a

GAO

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Committees

April 2005 GRANTS 

MANAGEMENT

Additional Actions 

Needed to Streamline 

and Simplify 

Processes

GAO-05-335
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-335.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Paul Posner at 

(202) 512-6806 or posnerp@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-05-335, a report to the 

Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, and 

the Committee on Government Reform, 

House of Representatives 

April 2005

GRANTS MANAGEMENT 

Additional Actions Needed to Streamline 

and Simplify Processes 

More than 5 years after passage of P.L. 106-107, grant agencies have made 

progress in some areas of grant administration, but in other areas, 

particularly the development of common reporting systems, progress is just 

beginning. Grant-making agencies together developed a common plan for 

streamlining processes. Several cross-agency teams identified changes that 

should be made, and these plans are in various stages of completion. For 

example, a Web-based system, Grants.gov, is now available to help potential 

grantees identify grant opportunities and apply for them electronically. 

Common forms are being developed to eliminate duplication and 

unnecessary differences among agencies. However, efforts toward common 

electronic systems for reporting financial and performance information have 

not been developed, although the law requiring them sunsets in 2007. 

Further, individual agencies have not all reported on their progress annually, 

as required. 

The individual agencies and the cross-agency work groups have a mixed 

record of coordinating with grantees. For example, the cross-agency work 

groups solicited public input to their early plan. Grants.gov publicizes its 

plans and solicits ongoing grantee input through its Web site and user 

surveys. However, the work groups generally have not made information 

about their work public nor solicited ongoing grantee input. Without such 

input, reforms are less likely to meet the needs of grantees. In general, the 

oversight of streamlining initiatives has shifted, potentially contributing to 

the lack of progress on all aspects of grant management. 

P.L. 106-107 Implementation and Oversight Groups 

The federal government distributed 

about $400 billion in federal grants 

in fiscal year 2003 through about 

1,000 different federal grant 

programs administered by several 

federal agencies with different 

administrative requirements. 

Congress, concerned that some of 

these requirements may be 

duplicative, burdensome, or 

conflicting—and could impede 

cost-effective delivery of services—

passed the Federal Financial 

Assistance Management 

Improvement Act of 1999, 

commonly called P.L. 106-107, and 

mandated that GAO assess the act’s 

effectiveness. This report 

addresses (1) progress made to 

streamline and develop common 

processes for grantees and (2) the 

coordination among the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), 

the agencies, and potential grant 

recipients. 

What GAO Recommends

To augment the progress toward 

streamlining grant administration, 

GAO recommends that OMB 

ensure that (1) initiatives have 

clear goals for completion, 

(2) agency annual progress reports 

are prepared, (3) efforts toward 

common reporting continue on 

track, (4) OMB’s streamlining 

strategy integrate the three 

individual initiatives now under 

way, and (5) grantee input is 

solicited on an ongoing basis. 

In written comments on the draft 

report, OMB generally agreed with 

the report. 
Page i GAO-05-335 Grant Streamlining

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3

Background 4

Some Progress Made in Streamlining Grant Administration across 

Agencies, but More Progress Is Needed 8

Coordination Activities Established across Agencies, but Initiatives 

Lack Continuing Input from Grantees 18

Conclusions 25

Recommendations for Executive Action 27

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 27

Appendixes

Appendix I: P.L. 106-107 Annual Reports Submitted to Congress as of 

March 1, 2005 29

Appendix II: Detailed Information on Grants.gov 31

Appendix III: Comments from the Office of Management and Budget 36

Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 38

GAO Contacts 38

Acknowledgments 38

Tables Table 1: Current Cross-Agency Work Groups Addressing P.L. 

106-107 Objectives 12

Table 2: Status of Streamlining Initiatives and Their Expected 

Impact on Grantees 14

Table 3: P.L. 106-107 Annual Reports Submitted to Congress as of 

March 1, 2005 30

Table 4: Status of Agency Participation in Grants.gov “Apply” 

Component (as of April 6, 2005) 34

Figures Figure 1: Grant Life Cycle 7

Figure 2: P.L. 106-107 Implementation and Oversight Groups 19
Contents

Page ii GAO-05-335 Grant Streamlining

Abbreviations

FACA Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972

OMB Office of Management and Budget

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-05-335 Grant Streamlining

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

April 18, 2005 Letr

The Honorable Susan M. Collins

Chairman 

The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable Tom Davis

Chairman

The Honorable Henry A. Waxman

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Government Reform

House of Representatives

The federal government distributed about $400 billion in federal grants in 

fiscal year 2003, which accounted for almost one-fifth of the federal budget. 

Funds from these grants are used to implement about 1,000 different 

federal grant programs, administered and overseen by 26 different federal 

agencies as well as some smaller federal entities. These grant programs 

generally have different objectives and strategies that are reflected in their 

application, selection, monitoring, and reporting processes. In seeking out, 

using, and reporting on these grants, grantees—with a wide variety of 

resources and expertise—must adapt to the different requirements, 

potentially spending valuable time and resources on administrative issues 

rather than in advancing the causes that the grant funds were intended to 

affect. Congress, concerned that some of these administrative 

requirements may be duplicative, burdensome, or conflicting and could 

impede the cost-effective delivery of services at the local level, passed the 

Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act of 1999, 

commonly referred to by the grants community as P.L. 106-107.1

 The act 

required coordination among federal grant-making agencies to streamline 

administrative requirements and to improve coordination among federal 

grantor agencies and their nonfederal partners. 

1

As defined in the act, “federal financial assistance” includes grants, cooperative 

agreements, loans, loan guarantees, insurance, interest subsidies, and other forms of 

assistance. Pub. L. No. 106-107, §4. The current streamlining efforts have focused on grants 

and cooperative agreements. In our evaluation we have also limited our assessment to 

grants and cooperative agreements and, for simplicity, refer to them as grants.
Page 2 GAO-05-335 Grant Streamlining

When the act was passed, it specifically mandated a study by GAO that 

would assess the act’s effectiveness, make specific recommendations to 

improve its implementation, evaluate each grantor agency’s performance in 

achieving its planned goals and objectives, and assess the coordination 

among key players. In this report, we will address (1) what progress has 

been made to streamline and develop common processes for grantees and 

(2) the extent of coordination among the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB), the agencies, and potential grant recipients. We plan to focus future 

work on assessing the impact of grant-process reforms on the diverse array 

of grant recipients. 

To address our objectives, we reviewed P.L. 106-107 to understand its 

requirements. We also reviewed the common plan developed by the 26 

grant-making agencies and the subsequent annual reports from the 

agencies as submitted to OMB and Congress. We met with officials from

(1) OMB, (2) cross-agency work groups established to address the 

objectives of P.L. 106-107, and (3) two specific initiatives that are closely 

related to the law’s streamlining objectives—a common Web portal for 

potential grantees to identify and apply for grants (referred to as 

Grants.gov) and an initiative to streamline grant management within 

agencies (referred to as the Grants Management Line of Business 

initiative). To assess agency progress we analyzed the agencies’ 2004 

annual reports to identify significant progress. We attempted to identify 

tangible and quantifiable results that met the goals laid out in the common 

plan, as well as the objectives of the act. To provide more in-depth 

perspective on the implementation of grant streamlining efforts and 

coordination with other agencies and grantees, we met with officials from 

four agencies—the Department of Transportation, the Department of 

Health and Human Services (HHS), the National Endowment for the 

Humanities, and the National Science Foundation. In selecting these 

agencies, we considered the number of subagencies, the types and amounts 

of grants dispersed, the types of grant recipients, and the level of 

participation in specific streamlining activities. To analyze the coordination 

within and among agencies and with grantees, we compared agency 

coordination efforts with criteria developed in our prior work, and we 

discuss the criteria in the report. Although we had some initial discussions 

on grant administration with organizations representing grantees, we plan 

to obtain views from a wider spectrum of grantees in a second study 

responding to the P.L. 106-107 mandate. We conducted our work in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards from 

March 2004 through March 2005.
Page 3 GAO-05-335 Grant Streamlining

Results in Brief More than 5 years after passage of P.L. 106-107, cross-agency work groups 

have made some progress in streamlining aspects of the early phases of the 

grants life cycle and in some specific aspects of overall grants 

management; however, efforts toward common electronic systems for 

reporting financial and performance information have not progressed, 

although the law requiring these improvements sunsets in 2007. After P.L. 

