U.S. Department of Education 

Office of Acquisitions and 

Grants Administration 

2021 Grantee Satisfaction Survey 

Final Report 

October 2021 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

This page intentionally left blank
Final Report

2021 1

Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

U.S. Department of Education ........................................................................................ 1

Chapter I......................................................................................................................... 2

Introduction and Methodology................................................................................................. 2

Segment Choice.............................................................................................................................. 2

Data Collection................................................................................................................................ 2

Response Rates by Program........................................................................................................... 3

Questionnaire and Reporting........................................................................................................... 5

Chapter II........................................................................................................................ 6

Survey Results ....................................................................................................................... 6

Customer Satisfaction...................................................................................................................... 6

Drivers of Customer Satisfaction.................................................................................................... 11

Satisfaction Benchmark ................................................................................................................. 29

Chapter III ..................................................................................................................... 30

Summary and Recommendations......................................................................................... 30

Results by Program ....................................................................................................................... 32

Office of English Language Acquisition (OELA).............................................................................. 32

Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education (OCTAE)............................................................ 33

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS).................................................. 35

Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE)...................................................................................... 38

Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE)................................................................. 49

Contact Information....................................................................................................... 65
Final Report

2021 2

Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

Chapter I 

Introduction and Methodology 

This report is produced by the Federal Consulting Group (FCG) and CFI Group using the methodology of 

the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI). The ACSI is the national indicator of customer 

evaluations of the quality of goods and services available to U.S. residents. It is the only uniform, crossindustry/government measure of customer satisfaction. Since 1994, the ACSI has measured satisfaction 

and its causes and effects for seven economic sectors, 41 industries, more than 200 private sector 

companies, two types of local government services, the U.S. Postal Service, and the Internal Revenue 

Service. ACSI has measured more than 100 programs of federal government agencies since 1999. This 

allows benchmarking between the public and private sectors and provides information unique to each 

agency on how activities that interface with the public affect the satisfaction of customers. The effects of 

satisfaction are estimated, in turn, on specific objectives, such as public trust.

Segment Choice

A total of 72 programs across five different program Offices participated in the 2021 Grantee Satisfaction 

Survey for the U.S. Department of Education. Many of the participating programs survey their grantees 

each year while others cycle in periodically. 

Data Collection

Each of the 72 participating programs provided a list of grantees to be contacted for the survey. Data 

collection took place from June 8 to August 6, 2021, through e-mail invitations that directed respondents 

to an online survey. 

In order to increase response rates, reminder e-mails were sent periodically to those who had not yet 

completed the survey and phone call reminders were also placed. A total of 2,695 valid responses were 

collected for a response rate of 51%. Response rates by program are shown on the following pages and 

ranged from 13% to 85%.
Final Report

2021 3

Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

Response Rates by Program 

Response rates by program are broken out into two separate tables below. Table 1 shows the programs 

that had a statistically valid participation rate using an 90% confidence interval. Table 2 includes those 

programs that did not have enough responses to meet that threshold. These results should be interpreted 

with caution in making absolute conclusions, however, they still provide valuable insights on the 

satisfaction and performance ratings provided by many grantees. 

Table 1: Completed surveys representative of entire program population (90% confidence interval)

Program Invites Completes Response 

Rate ACSI

Native American and Alaska Native Children in School Program 17 14 82% 85

National Professional Development Program 86 73 85% 83

Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA) Program 57 43 75% 83

Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education State Directors 53 27 51% 85

Native American Career and Technical Education Program 31 19 61% 67

IDEA – State Directors of Special Education (Part B) Program 61 31 51% 74

IDEA – Part C Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities Program 59 28 47% 76

Independent Living Services for Older Individuals Who Are Blind (IL-OIB) 56 31 55% 69

Rehabilitation Long-Term Training Program 73 40 55% 71

RSA Vocational Rehabilitation Program 78 35 45% 61

State Personnel Development Grants 38 28 74% 79

Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander Institutions Program 29 19 66% 79

Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions 201 108 54% 78

Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships (FLAS) 105 47 45% 81

Group Projects Abroad Program 54 25 46% 84

Hispanic Serving Institutions - STEM and Articulation Program 91 51 56% 82

Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans Program 22 17 77% 93

Ronald E. McNair Post-Baccalaureate Achievement Program 186 116 62% 69

Strengthening Institutions Program 200 105 53% 70

TRIO Talent Search 200 156 78% 76

Upward Bound Math and Science 183 74 40% 73

Veterans Upward Bound 62 36 58% 67

21st Century Community Learning Centers 54 44 81% 82

Alaska Native Education Program 47 31 66% 81

Assistance for Arts Education Development and Dissemination Program 22 17 77% 73

College Assistance Migrant Program 56 44 79% 89

Comprehensive Literacy State Development 34 28 82% 73

Demonstration Grants for Indian Children/Special Projects for Indian Children 117 70 60% 78

Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program 55 37 67% 86

Education Innovation and Research Programs 139 85 61% 75

English Language Acquisition State Grants (Title III, Part A) 52 38 73% 63

Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools 32 20 63% 57

Full-Service Community Schools (ESEA IV-F-2, section 4625) 58 26 45% 66

Grants for State Assessments 52 32 62% 77

High School Equivalency Program - Migrant Education 50 41 82% 88

Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies Program 52 38 73% 74
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2021 4

Program Invites Completes Response 

Rate ACSI

Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Education Agencies Program 200 86 43% 80

Innovative Approaches to Literacy Program 42 33 79% 89

Javits Program 34 25 74% 73

Magnet Schools Assistance Program 45 37 82% 78

Migrant Education Programs (Title I, Part C) 46 37 80% 78

Native Hawaiian Education Act Program/Education of Native Hawaiian 38 30 79% 82

Neglected and Delinquent State and Local Agency Programs 52 32 62% 56

Payments for Federal Property (Section 7002) 200 97 49% 82

Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 7003) 200 120 60% 78

Promise Neighborhoods 13 11 85% 83

REAP-Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) Program 49 28 57% 78

REAP-Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) Program 200 46 23% 86

School Climate Transformation Grants (LEAs) Program 69 51 74% 85

Statewide Family Engagement Centers (SFEC) Program 11 9 82% 86

Student Support and Academic Enrichment 52 39 75% 74

Supporting Effective Educator Development Program 34 23 68% 65

Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants (Title II, Part A) 52 39 75% 66

Teacher Quality Partnership Program 59 26 44% 79

Overall 4158 2443 59%
Final Report

2021 5

Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

Table 2: All other programs surveyed 

Program Invites Completes Response 

Rate ACSI

Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Education Program 4 3 75% 71

IDEA National Centers Program 33 17 52% 77

Alaskan Native and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions (ANNH)-Part A 32 16 50% 78

Centers for International Business Education 20 6 30% 73

Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad (DDRA) 72 25 35% 57

Historically Black Graduate Institutions (HBGI) Program 24 6 25% 80

International Research and Studies 22 13 59% 82

Transition/Postsecondary Programs for Students with Intellectual Disabilities 37 18 49% 74

Native American Serving Non-Tribal Institutions Program 26 14 54% 74

Training Program for Federal TRIO Programs 8 1 13% 67

Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities (TCCU)-Part A program 33 15 45% 81

Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Language 56 23 41% 79

Charter Schools Program (CSP) Grants to State Entities 57 24 42% 62

Education Stabilization Fund-Rethink K-12 Discretionary Grant Program 11 6 55% 83

Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund 52 22 42% 57

Governors Emergency Education Relief Fund 51 19 37% 66

Immediate Aid to Restart School Operations 9 5 56% 82

Teacher and School Leader Incentive Grants (ESEA II-B-1) 40 18 45% 77

Overall 587 251 43%

Questionnaire and Reporting

The questionnaire used is shown in Appendix A. The core set of questions was developed in 2005, which 

has been reviewed annually. The 2021 questionnaire was largely unchanged from the previous year. 

Display logic within the questionnaire was applied to tighten the survey by only presenting relevant 

questions to grantees based on their specific experiences. 

Most of the questions in the survey asked the respondent to rate items on a 1 to 10 scale. However, 

open-ended questions were also included for most programs. The appendix contains tables that show 

scores for each question reported on a 0 to 100 scale. Results are shown in aggregate and by program. 

All verbatim responses are included in the appendix with comments separated by program.

Respondents also had the opportunity to evaluate a set of custom questions for each program with which 

they worked, as identified by the sample.
Final Report

2021 6

Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

Chapter II

Survey Results 

Customer Satisfaction 

The American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) is a weighted average of three questions: Q41, 

Q42 and Q43, in the questionnaire. The questions are answered on a 1 to 10 scale and are converted to 

a 0 to 100 scale for reporting purposes. The three questions measure: overall satisfaction; satisfaction 

compared to expectations; and satisfaction compared to an ‘ideal’ organization. 

The 2021 Customer Satisfaction Index for the Department of Education grantees is 76, 2 points

lower than the 2020 measurement but still at the top end of its historical average at the aggregate 

level.

Customer Satisfaction Index: 2006 – 2021
Final Report

2021 7

Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

Satisfaction Benchmarks 

The chart below compares the satisfaction score of the Department with satisfaction scores from other 

federal grant awarding agencies recently measured and the most recent annual overall federal 

government average. Education Department (ED) grantees rated their satisfaction 11 points higher than 

the overall Federal Government average, a rating of the Government’s services by a representative 

sample of the U.S. population. The ED score trails only Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) 

and HRSA’ s Bureau of Primary Health Care grantees among benchmark studies available. 

80

78

76

73

70

68

65

60

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation

Health Resources and Services

Administration (HRSA) Bureau of Primary

Health Care (BPHC) Grantees

Department of Education - Grantee

Satisfaction Study

Department of Energy - Weatherization

Assistance Program Grantees

Health and Human Services (HHS), Office of

Community Services, Low Income Home

Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)

Health and Human Services (HHS), Office of

Community Services, Community Economic

Development (CED) Grantees

Federal Government Average

Administration for Children and Families

(ACF), Office of Community Services,

Community Services Block Grant (CSBG)

Grantees (States)
Final Report

2021 8

Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

Customer Satisfaction Index - Scores by Program 

The chart below lists the 2021 ACSI score for all 72 participating programs. Satisfaction ranges from 56 to 

93 at the individual program level.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2021 9

Customer Satisfaction Model

The government agency ACSI model is a variation of the model used to measure private sector 

companies. Both were developed at the National Quality Research Center of the University of Michigan 

Business School. Each agency identifies the principal activities that interface with its customers. The 

model provides predictions of the impact of these activities on customer satisfaction.

The U.S. Department of Education Grantee Customer Satisfaction model – illustrated below, should be 

viewed as a cause-and-effect model that moves from left to right, with Customer Satisfaction (ACSI) on 

the right. The rectangles are multi-variable components that are measured by survey questions. The 

numbers shown in the gray ovals alongside each driver represent performance or component scores on a 

0 to 100 scale. The numbers in the blue boxes represent the strength of the effect of the component on 

customer satisfaction. These values represent "impacts.” The larger the impact value, the more effect the

component on the left has on Customer Satisfaction. The meanings of the numbers shown in the model 

are the topic of the rest of this chapter.

To the right of Customer Satisfaction in the model is Trust. This metric is considered an “outcome” of 

customer satisfaction. Its score is measured independently from satisfaction or any driver. The score of 

84 for Trust represents a 1-point decline from a year ago but remains at a very high level that 

demonstrates the high level of confidence that grantees have in the efforts of their grant’s sponsoring 

office. 

2021 U.S. Department of Education Grantee Satisfaction Model

*An impact for the Information in Application Package component could not be calculated at the aggregate level given

its low sample size relative to the total number or respondents
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2021 10

Attribute scores are the mean (average) respondent scores to each individual question in the survey. 

Respondents are asked to rate each item on a 1 to 10 scale, with “1” being “poor” and “10” being 

“excellent.” For reporting purposes, CFI Group converts the mean responses to these items to a 0 to 100 

scale. It is important to note that these scores are averages and not percentages. The score should be 

thought of as an index in which “0” represents “poor” and “100” represents “excellent.”

A component score is the weighted average of the individual attribute ratings given by each respondent to 

the questions presented in the survey. A score is a relative measure of performance for a component, as 

given for a particular set of respondents. In the model illustrated on the previous page, Clarity, 

Organization, Sufficiency of detail, Relevance, and Comprehensiveness are combined to create the 

component score for Documents.

Impacts should be read as the effect on the subsequent component if the initial driver (component) were 

to be improved or decreased by five points. For example, if the score for Documents increased by five

points (82 to 87), the Customer Satisfaction Index would increase by the amount of its impact, 0.8 points, 

(from 76 to 76.8). Note: Scores shown are reported to nearest whole number. If the driver increases by 

less than or more than five points, the resulting change in the subsequent component would be the 

corresponding fraction of the original impact. Impacts are additive. Thus, if multiple areas were each to 

improve by five points, the related improvement in satisfaction will be the sum of the impacts. In the same 

way that drivers impact satisfaction, Satisfaction itself impacts Trust. The impact value of 4.2 associated 

with Trust implies that a 5-point improvement in Customer Satisfaction will yield a 4.2-point improvement 

in the Trust rating. 
Final Report

2021 11

Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

Drivers of Customer Satisfaction 

Technical Assistance 

Impact 1.4 

The Technical Assistance component of the grantee experience was rated a 79 this year, unchanged 

from last year’s measurement. Despite being a strong score, the high impact value of 1.4 suggests that 

dedicating additional resources to the improvement of Technical Assistance is worthwhile as any 

increases are likely to have a demonstrable effect on satisfaction. 

The first aspect grantees were asked to rate is their grant program’s ability to successfully use technical 

assistance to help them learn how to implement their grant program or project. This was rated a very 

strong 81, a 1-point decline but still indicative that technical assistance is being applied in an effective 

way that meets the needs of grantees. At the aggregate level, enhancing staff skills necessary for 

successful program management was unchanged with an overall rating of 79. Using evidence-based 

practices in implementing program activities (79) and assistance with developing resource materials for 

program use (76) each improved 1 point from their baseline scores. Creating opportunities to share best 

practices via learning groups held steady at a score of 78.

Finally, grantees were asked if they receive technical assistance from an ED-funded technical assistance 

provider such as regional laboratories or comprehensive centers. The 16% of all respondents who said 

they do receive such support rated the helpfulness in learning to implement their grant project of this EDfunded support at an exceptional 85.

The strong initial scores for Technical Assistance last year have been maintained in the 2021 

measurement and serve as a signal that current providers are doing a good job of supporting grantees in 

carrying out the mission of their grants. Further improvements in this area are most likely to be attained 

through guidance in creating resource materials and connecting individuals across various programs to 

foster peer-to-peer collaboration. When coordinating such events, consideration should be given to 

connecting individuals from similarly sized groups that engage in similar activities so that the best 

practices shared can be relevant and beneficial to all.

Technical Assistance - Aggregate Scores

2020 

Scores

2021 

Scores Difference Significant Difference

Technical Assistance 79 79 0

TA services provided in helping successfully implement grant 

programs/projects 82 81 -1

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management 79 79 0

Using evidence-based practices in implementing program 

activities 78 79 1

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in the 

program

75 76 1

Creating opportunities to share best practices via learning 

groups

78 78 0

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project 87 85 -2

Sample Size 2,026 2,300

Arrows indicate a statistically significant difference from 2020 scores at 90 percent level of confidence.

For an explanation of significant differences in scores between years, see Appendix D.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2021 12

Technical Assistance scores range from 52 to 100. Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter 

Schools score the lowest in 2021 but it should be noted their score of 52 is an 11-point improvement from 

2020.Grantees of the Centers for International Business Education gave the Technical Assistance they 

receive a perfect score.

Grantees voiced their appreciation of the project director meetings where specific questions can be 

brought forward for discussion. On occasion, these meetings are prioritized at the beginning of a grant 

and can become infrequent as time goes on. In addition to meeting with directors, peer group discussions 

with other grantees are a great way to share best practices and get new ideas. 

Technical Assistance - Scores by Program

Program (Technical Assistance) Score

Centers for International Business Education 100

Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans Program 96

Group Projects Abroad Program 94

Historically Black Graduate Institutions (HBGI) Program 94

Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships (FLAS) 93

Immediate Aid to Restart School Operations 90

Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Education Program 89

REAP-Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) Program 89

Statewide Family Engagement Centers (SFEC) Program 89

State Personnel Development Grants 88

International Research and Studies 88

High School Equivalency Program - Migrant Education 88

College Assistance Migrant Program 88

Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program 87

School Climate Transformation Grants (LEAs) Program 87

Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education State Directors 86

Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Language 86

Innovative Approaches to Literacy Program 86

Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander Institutions Program 85

Promise Neighborhoods 85

Teacher Quality Partnership Program 85

Native American and Alaska Native Children in School Program 84

Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA) Program 84

Hispanic Serving Institutions - STEM and Articulation Program 84

21st Century Community Learning Centers 83

IDEA National Centers Program 82

Demonstration Grants for Indian Children/Special Projects for Indian Children 82

National Professional Development Program 81

IDEA – State Directors of Special Education (Part B) Program 81

IDEA – Part C Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities Program 81

Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions 81

Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities (TCCU)-Part A program 81

Transition/Postsecondary Programs for Students with Intellectual Disabilities 81

Grants for State Assessments 81

Native Hawaiian Education Act Program/Education of Native Hawaiian 81

TRIO Talent Search 80

Migrant Education Programs (Title I, Part C) 80

REAP-Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) Program 80

Student Support and Academic Enrichment 79

Teacher and School Leader Incentive Grants (ESEA II-B-1) 79

Education Innovation and Research Programs 79

Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Education Agencies Program 79
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2021 13

Program (Technical Assistance) Score

Alaskan Native and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions (ANNH)-Part A 78

Comprehensive Literacy State Development 78

Magnet Schools Assistance Program 78

Education Stabilization Fund-Rethink K-12 Discretionary Grant Program 78

Independent Living Services for Older Individuals Who Are Blind (IL-OIB) 77

Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies Program 75

Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants (Title II, Part A) 75

Alaska Native Education Program 75

Governors Emergency Education Relief Fund 75

Upward Bound Math and Science 74

Veterans Upward Bound 74

Javits Program 74

Rehabilitation Long-Term Training Program 72

Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad (DDRA) 72

Supporting Effective Educator Development Program 72

Assistance for Arts Education Development and Dissemination Program 72

Ronald E. McNair Post-Baccalaureate Achievement Program 71

Native American Serving Non-Tribal Institutions Program 70

Charter Schools Program (CSP) Grants to State Entities 70

English Language Acquisition State Grants (Title III, Part A) 69

Strengthening Institutions Program 68

RSA Vocational Rehabilitation Program 67

Native American Career and Technical Education Program 65

Neglected and Delinquent State and Local Agency Programs 65

Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund 65

Full-Service Community Schools (ESEA IV-F-2, section 4625) 63

Training Program for Federal TRIO Programs 56

Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools 52

Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 7003) --

Payments for Federal Property (Section 7002) --

Scores are not listed for programs where the questions were not asked.
Final Report

2021 14

Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

ED Staff/Coordination 

Impact 1.1 

The ED Staff/Coordination driver score fell a single point in 2021 but maintains its place as a key strength 

of the grantee experience with a rating of 86. ED Staff are lauded for their professionalism and knowledge 

of legislation and policies that affect various grant programs. The responsiveness to questions attribute 

score fell 1 point. While still at a very high score of 83, special attention should be paid to responsiveness 

as other scores are prone to fall if questions are not responded to in a timely manner. In 2021, the 

communication about changes that could affect programs increased to a rating of 86.

With strong attribute scores from top to bottom in this area, the priority in looking forward is simply to 

maintain the strong partnerships federal staff have forged with grantees. The relatively high impact means 

that satisfaction will increase should the ED Staff/Coordination component improve beyond its already 

impressive score. However, it also implies that any declines in this part of the grantee experience are 

likely to cause a material drop in overall satisfaction.

ED Staff/Coordination - Aggregate Scores

2020 

Scores

2021 

Scores Difference Significant Difference

ED Staff/Coordination 87 86 -1 ↓

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, and 

procedures 89 89 0

Responsiveness to your questions 84 83 -1

Professionalism 93 93 0

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 85 85 0

Communication about changes that may affect your program 85 86 1 ↑

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 86 85 -1

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in providing 

relevant services 84 84 0

Sample Size 2,354 2,615

Arrows indicate a statistically significant difference from 2020 scores at 90 percent level of confidence.

For an explanation of significant differences in scores between years, see Appendix D.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2021 15

ED Staff/Coordination component scores range from 65 to 99 at the program level. When dedicated staff 

are available and quick to respond to grantees with knowledgeable guidance, this component’s rating can 

reach very high levels. Programs with relatively lower scores in this area should focus on the 

responsiveness aspect of staff interactions as prompt replies, even if just to acknowledge a request with a 

more detailed answer to follow, gives grantees confidence that they have a reliable advocate in the 

Department able to provide them with assistance. 

ED Staff/Coordination - Scores by Program

Program (ED Staff/Coordination) Score

Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans Program 99

Statewide Family Engagement Centers (SFEC) Program 99

Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships (FLAS) 96

Centers for International Business Education 95

Immediate Aid to Restart School Operations 95

School Climate Transformation Grants (LEAs) Program 95

Education Stabilization Fund-Rethink K-12 Discretionary Grant Program 95

College Assistance Migrant Program 94

Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program 94

Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education State Directors 94

IDEA National Centers Program 94

State Personnel Development Grants 92

Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Language 92

Promise Neighborhoods 92

Native American and Alaska Native Children in School Program 92

Hispanic Serving Institutions - STEM and Articulation Program 92

Group Projects Abroad Program 91

REAP-Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) Program 91

International Research and Studies 91

High School Equivalency Program - Migrant Education 91

Innovative Approaches to Literacy Program 91

Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA) Program 91

National Professional Development Program 91

Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions 91

Native Hawaiian Education Act Program/Education of Native Hawaiian 91

Education Innovation and Research Programs 91

IDEA – Part C Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities Program 90

REAP-Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) Program 90

Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 7003) 89

Payments for Federal Property (Section 7002) 89

Historically Black Graduate Institutions (HBGI) Program 89

Teacher Quality Partnership Program 89

Alaska Native Education Program 89

Training Program for Federal TRIO Programs 89

Grants for State Assessments 88

TRIO Talent Search 88

Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Education Agencies Program 88

Magnet Schools Assistance Program 88

21st Century Community Learning Centers 87

Migrant Education Programs (Title I, Part C) 87

Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies Program 87

Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander Institutions Program 86

Demonstration Grants for Indian Children/Special Projects for Indian Children 86

Rehabilitation Long-Term Training Program 86

Assistance for Arts Education Development and Dissemination Program 86
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2021 16

Program (ED Staff/Coordination) Score

Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities (TCCU)-Part A program 85

Alaskan Native and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions (ANNH)-Part A 85

Javits Program 85

Student Support and Academic Enrichment 84

Teacher and School Leader Incentive Grants (ESEA II-B-1) 84

Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants (Title II, Part A) 84

Native American Serving Non-Tribal Institutions Program 84

IDEA – State Directors of Special Education (Part B) Program 83

Transition/Postsecondary Programs for Students with Intellectual Disabilities 83

Native American Career and Technical Education Program 83

Neglected and Delinquent State and Local Agency Programs 83

English Language Acquisition State Grants (Title III, Part A) 82

Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Education Program 80

Veterans Upward Bound 80

Ronald E. McNair Post-Baccalaureate Achievement Program 80

Strengthening Institutions Program 79

Comprehensive Literacy State Development 78

Full-Service Community Schools (ESEA IV-F-2, section 4625) 78

Independent Living Services for Older Individuals Who Are Blind (IL-OIB) 77

Supporting Effective Educator Development Program 77

Charter Schools Program (CSP) Grants to State Entities 76

Upward Bound Math and Science 75

Governors Emergency Education Relief Fund 74

Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad (DDRA) 74

RSA Vocational Rehabilitation Program 74

Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund 69

Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools 65

Scores are not listed for programs where the questions were not asked.
Final Report

2021 17

Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements 

Impact 1.0 

The Grant Performance Reporting Requirements component of the survey, new in 2020, was rated 1

point lower than its initial level. Each attribute score either experienced a modest 1-point drop or was 

unchanged.

The highest rated attribute continues to be the ease of submitting reports electronically. While this area is 

rated well with an overall score of 80, the 1-point decline may be attributed to some technical glitches with 

the G5 system, which some grantees commented on in the open-ended section of the questionnaire. The 

clarity of reporting requirements and the availability of assistance are other strengths of the reporting 

process.

In looking for ways to bolster the Grant Performance Reporting Requirements component, there are two 

areas that typically lag behind the others for grantees: the ease of obtaining required data to report and 

educating grantees on how their submitted data is being used. Grantees, particularly those who are 

relatively new in their grant reporting duties, often find it difficult to track down the data they need or 

supporting documentation like definitions when assembling an annual report. There is even more 

opportunity for improvement in informing grantees as to how their submitted data is being used. This 

attribute’s overall score of 67 is the lowest of any survey item and the sentiment is backed up by openended feedback that speaks to desire to have a dialogue with Department staff regarding the details of 

their reporting. Grantees want feedback regarding their reports so they can feel confident that what they 

are submitting is meeting the needs of the Department or understand where improvements can be made 

if necessary.

Based on the open-ended feedback there is also an opportunity for improvement in allowing for more 

uploaded documents in lieu of manual entry into reporting platform fields. The manual entry can be time 

consuming when the data needed already exists in other forms. 

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements - Aggregate Scores

2020

Scores

2021

Scores Difference Significant Difference

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements 76 75 -1

Clarity of reporting requirements 78 78 0

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report 74 74 0

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically 81 80 -1

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) 78 78 0

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project 76 75 -1

Your understanding of how ED uses your data 68 67 -1

Sample Size 2,138 2,409

Arrows indicate a statistically significant difference from 2020 scores at 90 percent level of confidence.

For an explanation of significant differences in scores between years, see Appendix D.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2021 18

The margin between the highest and lowest Grant Performance Reporting Requirements scores at the 

program level is 53 points. Grantees of programs with the highest scores in this area are appreciative of 

the Excel-based reporting that is conducive to how their data is already available and makes the process 

intuitive. 

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements - Scores by Program

Program (Grant Performance Reporting Requirements) Score

High School Equivalency Program - Migrant Education 92

Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans Program 91

College Assistance Migrant Program 91

Innovative Approaches to Literacy Program 87

Training Program for Federal TRIO Programs 87

Immediate Aid to Restart School Operations 86

Historically Black Graduate Institutions (HBGI) Program 86

Statewide Family Engagement Centers (SFEC) Program 84

School Climate Transformation Grants (LEAs) Program 84

Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program 84

Native American and Alaska Native Children in School Program 84

REAP-Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) Program 84

Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education State Directors 83

Teacher Quality Partnership Program 83

Magnet Schools Assistance Program 83

National Professional Development Program 81

21st Century Community Learning Centers 81

Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA) Program 80

TRIO Talent Search 80

Assistance for Arts Education Development and Dissemination Program 80

Teacher and School Leader Incentive Grants (ESEA II-B-1) 80

State Personnel Development Grants 79

Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Education Agencies Program 79

Hispanic Serving Institutions - STEM and Articulation Program 78

IDEA – Part C Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities Program 78

REAP-Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) Program 78

Native American Serving Non-Tribal Institutions Program 78

IDEA – State Directors of Special Education (Part B) Program 78

Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Education Program 78

Centers for International Business Education 77

Promise Neighborhoods 77

Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions 77

Native Hawaiian Education Act Program/Education of Native Hawaiian 76

Alaska Native Education Program 76

Grants for State Assessments 76

Migrant Education Programs (Title I, Part C) 76

Alaskan Native and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions (ANNH)-Part A 76

Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander Institutions Program 75

Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships (FLAS) 73

International Research and Studies 73

Education Innovation and Research Programs 73

Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities (TCCU)-Part A program 73

Upward Bound Math and Science 73

Group Projects Abroad Program 72

Student Support and Academic Enrichment 72

Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants (Title II, Part A) 72

Veterans Upward Bound 72
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2021 19

Program (Grant Performance Reporting Requirements) Score

Ronald E. McNair Post-Baccalaureate Achievement Program 72

Demonstration Grants for Indian Children/Special Projects for Indian Children 71

Javits Program 71

Neglected and Delinquent State and Local Agency Programs 71

Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies Program 70

Native American Career and Technical Education Program 70

Strengthening Institutions Program 70

Supporting Effective Educator Development Program 70

Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Language 69

Rehabilitation Long-Term Training Program 69

Transition/Postsecondary Programs for Students with Intellectual Disabilities 69

IDEA National Centers Program 68

Comprehensive Literacy State Development 68

Full-Service Community Schools (ESEA IV-F-2, section 4625) 68

English Language Acquisition State Grants (Title III, Part A) 66

RSA Vocational Rehabilitation Program 63

Independent Living Services for Older Individuals Who Are Blind (IL-OIB) 62

Education Stabilization Fund-Rethink K-12 Discretionary Grant Program 61

Charter Schools Program (CSP) Grants to State Entities 61

Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad (DDRA) 58

Governors Emergency Education Relief Fund 55

Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools 53

Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund 39

High School Equivalency Program - Migrant Education --

Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans Program --

Scores are not listed for programs where the questions were not asked.
Final Report

2021 20

Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

Documents 

Impact 0.8 

The Documents driver, which measures aspects of the written correspondence provided to grantees, rose 

1 point this year to an overall rating of 82. While not enough to register as score increases when rounded, 

small gains for several attributes led to the component-level year-over-year improvement. The 

correspondence sent to grantees is well organized (83), clear (82) and relevant to the areas of grantee 

needs (82). The sufficiency of detail maintained its 5-point gain in 2020 and remains rated an 81. The 

comprehensiveness of the documentation in addressing the scope of issues grantees face lags behind 

the other metrics slightly with a rating of 79. As with the ED Staff/Coordination component, there is no 

clear aspect of the Documents driver that needs special attention in terms of improvement efforts. 

Individual programs can examine their specific scores to identify any particular items where they lag 

behind the survey’s averages but in general, documentation can be considered another highlight of the 

grantee experience.

All messaging to grantees should make any calls to action very clear and provide the key points in a 

succinct manner. Examples of desired changes to specific documentation can be found in the openended feedback section of this report (Appendix C).

Note that Office of Postsecondary Education respondents were not asked the questions in the 

Documents section of the questionnaire.

Documents - Aggregate Scores

2020

Scores

2021

Scores Difference Significant Difference

Documents 81 82 1

Clarity 82 82 0

Organization of information 83 83 0

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 81 81 0

Relevance to your areas of need 82 82 0

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 79 79 0

Sample Size 1,387 1,724 1 ↑

Arrows indicate a statistically significant difference from 2020 scores at 90 percent level of confidence.

For an explanation of significant differences in scores between years, see Appendix D.

On the next page are the Documents scores by program, ranging from 65 to 93. The difference of 28 

points among the highest and lowest scoring program this year is notably smaller than last year’s range of 

41 points. As the characteristics of the documentation from the higher-level scoring programs can be 

adopted by others this gap can continue to narrow.
Final Report

2021 21

Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

Documents - Scores by Program 

Program (Documents) Score

Statewide Family Engagement Centers (SFEC) Program 93

College Assistance Migrant Program 92

Immediate Aid to Restart School Operations 91

School Climate Transformation Grants (LEAs) Program 91

High School Equivalency Program - Migrant Education 90

REAP-Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) Program 90

Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program 89

REAP-Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) Program 89

Native American and Alaska Native Children in School Program 88

National Professional Development Program 88

Education Stabilization Fund-Rethink K-12 Discretionary Grant Program 88

Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA) Program 87

Promise Neighborhoods 87

Innovative Approaches to Literacy Program 86

Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education State Directors 86

Migrant Education Programs (Title I, Part C) 86

Magnet Schools Assistance Program 85

Native Hawaiian Education Act Program/Education of Native Hawaiian 85

Teacher Quality Partnership Program 84

Assistance for Arts Education Development and Dissemination Program 84

Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Education Program 84

Payments for Federal Property (Section 7002) 83

Student Support and Academic Enrichment 83

Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 7003) 82

21st Century Community Learning Centers 82

Grants for State Assessments 82

Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies Program 82

IDEA National Centers Program 82

Comprehensive Literacy State Development 82

Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Education Agencies Program 81

Alaska Native Education Program 81

Native American Career and Technical Education Program 81

IDEA – State Directors of Special Education (Part B) Program 79

Demonstration Grants for Indian Children/Special Projects for Indian Children 79

Javits Program 79

Education Innovation and Research Programs 78

Rehabilitation Long-Term Training Program 78

IDEA – Part C Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities Program 77

English Language Acquisition State Grants (Title III, Part A) 77

Teacher and School Leader Incentive Grants (ESEA II-B-1) 76

Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants (Title II, Part A) 75

Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund 73

Governors Emergency Education Relief Fund 72

Independent Living Services for Older Individuals Who Are Blind (IL-OIB) 71

RSA Vocational Rehabilitation Program 69

Supporting Effective Educator Development Program 68

Neglected and Delinquent State and Local Agency Programs 67

Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools 67

Full-Service Community Schools (ESEA IV-F-2, section 4625) 66

Charter Schools Program (CSP) Grants to State Entities 65

Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans Program --
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2021 22

Program (Documents) Score

Training Program for Federal TRIO Programs --

Historically Black Graduate Institutions (HBGI) Program --

TRIO Talent Search --

State Personnel Development Grants --

Hispanic Serving Institutions - STEM and Articulation Program --

Native American Serving Non-Tribal Institutions Program --

Centers for International Business Education --

Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions --

Alaskan Native and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions (ANNH)-Part A --

Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander Institutions Program --

Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships (FLAS) --

International Research and Studies --

Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities (TCCU)-Part A program --

Upward Bound Math and Science --

Group Projects Abroad Program --

Veterans Upward Bound --

Ronald E. McNair Post-Baccalaureate Achievement Program --

Strengthening Institutions Program --

Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Language --

Transition/Postsecondary Programs for Students with Intellectual Disabilities --

Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad (DDRA) --

Scores are not listed for programs where the questions were not asked.
Final Report

2021 23

Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

Online Resources 

Impact 0.7 

The Online Resources section of the questionnaire specifically asks respondents to rate the Online 

Resources of their program’s content on the ED.gov (or OESE.ED.gov) website. Some programs with 

separate external websites asked for feedback of those resources within their custom question section of 

the questionnaire, with those results reported in Appendix B. The overall Online Resources scores gained 

1 point to a rating of 76, breaking a new record for its highest score. The quality of content on the site (78) 

was the highest rated attribute, followed by the accuracy of search results (76). Search result ratings 

often lag behind other website metrics, so this positive initial score demonstrates that the built-in search 

engine is generally meeting the needs of grantees. All other attributes were rated a 75 with very minimal 

changes from last year’s measurement. 

There is significant variation at the Office level, with Online Resources rated an 86 among OELA grantees 

and a 69 among OSERS grantees. To narrow this gap, look to make the resources available and the 

website layout consistent across all Office-level subpages. Grantees with the lower scoring programs 

often comment on the website not being intuitive or resources being split up among several disjointed 

sites.

Online Resources - Aggregate Scores

2020

Scores

2021

Scores Difference

81

Significant 

Difference

Online Resources 75 76 1

Ability to find specific information 75 75 0

Quality of content 77 78 1

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 75 75 0

Accuracy of search results 76 76 0

Ability to navigate within the site 75 75 0

Look and feel/Visual appearance 74 75 1

Sample Size 2,194 2,324

Arrows indicate a statistically significant difference from 2020 scores at 90 percent level of confidence.

For an explanation of significant differences in scores between years, see Appendix D.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2021 24

Online Resources scores range from 57 to 91. Programs at the lower end of the spectrum are 

encouraged to review their specific attribute ratings to find the greatest areas for opportunity for 

improvement. Respondents are also asked for suggestions on how their program’s online content can be 

improved which can serve as very valuable information at the program level. Open-ended feedback can 

be found in Appendix C of this report.

Online Resources - Scores by Program

Program (Online Resources) Score

Innovative Approaches to Literacy Program 91

Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Education Program 90

Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans Program 89

Centers for International Business Education 89

School Climate Transformation Grants (LEAs) Program 87

Native American and Alaska Native Children in School Program 87

Statewide Family Engagement Centers (SFEC) Program 86

REAP-Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) Program 86

National Professional Development Program 86

High School Equivalency Program - Migrant Education 85

Education Stabilization Fund-Rethink K-12 Discretionary Grant Program 85

Alaskan Native and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions (ANNH)-Part A 84

Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education State Directors 84

Native Hawaiian Education Act Program/Education of Native Hawaiian 84

College Assistance Migrant Program 83

REAP-Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) Program 83

Teacher Quality Partnership Program 82

Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program 81

Comprehensive Literacy State Development 81

Immediate Aid to Restart School Operations 80

Historically Black Graduate Institutions (HBGI) Program 79

Group Projects Abroad Program 79

Magnet Schools Assistance Program 79

Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA) Program 78

Migrant Education Programs (Title I, Part C) 78

Payments for Federal Property (Section 7002) 78

Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Education Agencies Program 78

TRIO Talent Search 77

Hispanic Serving Institutions - STEM and Articulation Program 77

Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 7003) 77

Javits Program 77

Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions 76

Promise Neighborhoods 76

Grants for State Assessments 76

Alaska Native Education Program 76

Teacher and School Leader Incentive Grants (ESEA II-B-1) 76

Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships (FLAS) 75

Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Language 75

Native American Serving Non-Tribal Institutions Program 74

Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander Institutions Program 73

Strengthening Institutions Program 73

21st Century Community Learning Centers 73

Demonstration Grants for Indian Children/Special Projects for Indian Children 73

Rehabilitation Long-Term Training Program 73

International Research and Studies 72

Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities (TCCU)-Part A program 72
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2021 25

Program (Online Resources) Score

Upward Bound Math and Science 72

Veterans Upward Bound 72

Ronald E. McNair Post-Baccalaureate Achievement Program 72

Assistance for Arts Education Development and Dissemination Program 72

IDEA – State Directors of Special Education (Part B) Program 72

English Language Acquisition State Grants (Title III, Part A) 72

Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund 72

Student Support and Academic Enrichment 70

Education Innovation and Research Programs 70

Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools 70

Native American Career and Technical Education Program 69

Governors Emergency Education Relief Fund 69

Independent Living Services for Older Individuals Who Are Blind (IL-OIB) 69

Transition/Postsecondary Programs for Students with Intellectual Disabilities 68

IDEA National Centers Program 68

Full-Service Community Schools (ESEA IV-F-2, section 4625) 68

Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies Program 67

Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants (Title II, Part A) 66

RSA Vocational Rehabilitation Program 66

Neglected and Delinquent State and Local Agency Programs 65

IDEA – Part C Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities Program 64

Supporting Effective Educator Development Program 62

Charter Schools Program (CSP) Grants to State Entities 62

Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad (DDRA) 57

Training Program for Federal TRIO Programs --

State Personnel Development Grants --

Scores are not listed for programs where the questions were not asked.
Final Report

2021 26

Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

Information in Application Package 

Prior to the 2021 survey, only respondents representing the Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE) 

program were asked about the information in the application package. This year, OELA grantees were 

also asked to rate this section. The overall score of 87 is made up of the OPE rating of 86 and the OELA 

rating of 91. All sections of the application package continue to receive very high ratings in terms of how 

easy they are to find and understand. The highest scores are associated with the Deadline for 

Submission (91) and Program Contact (90). The Review Process (83) and Formatting Instructions (83) 

present the greatest opportunity for improvement, with the latter declining 3 points from the 2020 

measurement. 

Information in Application Package - Aggregate Scores

2020

Scores

2021

Scores Difference

81

Significant 

Difference

Information in Application Package 88 87 -1

Program Purpose 89 88 -1

Program Priorities 88 88 0

Selection Criteria 87 86 -1

Review Process 84 83 -1

Budget Information and Forms 84 82 -2 ↓

Deadline for Submission 91 91 0

Dollar Limit on Awards 88 87 -1

Page Limitation Instructions 88 86 -2 ↓

Formatting Instructions 86 83 -3 ↓

Program Contact 91 90 -1

Sample Size 802 831

Arrows indicate a statistically significant difference from 2020 scores at 90 percent level of confidence.

For an explanation of significant differences in scores between years, see Appendix D.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2021 27

At the program level, the ratings of the Information in the Application Packages ranged from 75 for the 

Training Program for Federal TRIO Programs to 97 for the Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for 

Hispanic Americans Program and the Centers for International Business Education.

