCC is ultimately responsible for the E-Rate program, the agency
contracts with a non-profit group dominated by telecommunications companies to
collect the fees, process applications and distribute the discounts.
That non-profit group, called the Universal Service Administration Company,
also oversees the day-to-day operations of three other FCC programs funded by
telephone customer charges. For more information on USAC go to
organization's website.
Those programs subsidize phone service for low-income communities, rural
areas, and rural health care facilities. All told, the four programs run by USAC
handed out more than $6 billion in 2002.
USAC is run by a board of directors, which, in turn, is run by an executive
committee. Four of the seven members of the executive committee are
telecommunication company executives. The FCC says most of the cursory oversight
of the E-Rate program to date has been conducted by USAC.
In early 2001, USAC contracted with the Arthur Andersen accounting firm to
conduct audits at 22 schools or libraries that received funding from the E-Rate
program. A draft report on those audits indicated findings of fraud and
mismanagement at nearly all the locations examined, including several million
dollars in inappropriate disbursements and unsupported costs. A final report on
those audits is due out any day, according to the FCC.
USAC was in the process of putting together a more comprehensive audit
program for the E-Rate fund with Arthur Andersen when the accounting firm got
caught up in the Enron scandal last year.
"We got sideswiped by the problems at Arthur Andersen, just like an awful lot
of other people did," says Frank Gumper, chairman of the USAC Board of
Directors, who is also a longtime lobbyist for telecom giant Verizon Corp. "When Arthur Andersen went down, it put us back at square one."
USAC doesn't believe the fraud and financial mismanagement are as widespread
in the E-Rate program as is suspected by the FCC Inspector General's office,
according to Gumper.
He concedes that USAC has found such problems at many of the 40 beneficiaries
and service providers it has audited to date. But Gumper says that is largely
because the audits were targeted toward beneficiaries where USAC had reason to
suspect fraud and financial mismanagement. (See the
redacted versions of these audits
obtained by the Center for Public Integrity under the Freedom of Information act.)
"I think the vast majority of recipients are following the rules, although we
have indeed found a couple of bad apples," says Gumper. "But I would also have
to say we are not really in a position to give anyone an airtight assurance
there are no problems in these programs."
USAC is currently negotiating a contract with a new accounting firm in hopes
of conducting about 100 audits of beneficiaries of the E-Rate program next year.
Gumper said that effort will likely begin sometime this spring.
He said the upcoming audit would be large enough to be considered
statistically reliable, even though it will only look at roughly one out of
every 300 E-Rate beneficiaries.
"It will be a big enough sample to give us some confidence in the results,"
said Gumper. "It should allow us to figure out how the program is really
operating."
At the same time, Gumper bristles at any charges that USAC is not doing a
good job overseeing the E-Rate program.
"It isn't like we just approve any request that comes in," says Gumper.
"There is a fairly lengthy review process and we end up denying an awful lot of
applications for a variety of reasons."
There is currently no formal system for suspending or debarring crooked
service providers from the E-Rate program.
FCC General Counsel Jane Mago says the agency is studying new rules that
would bar service providers and beneficiaries found to have committed fraud or
other financial mismanagement against the E-Rate program.
"Implementation of a debarment program is certainly something that is under
consideration," says Mago.
Mago also says the current lack of audit resources at the FCC will not be
used as an excuse.
"The agency as a whole is committed to putting whatever resources are
necessary into this to ensure that the integrity of the program is there," she
said. "We are not going to be turning our eyes away from a potential fraud
situation and calling it a resource issue."
Mago declined to identify any specific new programs or personnel shifts to
tackle the problems, however, saying she did not want to do anything that might
jeopardize ongoing investigations.
FCC Wants To Do Its Own Audits
The FCC says USAC's audits have been helpful, but are not an acceptable
substitute for a comprehensive audit program for the E-Rate fund conducted
directly by the agency.
But such an effort would require an unprecedented expansion of the Inspector
General's office, according to the report to Congress.
The IG office estimates it would need to add 15 auditors to the two that are
currently working on the E-Rate fund to provide proper oversight of that program
alone.
And that doesn't take into account any problems that might exist at the other
three funds overseen by USAC, which subsidize phone service in low income
communities, rural areas, and at rural health facilities. There is no FCC-backed
auditing program at any of those programs.