106-107 was passed in 1999, OMB designated HHS as the lead agency in 

implementing the act. Grant-making agencies provided staff to work 

groups, which developed a common plan and set goals for streamlining 

procedures related to all phases of grant management. These plans are in 

various stages of completion. For example, a new Web-based system, 

called Grants.gov, is now available to help potential grantees identify grant 

opportunities more easily and apply for them electronically. OMB has most 

recently initiated a major cross-government effort called the Grants 

Management Line of Business initiative, which seeks to provide a 

governmentwide solution to manage agencies’ grant activities. According 

to the cross-agency team responsible for the initiative, it will attempt to 

consolidate grant management systems across agencies and may include a 

common system for financial and performance reporting, but development 

of such a system has not begun. The cross-agency work groups have 

identified other potential reforms. Some have been implemented, such as 

developing a standard format for the announcement of grant opportunities. 

Other changes have been proposed but have not yet been implemented, 

such as developing standard reports for grantees to complete, which 

should reduce the administrative burden of completing different reports for 

each associated grant-making agency.

Several cross-agency groups have coordinated the grant streamlining 

efforts of the federal grant-making agencies, but coordination with the 

grantee community, required under P.L. 106-107, has been more limited. 

The Grants Executive Board, which has members from 13 grant-making 

agencies, oversees the implementation work groups and the Grants.gov 

initiative. However, uncertainty about the roles of the various 

implementation groups appears to have hampered progress. In their early 

work, the groups undertook efforts to coordinate and consult with the 

grantee communities; these efforts included public consultation meetings 

and solicitations of public comments. The Grants.gov initiative has built 

coordination with the users into the process; users have been surveyed 

three times, and there have been continuing efforts to publicize its 

availability and provide training to the grantee community. However, as the 
Page 4 GAO-05-335 Grant Streamlining

work groups address other aspects of streamlining, they have not been 

involving the grantee community to the same extent. 

We are recommending that OMB take several actions to augment the 

progress toward meeting the goals of P.L. 106-107. In its written comments 

on our draft report, OMB generally agreed with our findings and 

recommendations, and provided comments on its status related to the 

recommendations. In addition, we received technical comments verbally 

from OMB officials, which we incorporated in the report as appropriate. 

Background Congress, concerned about the burden on grantees of multiple, varying 

requirements imposed by different grant programs, passed P.L. 106-107 in 

1999. The act’s objective is to improve the effectiveness and performance 

of federal financial assistance programs, simplify federal financial 

assistance application and reporting requirements, improve the delivery of 

services to the public, and facilitate greater coordination among those 

responsible for delivering such services. The act required agencies to 

establish common applications, systems, and uniform rules to improve the 

effectiveness and performance of federal grants with the goal of improved 

efficiency and delivery of services to the public. Under P.L. 106-107, OMB is 

required to direct, coordinate, and assist federal agencies in developing and 

implementing a common application and reporting system, including 

electronic processes with which a nonfederal entity can apply for, manage, 

and report on the use of funds from multiple grant programs that serve 

similar purposes but are administered by different federal agencies. The 

act sunsets in November 2007. 

The complexity and diversity of the grants system makes streamlining a 

difficult endeavor. Multiple federal entities are involved in grants 

administration; the grantor agencies have varied grants management 

processes; the grantee groups are diverse; and grants themselves vary 

substantially in their types, purposes, and administrative requirements. The 

federal grant system continues to be highly fragmented, potentially 

resulting in a high degree of duplication and overlap among federal 

programs.2

 Hundreds of federal grant programs implement various 

domestic policies and have administrative requirements that may be 

2

GAO, Federal Assistance: Grant System Continues to Be Highly Fragmented, GAO-03-

718T (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 29, 2003).
Page 5 GAO-05-335 Grant Streamlining

duplicative, burdensome, or conflicting—which can impede the 

effectiveness of grants programs. 

Multiple federal entities are involved in grants management. The Federal 

Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act of 1977 gives OMB the authority to 

issue supplementary interpretive guidelines to promote consistent and 

efficient use of grant agreements.3

 OMB publishes this guidance to federal 

agencies in OMB circulars and federal agencies issue regulations 

implementing the OMB guidance. The General Services Administration is 

the lead agency in charge of disseminating information on funding 

opportunities. It publishes, in both electronic and print form, the Catalog of 

Federal Domestic Assistance, a searchable database of federal financial 

assistance programs. 

There is substantial diversity among the federal agencies that administer 

grants. Some agencies administer many grants through multiple, 

decentralized subagencies, while other agencies have small, centralized 

grant-making offices that administer only a few, small grant programs. For 

example, in fiscal year 2003, HHS administered 282 grant programs that 

distributed approximately $246 billion through its 16 subagencies, while 

the National Endowment for the Arts administered 3 grant programs that 

distributed approximately $95 million. 

Grant programs are diverse in their structure and purpose. Grants can be 

grouped into three types based on the amount of discretion given to the 

grantee for the use of funds. Each type strikes a different balance between 

the desire of the federal grantor that funds be used efficiently and 

effectively to meet national objectives and the desire of the grantee to use 

the funds to meet local priorities and to minimize the administrative 

burdens associated with accepting the grant. Categorical grants allow the 

least amount of recipient discretion, general revenue-sharing grants the 

most, and block grants an intermediate amount. Grant funds may also be 

grouped by their method of allocating funds, that is, by formula, through 

discretionary project grants, or both. Formula grants allocate funds based 

on distribution formulas prescribed by legislation or administrative 

regulation. Project grants are generally awarded on a competitive basis to 

eligible applicants. Grant programs fund a variety of types of programs, 

including training, research, planning, evaluation, capacity building, 

demonstration projects, construction, and service provision in many 

3

Pub. L. No. 95-224, §9. 
Page 6 GAO-05-335 Grant Streamlining

different areas including health care, education, law enforcement, and 

homeland security. The diversity of grant programs is matched by the 

diversity of grant recipients. Grant announcements identify the eligible 

recipients, which may include states and their agencies, local governments, 

tribal governments, nonprofit organizations, research institutions, and 

individuals.

The opportunities to streamline grants administration differ throughout the 

life cycle of a grant. While there is substantial variation among grants, 

generally grants follow the life cycle as shown in figure 1: announcement, 

application, award, postaward, and closeout. Once established through 

legislation, which may specify particular objectives, eligibility, and other 

requirements, a grant program may be further defined by grantor agency 

requirements. For competitive grant programs, the public is notified of the 

grant opportunity through an announcement, and potential grantees must 

submit applications for agency review. In the awards stage, the agency 

identifies successful applicants or legislatively defined grant recipients and 

awards funding. The postaward stage includes payment processing, agency 

monitoring, and grantee reporting, which may include financial and 

performance information. The closeout phase includes preparation of final 

reports, financial reconciliation, and any required accounting for property. 

Audits may occur multiple times during the life cycle of the grant and after 

closeout. 
Page 7 GAO-05-335 Grant Streamlining

Figure 1: Grant Life Cycle

1.

Announcement

stage

(preaward)

2.

Application

stage

(preaward)

3.

Award stage

5.

Closeout

stage

4.

Postaward

stage

Agency processes

Announce opportunity

Receive applications

Review and decision

Award notification

Disburse payment

Management and oversight

Closeout

Stage Grantee processes

Find opportunity

Submit application

Status review

Receive notification of award

Request and receive payment

Perform grant requirements and submit reports 

Closeout

• Develop proposal

• Identify potential opportunity

• Submit application package for competitive grant or 

 other preaward documents for noncompetitive 

 grant

• Provide administrative and technical support

• Authenticate applicant, apply business rules, 

 and ensure administrative compliance

• Conduct reviews (administrative, budget, policy, 

 merit, business, application, certifications, and 

 assurances)

• Notify the grantee and Congress and publicly 

 announce the award

• Process payments to grantee • Request disbursement of grant funds

• Comply with award terms and conditions, including 

 general administrative requirements and cost 

 principles

• Submit appropriate financial, performance and 

 other reports

• Conduct site visits and review grantee reports

• Review and reconcile final audit and other • Submit final audit and other reports, as required

 reports

Source: GAO.

• Check status of application

• Complete award acceptance documents, if required
Page 8 GAO-05-335 Grant Streamlining

Some Progress Made in 

Streamlining Grant 

Administration across 

Agencies, but More 

Progress Is Needed

To implement P.L. 106-107’s requirement to improve the effectiveness and 

performance of federal grants, a common plan was developed and most, 

but not all, grant-making agencies have submitted reports annually on their 

progress toward this plan as required by the law. The work groups have 

identified several changes that should be made, but many of these are still 

in the developmental or approval stages. One particular extensive effort—

the development of a Web portal called Grants.gov that represents a 

common face to grantees—has enabled grantees to identify relevant grant 

opportunities and, to a limited extent, apply electronically for grants. For 

the later phases of the grant life cycle, a new initiative is under way, the 

Grants Management Line of Business, that will encompass all phases of the 

grant life cycle and specifically address simplifying the administration and 

management of grants.