Information in Application Package - Scores by Program

Program (Information in Application Package) Score

Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans Program 97

Centers for International Business Education 97

Alaskan Native and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions (ANNH)-Part A 94

International Research and Studies 92

National Professional Development Program 91

Historically Black Graduate Institutions (HBGI) Program 91

Group Projects Abroad Program 91

Native American and Alaska Native Children in School Program 89

Hispanic Serving Institutions - STEM and Articulation Program 89

Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions 89

Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Language 89

Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships (FLAS) 87

Native American Serving Non-Tribal Institutions Program 87

Strengthening Institutions Program 87

Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities (TCCU)-Part A program 87

Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander Institutions Program 86

TRIO Talent Search 84

Upward Bound Math and Science 84

Veterans Upward Bound 83

Ronald E. McNair Post-Baccalaureate Achievement Program 83

Transition/Postsecondary Programs for Students with Intellectual Disabilities 83

Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad (DDRA) 79

Training Program for Federal TRIO Programs 75

State Personnel Development Grants --

Innovative Approaches to Literacy Program --

Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Education Program --

School Climate Transformation Grants (LEAs) Program --

Statewide Family Engagement Centers (SFEC) Program --

REAP-Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) Program --

High School Equivalency Program - Migrant Education --

Education Stabilization Fund-Rethink K-12 Discretionary Grant Program --

Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education State Directors --

Native Hawaiian Education Act Program/Education of Native Hawaiian --

College Assistance Migrant Program --

REAP-Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) Program --

Teacher Quality Partnership Program --

Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program --

Comprehensive Literacy State Development --

Immediate Aid to Restart School Operations --

Magnet Schools Assistance Program --

Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA) Program --

Migrant Education Programs (Title I, Part C) --

Payments for Federal Property (Section 7002) --

Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Education Agencies Program --

Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 7003) --

Javits Program --

Promise Neighborhoods --

Grants for State Assessments --
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2021 28

Program (Information in Application Package) Score

Alaska Native Education Program --

Teacher and School Leader Incentive Grants (ESEA II-B-1) --

21st Century Community Learning Centers --

Demonstration Grants for Indian Children/Special Projects for Indian Children --

Rehabilitation Long-Term Training Program --

Assistance for Arts Education Development and Dissemination Program --

IDEA – State Directors of Special Education (Part B) Program --

English Language Acquisition State Grants (Title III, Part A) --

Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund --

Student Support and Academic Enrichment --

Education Innovation and Research Programs --

Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools --

Native American Career and Technical Education Program --

Governors Emergency Education Relief Fund --

Independent Living Services for Older Individuals Who Are Blind (IL-OIB) --

IDEA National Centers Program --

Full-Service Community Schools (ESEA IV-F-2, section 4625) --

Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies Program --

Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants (Title II, Part A) --

RSA Vocational Rehabilitation Program --

Neglected and Delinquent State and Local Agency Programs --

IDEA – Part C Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities Program --

Supporting Effective Educator Development Program --

Charter Schools Program (CSP) Grants to State Entities --

Scores are not listed for programs where the questions were not asked.
Final Report

2021 29

Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

Satisfaction Benchmark 

The satisfaction benchmark question, “Overall, when I think of all of the [Office’s] products and services, I 

am satisfied with their quality,” was again included in this year’s survey. Respondents rate their 

satisfaction with their program office’s products and services on a four-point scale. This year, 91%

responded ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly Agree’. This includes 45% of grantees who fall into the ‘Strongly Agree’ 

category. The percentage of respondents saying they ‘Disagree’ or ‘Strongly Disagree’ with being 

satisfied with the ED’s products and services fell to just 8%.

“Overall, when I think of all of ED’s products and services, I am satisfied with their quality.”
Final Report

2021 30

Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

Chapter III 

Summary and Recommendations 

The overall ACSI score of 76 marks the second highest level of grantee satisfaction recorded by the 

survey since its inception in 2007. Despite a 2-point decline since last year, the longer-term trend in 

grantee satisfaction remains positive. In order to identify key opportunities for continued improvement, 

components of the program experience that are associated with relatively lower scores coupled with 

higher impacts should be considered key action areas, as improvements in these aspects are likely to 

yield relatively greater increases in the overall level of satisfaction.

The chart below (priority matrix) shows the performance and impact of each driver area. Areas in the 

lower right-hand quadrant of the grid have the highest impact and are lower performing relative to other 

scores. Driver areas in this quadrant are considered key action areas. Lower scoring, lower impact driver 

areas are in the lower left-hand quadrant and should be monitored for slippage in score rather than 

targeted for improvement since improvements will not yield sizable gains in satisfaction. Higher scoring, 

lower impact driver areas in the upper left-hand quadrant are ones where current level of performance 

should be maintained rather than targeted for improvement. Lastly, those driver areas in the upper righthand quadrant are ones where improvements would impact satisfaction but may not be practical to 

achieve since performance is already at a high level.

Performance and Impact of Driver Areas

Performance scores for each of the areas are represented on the vertical axis. These are on a scale of 0 

to 100 with 100 being the best possible score. The impact each area has on satisfaction is shown on the 

horizontal axis with the impact representing the expected improvement in the satisfaction index given a 5-

point improvement in that area. 

Components that approach the lower right-hand quadrant indicate an area with a relatively low score and 

high impact, making efforts for improving these aspects more of a priority. For many programs, the Grant 

Performance Reporting Requirements and Technical Assistance components fall into the Key Action 

Areas quadrant of the priority matrix.
Final Report

2021 31

Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

Key Action Areas 

By virtue of their relatively lower scores and higher impact values at the aggregate level, Grant 

Performance Reporting Requirements and Technical Assistance can be considered Key Action Areas. 

While each component is rated in the mid-70s, indicating a high level of meeting the needs of grantees, 

the other key touchpoints of the grantee experience are rated higher and present less of an opportunity 

for improvement at this time. 

Technical Assistance has the highest impact value of 1.4 points at the aggregate level. At a more 

granular level, the assistance with developing resource materials for use in the program was the lowest 

rated attribute at 76 and could serve as a focal point for strengthening the Technical Assistance provided 

to grantees in an effort to drive overall satisfaction higher.

The Grant Performance Reporting Requirements component contains more variability among its 

attributes than any other area. At the top end is the ease of submitting reports electronically. For some 

programs this may be rated lower but at the aggregate level this is not a top priority area. However, the 

understanding grantees have of how their submitted data is used is consistently rated at the low end of 

the spectrum. Grantees would benefit from dialogue with program staff to discuss their submitted annual 

reports and how they could be improved in the future. 

Monitor

The Online Resources component appears in the Monitor quadrant of the priority matrix chart. Its low to 

moderate impact value means that other aspects of the grantee experience have a higher degree of 

influence on satisfaction at this time. However, the content available on the ED.gov (or OESE.ED.gov) 

website is still important in providing grantees with useful resources available at their convenience. 

Maintain

Consistently the highest rated driver of satisfaction, the ED Staff/Coordination remains an important area 

to maintain. Grantees have come to expect a high level of service from federal program staff because of 

the established strong performance. Responsiveness is a key attribute of this area and prompt replies to 

grantees should always be a priority. The Documents driver appears near the center of the priority matrix. 

At the aggregate level, the written correspondence provided to grantees meets their needs and is seen as 

a valuable resource. Specific results can be examined at the program level to ensure the content 

provided has been consistent and on par with the overall average among all surveyed programs. The 

same is true of the Information in Application Package component for OPE and OELA programs, who use 

that component in lieu of the Documents set of questions presented to grantees of the other Offices.
Final Report

2021 32

Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

Results by Program 

In the Results by Program portion of this report, each specific program’s results are summarized.

Additionally, many programs included open ended questions to be asked of their grantees. These 

verbatim comments are provided in the appendix of this report.

Office of English Language Acquisition (OELA)

Native American and Alaska Native Children in School Program

The Native American and Alaska Native Children in School Program satisfaction maintained its 9-point 

improvement from the previous year to remain at a very high score of 85. ED Staff received the highest 

score of any driver at 92, a 1-point improvement from the 2020 survey. Staff are clearly excelling in 

providing grantees with knowledgeable guidance in a timely manner backed by a sterling level of 

professionalism. Online Resources is another highlight of the results with a 9-point improvement to land 

at an overall score of 87. The rating of the look and feel of the site soared 14 points to 88, while the 

quality of content on the site gained 12 points to 90. The Online Resources made available to grantees 

have improved significantly in each of the last two survey cycles, going from a relative weakness and pain 

point for grantees to a strength that has helped drive overall satisfaction higher. Grant Performance 

Reporting Requirements and Technical Assistance were each rated an 84. In the case of the former, 

many attributes saw year-over-year improvements. The availability of assistance in completing reports 

improved from an 82 to 90, the usefulness of data in helping grantees improve their program gained 11 

points to an 87 and grantees’ understanding of how the Department uses their submitted reports 

improved 11 points to an 84. The Technical Assistance attribute scores were similar to the 2020 ratings. 

The lowest rating of 80 was given to the helpfulness of ED-funded technical assistance providers in 

helping grant project implementations. A new section of the survey asked OELA respondents to evaluate 

several characteristics of the grant application package. This section’s overall rating of 89 indicates a very 

clear and well-explained application. The usefulness of the OELA Facebook page was rated far below 

that of the OELA and NCELA website with a score of 44. 

National Professional Development Program

Grantees of the National Professional Development program rated their satisfaction an 83 in 2021, an 

improvement of 3 points after a slight 1-point drop in satisfaction reported in 2020. ED Staff continue to 

provide excellent service to grantees of the NPD program as indicated by the driver score of 91 as well as 

exceptionally high scores for; Communication about changes that may affect your program (93) and their 

Professionalism (95). After an improvement of 7 points in 2020, the Online Resources driver score 

increased yet again, gaining another 6 points in 2021 to an overall score of 86. Five of the six attributes 

that comprise the Online Resources driver were rated 85 or higher in 2021, with high scores of 87 for the; 

Quality of content and Ability to accomplish what you want on the site. Grant Performance Reporting 

Requirements were rated an 81, which reflects an increase of 4-points in the driver score. The improved 

rating is a result of score improvements for each of the six attributes that are associated with the driver; 

specifically, the Ease of submitting report(s) electronically score improved an impressive 8-points from 

2020 to 2021. The survey component that asks grantees to rate their understanding of how ED uses data 

shows signs of improvement in 2021 with a score of 72 (+7 points relative to 2020). Technical Assistance 

is the only driver to experience a score decrease in 2021, dropping 4-points to a rating of 81. The attribute 

of Technical Assistance that experienced the greatest score decline is ED-Funded TA Provider 

helpfulness in your learning to implement grant project which fell 9-points to a rating of 84. In the custom

question section of the survey, NPD grantees rated the Technical Assistance from OELA office and 

technical assistance from program officer very favorably at 87 and 85, respectively. The Usefulness of 

OELA Facebook rating lags behind the other custom questions with a 2021 score of 67. 
Final Report

2021 33

Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education (OCTAE) 

Adult Education and Family Literacy to the State Directors of Adult Education

Grantees of the Adult Education and Family Literacy program rated their satisfaction an 83. This is a 2-

point improvement from a year ago and the highest ever satisfaction score for this program. All major 

components of the grantee experience were rated very high in 2021, with the highest component score a 

91 for ED Staff/Coordination. This outstanding result is the product of a near perfect score of 98 for the 

staff’s professionalism and other attributes all rated in the upper-80s to low-90s. Staff working with 

grantees should be commended for their fine work that has been recognize and appreciated by the 

program’s grantees. The biggest component score improvement year-over-year is Online Resources, 

which improved 6 points to a rating of 78. After improvements to the content hosted on the ED.gov 

website, this program’s Online Resources rating is now a full 10 points higher than in the 2019 

measurement. The quality of content (84) is the highest rated attribute in this area, followed by the site’s 

look and feel (79) and the ability to navigate the site (78). The Technical Assistance score gained 1 point 

from its initial measurement last year to land at a score of 84 this year. Another component introduced to 

the 2020 survey – Grant Performance Reporting Requirements – declined 2 points to a rating of 80 this 

year. Despite the decline, this program’s rating is still 5 points above the aggregate score for Reporting 

Requirements among all programs surveyed. The ease of obtaining data required to report is the lowest 

rated attribute and presents an opportunity for improvement. Within the custom questions section of the 

survey, grantees of this program were asked to rate the resources available on the AEFLA.ED.gov 

website (not the main ED.gov site). These ratings were outstanding, with scores in the 80, including an 87 

for the quality of content available. The websites available to this program’s grantees are certainly aiding 

the grantee experience and may be able to be leveraged to point grantees in the right direction as to 

where the data they are required to report on can be accessed.

Carl D. Perkins Career & Technical Education Program to the State Directors of Career & 

Technical Ed

Carl D. Perkins Career & Technical Education Program grantee satisfaction jumped another 5 points in 

2021 after a 2-point improvement in the previous measurement. This is highest level of grantee 

satisfaction achieved for this program and is the result of improvements in several components of the 

grantee experience. ED Staff/Coordination is rated at an exceptional 94, with near perfect scores of 98 for 

knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, and procedures as well as staff professionalism. 

Grantees clearly feel like they have advocates working for them at the Education Department and have 

demonstrated their appreciation for this support in their survey feedback. The Online Resources 

component, a measure of the content available on the ED.gov website, improved 7 points to a rating of 

84. The quality of content available was rated an 89 and the accuracy of search results scored an 85. The

written correspondence provided to grantees, measured by the Documents component, also saw an

improved score in 2021. Its rating gained 4 points to a score of 86. The Technical Assistance made

available to grantees improved 3 points, from its initial score of 83 last year to 86. Its highest attribute

rating is associate with the technical assistance services helping successfully implement the grant

program (92). The lowest Technical Assistance attribute is the assistance with developing resource

materials for use in the program (78). Although this is the lowest rated item for Technical Assistance, its

score did improve 5 points from last year, signaling those changes made have set this area on the right

path and additional changes may not be needed at this time. Consistent with OMB’s directive that

government agencies should measure the trust individuals have in government services, the survey asks

grantees what level of trust they have that the office they work with in working to meet the needs of their

organization. This program’s Trust rating is a 95 this year, a remarkable score that demonstrates an

extremely high level of collective trust.

Native American Career and Technical Education Program

In its second year of participating in the Grantee Satisfaction Survey, grantees from the Native American 

Career and Technical Education Program rated their satisfaction a 67 on the 0-100 scale. This is a 9-

point decline from the baseline measurement that can be explained in part by a 5-point reduction in the 

score for Technical Assistance. In particular, the rating for assistance with developing resource materials 
2021 34

Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

for use in the program fell from a score of 63 last year to 53. To reverse this decline and bolster the 

overall Technical Assistance score, ensure that grantees are informed of the technical assistance 

available to them. The open-ended comments received from this program’s grantees include several 

mentions of being unaware that these types of resources were available. Others suggested that it would 

be helpful to have regularly scheduled discussions or webinars where questions could be asked and 

program directors could disseminate useful information to keep grantees informed of current events. The 

ED Staff/Coordination component is the highest rated area (82) in this year’s survey, despite a 1-point 

decline. Staff are rated very high for their professionalism (90) and Communication about changes that 

may affect your program (87). Online Resources received an unchanged rating of 69, indicating some 

possible opportunities for improvement in the resources available on the ED.gov website. In particular, 

ratings of 67 for the accuracy of search results and the ability to navigate the site signal the need to 

improve the way the site’s program information is organized and a more powerful search engine that 

returns relevant results. One area of the grantee experience that has improved this year is the 

Documents component, which measures the written correspondence provided to grantees. This area was 

rated an 81, a 6-point improvement from last year’s baseline score. The correspondence is rated very 

high for its sufficiency of detail (84) and comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issue faced (84). 

Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Education Program 

Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Education Program grantees rated their satisfaction a 71. Due this 

program’s small size and therefore a small survey sample size, scores and their year-over-year changes 

should be interpreted accordingly. Online Resources is the highest rated component for this program with 

an overall score of 90. The program resources available on the ED.gov website are rated particularly high 

for their quality and users’ ability to accomplish what they set out to do on the site. The rating of look and 

feel of the site lags behind most of the other metrics. The ED Staff/Coordination component received a 

very strong score of 80, led by extremely high ratings of professionalism (96) and the consistency of 

responses with ED staff from other offices (94). Areas of opportunity to boost the ED Staff score even 

higher include more proactive communication and prompt responsiveness when grantees reach out for 

information. There is substantial variation in the individual attribute ratings associated with Grant 

Performance Reporting Requirements. At the high end, grantees gave a perfect rating of 100 for the 

clarity of reporting requirements. On the low end are score of 59 for the understanding of how ED uses 

the data submitted and a score of 56 for the ease of submitting reports electronically. A comment 

received on the survey indicates occasional issues with the availability of G5, which creates the need to 

submit via email. Another grantee commented on the helpfulness of the PCRN and their appreciation for 

its frequent updating. This individual suggested it would be helpful to have links to access additional 

specific research matters (e.g., CTE at middle school, CTE at Employment, etc.) Additional open-ended 

comments specific to this program’s grantees can be found in Appendix C of this report. 

Final Report
Final Report

2021 35

Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS)

IDEA – State Directors of Special Education (Part B)

State Directors of Special Education rated their satisfaction a 74, a 3-point improvement from last year’s 

measurement. The increase in satisfaction comes as the result of notable improvements in several key 

components of the grantee experience. The ED Staff/Coordination rating rose 6 points to 83, aided by a 

professionalism rating that improved to 95. Collaboration efforts have paid off as this attribute improved 9 

points to a score of 78. Grantees rated the Online Resources on the ED.gov website higher this year, 

including 9-point improvements in the ability to find specific information (72) and the quality of content 

(80). The Grant Performance Reporting Requirements component gained 4 points to a rating of 78. This 

area was rated highest for the availability of assistance in completing reports (83) and lowest for the ease 

of obtaining data required to report (74). Of note is the 7-point improvement in the rating for how well 

grantees understand how ED uses the data they submit. This was rated a relatively low 69 in its baseline 

measurement in 2020 and improved 7 points to a score of 76. The Technical Assistance provided 

grantees improved 6 points to a score of 81. The attributes related to Technical Assistance are 

consistently rated in the upper-70s to low-80s. Grantees were asked how often they receive technical 

assistance from their state lead. This year, 87% said they receive assistance monthly or more often. This 

is a notable increase from last year when only 65% said they received assistance monthly or weekly. 

Comments in the open-ended feedback indicate several grantees are still primarily receiving technical 

assistance from ED-funded providers and would appreciate more direct contact with ED staff. All openended feedback can be found in Appendix C of this report. 

IDEA – Part C Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities Program

Satisfaction among Lead Agency Early Intervention Coordinators improved 2 points to a new high score 

of 76. The ED Staff/Coordination component was the highest rated area measured by the survey with a 

rating of 90. The professionalism of the staff, their knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies,

and procedures as well as their responsiveness were all rated in the 90s. Grantees rated the Technical 

Assistance they receive an 81, a 1-point improvement from the baseline measurement a year ago. While 

all attribute scores related to Technical Assistance received strong scores, using evidence-based 

practices in implementing program activities was the lowest rated of the group at 77 and could present an 

opportunity for improvement. Grant Performance Reporting Requirements, new to the survey in 2020, 

was rated 5 points higher at 78. Highlights of this section include a 13-point jump in the clarity of reporting 

requirements (85) and a 6-point increase in the availability of assistance in completing reports (80). The 

ease of submitting reports electronically was the one attribute that declined on score in this area, falling 1 

point to a 72. The only key component of the grantee experience that declined in score this year was 

Online Resources, which measures the program content available on the ED.gov website. The primary 

concern of grantees lies in the navigation of the site, which was rated a 60. The ability to find specific 

information (61) and the ability to accomplish intended goals of visiting the site (63) each declined since 

last year. The accuracy of search results improved its rating 2 points but still lags behind many other with 

a score of 65. Within the open-ended feedback grantees provided related to the website, several 

mentioned the need for more relevant search results and a more consistent structure to the site that is 

organized in a clear, user-intuitive manner.

IDEA National Centers Program

In its second year of participating in the survey, grantees of the IDEA National Centers Program rated 

their satisfaction a 77 on a 0-100 scale, a 1-point decline from its baseline score. The key components of 

the grantee experience had mixed results, with improvements in some areas and score declines 

elsewhere. ED Staff/Coordination is one area where an already outstanding score improved even further 

to a rating of 94. The individual attribute scores for this component are all in the 90s, led by scores of 97 

for professionalism and a 96 for knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, and procedures. 

Staff have certainly excelled in their support services to grantees and have been recognized for their 

valuable work in this year’s survey feedback. The Documents component, which measures the written 

correspondence provided to grantees, also improved this year, gaining 1 point to a score of 82. The 

correspondence produced is rated highest for its sufficiency of detail (85) and clarity (84). Online 

Resources is an area that experienced a lower rating this year, down 7 points to 68. Grantees are having 
2021 36

Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration 

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

a relatively difficult time finding specific information on the ED.gov website, navigating the site in general 

and expect more from the search engine. One individual commented in the open-ended feedback that the 

site could be improved by providing “clear links...to resources from each national center.” A full readout of 

the open-ended feedback collected can be found in Appendix C of this report. Grant Performance 

Reporting Requirements was rated 11 points lower this year with a rating of 68. The biggest single 

decrease of the attributes of this area is the ease of submitting reports electronically which fell 15 points to 

55. Open-ended comments mention frustration with G5, including the need to be able to upload 

documents, restrictive character limits and templates that do not align with the organization’s reports. 

Ensuring that staff are available to assist when grantees are encountering issues with online report 

submission will help alleviate some of these concerns but there will remain a desire for a more reliable 

and use-friendly reporting system. 

RSA Vocational Rehabilitation Program 

RSA Vocational Rehabilitation Program satisfaction improved 1 point in 2021, after an 11-point increase in 

2020 for a current rating of 61. The highest rated component of the grantee experience is ED 

Staff/Coordination, with a rating of 74. The professionalism of the staff again received an outstanding 

score of 90, and there was a 5-point improvement for the knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, 

policies, and procedures (81). There is an opportunity to drive the ED Staff/Coordination rating even 

higher through a focus on responsiveness (65) and providing sufficient legal guidance in responses (67). 

Online Resources, a measure of the program content available on the ED.gov website, improved 5 points 

to a rating of 66. The quality of content (70) is the highest rated attribute with the ability to find specific 

information the lowest (63). Further improvements are likely attainable by continuing to improve the 

navigation of the site and integrating a more powerful search engine that returns relevant results. Grant 

Performance Reporting Requirements was rated a 63, 2 points lower than the baseline measurement last 

year. The ease of obtaining data required to report remains the lowest rated attribute (55). Grantees also 

have a desire for more information as to how their submitted report data is being used by ED and what 

changes would make the reports of higher quality. This program’s grantees were asked additional 

questions about the technical support received from state liaisons from the State Monitoring and Program 

Improvement Division of the RSA. Responsiveness from these resources was rated relatively high at 76 

and the supportiveness in helping grantees complete the Unified or Combined State Plan was rated a 72. 

A full readout of the custom question responses can be found in Appendix B of this report. 

Rehabilitation Long-Term Training Program 

The Rehabilitation Long-Term Training Program grantee satisfaction was rated a 71 in 2021, a 3-point 

improvement from this program’s initial year of participation in the Grantee Satisfaction Survey in 2020. 

The level of Trust grantees have that the program is working to meet their organization’s needs increased 

6 points to a rating of 79. The highest scoring component of the grantee experience continues to be ED 

Staff/Coordination. Its overall rating improved 1 point to 86, aided by a substantial 8-point increase in the 

staff’s knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, and procedures (85) and a 5-point gain in 

the sufficiency of legal guidance in responses (84). Online Resources, a measure of the program content 

on the ED.gov website improved 7 points to a rating of 73. All attributes are rated higher than a year ago, 

signaling those grantees are more effectively able to get the information they are looking for and find the 

visual appearance of the site more appealing. The Technical Assistance component improved 9 points to 

a 2021 score of 72. Last year’s lowest rated attribute, using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities, improved 9 points to a score of 64. In the custom question section of the survey, this 

program’s grantees were asked what training they would like RSA to provide to better assist with 

managing their grant. Payback requirements was the most selected option at 33%, followed by Uniform 

Guidance (19%) and statutory and regulatory program requirements (14%). This is a shift from the 2020 

survey results when 58% selected the statutory and regulatory program requirements option. 

Independent Living Services for Older Individuals Who Are Blind 

Grantees of the Independent Living Services for Older Individuals Who Are Blind program were asked 

about their experiences for the first time on the Grantee Satisfaction Survey in 2021. The overall 

satisfaction score of 69 trails the OSERS average by 3 points. The highest rated components of the 

grantee experience are ED Staff/Coordination and Technical Assistance, each with a score of 77. Within 

the staff component, professionalism was the highest rated attribute at 89 followed by collaboration with 

other ED programs in providing relevant services (83). Communication about changes that may affect the 

Final Report
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2021 37

program and responsiveness to questions were each rated a 72 and present the greatest opportunity for 

improvement in this area. In the Technical Assistance domain, grantees are pleased with the program 

offering opportunities to share best practices via learning groups. ED-funded technical assistance 

providers were also very highly rated in providing help to implement grant projects. The Online Resources 

grantees have access to on the ED.gov website were rated a 69, on par with the OSERS average. The 

quality of content on the site and the ability to accomplish the intended goals of visiting the site are the 

highest rated Online Resources attributes. However, the navigation of the site was rated relatively lower 

and could be enhanced through reducing clutter on the homepage and grouping similar items together. 

The lowest rated component of the grantee experience are the Grant Performance Reporting 

Requirements, with an overall score of 62. The ease of submitting reports electronically is the highlight of 

this area, with a score of 75. Improvement efforts should be focused on communicating to grantees how 

their submitted data is used and finding ways to make the data submitted more useful in helping grantees 

improve their program. Open-ended comments collected on the survey contain several mentions of the 

new 7-OB system and a hopefulness that its implementation will improve the reporting process. A full 

readout of the open-ended comments can be found in Appendix C of this report.

State Personnel Development Grants

Grantees of the State Personnel Development Grant program were surveyed for the first time in 2021. 

Their satisfaction rating of 79 is the highest among the OSERS programs and 3 points above the 

aggregate score of 76 among all participating programs this year. Grantees for this program were asked 

only about three main aspects of their experience: ED Staff/Coordination, Grant Performance Reporting 

Requirements and Technical Assistance. The ED Staff/Coordination component was rated an exceptional 

92, with all related attributes scoring in the upper-80s to mid-90s. Grantees have made it clear through 

their survey feedback that they highly value their relationships with ED staff and find their guidance 

effective in implementing the mission of their respective grants. The Technical Assistance score of 88 

indicates this area is another highlight of the grantee experience. The services provided are useful in 

helping individuals implement their grant and grantees are very appreciative of the opportunities made 

available to share best practices in learning groups. While some individuals desire in-person meetings 

with program officers, the current support is still highly valued and of high quality. Grant Performance 

Reporting Requirements was rated slightly lower than the other areas but still at a very high score of 79. 

The usefulness of the data in helping improve the grant program is the highest rated attribute of this area 

at 87. On the other hand, the ease of submitting reports electronically was the lowest rated attribute at 69. 

The open-ended feedback received indicates the G5 is generally seen as outdated and difficult to 

navigate. A modernization of the G5 platform that gives grantees an intuitive and clean look is likely to 

have a tangible effect on boosting the grantee experience in submitting reports to ED.
Final Report

2021 38

Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE)

Strengthening Institutions Program

Grantees of the Strengthening Institutions Program rated their satisfaction a 70 in 2021, a 5-point score 

decrease compared to last year. The three attributes that comprise the satisfaction score all decreased a 

significant 6-points from 2020 to 2021; How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services (76), How 

well ED`s products and services meet expectations (66) and How well ED compares with ideal products 

and services (64). The scores for the five drivers of satisfaction range from 68 for Technical Assistance to 

87 for the Information in Application Package. The Information in Application Package driver score was 

the only to show signs of improvement year-over-year, gaining 1 point for an overall score of 87. The ten 

attributes that are associated with the Information in Application Package driver were rated between 83 

and 91, indicating that grantees’ needs are largely being met by the current structure of the information 

provided to them in the application package. Federal staff were rated lower in 2021 when compared to 

2020, highlighted by the ED Staff/Coordination driver score decrease of 9 points to an overall score of 79. 

Of the seven attributes that comprise the ED Staff/Coordination driver score, four fell by statistically 

significant margins; Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, and procedures (87, -4), 

Responsiveness to your questions (73, -8), Professionalism (86, -7) and Collaboration with other ED 

programs or offices in providing relevant services (78, -10). The Technical Assistance driver score is 

derived from a single rated question, and from 2020 to 2021 grantees rated the TA services provided in 

helping successfully implement grant programs/projects a 68, a notable score decrease of 8 points. The 

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements driver score remained stable this year with a score of 70 for 

the second consecutive year. Efforts to increase the driver score should be focused on the lower scoring 

components of the Grant Performance Reporting Requirements driver, which in this case are; Availability 

of assistance in completing your report(s) (64) and grantees understanding of how ED uses their data 

(58). The following open-end comment was provided when asked for grant reporting process 

improvements, “there was no communication about the APR other than when it was due with an extended 

deadline. The Program Officer, who was new during this reporting period, did not reach out at all to offer 

assistance.” A full read-out of the verbatim feedback collected can be found in Appendix C. In the custom 

questions section of the survey, grantees of the SIP rated their program specialists relatively low for their 

Responsiveness to questions (73). Similarly, when asked to rate the quality of the communication with 

your Strengthening Institutions Program specialist, grantees rated the Frequency of communication a 69, 

a decrease of 3 points from 2020. When asked for their preferred method of communication, a vast 

majority of grantees selected Individual Email (83%). 

Alaskan Native and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions (ANNH)-Part A

The Alaskan Native and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions (ANNH)-Part A grantee satisfaction was 

rated a 78, an improvement of 1 point from the strong score of 77 that was reported in 2020 when the 

program was first included in the survey. The five drivers of satisfaction were rated favorably in 2021, all 

of which increased from 2020 to 2021. The Online Resources made available to grantees were rated an 

84, an increase of 8 points from 2020. Each of the six attributes that comprise the driver score improved 

from last year, specifically, the Quality of content and Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 

improved 11 and 10 points, respectively. Federal staff displayed high levels of Knowledge of relevant 

legislation, regulations, policies, and procedures, indicated by the strong score of 93 provided by ANNH 

grantees. The overall driver score of 85 for ED Staff/Coordination reflects a 4-point increase from 2020, 

and opportunities to increase the driver score further exist in improving the lowest scoring component in 

the ED Staff/Coordination survey section; Responsiveness to your questions (72). Ensure that grantees 

questions are not left unanswered, and that the answers provided are accurate and easily understood by 

the recipient. The Information in Application Package driver score is the highest of the five drivers of 

satisfaction, improving 4-points to a 94 in 2021. The Review Process (83), an attribute of the Information 

in Application Package driver, was rated low relative to the other attributes that comprise the driver score 

indicating that this area serves as an opportunity for improvement. The Grant Performance Reporting 

Requirements driver, which was rated a 76 in 2021, can be improved upon by increasing the score for 

grantees understanding of how ED uses their data (59). In the custom questions section of the survey, 

ANNH grantees were asked to rate, “how satisfied you were with the technical assistance you received 

from your program specialist during this pandemic.” The scores in this survey section range from 76 for 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2021 39

the Responsiveness to your questions to 87 for the Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication. When asked, “How would you advise on improving the overall process and protocols 

associated with this grant competition,” the following open-end response was provided, “Recommend to 

host Technical assistance seminar and other events where grantees can collaborate and dialogue with 

one another and sponsor.” A full read-out of the verbatim feedback collected can be found in Appendix C.

Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions

The satisfaction among grantees of the Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions (DHSI) Program was 

rated a 78 for the second consecutive year. The satisfaction score of 78 for DHSI grantees is 3-points 

higher than the OPE-wide satisfaction score for 2021. The five drivers of satisfaction were rated favorably 

in 2021, ranging from 76 for the Online Resources made available to grantees up to 91 for ED 

Staff/Coordination. Federal staff were very effective in their interactions with DHSI grantees as indicated 

by scores in the 90s for all but one of the attributes that comprise the driver score. ED staff were rated 

significantly higher in 2021 compared to 2020 for the Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses (92) and 

Responsiveness to your questions (91). The Information in Application Package is another high 

performing driver of satisfaction, posting an overall driver score of 89 this year. The ten survey 

components that comprise the Information in Application Package driver were rated between 86 and 93, 

indicating that grantees needs are largely being met by the current structure of the information provided to 

them in the application package. The driver score for the Grant Performance Reporting Requirements 

improved 1 point in 2021, and further driver score increases can be achieved by providing grantees with a 

better understanding of how ED uses their data, as this attribute was rated relatively low at 65. The 

following open-end comment was provided when asked how the grant reporting process could be 

improved, “Eliminate replicated questions. Simplify the data requests. Make the report more useful to the 

user. Clarify how the data from the report is used- what is the purpose?” A full read-out of the verbatim 

feedback collected can be found in Appendix C. Within the custom questions section of the survey, DHSI 

grantees provided relatively strong scores, most of which reflect improvement from last year. Program 

specialists were rated a significant 6-points higher for their Responsiveness to questions in 2021, landing 

at a strong score of 88. The preferred method of communication for DHSI grantees is Individual Email, 

which was selected by 86% of respondents. When asked how communication efforts could be improved, 

the following helpful suggestion was provided, “I have noticed that different grantees receive different 

information or resources, but they are relevant to almost all grantees. It would be helpful if APR trainings, 

webinars, and other resources and updates were made available through a common communication 

source to ensure that all grantees receive the same information.”

Promoting Post Baccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans

The Promoting Post Baccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans program grantee satisfaction 

score of 93 makes this program the highest rated program of all 72 programs included in the survey in 

2021. After a very strong score of 89 was reported in 2020, grantee satisfaction gained another 7-points. 

Of the five drivers of satisfaction, four improved significantly from 2020 to 2021. Federal staff received 

nearly perfect ratings for all seven attributes that comprise the ED Staff/Coordination driver score, which 

was rated an astounding 99. The survey component that measured ED staff’s Responsiveness to your 

questions was rated a significant 25-points higher in 2021, landing at a score of 99. The Information in 

Application Package is the next highest rated driver of satisfaction at 97, a significant increase of 7-points 

relative to 2020. All ten attributes that are associated with the Information in Application Package driver 

score were rated 94 or higher, indicating that grantees needs are largely being met by the information that 

is included in their application package. Continuing the trend, the Grant Performance Reporting 

Requirements driver score improved notably (+9 points) from 2020 to 2021 to an overall driver score of 

91. The only attribute of the Grant Performance Reporting Requirements driver that was rated below a 90

is grantees understanding of how ED uses your data (86) which was rated 13-points higher from 2020 to

2021. The Online Resources made available to grantees of the Promoting Post Baccalaureate

Opportunities for Hispanic Americans program were rated an 89, reflecting a driver score increase of 7-

points from last year and a 12-point increase from 2017 when the program was first added to the survey.

The following open-end comment was provided when grantees were asked for suggestions on how to

improve the website, “The website is excellent, I think will be helpful if we can have a training or

demonstration overview of the website to improve our skill in use the website more efficiently.” A full readout of the verbatim feedback collected can be found in Appendix C. The scores for the rated questions

asked within the custom questions section of the survey are significantly higher this year compared to
2021 40

Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

last. When asked to rate the quality of the communication with your PPOHA specialist, nearly perfect

scores were achieved for the Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed (97), Frequency of

communication (99), and Clarity of communication (98). When asked for the preferred method for

communication, 88% of PPOHA grantees selected Individual Email.

Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities - Part A

Grantees of the Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities program rated their satisfaction an 81 in

2021, ranking this program in the top five of all 21 OPE programs who participated in the survey this year.

The satisfaction score of 81 in 2021 reflects a 9-point decrease from 2020, however the level of

satisfaction remains high, outscoring the average satisfaction score for all 72 programs that participated

in the survey this year by 5-points. The five drivers of satisfaction were rated relatively high in 2021,

ranging from 72 for the Online Resources up to an 87 for the Information in Application Package. The

Online Resources driver score fell 3-points from 2020, due to score decreases for each of the six

attributes that comprise the driver score. The Quality of content of the website experienced the greatest

year-over-year decline, falling 9-points to a 70. ED staff were rated favorably for the communication skills

that they displayed in their interactions with grantees, highlighted by strong scores for the Consistency of

responses with ED staff from different program offices and Communication about changes that may affect

your program which were each rated an 87 in 2021. The Information in Application Package driver score,

which increased 3-points from 2020, is the highest rated driver of satisfaction for grantees of the Tribally

Controlled Colleges and Universities program with an overall score of 87. Scores for the ten attributes

that comprise the driver score range from 84 to 93, indicating that grantees needs are largely being met

by the information included in the application package. The attributes that comprise the Grant

Performance Reporting Requirements driver, which was rated a 73 overall, are highly variable with a 22-

point difference between the highest and lowest rated survey components measure in the driver section.

Efforts to improve the driver score should be directed towards the lower scoring components, which in this

case are Ease of obtaining data you are required to report (64) and Your understanding of how ED uses

your data (66). When asked how the grant reporting process could be improved, the following helpful

suggestions was provided, “A video guide that helps explain the process would be helpful. The

Department sometimes uses this to do their presentations and being able to access this presentation

throughout the year would be helpful.” A full read-out of the verbatim feedback collected can be found in

Appendix C. The Technical Assistance driver score improved a noteworthy 13-points in 2021 to an overall

score of 81. In the custom questions section of the survey, grantees of the TCCU program were asked to,

“rate the quality of the communication with your TCCU specialist.” The Frequency of communication was

rated 9-points lower in 2021 compared to 2020.

Native American Serving Non-Tribal Institutions

Grantees of the Native American Serving Non-Tribal Institutions program rated their overall satisfaction a

74 in 2021, one-point less than the average satisfaction rating of all 21 OPE programs that participated in

the survey this year. The grantee satisfaction score of 74 reflects a 9-point decrease from 2020 when the

Native American Serving Non-Tribal Institutions program was first added to the survey. The drop in

satisfaction, in part, is due to each of the three attributes that comprise the overall satisfaction score

decreasing year-over-year, most notably the rating of How satisfied are you with ED’s products and

services fell 12-points from 2020 to 2021. The scores for the five drivers of satisfaction range from 70 for

Technical Assistance to 87 for the Information in Application Package. The Technical Assistance driver

score is comprised of a single rated question; TA services provided in helping successfully implement

grant programs/projects, which was rated 4-points lower in 2021 settling at a score of 70. ED staff were

effective in their interactions with grantees, indicated by the strong scores for the rated questions asked

with the ED Staff/Coordination driver section. The ED Staff/Coordination driver score can be improved

upon by halting the drop in the score for their Responsiveness to your questions, which was rated 12-

points lower in 2021 at 74. Ensure that ED staff value the importance in providing timely and clearly

understood responses to grantee questions. The Online Resources made available to grantees were

rated a 74 overall, a score improvement of 8-points relative to last year. Specifically, the 2021 scores for

the Ability to navigate within the site (70, +10) and Look and feel/Visual appearance (77, +16) improved

the most of the six attributes that comprise the driver score. Within the custom questions section of the

survey, grantees of the Native American Serving Non-Tribal Institutions program were asked to rate the

quality of the communication with your NASNTI specialist. The Sufficiency of information provided to keep

you informed and Clarity of communication were each rated favorably at 84, while the Frequency of

Final Report
2021 41

Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

communication was rated a 79. When asked for their preferred method of communication, 79% of

grantees selected Individual Email, followed by 14% who selected Blast/Distribution list email and the

remaining 7% who chose Telephone.

Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander Institutions (AANAPISI)

Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander Institutions grantees rated their satisfaction a 79 in 

2021, an improvement of 6-points from 2020 when the program was first added to the survey. The 

satisfaction score of 79 for AANAPISI grantees is 4-points higher than the OPE-wide average satisfaction 

score of 75. The increase in grantee satisfaction was aided by score increases for three of the five drivers 

of satisfaction: Grant Performance Reporting Requirements (75, +2), Online Resources (73, +8) and 

Information in Application Package (86, +5). The increase in the Information in Application Package driver 

score was fueled by score increases for eight of the ten attributes that comprise the driver score. 