The high cost program doled out $2.6 billion to telecommunications companies
in 2001. The low income program paid out $584 million in 2001, while the rural
health care program made payments of just under $8 million.
In addition, the report to Congress says even the limited auditing effort the
IG's office has been able to undertake on the E-Rate program to date has meant
the office has had to postpone or cancel most other planned audit work.
The FCC Inspector General's office had also planned to conduct its own audit
of 29 E-Rate beneficiaries and service providers last year, using four auditors
borrowed from the agency's Wireline Carrier Bureau. All but four of those audits
were cancelled, however, because the auditors were supporting ongoing
investigations being conducted by the FBI, the Department of Justice and other
law enforcement agencies.
"Meanwhile, the results of audits and the allegations under investigation
lead us to believe the program is subject to (an) unacceptably high risk of
malfeasance through noncompliance and program weaknesses," says the report.
The E-Rate program has been controversial ever since it was implemented as
part of the wide-ranging Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Initially, opponents of the program dubbed it the Gore Tax, a reference to
the then-vice president's efforts to push it through Congress.
The E-Rate program was first run by a private corporation, called the Schools
and Libraries Corp. The first head of that corporation was Ira Fishman, a
leading Gore fundraiser and a former White House lobbyist.
Fishman resigned after just nine months amid controversy over his $200,000 a
year salary and $50,000 annual bonus. He went on to found HiFusion Inc., a
Baltimore-based Internet services company that catered to schools. In 2000,
HiFusion was acquired by Mindsurf Inc., a joint venture backed by Sylvan
Learning Systems, Aether Systems Inc. and Critical Path Inc.
After a congressional hearing called by then-Senate Commerce Committee
Chairman John McCain, the FCC agreed to put the Schools and Libraries program
under USAC, which was already running the high-cost and low-income programs for
the agency. The FCC also adopted rules limiting the top salary at the program to
$151,000 a year.
In 1998, the General Accounting Office issued a report charging the E-Rate
program didn't have sufficient safeguards in place against waste and fraud. The
report touched off another round of criticism of the program by McCain, who is
expected to be Chairman of the Commerce Committee in the new Congress. McCain
could not be reached for comment on the report.
In early 2002, the Bush Administration sought to dismantle the E-Rate program
altogether. The White House eventually relented, however, and allowed the
program to stand with a funding level of $2.25 billion per year.
Long distance telephone companies such as AT&T and MCI, who have
traditionally been forced to collect the majority of the Universal Service Fund
assessments from their customers, have also been frequent critics of the
program. Specifically, long distance companies complained they were being forced
to subsidize rural local telephone and wireless companies.
In answer to those criticisms, the FCC last month agreed to double the fees
that wireless communication companies have to pay into the fund.
| AT&T |
11.00% |
| Excel |
$1.44* |
| Frontier |
9.50% |
| Matrix |
15.39% |
| MCI |
10.50% |
| Qwest |
9.90% |
| Sprint |
9.60% |
| Verizon |
8.50% |
| *Excel charges a flat monthly fee of $1.44 instead of a percentage of the long distance bill like other major carriers. |
The agency has also moved to address a controversial practice by most long
distance companies to charge higher Universal Service fees than required by the
FCC. For example, AT&T has been charging customers a universal service fee of 11
percent, even though the company was only required to pay the FCC about 7.3
percent. The companies have been keeping the difference for themselves.
Program Has Always Been Controversial
New rules adopted by the FCC last month forbid companies from charging
customers a universal service fee higher than the one established quarterly by
the agency. That prohibition only covers charges that are listed as line items
on customer bills, however, meaning telecom companies will still be able to roll
higher universal service fees into other customer charges.
Others worry that the entire E-Rate program could be brought down by the
alleged wrongdoing of a relatively small number of beneficiaries and service
providers.
"The program has allowed schools and libraries to do things they would have
never been able to do any other way," says Winston E. Himsworth, president of
E-Rate Central, a consulting firm used by the New York State education system to
prepare and process E-Rate applications. "Like most people close to the program,
I hope there are more prosecutions coming. The program doesn't need
beneficiaries or service providers like that."