In 2001 Agencies Developed 

a Common Plan to Guide 

Federal Grant Streamlining 

Efforts

P.L. 106-107 requires that under OMB leadership, agencies develop common 

applications, systems, and administrative rules to improve the 

effectiveness of federal grants. To implement this requirement, a crossagency committee established cross-agency work groups. The work 

groups then identified needed changes and developed a common plan for 

implementing P.L. 106-107. Twenty-six federal grant-making agencies 

agreed to use this common plan to meet the law’s requirements, since 

meeting its objectives required them to work together to a large extent. 

The plan, submitted to Congress and OMB in May 2001, was developed 

under the oversight of the initial interagency governance structure 

established to implement P.L. 106-107. A series of five public consultation 

meetings was held with representatives from states, local governments, 

Native American tribes and tribal organizations, universities and nonprofit 

organizations that conduct research, and other nonprofit organizations. 

Comments from these meetings were considered in developing the plan.

The common plan contained goals and objectives intended to meet the 

requirements of P.L. 106-107. It included progress, accomplishments, and 

planned activities for streamlining and simplifying the award and 

administration of federal grants. The plan addressed the life cycle of the 

grant process, supporting processes, systems and standards, as well as 

other issues. Some specific objectives included (1) streamlining, 

simplifying, and improving announcements of funding opportunities and 

related business processes, application requirements and procedures, and 

award documents; (2) streamlining and simplifying standard and unique 

report forms, allowing for electronic submission of reports, achieving 
Page 9 GAO-05-335 Grant Streamlining

greater uniformity in federal business processes for reporting, and 

improving reporting by recipients; (3) simplifying and standardizing, to the 

extent appropriate, general administrative requirements and agency 

treatment of them in the terms and conditions of award; and (4) fully 

developing and implementing a portal for identifying and applying for 

grants, and ensuring that any revised electronic data standards are 

interoperable and present a common face to grant-making agencies, 

applicants, and recipients.

The common plan also included some process improvements that began 

before passage of P.L. 106-107 and were completed prior to adoption of the 

plan or are still continuing today. For example, since 1998 the federal 

government has required grant-making agencies to transition from various 

payment systems to one of three designated systems. The common plan 

included objectives and milestones directly related to such past activities 

that have been incorporated into the plan. The plan is also built on 

successful models resulting from earlier initiatives of individual agencies or 

interagency groups. For example, one objective of the common plan was 

to ensure that federal agencies’ grant financial systems comply with 

requirements established by the Joint Financial Management Improvement 

Program.

Agency Progress Varies, and 

Not All Have Filed Annual 

Reports

Annual governmentwide progress reports describe the collaborative efforts 

of 26 federal agencies. Each agency also reports annually on its progress 

implementing the plan, although not all agencies have regularly submitted 

these reports. The annual governmentwide progress report describes the 

collaborative efforts to streamline and simplify the award and 

administration of federal grants. The report includes the federal 

government’s steps toward simplification of the grant policy framework. 

For instance, the establishment of a central location for OMB guidance to 

federal agencies and agency regulations implementing that guidance will 

make it easier for the applicants and recipients to find and follow 

administrative requirements. It also includes completed initiatives, such as 

the development and use of a standard format for agencies’ funding 

announcements, which aims to make it easier for potential applicants to 

quickly find specific information in the announcements.

P.L. 106-107 requires each federal grant-making agency to provide an 

annual progress report that evaluates its performance in meeting the 

common plan’s goals and objectives. However, only 22 of the 26 agencies 

have submitted their 2004 annual report to Congress. (See app. I for 
Page 10 GAO-05-335 Grant Streamlining

information on agencies submitting reports for 2002 to 2004.) Agencies 

have reported progress in implementing some streamlining activities. For 

example, HHS has worked toward the internal consolidation from nine to 

two grant management systems, one primarily supporting research grants 

and the other primarily supporting nonresearch, or service grants. Another 

agency, the National Science Foundation, reported it is conducting a 

comprehensive business analysis that will highlight areas where grant 

processes can be streamlined and simplified. Also, the National 

Endowment for the Humanities reported it has streamlined the internal 

agency clearance process, which is the mechanism by which all grant 

applications’ guidelines and forms are reviewed and updated every year.

Some factors, both internal and external to the grant-making agencies, may 

have slowed agencies’ progress in fully implementing streamlining 

activities and have contributed to the lack of progress in adopting common 

governmentwide systems. The different business processes at various 

agencies was one reason agencies reported a hesitation to migrate to a 

common grant management system. For example, the National Science 

Foundation reported that it conducts peer reviews of broad research grant 

programs, which require an entirely different type of management system 

when compared to the Department of Transportation, which generally 

manages noncompetitive formula grants to state and local governments. 

The structure and size of an agency’s grant management program is another 

factor that may affect the agency’s progress toward grant streamlining. For 

example, some smaller agencies such as the National Endowment for the 

Humanities, which has a highly centralized grant management operation, 

reported being able to more quickly adopt some of the governmentwide 

grant streamlining initiatives. However, other agencies that manage grant 

programs from many different operating divisions may take longer to make 

changes due to the decentralized organizational structure and the larger 

number of grant programs. 

Lastly, some agencies had existing online grant management systems 

before the passage of P.L. 106-107 and the development of Grants.gov. The 

integration of preexisting grant streamlining achievements in some 

agencies, such as the common announcement form adopted from National 

Science Foundation and National Endowment for the Humanities work, 

allows those agencies to realize more immediate benefits because much of 

the work was completed prior to implementation of the common plan. 

Agencies, such as the Department of Transportation, that have not fully 

implemented internal streamlining initiatives need to do so before they can 
Page 11 GAO-05-335 Grant Streamlining

fully benefit from the approaches adopted by other agencies or the crossagency work groups.

P.L. 106-107 also required agencies to establish performance measures and 

a process for assessing the extent to which specified goals and objectives 

have been achieved. In developing these performance measures, the 

agencies were to consider input from applicants, recipients, and other 

stakeholders. The annual agency progress reports did not include any such 

performance measures or evaluations. Each of the agencies’ progress 

reports varied in detail and included a narrative of some of the actions 

taken to meet identified goals and objectives. Attempts to compare the 

progress of federal agencies to each other are difficult due to the missing 

reports and the lack of performance measures.

Cross-Agency Work Groups 

Developed Policies to 

Streamline, but Many Are 

Not Implemented Yet

After P.L. 106-107 was enacted, several cross-agency work groups were 

created to facilitate the law’s implementation; while some of their 

developments have been implemented, others are still in progress. The 

teams, which focused on different phases of the life cycle of grants, 

identified initiatives that should be undertaken. To identify priorities for 

action, the teams relied on comments from the grantee community on what 

streamlining should occur and on their own knowledge of grants 

management. With many potential areas on which to focus, some work 

group representatives commented to us that they addressed the “lowhanging fruit,” preferring to work on those tasks that were more readily 

accomplished while yielding strong results. The current work groups and 

their responsibilities are shown in table 1. In addition, some groups have 

subgroups that have taken responsibility for key products. The work 

groups are supported to some extent by additional contract staff funded 

initially by the Chief Financial Officers Council.
Page 12 GAO-05-335 Grant Streamlining

Table 1: Current Cross-Agency Work Groups Addressing P.L. 106-107 Objectives 

Source: Grants.gov.

a

These are noncompetitive grants for which eligibility is defined in statute.

The cross-agency work groups have accomplishments that are expected to 

streamline grant activity for grantees, as described in table 2. For example, 

the Pre-Award Work Group focused on reducing the time a grantee must 

spend searching for information on grants. One concern was inconsistent 

announcement formats. The team believed that a consistent format for 

grant announcements would save time and reduce frustration for grantees 

that applied to different programs. The group also developed the standard 

set of data elements for the Grants.gov “find” feature, thereby ensuring that 

users of Grants.gov will find similar information in the same places for 

different grant descriptions. The Audit Work Group developed and 

distributed a pamphlet clarifying the single audit process.4

 It also ensured 

that OMB Circular A-133, Compliance Supplement, was updated annually. 

This update should ensure that grantees’ auditors can more easily identify 

the criteria that they should use as they assess whether grantees are in 

compliance with grant requirements.

Work groups Responsibilities

Pre-Award Identifying streamlining and simplification opportunities in the phase of the grants life cycle during which 

potential applicants for discretionary grants identify funding opportunities, and prepare and submit 

applications, and applicants are notified if their applications were unsuccessful or, if their applications 

were successful, receive awards.

Post-Award Identifying streamlining and simplification opportunities in the phase of the grants life cycle during which 

recipients perform their awards and submit progress, financial, and other required reports (other than 

audit reports) and request and receive payment, and federal agencies monitor awards for compliance, 

oversee progress, and provide technical assistance.