Specifically, the Deadline for Submission (91) was rated a significant 14-points higher in 2021. 

Enhancements made to the Online Resources utilized by grantees were well received, highlighted by 

double-digit score increases for the Ability to navigate within the site (77, +10) and Look and feel/Visual 

appearance (67, +11). Federal staff were rated less favorably in 2021 compared to 2020 for their 

interactions with grantees. The driver score for ED Staff/Coordination (86) fell 5-points due to attribute 

level score decreases for their Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, and procedures (-

6), Responsiveness to your questions (-9), and Professionalism (-2). The driver score for Grant 

Performance Reporting Requirements improved 2-points in 2021 to an overall score of 75. Opportunities 

for further driver score increases exist in improving the low-scoring attributes that are associated with the 

driver. The Grant Performance Reporting Requirements can be improved by providing a better 

explanation to grantees of how ED uses their data, as this survey component is rated relatively low at 63. 

Within the custom questions section of the survey, grantees were asked to rate “how satisfied you were 

with the technical assistance you received from your program specialist during this pandemic?” Scores in 

this section were relatively strong, ranging from 88 for the Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication up to 91 for both the Responsiveness to your questions and Timely resolution of general 

programmatic and/or financial issues. When asked to rate several aspects of the process by which you 

receive grant funding for the AANAPISI from the Office of Postsecondary Education, relatively low scores 

were provided for Timeliness of the grant award notification (64) and Availability of funds with adequate 

time for implementation (64). 

Fulbright-Hays Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad Fellowships (DDRA)

Grantees of the Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad Fellowships (DDRA) Program rated their 

satisfaction a 57, a score decrease of 14-points compared to the satisfaction score in 2020. In 

comparison with the other 20 OPE programs that participated in the survey in 2021, DDRA grantees have 

the lowest level of satisfaction. The drop in satisfaction was fueled by score decreases for each of the five 

drivers of satisfaction. The ED Staff/Coordination driver experienced the greatest year-over-year 

decrease, falling 11-points to a 74 overall. The attribute that measures ED staff in terms of Collaboration 

with other ED programs or offices in providing relevant services fell 23-points to a 64 in 2021. ED staff 

have an opportunity to boost the attribute level score by providing more opportunities for DDRA grantees 

to collaborate with other ED programs, which can be done more simply in today’s virtual work 

environment. The lowest rated attribute associated with the ED Staff/Coordination driver is 

Responsiveness to your questions, which was rated a 60 in 2021. Grantees rely on ED staff to respond to 

their questions in a timely manner with clearly understood answers/explanations. The Online Resources 

made available to grantees were rated a 57; the lowest scoring driver of satisfaction in 2021. Three of the 

six attributes that comprise the Online Resources driver score were rated below a 60 highlighting the 

need for improvement; Ability to find specific information (57), Quality of content (59) and Look and 

feel/Visual appearance (55). When asked for website enhancements the following open-end response 

was provided, “Update the look; consolidate historical information on the sites/pages under relevant 

headers so it was easier to find.” A full read-out of the verbatim feedback collected can be found in 

Appendix C. The Grant Performance Reporting Requirements driver is another low-scoring driver of 

satisfaction, falling 8-points from 2020 to an overall score of 58. The score for grantees understanding of 

how ED uses their data (48) offers the greatest room for improvement, as this is the lowest scoring survey 

component this year. Additionally, the Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project (55) score is relatively low, highlighting the need for improvements in providing useful 

data to DDRA grantees. In the custom questions section of the survey, DDRA grantees were asked to 

Final Report
2021 42

Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

rate the quality of the communication with your Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad Fellowships

specialist. Scores were relatively low in this survey section offering ample room for improvement;

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed (61, -17), Frequency of communication (60, -13),

Clarity of communication (60, -17). When asked, “What can Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad

Fellowships do to improve communication with you,” the following helpful suggestion was provided,

“Reply to emails in timely manner, provide sufficient and clear information, and provide updates on a

regular basis.” The most preferred method of communication is Individual Email (68%), followed by

Blast/Distribution list email (24%).

Fulbright-Hays Group Projects Abroad

Grantees of Group Projects Abroad rated their satisfaction an 84, making this program the second

highest rated OPE program in 2021. Although the satisfaction score dropped 2-points from last year, the

Group Projects Abroad Program satisfaction score remains very strong. The five drivers of satisfaction

were rated favorably as well, with exceptionally high scores for Technical Assistance (94) and ED

Staff/Coordination (91). The seven attributes that comprise the ED Staff/Coordination driver score range

from 86 for the Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in providing relevant services up to a 96

for their Professionalism. The Online Resources made available to grantees were rated a 79 for the

second consecutive year. The Look and feel/Visual appearance of the website was rated 7-points less in

2021 landing at a 70, indicating that the website is due for some visual enhancements in the eyes of the

grantees who use the website. The following open-end comment references one grantees specific issue

with the website, “The amount of small text on each page is confusing and makes finding what you are

looking for challenging.” A full read-out of the verbatim feedback collected can be found in Appendix C.

The driver score for the Grant Performance Reporting Requirements was the only to experience a

decrease from 2020, falling 9-points to a 72. The driver score decrease was a result of the six attributes

that comprise the driver decreasing year-over-year. Specifically, the Clarity of reporting requirements (71)

and understanding of how ED uses your data (60) attributes each dropped 10-points followed closely by

the Ease of obtaining data you are required to report (72) which fell 9-points. When asked for suggestions

on how to improve the grant reporting process, the following comment was provided, “I would like to do 

some hands-on training to feel more comfortable.” The rated questions asked within the custom questions 

section of the survey for Group Projects Abroad grantees boast very strong scores, most of which fall in

the 90s score range. Respondents rated the IFLE program on how they Supports work in language

aspects of professional and other fields of study a 94 in 2021, a significant score increase of 10-points

from last year. When asked to rate, “how satisfied you were with the technical assistance you received

from your program specialist during this pandemic” grantees rated the Knowledge of relevant legislation,

regulations, policies, and procedures and Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication

each very favorably at 92.

Hispanic-Serving Institutions - Science, Technology, Engineering, or Mathematics and

Articulation

Grantees of the Hispanic-Serving Institutions - Science, Technology, Engineering, or Mathematics and

Articulation Program rated their satisfaction an 82, 7-points higher than the OPE-wide satisfaction score

of 75 for 2021. The HSI-STEM program was last included in the survey in 2018, and since then grantee

satisfaction has increased 15-points. The drivers of satisfaction included in the survey were rated

relatively high, ranging from 77 for Online Resources to 92 for ED Staff/Coordination. The Online

Resources driver score of 77 is the lowest of the five drivers included in the survey and while a 77 is by

no means a low score, it does offer the greatest room for improvement. Specifically, the Ability to navigate

within the site (74) is rated slightly lower than the other six attributes that comprise the Online Resources

driver and may serve as an area to focus improvement efforts on in the coming months. The following

open-end response sheds light on a potential downfall of the navigation of the website, “Improve

navigation for people not intimately familiar with jargon.” A full read-out of the verbatim feedback collected

can be found in Appendix C. ED Staff were extremely effective in their interactions with HSI-STEM

grantees, highlighted by scores of 90 or higher for each of the seven attributes that comprise the ED

Staff/Coordination driver score (92). Respondents rating of ED staff in terms of their Responsiveness to

your questions improved 10-points from 2018 to a strong score of 90 in 2021. The Grant Performance

Reporting Requirements driver score of 78 is relatively strong, outscoring the OPE-wide driver score by 3-

points. There is one attribute associated with the Grant Performance Reporting Requirements driver that

offers substantial room for improvement; Your understanding of how ED uses your data (63). In the

Final Report
2021 43

Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

custom questions section of the survey, grantees of the HSI-STEM program were asked to rate, “how 

satisfied you were with the technical assistance you received from your program specialist during this 

pandemic?” Scores were strong, ranging from 87 for Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication to 89 for Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, and procedures. When 

asked for their preferred method to communicate with program specialists, 82% of respondents selected 

Individual Email.

Foreign Language and Area Studies 

The satisfaction among grantees of the Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships Program was 

rated 81, outscoring the OPE-wide satisfaction score of 75 for 2021 by 6-points. Although the satisfaction 

score dropped 2-points since 2020, grantee satisfaction and the ratings for the five drivers of satisfaction 

are strong in 2021. Two of the five drivers of satisfaction were rated exceptionally high; ED 

Staff/Coordination and Technical Assistance, which were rated 96 and 93, respectively. The Technical 

Assistance driver score consists of one rated question whereas the ED Staff/Coordination driver is 

comprised of seven attributes, all of which were rated 92 or higher. Staff were extremely successful in 

their interactions with grantees, most notably for their Professionalism (98), Responsiveness to your 

questions (97), Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, and procedures (96) and 

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses (96). The driver score for the Grant Performance Reporting 

Requirements increased 2-points from 2020 to 2021 to an overall driver score of 73. Further driver score 

improvement opportunities exist in increasing grantees understanding of how ED uses their data as this 

survey component was rated relatively low at 59. Additionally, the Ease of obtaining data you are required 

to report (65) was a relatively low scoring attribute of the Grant Performance Reporting Requirements 

driver. The following open-end comment echoes the low score for grantees rating of their understanding 

of how ED uses their data, “It would be great to have a better sense of what is done with the data we 

provide.” A full read-out of the verbatim feedback collected can be found in Appendix C. In the custom 

questions section of the survey, grantees of the FLAS Program were asked to rate the quality of the 

communication with your Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships specialist. Respondents rated 

the quality of communication extremely favorably; Sufficiency of information provided to keep you 

informed (95), Frequency of communication (94) and Clarity of communication (96). The high scores 

reported for the quality of communication are echoed by the following open-end response, “Level of 

communication provided by our program officer and his colleagues is superb--no suggestions come to 

mind.”

Talent Search

The satisfaction among grantees of the Talent Search program was rated a 76 in 2021, outscoring the 

OPE-wide satisfaction score by one-point. The satisfaction score of 76 in 2021 is 8-points higher than the 

satisfaction score reported in 2017 when the program was last included in the survey. Scores for the five 

drivers of satisfaction are strong, ranging from 77 for Online Resources up to 88 for ED Staff/

Coordination. ED Staff received a very strong score of 93 for the Professionalism they displayed in their 

interactions with grantees, followed closely by a score of 89 for their Knowledge of relevant legislation, 

regulations, policies, and procedures. The Information in Application Package driver is another highly 

rated area of the grantee experience with an overall driver score of 84. Scores for the ten attributes that 

comprise the Information in Application Package driver nearly all fall in the 80s, with two exceptions; 

Budget Information and Forms (79) and Formatting Instructions (76). Online Resources is the lowest 

scoring driver of satisfaction in 2021, however the overall driver score of 77 is 2-points higher than the 

OPE-wide driver score of 75. The Look and feel/Visual appearance (75) of the website offers the greatest 

room for improvement. The following open-end comment echoes the opportunity for visual enhancements 

to be made to the website, “There is a lot of text on the Federal TRIO Programs page. Perhaps creating 

icons for News and Information, Reference Documents, Maps, etc., that the user can click on to read 

more about the topic would make the page less busy.” A full read-out of the verbatim feedback collected 

can be found in Appendix C. Both the Technical Assistance and Grant Performance Reporting 

Requirements drivers were rated favorably (80) in 2021. In the custom questions section of the survey, 

grantees of the Talent Search program were asking to rate several aspects of the process by which you 

receive grant funding for the Talent Search from the Office of Postsecondary Education. Respondents 

rated the Timeliness of the grant award notification poorly at 60, a decrease of 23-points relative to 2017 

when grantees were last asked to rate this aspect of the grant funding process. When asked for their 

preferred method to communicate with program specialists, 83% of respondents selected Individual 

Final Report
2021 44

Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

Email. When asked, “How would you advise on improving the overall process and protocols associated

with this grant competition,” the following comment was provided, “Better and more timely communication,

award notifications, and overall guidance, especially during times of crisis.”

Upward Bound Math and Science

Upward Bound Math and Science grantee satisfaction was rated a 73 in the initial year that the program

was added to the survey. The grantee satisfaction score of 73 is 2-points lower than the OPE-wide

satisfaction score for 2021. The five drivers of satisfaction range from 72 for the Online Resources made

available to grantees up to 84 for the Information in Application Package. The Quality of content and Look

and feel/Visual appearance attribute level scores of 70 and 69, respectively, offer room for improvement

as these scores trail slightly behind the other four attributes that comprise the Online Resources driver

score. The following helpful suggestion was provided by a grantee when responding to the open-end

feedback question asking for website improvement suggestions, “The web site looks serviceable enough,

but the layout is bland and not always user-friendly. To improve, the links could be better presented with

larger buttons/tabs that more clearly reflect content.” A full read-out of the verbatim feedback collected

can be found in Appendix C. The Grant Performance Reporting Requirements, which were rated a 73

overall, were rated relatively low for the Ease of obtaining data you are required to report (67) and Your

understanding of how ED uses your data (65). Improvement in these two low-scoring areas offer the

greatest leverage in improving the overall Grant Performance Reporting Requirements driver score, thus

improving the grantee experience overall. ED Staff were rated less favorably by grantees of the Upward

Bound Math and Science Program compared to the other OPE programs included in the survey. The

overall ED Staff/Coordination driver score of 75 is 10-points lower than the OPE-wide driver score. The

two areas that ED staff should target to improve ratings are their Responsiveness to grantee questions

(65) and Consistency of responses with ED staff from different program offices (69). In the custom

questions section of the survey, grantees were asked to rate, “how satisfied you were with the technical

assistance you received from your program specialist during this pandemic?” Scores in this survey

section are relatively low ranging from 61 for the Responsiveness to your questions to 68 for both the

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and procedures and Ability to resolve issues.

When asked for suggestions on how to improve the technical assistance grantees received should we be

faced with future national emergencies, the following open-end comment was provided, “Technical

assistance like much of our country was delayed due to COVID-19, once communication was established

support was provided. We all just had to be patience and be innovative with services.”

Veterans Upward Bound

Grantees of the Veterans Upward Bound Program rated their satisfaction a 67 in the initial year being

included in the survey. The grantee satisfaction score of 67 ranks this program in the bottom two of all

OPE programs included in the 2021 survey. Efforts to improve the grantee experience should be directed

towards the lower scoring components measured in the survey. For instance, the Online Resources made

available to grantees were rated a 72, trailing the OPE-wide driver score by 3-points. The Look and

feel/Visual appearance attribute was rated relatively low at 66, followed by the Ability to navigate within

the site and Accuracy of search results which were each rated a 71. The following suggestion was

provided when grantees were asked how the website could be improved, “Work with an end-user group

and make sure it's user interface works with the end user's needs.” A full read-out of the verbatim

feedback collected can be found in Appendix C. The Grant Performance Reporting Requirements driver

score of 72 also offers room for improvement. Seek to provide grantees with a better understanding of

how ED uses their data, as this survey component was rated low at 64. ED Staff were rated favorably for

their Professionalism (90), but their Responsiveness to grantee questions and Sufficiency of legal

guidance in responses were rated less-favorably at 73 and 75, respectively. The Information in

Application Package driver score for 2021 is 83, with attribute level scores ranging from 79 for Budget

Information and Forms to 90 for the Deadline for Submission. In the custom questions section of the

survey, grantees rated the technical assistance they received from their program specialist during the

pandemic relatively low, especially for the Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial

issues which was rated a 59. When asked for suggestions on how to improve the technical assistance

grantees receive when faced with future national emergencies, the following open-end comment was

provided, “We did not receive direct technical assistance from our assigned program specialist this past

year, though we did receive some general guidance from ED and were very grateful for the flexibilities

allowed. In any future national emergencies, more frequent communications and updates would be

Final Report
2021 45

Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

appreciated.” When asked for their preferred method of communication with their program specialist, over

two-thirds (69%) of Veterans Upward Bound Program grantees selected Individual Email, followed by

19% who selected Telephone.

Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement

Grantees of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program rated their satisfaction a 69

in 2021, an improvement of 5-points compared to the satisfaction score in 2013 when the program was

last included in the survey. The satisfaction score of 69 trails the OPE-wide satisfaction score for 2021

(75) by 6-points. The lowest scoring driver of satisfaction, Technical Assistance, was rated a 71 for the

single rated question that asks grantees to measure the TA services provided in helping successfully

implement grant programs/projects. The highest rated driver of satisfaction in 2021 is the Information in

Application Package, which was rated an 83 by grantees of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate

Achievement Program. The attribute level scores of 76 or higher indicate that grantees needs are largely

being met by the information in the application package, especially the Deadline for Submission (87),

Program Purpose (86) and Program Contact (86). The Online Resources made available to grantees

were rated a 72 in 2021, the same score reported back in 2013 when the program was first included in

the survey. Driver score improvements are best focused toward the lower scoring attributes that comprise

the Online Resources driver score; Look and feel/Visual appearance (66) and Quality of content (70).

When asked for suggestions on how to improve the website, the following open-end comment was

provided by a grantee of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program, “More up-todate data. The most current Facts and Figures at a Glance for Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate

Achievement Program are for 2002-05.” A full read-out of the verbatim feedback collected can be found in

Appendix C. ED staff were rated an 80 overall for their interactions with grantees. The survey component

that measures ED staff in terms of their Responsiveness to your questions was rated relatively low at 66.

Ensure that staff are intentional in their responses to grantees and do not leave grantee questions

unanswered. In the custom questions section of the survey, grantees were asked to rate, “how satisfied

you were with the technical assistance you received from your program specialist during this pandemic?”

Scores range from 60 for the Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial issues to 76 for

the Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, and procedures. When asked for grantees

preferred method of communication with their program specialist, a vast majority (78%) selected

Individual email.

Training Program for Federal TRIO Programs

The Training Program for Federal TRIO Programs grantee satisfaction was rated a 67. In the first year of

being added to the survey, only one grantee of the Training Program for Federal TRIO Programs

responded to the survey, therefore the survey results are based on a single grantee’s experience. As a

result of the very low sample, the scores for the drivers of satisfaction range widely from 56 for Technical

Assistance to 89 for ED Staff/Coordination. Each of the seven attributes that comprise the ED

Staff/Coordination driver score were rated favorably at 89. The Information in Application Package driver

score of 75 is 11-points lower than the OPE-wide driver score. Three of the ten attributes that comprise

the driver score were rated relatively low at 67; Dollar Limit on Awards, Page Limitation Instructions and

Formatting Instructions. The Grant Performance Reporting Requirements driver score of 87 is a result of

strong scores of 89 recorded for five of the six attributes that are associated with the driver. The rating of

Your understanding of how ED uses your data (78) trails behind the other attributes measured in this

survey section. In the custom questions section of the survey, grantees were asked to rate, “how satisfied

you were with the technical assistance you received from your program specialist during this pandemic?”

Scores were relatively low (56) for all five attributes measured in this question; Responsiveness to your

questions, Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and procedures, Ability to resolve

issues, Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication and Timely resolution of general

programmatic and/or financial issues. The one respondent belonging to the Training Program for Federal

TRIO Programs prefers Individual email as the method of communication from their program specialist.

Historically Black Graduate Institutions (HBGI) Program

In the initial year of being included in the survey, grantees of the Historically Black Graduate Institutions

(HBGI) Program rated their satisfaction an 80, outscoring the OPE-wide satisfaction score of 75 by 5-

points. This year, the number of grantees who responded to the survey is six. The low sample size yields

more variability in the results than other programs with more datapoints. Scores for the five drivers of

Final Report
2021 46

Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

satisfaction range from 79 for the Online Resources to 94 for Technical Assistance. The Technical 

Assistance driver score is derived from a single rated question which asks grantees to rate TA services 

provided in helping successfully implement grant programs/projects, which grantees rated a 94 in 2021. 

The Online Resources driver score of 79 should not be seen as a poor score, but rather offers the 

greatest room for improvement as this is the lowest scoring driver of satisfaction. The Online Resources 

were rated well in terms of the Ability to navigate within the site (82) and Ability to find specific information 

(82) but were rated relatively low for the Look and feel/Visual appearance (69). The Information in

Application Package driver section asks OPE respondents, “how easy was it for you to locate and

understand the information in the application package?” The scores for the ten attributes that comprise

this driver section range from 84 for the Selection Criteria up to 96 for the Deadline for Submission.

Federal staff were successful in their interactions with HBGI grantees, highlighted by strong scores for

their Communication about changes that may affect your program (93) and Professionalism (96). Efforts

to improve the ED Staff/Coordination driver score should be directed towards the lowest scoring

components in this survey section; Consistency of responses with ED staff from different program offices

(80) and Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in providing relevant services (80). The scores

for the questions asked within the custom survey section are relatively strong, especially for the technical

assistance grantees received from their program specialist during the pandemic. The survey question that

measures the Timeliness of the grant award notification was rated relatively low at 67. Improved

timeliness in the communication of grant award notifications will aid in efforts to improve the overall

grantee experience for HBGI grantees.

Model Comprehensive Transition and Postsecondary Programs for Students with 

Intellectual Disabilities (TPSID) 

In the first year being included in the survey the Model Comprehensive Transition and Postsecondary 

Programs for Students with Intellectual Disabilities (TPSID) grantee satisfaction was rated a 74, just onepoint less than the OPE-wide satisfaction score for 2021. The Online Resources driver score of 68 is the 

lowest of the five drivers of satisfaction included in the survey, leaving room for improvement. The score 

for the Accuracy of search results (59) and Ability to accomplish what you want on the site (60) trail behind 

the other attributes that comprise the Online Resources driver score. The following open-end comment 

echoes the need for improvement in the search component of the website, “I appreciate the layout, but the 

functionality of the search bar could be improved.” A full read-out of the verbatim feedback collected can 

be found in Appendix C. The ED Staff/Coordination driver score was rated an 83 in 2021. Efforts to 

improve the driver score should be directed towards the lowest scoring component of the ED Staff/

Coordination driver; Responsiveness to your questions (71). ED staff should respond to grantees in a 

timely manner, even if the initial response is to provide a timeline in which a complete response can be 

expected. The Grant Performance Reporting Requirements driver score of 69 can be improved upon by 

focusing on improving the ratings of the low-scoring components asked in this survey section. Grantees 

rated their understanding of how ED uses their data relatively low at 62. Seek to provide grantees with an 

easily understood explanation of how/why ED uses their data. In the custom questions section of the 

survey, TPSID grantees rated the Frequency of communication (66) and Clarity of communication (71) 

relatively low when rating the quality of the communication with your Centers for International Business 

Education specialist. Improved communication efforts with TPSID grantees will lend a hand in improving 

the overall grantee experience. When asked, “What can Centers for International Business Education do 

to improve communication with you,” the following comment was provided, “The emails are long and often 

repetitive. I'd rather have an attachment that could be printed easily. Sometimes when asking a question, 

the response is a copy of what was already sent rather than an explanation of what was sent.” 

Centers for International Business Education 

The satisfaction among grantees of the Centers for International Business Education Program was rated a 

73 in 2021, the same score reported when the program was first included in the survey in 2011. The 

satisfaction score of 73 is 2-points less than the OPE-wide satisfaction rating. The total number of 

grantees who responded to the survey for the Centers for International Business Education Program is 

six, therefore the results should be interpreted with caution. The scores for the drivers of satisfaction 

range from 77 for Grant Performance Reporting Requirements up to a perfect score of 100 for Technical 

Assistance. The scores for the six attributes that comprise the Grant Performance Reporting 

Requirements driver score range widely from 56 to 93. The lower scoring survey components offer the 

greatest room for improvement, therefore it is suggested that grantees are provided with a better 

Final Report
2021 47

Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

explanation of how ED uses their data, as this survey component was rated relatively low at 56. The

Information in Application Package driver score is very strong at 97, and each of the ten attributes that

comprise the driver were rated very favorably by grantees. The Online Resources made available to

grantees were rated an 89 overall, with scores of 94 for the Ability to accomplish what you want on the

site, Accuracy of search results and Look and feel/Visual appearance. The Quality of content (83) was

rated relatively low compared to the other components included in the Online Resources survey section.

The following suggestion was provided when grantees were asked how the Online Resources could be

improved, “Provide examples of best practices on defined frequently asked questions.” A full read-out of

the verbatim feedback collected can be found in Appendix C. In the custom questions section of the

survey, grantees of the Centers for International Business Education Program were asked, “how satisfied

you were with the technical assistance you received from your program specialist during this pandemic?”

Scores were perfect (100) for four of the five survey components measured in this survey section. When

asked about the preferred method of communication to communicate regularly with your program

specialist, 50% of respondents selected Blast/Distribution list email, followed by 33% who chose

Individual email and 17% who selected Telephone.

International Research and Studies

In the initial year that the International Research and Studies Program was added to the survey, grantees

rated their satisfaction an 82. The satisfaction score of 82 is strong, outscoring the OPE-wide satisfaction

score by 7-points. Of the five drivers of satisfaction included in the survey, the Information in Application

Package driver was the highest scoring at 92. Of the ten attributes that comprise the Information in

Application Package driver, eight were rated 90+, with two outliers that lag behind the other scores:

Review Process (81) and Budget Information and Forms (81). The lower scoring components should be

evaluated first when seeking to improve the driver score and thus improve the grantee experience. The

ED Staff/Coordination driver score is the next highest rated driver at 91, indicating that Federal staff were

effective in their interactions with grantees of the International Research and Studies Program. The

effectiveness of ED staff is highlighted by very strong scores for their Knowledge of relevant legislation,

regulations, policies, and procedures (93), Professionalism (93) and Collaboration with other ED

programs or offices in providing relevant services (96). The Grant Performance Reporting Requirements

driver score of 73 is the lowest of the five drivers of satisfaction. The attribute level scores associated with

the Grant Performance Reporting Requirements driver are relatively strong, except for the rating of

grantees understanding of how ED uses their data (57). Ensure that grantees are better informed on the

use/necessity of the data that they provide. When asked how the grant reporting process could be

improved the following helpful suggestion was provided, “A bit more lead time and training prior to end-ofyear-one report would be helpful.” A full read-out of the verbatim feedback collected can be found in

Appendix C. In the custom questions section, grantees of the International Research and Studies

Program were asked how satisfied they were with the technical assistance you received from your

program specialist during this pandemic. Scores were very strong in this survey section, ranging from 88

for the Responsiveness to your questions up to 96 for both the Ability to resolve issues and Timely

resolution of general programmatic and/or financial issues. The International and Foreign Language

Education (IFLE) grant program was rated exceptionally well for their Instruction in fields needed to

provide full understanding (93) and Language aspects of professional and other fields of study (93).

Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Language

Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Language grantee satisfaction was rated a 79,

outscoring the OPE-wide satisfaction score of 75 by 4-points. Scores for the five drivers of satisfaction

range from 69 for the Grant Performance Reporting Requirements to 92 for ED Staff/Coordination.

Federal staff were effective in their interactions with grantees, highlighted by very strong scores for their

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, and procedures (98), Professionalism (96), and

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different program offices (95). The Information in Application

Package driver score of 89 is strong, indicating that the information included in the package is easy to

understand and locate. The attribute level scores in this survey section range from 82 for the Review

Process and Budget Information and Forms up to 98 for the Deadline for Submission. The lower scoring

attributes serve as an opportunity for improvement, while the high scoring components indicate that

grantees needs are largely being met in those areas. The Grant Performance Reporting Requirements

driver is the lowest scoring driver of satisfaction, settling at a 69 in 2021. Scores were particularly low for

the Clarity of reporting requirements (62) and grantees understanding of how ED uses their data (61).

Final Report
2021 48

Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

Seek to provide more clear definitions of reporting requirements and provide grantees with an easily

understandable explanation of the need/use of the data they provide. The following suggestion was

provided when asked how the Department could improve the grant reporting process, “Greater clarity on

who uses the reports and how would be helpful in knowing how to draft them.” A full read-out of the

verbatim feedback collected can be found in Appendix C. In the custom questions section, grantees of the

Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Language Program were asked how satisfied they were

with the technical assistance you received from your program specialist during this pandemic. Scores

were exceptionally high, ranging from 89 for the Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or

financial issues to 93 for both Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and procedures and

Ability to resolve issues.

Final Report
Final Report

2021 49

Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE) 

Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies - Title I 

The satisfaction among grantees of the Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational 

Agencies - Title I program improved for the third consecutive year, this year by a statistically significant 

margin or 10-points to a 74. After ten straight years of being included in the survey, the 2021 satisfaction 

score of 74 is the highest ever recorded by the Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational 

Agencies - Title I program. The significant increase in satisfaction was driven by score increases in each 

of the five drivers of satisfaction from 2020 to 2021. The driver scores range from 67 for the Online 

Resources to 87 for ED Staff/Coordination. The driver score of 87 for ED Staff/Coordination reflects a 

significant score increase of 8-points. Three of the attributes that are associated with the ED 

Staff/Coordination driver score also increased by statistically significant margins; Knowledge of relevant 

legislation, regulations, policies, and procedures (90, +9), Responsiveness to your questions (82, +16), 

and Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses (84, +10). The Technical Assistance provided to grantees 

was well received, indicated by the strong driver score of 75, an improvement of 6-points from last year. 

Respondents rated Technical Assistance in terms of Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management significantly higher in 2021, improving from a score of 68 to 78. Additionally, the rating of 

the TA services provided in helping successfully implement grant programs/projects increased 

significantly (+9) to an 83. The Online Resources driver score improved year-over-year, but the score of 

67 makes this driver the lowest included in the survey. The Accuracy of search results, Ability to navigate 

within the site, and Look and feel/Visual appearance were all rated relatively low at 66, leaving room for 

improvement in the coming year. The following open-end comment was provided when asked for website 

improvements, “Update the site with relevant guidance. A number of helpful guidance was archived under 

the previous administration and I believe that left a gaping hole in having any guidance whatsoever.” A full 

read-out of the verbatim feedback collected can be found in Appendix C. Department staff were rated 

significantly higher for each of the rated questions included in the custom question section of the survey: 

Provides assistance that enhances capacity to implement (82, +14), Provides support that is responsive 

to my State’s needs to implement (83, +18), Helps address implementation challenges (81, +15), and 

Provides information about key changes to requirements (83, +14).

Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants 

The satisfaction among grantees of the Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants Program was rated 

a 66, improving for the second consecutive year. Each of the five drivers of satisfaction improved yearover-year, two of which improved by statistically significant margins: Online Resources (66, +15) and 

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements (72, +11). The Online Resources driver score of 66 is the 

lowest of the five drivers of satisfaction included in the study, however there was positive change yearover-year for all six attributes that comprise the driver score. Respondents rated their Ability to navigate 

within the site (66) an astounding 21-points higher in 2021, followed closely by the Look and feel/Visual 

appearance (72) which was rated 20-points higher than last year. The Grant Performance Reporting 

Requirements driver score was rated a significant 11-points higher in 2021 landing at a driver score of 72. 

Each of the six attributes that comprise the driver score improved, including grantees understanding of 

how ED uses their data (67) which was rated a notable 16-points higher this year compared to last. A 

highlight of the grantee experience continues to be the interactions with Education Department staff. 

Rated an outstanding 84, the ED Staff/Coordination component once again is the highest rated 

component on the survey. There may be an opportunity to build on this strength by increasing

communication efforts with grantees when changes are introduced, as the ‘communication about 

changes’ attribute slipped 4 points to a rating of 76. The Technical Assistance provided to grantees was 

rated favorably at 75. Specifically, the TA services provided in helping successfully implement grant 

programs/projects survey component was rated an 81, a significant improvement of 12-points from 2020. 

The scores of the rated questions asked within the custom survey section follow the same trend of the 

core survey question score increases. Each of the rated questions in the custom survey section improved 

year-over-year, most notably the rating of Department staff Providing assistance that enhances capacity 

to implement increased from a 63 in 2020 to a 74 in 2021 (+11-points).
Final Report

2021 50

Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 7003) 

The Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 7003) Program grantee satisfaction score was 

rated a 78 for the second consecutive year, outscoring the average satisfaction rating of all programs 

surveyed in 2021 by 2-points. The three drivers of satisfaction included in the survey ranged from 77 for 

the Online Resources up to an 89 for ED Staff/Coordination. ED staff were successful in their interactions 

with grantees, highlighted by the strong attribute level scores of 87 or higher. ED staff were rated most 

favorably for the Professionalism (92) that they displayed in their interactions with Payments for Federally 

Connected Children (Section 7003) Program grantees. The Online Resources driver score fell 2-poitns 

from 2020 to 2021, landing at a driver score of 77. The driver score decrease was fueled by 3-point score 

decreases for grantees Ability to accomplish what you want on the site (77) and Ability to find specific 

information (76). The following helpful suggestion was included in the open-end feedback when grantees 

were asked for website improvements, “Make it easier to navigate by adding more instructions or even a 

frequently asked questions tab.” A full read-out of the verbatim feedback collected can be found in 

Appendix C. The Documents provided to grantees were rated an 82 for the second consecutive year, with 

attribute level scores ranging from 80 for the Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues that 

you face to 83 for Organization of information. In the custom questions section of the survey, 64% of 

Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 7003) Program grantees indicated that they 

contacted the Impact Aid Program for technical assistance. Of the 64% of grantees who contact the 

Impact Aid, very strong scores were provided; Responsiveness to answering questions (87), 

Supportiveness in helping you complete your application (87) and Knowledge about technical material 

(89). Of the 58% of grantees who indicated that they attended any Webinars or in person meetings where 

IAP staff provided you information on the Section 7003 program and the review process, 94% indicated 

that the Presentation or materials helped them understand responsibilities. One grantee responded with 

the following when asked for an explanation of why the presentation and/or materials were helpful, 

“Webinars are helpful, especially Q&A from others who are experiencing similar challenges.”

21st Century Community Learning Centers

The 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program grantee satisfaction was rated an 82, improving 

for the 7th consecutive year. The satisfaction of 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program 

grantees has gained an astounding 29-points since the program was first included in the survey in 2011. 

The five drivers of satisfaction were rated relatively strong in 2021, ranging from 73 for Online Resources 

up to an 87 for ED Staff/Coordination. ED staff were rated favorably for their Knowledge of relevant 

legislation, regulations, policies, and procedures (90), and the Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 

(83). The six attributes that comprise the Online Resources (73) driver score ranged from 71 for the Ability 

to accomplish what you want on the site to 74 for the Ability to find specific information and Quality of 

content. The following feedback received regarding Online Resources offers a suggestion toward building 

on the strong website ratings; “It seems like the website is fractured. I can sometimes find what I need but 

other times what I am looking for directs me to another site. I think it would be helpful to do a short 

tutorial.” A full read-out of the verbatim feedback collected can be found in Appendix C. The Documents 

provided to grantees, which include non-regulatory guidance, frequently asked questions (FAQs), letters, 

newsletters, publications, and blast emails, were rated 3-points higher in 2021 landing at a driver score of 

82. All five attributes that comprise the driver score improved year-over-year and are rated 80 or higher.

The Technical Assistance provided to grantees was rated slightly lower in 2021 compared to 2020 but

remains at a strong score of 83. The Assistance with developing resource materials for use in the

program (77) was rated slightly behind the other Technical Assistance attributes after a 4-point decline

from last year. 21st CCLC grantees provided strong ratings in the custom questions section of the survey,

especially for the Likelihood to recommend Y4Y website which was rated a 95.

Student Support and Academic Enrichment 

After a significant improvement of 24-points from 2019 to 2020, the Student Support and Academic 

Enrichment grantee satisfaction score dipped slightly (one-point) in 2021 landing at 74. The Student 

Support and Academic Enrichment grantee satisfaction score of 74 trails the OESE-wide satisfaction 

score of 77 by 3-points. The scores for the five drivers of satisfaction range from 70 for the Online 

Resources to 84 for ED Staff/Coordination. ED Staff were rated favorably for the six survey components 

that are asked within the ED Staff/Coordination survey section, specifically, the Communication about 

changes that may affect your program score of 87 for 2021 reflects a significant score increase of 9-

points compared to last year. The Online Resources utilized by SSAE grantees were rated one-point 
2021 51

Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

lower in 2021 settling at a 70; the lowest scoring driver of satisfaction this year. Although the Online

Resources driver score is low relative to the other four drivers, it is necessary to callout that the driver

score has improved 6-points since the program was first added to the survey in 2018. When asked for

website improvement, the following helpful suggestion was provided by one grantee, “The webinars are

outdated. it is unclear who the audience is and what should appear on this website vs. the T4P4 portal.”

A full read-out of the verbatim feedback collected can be found in Appendix C. The Grant Performance

Reporting Requirements driver score experienced the largest growth year-over-year, increasing 8-points

to a score of 72. Look to provide grantees with a better understanding of how ED uses their data, as this

survey component was rated relatively low at 62. When asked, “how useful is the T4PA website” in the

custom questions section of the survey, grantees responded with an overall score of 78. The Usefulness

of the T4PA Portal was rated an 81, a 3-point score decrease compared to 2020. The most helpful form

of technical assistance selected by SSAE grantees in 2021 was Written guidance (54%), followed by

Annual meetings/conferences (23%). When asked for T4PA portal improvements the following useful

suggestion was offered, “Better organization or visuals. It can be challenging to sift through the

information.”

Immediate Aid to Restart School Operations

The satisfaction among grantees of the Immediate Aid to Restart School Operations Program was rated

an 82, a one-point increase from the satisfaction score reported in the initial year that the program was

added to the survey in 2020. All five drivers of satisfaction were rated favorably in 2021, each of them

experiencing positive change from last year. The ED Staff/Coordination driver score was rated a very

strong 95. ED staff displayed high levels of Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, and

procedures as indicated by the 2021 score of 96, and staff achieved nearly perfect scores for their

Professionalism (98) and Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses (98). The Documents provided to

Immediate Aid to Restart School Operations Program grantees were rated 10-points higher in 2021

compared to last year, settling at an overall driver score of 91. Three of the five attributes that comprise

the Documents driver improved by double-digits; Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues

that you face (+16), Organization of information (+10) and Sufficiency of detail to meet your program

needs (+10). The Online Resources made available to grantees were rated an 80. The scores for the

attributes that comprise the driver score range from 73 for the Ability to accomplish what you want on the

site to 89 for the Ability to navigate within the site. The following comment was provided when asked for

website improvements, “Update the website to include more up to date information and remove dead

links. It is difficult to find grant programs through a search engine.” A full read-out of the verbatim

feedback collected can be found in Appendix C. In the custom questions section of the survey

respondents were asked, “In which of the following areas would you like technical assistance?” Three of

the five grantees who responded to the survey selected General guidance and regulations (60%). When

asked for the preferred method to receive information, 80% of respondents selected Webinars or virtual

presentations.

English Language Acquisition State Grants (Title III State Formula Grants)

The English Language Acquisition State Grants grantee satisfaction score was rated a 63 for the second

consecutive year. The driver score for the Grant Performance Reporting Requirements improved onepoint from 2020 to 2021 to a 66. As is common among many programs, the Usefulness of the data to help

you improve your grant program/project (62) and understanding of how ED uses your data (55), are

among the lower scoring attributes of the survey and offer some room for improvement. When asked how

the reporting process could be improved, the following helpful suggestion was offered, “Provide additional

training specific to the reporting requirements for Title III, A. This could help develop more consistent

reporting.” A full read-out of the verbatim feedback collected can be found in Appendix C. Technical

Assistance was rated a 69, an improvement of 3 points compared to last year’s baseline measurement.

The score for Creating opportunities to share best practices via learning groups (58) is relatively low and

may be a reasonable area to focus on in the coming year to improve the Technical Assistance provided to

grantees. The ED Staff/Coordination component was rated a very high score of 82 as the result of

improvements in each of the six attributes that comprise the overall ED Staff/Coordination driver. This

strong score serves as validation that the support provided to grantees this last year has been well

received as a valuable aspect of the grantee experience. The scores for the custom survey questions that

Final Report
2021 52

Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

were asked only of English Language Acquisition State Grants grantees are consistent with the scores

reported last year. Custom question scores range from 64 for Helps address implementation challenges

and Provides support that is responsive to my state’s needs to implement up to 75 for Provides

information about key changes to requirements. When asked, “How can the Department’s services be

improved over the next year” the following open-end comment was provided, “It would be helpful to have

more webinars around Title III requirements. It would be interesting to hear what other states do with their

Title III funds. Webinars on monitoring procedures would be helpful as well.”

