The Emergency Connectivity Fund (“ECF”) rules (FCC 21-58) clearly state that “all of the schools, libraries, and consortia of schools and libraries that are eligible for support under the E-Rate Program are also eligible to request and receive support through the Emergency Connectivity Fund Program.” That is clearly good news for schools and libraries that have historically received E-rate benefits through a consortium thus freeing the consortium members from the burdens of competitive procurement, contracts, applications, and invoicing. Not surprisingly, therefore, we would expect many of these same schools and libraries to turn to their consortia to handle their ECF needs.
The ECF program, however, is different from traditional E-rate in several regards that all parties need to understand including the identification of “unmet needs,” record retention, and potential funding prioritization. As discussed below, these differences will require a higher degree of cooperation between a consortium lead and its consortium members.
Student, Staff, and Patron Surveys:
ECF funding is meant to meet the “unmet needs” of students, school staff, and library patrons. The ECF application is expected to include:
“[A] set of questions regarding the specific unmet needs that existed at the start of the pandemic and how the Emergency Connectivity Funds are being used to address remaining unmet needs.”
A narrative description/document, which can be uploaded into the application, describing how the applicant “obtained the data to answer these questions and the timing of the data collections or needs assessments.”
In most cases, this will require surveys of school students and/or staff and of library patrons — most likely best done by the individual consortium members. Some of the members may already have conducted surveys; some may not. Some surveys may have been done at the start of the pandemic; some may have been done more recently; and some may still need to be done. Some surveys may have been well executed; some may not. In other cases, the consortium lead may need to conduct a new consortium-wide survey — probably requiring extensive member coordination. Ultimately, a consortium lead will have to pull together a cohesive narrative.
The entire ECF “needs” determination and documentation is likely to require more cooperative work between the consortium lead and its members than has typically been the case in the E-rate process. If a decision is made not to pursue ECF funding through a consortium, its members may face a particularly steep learning curve simply navigating EPC.
Hint for all ECF applicants: To provide the greatest flexibility in supporting ECF funding, surveys should identify “unmet needs” as of March 1, 2020, and as of July 1, 2021. The latter will support projected expenses for the first 2021-2022 funding window. The former would support retroactive funding — assuming there is another window — covering pandemic expenditures through June 30, 2021.
Device and Service Record Retention:
Unlike any other E-rate records, ECF will require applicants to track the provision of devices and/or internet services down to individual persons. Those records must be retained for at least ten years following the end of the ECF window. The ECF rules detail the information that must be tracked and retained. Specifically:
For each connected device or other piece of equipment provided to an individual student, school staff member, or library patron, the asset inventory must identify:
The device or equipment type (i.e. laptop, tablet, mobile hotspot, modem, router);
The device or equipment make/model;
The device or equipment serial number;
The full name of the person to whom the device or other piece of equipment was provided; and
The dates the device or other piece of equipment was loaned out and returned to the school or library, or the date the school or library was notified that the device or other piece of equipment was missing, lost, or damaged.
For services provided to individual students, school staff, or library patrons, the service inventory must contain:
The type of service provided (i.e., DSL, cable, fiber, fixed wireless, satellite, mobile wireless);
The service plan details, including upload and download speeds and monthly data cap;
The full name of the person(s) to whom the service was provided;
The service address (for fixed broadband service only);
The installation date of the service (for fixed broadband service only); and
The last date of service, as applicable (for fixed broadband service only).
For equipment and services provided for use by multiple eligible users (e.g., in a community center or homeless shelter), the service inventory must also contain:
The name of the school or library employee responsible for that equipment or service; and
A description of the intended service area.
Keeping track of all widely-used equipment and services throughout the community may be a herculean effort for a consortium lead and will require complete cooperation and assignment of responsibilities with each consortium member.
Consortia, which have long provided traditional E-rate filing services for their members, will be best served to initiate ECF conversations on roles and responsibilities with their members as soon as possible.
Funding Prioritization Considerations:
At some point ECF funding will be depleted. Perhaps not in the first 2021-2022 window, but certainly in a subsequent window. The FCC has already indicated that there may be a second prospective 2021-2022 window and that a retroactive window (back to March 1, 2020) is a real possibility. A funding window for 2022-2023 is not out of the question.
When funding is insufficient to fully fund all valid requests within a given window, ECF “rules for distribution” provide a mechanism for prioritizing which applicants receive funding. Although all funding is at the 100% reimbursement level, ECF uses the following modified discount matrix for prioritization.
Modeled after the traditional E-rate Category 1 discount matrix, the ECF matrix provides an additional 5% at each band level for rural applicants. If, in any window, total demand exceeds available ECF funds, those applicants in the highest bands — i.e., rural at 95%, then urban at 90%, then rural at 85%, as so on in descending order — will be fully funded first. If funding within a discount band is not sufficient, then those applicants with the highest NSLP percentage within the band will be funded.
This prioritization scheme has important implications for a consortium. Although not specifically addressed in the rules, we would assume that the discount level of an ECF consortium application would be calculated as the average of the ECF discounts of its members. Should that average be above the priority funding breakpoint, presumably all members would be funded at the 100% reimbursement level. Should the average be lower than the breakpoint, no member would be funded. Such a result would appear to be contrary to the spirit of ECF prioritization. The best way to avoid this consortium problem would be to file multiple consortium applications grouping member entities in different consortium applications by their discount bands. With multiple applications, “unmet need” surveys (and possible inventory records) may need to be grouped separately.