Mandatory Grantsa Identifying streamlining and simplification opportunities for mandatory grants, which include block grants, 

some formula-based grants, and entitlement grants.

Audit Oversight Improving the OMB Circular A-133 single audit process to ensure that audits provide useful and reliable 

information to federal agencies and pass-through entities and that recipient audits are in compliance with 

federal audit requirements. 

Training and Certification Addressing governmentwide issues concerning the grants management workforce. Developing the 

grants management series as a professional series and developing standards for grants management 

training programs. (This group began organizing in January 2005.)

4

Single audits, required by the Single Audit Act of 1984 (Pub. L. No. 98-502) as amended by 

the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 (Pub. L. No. 104-156), streamline and improve the 

effectiveness of audits of federal awards and reduce the audit burden on states, local 

governments, and nonprofit entities receiving federal awards by replacing multiple grant 

audits with one audit of a recipient as a whole.
Page 13 GAO-05-335 Grant Streamlining

One area on which the work groups made progress was establishing a 

common electronic system through which information on available grants 

could be found and applicants could apply for grants, now called 

Grants.gov.5

 At that point, identifying grant opportunities required 

searching information from many agencies and applying for them using a 

variety of application forms and processes. The work groups developed a 

common format for the full announcement to be used governmentwide and 

a related set of data elements for an electronic synopsis of the 

announcement. Grants.gov, now administered by a program management 

office based in HHS, has provided the ability for potential grantees to 

search open grant opportunities by these key components, such as by the 

type of activity funded (e.g., education or the environment) and the agency 

providing funds. Grantees also can request notification of grant 

opportunities that meet certain parameters that they identify. Grant 

opportunities were initially provided on the system in February 2003, and 

in November 2003, OMB required that federal agencies post information on 

all discretionary grant-funding opportunities at the Web site. The 

Grants.gov Program Management Office reports that since October 2003 all 

26 grant-making agencies have listed their discretionary grant 

opportunities. They also report high growth in usage of the portal; 

Grants.gov reports that in November 2004, the “find” activity on the site 

received about 2.2 million page requests, up from about 633,000 in 

November 2003, and applicant e-mail notifications have averaged 600,000 

to 700,000 weekly.

More recently, Grants.gov has provided the capability to apply for grants 

electronically at a common portal and, to some extent, use common forms 

across agencies. Applicants can download an application package; 

complete the application off-line; and submit it electronically to Grants.gov, 

which transmits the application to the funding agency. Grant-making 

agencies work with the program management office staff to identify the 

forms needed, sometimes using the same forms as other programs and 

other agencies use. Grant applicants are notified electronically when 

agencies receive their applications. In some cases, agencies can download 

the grant application data directly to their own internal systems, thus 

eliminating the need for staff to input data. Use of the online applications, 

however, has been slow to grow. As of April 6, 2005, 6 of the 26 key grantmaking agencies had not yet posted “apply” packages, and about 2,600 

5

Formerly, Grants.gov was referred to as E-Grants. It is one of the “E-gov” initiatives and 

supports the President’s Management Agenda goal of expanding electronic government.
Page 14 GAO-05-335 Grant Streamlining

electronic applications had been received. Use of the system requires 

agencies to set up internal systems and, to some extent, have their forms 

loaded onto the site. Grantees must also complete a registration process, 

which we were told is time-consuming and might be viewed by some 

applicants as intimidating but is necessary, according to OMB officials, to 

ensure privacy and to maintain the security of the system.

Funding for Grants.gov has shifted from obtaining contributions from key 

partners to obtaining a set amount from grant-making agencies. For fiscal 

years 2002 through 2004, Grants.gov was funded by contributions totaling 

about $29.4 million. Beginning with fiscal year 2005, it will be funded with 

payments from 26 grant-making agencies, based on an agency’s total grant 

dollars awarded. For 2005 and 2006, the 6 large agencies will be assessed 

$754,467, the 10 medium agencies will be assessed $452,680, and the 10 

small agencies will be assessed $226,340, for a total of about $11,300,000 

each year. Appendix II provides more detailed information on Grants.gov 

and individual agency information on progress toward implementing its 

“apply” component.

Table 2: Status of Streamlining Initiatives and Their Expected Impact on Grantees

Initiative by grant phase Status Expected impact on grantee

Announce/find grant opportunity

Standard announcement format Accomplished Enable potential grantees to find grant information, such as 

eligibility requirements, in the full announcement more quickly.

Grants.gov “find” feature Accomplished Provide a common, searchable online location for all open 

discretionary grant opportunities, with a link to the full 

announcement, and reduce the administrative burden on 

potential grantees of finding relevant grants. 

Grant application

Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) 

requirement

Accomplished No direct benefit for grantees. 

Grants.gov “apply” feature Accomplished Provide a common online location for obtaining grant 

application forms and submitting a grant application. 

Update the debarment and suspension and drugfree workplace common rulesAccomplished Benefit applicants and recipients by reconciling unnecessary 

differences, using plain language, and simplifying the 

requirements of the rules.

Adopt the SF-424 a standard federal form for 

research and related grant applications

In progress Reduce the number of different forms that grantees need to 

complete when applying to different agencies.

Expand Grants.gov “apply” feature to accept 

electronic plans and applications for mandatory 

grants

In progress Provide common location for submitting annual plans and 

updates.
Page 15 GAO-05-335 Grant Streamlining

Source: GAO analysis of cross-agency annual reports and discussions with agency officials.

Application review and decision

None -- --

Notification of grant award

Standard award notice and standard 

governmentwide terms and conditions

In progress Reduce unnecessary burden on recipients by making federal 

agencies’ awards as alike as practicable.

Post announcement of mandatory grant awards on 

Grants.gov

In progress Enable potential grantees to find pass-through grant funding 

opportunities. Increase the transparency of federal grants 

policy.

Payment

Consolidate to three payment systems (applies only 

to the agencies subject to the Chief Financial 

Officers Act)

In progress Reduce the number of payment systems with which grant 

recipients will need to interact, potentially saving software and 

staff training costs.

Reporting

Streamline cost principles Accomplished Provide consistent descriptions and clarifying language for 

similar cost items across the three OMB cost principles 

circulars.

Develop:

• Standard Federal Financial Report

• Standard Non-research Performance Progress 

Report

• Standard Research Progress Report

• Standard Personal Property Report

• Standard Real Property Report

• Standard Summary Report of Inventions

In progress Reduce the administrative burden of having different reports to 

complete for each associated grant-making agency.

Audit

Improve agency access to audit information, 

including delinquent audits

Accomplished No direct benefit expected for grantees. (Primarily will benefit 

federal agencies by helping them to determine whether certain 

grantees are delinquent in submitting their audits, and enabling 

agencies to make better use of audit results in managing their 

grant programs and awards.)

Update the OMB Circular A-133, Compliance 

Supplement, annually

Accomplished Provide auditors with accurate and up-to-date information for 

the conduct of single audits.

Distribute a pamphlet, Highlights of the Single Audit 

Process, to federal recipients and federal agencies 

Accomplished Ensure a better understanding of the single audit process and 

improve audit timeliness.

Increase the audit threshold for single audits from 

$300,000 to $500,000

Accomplished Fewer grantees will be subject to single audit requirements.

Closeout

None -- --

Crosscutting issues

Colocate OMB guidance to agencies and agency 

regulations implementing the guidance in Title 2 of 

the C.F.R.

In progress Make OMB guidance and agency regulations on grants easier 

to find and use.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Initiative by grant phase Status Expected impact on grantee
Page 16 GAO-05-335 Grant Streamlining

Several reforms are partially under way but have not yet completed the 

approval process or been implemented, as shown in table 2. For example, a 

separate standard application form for research (and related) grants has 

been proposed, which will ensure that multiple agencies will be able to use 

the same application. This should simplify applications for grantees who 

apply for grants at multiple agencies, but this form is not yet approved. 

Similarly, the Post-Award Work Group has developed a common 

Performance Progress Report for nonresearch grants and has received 

agency comments on the proposed form. The group expects that this will 

reduce the concern that too many different progress reports are used, 

which poses a substantial administrative burden for grantees. The work 

group also developed several common forms, such as a Real Property 

Report (which addresses real property built with grant funds) and a federal 

financial report, which, as of December 22, 2004, was with OMB for 

approval. The Mandatory Work Group is developing a set of core data 

elements that could be used to post mandatory awards to the Grants.gov 

Web site, which an OMB official commented would enable potential 

contractors to be aware of funds that states and other entities were 

receiving. Additionally, based on an initiative begun by the Pre-Award Work 

Group, OMB has moved one of its circulars, which provides guidance, to a 

newly created Title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations and plans that 

agencies will eventually colocate their grant regulations in the same title.6

Common Systems for Managing 

Later Parts of Grant Life Cycle 

Are at Early Stages of 

Development

Although the Grants.gov portal has provided a common, electronic system 

for helping grantees identify and apply for grants, development of common, 

electronic systems for managing later stages of the grant life cycle has not 

progressed. When originally planned, the Grants.gov portal was envisioned 

as providing a common face to grantees for managing all phases of grants, 

from grantees’ identification of appropriate grant opportunities through 

application, awarding, and management of the grants. However, in early 

2004, OMB instructed Grants.gov officials to cease their efforts to develop 

common systems for the grant phases beyond application and to 

concentrate on ensuring that electronic applications were fully 

implemented at all grant-making agencies, since some agencies still were 

not participating or were participating at minimal levels. 