Migrant Education Programs (Title I, Part C)

The Migrant Education Program (Title I, Part C) grantee satisfaction held steady at 78 in 2021, one-point

higher than the OESE-wide satisfaction score of 77. Since the program was first added to the survey 10

years ago back in 2011 the satisfaction score has climbed 14-points. Scores for the five drivers of

satisfaction are relatively strong, ranging from 76 for Grant Performance Reporting Requirements up to

87 for ED Staff/Coordination. In 2021, Federal staff were rated very well for their Knowledge of relevant

legislation, regulations, policies, and procedures (91), Communication about changes that may affect your

program (91) and Professionalism (93). The driver score for the Online Resources made available to

grantees of the Migrant Education Program improved 4-points from 2020 to an overall score of 78. The

six attributes that comprise the driver score all improved year-over-year. The strong driver score of 86 for

the Documents, which include non-regulatory guidance, frequently asked questions (FAQs), letters,

newsletters, publications, and blast emails, indicates that grantees needs are largely being met by the

materials that are provided to them. The Grant Performance Reporting Requirements driver score of 76 is

the lowest in 2021, and while the score should not be considered poor, there may be opportunities for

improvement to inch the driver score closer to other five included in the survey. Grantees ratings of the

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant program/project (72) and Ease of obtaining data

you are required to report (73) are slightly lower than the other four attributes that are associated with the

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements driver. Within the custom questions section of the survey,

grantees of the MEP were asked to select up to three technical assistance topics that you will need in the

future, in order to improve the performance of your MEP. The top three topics selected by grantees in

2021 were; Service Delivery Strategies (35%), Continuation of Services (35%) and Comprehensive

Needs Assessment (26%). The 2021 score for respondents rating of the Migrant Education Program

(MEP) – Title I, Part C’s online resources on the RESULTS.ed.gov website is strong at 84. When asked,

“How can the program office’s services be improved over the next year to better meet your needs as a

State Director implementing the MEP” the following open-end comment was provided, “More regular

opportunities for training throughout the year instead of just one massive training each year.” A full readout of the verbatim feedback collected can be found in Appendix C.

Grants for State Assessments

Grants for State Assessments grantee satisfaction was rated a 77 in 2021, matching the OESE-wide

satisfaction score. GSS grantee satisfaction improved one-point from last year, and compared to the

satisfaction rating in 2017, when the program was first added to the survey, the score has climbed 14-

points. Scores for the five drivers of satisfaction are relatively strong, ranging from 76 for the Online

Resources and Grant Performance Reporting Requirements all the way up to 88 for ED

Staff/Coordination. The Grant Performance Reporting Requirements driver score fell 5-points from 2020

to 2021. Efforts to halt the driver score decline should be focused on the lower scoring attributes, which in

this case are; Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant program/project (74) and Your

understanding of how ED uses your data (73). When asked how the grant reporting process could be

improved one grantee responded with the following, “Reporting requirements (e.g., CSPR) have not been

clear and have changed unexpectedly. This is likely due to the pandemic but has been frustrating.” A full

read-out of the verbatim feedback collected can be found in Appendix C. The Technical Assistance driver

score dipped slightly in 2021 yet remains to be rated relatively high at 81. ED Staff were rated very

favorably by Grants for State Assessments grantees with an overall score of 88. Three of the six

attributes that comprise the ED Staff/Coordination driver score were rated 90 or higher, with the rating for

Professionalism topping the list with a score of 94. In the custom question section of the survey, only

asked of grantees belonging to the Grant for State Assessments program, respondents were asked to

rate the effectiveness of the support Department staff provide and their participation in the Department’s

technical assistance activities. Scores ranged from 77 for Provides assistance that enhances capacity to

implement to 82 for Provides information about key changes to requirements.

Final Report
Final Report

2021 53

Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

Teacher and School Leader Incentive Grants 

Satisfaction among respondents of the Teacher and School Leader Incentive Grants Program was rated 

a 77, one-point higher than the average satisfaction rating of all 72 programs included in the survey in 

2021. The scores for the five drivers of satisfaction range from 76 for Online Resources and Documents 

to 84 for ED Staff/Coordination. The overall driver score of 84 for ED Staff/Coordination reflects a 3-point 

improvement from last year. The driver score increase was aided by a 13-point score increase for 

respondents’ ratings of Communication about changes that may affect your program (87). The Online 

Resources made available to TSL grantees were rated significantly lower in 2021 compared to 2020. The 

Online Resources driver score as well as four of the six attribute that comprise the driver fell by 

statistically significant margins. The Quality of content and Look and feel/Visual appearance dropped the 

most, each falling 18-points year-over-year. The Documents provided to TSL grantees were rated a 76, 

after a strong score of 83 was reported in 2020. The attribute level scores for those associated with the 

Documents driver range from 72 for Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues that you face 

to 79 for their Clarity. When asked how the Documents can be improved, the following open-end 

comment was provided, “The email blasts are full of info but they are hard to read. They aren't visually 

easy to use or discern what info is there.” A full read-out of the verbatim feedback collected can be found 

in Appendix C. In the custom survey section, 94% of TSL grantees indicated that they are experiencing 

the right amount of interaction with you TSL program officer and/or TSL Division staff. When asked about 

the quality of the customer service provided, 44% of grantees indicated that the quality is Excellent, 28% 

selected Very Good and the remaining 28% selected Average. All three of the rated questions asked 

within the custom survey section that trend back to 2020 decreased in 2021; Assistance in improving 

program planning and implementation (74, -13), Providing relevant information and ideas (74, -16) and 

Connecting you with other experts or practitioners (78, -10). 

Expanding Opportunities Through Quality Charter Schools Program

The satisfaction among grantees of the Expanding Opportunities Through Quality Charter Schools 

Program was rated a 62. After gaining 9-points from 2019 to 2020, the satisfaction score fell significantly 

to the score reported in the first year the program was added to the survey. All five drivers of satisfaction 

were rated lower in 2021 than 2020, with the Grant Performance Reporting Requirements driver 

experiencing the largest score decline of 13-points to an overall score of 61. All six attributes that 

comprise the driver score decreased. The Ease of submitting report(s) electronically was rated a 57, a 

significant score decrease of 21-points. Respondents’ ratings of their understanding of how ED uses their 

data in 2021 is 48, the lowest scoring survey component included in the survey. Grantees rated the 

Online Resources 11-points lower in 2021 settling at an overall score of 62. The Ability to find specific 

information (60) and Quality of content (63) each fell significantly. The low scores are echoed by the 

following open-end response, “It is difficult to navigate and to find specific answers to questions about the 

CSP.” A full read-out of the verbatim feedback collected can be found in Appendix C. ED Staff were rated 

much less favorably in their interactions with grantees in 2021. The overall ED Staff/Coordination driver

score dropped to a 76, driven by score decreases for all six of the attributes that comprise the driver 

score. The score for the Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses (65) fell a significant 19-points 

compared to last year. The Technical Assistance provided to grantees was rated a 70. Grantees rated the 

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in the program a 58, a notable score decrease of 

17-points. In the custom question survey section, grantees rated the Guidance CSP provides on Federal

grant compliance a 56, while the Dissemination of resources and opportunities the CSP provides was

rated much more favorably at 76.

Comprehensive Literacy State Development

The Comprehensive Literacy State Development Program grantee satisfaction was rated a 73, falling for 

the second consecutive year after a program high satisfaction score (86) was achieved in 2019. The 

satisfaction score of 73 is 4-points less than the OESE-wide satisfaction rating for 2021 (77). The drop in 

satisfaction is a result of four out of the five drivers of satisfaction decreasing significantly from 2020 to 

2021. The Grant Performance Reporting Requirements driver score experienced the greatest score 

decrease year-over-year, falling from an 82 in to 2020 to a 68 for 2021. There were several obvious pain 

points involved in the Grant Performance Reporting Requirements, such as the Ease of obtaining data 

you are required to report which was rated 19-points lower in 2021 landing at 62. Additionally, the Clarity 

of reporting requirements (69) and Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant program/project 

(66) scores fell significantly in 2021. ED Staff were rated much less favorably this year compared to last,
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2021 54

highlighted by the notable driver score decrease of 12-points. All five attributes that comprise the ED 

Staff/Coordination driver score fell significantly in 2021, with Responsiveness to your questions (65) and 

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses (73) experiencing the largest year-over-year change each 

falling 17-points. The Technical Assistance provided to Comprehensive Literacy State Development 

Program grantees was rated 12-points lower in 2021, settling at an overall driver score of 78. The 

Technical Assistance driver score decrease was driven by four of the six attributes that make up the 

driver falling double-digits from 2020 to 2021. When asked how Department staff could improve the 

technical assistance one grantee responded with, “More explanatory content or beginning content. 

Support from where and how to start with subgrantees when you are in the beginning stages of the 

grant.” A full read-out of the verbatim feedback collected can be found in Appendix C. The Online 

Resources driver was the only to experience positive change from 2020 to 2021, gaining one-point to an 

overall score of 81. In the custom questions section of the survey, asked only of grantees belonging to the 

Comprehensive Literacy State Development Program, respondents provided relatively low scores for; It is 

easy to get access to my ED program officer (57), My ED program officer is responsive when I reach out 

with questions or concerns (58) and My ED program officer communicates in a clear and concise manner 

(62). On a positive note, grantees rated I am thankful we are a CLSD grantee and would recommend

program to other SEAs very favorably at 91.

Charter Schools Program Grants for Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter

Schools 

Grantees of the Charter Schools Program Grants for Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter

Schools Program rated their satisfaction a 57 in 2021. Although the score of 57 reflects a 9-point

improvement from last year, the Charter Schools Program Grants for Replication and Expansion of HighQuality Charter Schools Program satisfaction score is 20-points less that the OESE-wide satisfaction

score for 2021. From 2020 to 2021 scores improved for every single survey component measured,

indicating that the changes implemented over the past year are moving grantee satisfaction in the right

direction, but the scores are low relative to the other OESE programs and allow ample room for further

improvements. The Online Resources made available to grantees show signs of improvement with all

attribute level scores coming in at 70 or higher. The Online Resources driver was the highest rated driver

of satisfaction in 2021 at 70, an increase of 14-points compared to 2020. The Technical Assistance

received by grantees was rated a 52. The six attributes that comprise the Technical Assistance driver

score vary widely, with scores ranging from 45 for the Assistance with developing resource materials for

use in the program to 100 for ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to implement grant

project. When asked how the Technical Assistance could be improved the following open-end comment

was provided, “More time to collaborate with other programs/schools would be helpful (e.g., case studies,

best practices, elevating grantees that have been successful, professional development for grant writers/

fundraisers, slack group or other social media groups with all grantees).” A full read-out of the verbatim

feedback collected can be found in Appendix C. The Grant Performance Reporting Requirements driver

score gained 13-points in 2021 to an overall driver score of 53. Grantees rated their understanding of how

ED uses your data very low at 34 in 2021. In the custom questions section of the survey, grantees rated

the Dissemination of resources and opportunities the CSP provides a 67, which is the highest rated 

survey component included in this program custom questions section. On the opposite end of the 

spectrum, the Guidance CSP provides on Federal grant compliance was the lowest rated custom

question, landing at a 49 in 2021.

Education Innovation and Research Programs

Grantees of the Education Innovation and Research Programs rated their satisfaction a 75, an increase of

one-point from 2020 back to the satisfaction score reported in the initial year that the EIR Program was

added to the survey. The scores for the five drivers of satisfaction range from 70 for Online Resources all

the way up to 91 for ED Staff/Coordination. The ED Staff/Coordination score of 91 reflects a significant

improvement of 7-points relative to 2020, and four of the six attributes that comprise the driver improved

by significant margins as well. Federal staff were successful in their efforts to increase the Collaboration

with other ED programs or offices in providing relevant services as indicated by the notable 9-point

increase to an 89. The Documents provided to grantees which include non-regulatory guidance,

frequently asked questions (FAQs), letters, newsletters, publications, and blast emails were rated a 78, a

6-point driver score increase year-over-year. The increase in the Documents driver score was fueled by

increases in all five of the attributes that comprise the driver, most notably the significant 10-point
2021 55

Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

increase for Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs (81). The Online Resources driver score of

70 is the lowest among the five drivers of satisfaction included in the study. The attribute that measures

grantees Ability to navigate within the site is particularly low at 68. One grantee left the following helpful

suggestion in the open-end feedback when offering feedback about the Online Resources, “The initial

visits to submit invoices required assistance from customer service who really helped learn to navigate

the system. The instructions on these initial pages could cue users how to navigate the site would be

helpful.” A full read-out of the verbatim feedback collected can be found in Appendix C. In the custom

questions section of the survey, EIR grantees were asked to rate the technical support and assistance

you have received from the i3/EIR Evaluation Technical Assistance/Abt Associates. Scores in this section

ranged from 82 for Connecting with other experts or practitioners working on similar evaluations to 89 for

Assistance in improving your evaluation planning and implementation.

Magnet Schools Assistance Program

The satisfaction among grantees of the Magnet Schools Assistance Program was rated a 78, a slight dip

of one-point from 2020. The MSAP grantee satisfaction score is one-point higher than the OESE-wide

satisfaction score of 77 for 2021. The slight drop in satisfaction was driven by score decreases in three of

the five drivers of satisfaction. The Technical Assistance driver score fell 4-points in 2021 to a 78, making

it the lowest scoring driver included in the survey. Efforts to improve the Technical Assistance driver score

will aid in improving overall grantee satisfaction. Opportunities to increase the Technical Assistance driver

score are best focused the lower scoring attributes, which in this case is Creating opportunities to share

best practices via learning groups (73). Seek to implement additional opportunities for sharing best

practices among grantees to introduce positive change in this area of the grantee experience. The Online

Resources driver score also fell 4-points in 2021. The drop in the driver score was driven most notably by

the 9-point decrease in respondents rating of the Look and feel/Visual appearance. The following

comment echoes the low score for the Look and feel/Visual appearance, “Add some pictures. It looks

bureaucratic.” A full read-out of the verbatim feedback collected can be found in Appendix C. In the

custom questions section of the survey MSAP grantees were asked to rate the technical support and

assistance you have received from the U.S Department of Education MSAP team and MSAP Technical

Assistance Center. Of the five survey components included in this section, four were rated well with

scores ranging from 81 for the Overall effectiveness of assistance received from MSAP to 84 for both the

Program Officer’s knowledge of project and ability to meet your specific needs and Content knowledge of

your Program Officer in supporting your program’s success. However, the 2021 score of 54 for the Benefit

of Grads360 system warrants deeper investigation into why respondents ratings were so poor. The

following comment explains some frustrations with the Grands360 system, “The GRADS360 platform

does not serve as a purposeful, operational function for grant/program implementation. The information

that is entered does not lend itself to the actual means of successful implementation.”

Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Education Agencies

The satisfaction among grantees of the Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Education Agencies

Program was rated an 80, improving for the third consecutive year. The satisfaction score of 80 is 4-

points higher than the average satisfaction rating of all 72 programs surveyed in 2021. ED Staff were

rated well for their interactions with grantees with an overall score of 88 and attribute level scores ranging

from 86 for Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses to 91 for ED Staff’s Professionalism. Online 

Resources was the lowest rated driver of satisfaction at 78 in 2021, a slight dip of one-point relative to 

2020. Three of the six components measured in the Online Resources driver section decreased 3-points 

year-over-year; Ability to accomplish what you want on the site, Ability to navigate within the site and 

Look and feel/Visual appearance. When asked how the Department could improve its website, the 

following useful open-end response was provided, “As the project director, I feel the online dialogue from 

webinars is an extremely helpful tool. An online discussion forum would be beneficial to applicants to 

share what is working or beneficial with their project objectives.” A full read-out of the verbatim feedback 

collected can be found in Appendix C. Within the custom survey section asked only of Indian Education 

Formula Grants to Local Education Agencies Program grantees, respondents were asked to rate the 

technical support and/or assistance from the Office of Indian Education. Scores ranged from 83 for 

Comprehensiveness of documents to 87 for the Timeliness of staff. Grantees rated the Ease of using 

EASIE system (81) 3-points lower in 2021 compared to 2020. The top three topics chosen by grantees for 

which they have greatest need for technical assistance are Allowable uses of funds (38%), General grant 

program requirements, deadlines, and milestones (35%), and Expanding membership of parent 

Final Report
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2021 56

committees (30%). When asked, “What can OIE do to better meet your technical assistance and program 

improvement needs” the following comment was provided, “Do more of an in-depth training on the 

program application, maybe make it a one-day workshop as a virtual training.”

Education for Homeless Children and Youth – McKinney-Vento

The satisfaction among grantees of the Education for Homeless Children and Youth program was rated 

an 86, ranking in the top five of all OESE programs survey in 2021 in terms of satisfaction. The 

impressive satisfaction score of 86 is the highest recorded by grantees of the Education for Homeless 

Children and Youth program. The five drivers of satisfaction were all rated favorably in 2021, ranging from 

81 for Online Resources to 94 for ED Staff/Coordination. The six attributes that comprise the ED 

Staff/Coordination driver score were all rated 91 or higher indicating that ED staff were very effective in 

their interactions with grantees. The Online Resources component, a measure of the content available at 

OESE.ED.gov was rated an 81, a very high score for this driver and a 1-point improvement from 2020. 

Attribute scores related to the website range from 77 for the ability to find specific information to 84 for the 

site’s quality of content. The Documents provided to grantees were rated an 89, with exceptionally strong 

scores for their Clarity (90) and Organization of information (91). In the custom survey section grantees 

were asked to rate the technical assistance provided by National Center for Homeless Education (NCHE). 

Grantees rated the Responsiveness in answering questions and the Guidance provided in responses to 

questions very high at 94 and 92, respectively. The 2021 score for the Support quality for collecting/

submitting data from U.S. Department of Education is 91, which reflects a 6-point increase from 2020. 

Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP)

Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) Program

The Rural Education Achievement Program – Rural and Low-Income School grantee satisfaction score is 

78, one-point higher than the OESE-wide satisfaction score for 2021. The REAP RLIS grantee 

satisfaction score was as low as 64 back in 2017 and since that time has gained an impressive 14-points. 

Scores for the five drivers of satisfaction range from 78 for the Grant Performance Reporting 

Requirements all the way up to 90 for ED Staff/Coordination. Federal staff were rated favorably for their 

interactions with grantees and were rated exceptionally well for the Professionalism (95) they displayed. 

The Online Resources utilized by REAP RLIS grantees were rated an 86, an improvement of 8-points 

from 2020. The driver score increase was driven by score increases for each of the six attributes that 

comprise the driver, including a significant increase in the score for the Ability to accomplish what you 

want on the site (87). The lowest scoring driver of satisfaction is Grant Performance Reporting 

Requirements, which was rated a 78 in 2021. Improvement opportunities exist in providing grantees with 

a better understanding of how ED uses their data as this survey component was rated relatively low at 70. 

The Technical Assistance driver score of 80 reflects a 3-point improvement from last year. Conversely, 

the attribute of Technical Assistance that asks for ratings of ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your 

learning to implement grant project decreased 14-points in 2021 to a low score of 69. In the custom 

survey section grantees were asked how they heard about REAP program updates and events, to which 

all 28 respondents indicated that they received Email announcements from REAP. When asked to share 

any additional thoughts the following open-end response was provided, “The Title V REAP RLIS team 

provides open, honest conversation about the RLIS program purpose, use of funds and monitoring.” A full 

read-out of the verbatim feedback collected can be found in Appendix C.

Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP)

Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) Program

The REAP – Small, Rural School Achievement Program grantee satisfaction score was rated an 86, the 

highest satisfaction score recorded since the program was first added to the survey ten years ago in 

2011. The increase in satisfaction was fueled by driver score increases for all five drivers measured in the 

survey. The most notable driver score increase from 2020 to 2021 to callout is for the Technical 

Assistance provided to grantees, which was rated 9-points higher landing at an 89. Attribute level scores 

for TA services provided in helping successfully implement grant programs/projects and Using evidencebased practices in implementing program activities came in at 91, significantly improving year-over-year 

with a 90% level of confidence. ED staff were rated favorably by REAP SRSA grantees, highlighted by 

the overall driver score of 91. The rating for Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in providing 

relevant services improved a significant 11-points from 2020 to 2021. The Online Resources made 

available to REAP SRSA grantees were rated an 83 in 2021. The six attributes that comprise the Online 
2021 57

Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

Resources driver score range from 80 for the Ability to find specific information to 85 for the Ability to

accomplish what you want on the site. The following open-end comment from within the Online

Resources survey section is right in line with the strong rating for the Ability to accomplish what you want

on the site, “This program is very efficiently administered, and I am very pleased with the updated

application process. It is so much easier than before!!” A full read-out of the verbatim feedback collected

can be found in Appendix C. In 2021, the Documents provided to REAP SRSA grantees were rated a 90,

a significant increase of 9-points from last year. Each of the five attributes that comprise the Document

driver improved notably in 2021 with three achieving scores of 90; Clarity, Sufficiency of detail to meet

your program needs and Relevance to your areas of need. The custom survey section asked only of

grantees belonging to the REAP SRSA program asks grantees to rate the revised FY 2021 SRSA

application process as compared to the process in previous years. Scores for this custom question range

from 87 for Navigating the application on the MAX.gov survey tool to 91 for the Ease of submitting the

application. When asked about technical assistance that grantees will need in the future, 72% indicated

that they will need Use of G5, followed by 31% who need Opportunities to learn from other LEAs

implementing SRSA.

Promise Neighborhoods 

The Promise Neighborhoods grantee satisfaction score improved 4-points from 2020 to 2021 to a strong

satisfaction score of 83. Grantee satisfaction has improved 5-points since the Promise Neighborhoods

program was first added to the survey in 2019, and in 2021 is 6-points higher than the OESE-wide

satisfaction score of 77. The five drivers of satisfaction were rated favorably in 2021, ranging from 76 for

Online Resources to 92 for ED Staff/Coordination. Interactions with ED staff were very positive this year

as indicated by scores of 90 or higher for each of the six attributes that comprise the ED

Staff/Coordination driver score. The Documents driver was the next highest scoring in 2021 landing at an

87. Scores ranging from 86 to 88 for the attributes that comprise the driver indicate that grantees needs

are currently being met by the Documents that are provided to them. The Online Resources driver score

of 76 makes it the lowest scoring driver this year, however a score of 76 does not warrant an overhaul of

the Online Resources but rather offers some room for improvement. When asked about Online Resource

improvements one grantee responded with the following helpful suggestion, “Making more streamlined

with easily accessible contact numbers for DOE representatives.” A full read-out of the verbatim feedback

collected can be found in Appendix C. The driver score improvement of 5-points from 2020 to 2021 for

Technical Assistance to an 85 is a positive finding to callout. Specifically, a 13-point improvement for

Technical Assistance in terms of Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program management (85)

aided in improving the overall driver score. In the custom question section of the survey grantees were

asked, “Did you ask your ED Program Contact, “PROGRAM OFFICER”, for assistance in areas not

related to fiscal or grant administration issues?” In 2021, 45% of grantees indicated that they did reach

out to their ED Program Contact. Of the 45% of grantees who did reach out to their ED Program Contact

for assistance, a very strong score of 89 was provided for the ED Program Contacts quality of assistance.

Promise Neighborhood grantees rating of the GRADS 360 system is relatively low at 54.

Supporting Effective Educator Development Program

The Supporting Effective Educator Development Program grantee satisfaction score was rated a 65,

regaining 9-points after a double-digit drop in satisfaction from 2019 to 2020. Grantees of the SEED

program rated their satisfaction 12-points less than the OESE-wide satisfaction score of 77 for 2021,

leaving ample room for improvement. The lowest rated driver of satisfaction, Online Resources, was rated

a 62 by SEED grantees, making it the only driver score to decrease from 2020 to 2021. The drop in the

driver score was fueled by a 13-point decrease in respondents rating of the Ability to find specific

information (54) followed closely by a 9-point drop for grantees Ability to accomplish what you want on the

site (57). The poor navigation scores are echoed by the following open-end comment, “I have a difficult

time finding the information I am looking for. Sending out information about the website and logging in at

several intervals would be helpful to participants.” A full read-out of the verbatim feedback collected can

be found in Appendix C. The ED Staff/Coordination driver score jumped 9-points to a 77 but remains 3-

points lower than the score reported in 2019 (80). The significant 22-point increase in respondents’

ratings of Communication about changes that may affect your program (78) was integral in driving the ED

Staff Coordination driver score higher from 2020 to 2021. The driver score that experienced the largest

year-over-year growth is the Grant Performance Reporting Requirements driver which improved a notable

18 points to 70. Five of the six attributes that comprise the driver score improved by double-digit margins

Final Report
2021 58

Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

this year. The survey component that measures grantees understanding of how ED uses their data

gained 29-points, however the score of 62 still allows for improvement. Ensure that grantees are provided

with an easily understandable explanation as to why and how their data is being used to continue the

upward trend in the Grant Performance Reporting Requirements driver. The Technical Assistance

received by SEED grantees was very well received as indicated by the 11-point boost to a 72 overall.

While five of the six attributes that comprise the driver score increased year-over-year, one survey

component included in the Technical Assistance survey section stands out; ED-Funded TA Provider

helpfulness in your learning to implement grant project, which decreased 15-points from 2020 to 2021. In

the custom survey section, SEED grantees rated their Understanding of GPRA measures and associated

measure definitions favorably at 79, while the rating for Understanding of all program requirements,

including budgetary concerns was rated less favorably at 72. In 2021, 78% of SEED grantees indicated

that they had the right amount of interaction with SEED officer/division staff. When asked about the

quality of their interactions with SEED Division Staff, 48% indicated that the quality was Excellent,

followed by 35% who chose Very Good.

Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 7002)

The satisfaction among grantees of the Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 7002)

Program was rated an 82, a slight decrease of 2-points compared to 2020. The satisfaction score of 82 is

relatively strong, with the average level of satisfaction for all 72 programs survey in 2021 coming in at 76.

The scores for the three drivers of satisfaction measured in the survey range from 78 for Online

Resources to 89 for ED Staff/Coordination. The Online Resources driver score of 78 reflects a notable

decrease of 5-points compared to last year. The driver score decrease was driven by significant

decreases in the score for the Ability to navigate within the site (75) and the Look and feel/Visual

appearance (77). When asked how the Department could improve its website, one grantee provided the

following helpful suggestion, “The application website needs to be more user friendly and needs to have

links to pertinent information and reviewed information.” A full read-out of the verbatim feedback collected

can be found in Appendix C. The other driver score to experience a significant decline in 2021 was the

Documents provided to grantees, which fell 4-points to an 83. Both the Organization of information (84)

and Relevance to your areas of need (83) decreased notably year-over-year. The driver score for ED

Staff/Coordination is strong, landing at an 89 in 2021. The individual attributes that comprise the ED

Staff/Coordination driver score each fell slightly from 2020 to 2021 but continue to be rated favorably with

scores ranging from 86 for Communication about changes that may affect your program to 92 for their

Professionalism. When asked to rate Impact Aid Program staff in the custom survey section, grantees

rated the staff`s knowledge about technical material strong at 90. The rating of the Effectiveness of

documents in helping complete application (81) is relatively low, indicating that the Documents can be

improved upon to better assist grantees in completing applications. In 2021, 51% of Payments for

Federally Connected Children (Section 7002) grantees indicated that they contacted the Impact Aid

Program for technical assistance. When asked, “What additional communications would you like to

receive regarding the status of your application, prior to receiving a payment,” the following comment was

provided, “An email letting me know the status of our application and the amount of funding we can

expect to receive (and WHEN) would be very helpful.” A full read-out of the verbatim feedback collected

can be found in Appendix C.

Demonstration Grants for Indian Children/Special Projects Demonstration Grants

The satisfaction among grantees of the Demonstration Grants for Indian Children/Special Projects

Demonstration Grants was rated a 78, 2-points higher than the average satisfaction rating of all 72

programs measured in the survey. The satisfaction score of 78 reflects an impressive improvement of 17-

points compared to 2019. All five drivers of satisfaction improved from 2020 to 2021, specifically, the

Technical Assistance driver increased a significant 7-points to an 82. Four of the six attributes that

comprise the Technical Assistance driver score improved significantly in 2021, with TA services provided

in helping successfully implement grant programs/projects obtaining the highest rating at 86. The strong

scores for Technical Assistance are echoed by the following open-end comment that was provided, “The

technical assistance staff have gone above and beyond to provide the needed assistance to make sure

our program needs have been met.” A full read-out of the verbatim feedback collected can be found in

Appendix C. The Online Resources made available to grantees were rated 3-points higher at 73 in 2021.

Notable score increases were achieved for the Ability to find specific information (77) and Quality of

content (78). The ED Staff/Coordination driver score is the highest in 2021 at 86. The lowest scoring

Final Report
2021 59

Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

driver of satisfaction, Grant Performance Reporting Requirements, was rated a 71. Continue to provide

grantees with a better understanding of how ED uses their data, as this survey component was rated

relatively low at 65. Additionally, the Ease of submitting report(s) electronically score of 66 offers

substantial room for improvement. In the custom survey section, strong scores were reported by grantees

of the Demonstration Grants for Indian Children/Special Projects Demonstration Grants program for the

Usefulness and relevance of webinar-based technical assistance (83) and Usefulness and relevance of

project director meeting technical assistance (84).

Neglected and Delinquent State and Local Agency Programs

The satisfaction score provided by grantees of the Neglected and Delinquent. Four of the five drivers of

satisfaction decreased in 2021, with ED Staff/Coordination remaining stable at 83. The driver score that

experienced the greatest decline is Technical Assistance which fell 17-points in 2021 to a score of 65.

Each of the six attributes that comprise the Technical Assistance driver decreased in 2021, with the EDFunded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to implement grant project falling a significant 39-points

compared to 2020. The attribute which measures the Technical Assistance in terms of Creating

opportunities to share best practices via learning groups also fell to a 64. Similar to the Technical

Assistance driver, the Online Resources made available to grantees were rated a 65 in 2021. Grantees

rated their Ability to navigate within the site a 64, an 11-point drop relative to 2020. The following openend comment provides some context to the low score for the Online Resources, “First and foremost we

did not have a website for most of the year, that was a major problem for many of the new coordinators

who were unable to find information that they needed.” A full read-out of the verbatim feedback collected

can be found in Appendix C. Grantees rated the Documents that are provided to them a 67 in 2021, a 9-

point decrease compared to last year. Four of the five attributes that comprise the driver score decreased

by 10 or more points, with the Relevance to your areas of need decreasing the most (-11-points). In the

custom survey section, grantees rated NDTAC program staff poorly for their Responsiveness in

answering questions (65) and Sufficiency of the guidance provided in responses to questions (66). The

lowest scoring components of the custom survey section were for NDTAC staff in Assisting to impact

performance results and Support quality for collecting/submitting data which were each rated a 58.

Teacher Quality Partnership Program

Satisfaction among grantees of the Teacher Quality Partnership Program was rated a 79 in 2021, a

decrease of 3-points relative to 2020 when the program was first added to the survey. The satisfaction

score of 79 is 3-points higher than the average satisfaction rating among all 72 programs that participated

in the survey this year. The dip in satisfaction was a result of slight score decreases in four of the five

drivers of satisfaction included in the study. The Online Resources driver score decreased one-point in

2021 to an 82, making it the lowest driver score. The survey component asked within the Online

Resources driver section that has the greatest room for improvement is the Ability to navigate within the

site (79) which trails the other attributes. Federal staff were rated an 89 in 2021, with high scores of 91 for

the Responsiveness to your questions and 95 for their Professionalism. Technical Assistance was the

only driver of satisfaction to improve from 2020 to 2021, gaining 2-points to a score of 85. The driver

score increase was driven largely by the 13-point improvement in grantees rating of the Assistance with

developing resource materials for use in the program (81), and the 10-point increase in the rating of

Creating opportunities to share best practices via learning groups (88). In the custom survey section TQP

grantees were asked to “Rate the helpfulness of the TQP program’s support and technical assistance in

enhancing the capacity of your team.” Scores ranged from 83 for Understanding of practices other

grantees use to address challenging areas and Understanding of all program requirements, including

budgetary concerns to 87 for their Understanding of GPRA measures and associated measure

definitions. In 2021, 96% of TQP grantees indicated that they receive the right amount of interaction with

their TQP program officer and/or the TQP Division staff. When asked about the quality of the customer

service provided, 65% selected that the quality was Excellent. The following comment was provided by a

TQP grantees when asking for recommendation for the TQP program staff to assist you in administering

your grant more effectively, “Provide more support to first time grantees and allow more advanced

programs the opportunity to mentor them.” A full read-out of the verbatim feedback collected can be found

in Appendix C.

Final Report
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2021 60

School Climate Transformation Grants

Local Education Agency

The satisfaction score among SCTG Local Education Agency respondents improved for the second 

consecutive year to a score of 85 for 2021. The increase in satisfaction of SCTG LEA grantees was 

driven by score improvements for all five drivers of satisfaction measured in the survey. The ED 

Staff/Coordination driver score is the highest rated driver in 2021 landing at 95. Each of the survey 

components measured in the ED Staff/Coordination survey section were rated 90 or higher, with high 

scores of 97 for their Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, and procedures and 

Professionalism. The Online Resources made available to grantees were rated an 87, an improvement of 

4-points compared to 2020 and an astounding 20-point score improvement from 2019. Significant score

increases in the Quality of content (90) and grantees Ability to accomplish what they want on the site (87)

aided in improving the driver score. The score for the Documents which include “non-regulatory guidance,

frequently asked questions (FAQs), letters, newsletters, publications and blast emails” was rated

exceptionally well at 91. Each of the attributes that comprise the driver score were rated 90 or higher in

2021, with Clarity topping the list at 92. The Grant Performance Reporting Requirements driver score of

84 reflects a 2-point increase from 2020 but remains to be the lowest scoring driver of satisfaction. Efforts

to improve the driver score should be focused toward improving the lower scoring survey components,

which in this case are grantees understanding of how ED uses their data (75). The Technical Assistance

provided to grantees was well received, especially for Using evidence-based practices in implementing

program activities which improved a significant 5-points to 92. The helpfulness of Technical Assistance

was measured in the custom survey section, to which a strong score of 84 was reported by SCTG LEA

grantees. When asked, “How often do you receive technical assistance,” 65% of respondents selected

Monthly. The specific type of technical assistance content that grantees indicated would be most useful is

using data for effective student outcomes, which 71% of SCTG grantees selected, followed closely by

leveraging alignment, integration, and sustainability which 67% of respondents selected. The most helpful

forms of Technical Assistance as indicated by SCTG grantees are Email communication (33%) and

Annual meetings/conferences (33%).

Native Hawaiian Education Act Program

Grantees of the Native Hawaiian Education Act Program rated their satisfaction an 82, mirroring the 

strong score reported in the initial year that the program was added to the survey in 2020. Scores for the 

five drivers of satisfaction ranged from 76 for the Grant Performance Reporting Requirements up to 91 for 

ED Staff/Coordination. The driver score with the greatest year-over-year improvement is Online 

Resources, which improved 5-points to an 84 in 2021. After a relatively low score of 74 was reported in 

2020 for the Look and feel/Visual appearance the attribute level score improved 7-points to a rating of 81. 

ED staff continue to receive high marks, most notably for their Knowledge of relevant legislation, 

regulations, policies, and procedures (93) and Professionalism (95). The driver score for the Grant 

Performance Reporting Requirements dipped one-point from 2020 to 2021 landing at 76. Efforts to 

improve the driver score are best focused toward the lower scoring attributes that comprise the driver, 

which in this case is grantees understanding of how ED uses your data which was rated relatively low at 

68. Similarly, the Documents driver score dropped one-point in 2021. Although the driver score of 85 is

relatively strong, the Documents provided to grantees could be improved in terms of their Clarity (84) and

Organization of information (84). In the custom survey section, 70% of Native Hawaiian Education Act

Program grantees indicated that NHE staff initiated technical assistance with them during the past 3-6

months. Grantees provided a strong score of 88 when asked to rate the Knowledge of staff on program

grant administration issues. When asked, “What technical assistant topics can the NHE program provide

to support the implementation of your grant projects more effectively,” one grantee provided the following,

“Ideas of how other programs may be dealing with similar issues our projects are facing, best practices in

data collections.” A full read-out of the verbatim feedback collected can be found in Appendix C.

Alaskan Native Education Program

Satisfaction among grantees of the Alaskan Native Education Program improved significantly in 2021 to 

an 81, an improvement of 15-points since the program was first added to the survey in 2014. The uptick 

in satisfaction was driven by score increases for four of the five drivers of satisfaction when comparing 

2020 to 2021. The Documents driver score grew by the largest margin, improving 6-points to an 81 in 
2021 61

Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2021. High scores of 82 were achieved by two of the five attributes that comprise the driver score;

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs and Organization of information. ED staff received

positive ratings from grantees of the ANEP program, highlighted by the scores for their Knowledge of

relevant legislation, regulations, policies, and procedures and Professionalism which were rated 92 and

93, respectively. The attribute of the ED Staff/Coordination driver with the most notable improvement in

2021 is Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in providing relevant services, which improved an

impressive 11-points since 2020. The Technical Assistance score of 75 is 2-points less than the rating

reported in 2020, making it the only driver of satisfaction to decrease year-over-year. The survey

component which asks grantees to rate how well opportunities are created to share best practices via

learning groups was rated relatively low at 69, indicating that improvement efforts focused in this area

allow for the greatest potential for growth. When asked, “Has your program officer initiated technical

assistance with you or anyone on the ANE staff during the past 3-6 months” in the custom survey section,

52% of grantees of the ANEP indicated that their program officer has not initiated technical assistance.

Scores for the specific types of information in the application package that were rated in 2021 range from

71 for Ease of navigating performance report on web to 92 for Deadline for submission. When asked

“What technical assistant topics can the ANE program provide at Project Directors’ meetings” one grantee

provided a reasonable suggestion, “Webinar at the inception of the award for new grantees, sharing

general information and resources available to support the grantee project director and staff.” A full readout of the verbatim feedback collected can be found in Appendix C.

Innovative Approaches to Literacy

The satisfaction among grantees of the Innovative Approaches to Literacy Program was rated an 89, a

one-point improvement from last year. The score of 89 makes the Innovative Approaches to Literacy

Program tied for the highest rated OESE program in terms of satisfaction. The five drivers of satisfaction

were rated very favorably in 2021, ranging from 86 for Technical Assistance and Documents all the way

up to 91 for ED Staff/Coordination and Online Resources. The improvement in grantee satisfaction was

driven by a significant improvement of 7-points for respondents’ ratings of the Online Resources made

available to them. Each of the six attributes that comprise the Online Resources driver score improved

compared to 2020, with notable improvements for the Ability to accomplish what you want on the site

(91), Ability to navigate within the site (92), and Look and feel/Visual appearance (91). Federal staff

continued to be rated well in 2021 with the ED Staff/Coordination driver score improving one-point to 91.

Each of the six attributes that are associated with the ED Staff/Coordination driver were rated 90+ in

2021. Although the Documents driver score of 86 is relatively strong, the driver score has fallen five

points when comparing to the score reported back in 2018. Efforts to halt the score decline should be

focused toward ensuring that the Documents provided to grantees are sufficient in detail to meet your

program needs (85), Relevant to their areas of need (85), and Comprehensive in addressing the scope of

issues that grantees face (85). The Technical Assistance driver score fell 2-points in 2021 to an 86. Look

to increase the opportunities to share best practices via learning groups as this attribute was rated a 79,

which lags behind the other six attributes measured in the Technical Assistance survey section. In the

custom question section of the survey, grantees of the Innovative Approaches to Literacy Program

provided strong ratings when asked to rate the technical support and assistance they have received from

the U.S. Department of Education staff and the technical assistance provider 2M Research. Scores

ranges from 89 for the Ability to work with you to resolve issues to 92 for the Helpfulness of performance

reporting.