In March 2004, OMB initiated a governmentwide analysis of five lines of 

business that would support the President’s Management Agenda goal of 

6

Although located in the Code of Federal Regulations, the OMB circulars and policy 

documents will still be guidance to federal agencies, not regulations.
Page 17 GAO-05-335 Grant Streamlining

expanding electronic government, with one of them focusing on grants 

management.7

 The team was to draft and finalize common solutions and a 

target architecture and present them for the fiscal year 2006 budget review. 

The grants management initiative was headed by representatives from the 

Department of Education and the National Science Foundation.

The Grants Management Line of Business initiative has the specific 

objective of developing a governmentwide solution to support end-to-end 

grants management activities8

 that promote citizen access, customer 

service, and agency financial and technical stewardship. To provide 

information, the team requested and analyzed information from interested 

parties on possible solutions and approaches. The team also surveyed 

grant-making agencies on their internal grant-making systems and found 

that about 40 different internal agency systems were operating, ranging 

from systems operating with almost no automation to systems that are fully 

automated. In evaluating the information, the team did not identify any endto-end business or technical solution for grants management that would be 

able to meet the needs of all 26 agencies without large investments in 

configuring and customization. Further, it found that while the early stages 

of the grant life cycle (i.e., connecting potential grantees with grant 

opportunities and the application process) were already handled 

consistently across grantor agencies, postaward activities are handled less 

consistently across agencies and would require flexibility in business rules.

As a result, the team is proposing a consortia-based approach to continue 

streamlining and consolidating the end-to-end grant management process, 

but development of this system is not yet under way. It would use 

Grants.gov as a “storefront” to support grantees and would expand it 

beyond the current processes to include additional functions that interface 

with the grantees. Rather than develop one system that all agencies would 

use to manage grants internally, consortia of agencies with similar systems, 

such as agencies that primarily fund research grants, would be formed. 

Government, industry, or both will provide information technology service 

centers for agencies throughout the grant life cycle, an approach that is 

expected to reduce or eliminate the costs of multiple agencies developing 

and maintaining grants management systems. 

7

The other groups address financial management, human resources management, federal 

health architecture, and case management.

8

End-to-end activities would address steps in the entire grant life cycle from informing 

potential grantees of a funding opportunity to closing out and auditing grants.
Page 18 GAO-05-335 Grant Streamlining

Coordination Activities 

Established across 

Agencies, but 

Initiatives Lack 

Continuing Input from 

Grantees 

As P.L. 106-107 and the common plan emphasized, coordination among the 

agencies and with grantees in the planning and implementation of grantstreamlining initiatives can increase the likelihood that the standard 

processes and policies developed will meet the diverse needs of all the 

stakeholder groups. While the agencies have established cross-agency 

processes to facilitate coordination activities, progress has been hampered 

by frequent changes in the groups that are implementing and overseeing 

the implementation of P.L. 106-107. The various grant-streamlining 

initiatives have had different levels of coordination activities with grantees. 

The P.L. 106-107 work groups solicited input from the grantee community 

during their early planning stages, but do not have ongoing coordination 

activities. The Grants.gov initiative solicits ongoing input from grantees in a 

variety of ways. It is not yet clear if the Grants Management Line of 

Business initiative will include coordination activities with grantee groups.

P.L. 106-107 requires OMB to direct and coordinate the federal agencies in 

establishing an interagency process for achieving grant streamlining and 

simplification. Furthermore, the act directs the federal agencies to actively 

participate in this interagency grant-streamlining and simplification 

process. Because the agencies are developing common policies and 

processes to meet their diverse grants management needs, a wellimplemented interagency process can improve the likelihood of success of 

the grant-streamlining initiatives. In examining coordination issues, we 

have identified key practices that affect the likelihood for success of crossorganizational initiatives.9

 These practices include establishing a 

collaborative organizational structure, maintaining collaborative 

relationships, and facilitating communication and outreach.10

Agencies and OMB 

Coordinated Initiatives to 

Implement P.L. 106-107

A collaborative organizational structure, characterized by strong 

leadership and a comprehensive structure of participants’ roles and 

responsibilities, can facilitate coordination activities. As shown in figure 2, 

OMB established several groups to lead and coordinate the effort to 

9

GAO, Electronic Government: Potential Exists for Enhancing Collaboration on Four 

Initiatives, GAO-04-6 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 10, 2003).

10Two other key coordination practices identified in the report, contributing resources 

equitably and adopting a common set of standards, are more relevant for formal 

collaboration agreements and less relevant to the varying levels of coordination needed in 

the grant-streamlining work. 
Page 19 GAO-05-335 Grant Streamlining

implement P.L. 106-107. The act allows OMB to designate a lead agency and 

establish interagency work groups to assist OMB in implementing the 

requirements of the act. OMB designated HHS as the lead agency for the 

implementation of P.L. 106-107. In the spring of 2000, OMB charged the 

Grants Management Committee of the Chief Financial Officers Council 

with coordinating and overseeing the governmentwide implementation of 

P.L. 106-107. The Grants Management Committee included two 

representatives from each of the grant-making agencies. The committee 

established four working subcommittees: the Pre-Award Work Group, the 

Post-Award Work Group, the Audit Oversight Work Group, and the 

Electronic Work Group. In addition, the committee established the General 

Policy and Oversight Team, which was co-chaired by OMB and HHS, and 

included the chairs of each of the work groups. The team was intended to 

oversee the progress of the work groups and examine issues that cut across 

the responsibilities of the individual work groups.

Figure 2: P.L. 106-107 Implementation and Oversight Groups

According to officials involved with P.L. 106-107 implementation, the 

Grants Management Committee was ineffective, creating a stumbling block 

for the initiative. In May 2004, the Grants Executive Board assumed the 

Initiatives implementing requirements of P.L. 106-107 

Groups overseeing the implementation initiative(s)

Source: GAO.

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Grants

Executive

Board 

P.L. 106-107 

sunsets 

November 2007

Grants Governance

Committee

Grants Management 

Committee of the Chief 

Financial Officers 

Council 

P.L. 106-107 

common plan

May 2001 

P.L. 106-107 

enacted 

November 1999

Grants Management 

Line of Business: 

Develops consolidated grants 

management systems 

Cross-agency work groups: 

Implement the Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act

Grants.gov: 

Develops common electronic processes

Grants.gov

Executive Board 
Page 20 GAO-05-335 Grant Streamlining

responsibility for the coordination and oversight of P.L. 106-107 initiatives. 

In an update to its charter, the Grants Executive Board (previously the 

Grants.gov Executive Board) expanded its oversight to include both the 

Grants.gov initiative and the P.L. 106-107 initiative. The Grants Executive 

Board has 13 members, one representative from each of the 11 larger grantmaking agencies and two seats that rotate among the other 15 grant-making 

agencies. The Grants Executive Board meets monthly and, with the 

assistance of the HHS-led grant streamlining Program Management Office, 

oversees the work of the interagency grant streamlining work groups. The 

board’s oversight duties include reviewing work group recommendations 

to determine if they should be referred to OMB for governmentwide 

implementation, defining accountability and reporting requirements to be 

met by the work groups, and preparing the annual progress reports for 

Congress. The Grants Executive Board also oversees the Grants.gov 

initiative, which is charged with implementing the grant-streamlining 

policies in the preaward phase of grants administration.

The P.L. 106-107 Planning and Oversight Committee is the coordinating 

body for the grant-streamlining work groups and advises the Grants 

Executive Board. Its membership consists of the chairs of each of the work 

groups, a representative of the Grants.gov Program Management Office, 

the P.L. 106-107 Program Manager, and an OMB representative. Agency 

volunteers staff the work groups. Volunteer staffing is a challenge for the 

work groups because the volunteers maintain their regular agency 

responsibilities. According to work group chairs, the volunteer staff 

members are dedicated, knowledgeable, and experienced in grants policy 

and processes. HHS selects the chair of each work group, but does not limit 

the size of the work groups so that all interested agencies may participate. 