High School Equivalency Program (HEP) – Migrant Education

Grantees of the High School Equivalency Program - Migrant Education rated their satisfaction an 88,

holding steady since the program high satisfaction score was achieved last year. The overall satisfaction

score of 88 makes the HEP – Migrant Education program the third highest scoring OESE program in 

terms of satisfaction. All five drivers of satisfaction were rated 85 or higher by HEP grantees. The survey 

section that asks for grantees ratings of the Grant Performance Reporting Requirements was added to 

the survey in 2020, to which a strong rating of 91 was reported and now in 2021 the driver score of 92 is 

the highest amongst all drivers of satisfaction. All six attributes that comprise the Grant Performance 

Final Report
2021 62

Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

Reporting Requirements driver were rated 90+ by HEP grantees, with the Ease of submitting report(s)

electronically receiving the highest rating at 96. ED Staff were rated very positively in 2021 with an overall

driver score of 91, a slight dip of 2-points from 2020. The Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses was

rated 4-points lower compared to last year landing at 88, which makes it the lowest scoring component of

the ED Staff/Coordination driver. The Online Resources driver score increased 2-points in 2021 to an 85,

largely driven by the significant score increase in grantees rating of the Accuracy of search results (89,

+6). Similarly, the Technical Assistance provided to grantees was rated 2-points higher compared to last

year. Scores improved year-over-year for five of the six attributes that comprise the Technical Assistance

driver score. High School Equivalency Program - Migrant Education grantees rated program staff very

well in the custom question section of the survey. Program staff were rated an impressive 89 for the

second consecutive year for the Clarity of information provided. When asked, What could the HEP team

do to improve the content of technical assistance one grantee responded with the following, “More indepth examples of how different programs interpret guidelines would be helpful. It often feels like

technical assistance webinars are just someone reading the text from a document we've already

received.” A full read-out of the verbatim feedback collected can be found in Appendix C.

College Assistance Migrant Program

The College Assistance Migrant Program grantee satisfaction rating rose to an 89 in 2021, an increase of

2-points relative to last year, and a 10-point increase since the program was first measured back in 2017.

The College Assistance Migrant Program satisfaction score is the third highest satisfaction score of all 72

programs included in the 2021 Grantee Satisfaction Survey. The strong driver scores reported in 2020

remained in 2021 with three of the five drivers of satisfaction scoring 90 or higher. Interactions with ED

staff were very rated very positively by grantees of the CAMP program as indicated by the driver score of

94. Five of the six attributes that comprise the ED staff driver score were rated 90+, with their

Professionalism nearly achieving a perfect score of 99. Similarly, all but one of the attributes that are

associated with the Documents driver were rated 90+, driving the overall Documents (92) score 1-point

higher in 2021. After a very strong score of 90 in 2020, the Technical Assistance provided to grantees

was rated an 88 in 2021. The Online Resources driver continues to be rated lower than the other drivers

of satisfaction, however the 2021 score of 83 reflects a 6-point improvement since the program was first

surveyed in 2017. In the custom questions section of the survey, grantees of the College Assistance

Migrant Program provided strong ratings of program staff for the Clarity of information provided by

program staff (94) and the Accessibility and responsiveness of program staff (90). When asked What

could the CAMP team do to improve the structure or format of technical assistance one grantee offered

the following, “Hoping to meet in person again (even if it's once a year). Perhaps meet with the projects

according to state to allow for more fruitful conversations and partnerships.” A full read-out of the verbatim

feedback collected can be found in Appendix C.

Full-service Community Schools (ESEA IV-F-2, section 4625) Program

Grantees of the Full-service community schools (ESEA IV-F-2, section 4625) Program rated their

satisfaction significantly lower in 2021 compared to 2020 when the program was first added to the survey,

landing at a 66 (-13 points). The satisfaction score of 66 is 11-points less than the OESE-wide satisfaction

score, indicating that there is ample room for improvement in the grantee experience amongst the

grantees of the FSCS program. The Technical Assistance driver dropped 15-points to a 63, making it the

lowest scoring driver of satisfaction for the FSCS program. The two attributes of Technical Assistance that

decreased the most year-over-year are Creating opportunities to share best practices via learning groups

(56) and Assistance with developing resource materials for use in the program (58). The driver score that

dropped most significantly in 2021 is Documents (66), which fell 19-points since 2020. All five of the

survey components that comprise the Documents driver decreased by double-digits. Specifically, the

attribute that asks grantees for their rating of Documents in terms of the Comprehensiveness in

addressing the scope of issues that you face decreased 26-points to a score of 63, followed closely by

the rating of the Relevance to your areas of need which fell 20-points. When asked how the Documents

could be improved in terms of their quality and usefulness one grantee responded with, “More documents

should be sent out and often that ties all of the groups together so that we can share best practices.” A

Final Report
2021 63

Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

full read-out of the verbatim feedback collected can be found in Appendix C. In the custom question

section of the survey grantees of the FSCS program were asked if they asked their ED Program Contact

(Program Officer) for assistance in areas not related to fiscal or grant administration issues. The 15% of

grantees who did ask for assistance rated the ED Program Contacts quality of assistance a 94.

Statewide Family Engagement Centers

The Statewide Family Engagement Centers Program grantee satisfaction score of 86 ranks this program

in the top 5 for all 72 programs measured in 2021. The satisfaction rating of 86 reflects an improvement of

3-points from 2020 when the program was added to the survey. The five drivers of satisfaction were all

rated very favorably by SFEC grantees. The ED Staff/Coordination driver received nearly a perfect score

of 99, with three of the attributes that comprise the driver achieving perfect ratings, Knowledge of relevant

legislation, regulations, policies, and procedures, Responsiveness to your questions and Professionalism.

In the open-end feedback collected from the survey one grantee offered the following statement, “My

project Officer was excellent in providing assistance and was responsive to my questions.” A full read-out

of the verbatim feedback collected can be found in Appendix C. The Documents provided to grantees

were rated very positively in 2021 at 93, an improvement of 8-points from 2020. Scores of 96 were given

for the Documents in terms of their Clarity and their Organization of information. The Online Resources

driver experienced the largest growth this year (+12) to an 86. The Accuracy of the search results survey

component was rated an impressive 95 by SFEC grantees. Grantees rating of the Technical Assistance

provided by ED Staff improved 5-points to an 89. Opportunities to increase the driver score further exist

improving the scores for grantees rating of ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to

implement grant project which was relatively low at 63. In the custom question survey section SFEC

grantees were asked to rate the technical assistance they received from the School Choice and

Improvement Division. All five custom question survey components were rated favorably in 2021 with

scores ranging from 85 for their Satisfaction with the Program Director’s Meeting to 92 for both the Overall

satisfaction with service provided by the program officer and Use of clear and concise written and verbal

communication.

Assistance for Arts Education Development and Dissemination

Grantees of the Assistance for Arts Education Development and Dissemination Program rated their

satisfaction a 73 in 2021, an improvement of 1-point relative to 2020 when the program was first added to

the survey. The satisfaction score for grantees of the Assistance for Arts Education Development and

Dissemination program lags behind the OESE-wide satisfaction score of 77. Document was the only

driver of satisfaction to improve year-over-year, improving 2-points in 2021 landing at an 84. ED Staff

received the highest overall rating of the five drivers of satisfaction however the 2021 score of 86 reflects

a 3-point decrease compared to last year. The attribute that asks grantees to rate ED Staff of their

Responsiveness to questions was rated an 80 in 2021, a decrease of 7-points from 2020. The Online

Resources made available to AAEDD grantees were rated less favorably in 2021 at 72 overall.

Specifically, grantees rated the Accuracy of search results a 68 (-14 points from 2020). A specific website

enhancement was offered in the open-end feedback, “One very specific suggestion is to offer some

guidance to those who are not familiar with all of the acronyms that are used in some search fields. For

example, those used under the Program Office field when trying to narrow down a search.” A full read-out

of the verbatim feedback collected can be found in Appendix C. After a strong score of 81 was reported

for the Technical Assistance received by grantees in 2020, the driver score dropped 9-points to a 72 for

2021. Each of the five attributes that comprise the driver decreased in 2021, most notably Creating

opportunities to share best practices via learning groups decreased 14-points. Efforts to improve the

grantee experience should be focused on the lower scoring components of the Technical Assistance

driver; Creating opportunities to share best practices via learning groups (70) and developing resource

materials for use in the program (69). In the custom questions section of the survey, AAEDD grantees

were asked to rate ED staff and the technical assistance provider 2M Research. AAEDD grantees rated

staff 13-points less in 2021 for their Satisfaction with face-to-face AIE Annual Program Director’s

Convening, which is to be expected with the implication brought on by COVID-19. The Helpfulness of

staff on project implementation and evaluation gained 2-points with an overall score of 82.

Final Report
Final Report

2021 64

Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Program

The Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Program grantee satisfaction improved 4-

points in 2021 to a 73, just 3-points shy of the aggregate level satisfaction score of 76. All five drivers of 

satisfaction improved year-over-year. The driver that experienced the largest growth is Documents (79), 

which was rated 10-points higher by grantees in 2021 when comparing to last year. Grantees of the Javits 

program rated the Documents provided to them a significant 12-points higher in 2021 for their Sufficiency 

of detail to meet your program needs (80) and Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues that 

you face (80). The highest rated driver for grantees of the Javits program for 2021 is ED 

Staff/Coordination, which was rated an 85. Staff interact with grantees in a professional manner as 

indicated by the high score of 91, and regard them as very knowledgeable of relevant legislation, 

regulations, policies, and procedures (86). The Technical Assistance driver score was rated 6-points 

higher in 2021, settling at a 74 overall. There was a notable increase of 17-points in grantees rating of 

Creating opportunities to share best practices via learning groups (73). The Grant Performance Reporting 

Requirements driver was rated a 71, which is five points less than the OESE-wide driver score of 76. 

Efforts to improve the Grant Performance Reporting Requirements rating should be focused on the lowest 

scoring attribute of the driver; Your understanding of how ED uses your data (57). Improvements in the 

communication efforts to inform Javits grantees of the use of the data they provide will help to improve 

this rating, and ultimately will help to improve the grantee experience overall. In the custom question 

section of the survey grantees were asked to rate their Javits program specialist. Grantees rated their 

program specialists an 81 for their Overall satisfaction with service provided by the representative, an 

improvement of 18-points compared to 2018 when the program was first added to the survey. Javits 

program grantees were asked to share any comments and/or ideas on how the Javits team can improve 

its support of your project-specific work, to which one grantee responded, “So far the contract 

management team has been responsive and helpful. There was confusion at the beginning of the 

contract term but things have improved.” A full read-out of the verbatim feedback collected can be found 

in Appendix C.

Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund Program

Grantees of the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund Program rated their 

satisfaction a 57 in the initial year of measurement, the second lowest scoring program of all 72 grant 

programs measured in 2021. The satisfaction score of 57 trails the OESE-wide satisfaction score by 20-

points. The driver scores range from 39 for grantees rating of the Grant Performance Reporting 

Requirements to 73 for the Documents that are provided. There is plenty of room for improvement to 

increase the ratings of the Grant Performance Reporting Requirements driver, and efforts are best 

directed towards the lowest scoring attributes which are Ease of obtaining data you are required to report 

(32) and understanding of how ED uses your data (35). The open-end feedback left by grantees speaks

to some of the specific frustrations that led to the low scores, “The data collection for ESSER did not set

SEAs up for success, was too rushed, and did not leave SEAs time to set up effective data collection

infrastructure.” A full read-out of the verbatim feedback collected can be found in Appendix C. The ED

Staff/Coordination rating (69) amongst grantees of the Grantees of the Elementary and Secondary School

Emergency Relief Fund program is 18-points less than the OESE-wide rating. While ED staff were rated

favorably for their Professionalism (88), they received very poor ratings for their Responsiveness to

questions (64) and Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses (61). The Online Resources made available

to grantees were rated a 72 overall, with a high score of 76 for the attribute that asks for grantees rating

of the Quality of the Content. ESSER grantees were asked to rate their experience receiving technical

assistance from their ESSER program officer in the custom question section, to which positive ratings

were provided for program officer’s Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication (78) and

Ability to listen to, accept and act upon your feedback (78). When asked for the topics for which grantees

have the greatest need for technical assistance 86% selected Reporting requirements followed by 59%

who indicated that they need Subrecipient monitoring.

Governors Emergency Education Relief Fund Program

In the initial year of measurement, grantees of the Governors Emergency Education Relief Fund (GEER) 

Program rated their satisfaction a 66. The satisfaction score of 66 is relatively low when comparing to the 

OESE-wide satisfaction score of 77. ED Staff were rated a 74 by GEER grantees. The ratings of the 

individual survey components that make up the ED Staff driver score range from 68 to 89 with Sufficiency 

of legal guidance in responses being rated the lowest and Professionalism topping the list. The Online 
2021 65

Department of Education Office of Acqusitions and Grants Administration

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

Resources that are made available to GEER grantees were rated well for the Quality of content (70) and

the Look and feel/Visual appearance (70) but received a poor rating for the Accuracy of search results

(63). In looking at the open-end feedback, one grantee of the GEER program stated, “The search engine

for me turned up irrelevant information.” A full read-out of the verbatim feedback collected can be found in

Appendix C. The driver score for the Grant Performance Reporting Requirements amongst GEER

grantees is 21-points less than the OESE-wide rating landing at 55 for 2021. Low scores of 47 were

reported for the Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant program/project and understanding

of how ED uses your data. In the custom question section of the survey, grantees of the Governors

Emergency Education Relief Fund program were asked to rate their experience receiving technical

assistance from their GEER program officer. Grantees provided positive ratings for their program officer’s

Ability to listen to, accept and act upon your feedback (80) and Use of clear and concise written and

verbal communication (82). When asked for the topics for which grantees have the greatest need for

technical assistance 79% selected Reporting requirements followed by 58% who indicated that they need

Subrecipient monitoring. Grantees were asked to Describe how the Office of State and Grantees

Relations can further empower you to make decisions about the implementation of your GEER grants, to

which one grantee responded with, “Responding to the request in a timely and concise manner so that we

can make decisions.”

Education Stabilization Fund-Rethink K-12 Education Models Discretionary Grant

Program

The Education Stabilization Fund-Rethink K-12 Education Models Discretionary Grant Program was

added to the survey in 2021, and in the inaugural year of being measured grantees rated their satisfaction

an 83; 7-points higher than the aggregate-level satisfaction score. The driver scores range widely from 61

to 95, due to the small number of survey respondents (6) that belong to the Education Stabilization FundRethink K-12 Education Models Discretionary Grant program. The highest rated driver is the ED

Staff/Coordination component which was rated 95 in 2021. Each of the attributes that comprise the ED

Staff driver score were rated 90 or higher with the Professionalism of staff achieving a nearly perfect

score of 98. The Documents, which include non-regulatory guidance, frequently asked questions (FAQs),

letters, newsletters, publications, and blast emails, that are provided to grantees were rated favorably at

88. Grantees feel strongly that there is sufficient detail provided by the Documents to meet program

needs as indicated by the high score of 91. The Technical Assistance provided to grantees of the

Education Stabilization Fund-Rethink K-12 Education Models Discretionary Grant program is rated a 78 in

2021. A perfect rating (100) was provided for ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to

implement grant project. Efforts to improve the Technical Assistance driver score should be directed

towards Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program management (71) as this attribute offers

the greatest room for improvement.

Contact Information

FEDERAL CONSULTING GROUP

Jessica Reed

Director

Theresa Spriggs

Contracting Officer’s Representative

ACSI: Delivered By

CFI GROUP

3916 Ranchero Drive

Ann Arbor, MI 48108

734.930.9090 (tel)

734.930.0911 (fax)

www.cfigroup.com

Final Report
Final Report

2021 66

Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

SWEDEN - Stockholm 

ITALY - Milan 

CHINA - Shanghai 
43

Appendix A: Questionnaire 
1

PARTICIPATING PROGRAM LIST

1 OELA Native American and Alaska Native Children in School Program

2 OELA National Professional Development Program

3 OCTAE Adult Education and Family Literacy to the State Directors of Adult Education

4 OCTAE Carl D. Perkins Career & Technical Education Program to the State Directors of Career & Technical Ed

5 OCTAE Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Education

6 OCTAE Native American Career and Technical Education

7 OSERS IDEA – State Directors of Special Education (Part B)

8 OSERS IDEA – Part C Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities Program

9 OSERS RSA Vocational Rehabilitation Program

10 OSERS Rehabilitation Long-Term Training Program

11 OSERS IDEA National Centers (added 12/13/19)

12 OSERS State Personnel Development Grants

13 OSERS Independent Living Services for Older Individuals Who Are Blind (IL-OIB)

14 OPE Strengthening Institutions Program (SIP)

15 OPE Alaskan Native and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions (ANNH)-Part A

16 OPE Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions (DHSI)

17 OPE Promoting Post Baccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans (PPOHA)

18 OPE Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities (TCCU)-Part A

19 OPE Native American Serving Non-Tribal Institutions (NASNTI)

20 OPE Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander Institutions (AANAPISI)

21 OPE Fulbright-Hays Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad

22 OPE Fulbright-Hays Group Projects Abroad

23 OPE Hispanic-Serving Institutions - Science, Technology, Engineering, or Mathematics and Articulation Programs

24 OPE Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships

25 OPE Talent Search

26 OPE Upward Bound Math and Science

27 OPE Veterans Upward Bound

28 OPE Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement

29 OPE Training Program for Federal TRIO Programs

30 OPE Historically Black Graduate Institutions (HBGI) Program

31 OPE Model Comprehensive Transition and Postsecondary Programs for Students With Intellectual Disabilities 

(TPSID)

32 OPE Centers for International Business Education

33 OPE International Research and Studies

34 OPE Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Language

35 OESE Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies

36 OESE Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants (Title II, Part A)

37 OESE Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 

7003) 

38 OESE 21st Century Community Learning 

Centers 

39 OESE Student Support and Academic Enrichment/Title IVA (National Activities)
2

40 OESE Immediate Aid to Restart School Operations (Restart) Program

41 OESE English Language Acquisition State Grants (Title III, Part 

A) 

42 OESE Migrant Education Program (MEP) -- Title I, Part 

C 

43 OESE Grants for State 

Assessments 

44 OESE Teacher and school leader incentive grants (ESEA II-B-1)

45 OESE Expanding Opportunities Through Quality Charter Schools Program (CSP) Grants to State Entities 

46 OESE Comprehensive Literacy State Development (formerly Striving Readers) 

47 OESE Charter Schools Program Grants for Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools

48 OESE Education Innovation and Research Program--Expansion Grants/Mid Phase Grants/Early Phase Grants

49 OESE Magnet Schools Assistance Program

50 OESE Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Education Agencies 

51 OESE Education for Homeless Children and Youth Grants for State and Local Activities/ McKinney-Vento Education 

for Homeless Children and Youth Program 

52 OESE Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP)/Rural and Low-Income School 

Program 

53 OESE Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP)/Small Rural School Grant Program 

(SRSA) 

54 OESE Promise neighborhoods (ESEA IV-F-2, section 4624)

55 OESE Supporting Effective Educator Development Program

56 OESE Payments for Federal Property (Section 

7002) 

57 OESE Demonstration Grants for Indian Children/Special Projects for Indian Children

58 OESE Neglected and Delinquent State and 

Local 

59 OESE Teacher Quality Partnership Program

60 OESE School Climate Transformation Grants (LEAs)

61 OESE Native Hawaiian Education Act Program/Education of Native 

Hawaiian 

62 OESE Alaska Native Education 

Program 

63 OESE Innovative Approaches to Literacy

64 OESE High School Equivalency Program (HEP) - Migrant 

Education 

65 OESE College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP) - Migrant 

Education 

66 OESE Full-service community schools (ESEA IV-F-2, section 4625)

67 OESE Statewide Family Engagement Centers (SFEC)

68 OESE Assistance for Arts Education Development and Dissemination 

69 OESE Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Program/Javits Gifted and Talented Students 

Education Act 

70 OESE Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund

71 OESE Governors Emergency Education Relief Fund

72 OESE Education Stabilization Fund-Rethink K-12 Education Models Discretionary Grant Program
3

U.S. Department of Education

2021 Grantee Satisfaction Survey

Introduction 

The Department of Education (Department) is committed to serving and satisfying its customers. To this end, we 

have commissioned the CFI Group, an independent third-party research group, to conduct a survey that asks about 

your experience as a grant recipient of the [GRANT PROGRAM] and the ways we can improve our service to you. 

CFI Group and The Department will treat all information in a secure fashion. Your answers are voluntary, but your 

opinions are very important. Your responses will remain anonymous and will only be reported in aggregate to 

Department personnel. This survey is authorized by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget Control No. 1090-

0007, which expires on September 30, 2021, and will take about 10 minutes to complete. 

If you have any questions about this survey, please contact Tamara Alston at tamara.alston@ed.gov.

Please note that ALL questions on this survey (unless noted otherwise) refer to your experiences over the PAST 12 

MONTHS.

When answering the survey, please only think about your interactions with [GRANT PROGRAM]. 

[HIDDEN] Q1=GRANT PROGRAM 

Department Staff

[INTRO FOR OELA/OCTAE/OSERS/OESE]

Please think about the interactions you have had with the federal staff that you work with the most closely from 

the [PROGRAM OFFICE] Consider times when you sought guidance, clarification, or additional assistance.

[DO NOT ASK OSERS] [DO NOT ASK FCC/FPROP PROGRAMS] PLEASE NOTE: This does not include technical 

assistance provided by regional labs, national associations, Department-funded technical assistance 

providers, etc.

[INTRO FOR OPE]

Please think about the interactions you have had with senior [PROGRAM OFFICE] officers (e.g. the Director of 

the Office that administers this grant program/project). Questions regarding your individual program officer will 

be asked later in the questionnaire.]

PLEASE NOTE: This does not include technical assistance to states to build state capacity to implement 

education reforms, such as regional labs, national associations, contractors – including those that service G5, 

grants.gov, etc.

On a scale from 1 to 10, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate the quality of the assistance

provided by Department staff. 

If a question does not apply, please select “N/A”.

Q2. Knowledge of grant program/project Federal requirements and policy

Q3. Responsiveness to your questions

Q4. Professionalism 

Q5. Sufficiency of guidance in responses

Q6. Communication about changes that may affect your program

Q7. [DO NOT ASK OSERS or OESE] Consistency of responses with Department staff from different offices

Q8. [DO NOT ASK FCC/FPROP PROGRAMS/Comprehensive State Literacy PROGRAMS] Collaboration with other 

Department programs or offices in providing relevant services (e.g., clarify issues regarding program policy and 
4

regulations, obtain guidance on grants policy and administration, obtain guidance on financial drawdowns, share 

information regarding best practices)

Online Resources

[DO NOT ASK State Personnel Development Grants online resources section]

Please think about your experience using the [GRANT PROGRAM]’s online resources on the ED.gov website. 

Note that these ratings should pertain specifically to the ED.gov website. Additional questions regarding other 

external websites your program/project uses may be asked later in the survey.

On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate the:

[INTRO FOR OESE] Please think about your experience using the [GRANT PROGRAM]’s online resources on the 

OESE.ED.gov website. 

Note that these ratings should pertain specifically to the OESE.ED.gov website. Additional questions regarding 

other external websites your program/project uses may be asked later in the survey.

On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate the:

Q9. Ability to find specific information 

Q10. Quality of content (e.g., materials are up-to-date, accurate, helpful, etc.)

Q11. Ability to accomplish what you want on the site

Q12. Accuracy of search results

Q13. Ability to navigate within the site

Q14. Look and feel/Visual appearance

Q15. Please describe how the Department/[PROGRAM OFFICE] could improve its website.

Documents [ONLY FOR OELA/OCTAE/OSERS/OESE]

[DO NOT ASK State Personnel Development Grants documents section]

Think about the documents you receive from the [PROGRAM OFFICE]. Documents include non-regulatory 

guidance, frequently asked questions (FAQs), letters, newsletters, publications and blast emails.

On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent”, please rate the documents’:

Q16. Clarity

Q17. Organization of information

Q18. Sufficiency of detail to meet your program/project needs

Q19. Relevance to your areas of need

Q20. Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues that you face

Q21. Please describe how the [PROGRAM OFFICE] could improve the quality and usefulness of our documents, 

including policy-related documents. In your response, please identify the name or type of document(s) your 

comments address (e.g., non-regulatory guidance, newsletter, blast emails).

Information in Application Package [ONLY FOR OELA and OPE]

When you were preparing your application, how easy was it for you to locate and understand the information in 

the application package? Please rate the following on a scale from “1” to “10”, where “1” is “very difficult” and 

“10” is “very easy”.

Q22. Program Purpose

Q23. Program Priorities

Q24. Selection Criteria

Q25. Review Process
5

Q26. Budget Information and Forms

Q27. Deadline for Submission

Q28. Dollar Limit on Awards

Q29. Page Limitation Instructions

Q30. Formatting Instructions

Q31. Program Contact
6

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements

Q32. [DO NOT ASK FCC/FPROP PROGRAMS] Please think about the performance reporting requirements for your 

grant and rate the following where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent”: [INCLUDE A “Not Applicable” 

OPTION]

[NOTE FOR OESE] Specifically, think about the performance report that the Department requires you to 

submit (e.g., the Consolidated State Performance Report, the Annual Performance Report).

[NOTE FOR OPE] Specifically, think about the performance report that the Department requires you to 

submit annually – the Annual Performance Report (APR)

a. Clarity of reporting requirements

b. Ease of obtaining data you are required to report

c. Ease of submitting report(s) electronically

d. Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) (guidance, training, tools)

e. Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant program/project

f. Your understanding of how the Department uses your data

Q33. [DO NOT ASK FCC/FPROP PROGRAMS] Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.

Technical Assistance 

[DO NOT ASK FCC/FPROP PROGRAMS/Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund/Governors 

Emergency Education Relief Fund Technical Assistance section]

Now think for a moment about the technical assistance services that are provided by [GRANT PROGRAM] staff 

and/or [PRINCIPAL OFFICE] in general when answering the next few questions.

Q34. Please rate the technical assistance services provided by [GRANT PROGRAM] staff in helping you 

successfully learn to implement your grant programs/projects. Please use a 10-point scale where “1” is “Not 

at all helpful” and “10” is “Very helpful.” [DISPLAY EXAMPLES OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE DEPARTMENT

STAFF MIGHT PROVIDE]

Now please rate the following attributes related to the technical assistance provided by [GRANT PROGRAM] 

staff where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent” [DO NOT ASK OPE Qs 34-39]

Q35. Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program management

Q36. Using evidence-based practices in implementing program activities

Q37. [DO NOT ASK State Personnel Development Grants] Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program

Q38. Creating opportunities for sharing best practices via peer-to-peer learning groups

Q39: Describe how the technical assistance that Department staff provide could be improved to better support 

your program needs (consider content, structure, format, timing, etc.).

[DO NOT ASK OPE Q40.]

Q40a. Did you receive technical assistance from a DEPARTMENT-FUNDED TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROVIDER in the 

last 12 months?

Examples of Department-funded technical assistance providers:

§ Regional Laboratories

§ Comprehensive Centers

§ Equity Assistance Centers

§ Readiness and Emergency Management for Schools Technical Assistance Center

§ Neglected or Delinquent Education Technical Assistance Center
7

§ Youth for Youth: Online Professional Learning and Technical Assistance for 21st Century 

Community Learning Centers

[DISPLAY the following examples for State Personnel Development Grants]

Examples of Department-funded technical assistance providers:

§ Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) Technical Assistance Center

§ The Collaboration for Effective Educator Development, Accountability, and Reform (CEEDAR)

§ The State Implementation and Scaling-up of Evidence-based Practices Center (SISEP)

§ The National Center on Systemic Improvement (NCSI)

§ Early Childhood TA Center (ECTA)

§ The National Center on Intensive Intervention (NCII)

§ Regional Laboratories

§ Comprehensive Centers

§ Equity Assistance Centers

a. Yes (Please Identify the primary DEPARTMENT-FUNDED TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROVIDER that 

provided technical services to you)

b. No [skip to Q41]

Q40b. Please rate the extent to which [ENTRY FROM Q40a] has helped you successfully learn to implement your 

grant programs/projects? Please use a 10-point scale where “1” is “Not at all helpful” and “10” is “Very 

helpful.”

[DISPLAY the following version of Q40b. for State Personnel Development Grants]

Q40b. Please rate the extent to which [ENTRY FROM Q40a] has helped you successfully implement your projects? 

Please use a 10-point scale where “1” is “Not at all helpful” and “10” is “Very helpful.”

ACSI Benchmark Questions 

We have just a few more questions, where you can now consider ALL of [GRANT PROGRAM]’s products and 

services.

Q41. Using a 10-point scale on which “1” means “Very dissatisfied” and “10” means “Very satisfied,” how 

satisfied are you with [GRANT PROGRAM]’s products and services?

Q42. Now please rate the extent to which the products and services offered by [GRANT PROGRAM] have fallen 

short of or exceeded your expectations. Please use a 10-point scale on which “1” now means “Falls short of 

your expectations” and “10” means “Exceeds Your expectations.”

Q43. Now forget for a moment about the products and services offered by the [GRANT PROGRAM] and imagine 

the ideal products and services. How well do you think the [GRANT PROGRAM] compares with that ideal? 

Please use a 10-point scale on which “1” means “Not very close to the ideal” and “10” means “Very close to 

the ideal.” 

Q44. How much do you trust [GRANT PROGRAM] to work with you to meet your organization’s needs? Please use 

a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 means not very trusting and 10 means very trusting.

Now please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statement.

Q45. Overall, when I think of all of the [GRANT PROGRAM]’s products and services, I am satisfied with their

quality. 

a. Strongly agree
8

b. Agree

c. Disagree

d. Strongly disagree

e. Does not apply

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role?

a. Project/State Director

b. School Officer

c. Grant Coordinator

d. Superintendent

e. Business Manager

f. Other, please specify

Q47. How long have you been in this role?

a. Less than one year

b. Between 1-3 years

c. Between 4-10 years

d. More than 10 years

NOTE: EACH RESPONDENT WILL ONLY RECEIVE ONE SET OF CUSTOM QUESTIONS CONCERNING THEIR PROGRAM

Again, only think about your interactions with of [GRANT PROGRAM] when answering the following questions.

After custom question section DISPLAY: Thank you again for your time. To complete the survey and submit the 

results, please hit the “Finish” button below. Have a good day!
9

ONLY IF Q1=1 NATIVE AMERICAN AND ALASKA NATIVE CHILDREN IN SCHOOL PROGRAM ASK 1-11 BELOW

Q1.1. How often do you receive technical assistance (webinars, professional development, trainings) from the 

OELA office?

a. At least weekly

b. Monthly

c. Quarterly

d. Yearly

Q1.2. On a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 is “Poor” and 10 is “Excellent,” how helpful is that technical assistance?

Q1.3. How often do you receive monitoring and/or technical assistance support from your program officer? 

a. At least weekly

b. Monthly

c. Quarterly

c. Yearly

Q1.4. On a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 is “Poor” and 10 is “Excellent,” how helpful is that monitoring and/or 

technical assistance?

Q1.5. How often do you visit the OELA ed.gov website (http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oela/index.html)?

a. Daily

b. Weekly

c. Monthly

d. Every few months

e. Never

Q1.6. On a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 is “Poor” and 10 is “Excellent,” how useful is the OELA ed.gov website?

Q1.7. How often do you visit the National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition (NCELA) website or use 

the NEXUS newsletter?

a. Daily

b. Weekly

c. Monthly

d. Every few months

e. Never

Q1.8. On a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 is “Poor” and 10 is “Excellent,” how useful is the NCELA website and the 

NEXUS newsletter?

Q1.9. How often do you visit the OELA Facebook page?

a. Daily

b. Weekly

c. Monthly

d. Every few months

e. Never

Q1.10. On a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 is “Poor” and 10 is “Excellent,” how useful is the OELA Facebook page?

Q1.11. What, if any, improvements have you seen in OELA over the last year? (open end)
10

ONLY IF Q1=2 National Professional Development Program ASK 1-11 BELOW

Q2.1. How often do you receive technical assistance (webinars, professional development, trainings) from the 

OELA office?

a. At least weekly

b. Monthly

c. Quarterly

d. Yearly

Q2.2. On a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 is “Poor” and 10 is “Excellent,” how helpful is that technical assistance?

Q2.3. How often do you receive monitoring and/or technical assistance support from your program officer? 

a. At least weekly

b. Monthly

c. Quarterly

c. Yearly

Q2.4. On a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 is “Poor” and 10 is “Excellent,” how helpful is that monitoring and/or 

technical assistance?

Q2.5. How often do you visit the OELA ed.gov website (http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oela/index.html)?

a. Daily

b. Weekly

c. Monthly

d. Every few months

e. Never

Q2.6. On a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 is “Poor” and 10 is “Excellent,” how useful is the OELA ed.gov website?

Q2.7. How often do you visit the National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition (NCELA) website or use 

the NEXUS newsletter?

a. Daily

b. Weekly

c. Monthly

d. Every few months

e. Never

Q2.8. On a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 is “Poor” and 10 is “Excellent,” how useful is the NCELA website and the 

NEXUS newsletter?

Q2.9. How often do you visit the OELA Facebook page?

a. Daily

b. Weekly

c. Monthly

d. Every few months

e. Never

Q2.10. On a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 is “Poor” and 10 is “Excellent,” how useful is the OELA Facebook page?

Q2.11. What, if any, improvements have you seen in OELA over the last year?
11

ONLY IF Q1=3 Adult Education and Family Literacy to the State Directors of Adult Ed (AEFLA) ASK 1-11 BELOW

Q3.1. Think about the National Reporting System as a way to report your state’s performance data to OCTAE. On 

a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate the NRS’s ease of reporting using the 

NRS Web-based system.

Q3.2. Think about the training offered by OCTAE through its contract to support the National Reporting System 

(NRS). On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate the usefulness of the 

training.

If you have been monitored, think about the federal monitoring process as it relates to your AEFLA grant. On a 10-

point scale, where “1” is,” Not Very Effective” and “10” is “Very effective,” please rate the effectiveness of the 

federal monitoring process on the following:

Q3.3. Being well-organized

Q3.4. Providing pre-planning adequate guidance

Q3.5. Setting expectations for the visit

Think about the national meetings and conference offered by OCTAE. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Poor” and 

“10” is “Excellent”, please rate the information provided at these conferences and institutes on the following:

Q3.6. Being up-to-date 

Q3.7. Relevance of information

Q3.8. Usefulness to your program 

Think about the national activities offered by DAEL. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is,” Poor” and “10” is 

“Excellent,” please rate the activities on the following:

Q3.9 Usefulness of the products in helping your state meet AEFLA program priorities.

Q3.10.How well does the technical assistance provided through the national activities address your program 

priorities and needs? Please use a 10-point scale where “1” means “does not address needs very well” and 

“10” means “addresses needs very well.”

Q3.11.What can DAEL do over the next year to meet your state’s technical assistance/program improvement 

needs? 

Please think about your experience using the Division of Adult Education and Literacy’s online resources on the 

AEFLA.ED.GOV website. (Note that these ratings should pertain specifically to the AEFLA.ED.GOV website, and not 

the ED.GOV website.) 

On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate the following: 

Q3.12 Ability to find specific information

Q3.13 Quality of content (e.g., materials are up-to-date, accurate, helpful, etc.)

Q3.14 Ability to accomplish what you want on the site

Q3.15 Accuracy of search results

Q3.16 Ability to navigate within the site

Q3.17 Look and feel/Visual appearance

Q3.18 Please describe how the Division of Adult Education and Literacy could improve its AEFLA.ED.GOV website 

(open end)
12

ONLY IF Q1= 4 Carl D. Perkins Career & Technical Education Program to the State Directors of Career & Technical 

Ed ASK 1-5 BELOW

[IF Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education State Directors]

Q4.1. CAR’s user friendliness

Q4.2. PCRN’s usefulness to your program

[IF Carl D. Perkins Discretionary Grant Recipients]

Q4.3. Effectiveness of DATE in helping you implement grant programs

Q4.4. Technical assistance received on project implementation and budget questions

Q4.5. Usefulness and relevance of project director meeting in providing technical assistance
13

ONLY IF Q1=5 Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Education ASK 1-5 BELOW

Q5.1. PCRN’s usefulness to your program

Q5.2. Effectiveness of DATE in helping you implement grant programs

Q5.3. Technical assistance received on project implementation and budget questions

Q5.4. Usefulness and relevance of project director meeting in providing technical assistance
14

ONLY IF Q1=6 Native American Career and Technical Education ASK 1-5 BELOW

Q6.1. PCRN’s usefulness to your program

Q6.2. Effectiveness of DATE in helping you implement grant programs

Q6.3. Technical assistance received on project implementation and budget questions

Q6.4. Usefulness and relevance of project director meeting in providing technical assistance
15

ONLY IF Q1=7 IDEA - State Directors of Special Education (Part B) ASK 1-8 BELOW

Q7.1. How often do you receive technical assistance and support from your State lead?

a. At least weekly

b. Monthly

c. Quarterly

d. Yearly

e. My State Lead does not contact me

Q7.2. In the past 12 months, how often were you a part of (actively or passively) an education or special education 

policy discussion with OSEP staff?

a. At least weekly

b. Monthly

c. Quarterly

d. Yearly 

e. None

Assistance from OSEP Staff and other Professional Resources

Think about the technical assistance and support provided by state Contactsfrom the Monitoring and State

Improvement Planning (MSIP) Division of the Office of Special Education Programs(OSEP). On a 10-point scale,

where “1” is poor and “10” is excellent, please rate the staff’s:

Q7.3. Clarity of information received in developing your state’s applications, annual performance reports and other 

required submissions

Q7.4. Timeliness of responses (i.e., returning phone calls; responding to emails; forwarding to others when 

appropriate)

Think about the types of technical assistance and support provided by OSEP such as Dear Colleague letters,

Question and Answer documents, MSIP monthly TA calls, OSEP-Director’s newsletter, topical webinars, etc.

Q7.5. Which types of assistance were most effective in helping you meet federal requirements and/or improve 

program quality?

Q7.6. Which types of assistance were least helpful?

Q7.7. How often do you access the following resources to support your efforts to implement practices based on 

evidence in your state? (Please use a 10-point scale in which “1” means “Never” and “10” means “Very frequently”)

a. An OSEP-funded TA provider

b. An Education Department-funded TA provider (funded by an office other than OSEP)

c. Professional associations (including conferences, listservs, and publications)

d. Conferences where research is presented

e. Books

f. Journal Articles

g. Personal interaction with peers

h. IDEAS that work website

i. The Department’s new IDEA website

j. osep.grads360.org

Q7.8. Describe the impact it might have on the State if OSEP were to fully automate the IDEA formula grant 

submission and approval process.
16

Q7.9. In light of the challenges (e.g., need for policy guidance) that emerged this year because of the pandemic, 

how effective was the TA you received from your state contact or project office?

Q7.10 Please provide any suggestions you have to improve the technical assistance you received should we be 

faced with future national emergencies. 

ONLY IF Q1=8 IDEA-Part C Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities Program ASK 1-7 BELOW

Assistance from OSEP Staff

Think about the technical assistance and support provided by state contactsfrom the Monitoring and State

Improvement Planning (MSIP) Division of the Office of Special Education Programs(OSEP). On a 10-point scale,

where “1” is poor and “10” is excellent, please rate the staff’s:

Q8.1. How often do you receive technical assistance and support from your State lead?

a. At least weekly

b. Monthly

c. Quarterly

d. Yearly

e. My State Lead does not contact me

Q8.2. Clarity of information received in developing your state’s applications, annual performance reports and other 

required submissions.

Q8.3. Timeliness of responses (i.e., returning phone calls; responding to emails; forwarding to others when 

appropriate)

Think about the types of technical assistance and support provided by OSEP such as Dear Colleague letters,

Question and Answer documents, MSIP monthly TA calls, OSEP-Director’s newsletter, topical webinars, etc.

Q8.4. Which types of assistance were most effective in helping you meet federal requirements and/or improve 

program quality?

Q8.5. Which types of assistance were least helpful?

Q8.6. How often do you access the following resources to support your efforts to implement practices based on 

evidence in your state? (Please use a 10-point scale in which “1” means “Never” and “10” means “Very frequently”)

a. IDEAC6. An OSEP-funded TA provider

b. An Education Department-funded TA provider (funded by an office other than OSEP)

c. Professional associations (including conferences, listservs, and publications)

d. Conferences where research is presented

e. Books

f. Journal Articles

g. Personal interaction with peers

h. IDEAS that work website

i. The Department’s new IDEA website

j. osep.grads360.org

Q8.7. If OSEP were to fully automate the IDEA formula grant submission and approval process, how helpful would 

that be to the State? Please use the scale below where 0 is Not Helpful and 5 is Very Helpful.
17

Q8.8. In light of the challenges (e.g., need for policy guidance) that emerged this year because of the pandemic, 

how effective was the TA you received from your state contact or project office?