According to the P.L. 106-107 Program Manager, not all agencies are 

participating in the work groups. Agencies that do not participate will not 

have input into the design of governmentwide grant policies, increasing the 

risk that the new policies will not meet the needs of all grant-making 

agencies. 

Interagency efforts toward a second key element of coordination—

maintaining collaborative relationships—have been mixed. The major 

elements of maintaining collaborative relationships include a shared vision 

among participants and formal agreements with a clear purpose, common 

performance outputs, and realistic performance measures. The agencies 

helped to establish a cooperative, shared vision by jointly developing the 

initial implementation plan, which establishes goals and objectives to meet 

the requirements of P.L. 106-107. However, while the plan outlines 
Page 21 GAO-05-335 Grant Streamlining

preliminary steps toward achieving its objectives, it does not outline a 

comprehensive plan beyond those first steps. Furthermore, the time targets 

in the plan are primarily short-term targets related to preliminary steps. 

The annual cross-agency progress report can be a tool to maintain the 

shared vision established in the initial plan. According to work group 

leaders, the work group volunteers from the agencies are committed to the 

goals of grant streamlining and simplification. In addition to the crossagency progress report, each agency is required to submit an annual agency 

progress report. This requirement has the potential to be an effective 

management tool for monitoring the compliance and progress of individual 

agencies. However, because the reports do not frame annual achievements 

in the context of a comprehensive plan and use performance measures to 

track progress, they are not an effective management tool. Furthermore, 

not all the agencies have submitted their annual reports, and OMB’s 

position is that it is not their role to police agency compliance with this 

requirement. Because the agencies have not developed a comprehensive 

plan and are not reporting on their progress using common performance 

measures, they are less likely to maintain the shared vision that was 

established with the common plan. 

Implementation of a third key element of coordination practices, 

communication and outreach, has not always been effective. Leaders of 

the initiatives hold regular meetings to share information with one another. 

For example, the P. L. 106-107 Planning and Oversight Committee meets 

monthly to facilitate coordination between the work groups. However, the 

Audit Oversight Work Group Chair position has been vacant for the past 18 

months, so although the audit subgroups continue their work, they have 

little contact with the other grant-streamlining groups. Informal 

coordination between the various grant-streamlining initiatives occurs 

because often the same people serve on multiple committees. Outreach 

from the initiatives to the agencies has also not always been effective. For 

example, the Post-Award Work Group sends proposals or draft reports to 

the agencies, but they do not always reach the necessary people because 

some agencies are very large and have complex organizational structures. 
Page 22 GAO-05-335 Grant Streamlining

OMB and Grant Executive 

Board Working on Resolving 

Governance Issues, but 

Overlapping 

Responsibilities and Lack of 

Clarity Are Hampering 

Progress

The future relationship between the Grants Management Line of Business, 

P.L. 106-107 work groups, and the Grants.gov Program Management Office 

is unclear. This management situation appears to have hampered progress. 

OMB plans to form a Grants Governance Committee to oversee three 

program management offices working on grant streamlining and 

simplification. The Grants Governance Committee will oversee the 

Grants.gov initiative, the P.L. 106-107 initiative, and the Grants Management 

Line of Business initiative. However, there will be a separate program 

management office for each initiative, and there appears to be overlap 

between the responsibilities of the three initiatives. Representatives of two 

of the work groups reported that there has been little communication 

between the Line of Business initiative and the P.L. 106-107 work groups. 

Work group members said they are reluctant to go forward with new 

projects because they do not know if their priorities will be consistent with 

those of the Line of Business initiative. For example, the Line of Business 

initiative appears to be planning to rely on Grants.gov for its “find” and 

“apply” functions, but it is not yet clear if Grants.gov will be the portal used 

by the grantee in the later stages of the grant life cycle. In anticipation of 

the start of the Line of Business initiative, OMB has directed Grants.gov to 

focus its efforts on the functionality of the “find” and “apply” functions. The 

Grants.gov Program Manager reported that, accordingly, the Grants.gov 

office is holding off on efforts to incorporate processes related to the later 

stages of the grants life cycle. Because grant management and reporting 

rely on information gathered in the “apply” stage, there should be some 

integration between these functions. 

Efforts to Solicit and Use 

Input from Grantees Have 

Been Mixed 

P.L. 106-107 obligates OMB and the agencies to consult with 

representatives of nonfederal entities during the development and 

implementation of grant-streamlining plans, policies, and systems. In 

addition to its general directive to consult and coordinate with grantees, 

the act requires the agencies to publish the implementation plan in the 

Federal Register for public comment; hold public forums on the plan; and 

cooperate with grantees to define goals, objectives, and performance 

measures related to the objectives of the act. In prior work, we have found 

that collaborative activities include communication strategies that 

facilitate two-way communication among the project team, partners, and 

other stakeholders, and that outreach programs keep those affected by the 

initiative informed of new developments and provide structured means for
Page 23 GAO-05-335 Grant Streamlining

feedback and questions.11 By failing to involve important stakeholders, the 

initiatives increase the risk that they will not fully achieve the objectives 

defined in P.L. 106-107 and the common plan.

In its early work, the groups established by OMB and its lead grant 

streamlining agency, HHS, undertook efforts to coordinate and consult 

with the grantee communities. The Grants Management Committee created 

a Web site that provided information about the work groups’ activities in 

implementing the act and invited public input. Individual agencies also 

sought input through invitations to comment posted on their Web sites. In 

the fall of 2000, the Grants Management Committee held a series of five 

interagency public consultation meetings with (1) states, (2) local 

governments, (3) Native American tribes and tribal organizations, 

(4) universities and nonprofit organizations that conduct research, and

(5) other nonprofit organizations. Throughout this process, the teams built 

a database of the public comments and used them to develop the common 

plan. The plan considers those comments and, in large part, is based on 

them. In January 2001, the agencies jointly published the interim/draft plan 

in the Federal Register and requested public comment. 

The common plan outlines two processes for maintaining ongoing 

communication with grantee groups. First, it envisions the establishment of 

an ombudsman, a third party operating apart from the individual grantmaking agencies and OMB that could provide grantees with an avenue for 

making their concerns known if agency requirements appear to exceed the 

standards adopted. Second, the agencies planned to establish performance 

measures12 related to the purposes and requirements of the act and a 

process for assessing the extent to which specified goals and objectives 

have been achieved. In developing the performance measures, the agencies 

were to consider input from applicants, recipients, and other stakeholders. 

The agencies planned to develop multiple measures to assess performance, 

including progress as perceived by the public and federal staff as well as 

objective process and outcome measures. The agencies expected to use 

these performance measures to evaluate their performance in meeting the 

plan’s goals and objectives and report annually on their progress as 

required by P.L. 106-107. 

11GAO-04-6.

12The agencies planned to use a “balanced scorecard” approach to measure success in 

implementing the act.
Page 24 GAO-05-335 Grant Streamlining

As the streamlining reforms have been developed and implemented, the 

agencies and work groups have not fulfilled the envisioned processes for 

soliciting ongoing input from grantees. By failing to involve important 

stakeholders, the initiatives increase the risk that they will not fully achieve 

the objectives defined in P.L. 106-107 and the common plan. The plan 

envisioned the establishment of an ombudsman that could provide 

applicants/recipients an avenue for making their concerns known if agency 

requirements appear to deviate from the common systems or standard 

processes. The common plan set a target date of March 31, 2002, for 

finalizing the job description of the ombudsman. The agencies have not 

established the ombudsman position and do not currently plan to establish 

one due to changing priorities. In addition, the agencies have neither set 

specific annual goals and objectives nor used concrete performance 

measures in the annual progress reports, as was required by P.L. 106-107 

and envisioned in the common plan. However, the P.L. 106-107 Program 

Manager is currently conducting an analysis of progress to date in meeting 

the requirements of P.L. 106-107 and an analysis of how the reforms have 

addressed the concerns expressed in the public comments.

Furthermore, only one of the four active cross-agency work groups 

consistently uses the public comments during the development of its 

initiatives. The Pre-Award Work Group, which addresses the streamlining 

of announcements, applications, and award processes, has continued to 

use the public comments to inform its work. The other work groups 

informally vet their proposals with selected grantee groups. Grantees are 

not formally involved in the development of grant-streamlining proposals. 

The grant-streamlining teams solicit public comment only once a proposal 

is posted in the Federal Register. Representatives from a group of research 

grantees told us that this one-way communication is not sufficient to 

produce reforms that simplify the grant process for recipients. For 

example, they commented that the reform of the cost principles focused 

only on reducing the discrepancies in definitions used by the three different 

cost principles circulars and actually increased the administrative burden 

for the research community. The work groups have expressed concern that 

in seeking public input, they must take care not to violate the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), which establishes requirements 

pertaining to the creation, operation, duration, and review of covered 

advisory committees. However, because nonfederal participants do not act 

as full members, the work groups should not be subject to the FACA
Page 25 GAO-05-335 Grant Streamlining

requirements.13 Furthermore, FACA would not limit the work groups’ 

ability to widely publicize their initiatives and invite public comment on an 

ongoing basis. 