Q8.9 Please provide any suggestions you have to improve the technical assistance you received should we be faced 

with future national emergencies. 
18

ONLY IF Q1=9 REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (RSA) VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION PROGRAM ASK 

1-9 BELOW

Please consider the technical support provided by state liaisons and teams from the State Monitoring and Program 

Improvement Division of the Rehabilitation Services Administration. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Poor” and 

“10” is “Excellent,” please rate the staff’s: 

Q9.1. Responsiveness to your questions and requests for technical assistance.

Q9.2. Supportiveness in helping you complete your Unified or Combined State Plan. 

Q9.3. Dissemination of subregulatory guidance including policy directives, information memoranda, and technical 

assistance circulars. 

Q9.4. Provision of effective training and dissemination of relevant information through webinars, national 

conferences, email distribution lists and teleconferences.

Q9.5. In interacting with the State Monitoring and Program Improvement Division team assigned to your agency, 

please rate the service /support in the following areas on a 1 to 10 scale where 1 means Poor and 10 means 

Excellent. If you did not receive information or feedback in an area please select “N/A”.

a. Data Collection and Reporting

b. Fiscal/Grant Management 

c. Programmatic 

d. Technical Assistance

On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate the Rehabilitation Services 

Administration website at https://RSA.ED.GOV. If your interactions with the website did not include the nature of 

the item listed, please select “N/A” for that item.

Q9.6. Utility of the website (RSA.ED.GOV) for entering required data, retrieving and revising reports. 

Q9.7. Ease of navigating website (RSA.ED.GOV). 

Q9.8. Usefulness of information available on the website (RSA.ED.GOV).

Q9.9. Website (RSA.ED.GOV) technical support. 

Q9.10. In light of the challenges (e.g., need for policy guidance) that emerged this year because of the pandemic, 

how effective was the TA you received from your state contact or project office?

Q9.11 Please provide any suggestions you have to improve the technical assistance you received should we be 

faced with future national emergencies. 
19

ONLY IF Q1=10 Rehabilitation Long-Term Training Program ASK 1-8 BELOW

Q10.1 What training would you like RSA to provide to assist you better in managing your RLTT grant?

a. Statutory and regulatory program requirements

b. Payback requirements

c. Uniform Guidance

d. Calculating the required 10 percent cost share

e. Calculating the competitive preference match at 50 percent and 100 percent, if applicable

f. Calculating the required 65 percent scholar support

g. Other – Please identify in box below.

Q10.2 How can RLTT Project Officers assist you better with fiscal management, program reporting or other 

technical areas?

Q10.3 On a scale of 1-10, where “1” means “very dissatisfied” and “10” means “very satisfied,” how would you 

rate the usefulness of messages that are disseminated via the RSA listserv? 

Q10.4 On a scale of 1-10, where “1” means “very dissatisfied” and “10” means “very satisfied,” how would you 

rate the timeliness of messages that are disseminated via the RSA listserv? 

Q10.5 On a scale of 1-10, where “1” means “very dissatisfied” and “10” means “very satisfied,” how effective 

would you rate the Rehabilitation Long-Term Training program in training vocational rehabilitation 

counselors for employment in State Vocational Rehabilitation agencies? Please provide an explanation to 

support your rating.

Q10.6 Describe how your Rehabilitation Long-Term Training grant project is improving employment outcomes for 

individuals with disabilities. 

Q10.7. In light of the challenges (e.g., need for policy guidance) that emerged this year because of the pandemic, 

how effective was the TA you received from your state contact or project office?

Q10.8 Please provide any suggestions you have to improve the technical assistance you received should we be 

faced with future national emergencies. 
20

ONLY IF Q1=11 IDEA National Centers 

Q11.1. Think about the types of technical assistance and support provided by your OSEP Project Officer. Which types 

of assistance were most effective in helping you meet federal requirements and/or improve program quality?

Q11.2. Which types of assistance were least helpful?

Q11.3. In light of the challenges (e.g., need for policy guidance) that emerged this year because of the pandemic, 

how effective was the TA you received from your state contact or project office?

Q11.4 Please provide any suggestions you have to improve the technical assistance you received should we be 

faced with future national emergencies. 
21

ONLY IF Q1=12 State Personnel Development Grants (SPDG) *(NEW Program in 2021)

Think about the types of technical assistance and support provided by OSEP and SIGnetwork such as the 

SIGnetwork newsletter, Directors’ webinars, communities of practice, SIGnetwork website, just-in-time discussions 

(e.g., evaluation during COVID, changes to Program Measures), and the SPDG National Meeting.

Q12.1. Which types of assistance were most effective in helping you improve your project’s services?

Q12.2. Which types of assistance were least helpful?

Q12.3. How often do you access the following resources to support your efforts to implement practices based on 

evidence in your state? Please use a 10-point scale in which “1” means “Never” and “10” means “Very frequently.”

a. An OSEP-funded TA provider

b. An Education Department-funded TA provider (funded by an office other than OSEP)

c. Professional associations (including conferences, listservs, and publications)

d. Conferences where research is presented

e. Books

f. Journal Articles

g. Personal interaction with peers

h. IDEAs that work website

i. The Department’s new IDEA website

Q12.4. How helpful was ED Staff in supporting the growth of the grant and how help from ED staff helped improve 

the project? Please use a 10-point scale in which “1” means “Not at All” and “10” means “Very Helpful.”

Q12.5. In light of the challenges (e.g., need for policy guidance) that emerged this year because of the pandemic, 

how effective was the TA you received from your state contact or project office?

Q12.6Please provide any suggestions you have to improve the technical assistance you received should we be 

faced with future national emergencies. 
22

ONLY IF Q1=13 Independent Living Services for Older Individuals Who Are Blind (IL-OIB) *(NEW Program in 2021)

Interaction with RSA staff

Q13.1. Please consider the support provided to the Independent Living Services for Older Individuals Who Are 

Blind (OIB) program by the RSA OIB program manager and other staff of the State Monitoring and Program 

Improvement Division of the Rehabilitation Services Administration. Please rate the service/support in the 

following areas on a 1 to 10 scale, where “1” means “Poor” and “10” means “Excellent.” If you did not receive 

information or feedback in an area, please select “N/A”.

a. Data Collection and Reporting (RSA Form 7-OB)

b. Fiscal/Grant Management 

c. Program Performance

d. Technical Assistance

Q13.2. Now please consider the effective training efforts and dissemination of relevant information through 

webinars, national conferences, email distribution lists, and teleconferences delivered by the RSA-funded OIB 

Technical Assistance Center at Mississippi State University. Please rate these services/support on a 1 to 10 scale, 

where “1” means “Poor” and “10” means “Excellent.” 

Q13.3 Please rate the following aspects of the Rehabilitation Services Administration website at 

https://RSA.ED.GOV on a 1 to 10 scale, where “1” means “Poor” and “10” means “Excellent.” 

a. Utility of the website (RSA.ED.GOV) for entering required data, retrieving, and revising reports 

b. Ease of navigating website (RSA.ED.GOV) 

c. Usefulness of information available on the website (RSA.ED.GOV)

d. Website (RSA.ED.GOV) technical support 

Q13.4. In light of the challenges (e.g., need for policy guidance) that emerged this year because of the pandemic, 

how effective was the TA you received from your state contact or project office?

Q13.5 Please provide any suggestions you have to improve the technical assistance you received should we be 

faced with future national emergencies. 
23

ONLY IF Q1=14 Strengthening Institutions Program ASK 1-7 BELOW

Technical Assistance

Q14.1. COVID-19 was initially reported to the WHO on December 31, 2019. On January 30, 2020, the WHO 

declared the COVID-19 outbreak a global health emergency. On March 11, 2020, the WHO declared COVID-19 a 

global pandemic. As we know, this emergency affected every aspect of our lives, especially our jobs. We would 

like to know how satisfied you were with the technical assistance you received from your program specialist during 

this pandemic. Think about your experience receiving technical assistance from your program specialist this past 

year and rate the following: 

a. Responsiveness to your questions

b. Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and procedures

c. Ability to resolve issues

d. Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication

e. Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial issues

Q14.2. Please tell us how the technical assistance you received from your program specialist this past year was 

affected by the pandemic, as well as any suggestions you have to improve the technical assistance you received 

should we be faced with future national emergencies.

Distribution of Funds

Q14.3. Please rate the following aspects of the process by which you receive grant funding for the Strengthening 

Institutions Program from the Office of Postsecondary Education: 

a. Timeliness of the grant award notification

b. Degree to which funds are available with adequate time to plan for implementation by the start 

of the school year

c. Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees 

Communication with Program Specialist

Q14.4. Please rate the quality of the communication with your the Strengthening Institutions Program specialist.

a. Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed

b. Frequency of communication

c. Clarity of communication

Q14.5. What can the Strengthening Institutions Program do to improve communication with you?

Q14.6. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with your program specialist?

a. Individual Email

b. “Blast/distribution list” email

c. Telephone

d. Webinar

e. Other (specify_______)

Q14.7.How would you advise on improving the overall process and protocols associated with this grant 

competition?
24

ONLY IF Q1=15 Alaskan Native and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions - Part A ASK 1-7 BELOW

Technical Assistance

Q15.1. COVID-19 was initially reported to the WHO on December 31, 2019. On January 30, 2020, the WHO 

declared the COVID-19 outbreak a global health emergency. On March 11, 2020, the WHO declared COVID-19 a 

global pandemic. As we know, this emergency affected every aspect of our lives, especially our jobs. We would 

like to know how satisfied you were with the technical assistance you received from your program specialist during 

this pandemic. 

Think about your experience receiving technical assistance from your program specialist this past year and rate the 

following: 

a. Responsiveness to your questions

b. Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and procedures

c. Ability to resolve issues

d. Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication

e. Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial issues

Q15.2. Please tell us how the technical assistance you received from your program specialist this past year was 

affected by the pandemic, as well as any suggestions you have to improve the technical assistance you received 

should we be faced with future national emergencies.

Distribution of Funds

Q15.3. Please rate the following aspects of the process by which you receive grant funding for the ANNH from the 

Office of Postsecondary Education: 

a. Timeliness of the grant award notification

b. Degree to which funds are available with adequate time to plan for implementation by the start 

of the school year

c. Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees 

Communication with Program Specialist

Q15.4. Please rate the quality of the communication with your ANNH specialist.

a. Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed

b. Frequency of communication

c. Clarity of communication

Q15.5. What can the ANNH do to improve communication with you?

Q15.6. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with your program specialist?

a. Individual Email

b. “Blast/distribution list” email

c. Telephone

d. Webinar

e. Other (specify_______)

Q15.7.How would you advise on improving the overall process and protocols associated with this grant 

competition?
25

ONLY IF Q1=16 Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions (DHSI) ASK 1-7 BELOW

Technical Assistance

Q16.1. COVID-19 was initially reported to the WHO on December 31, 2019. On January 30, 2020, the WHO 

declared the COVID-19 outbreak a global health emergency. On March 11, 2020, the WHO declared COVID-19 a 

global pandemic. As we know, this emergency affected every aspect of our lives, especially our jobs. We would 

like to know how satisfied you were with the technical assistance you received from your program specialist during 

this pandemic. Think about your experience receiving technical assistance from your program specialist this past 

year and rate the following: 

a. Responsiveness to your questions

b. Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and procedures

c. Ability to resolve issues

d. Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication

e. Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial issues

Q16.2. Please tell us how the technical assistance you received from your program specialist this past year was 

affected by the pandemic, as well as any suggestions you have to improve the technical assistance you received 

should we be faced with future national emergencies.

Distribution of Funds

Q16.3. Please rate the following aspects of the process by which you receive grant funding for the Developing 

Hispanic Serving Institutions from the Office of Postsecondary Education: 

a. Timeliness of the grant award notification

b. Degree to which funds are available with adequate time to plan for implementation by the start 

of the school year

c. Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees 

Communication with Program Specialist

Q16.4. Please rate the quality of the communication with your Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions specialist.

a. Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed

b. Frequency of communication

c. Clarity of communication

Q16.5. What can the Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions do to improve communication with you? 

Q16.6. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with your program specialist?

a. Individual Email

b. “Blast/distribution list” email

c. Telephone

d. Webinar

e. Other (specify_______)

Q16.7.How would you advise on improving the overall process and protocols associated with this grant 

competition?
26

ONLY IF Q1=17 Promoting Post Baccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans (PPOHA) ASK 1-7 BELOW

Technical Assistance

Q17.1. COVID-19 was initially reported to the WHO on December 31, 2019. On January 30, 2020, the WHO 

declared the COVID-19 outbreak a global health emergency. On March 11, 2020, the WHO declared COVID-19 a 

global pandemic. As we know, this emergency affected every aspect of our lives, especially our jobs. We would 

like to know how satisfied you were with the technical assistance you received from your program specialist during 

this pandemic. Think about your experience receiving technical assistance from your program specialist this past 

year and rate the following: 

a. Responsiveness to your questions

b. Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and procedures

c. Ability to resolve issues

d. Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication

e. Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial issues

Q17.2. Please tell us how the technical assistance you received from your program specialist this past year was 

affected by the pandemic, as well as any suggestions you have to improve the technical assistance you received 

should we be faced with future national emergencies.

Distribution of Funds

Q17.3. Please rate the following aspects of the process by which you receive grant funding for the PPOHA from the 

Office of Postsecondary Education: 

a. Timeliness of the grant award notification

b. Degree to which funds are available with adequate time to plan for implementation by the start 

of the school year

c. Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees 

Communication with Program Specialist

Q17.4. Please rate the quality of the communication with your PPOHA specialist.

a. Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed

b. Frequency of communication

c. Clarity of communication

Q17.5. What can the PPOHA do to improve communication with you? 

Q17.6. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with your program specialist?

a. Individual Email

b. “Blast/distribution list” email

c. Telephone

d. Webinar

e. Other (specify_______)

Q17.7.How would you advise on improving the overall process and protocols associated with this grant 

competition?
27

ONLY IF Q1=18 Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities (TCCU) ASK 1-7 BELOW

Technical Assistance

Q18.1. COVID-19 was initially reported to the WHO on December 31, 2019. On January 30, 2020, the WHO 

declared the COVID-19 outbreak a global health emergency. On March 11, 2020, the WHO declared COVID-19 a 

global pandemic. As we know, this emergency affected every aspect of our lives, especially our jobs. We would 

like to know how satisfied you were with the technical assistance you received from your program specialist during 

this pandemic. Think about your experience receiving technical assistance from your program specialist this past 

year and rate the following: 

a. Responsiveness to your questions

b. Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and procedures

c. Ability to resolve issues

d. Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication

e. Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial issues

Q18.2. Please tell us how the technical assistance you received from your program specialist this past year was 

affected by the pandemic, as well as any suggestions you have to improve the technical assistance you received 

should we be faced with future national emergencies.

Distribution of Funds

Q18.3. Please rate the following aspects of the process by which you receive grant funding for the TCCU from the 

Office of Postsecondary Education: 

a. Timeliness of the grant award notification

b. Degree to which funds are available with adequate time to plan for implementation by the start 

of the school year

c. Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees 

Communication with Program Specialist

Q18.4. Please rate the quality of the communication with your TCCU specialist.

a. Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed

b. Frequency of communication

c. Clarity of communication

Q18.5. What can the TCCU do to improve communication with you? 

Q18.6. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with your program specialist?

a. Individual Email

b. “Blast/distribution list” email

c. Telephone

d. Webinar

e. Other (specify_______)

Q18.7.How would you advise on improving the overall process and protocols associated with this grant 

competition?
28

ONLY IF Q1=19 Native American Serving Non-Tribal Institutions (NASNTI) ASK 1-7 BELOW

Technical Assistance

Q19.1. COVID-19 was initially reported to the WHO on December 31, 2019. On January 30, 2020, the WHO 

declared the COVID-19 outbreak a global health emergency. On March 11, 2020, the WHO declared COVID-19 a 

global pandemic. As we know, this emergency affected every aspect of our lives, especially our jobs. We would 

like to know how satisfied you were with the technical assistance you received from your program specialist during 

this pandemic. Think about your experience receiving technical assistance from your program specialist this past 

year and rate the following: 

a. Responsiveness to your questions

b. Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and procedures

c. Ability to resolve issues

d. Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication

e. Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial issues

Q19.2. Please tell us how the technical assistance you received from your program specialist this past year was 

affected by the pandemic, as well as any suggestions you have to improve the technical assistance you received 

should we be faced with future national emergencies.

Distribution of Funds

Q19.3. Please rate the following aspects of the process by which you receive grant funding for the NASNTI from the 

Office of Postsecondary Education: 

a. Timeliness of the grant award notification

b. Degree to which funds are available with adequate time to plan for implementation by the start 

of the school year

c. Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees 

Communication with Program Specialist

Q19.4. Please rate the quality of the communication with your NASNTI specialist.

a. Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed

b. Frequency of communication

c. Clarity of communication

Q19.5. What can the NASNTI do to improve communication with you? 

Q19.6. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with your program specialist?

a. Individual Email

b. “Blast/distribution list” email

c. Telephone

d. Webinar

e. Other (specify_______)

Q19.7.How would you advise on improving the overall process and protocols associated with this grant 

competition?
29

ONLY IF Q1=20 Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander Institutions (AANAPISI) ASK 1-7 BELOW

Technical Assistance

Q20.1. COVID-19 was initially reported to the WHO on December 31, 2019. On January 30, 2020, the WHO 

declared the COVID-19 outbreak a global health emergency. On March 11, 2020, the WHO declared COVID-19 a 

global pandemic. As we know, this emergency affected every aspect of our lives, especially our jobs. We would 

like to know how satisfied you were with the technical assistance you received from your program specialist during 

this pandemic. Think about your experience receiving technical assistance from your program specialist this past 

year and rate the following: 

a. Responsiveness to your questions

b. Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and procedures

c. Ability to resolve issues

d. Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication

e. Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial issues

Q20.2. Please tell us how the technical assistance you received from your program specialist this past year was 

affected by the pandemic, as well as any suggestions you have to improve the technical assistance you received 

should we be faced with future national emergencies.

Distribution of Funds

Q20.3. Please rate the following aspects of the process by which you receive grant funding for the AANAPISI from 

the Office of Postsecondary Education: 

a. Timeliness of the grant award notification

b. Degree to which funds are available with adequate time to plan for implementation by the start 

of the school year

c. Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees 

Communication with Program Specialist

Q20.4. Please rate the quality of the communication with your AANAPISI specialist.

a. Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed

b. Frequency of communication

c. Clarity of communication

Q20.5. What can the AANAPISI do to improve communication with you? 

Q20.6. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with your program specialist?

a. Individual Email

b. “Blast/distribution list” email

c. Telephone

d. Webinar

e. Other (specify_______)

Q20.7.How would you advise on improving the overall process and protocols associated with this grant 

competition?
30

ONLY IF Q1=21 Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad Fellowships ASK 1-8 BELOW

Technical Assistance

Q21.1. COVID-19 was initially reported to the WHO on December 31, 2019. On January 30, 2020, the WHO 

declared the COVID-19 outbreak a global health emergency. On March 11, 2020, the WHO declared COVID-19 a 

global pandemic. As we know, this emergency affected every aspect of our lives, especially our jobs. We would 

like to know how satisfied you were with the technical assistance you received from your program specialist during 

this pandemic. Think about your experience receiving technical assistance from your program specialist this past 

year and rate the following: 

a. Responsiveness to your questions

b. Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and procedures

c. Ability to resolve issues

d. Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication

e. Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial issues

Q21.2. Please tell us how the technical assistance you received from your program specialist this past year was 

affected by the pandemic, as well as any suggestions you have to improve the technical assistance you received 

should we be faced with future national emergencies.

Distribution of Funds

Q21.3. Please rate the following aspects of the process by which you receive grant funding for Doctoral 

Dissertation Research Abroad Fellowships from the Office of Postsecondary Education: 

a. Timeliness of the grant award notification

b. Degree to which funds are available with adequate time to plan for implementation by the start 

of the school year

c. Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees 

Communication with Program Specialist

Q21.4. Please rate the quality of the communication with your Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad Fellowships 

specialist.

a. Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed

b. Frequency of communication

c. Clarity of communication

Q21.5. What can Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad Fellowships do to improve communication with you? 

Q21.6. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with your program specialist?

a. Individual Email

b. “Blast/distribution list” email

c. Telephone

d. Webinar

e. Other (specify_______)

Q21.7.Think about the extent to which the International and Foreign Language Education (IFLE) program 

establishes, strengthens, and operates language and area or international studies centers. On a 10-point 

scale where “1” means poor and “10” means excellent please rate the extent to which you agree with the 

following:

a. The IFLE program(s) under my purview is effective in supporting instruction in fields needed to provide full 

understanding of areas, regions or countries

b. The IFLE program(s) under my purview supports work in the language aspects of professional and other 

fields of study
31

c. The IFLE program(s) under my purview supports research and training in international studies

Q21.8. On a 10-point scale where “1” means poor and “10” means excellent please rate the extent to which the 

International and Foreign Language Education (IFLE) grant program establishes and strengthens: 

a. Teaching of any modern foreign language

b. Instruction in fields needed to provide full understanding of areas, regions, or countries in which the 

language is commonly used

c. Research and training in international studies

d. Language aspects of professional and other fields of study

e. Instruction and research on issues in world affairs
32

ONLY IF Q1=22 Groups Projects Abroad ASK 1-8 BELOW

Technical Assistance

Q22.1. COVID-19 was initially reported to the WHO on December 31, 2019. On January 30, 2020, the WHO 

declared the COVID-19 outbreak a global health emergency. On March 11, 2020, the WHO declared COVID-19 a 

global pandemic. As we know, this emergency affected every aspect of our lives, especially our jobs. We would 

like to know how satisfied you were with the technical assistance you received from your program specialist during 

this pandemic. Think about your experience receiving technical assistance from your program specialist this past 

year and rate the following: 

a. Responsiveness to your questions

b. Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and procedures

c. Ability to resolve issues

d. Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication

e. Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial issues

Q22.2. Please tell us how the technical assistance you received from your program specialist this past year was 

affected by the pandemic, as well as any suggestions you have to improve the technical assistance you received 

should we be faced with future national emergencies.

Distribution of Funds

Q22.3. Please rate the following aspects of the process by which you receive grant funding for Group Projects 

Abroad from the Office of Postsecondary Education: 

a. Timeliness of the grant award notification

b. Degree to which funds are available with adequate time to plan for implementation by the start 

of the school year

c. Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees 

Communication with Program Specialist

Q22.4. Please rate the quality of the communication with your Group Projects Abroad specialist.

a. Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed

b. Frequency of communication

c. Clarity of communication

Q22.5. What can Group Projects Abroad do to improve communication with you? 

Q22.6. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with your program specialist?

a. Individual Email

b. “Blast/distribution list” email

c. Telephone

d. Webinar

e. Other (specify_______)

Q22.7.Think about the extent to which the International and Foreign Language Education (IFLE) program 

establishes, strengthens, and operates language and area or international studies centers. On a 10-point 

scale where “1” means poor and “10” means excellent please rate the extent to which you agree with the 

following:

a. The IFLE program(s) under my purview is effective in supporting instruction in fields needed to provide full 

understanding of areas, regions or countries

b. The IFLE program(s) under my purview supports work in the language aspects of professional and other 

fields of study

c. The IFLE program(s) under my purview supports research and training in international studies
33

Q22.8. On a 10-point scale where “1” means poor and “10” means excellent please rate the extent to which the 

International and Foreign Language Education (IFLE) grant program establishes and strengthens: 

a. Teaching of any modern foreign language

b. Instruction in fields needed to provide full understanding of areas, regions, or countries in which the 

language is commonly used

c. Research and training in international studies

d. Language aspects of professional and other fields of study

e. Instruction and research on issues in world affairs
34

ONLY IF Q1=23 Hispanic-Serving Institutions - Science, Technology, Engineering, or Mathematics and Articulation 

Programs ASK 1-7 BELOW

Technical Assistance

Q23.1. COVID-19 was initially reported to the WHO on December 31, 2019. On January 30, 2020, the WHO 

declared the COVID-19 outbreak a global health emergency. On March 11, 2020, the WHO declared COVID-19 a 

global pandemic. As we know, this emergency affected every aspect of our lives, especially our jobs. We would 

like to know how satisfied you were with the technical assistance you received from your program specialist during 

this pandemic. Think about your experience receiving technical assistance from your program specialist this past 

year and rate the following: 

a. Responsiveness to your questions

b. Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and procedures

c. Ability to resolve issues

d. Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication

e. Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial issues

Q23.2. Please tell us how the technical assistance you received from your program specialist this past year was 

affected by the pandemic, as well as any suggestions you have to improve the technical assistance you received 

should we be faced with future national emergencies.

Distribution of Funds

Q23.3. Please rate the following aspects of the process by which you receive grant funding for the HSI - Science, 

Technology, Engineering, or Mathematics and Articulation program from the Office of Postsecondary Education: 

a. Timeliness of the grant award notification

b. Degree to which funds are available with adequate time to plan for implementation by the start 

of the school year

c. Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees 

Communication with Program Specialist

Q23.4. Please rate the quality of the communication with your HSI - Science, Technology, Engineering, or 

Mathematics and Articulation program specialist.

a. Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed

b. Frequency of communication

c. Clarity of communication

Q23.5. What can the HSI - Science, Technology, Engineering, or Mathematics and Articulation program do to 

improve communication with you? 

Q23.6. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with your program specialist?

a. Individual Email

b. “Blast/distribution list” email

c. Telephone

d. Webinar

e. Other (specify_______)

Q23.7.How would you advise on improving the overall process and protocols associated with this grant 

competition?
35

ONLY IF Q1=24 Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships ASK 1-8 BELOW

Technical Assistance

Q24.1. COVID-19 was initially reported to the WHO on December 31, 2019. On January 30, 2020, the WHO 

declared the COVID-19 outbreak a global health emergency. On March 11, 2020, the WHO declared COVID-19 a 

global pandemic. As we know, this emergency affected every aspect of our lives, especially our jobs. We would 

like to know how satisfied you were with the technical assistance you received from your program specialist during 

this pandemic. Think about your experience receiving technical assistance from your program specialist this past 

year and rate the following: 

a. Responsiveness to your questions

b. Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and procedures

c. Ability to resolve issues

d. Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication

e. Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial issues

Q24.2. Please tell us how the technical assistance you received from your program specialist this past year was 

affected by the pandemic, as well as any suggestions you have to improve the technical assistance you received 

should we be faced with future national emergencies.

Distribution of Funds

Q24.3. Please rate the following aspects of the process by which you receive grant funding for Foreign Language 

and Srea Studies Fellowships from the Office of Postsecondary Education: 

d. Timeliness of the grant award notification

e. Degree to which funds are available with adequate time to plan for implementation by the start 

of the school year

f. Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees 

Communication with Program Specialist

Q24.4. Please rate the quality of the communication with your Foreign Language and Srea Studies Fellowships

specialist.

d. Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed

e. Frequency of communication

f. Clarity of communication

Q24.5. What can Foreign Language and Srea Studies Fellowships do to improve communication with you? 

Q24.6. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with your program specialist?

f. Individual Email

g. “Blast/distribution list” email

h. Telephone

i. Webinar

j. Other (specify_______)

Q24.7.Think about the extent to which the International and Foreign Language Education (IFLE) program 

establishes, strengthens, and operates language and area or international studies centers. On a 10-point 

scale where “1” means poor and “10” means excellent please rate the extent to which you agree with the 

following:

d. The IFLE program(s) under my purview is effective in supporting instruction in fields needed to provide full 

understanding of areas, regions or countries

e. The IFLE program(s) under my purview supports work in the language aspects of professional and other 

fields of study
36

f. The IFLE program(s) under my purview supports research and training in international studies

Q24.8. On a 10-point scale where “1” means poor and “10” means excellent please rate the extent to which the 

International and Foreign Language Education (IFLE) grant program establishes and strengthens: 

f. Teaching of any modern foreign language

g. Instruction in fields needed to provide full understanding of areas, regions, or countries in which the 

language is commonly used

h. Research and training in international studies

i. Language aspects of professional and other fields of study

j. Instruction and research on issues in world affairs
37

ONLY IF Q1=25 Talent Search ASK 1-7 BELOW

Technical Assistance

Q25.1. COVID-19 was initially reported to the WHO on December 31, 2019. On January 30, 2020, the WHO 

declared the COVID-19 outbreak a global health emergency. On March 11, 2020, the WHO declared COVID-19 a 

global pandemic. As we know, this emergency affected every aspect of our lives, especially our jobs. We would 

like to know how satisfied you were with the technical assistance you received from your program specialist during 

this pandemic. Think about your experience receiving technical assistance from your program specialist this past 

year and rate the following: 

a. Responsiveness to your questions

b. Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and procedures

c. Ability to resolve issues

d. Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication

e. Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial issues

Q25.2. Please tell us how the technical assistance you received from your program specialist this past year was 

affected by the pandemic, as well as any suggestions you have to improve the technical assistance you received 

should we be faced with future national emergencies.

Distribution of Funds

Q25.3. Please rate the following aspects of the process by which you receive grant funding for the Talent Search

from the Office of Postsecondary Education: 

a. Timeliness of the grant award notification

b. Degree to which funds are available with adequate time to plan for implementation by the start 

of the school year

c. Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees 

Communication with Program Specialist

Q25.4. Please rate the quality of the communication with your Talent Search specialist.

a. Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed

b. Frequency of communication

c. Clarity of communication

Q25.5. What can the Talent Search do to improve communication with you? 

Q25.6. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with your program specialist?

a. Individual Email

b. “Blast/distribution list” email

c. Telephone

d. Webinar

e. Other (specify_______)

Q25.7.How would you advise on improving the overall process and protocols associated with this grant 

competition?
38

ONLY IF Q1=26 Upward Bound Math and Science ASK 1-7 BELOW

Technical Assistance

Q26.1. COVID-19 was initially reported to the WHO on December 31, 2019. On January 30, 2020, the WHO 

declared the COVID-19 outbreak a global health emergency. On March 11, 2020, the WHO declared COVID-19 a 

global pandemic. As we know, this emergency affected every aspect of our lives, especially our jobs. We would 

like to know how satisfied you were with the technical assistance you received from your program specialist during 

this pandemic. Think about your experience receiving technical assistance from your program specialist this past 

year and rate the following: 

a. Responsiveness to your questions

b. Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and procedures

c. Ability to resolve issues

d. Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication

e. Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial issues

Q26.2. Please tell us how the technical assistance you received from your program specialist this past year was 

affected by the pandemic, as well as any suggestions you have to improve the technical assistance you received 

should we be faced with future national emergencies.

Distribution of Funds

Q26.3. Please rate the following aspects of the process by which you receive grant funding for Upward Bound 

Math and Science from the Office of Postsecondary Education: 

a. Timeliness of the grant award notification

b. Degree to which funds are available with adequate time to plan for implementation by the start 

of the school year

c. Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees 

Communication with Program Specialist

Q26.4. Please rate the quality of the communication with your Upward Bound Math and Science specialist.

a. Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed

b. Frequency of communication

c. Clarity of communication

Q26.5. What can Upward Bound Math and Science do to improve communication with you? 

Q26.6. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with your program specialist?

a. Individual Email

b. “Blast/distribution list” email

c. Telephone

d. Webinar

e. Other (specify_______)

Q26.7.How would you advise on improving the overall process and protocols associated with this grant 

competition?
39

ONLY IF Q1=27 Veterans Upward Bound ASK 1-7 BELOW

Technical Assistance

Q27.1. COVID-19 was initially reported to the WHO on December 31, 2019. On January 30, 2020, the WHO 

declared the COVID-19 outbreak a global health emergency. On March 11, 2020, the WHO declared COVID-19 a 

global pandemic. As we know, this emergency affected every aspect of our lives, especially our jobs. We would 

like to know how satisfied you were with the technical assistance you received from your program specialist during 

this pandemic. Think about your experience receiving technical assistance from your program specialist this past 

year and rate the following: 

a. Responsiveness to your questions

b. Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and procedures

c. Ability to resolve issues

d. Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication

e. Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial issues

Q27.2. Please tell us how the technical assistance you received from your program specialist this past year was 

affected by the pandemic, as well as any suggestions you have to improve the technical assistance you received 

should we be faced with future national emergencies.

Distribution of Funds

Q27.3. Please rate the following aspects of the process by which you receive grant funding for Veterans Upward 

Bound from the Office of Postsecondary Education: 

a. Timeliness of the grant award notification

b. Degree to which funds are available with adequate time to plan for implementation by the start 

of the school year

c. Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees 

Communication with Program Specialist

Q27.4. Please rate the quality of the communication with your Veterans Upward Bound specialist.

a. Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed

b. Frequency of communication

c. Clarity of communication

Q27.5. What can Veterans Upward Bound do to improve communication with you? 

Q27.6. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with your program specialist?

a. Individual Email

b. “Blast/distribution list” email

c. Telephone

d. Webinar

e. Other (specify_______)

Q27.7.How would you advise on improving the overall process and protocols associated with this grant 

competition?
40

ONLY IF Q1=28 Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement ASK 1-7 BELOW

Technical Assistance

Q28.1. COVID-19 was initially reported to the WHO on December 31, 2019. On January 30, 2020, the WHO 

declared the COVID-19 outbreak a global health emergency. On March 11, 2020, the WHO declared COVID-19 a 

global pandemic. As we know, this emergency affected every aspect of our lives, especially our jobs. We would 

like to know how satisfied you were with the technical assistance you received from your program specialist during 

this pandemic. Think about your experience receiving technical assistance from your program specialist this past 

year and rate the following: 

a. Responsiveness to your questions

b. Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and procedures

c. Ability to resolve issues

d. Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication

e. Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial issues

Q28.2. Please tell us how the technical assistance you received from your program specialist this past year was 

affected by the pandemic, as well as any suggestions you have to improve the technical assistance you received 

should we be faced with future national emergencies.

Distribution of Funds

Q28.3. Please rate the following aspects of the process by which you receive grant funding for Ronald E. McNair 

Postbaccalaureate Achievement from the Office of Postsecondary Education: 

a. Timeliness of the grant award notification

b. Degree to which funds are available with adequate time to plan for implementation by the start 

of the school year

c. Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees 

Communication with Program Specialist

Q28.4. Please rate the quality of the communication with your Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement

specialist.

a. Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed

b. Frequency of communication

c. Clarity of communication

Q28.5. What can Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement do to improve communication with you? 

Q28.6. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with your program specialist?

a. Individual Email

b. “Blast/distribution list” email

c. Telephone

d. Webinar

e. Other (specify_______)

Q28.7.How would you advise on improving the overall process and protocols associated with this grant 

competition?
41

ONLY IF Q1=29 Training Program for Federal TRIO ProgramsASK 1-7 BELOW

Technical Assistance

Q29.1. COVID-19 was initially reported to the WHO on December 31, 2019. On January 30, 2020, the WHO 

declared the COVID-19 outbreak a global health emergency. On March 11, 2020, the WHO declared COVID-19 a 

global pandemic. As we know, this emergency affected every aspect of our lives, especially our jobs. We would 

like to know how satisfied you were with the technical assistance you received from your program specialist during 

this pandemic. Think about your experience receiving technical assistance from your program specialist this past 

year and rate the following: 

a. Responsiveness to your questions

b. Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and procedures

c. Ability to resolve issues

d. Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication

e. Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial issues

Q29.2. Please tell us how the technical assistance you received from your program specialist this past year was 

affected by the pandemic, as well as any suggestions you have to improve the technical assistance you received 

should we be faced with future national emergencies.

Distribution of Funds

Q29.3. Please rate the following aspects of the process by which you receive grant funding for Training Program for 

Federal TRIO Programs from the Office of Postsecondary Education: 

a. Timeliness of the grant award notification

b. Degree to which funds are available with adequate time to plan for implementation by the start 

of the school year

c. Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees 

Communication with Program Specialist

Q29.4. Please rate the quality of the communication with your Training Program for Federal TRIO Programs

specialist.

a. Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed

b. Frequency of communication

c. Clarity of communication

Q29.5. What can Training Program for Federal TRIO Programs do to improve communication with you? 

Q29.6. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with your program specialist?

a. Individual Email

b. “Blast/distribution list” email

c. Telephone

d. Webinar

e. Other (specify_______)

Q29.7.How would you advise on improving the overall process and protocols associated with this grant 

competition?
42

ONLY IF Q1=30 Historically Black Graduate Institutions (HBGI)ASK 1-7 BELOW

Technical Assistance

Q30.1. COVID-19 was initially reported to the WHO on December 31, 2019. On January 30, 2020, the WHO 

declared the COVID-19 outbreak a global health emergency. On March 11, 2020, the WHO declared COVID-19 a 

global pandemic. As we know, this emergency affected every aspect of our lives, especially our jobs. We would 

like to know how satisfied you were with the technical assistance you received from your program specialist during 

this pandemic. Think about your experience receiving technical assistance from your program specialist this past 

year and rate the following: 

a. Responsiveness to your questions

b. Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and procedures

c. Ability to resolve issues

d. Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication

e. Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial issues

Q30.2. Please tell us how the technical assistance you received from your program specialist this past year was 

affected by the pandemic, as well as any suggestions you have to improve the technical assistance you received 

should we be faced with future national emergencies.

Distribution of Funds

Q30.3. Please rate the following aspects of the process by which you receive grant funding for HBGI from the Office 

of Postsecondary Education: 

a. Timeliness of the grant award notification

b. Degree to which funds are available with adequate time to plan for implementation by the start 

of the school year

c. Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees 

Communication with Program Specialist

Q30.4. Please rate the quality of the communication with your HBGI specialist.

a. Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed

b. Frequency of communication

c. Clarity of communication

Q30.5. What can HBGI do to improve communication with you? 

Q30.6. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with your program specialist?

a. Individual Email

b. “Blast/distribution list” email

c. Telephone

d. Webinar

e. Other (specify_______)

Q30.7.How would you advise on improving the overall process and protocols associated with this grant 

competition?
43

ONLY IF Q1=31 Model Comprehensive Transition and Postsecondary Programs for Students With Intellectual 

Disabilities (TPSID) ASK 1-7 BELOW

Technical Assistance

Q31.1. COVID-19 was initially reported to the WHO on December 31, 2019. On January 30, 2020, the WHO 

declared the COVID-19 outbreak a global health emergency. On March 11, 2020, the WHO declared COVID-19 a 

global pandemic. As we know, this emergency affected every aspect of our lives, especially our jobs. We would 

like to know how satisfied you were with the technical assistance you received from your program specialist during 

this pandemic. Think about your experience receiving technical assistance from your program specialist this past 

year and rate the following: 

a. Responsiveness to your questions

b. Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and procedures

c. Ability to resolve issues

d. Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication

e. Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial issues

Q31.2. Please tell us how the technical assistance you received from your program specialist this past year was 

affected by the pandemic, as well as any suggestions you have to improve the technical assistance you received 

should we be faced with future national emergencies.

Distribution of Funds

Q31.3. Please rate the following aspects of the process by which you receive grant funding for TPSID from the 

Office of Postsecondary Education: 

a. Timeliness of the grant award notification

b. Degree to which funds are available with adequate time to plan for implementation by the start 

of the school year

c. Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees 

Communication with Program Specialist

Q31.4. Please rate the quality of the communication with your TPSID specialist.

a. Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed

b. Frequency of communication

c. Clarity of communication

Q31.5. What can TPSID do to improve communication with you? 

Q31.6. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with your program specialist?

a. Individual Email

b. “Blast/distribution list” email

c. Telephone

d. Webinar

e. Other (specify_______)

Q31.7.How would you advise on improving the overall process and protocols associated with this grant 

competition?
44

ONLY IF Q1=32 Centers for International Business Education ASK 1-8 BELOW

Technical Assistance

Q32.1. COVID-19 was initially reported to the WHO on December 31, 2019. On January 30, 2020, the WHO 

declared the COVID-19 outbreak a global health emergency. On March 11, 2020, the WHO declared COVID-19 a 

global pandemic. As we know, this emergency affected every aspect of our lives, especially our jobs. We would 

like to know how satisfied you were with the technical assistance you received from your program specialist during 

this pandemic. Think about your experience receiving technical assistance from your program specialist this past 

year and rate the following: 

a. Responsiveness to your questions

b. Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and procedures

c. Ability to resolve issues

d. Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication

e. Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial issues

Q32.2. Please tell us how the technical assistance you received from your program specialist this past year was 

affected by the pandemic, as well as any suggestions you have to improve the technical assistance you received 

should we be faced with future national emergencies.

Distribution of Funds

Q32.3. Please rate the following aspects of the process by which you receive grant funding for Centers for 

International Business Education from the Office of Postsecondary Education: 

a. Timeliness of the grant award notification

b. Degree to which funds are available with adequate time to plan for implementation by the start 

of the school year

c. Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees 

Communication with Program Specialist

Q32.4. Please rate the quality of the communication with your Centers for International Business Education 

specialist.

a. Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed

b. Frequency of communication

c. Clarity of communication

Q32.5. What can Centers for International Business Education do to improve communication with you? 

Q32.6. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with your program specialist?

a. Individual Email

b. “Blast/distribution list” email

c. Telephone

d. Webinar

e. Other (specify_______)

Q32.7.Think about the extent to which the International and Foreign Language Education (IFLE) program 

establishes, strengthens, and operates language and area or international studies centers. On a 10-point 

scale where “1” means poor and “10” means excellent please rate the extent to which you agree with the 

following:

a. The IFLE program(s) under my purview is effective in supporting instruction in fields needed to provide full 

understanding of areas, regions or countries

b. The IFLE program(s) under my purview supports work in the language aspects of professional and other 

fields of study
45

c. The IFLE program(s) under my purview supports research and training in international studies

Q32.8. On a 10-point scale where “1” means poor and “10” means excellent please rate the extent to which the 

International and Foreign Language Education (IFLE) grant program establishes and strengthens: 

a. Teaching of any modern foreign language

b. Instruction in fields needed to provide full understanding of areas, regions, or countries in which the 

language is commonly used

c. Research and training in international studies

d. Language aspects of professional and other fields of study

e. Instruction and research on issues in world affairs
46

ONLY IF Q1=33 International Research and Studies ASK 1-8 BELOW

Technical Assistance

Q33.1. COVID-19 was initially reported to the WHO on December 31, 2019. On January 30, 2020, the WHO 

declared the COVID-19 outbreak a global health emergency. On March 11, 2020, the WHO declared COVID-19 a 

global pandemic. As we know, this emergency affected every aspect of our lives, especially our jobs. We would 

like to know how satisfied you were with the technical assistance you received from your program specialist during 

this pandemic. Think about your experience receiving technical assistance from your program specialist this past 

year and rate the following: 

a. Responsiveness to your questions

b. Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and procedures

c. Ability to resolve issues

d. Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication

e. Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial issues

Q33.2. Please tell us how the technical assistance you received from your program specialist this past year was 

affected by the pandemic, as well as any suggestions you have to improve the technical assistance you received 

should we be faced with future national emergencies.

Distribution of Funds

Q33.3. Please rate the following aspects of the process by which you receive grant funding for International 

Research and Studies from the Office of Postsecondary Education: 

a. Timeliness of the grant award notification

b. Degree to which funds are available with adequate time to plan for implementation by the start 

of the school year

c. Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees 

Communication with Program Specialist

Q33.4. Please rate the quality of the communication with your International Research and Studies specialist.

a. Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed

b. Frequency of communication

c. Clarity of communication

Q33.5. What can International Research and Studies do to improve communication with you? 

Q33.6. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with your program specialist?

a. Individual Email

b. “Blast/distribution list” email

c. Telephone

d. Webinar

e. Other (specify_______)

Q33.7.Think about the extent to which the International and Foreign Language Education (IFLE) program 

establishes, strengthens, and operates language and area or international studies centers. On a 10-point 

scale where “1” means poor and “10” means excellent please rate the extent to which you agree with the 

following:

a. The IFLE program(s) under my purview is effective in supporting instruction in fields needed to provide full 

understanding of areas, regions or countries

b. The IFLE program(s) under my purview supports work in the language aspects of professional and other 

fields of study

c. The IFLE program(s) under my purview supports research and training in international studies
47

Q33.8. On a 10-point scale where “1” means poor and “10” means excellent please rate the extent to which the 

International and Foreign Language Education (IFLE) grant program establishes and strengthens: 

a. Teaching of any modern foreign language

b. Instruction in fields needed to provide full understanding of areas, regions, or countries in which the 

language is commonly used

c. Research and training in international studies

d. Language aspects of professional and other fields of study

e. Instruction and research on issues in world affairs
48

ONLY IF Q1=34 Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Language ASK 1-8 BELOW

Technical Assistance

Q34.1. COVID-19 was initially reported to the WHO on December 31, 2019. On January 30, 2020, the WHO 

declared the COVID-19 outbreak a global health emergency. On March 11, 2020, the WHO declared COVID-19 a 

global pandemic. As we know, this emergency affected every aspect of our lives, especially our jobs. We would 

like to know how satisfied you were with the technical assistance you received from your program specialist during 

this pandemic. Think about your experience receiving technical assistance from your program specialist this past 

year and rate the following: 

a. Responsiveness to your questions

b. Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and procedures

c. Ability to resolve issues

d. Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication

e. Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial issues

Q34.2. Please tell us how the technical assistance you received from your program specialist this past year was 

affected by the pandemic, as well as any suggestions you have to improve the technical assistance you received 

should we be faced with future national emergencies.

Distribution of Funds

Q34.3. Please rate the following aspects of the process by which you receive grant funding for Undergraduate 

International Studies and Foreign Language from the Office of Postsecondary Education: 

a. Timeliness of the grant award notification

b. Degree to which funds are available with adequate time to plan for implementation by the start 

of the school year

c. Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees 

Communication with Program Specialist

Q34.4. Please rate the quality of the communication with your Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign 

Language specialist.

a. Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed

b. Frequency of communication

c. Clarity of communication

Q34.5. What can Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Language do to improve communication with 

you? 

Q34.6. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with your program specialist?

a. Individual Email

b. “Blast/distribution list” email

c. Telephone

d. Webinar

e. Other (specify_______)

Q34.7.Think about the extent to which the International and Foreign Language Education (IFLE) program 

establishes, strengthens, and operates language and area or international studies centers. On a 10-point 

scale where “1” means poor and “10” means excellent please rate the extent to which you agree with the 

following:

a. The IFLE program(s) under my purview is effective in supporting instruction in fields needed to provide full 

understanding of areas, regions or countries
49

b. The IFLE program(s) under my purview supports work in the language aspects of professional and other 

fields of study

c. The IFLE program(s) under my purview supports research and training in international studies

Q34.8. On a 10-point scale where “1” means poor and “10” means excellent please rate the extent to which the 

International and Foreign Language Education (IFLE) grant program establishes and strengthens: 

a. Teaching of any modern foreign language

b. Instruction in fields needed to provide full understanding of areas, regions, or countries in which the 

language is commonly used

c. Research and training in international studies

d. Language aspects of professional and other fields of study

e. Instruction and research on issues in world affairs
50

ONLY IF Q1=35 TITLE I PART A – Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Education Agencies (LEAs) ASK 1-4 

BELOW

Customer Service and Implementation Support

Think about the support Department staff provide and your participation in the Department’s technical assistance 

activities (e.g., performance reviews, consolidated state performance report, grantee meetings, communities of 

practice, responses to State questions, assistance meeting program requirements). On a scale from 1 to 10, where 

1 is not very effective and 10 is very effective, please rate the effectiveness of these activities to support your State 

in implementation of Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Education Agencies.

Q35.1 Provides assistance that enhances my capacity to implement your Title I grant

Q35.2 Provides support that is responsive to my State’s needs to implement your Title I grant

Q35.3 Helps my State address grant implementation challenges

Q35.4 Provides information about key changes to requirements (e.g., provisions under ESSA, dear colleague 

letters, flexible uses of funds)
51

ONLY IF Q1=36 Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants ASK 1-4 BELOW

Think about the support Department staff provide and your participation in the Department’s technical assistance 

activities (e.g., performance reviews, consolidated state performance report, grantee meetings, communities of 

practice, responses to State questions, assistance meeting program requirements). On a scale from 1 to 10, where 

1 is not very effective and 10 is very effective, please rate the effectiveness of these activities to support your State 

in implementation of Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants. 

Q36.1. Provides assistance that enhances my capacity to implement Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants 

Q36.2. Provides support that is responsive to my State’s needs to implement Supporting Effective Instruction State 

Grants 

Q36.3. Helps my State address grant implementation challenges 

Q36.4. Provides information about key changes to requirements (e.g., provisions under ESSA, dear colleague 

 letters, flexible uses of funds)
52

ONLY IF Q1=37 Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 7003) ASK 1-16 BELOW

Think about your experience preparing and submitting your most recent Impact Aid application, including 

gathering and organizing data and preparing the e-application.

Q37.1Did you contact the Impact Aid Program for technical assistance? 

a. Yes

b. No

[IF Q37.1=a, ASK Q37.2-4] On a scale of “1” to “10”, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent”; rate the Impact 

Aid Program staff’s: 

Q37.2 Responsiveness to answering questions

Q37.3 Supportiveness in helping you complete your application

Q37.4 Knowledge about technical material

Q37.5 Did you use the written instruction and guidance documents provided for the application?

a. Yes

b. No

Q37.6 [IF Q37.5=a] On a scale from 1 to 10, where “1” is not very effective and “10” is very effective rate the 

effectiveness of the documents in helping you complete the application.

Q37.7. Have you attended any Webinars or in person meetings where IAP staff provided you information on the 

Section 7003 program and the review process?

a. Yes

b. No

Q37.8. [IF Q37.7=a] Did the presentation and/or materials prepared help you understand your responsibilities in 

submitting data?

a. Yes

b. No

Q37.8a. [IF Q37.8=a] Please explain. 

Q37.9 Has your school district been contacted by the Impact Aid Program in the past year regarding a field review 

of your application? 

a. Yes 

b. No

Q37.10 [IF Q37.9=a] Did the letter you received provide sufficient explanation of what and how you need to 

prepare your documents for the review?

a. Yes

b. No

Q37.11 [IF Q37.10=b] Please explain. (Open end)

Q37.12 Did you receive timely communications regarding the outcome of the review? 

a. Yes

b. No

Q37.13 [IF Q37.12=b] Please explain. 
53

Please use a scale from 1 to 10, where “1” is poor and “10” is excellent to rate the Impact Aid staff members on 

the following.

Q37.14. Ease of reaching the person who could address your concern

Q37.15. Ability to resolve your issue

Q37.16. Please provide any additional specific suggestions for how the Impact Aid Program can improve customer 

service. 

Q37.17. What additional communications would you like to receive regarding the status of your application, prior 

to receiving a payment?
54

ONLY IF Q1=38 21st Century Community Learning Centers ASK 1-6 BELOW

Customer Service and Implementation Support

Think about the support Department staff provide and your participation in the Department’s technical assistance 

activities (e.g., performance reviews, consolidated state performance report, grantee meetings, communities of 

practice, responses to State questions, assistance meeting program requirements). On a scale from 1 to 10, where 

1 is not very effective and 10 is very effective, please rate the effectiveness of these activities to support your State 

in implementation of [PROGRAM NAME from Q1].

Q38.1 Provides assistance that enhances my capacity to implement your 21st CCLC grant

Q38.2 Provides support that is responsive to my State’s needs to implement your 21st CCLC grant

Q38.3 Helps my State address grant implementation challenges

Q38.4 Provides information about key changes to requirements (e.g., provisions under ESSA, dear colleague 

letters, flexible uses of funds)

Think about services offered in the previous year to support your State’s implementation of 21st CCLC.

Q38.5 How helpful is the information and guidance provided to you by the US Department of Education staff and 

contracted staff in preparing for monitoring activities (monitoring calls, virtual reviews, onsite monitoring reviews? 

Please use a 10-point scale with “1” being “not very helpful” and “10” being “very helpful”.

Q38.6 How likely are you to recommend the 21st CCLC program’s You for Youth (Y4Y) website at 

https://y4y.ed.gov/ to your State’s grantees as a technical assistance resource? Please use a 10-point scale with 

“1” being not at all likely and “10” being extremely likely.
55

ONLY IF Q1=39 Student Support and Academic Enrichment ASK 1-6 BELOW

Q39.1. How often do you visit the T4PA Center WEBSITE operated and maintained by Synergy Enterprises Inc. 

(https://t4pacenter.ed.gov/Index.aspx)?

a. Daily

b. Weekly

c. Monthly

d. Every few months

e. Never

Q39.2. On a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 is “Poor” and 10 is “Excellent,” how useful is the T4PA website?

Q39.3. How can we improve our T4PA Center WEBSITE, including links, to help you identify program resources and 

meet your technical assistance needs?

Q39.4. How often do you visit the T4PA Center PORTAL (https://t4pacenter.ed.gov/forum/default.aspx)?

a. Daily

b. Weekly

c. Monthly

d. Every few months

e. Never

Q39.5. On a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 is “Poor” and 10 is “Excellent,” how useful is the T4PA PORTAL?

Q39.6. How can we improve our T4PA Center PORTAL to help you identify program resources and meet your 

technical assistance needs? 

Q39.7. Which form of technical assistance do you find most helpful in the completion of your grant? 

a. Written guidance

b. Email communication

c. Annual meetings/conferences

d. In-person training or site-specific support

e. Other (please specify)

Q39.8. What specific type of technical assistance content would be most useful to you in the successful completion 

of your grant(s)? Please select up to 3 options from the list below:

a. using data for effective student outcomes

b. leveraging alignment, integration and sustainability

c. effectiveness and efficiency of communications

d. leveraging public/private partnerships for sustainability 

e. federal project management

f. federal grant fiscal management

g. federal grant contracting do’s and don’ts

h. federal grant regulations

i. federal grant administration

j. Other (please specify)
56

ONLY IF Q1=40 Immediate Aid to Restart School Operations (Restart) Program ASK 1-3 BELOW

Think about your experience with Restart program when answering the following questions.

Q40.1 In which of the following areas would you like technical assistance?

a. General guidance and regulations

b. Use of funds

c. Subrecipient technical assistance or monitoring and oversight

d. Other (fill in)

Q40.2 From which of the following ways do you prefer to get information? 

a. In-person during convenings or meetings

b. Written communication sent through a listserv

c. Webinars or virtual presentations 

d. Other (fill in)
57

ONLY IF Q1=41 English Language Acquisition State Grants/Title III State Formula Grant Program

ASK 1-6 BELOW

Think about the support Department staff provide and your participation in the Department’s technical assistance 

activities (e.g., performance reviews, consolidated state performance report, grantee meetings, communities of 

practice, responses to State questions, assistance meeting program requirements). On a scale from 1 to 10, where 

1 is not very effective and 10 is very effective, please rate the effectiveness of these activities to support your State 

in implementation of English Language Acquisition State Grants.

Q41.1. Provides assistance that enhances my capacity to implement your Title III grant 

Q41.2. Provides support that is responsive to my State’s needs to implement your Title III grant 

Q41.3. Helps my State address grant implementation challenges 

Q41.4. Provides information about key changes to requirements (e.g., provisions under ESSA, dear colleague 

letters, flexible uses of funds) 

Think about services offered in the previous year (e.g., opportunities for peer learning, collaboration calls, grantee 

meetings, communities of practice, webinars, publication of non-regulatory guidance, support transitioning to the 

Every Student Succeeds Act, review of State Plans) to support your State’s implementation of your Title III grant. 

Q41.5. What services provided by the Department have been most helpful or effective? (Please cite specific 

examples)

Q41.6. How can the Department’s services be improved over the next year to better meet the needs of your State 

as you implement your Title III grant? (Please cite specific recommendations)
58

ONLY IF Q1=42 Migrant Education Program (MEP) -- Title I, Part C ASK 1-2 BELOW

Q42.1 How can the program office’s services be improved over the next year to better meet your needs as a State 

Director implementing the MEP? (Please cite specific recommendations) (open ended)

Q42.2. Please check up to three technical assistance topics that you will need in the future, in order to improve the 

performance of your MEP. (Check boxes with the maximum of three to be selected for the topics below) [PN: 

Multi-select with max of 3 choices.] 

a. Child Eligibility 

b. Comprehensive Needs Assessment 

c. Continuation of Services

d. Data Management and Reporting 

e. Fiscal Requirements

f. Identification and Recruitment (ID&R) Methods and Strategies 

g. Interstate Coordination 

h. Parental/Family Engagement 

i. Priority for Services 

j. Program Evaluation 

k. Identification and Recruitment (ID&R) Quality Control 

l. Records Exchange, including the use of the Migrant Student Information Exchange (MSIX)

l. Re-interviewing 

n. Service Delivery Models 

o. Service Delivery Plan, including Measurable Program Outcomes (MPOs)

p. Subgranting 

q. Service Delivery Strategies (Instructional and Support) 

r. Subrecipient Monitoring 

s. Other, please specify [ANCHOR at bottom]

Q42.3 Please think about your experience using the Migrant Education Program (MEP) – Title I, Part C’s online 

resources on the RESULTS.ed.gov website. On a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 is “Poor” and 10 is “Excellent,” how 

useful is the RESULTS website?
59

ONLY IF Q1=43 Grants for State Assessments ASK 1-4 BELOW

Customer Service and Implementation Support

Think about the support Department staff provide and your participation in the Department’s technical assistance 

activities (e.g., performance reviews, consolidated state performance report, grantee meetings, communities of 

practice, responses to State questions, assistance meeting program requirements). On a scale from 1 to 10, where 

1 is not very effective and 10 is very effective, please rate the effectiveness of these activities to support your State 

in implementation of Grants for State Assessments.

Q43.1 Provides assistance that enhances my capacity to implement your Grant for State Assessment

Q43.2 Provides support that is responsive to my State’s needs to implement your Grant for State Assessment

Q43.3 Helps my State address grant implementation challenges

Q43.4 Provides information about key changes to requirements (e.g., new provisions under ESSA, dear colleague 

letters, flexible uses of funds)
60

ONLY IF Q1=44 Teacher and School Leader Incentive Grants ASK 1-5 BELOW

Q44.1. Are you experiencing the right amount of interaction with you TSL program officer and/or TSL Division 

staff?

a. Yes

b. No

Q44.2. Which best describes your ideal frequency of communication with your TSL program officer and/or the TSL 

Division Staff?

a. Weekly

b. Monthly

c. Quarterly

Q44.3. When you interact with TSL Division Staff what is the quality of the customer service provided to you?

a. Excellent

b. Very Good

c. Average

d. Fair

e. Poor

Rate the helpfulness of the TSL program’s support and technical assistance in enhancing the capacity of your team 

in the following areas on a 10 point scale, where 1 is not very helpful and 10 is very helpful:

Q44.4. Understanding of all program requirements, including budgetary concerns

Q44.5. Understanding of practices and approaches used by other grantees in addressing challenging areas of 

project implementation

Q44.6. What recommendations would you like to make to the TSL program staff to assist you in administering your 

grant more effectively? [open-ended question]

Q44.7. How can we improve the content and navigation of our online resource (https://oese.ed.gov/offices/officeof-discretionary-grants-support-services/effective-educator-development-programs/teacher-and-school-leaderincentive-program/) in order to make your online experience more useful? On a 10-point scale, where 1 is not 

very helpful and 10 is very helpful, please rate the support provided by the online resource: 

a. Timeliness of content

b. Accuracy of Information

c. Utility of content

d. User-friendliness of webpage

Think about the technical support and assistance you have received from the EED TA Center/AEM. On a 10 point

scale, where 1 is not very helpful and 10 is very helpful, please rate the technical assistance provided in terms of 

their:

Q44.8. Assistance in improving your program planning and implementation 

Q44.9. Providing relevant information and ideas 

Q44.10. Connecting you with other experts or practitioners working on similar programs

Q44.11. Providing quality content during EED Summits

Q44.12. Providing direct technical assistance to individual grantees

Q44.13. Providing quality content on the Grads360 platform

Q44.14. Providing quality of content and connections as part of the Communities of Practice
61

ONLY IF Q1=45 Expanding Opportunities Through Quality Charter Schools Program (CSP) Grants to State ASK 1-5

BELOW

Please rate the following questions that ask about meeting and communications. Use a scale from 1 to 10, where 

“1” is “not very satisfied” and “10” is “very satisfied.” 

Meetings/Communications 

Q45.1. How satisfied are you with CSP’s dissemination of resources through web-based platforms (i.e., the NCSRC 

website), Charter Talks, and annual meetings? 

Q45.2. How satisfied are you with the accessibility, timeliness, and responsiveness of CSP’s overall communication 

and information sharing?

Monitoring/Technical Assistance 

Q45.3. How satisfied are you with the technical assistance you receive by the program staff on questions related 

to your project implementation and budget?

Q45.4. How satisfied are you with regular opportunities to provide CSP with an understanding of your project’s 

progress, challenges, and accomplishments (e.g., monitoring activities, annual performance reports, 

quarterly updates)? 

Q45.5. How satisfied are you with the guidance CSP provides on Federal grant procedures (e.g., Non-regulatory 

guidance, EDGAR, OMB Circular A-122, etc.)?
62

ONLY IF Q1=46 Comprehensive Literacy State Development (previously Striving Readers) ASK 1-9 BELOW

On a 10-point scale where “1” is “Don’t Agree At All” and “10” is “Absolutely Agree,” please rate the following nine 

questions:

Q46.1. It is easy to get access to my ED program officer

Q46.2. My ED program officer is responsive when I reach out with questions or concerns

Q46.3. My ED program officer communicates in a clear and concise manner

Q46.4. My ED program officer cares about me, my program, and my success

Q46.5. I am thankful that we are a CLSD grantee and would recommend the program to other SEAs

Q46.6. I find the Knowledge Management System (KMS) easy to use

Q46.7. I find the reporting requirements for CLSD to be appropriate

Q46.8. The KMS is useful to me beyond submitting required ED reports

Q46.9. My TA Liaison (from AIR) is helpful to me in a significant way

Q46 10. The most important thing I want ED to know about my experience with CLSD is: (open ended)
63

ONLY IF Q1=47 Charter Schools Program Grants for Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools

ASK 1-5 BELOW

Please rate the following questions that ask about meeting and communications. Use a scale from 1 to 10, where 

“1” is “not very satisfied” and “10” is “very satisfied.” 

Meetings/Communications 

Q47.1. How satisfied are you with CSP’s dissemination of resources through web-based platforms (i.e., the NCSRC 

website) and annual meetings?

Q47.2. How satisfied are you with the accessibility, timeliness, and responsiveness of CSP’s overall communication 

and information sharing?

Monitoring/Technical Assistance 

Q47.3. How satisfied are you with the technical assistance you receive by the program staff on questions related 

to your project implementation and budget?

Q47.4. How satisfied are you with regular opportunities to provide CSP with an understanding of your project’s 

progress, challenges, and accomplishments (e.g., monitoring activities, annual performance reports, 

quarterly updates)?

Q47.5. How satisfied are you with the guidance CSP provides on Federal grant procedures(e.g., Non-regulatory 

guidance, EDGAR, OMB Circular A-122, etc.)?
64

ONLY IF Q1=48 Education Innovation and Research Programs ASK 1-7 BELOW

Think about the technical support and assistance you have received from the i3/EIR Evaluation Technical 

Assistance/Abt Associates. On a 10 point scale, where 1 is not very helpful and 10 is very helpful, please rate the 

technical assistance they provided your team in terms of their:

Q48.1 Assistance in improving your evaluation planning and implementation 

Q48.2 Customized feedback tailored to my grant’s unique challenges and opportunities 

Q48.3 Opportunities to connect with other experts or practitioners working on similar evaluations 

Q48.4. In what ways can i3/EIR program staff strengthen its support of your project-specific work? (Please cite 

specific recommendations)

Q48.5. What technical assistance experiences enhanced your capacity to implement your i3/EIR grant? (Please cite 

specific examples)
65

ONLY IF Q1=49 Magnet Schools Assistance Program ASK 1-6 BELOW

Think about the technical support and assistance you have received from the U.S Department of Education MSAP 

team and MSAP Technical Assistance Center and please rate the following using a 10-point scale, where 1 is Poor 

and 10 is Excellent:

Q49.1. Your Program Officer’s knowledge of your project and ability to meet your specific needs

Q49.2. The content knowledge of your Program Officer in supporting your program’s success, aside from that 

related to general federal grants policy

Q49.3. The technical assistance you have received from the MSAP Technical Assistance Center [Can you skip 39a]

Q49.4. The benefit of systems like Grads360 in helping to manage your program implementation

Q49.5. The overall effectiveness of the assistance you have received from the MSAP program in supporting your 

program’s success

[IF Q49.1 – Q49.5 is less than or equal to 8 ask Q49.6]

Q49.6. Please provide candid thoughts on any challenges you have experienced and suggestions for improvement 

(open ended)
66

ONLY IF Q1=50 Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Education Agencies (including Bureau of Indian 

Education-BIE, Tribal, Indian Community Based Organizations-ICBOs, and other Indian Organizations-IOs) ASK 1-

8 BELOW

Think about the particular ways in which you have received technical support and/or assistance from the Office of 

Indian Education (OIE). On a 10-point scale, where “1” is not very effective and “10” is very effective, please rate 

the effectiveness of technical assistance in: 

Q50.1. Timeliness of OIE staff in providing information to meet your Title VI application and APR deadlines.

Q50.2. Quality of support and technical assistance provided by OIE staff on Title VI program implementation. 

Q50.3. Comprehensiveness of guidance documents OIE provides, e.g. Getting Started; Frequently Asked 

Questions, website links and EASIE Community website.

Think about the application process when applying for a grant through the Electronic Application System for Indian 

Education (EASIE). On a 10-point scale, where “1” is poor and “10” is excellent, please rate the EASIE System on the 

following:

Q50.4. Ease of using the EASIE system when applying for a grant. 

Q50.5. Quality of training via webinars provided by the EASIE system and grant application process.

Q50.6. Think about the Title VI formula grant requirements. Select two topics around which you have greatest 

need for technical assistance:

a. Establishing parent committees

b. Expanding membership of parent committees

c. Verifying student information

d. Using the EASIE system

e. Allowable uses of funds

f. General grant program requirements, deadlines and milestones

g. Using the G5 system

Q50.7. What professional development training or conferences do you or your staff attend locally, regionally or 

nationally to improve the performance of your programs (i.e. State Conferences, National Associations, Federal 

Program Conferences, etc.)? 

Q50.8. Over the next year, what can OIE do to better meet your technical assistance and program improvement 

needs? 
67

ONLY IF Q1=51 Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program – McKinney-Vento ASK 1-5 BELOW

In regards to the technical assistance provided by National Center for Homeless Education (NCHE), please rate the

following using a 10-point scale, where 1 is Poor and 10 is Excellent: 

Q51.1.Responsiveness in answering questions

Q51.2. Sufficiency of the guidance provided in responses to questions

On a scale of 1 to 10, where “1” is “Not very effective” and “10” is “Very effective,” please rate the effectiveness of 

the TA efforts provided by the U.S. Department of Education and NCHE staff in helping you with the 

following: 

FORMATTING NOTE – USE 2 COLUMNS FOR EACH QUESTION (3-5) TO SHOW USDE and NCHE 

U.S. Department of Education 

Q51.3. Guidance provided to meet program compliance requirements 

Q51.4. Assistance provide to help States reach performance goals 

Q51.5. Quality of support provided for collecting and submitting quality data

NCHE

Q51.3a. Guidance provided to meet program compliance requirements

Q51.4a. Assistance provide to help States reach performance goals 

Q51.5a. Quality of support provided for collecting and submitting quality data
68

ONLY IF Q1=52 Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP)/Rural Low-Income School (RLIS) Program ASK 1-5

BELOW

Q52.1 How can the REAP program office improve the process through which States provide the necessary data to 

the Department to determine annual LEA eligibility for the REAP RLIS and SRSA formula grant programs, including 

the use of MAX.gov? (open end)

Q52.2 How could we make the annual fall What SEAs Need to Know webinar more beneficial to your State 

educational agency? (Open end)

Q52.3 How do you hear about REAP program updates and events (e.g., webinars)? (Check all that apply)

a. Email announcements from REAP

b. Newsletter

c. U.S. Department of Education website

d. Community organizations

e. Social Media (Twitter, Facebook)

f. Other (please specify)___________________________

Q52.4 Please check up to 3 topics for technical assistance that you will need in the future in order to improve the 

performance of your RLIS grant. (Check boxes with the maximum of 3 to be selected from the topics below) 

[PN: Multi-select with max of 3 choices. Randomize]

a. Use of grant funds 

b. Use of G5 (e.g., grantee information, grant award notice (GAN), available funds, drawdown of funds, etc.)

c. Use of Max.gov

d. Providing technical assistance to grantees

e. REAP eligibility data and estimating award amounts

f. Consolidated grant application process

g. Grant eligibility data review & submission

h. Fiscal accounting procedures

i. Monitoring RLIS grantees

j. Use of grant funds for administrative costs

k. Reporting and use of data

l. Other (please specify)

Q52.5. How could the REAP program office improve technical assistance directly to SEAs and LEAs? (open end)

Q52.6. Please use the space below to share any additional thoughts you have about the RLIS program. (Open end)
69

ONLY IF Q1=53 Rural Education Achievement Program/Small, Rural School Achievement Program ASK 1-6

BELOW

Q53.1 Think about how you hear about REAP program updates and events (e.g., webinars). On a 10-point scale, 

where “1” is “Unlikely” and “10” is “Likely,” please rate how likely you are to hear about REAP updates or events in 

the following ways:

a. Email announcements from REAP

b. Newsletter

c. U.S. Department of Education website

d. State educational agencies

e. Community organizations

f. Social Media (Twitter, Facebook)

Q53.2. Please check up to 3 topics for technical assistance that you will need in the future in order to improve the 

performance of your SRSA grant. (Check boxes with the maximum of 3 to be selected for the topics below) 

[PN: Multi-select with max of 3 choices. Randomize]

a. Master Eligibility Spreadsheet access and data

b.Use of funds

c. Use of G5 (e.g., grantee information, grant award notice (GAN), available funds, drawdown of funds, 

etc.)

d.Grant application process

e. Legal requirements, including a focus on the statute and regulations

f. Alternative Fund Use Authority

g. Reporting and use of data

h.More communication of resources (e.g. webinars)

i. Opportunities to learn from other LEAs implementing SRSA

j. Other (please specify)

Q53.3 Think about your experience with the revised FY 2021 SRSA application process as compared to the process 

in previous years. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate the following:

a. Clarity of instructions for accessing and completing the application

b. Ease of accessing the application using the unique link in the invitation email

c. Navigating the application on the MAX.gov survey tool

d. Preparing and completing the information requested on the application

e. Ease of submitting the application

f. Utilizing the confirmation email

Q53.4 Please provide any suggestions for improvements the REAP program office could make to its grant 

administration processes and protocols in order to reduce the overall burden to your school district. (Open 

end)

Q53.5. How could the REAP program office improve technical assistance directly to LEAs? (open end)

Q53.6 Please use the space below to share any additional thoughts you have about the SRSA program. 
70

ONLY IF Q1=54 Promise Neighborhoods ASK 1-6 BELOW

Q54.1 Did you ask your ED Program Contact, “PROGRAM OFFICER”, for assistance in areas not related to fiscal or 

grant administration issues?

a. Yes

b. No

Q54.2 [If Q1=Yes] On a scale from 1 to 10, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate the ED Program 

Contacts quality of assistance. 

Q54.3 On a scale from 1 to 10, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate the Urban Institute’s 

Needs Assessment Quality. 

Q54.4 On a scale from 1 to 10, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate the Urban Institute’s other 

services. 

Q54.5 On a scale from 1 to 10, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate the SCORECARD system.

Q54.6 On a scale from 1 to 10, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate the GRADS 360 system.
71

ONLY IF Q1=55 Supporting Effective Educator Development Program ASK 1-5 BELOW

Q55.1. Are you experiencing the right amount of interaction with your SEED program officer and/or the SEED 

Division staff?

a. Yes

b. No

Q55.2. Which best describes your ideal frequency of communication with your SEED program officer and/or the 

SEED Division Staff?

a. Weekly

b. Monthly

c. Quarterly

Q55.3. When you interact with SEED Division Staff what is the quality of the customer service provided to you?

a. Excellent

b. Very Good

c. Average

d. Fair

e. Poor

Rate the helpfulness of the SEED program’s support and technical assistance in enhancing the capacity of your 

team in the following areas, where “1” is “Not Helpful” and “10” is “Very Helpful.”

Q55.4. Understanding of GPRA measures and associated measure definitions

Q55.5. Ability to collect and report accurate GPRA data

Q55.6. Understanding of all program requirements, including budgetary concerns

Q55.7. Understanding of practices and approaches used by other grantees in addressing challenging areas of 

project implementation

Q55.8. What recommendations would you like to make to the SEED program staff to assist you in 

administering your grant more effectively? [open-ended question]

Q55.9. How can we improve the content and navigation of our online resource (https://oese.ed.gov/offices/officeof-discretionary-grants-support-services/effective-educator-development-programs/supporting-effectiveeducator-development-grant-program/) in order to make your online experience more useful? On a 10-point scale, 

where “1” is “Not Very Helpful” and “10” is “Very Helpful,” please rate the support provided by the online resource 

in terms of:

a. Timeliness of content

b. Accuracy of Information

c. Utility of content

d. User-friendliness of webpage

Think about the technical support and assistance you have received from the EED TA Center/AEM. On a 10-point 

scale, where “1” is “Not Very Helpful” and “10” is “Very Helpful,” please rate the technical assistance they 

provided your team in terms of their:

Q55.10. Assistance in improving your program planning and implementation 

Q55.11. Providing relevant information and ideas 

Q55.12. Connecting you with other experts or practitioners working on similar programs 

Q55.13 Providing quality content during EED Summits

Q55.14. Providing direct technical assistance to individual grantees

Q55.15. Providing quality content on the Grads360 platform

Q55.16. Providing quality of content and connections as part of the Communities of Practice
72

ONLY IF Q1=56 Payments for Federal Property (Section 7002) ASK 1-9 BELOW

Think about your experience preparing and submitting your most recent Impact Aid application, including 

gathering and organizing data and preparing the e-application.

Q56.1 Did you contact the Impact Aid Program for technical assistance? 

a. Yes

b. No

[IF Q56.1=a, ASK Q56.2-4] On a scale of “1” to “10”, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent”; rate the Impact 

Aid Program staff’s: 

Q56.2 Responsiveness to answering questions

Q56.3 Supportiveness in helping you complete your application

Q56.4 Knowledge about technical material

Q56.5 Did you use the written instruction and guidance documents provided for the application?

a. Yes

b. No

Q56.6 [IF Q56.5=a] On a scale from 1 to 10, where “1” is not very effective and “10” is very effective rate the 

effectiveness of the documents in helping you complete the application.

Q56.7 Have you attended any Webinars or in person meetings where IAP staff provided you information on the 

Section 7002 program?

a. Yes

b. No

Q56.8. [IF Q56.7=a] Did the presentation and/or materials prepared help you understand your responsibilities in 

submitting data?

a. Yes

b. No

Q56.9. [IF Q56.8=a] Please explain. 

Q56.10. What additional communications would you like to receive regarding the status of your application, prior 

to receiving a payment? 

Q56.11 Please provide any additional specific suggestions for how the Impact Aid Program can improve customer 

service.
73

ONLY IF Q1=57 Demonstration Grants for Indian Children/Special Projects for Indian Children ASK 1-4 BELOW

As it relates to the Native Youth Community Projects (NYCP) program, please rate the following using a 10 point 

scale, where “1” means “Poor” and “10” means “Excellent” 

Q57.1. Usefulness and relevance of webinar-based technical assistance

Q57.2. Usefulness and relevance of project director meeting technical assistance 

Q57.3. Usefulness and relevance of technical assistance resources on the OIE web site. 

Q57.4. Assign the priority, 1 being highest and 8 being lowest, that you would assign to the following technical 

assistance topics:

a. Data Collection

b. Performance Reporting

c. Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)

d. Capacity Building

e. Parent Engagement

f. Partnerships

g. Cultural Relevance

h. Allowable Costs and Budgeting Flexibilities
74

ONLY IF Q1=58 Neglected and Delinquent State and Local Agency Programs (Title I, Part D) ASK 1-5 BELOW

In regards to the technical assistance provided by U.S. Department of Education program staff for the Prevention 

and Intervention Programs for Children and Youth Who Are Neglected, Delinquent or At Risk and the National 

Technical Assistance Center for the Education of Neglected and Delinquent Children and Youth (NDTAC), please rate 

the following using a 10-point scale, where 1 is Poor and 10 is Excellent: 

Q58.1. Responsiveness in answering questions

Q58.2. Sufficiency of the guidance provided in responses to questions 

On a scale of 1 to 10, where “1” is “Not very effective” and “10” is “Very effective,” please rate the effectiveness of 

the TA efforts provided by the U.S. Department of Education and NDTAC staff in helping you with the following: 

FORMATTING NOTE – USE 2 COLUMNS FOR EACH QUESTION (3-5) TO SHOW ED and NDTAC 

US Department of Education 

Q58.3. Guidance provided to meet program compliance requirements

Q58.4. Assistance provided to help States reach performance goals 

Q58.5. Quality of support provided for collecting and submitting quality data

NDTAC 

Q58.3a. Guidance provided to meet program compliance requirements

Q58.4a. Assistance provided to help States reach performance goals 

Q58.5a. Quality of support provided for collecting and submitting quality data
75

ONLY IF Q1=59 Teacher Quality Partnership Program ASK 1-7 BELOW

Q59.1. Are you experiencing the right amount of interaction with your TQP program officer and/or the TQP Division 

staff?

a. Yes

b. No

Q59.2. Which best describes your ideal frequency of communication with your TQP program officer and/or the TQP 

Division Staff?

a. Weekly

b. Monthly

c. Quarterly

Q59.3. When you interact with TQP Division Staff what is the quality of the customer service provided to you?

a. Excellent

b. Very Good

c. Average

d. Fair

e. Poor

Rate the helpfulness of the TQP program’s support and technical assistance in enhancing the capacity of your team 

in the following areas, where “1” is “Not Helpful” and “10” is “Very Helpful.”

Q59.4. Understanding of GPRA measures and associated measure definitions

Q59.5. Ability to collect and report accurate GPRA data

Q59.6. Understanding of all program requirements, including budgetary concerns

Q59.7. Understanding of practices and approaches used by other grantees in addressing challenging areas of 

project implementation

Q59.8. What recommendations would you like to make to the TQP program staff to assist you in administering 

your grant more effectively? [open-ended question]

Q59.9. How can we improve the content and navigation of our online resource (https://oese.ed.gov/offices/officeof-discretionary-grants-support-services/effective-educator-development-programs/teacher-quality-partnership/) 

in order to make your online experience more useful? On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Not Very Helpful” and 

“10” is “Very Helpful,” please rate the support provided by the online resource in terms of:

a. Timeliness of content

b. Accuracy of Information

c. Utility of content

d. User-friendliness of webpage

Think about the technical support and assistance you have received from the EED TA Center/AEM. On a 10-point 

scale, where “1” is “Not Very Helpful” and “10” is “Very Helpful,” please rate the technical assistance they 

provided your team in terms of their:

Q59.10. Assistance in improving your program planning and implementation 

Q59.11. Providing relevant information and ideas 

Q59.12. Connecting you with other experts or practitioners working on similar programs 

Q59.13. Providing quality content during EED Summits

Q59.14. Providing direct technical assistance to individual grantees

Q59.15. Providing quality content on the Grads360 platform

Q59.16. Providing quality of content and connections as part of the Communities of Practice
76

ONLY IF Q1=60 School Climate Transformation Grants (LEAs)

Q60.1 How often do you receive technical assistance (email communications, written guidance, webinars, 

meetings/conferences, in-person trainings or site-specific support) from the OSSS office?

a. At least weekly

b. Monthly

c. Quarterly

d. Yearly

Q60.2 On a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 is “Poor” and 10 is “Excellent,” how helpful is that technical assistance? 

Q60.3 Which form of technical assistance do you find most helpful in the completion of your grant? 

a. Written guidance

b. Email communication

c. Annual meetings/conferences

d. In-person training or site-specific support

e. Other (please specify)

Q60.4 What specific type of technical assistance content would be most useful to you in the successful completion 

of your grant(s)? Please select up to 3 options from the list below:

a. using data for effective student outcomes

b. leveraging alignment, integration and sustainability

c. effectiveness and efficiency of communications

d. leveraging public/private partnerships for sustainability 

e. federal project management

f. federal grant fiscal management

g. federal grant contracting do’s and don’ts

h. federal grant regulations

i. federal grant administration

j. Other (please specify)
77

ONLY IF Q1=61 Native Hawaiian Education Act Program/Education of Native Hawaiian ASK 1-4 BELOW

Q61.1 Please rate the knowledge of the U.S. Department of Education staff on NHE program grant administration 

issues and on program administration issues as they assist your grant project. Please use a 10-point scale with “1” 

being “poor” and “10” being “excellent.”