The Grants.gov initiative has been more active in soliciting grantee input, 

but it is unclear if the Line of Business initiative will include activities to 

coordinate with grantees. In contrast to the P.L. 106-107 initiative, the 

Grants.gov initiative has institutionalized processes to inform the grantee 

community about its plans and activities and to gather ongoing input from 

the grantee community. Throughout development and implementation of 

Grants.gov, users’ comments from pilots and actual systems have been 

used to identify and address problems. Grants.gov has also conducted 

three user satisfaction surveys and maintains a Web portal for user 

comments. The Web site of the grant-streamlining teams was recently 

integrated into the Grants.gov Web site. The site invites public comment on 

both the Grants.gov system and broader grant-streamlining issues and 

initiatives. In addition, the Grants.gov Program Management Office 

conducted training and outreach to the various applicant constituencies 

and to agency staff to increase awareness of the Grants.gov initiative. 

Outreach efforts included monthly stakeholder meetings, train-the-trainer 

workshops, and grantor workshops. A help desk was established to 

address federal staff and applicants’ questions and provide assistance. At 

this time, it is unclear if the Grants Management Line of Business initiative 

will include a process for consultation and coordination with grantee 

groups. 

Conclusions Several initiatives to simplify and streamline the administration of grants 

have been proposed in response to P.L. 106-107. Some of these have been 

implemented and likely will help grantees to identify and apply for grants 

and meet the needs of federal grant-making agencies when they receive 

grants. The Grants.gov common portal is clearly used by many to identify 

grants and undoubtedly has simplified that process for grantees. As more 

13FACA does not apply to committees or work groups that are composed wholly of full-time 

or permanent part-time officials or employees of the federal government. See Federal 

Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. No. 92-463, §3(2) (codified as amended at 5 U.S.C. App. 2). 

However, if nonfederal participants regularly attend and fully participate in the work group 

meetings as members, the issue may arise as to whether the nonfederal participants could 

be construed as full members of the work group. See in Association of American Physicians 

and Surgeons, Inc. v. Clinton, 997 F.2d 898, 302 (D.C. Cir. 1993), for a discussion of when a 

working group composed of federal employees may constitute a FACA advisory committee.
Page 26 GAO-05-335 Grant Streamlining

agencies allow for electronic application through Grants.gov and more 

grantees begin to use the system, it should also simplify grant management. 

However, other initiatives that have been proposed have not yet been 

completed. Some have languished in the approval process. Others have not 

yet been adequately developed to even reach the approval stage. The lack 

of clear goals and timelines for the cross-agency work groups to complete 

tasks and for agencies to implement systems undoubtedly has contributed 

to the lack of progress in implementing these proposals. Further, agencies 

need to be held accountable internally for implementing these programs 

and should have performance measures and clear deadlines on which they 

report. To date, agencies have not even been held accountable for 

submitting annual reports required by P.L. 106-107, which may indicate to 

agencies that moving forward quickly on grant administration streamlining 

is not a high priority. 

In addition, the lack of continuity toward meeting P.L. 106-107’s 

requirement to develop a common reporting system (including electronic 

processes) for similar programs administered by different agencies may 

potentially prevent agencies from reaching the act’s goals before it sunsets 

in November 2007. As overarching committees have evolved and 

management of the cross-agency programs have been moved around 

among various parties, progress has been slowed. Clearer governance is 

needed to ensure that each group sunderstands its roles and coordinates 

with the others to prevent overlap and collaborate on common initiatives. 

The various initiatives that are implementing P.L. 106-107 have a mixed 

record of coordinating with grantees. Grants.gov publicizes its plans and 

meeting minutes on its Web site and solicits ongoing grantee input through 

its Web site, regular satisfaction surveys, and outreach meetings with 

grantees. In planning for the implementation of the act, the cross-agency 

work groups also solicited and used grantee input. In addition, they 

incorporated several means for soliciting ongoing grantee input in the plan. 

However, they did not implement the portions of the initial plan that would 

have provided for ongoing coordination with grantees. Unlike Grants.gov, 

the work groups have neither made information about their work public 

nor solicited ongoing grantee input, and approaches outlined in the 

common plan, such as establishing an ombudsman position, have not been 

implemented. Without ongoing grantee input, the reforms are less likely to 

meet the needs of the grantees and achieve the purposes of the act. 
Page 27 GAO-05-335 Grant Streamlining

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

In order to augment the progress toward meeting the goals of P.L. 106-107 

for streamlining grant administration, we recommend that the Director, 

OMB, take the following five actions:

• ensure that individual agency and cross-agency initiatives have clear 

goals for completion of their initiatives;

• ensure that agency annual progress reports to Congress and OMB on 

implementation of P.L. 106-107 are prepared and contain information on 

their progress toward goals;

• ensure that efforts to develop common grant-reporting systems are 

undertaken on a schedule that will result in significant progress by the 

time P.L. 106-107 sunsets in November 2007; 

• ensure that OMB’s strategy for addressing P.L. 106-107 integrates the 

three individual initiatives: HHS’s overarching P.L. 106-107 efforts, the 

Grants.gov program, and the Grants Management Line of Business 

initiative; and

• solicit grantee input and provide for coordination with grantees on an 

ongoing basis.

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report to OMB for comment. OMB’s formal 

comments are reprinted in appendix III. In addition to written comments, 

OMB provided us with technical comments verbally, which we 

incorporated as appropriate. 

In its formal comments, OMB stated that it agreed with many of the report’s 

recommendations and provided comments on the status of grant reform 

efforts. OMB stated it will continue to work aggressively with agencies to 

meet their annual reporting responsibilities and is committed to achieving 

E-Gov solutions and deploying technical solutions for streamlining policies 

and practices. Further, OMB commented that it will continue to facilitate 

the integration of the three grants initiatives related to P.L. 106-107 

requirements and will continue to seek grantee input on an ongoing basis. 

We believe that these steps constitute progress toward ensuring that the 

goals of P.L. 106-107 are attained, although OMB needs to aggressively push 

forward. For example, while it has established a new grants committee, it 
Page 28 GAO-05-335 Grant Streamlining

needs to ensure that progress does not slow while this transition occurs. 

Although the Grants Management Line of Business initiative is under way, 

OMB needs to ensure that efforts to address P.L. 106-107 requirements, 

such as the development of common electronic systems to manage and 

report on the use of funding from similar federal grant programs 

administered by different agencies, move forward. Similarly, while public 

input was sought heavily during the development of the common plan and 

is sought once proposals are developed, the grantee community’s views 

need to be solicited throughout these processes and as new initiatives are 

selected.

We are sending copies of this report to the Director of OMB. In addition, the 

report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at 

http://www.gao.gov. Should you have any questions about this report, 

please contact me at (202) 512-6806 or Thomas James, Assistant Director, 

at (202) 512-2996. We can also be reached by e-mail at posnerp@gao.gov

and jamest@gao.gov, respectively. Additional key contributors to this 

report are listed in appendix IV.

Paul L. Posner

Managing Director, Federal Budget Analysis and 

Intergovernmental Relations Issues, Strategic Issues
Page 29 GAO-05-335 Grant Streamlining

Appendix I

P.L. 106-107 Annual Reports Submitted to Apendxies

Congress as of March 1, 2005 ApendxiI

P.L. 106-107 requires each agency to report annually on its progress 

implementing the plan, although not all agencies have regularly submitted 

these reports. The annual agency progress report summarizes agency 

efforts in meeting the goals and objectives of the common plan. 

The annual governmentwide progress reports describe the collaborative 

efforts of 26 federal agencies to streamline and simplify the award and 

administration of federal grants. (See table 3.)
Appendix I

P.L. 106-107 Annual Reports Submitted to 

Congress as of March 1, 2005

Page 30 GAO-05-335 Grant Streamlining

Table 3: P.L. 106-107 Annual Reports Submitted to Congress as of March 1, 2005 

Source: HHS.

2002 2003 2004

Governmentwide x xx

Agency for International Development x

Corporation for National and Community Service x x

Department of Agriculture x

Department of Commerce x xx

Department of Defense x xx

Department of Education x x

Department of Energy x x

Department of Health and Human Services x x x

Department of Homeland Security/Federal Emergency Management Agency x x

Department of Housing and Urban Development x x

Department of the Interior x

Department of Justice x xx

Department of Labor x xx

Department of State x xx

Department of Transportation

Department of the Treasury x x

Department of Veterans Affairs x

Environmental Protection Agency x xx

Institute of Museum and Library Services x x

National Aeronautics and Space Administration x x

National Archives and Records Administration x x

National Endowment for the Arts x xx

National Endowment for the Humanities x xx

National Science Foundation x x

Small Business Administration

Social Security Administration x x
Page 31 GAO-05-335 Grant Streamlining

Appendix II

Detailed Information on Grants.gov ApendxiI

As cross-agency teams identified the need for streamlining, agency 

representatives and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 

recognized that potential grantees needed a simpler and more consistent 

way to identify and apply for federal grant opportunities. The process in 

place for identifying grant opportunities resulted in applicants searching 

for applications from many different agencies and then having to apply to 

the various agencies using different application forms and processes. 

Public comments from the grantee community identified the lack of a 

central source for obtaining information about all federal agencies’ current 

funding opportunities and the variation in the way agencies’ grant 

announcements were organized. P.L. 106-107 required that OMB 

coordinate grant-making agencies in establishing an interagency process to 

streamline and simplify these procedures for nonfederal entities. Further, it 

required that the agencies allow applicants to electronically apply and 

report on the use of funds from grant programs they administer. The Egrant initiative, along with other E-government approaches, was 

undertaken to meet these needs. It was implemented initially by the EGrants Program Management Office based in the Department of Health and 

Human Services, which was the lead agency for P.L. 106-107 

implementation. More recently, it has been referred to as Grants.gov, the 

Internet portal through which it is accessed.

The first service that Grants.gov implemented was the “find” capability, 

which established a single Web site to provide information on federal grantfunding opportunities. This enabled applicants to search these 

opportunities by several components, such as the type of activity funded 

(e.g., the arts and humanities, education, and the environment) and the 

agency providing funds. Further, it provided the capability of notifying 

potential fund recipients by e-mail of new opportunities that met 

parameters they identified. In addition, descriptions of funding 

opportunities were organized uniformly to simplify finding key 

information. Agencies began posting summaries in February 2003. A key 

aspect of its full implementation was OMB’s requirement that by November 

7, 2003, all federal agencies were to electronically post information on 

funding opportunities that award discretionary grants and cooperative 

agreements at the Grant.gov Web site, using a standard set of data 

elements. Grants.gov’s program management office reports that since 

October 2003, all 26 grant-making agencies have listed grant opportunities 

in the “find” activity of Grants.gov. The public’s use of the portal has grown 

significantly; according to the Program Management Office, the “find” 

activity on Grants.gov received about 2.2 million page requests in 
Appendix II

Detailed Information on Grants.gov

Page 32 GAO-05-335 Grant Streamlining

November 2004 and applicant e-mail notifications have averaged 600,000 to 

700,000 weekly. 

More recently, Grants.gov has provided the capability to apply for grants 

electronically through the portal. The “apply” activity allows an applicant 

to download an application package from Grants.gov and complete the 

application off-line. After an applicant completes the required forms, they 

can be submitted electronically to Grants.gov, which transmits the 

application to the funding agency. Grant-making agencies must take several 

steps to provide the capability to apply electronically. They work with 

Grants.gov Program Management Office staff to identify the forms needed 

and make them accessible. Previous forms that grant-making agencies have 

used for similar application packages are readily available as are forms that 

other agencies have used that might be appropriate, thus simplifying the 

process of adding new applications. The agencies identify how long they 

would like the application packages to be retained on the site after they 

close; after that, they are archived on the site. While some agencies have 

enabled applicants to apply electronically directly on Grants.gov, some 

announcements link to a grant announcement in the Federal Register or 

link to more detail on the “find” site, which the applicant completes in hard 

copy. To apply for grants electronically, the applicant must download 

specific free software—Pure Edge Viewer. After an application is 

submitted, the Grants.gov system checks the application to ensure all the 

required forms are included and sends the applicant an e-mail saying that it 

has been accepted, or rejected if a problem has been identified. If accepted, 

the application is then forwarded from Grants.gov to the grantor agency; 

when that agency downloads the data, it informs the Grants.gov system and 

the applicant is informed by Grants.gov that data have been downloaded to 

the agency. In some cases, agencies can download data directly to their 

own grant management systems, thus eliminating the need for staff time to 

input data.

Usage of the electronic “apply” component has been slower to grow than 

the use of the “find” component for a number of reasons. As shown in table 

4, as of April 6, 2005, 20 of the 26 key federal grant-making agencies have 

posted “apply” packages, 723 electronic application packages were 

available, and 2,621 electronic applications have been received. For 

agencies, forms must be uploaded to the system. Further, some are 

struggling with setting up their systems to handle the data from Grants.gov. 

For grantees, some necessary registration steps require lead time—an 

estimated 6 days that must be allowed for the entire registration process 

the first time. This verifies that the grantee point of contact is the 
Appendix II

Detailed Information on Grants.gov

Page 33 GAO-05-335 Grant Streamlining

appropriate person to submit an application. Grant.gov’s surveys to 

determine users’ satisfaction with the system have also identified 

dissatisfaction on other aspects, such as the adequacy of the status page 

and the ease of submitting the applications. 
Appendix II

Detailed Information on Grants.gov

Page 34 GAO-05-335 Grant Streamlining

Table 4: Status of Agency Participation in Grants.gov “Apply” Component (as of 

April 6, 2005)

Source: Grants.gov Program Management Office.

Grants.gov staff members have reached out to both agencies and the 

grantee community, sometimes through the use of a contractor, to solicit 

input and to increase its usage. They have provided training and workshops 

Agency

Number of apply

packages

posted

Number of

electronic

applications

received

Agency for International Development 1 3

Corporation for National and Community Service 0 0

Department of Defense 0 0

Department of Agriculture 38 188

Department of Commerce 178 532

Department of Education 26 196

Department of Energy 28 120

Department of Health and Human Services 325 860

Department of Homeland Security 1 2

Department of Housing and Urban Development 44 41

Department of Justice 5 84

Department of Labor 6 54

Department of the Interior 11 175

Department of State 4 2

Department of the Treasury 2 7

Department of Transportation 17 4

Department of Veterans Affairs 1 1

Environmental Protection Agency 10 58

Institute of Museum and Library Services 0 0

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 0 0

National Archives and Records Administration 0 0

National Endowment for the Arts 5 23

National Endowment for the Humanities 13 38

National Science Foundation 0 0

Small Business Administration 2 7

Social Security Administration 6 226

Total 723 packages

(20 agencies)

2,621
Appendix II

Detailed Information on Grants.gov

Page 35 GAO-05-335 Grant Streamlining

to grant-making agencies and have hosted monthly stakeholder meetings to 

update users on changes. The Grants.gov Program Manager meets monthly 

with the Grants.gov Executive Board, comprising senior executives of 

partner agencies, to update them on activities and get guidance on strategic 

issues. As outreach to the grantee community, staff members have given 

presentations and provide resources to agencies to inform their grantee 

communities. Also, a “contact center” is available for grant applicants to 

assist with the electronic applications.

With the growth of its services, the operations of the Grants.gov office 

Program Management Office have evolved. As of December 2004, the 

Program Management Office has several full-time employees, including a 

Program Manager and a Deputy Program Manager, and additional detailees 

from grantor agencies. It has not received direct appropriations but was 

funded during the period from 2002 to 2004 by contributions from 13 grantmaking agencies, the Chief Financial Officers Council, and the General 

Services Administration (for maintenance of the Grants.gov “find” 

mechanism). Funding for those 3 years totaled about $29.4 million. 

Beginning with fiscal year 2005, Grants.gov has moved to a fee-for-service 

model. Funding will be from 26 grant-making agencies, with payments 

based on an agency’s total grant dollars awarded. Based on natural break 

points in data on funds that the agencies award, the grant-making agencies 

were divided into three categories. For 2005 and 2006, the 6 large agencies 

will be assessed $754,467, the 10 medium agencies will be assessed 

$452,680, and the 10 small agencies will be assessed $226,340, for a total of 

about $11,300,000 each year.
Page 36 GAO-05-335 Grant Streamlining

Appendix III

Comments from the Office of Management 

and Budget ApendxiI
Appendix III

Comments from the Office of Management 

and Budget

Page 37 GAO-05-335 Grant Streamlining
Page 38 GAO-05-335 Grant Streamlining

Appendix IV

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiIV

GAO Contacts Paul L. Posner, (202) 512-6806

Thomas James, (202) 512-2996

Acknowledgments In addition to the above contacts, Jack Burriesci, Martin De Alteriis, 

Patricia Dalton, Susan Etzel, Ronald La Due Lake, Hannah Laufe, Donna 

Miller, Melissa Mink, and Carol Patey also made key contributions.

(450316)
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to 

www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.”

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Congressional 

Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548