Q61.2 Have NHE staff initiated technical assistance with you during the past 3-6 months?

a. Yes

b. No

Q61.3 [IF Q59.2=a] Where and how did the technical assistance or support take place (Select all that apply)

a. Webinars, website material

b. Conference call/email exchange with your Program Officer

c. Other Program (or the Department) staff site visit

Q61.4 What technical assistant topics can the NHE program provide to support the implementation of your grant 

projects more effectively? (Open-ended)
78

ONLY IF Q1=62 Alaska Native Education Program ASK 1-9 BELOW

Q62.1 How long have you served as the ANE Project Director?

a. Less than one year

b. More than one year

c. I am not the ANE Project Director but I have served in a leadership (decision-making) capacity for 

this program for less than one year.

d. I am not the ANE Project Director but I have served in a leadership (decision-making) capacity for 

this program for more than one year.

Q62.2 Please rate the knowledge of the U.S. Department of Education staff on ANE program grant administration 

issues and on program administration issues as they assist your grant project. Please use a 10-point scale with “1” 

being “poor” and “10” being “excellent.”

Q62.3 When you were preparing your application, how easy was it for you to locate and understand the 

information in the application package? Please rate the following on a scale from “1” to “10”, where “1” is “very 

difficult” and “10” is “very easy.”

a. Program Purpose

b. Program Priorities

c. Selection Criteria

d. Review Process

e. Budget Information and Forms

f. Deadline for Submission

g. Dollar Limit on Awards

h. Page Limitation Instructions

i. Formatting Instructions

j. Program Contact

Q62.4 Has your program officer initiated technical assistance with you or anyone on the ANE staff during the past 

3-6 months?

a. Yes

b. No

Q62.5 [IF Q62.4=YES] Where and how did the technical assistance or support take place (Select all that apply)

a. Webinars, Communities of Practice

b. Conference call/email exchange with your Program Officer

c. Other Program (or the Department) staff site visit

d. Other (Please specify)

Q62.6 How helpful is the information on the ANE website? Please use a 10-point scale with “1” being “not very 

helpful” and “10” being “very helpful.”

Q62.7 What technical assistant topics can the ANE program provide at Project Directors’ meetings to support the 

implementation of your grant projects more effectively? (Open-ended)

Q62.8 How easy is it to navigate the web-based annual performance report process? Please use a 10-point scale 

with ”1” being “not very easy” and “10” being “very easy.”

Q62.9 What suggestions do you have for improving the annual performance report process? (Open-ended)
79

ONLY IF Q1=63 Innovative Approaches to Literacy ASK 1-5 BELOW

Think about the technical support and assistance you have received from the U.S. Department of Education staff 

and the technical assistance provider 2M Research. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “not very satisfied” and “10” 

is “very satisfied”, please rate the following items.

Q63.1. Ability to work with you to resolve issues

Q63.2. The quality of information or feedback received from the program officer

Q63.3. Your overall level of satisfaction with the service provided by the program officer

Q63.4. How helpful is the information and guidance provided to you by the US Department of Education staff on 

project implementation and evaluation?

Q63.5. How helpful is the information and guidance provided to you by the US Department of Education staff on 

performance reporting (annual performance reports and ad hoc performance reports)?
80

ONLY IF Q1=64 High School Equivalency Program (HEP) – Migrant Education ASK 1-10 BELOW

As it relates to the High School Equivalency Program (HEP), please rate the following using a 10 point scale, where 

“1” means poor and “10” means excellent. 

Q64.1. Accessibility and responsiveness of program staff 

Q64.2. Timely resolution of questions by program staff 

Q64.3. Clarity of information provided by program staff 

Q64.4. Usefulness and relevance of the strategies for technical assistance (e.g., webinars, policy documents, 

meetings, conference calls) 

Q64.5. Usefulness of the updated technical assistance resources pages on the HEP ed.gov website.

Q64.6. What additional topics would you like discussed during HEP meetings, webinars, or phone calls to help you 

implement a high-quality program? 

Q64.7. What could the HEP team do to improve the content of technical assistance? 

Q64.8. What could the HEP team do to improve the structure or format of technical assistance? 

Q64.9. Please share how the HEP team’s services can be improved over the next year to better meet your needs as 

a Project Director implementing the HEP. (Please cite specific recommendations) (open ended)

Q64.10. Are there any other federal programs providing you technical assistance in form and/or content the 

HEP/CAMPteam should consider as a model? If so, please list. (Open ended)
81

ONLY IF Q1=65 College Assistance Migrant Program ASK 1-10 BELOW

As it relates to the College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP), please rate the following using a 10 point scale, 

where “1” means poor and “10” means excellent. 

Q65.1. Accessibility and responsiveness of program staff 

Q65.2. Timely resolution of questions by program staff 

Q65.3. Clarity of information provided by program staff 

Q65.4. Usefulness and relevance of the strategies for technical assistance (e.g., webinars, policy documents, 

meetings, conference calls) 

Q65.5. Usefulness of the updated technical assistance resources pages on the CAMP ed.gov website.

Q65.6. What additional topics would you like discussed during CAMP meetings, webinars, or phone calls to help 

you implement a high-quality program? 

Q65.7. What could the CAMP team do to improve the content of technical assistance? 

Q65.8. What could the CAMP team do to improve the structure or format of technical assistance? 

Q65.9. Please share any comments on how the CAMP team’s services can be improved over the next year to better 

meet your needs as a Program Director implementing the CAMP. 

Q65.10. Are there any other federal programs providing you technical assistance in form and/or content the 

HEP/CAMPteam should consider as a model? If so, please list. (Open ended)
82

ONLY IF Q1=66 Full Service Community Schools ASK 1-5 BELOW

Q66.1 Did you ask your ED Program Contact (Program Officer) for assistance in areas not related to fiscal or grant 

administration issues?

a. Yes

b. No

Q66.2 [If Q64.1=Yes] On a scale from 1 to 10, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate the ED 

Program Contacts quality of assistance. 
83

ONLY IF Q1=67 Statewide Family Engagement Centers ASK 1-5 BELOW

Think about your experience with receiving technical assistance from the School Choice and Improvement Division. 

On a 10-point scale where “1” means poor and “10” means excellent please rate the School Choice and Improvement 

Division according to the following:

Q67.1 Ability to resolve issues

Q67.2 Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication

Q67.3 Frequency of communication regarding grant information, deadlines, expectations, requirements, or other 

pertinent information

Q67.4 Your overall level of satisfaction with the service provided by the program officer.

Q67.5 Your satisfaction with the Program Director’s Meeting. 
84

ONLY IF Q1=68 Assistance for Arts Education Development and Dissemination ASK 1-5 BELOW

Think about the technical support and assistance you have received from the U.S. Department of Education staff

and the technical assistance provider 2M Research. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “not very satisfied” and “10” 

is “very satisfied”, please rate the following items.

Q68.1. Ability to work with you to resolve issues

Q68.2. The quality of information or feedback received from the program officer.

Q68.3. Your overall level of satisfaction with the service provided by the program officer.

Q68.4. Your satisfaction with the face-to-face AIE Annual Program Director’s Convening. 

Q68.5. How helpful is the information and guidance provided to you by the US Department of Education staff and 

contracted staff (2M Research) on project implementation and evaluation?

Q68.6. How helpful is the information and guidance provided to you by the US Department of Education staff and 

contracted staff (2M Research) on performance reporting (annual performance reports and ad hoc performance 

reports)?
85

ONLY IF Q1=69 Javits Program ASK 1-7 BELOW

Think about your experience with receiving technical assistance from the Javits program specialist. On a 10-point 

scale where “1” means poor and “10” means excellent please rate your program specialist on:

Q69.1. Responsiveness to questions and timely resolution of general programmatic and financial issues

Q69.2. The quality of information or feedback received from Javits program staff, including webinars

Q69.3. Knowledge of the Javits interim performance reporting requirements for mid-year check-in calls

Q69.4. Your overall level of satisfaction with the service provided by the representative

Q69.5. Frequency of communication regarding grant information, deadlines, expectations, requirements, or other 

pertinent information

Q69.6. What topics would you like discussed during Javits meetings, webinars, or phone calls to help you 

implement a high-quality program?

Q69.7. Please share any comments and/or ideas on how the Javits team can improve its support of your projectspecific work.
86

ONLY IF Q1=70 Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund ASK 1-5 BELOW

*(NEW Program in 2021)

Interaction with Program Officer

Think about the experience receiving technical assistance from your ESSER program officer and rate the following 

from a scale of 1 to 10 where “1” is “Not at all Helpful” and “10” is “Very Helpful.”

Q70.1. Program officer’s ability to resolve issues

Q70.2. Program officer’s ability to listen to, accept and act upon your feedback

Q70.3. Program officer’s ability to assist you in defining your needs and requests

Q70.4. Program officer’s use of clear and concise written and verbal communication

Q70.5. How helpful is your ESSER program officer in connecting you to the resources and relationships you need to 

effectively implement your grant(s)? On a scale from 1 to 10 where “1” is “Not at all Helpful” and “10” is “Very 

Helpful.”

Office of State and Grantees Relations

Q70.6. What is your preferred way to receive information from the Office of State and Grantees Relations? Please 

rank your top three.

a. Individual Email

b. Telephone Call

c. Video Call

d. G5 Bulk Email

e. ESSER/GEER Newsblast listserv

f. Website

Q70.7. Think about ESSER grant requirements. Select the two topics for which you have the greatest need for 

technical assistance.

a. Allowable uses of funds

b. Reporting requirements

c. Subrecipient monitoring

d. Timelines for grant requirements

e. Understanding difference requirements between programs

Q70.8. Describe how the Office of State and Grantees Relations can further empower you to make decisions about 

the implementation of your ESSER grants.
87

ONLY IF Q1=71 Governors Emergency Education Relief Fund ASK 1-5 BELOW

*(NEW Program in 2021)

Interaction with Program Officer

Think about the experience receiving technical assistance from your GEER program officer and rate the following 

from a scale of 1 to 10 where “1” is “Not at all Helpful” and “10” is “Very Helpful.”

Q71.1. Program officer’s ability to resolve issues

Q71.2. Program officer’s ability to listen to, accept and act upon your feedback

Q71.3. Program officer’s ability to assist you in defining your needs and requests

Q71.4. Program officer’s use of clear and concise written and verbal communication

Q71.5. How helpful is your GEER program officer in connecting you to the resources and relationships you need to 

effectively implement your grant(s)? On a scale from 1 to 10 where “1” is “Not at all Helpful” and “10” is “Very 

Helpful.”

Office of State and Grantees Relations

Q71.6. What is your preferred way to receive information from the Office of State and Grantees Relations? Please 

rank your top three.

a. Individual Email

b. Telephone Call

c. Video Call

d. G5 Bulk Email

e. ESSER/GEER Newsblast listserv

f. Website

Q71.7. Think about GEER grant requirements. Select the two topics for which you have the greatest need for 

technical assistance.

a. Allowable uses of funds

b. Reporting requirements

c. Subrecipient monitoring

d. Timelines for grant requirements

e. Understanding difference requirements between programs

Q71.8. Describe how the Office of State and Grantees Relations can further empower you to make decisions about 

the implementation of your GEER grants.
88

ONLY IF Q1=72 Education Stabilization Fund-Rethink K-12 Education Models Discretionary Grant Program

*(NEW Program in 2021)

[No custom questions]
2021 1

Appendix B: 

Attribute Tables and Non-Scored

Responses
2021 2

Dept of Ed OAGA – Aggregate (2020 v 

2021) Score Table 

2020 2021 

Difference Significant 

Difference 

Aggregate 

Scores Scores Impact 

Sample Size 2,408 2,695 

ED Staff/Coordination 87 86 -1 ↓ 1.1 

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, and 

procedures 89 89 0 --

Responsiveness to your questions 84 83 -1 --

Professionalism 93 93 0 --

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 85 85 0 --

Communication about changes that may affect your program 85 86 1 ↑ --

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different program 

offices 86 85 -1 --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in providing 

relevant services 84 84 0 --

Online Resources 75 76 1 0.7 

Ability to find specific information 75 75 0 --

Quality of content 77 78 1 --

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 75 75 0 --

Accuracy of search results 76 76 0 --

Ability to navigate within the site 75 75 0 --

Look and feel/Visual appearance 74 75 1 --

Documents 81 82 1 0.8 

Clarity 82 82 0 --

Organization of information 83 83 0 --

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 81 81 0 --

Relevance to your areas of need 82 82 0 --

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues that 

you face 79 79 0 --

Information in Application Package 88 87 -1 N/A 

Program Purpose 89 88 -1 --

Program Priorities 88 88 0 --

Selection Criteria 87 86 -1 --

Review Process 84 83 -1 --

Budget Information and Forms 84 82 -2 ↓ --

Deadline for Submission 91 91 0 --

Dollar Limit on Awards 88 87 -1 --

Page Limitation Instructions 88 86 -2 ↓ --

Formatting Instructions 86 83 -3 ↓ --

Program Contact 91 90 -1 --

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements 76 75 -1 1.0 

Clarity of reporting requirements 78 78 0 --

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report 74 74 0 --

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically 81 80 -1 --

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) 78 78 0 --

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project 76 75 -1 --

Your understanding of how ED uses your data 68 67 -1 --
2021 3

2020 2021 

Difference Significant 

Difference 

Aggregate 

Scores Scores Impact 

Sample Size 2,408 2,695 

Technical Assistance 79 79 0 1.4 

TA services provided in helping successfully implement grant 

programs/projects 82 81 -1 --

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management 79 79 0 --

Using evidence-based practices in implementing program 

activities 78 79 1 --

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in the 

program 

75 76 1 --

Creating opportunities to share best practices via learning 

groups 

78 78 0 --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project 87 85 -2 --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- 91 -- --

ACSI 78 76 -2 ↓ N/A 

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 83 82 -1 ↓ --

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 75 73 -2 ↓ --

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 74 72 -2 ↓ --

Trust 85 84 -1 ↓ 4.2 

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs 85 84 -1 ↓ --

Native American and Alaska Native Children in School 

Program 

Technical assistance from OELA office 87 85 -2 --

Technical assistance from program officer 90 87 -3 --

Usefulness of OELA website 76 84 8 --

Usefulness of NCELA website 76 75 -1 --

Usefulness of OELA Facebook 58 44 -14 --

National Professional Development Program 

Technical assistance from OELA office 86 87 1 --

Technical assistance from program officer 82 85 3 --

Usefulness of OELA website 79 81 2 --

Usefulness of NCELA website 86 84 -2 --

Usefulness of OELA Facebook 64 67 3 --
2021 4

2020 2021 

Difference Significant 

Difference 

Aggregate 

Scores Scores Impact 

Sample Size 2,408 2,695 

Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA) 

Program 

Ease of reporting using the NRS web-based system 83 85 2 --

Usefulness of the training offered by OCTAE through its 

contract to support NRS 81 85 4 --

Being well-organized 88 88 0 --

Providing pre-planning adequate guidance 88 85 -3 --

Setting expectations for the visit 89 88 -1 --

Being up-to-date 90 94 4 --

Relevance of information 87 92 5 --

Usefulness to your program 87 91 4 --

Usefulness of products helping your state meet AEFLA 

program priorities 83 87 4 --

How well TA addresses your program priorities and needs 82 83 1 --

Website - Ability to find specific information -- 82 -- --

Website - Quality of content -- 87 -- --

Website - Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- 82 -- --

Website - Accuracy of search results -- 82 -- --

Website - Ability to navigate within the site -- 83 -- --

Website - Look and feel/Visual appearance -- 86 -- --

Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education State 

Directors 

CAR`s user-friendliness 82 80 -2 --

PCRN’s usefulness to your program 83 84 1 --

Effectiveness of DATE in helping you implement grant 

programs 

86 87 1 --

TA received on project implementation and budget questions 88 91 3 --

Usefulness and relevance of project director meetings in 

providing TA 87 86 -1 --

Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Education Program 

PCRN’s usefulness to your program 83 94 11 --

Effectiveness of DATE in helping you implement grant 

programs 

78 94 16 --

TA received on project implementation and budget questions 83 83 0 --

Usefulness and relevance of project director meeting in 

providing TA 94 100 6 --

Native American Career and Technical Education 

Program 

PCRN’s usefulness to your program 76 67 -9 --

Effectiveness of DATE in helping you implement grant 

programs 

68 62 -6 --

TA received on project implementation and budget questions 76 81 5 --

Usefulness and relevance of project director meeting in 

providing TA 79 70 -9 --
2021 5

2020 2021 

Difference Significant 

Difference 

Aggregate 

Scores Scores Impact 

Sample Size 2,408 2,695 

IDEA – State Directors of Special Education (Part B) 

Program 

Clarity of information received in developing applications and 

reports 74 80 6 --

Timeliness of responses 79 84 5 --

OSEP-funded TA provider 89 89 0 --

Education Department-funded TA provider 68 73 5 --

Professional associations 80 80 0 --

Conferences where research is presented 68 69 1 --

Books 52 53 1 --

Journal articles 64 62 -2 --

Personal interaction with peers 83 81 -2 --

IDEAS that work website 68 75 7 --

The Department`s new IDEA website 65 76 11 ↑ --

osep.grads360.org 68 68 0 --

IDEA – Part C Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities 

Program 

Clarity of information received in developing applications and 

reports 84 80 -4 --

Timeliness of responses 86 83 -3 --

OSEP-funded TA provider 87 85 -2 --

Education Department-funded TA provider 51 45 -6 --

Professional associations 80 83 3 --

Conferences where research is presented 74 65 -9 --

Books 49 44 -5 --

Journal articles 60 59 -1 --

Personal interaction with peers 87 75 -12 ↓ --

IDEAS that work website 58 67 9 --

The Department`s new IDEA website 59 64 5 --

osep.grads360.org 62 62 0 --

RSA Vocational Rehabilitation Program 

Responsiveness to questions and requests for technical 

assistance 71 76 5 --

Supportiveness in helping complete Unified or Combined 

State Plan 70 72 2 --

Dissemination of subregulatory guidance 74 76 2 --

Provision of effective training and dissemination of relevant 

information 65 62 -3 --

Data Collection and Reporting 74 72 -2 --

Fiscal/Grant Management 73 68 -5 --

Programmatic 72 72 0 --

Technical Assistance 71 69 -2 --

Utility of website for entering required data, retrieving and 

revising reports 66 59 -7 --

Ease of navigating website 64 56 -8 --

Usefulness of information available on the website 68 65 -3 --

Website technical support 66 59 -7 --
2021 6

2020 2021 

Difference Significant 

Difference 

Aggregate 

Scores Scores Impact 

Sample Size 2,408 2,695 

Rehabilitation Long-Term Training Program 

Usefulness of messages that are disseminated via RSA 

listserv 75 74 -1 --

Timeliness of messages that are disseminated via RSA 

listserv 75 78 3 --

Effectiveness in training vocational rehabilitation counselors 

for employment 94 90 -4 --

State Personnel Development Grants 

OSEP-funded TA provider -- 69 -- --

Education Department-funded TA provider -- 49 -- --

Professional associations -- 64 -- --

Conferences where research is presented -- 62 -- --

Books -- 60 -- --

Journal articles -- 65 -- --

Personal interaction with peers -- 75 -- --

IDEAS that work website -- 53 -- --

The Department`s new IDEA website -- 51 -- --

Helpfulness of ED Staff in supporting growth of grant/improve 

project -- 87 -- --

Independent Living Services for Older Individuals Who 

Are Blind (IL-OIB) 

Data Collection and Reporting -- 75 -- --

Fiscal/Grant Management -- 72 -- --

Program Performance -- 71 -- --

Technical Assistance -- 79 -- --

Training efforts/Dissemination of info - TAC at MSU -- 94 -- --

Utility of website for entering required data, retrieving and 

revising reports -- 69 -- --

Ease of navigating website -- 63 -- --

Usefulness of information available on the website -- 65 -- --

Website technical support -- 67 -- --

Strengthening Institutions Program 

Responsiveness to questions 77 73 -4 --

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, and 

procedures 86 82 -4 --

Ability to resolve issues 82 79 -3 --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication 80 78 -2 --

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial 

issues 78 75 -3 --

Timeliness of the grant award notification 78 79 1 --

Availability of funds with adequate time for implementation 80 80 0 --

Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees 87 86 -1 --

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed 78 74 -4 --

Frequency of communication 72 69 -3 --

Clarity of communication 77 75 -2 --
2021 7

2020 2021 

Difference Significant 

Difference 

Aggregate 

Scores Scores Impact 

Sample Size 2,408 2,695 

Alaskan Native and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions 

(ANNH)-Part A 

Responsiveness to your questions 69 76 7 --

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and 

procedures 84 81 -3 --

Ability to resolve issues 80 84 4 --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication 83 87 4 --

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial 

issues 72 80 8 --

Timeliness of the grant award notification 81 84 3 --

Availability of funds with adequate time for implementation 84 82 -2 --

Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees 81 82 1 --

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed 78 81 3 --

Frequency of communication 71 78 7 --

Clarity of communication 82 82 0 --

Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions 

Responsiveness to questions 82 88 6 ↑ --

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and 

procedures 90 89 -1 --

Ability to resolve issues 86 89 3 --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication 85 89 4 --

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial 

issues 85 89 4 --

Timeliness of the grant award notification 79 82 3 --

Availability of funds with adequate time for implementation 83 84 1 --

Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees 88 89 1 --

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed 83 84 1 --

Frequency of communication 78 81 3 --

Clarity of communication 83 87 4 --

Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic 

Americans Program 

Responsiveness to your questions 75 98 23 ↑ --

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and 

procedures 77 97 20 ↑ --

Ability to resolve issues 75 99 24 ↑ --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication 74 97 23 ↑ --

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial 

issues 76 97 21 ↑ --

Timeliness of the grant award notification 90 95 5 --

Availability of funds with adequate time for implementation 90 96 6 --

Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees 84 99 15 ↑ --

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed 84 97 13 ↑ --

Frequency of communication 76 99 23 ↑ --

Clarity of communication 79 98 19 ↑ --
2021 8

2020 2021 

Difference Significant 

Difference 

Aggregate 

Scores Scores Impact 

Sample Size 2,408 2,695 

Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities (TCCU)-Part 

A program 

Responsiveness to your questions 85 88 3 --

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and 

procedures 87 82 -5 --

Ability to resolve issues 85 86 1 --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication 81 82 1 --

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial 

issues 89 87 -2 --

Timeliness of the grant award notification 74 84 10 --

Availability of funds with adequate time for implementation 86 83 -3 --

Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees 90 83 -7 --

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed 85 83 -2 --

Frequency of communication 88 79 -9 --

Clarity of communication 90 84 -6 --

Native American Serving Non-Tribal Institutions Program 

Responsiveness to your questions 82 78 -4 --

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and 

procedures 89 89 0 --

Ability to resolve issues 83 89 6 --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication 83 81 -2 --

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial 

issues 80 77 -3 --

Timeliness of the grant award notification 72 81 9 --

Availability of funds with adequate time for implementation 71 85 14 ↑ --

Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees 78 91 13 ↑ --

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed 78 84 6 --

Frequency of communication 67 79 12 --

Clarity of communication 79 84 5 --

Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander 

Institutions Program 

Responsiveness to your questions 94 91 -3 --

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and 

procedures 94 89 -5 --

Ability to resolve issues 91 90 -1 --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication 90 88 -2 --

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial 

issues 93 91 -2 --

Timeliness of the grant award notification 46 64 18 --

Availability of funds with adequate time for implementation 63 64 1 --

Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees 73 76 3 --

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed 81 85 4 --

Frequency of communication 80 86 6 --

Clarity of communication 81 85 4 --
2021 9

2020 2021 

Difference Significant 

Difference 

Aggregate 

Scores Scores Impact 

Sample Size 2,408 2,695 

Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad (DDRA) 

Responsiveness to your questions 72 68 -4 --

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and 

procedures 91 75 -16 ↓ --

Ability to resolve issues 83 74 -9 --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication 76 71 -5 --

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial 

issues 73 73 0 --

Timeliness of the grant award notification 57 65 8 --

Availability of funds with adequate time for implementation 61 68 7 --

Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees 73 78 5 --

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed 78 61 -17 ↓ --

Frequency of communication 73 60 -13 --

Clarity of communication 77 60 -17 ↓ --

Supports instruction in fields needed to provide full 

understanding 98 86 -12 ↓ --

Supports work in language aspects of professional and other 

fields of study 96 87 -9 ↓ --

Supports research and training in international studies 99 91 -8 ↓ --

Teaching of any modern foreign language 92 76 -16 --

Instruction in fields needed to provide full understanding 99 79 -20 ↓ --

Research and training in international studies 97 88 -9 ↓ --

Language aspects of professional and other fields of study 91 82 -9 --

Instruction and research on issues in world affairs 94 82 -12 --

Group Projects Abroad program 

Responsiveness to your questions 91 89 -2 --

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and 

procedures 93 92 -1 --

Ability to resolve issues 94 91 -3 --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication 92 92 0 --

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial 

issues 92 91 -1 --

Timeliness of the grant award notification 92 90 -2 --

Availability of funds with adequate time for implementation 95 89 -6 --

Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees 90 82 -8 --

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed 92 88 -4 --

Frequency of communication 87 85 -2 --

Clarity of communication 90 89 -1 --

Supports instruction in fields needed to provide full 

understanding 92 95 3 --

Supports work in language aspects of professional and other 

fields of study 84 94 10 ↑ --

Supports research and training in international studies 92 94 2 --

Teaching of any modern foreign language 92 90 -2 --

Instruction in fields needed to provide full understanding 96 95 -1 --

Research and training in international studies 92 94 2 --

Language aspects of professional and other fields of study 93 94 1 --

Instruction and research on issues in world affairs 95 95 0 --
2021 10

2020 2021 

Difference Significant 

Difference 

Aggregate 

Scores Scores Impact 

Sample Size 2,408 2,695 

Hispanic Serving Institutions - STEM and Articulation 

Program 

Responsiveness to your questions -- 88 -- --

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and 

procedures -- 89 -- --

Ability to resolve issues -- 88 -- --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication -- 87 -- --

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial 

issues -- 88 -- --

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- 79 -- --

Availability of funds with adequate time for implementation -- 82 -- --

Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees -- 85 -- --

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- 84 -- --

Frequency of communication -- 78 -- --

Clarity of communication -- 85 -- --

Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships (FLAS) 

Responsiveness to your questions 95 98 3 ↑ --

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and 

procedures 95 96 1 --

Ability to resolve issues 95 98 3 ↑ --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication 95 97 2 --

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial 

issues 95 96 1 --

Timeliness of the grant award notification 72 79 7 --

Availability of funds with adequate time for implementation 73 76 3 --

Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees 84 83 -1 --

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed 92 95 3 --

Frequency of communication 89 94 5 ↑ --

Clarity of communication 92 96 4 ↑ --

Supports instruction in fields needed to provide full 

understanding 94 93 -1 --

Supports work in language aspects of professional and other 

fields of study 94 94 0 --

Supports research and training in international studies 95 93 -2 --

Teaching of any modern foreign language 95 92 -3 --

Instruction in fields needed to provide full understanding 94 93 -1 --

Research and training in international studies 93 93 0 --

Language aspects of professional and other fields of study 93 92 -1 --

Instruction and research on issues in world affairs 93 94 1 --
2021 11

2020 2021 

Difference Significant 

Difference 

Aggregate 

Scores Scores Impact 

Sample Size 2,408 2,695 

TRIO Talent Search 

Responsiveness to your questions -- 80 -- --

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and 

procedures -- 82 -- --

Ability to resolve issues -- 79 -- --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication -- 80 -- --

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial 

issues -- 79 -- --

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- 60 -- --

Availability of funds with adequate time for implementation -- 70 -- --

Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees -- 80 -- --

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- 81 -- --

Frequency of communication -- 77 -- --

Clarity of communication -- 81 -- --

Upward Bound Math and Science 

Responsiveness to your questions -- 61 -- --

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and 

procedures -- 68 -- --

Ability to resolve issues -- 68 -- --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication -- 67 -- --

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial 

issues -- 63 -- --

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- 70 -- --

Availability of funds with adequate time for implementation -- 76 -- --

Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees -- 77 -- --

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- 74 -- --

Frequency of communication -- 70 -- --

Clarity of communication -- 73 -- --

Veterans Upward Bound 

Responsiveness to your questions -- 63 -- --

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and 

procedures -- 72 -- --

Ability to resolve issues -- 67 -- --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication -- 65 -- --

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial 

issues -- 59 -- --

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- 68 -- --

Availability of funds with adequate time for implementation -- 77 -- --

Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees -- 79 -- --

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- 69 -- --

Frequency of communication -- 63 -- --

Clarity of communication -- 65 -- --
2021 12

2020 2021 

Difference Significant 

Difference 

Aggregate 

Scores Scores Impact 

Sample Size 2,408 2,695 

Ronald E. McNair Post-Baccalaureate Achievement 

Program 

Responsiveness to your questions -- 64 -- --

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and 

procedures -- 76 -- --

Ability to resolve issues -- 71 -- --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication -- 71 -- --

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial 

issues -- 60 -- --

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- 68 -- --

Availability of funds with adequate time for implementation -- 74 -- --

Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees -- 76 -- --

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- 75 -- --

Frequency of communication -- 67 -- --

Clarity of communication -- 73 -- --

Training Program for Federal TRIO Programs 

Responsiveness to your questions -- 56 -- --

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and 

procedures -- 56 -- --

Ability to resolve issues -- 56 -- --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication -- 56 -- --

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial 

issues -- 56 -- --

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- 89 -- --

Availability of funds with adequate time for implementation -- 89 -- --

Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees -- 89 -- --

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- 89 -- --

Frequency of communication -- 89 -- --

Clarity of communication -- 89 -- --

Historically Black Graduate Institutions (HBGI) Program 

Responsiveness to your questions -- 96 -- --

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and 

procedures -- 96 -- --

Ability to resolve issues -- 96 -- --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication -- 96 -- --

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial 

issues -- 96 -- --

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- 67 -- --

Availability of funds with adequate time for implementation -- 84 -- --

Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees -- 74 -- --

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- 93 -- --

Frequency of communication -- 84 -- --

Clarity of communication -- 96 -- --
2021 13

2020 2021 

Difference Significant 

Difference 

Aggregate 

Scores Scores Impact 

Sample Size 2,408 2,695 

Transition/Postsecondary Programs for Students with 

Intellectual Disabilities 

Responsiveness to your questions -- 82 -- --

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and 

procedures -- 88 -- --

Ability to resolve issues -- 85 -- --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication -- 82 -- --

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial 

issues -- 79 -- --

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- 82 -- --

Availability of funds with adequate time for implementation -- 71 -- --

Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees -- 88 -- --

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- 75 -- --

Frequency of communication -- 66 -- --

Clarity of communication -- 71 -- --

Centers for International Business Education 

Responsiveness to your questions -- 100 -- --

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and 

procedures -- 97 -- --

Ability to resolve issues -- 100 -- --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication -- 100 -- --

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial 

issues -- 100 -- --

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- 89 -- --

Availability of funds with adequate time for implementation -- 80 -- --

Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees -- 84 -- --

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- 100 -- --

Frequency of communication -- 96 -- --

Clarity of communication -- 96 -- --

Supports instruction in fields needed to provide full 

understanding -- 93 -- --

Supports work in language aspects of professional and other 

fields of study -- 82 -- --

Supports research and training in international studies -- 96 -- --

Teaching of any modern foreign language -- 87 -- --

Instruction in fields needed to provide full understanding -- 93 -- --

Research and training in international studies -- 96 -- --

Language aspects of professional and other fields of study -- 89 -- --

Instruction and research on issues in world affairs -- 98 -- --
2021 14

2020 2021 

Difference Significant 

Difference 

Aggregate 

Scores Scores Impact 

Sample Size 2,408 2,695 

International Research and Studies 

Responsiveness to your questions -- 88 -- --

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and 

procedures -- 93 -- --

Ability to resolve issues -- 96 -- --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication -- 90 -- --

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial 

issues -- 96 -- --

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- 93 -- --

Availability of funds with adequate time for implementation -- 94 -- --

Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees -- 95 -- --

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- 87 -- --

Frequency of communication -- 78 -- --

Clarity of communication -- 88 -- --

Supports instruction in fields needed to provide full 

understanding -- 94 -- --

Supports work in language aspects of professional and other 

fields of study -- 95 -- --

Supports research and training in international studies -- 96 -- --

Teaching of any modern foreign language -- 90 -- --

Instruction in fields needed to provide full understanding -- 93 -- --

Research and training in international studies -- 88 -- --

Language aspects of professional and other fields of study -- 93 -- --

Instruction and research on issues in world affairs -- 91 -- --

Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign 

Language 

Responsiveness to your questions -- 92 -- --

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and 

procedures -- 93 -- --

Ability to resolve issues -- 93 -- --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication -- 90 -- --

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial 

issues -- 89 -- --

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- 84 -- --

Availability of funds with adequate time for implementation -- 76 -- --

Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees -- 93 -- --

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- 84 -- --

Frequency of communication -- 81 -- --

Clarity of communication -- 87 -- --

Supports instruction in fields needed to provide full 

understanding -- 96 -- --

Supports work in language aspects of professional and other 

fields of study -- 96 -- --

Supports research and training in international studies -- 96 -- --

Teaching of any modern foreign language -- 95 -- --

Instruction in fields needed to provide full understanding -- 95 -- --

Research and training in international studies -- 96 -- --

Language aspects of professional and other fields of study -- 96 -- --

Instruction and research on issues in world affairs -- 93 -- --
2021 15

2020 2021 

Difference Significant 

Difference 

Aggregate 

Scores Scores Impact 

Sample Size 2,408 2,695 

Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local 

Educational Agencies Program 

Provides assistance that enhances capacity to implement 68 82 14 ↑ --

Provides support that is responsive to my State’s needs to 

implement 65 83 18 ↑ --

Helps address implementation challenges 66 81 15 ↑ --

Provides information about key changes to requirements 69 83 14 ↑ --

Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants (Title II, Part 

A)

Provides assistance that enhances capacity to implement 63 74 11 --

Provides support that is responsive to my State’s needs to 

implement 67 74 7 --

Helps address implementation challenges 63 70 7 --

Provides information about key changes to requirements 67 74 7 --

Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 

7003) 

Responsiveness to answering questions 88 87 -1 --

Supportiveness in helping you complete your application 91 87 -4 --

Knowledge about technical material 90 89 -1 --

Effectiveness in providing TA or instructions regarding 

performance reports 82 82 0 --

Ease of reaching person who could address concern 87 84 -3 --

Ability to resolve your issue 87 87 0 --

21st Century Community Learning Centers 

Provides assistance that enhances the capacity to implement 85 82 -3 --

Provides support that is timely and responsive to my State’s 

needs to implement 86 84 -2 --

Helps my State address grant implementation challenges 85 85 0 --

Provides information about key changes to requirements 85 85 0 --

Helpfulness of information provided 89 85 -4 --

Likelihood to recommend Y4Y website 96 95 -1 --

Student Support and Academic Enrichment 

Usefulness of the Website 73 78 5 --

Usefulness of the Portal 84 81 -3 --

English Language Acquisition State Grants (Title III, Part 

A)

Provides assistance that enhances capacity to implement 65 65 0 --

Provides support that is responsive to my State’s needs to 

implement 62 64 2 --

Helps address implementation challenges 63 64 1 --

Provides information about key changes to requirements 75 75 0 --

Migrant Education Programs (Title I, Part C) 

Usefulness of the Website -- 84 -- --

Grants for State Assessments 

Provides assistance that enhances capacity to implement 79 77 -2 --

Provides support that is responsive to my State’s needs to 

implement 84 79 -5 --

Helps address implementation challenges 83 79 -4 --

Provides information about key changes to requirements 83 82 -1 --
2021 16

2020 2021 

Difference Significant 

Difference 

Aggregate 

Scores Scores Impact 

Sample Size 2,408 2,695 

Teacher and school leader incentive grants (ESEA II-B-1)

Understanding of all program requirements, including 

budgetary concerns -- 78 -- --

Understanding of practices other grantees use to address 

challenging areas -- 75 -- --

Timeliness of content -- 78 -- --

Accuracy of Information -- 83 -- --

Utility of content -- 79 -- --

User-friendliness of webpage -- 80 -- --

Assistance in improving program planning and implementation 87 74 -13 --

Providing relevant information and ideas 90 74 -16 --

Connecting you with other experts or practitioners 88 78 -10 --

Providing quality content during EED Summits -- 86 -- --

Providing direct technical assistance to individual grantees -- 80 -- --

Providing quality content on the Grads360 platform -- 77 -- --

Providing quality of content and connections of the 

Communities of Practice -- 78 -- --

Charter Schools Program (CSP) Grants to State Entities 

Dissemination of resources and opportunities the CSP 

provides 78 76 -2 --

Comms and info accessible and provided in timely manner 76 61 -15 ↓ --

Technical assistance receive on project implementation and 

budget questions 84 68 -16 ↓ --

Assistance gives opportunity to give staff an understanding of 

your project 78 63 -15 ↓ --

Guidance CSP provides on Federal grant compliance 64 56 -8 --

Comprehensive Literacy State Development 

It is easy to get access to my ED program officer -- 57 -- --

My ED program officer is responsive when I reach out with 

questions or concerns -- 58 -- --

My ED program officer communicates in a clear and concise 

manner 

-- 62 -- --

My ED program officer cares about me, my program, and my 

success 

-- 64 -- --

I am thankful we are a CLSD grantee and would recommend 

program to other SEAs -- 91 -- --

I find the Knowledge Management System (KMS) easy to use -- 73 -- --

I find the reporting requirements for CLSD to be appropriate -- 76 -- --

The KMS is useful to me beyond submitting required ED 

reports -- 68 -- --

My TA Liaison (from AIR) is helpful to me in a significant way -- 78 -- --

Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter 

Schools 

Dissemination of resources and opportunities the CSP 

provides 55 67 12 --

Comms and info accessible and provided in timely manner 54 60 6 --

Technical assistance receive on project implementation and 

budget questions 53 52 -1 --

Assistance gives opportunity to give staff an understanding of 

your project 52 57 5 --

Guidance CSP provides on Federal grant compliance 46 49 3 --
2021 17

2020 2021 

Difference Significant 

Difference 

Aggregate 

Scores Scores Impact 

Sample Size 2,408 2,695 

Education Innovation and Research Programs 

Assistance in improving your evaluation planning and 

implementation 86 89 3 --

Customized feedback tailored to my grant’s unique challenges 

and opportunities -- 87 -- --

Connecting with other experts or practitioners working on 

similar evaluations 74 82 8 --

Magnet Schools Assistance Program 

Program Officer’s knowledge of project and ability to meet 

your specific needs -- 84 -- --

Content knowledge of your Program Officer in supporting your 

program’s success -- 84 -- --

MSAP Technical Assistance Center 86 83 -3 --

Benefit of Grads360 system 62 54 -8 --

Overall effectiveness of assistance received from MSAP 83 81 -2 --

Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Education 

Agencies Program 

Timeliness of staff 90 87 -3 --

Quality of support 85 86 1 --

Comprehensiveness of documents 86 83 -3 --

Ease of using EASIE system 84 81 -3 --

Quality of training via webinars 81 80 -1 --

Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program 

Responsiveness in answering questions - Tech Assistance 

Center (NCHE) 94 94 0 --

Guidance provided in responses to questions - Tech 

Assistance Center (NCHE) 91 92 1 --

Meeting program compliance requirements - US Department 

of Education 87 90 3 --

Assisting you to impact performance results - US Department 

of Education 85 88 3 --

Support quality for collecting/submitting data - U.S. 

Department of Education 85 91 6 --

Meeting program compliance requirements - Tech Assistance 

Center (NCHE) 92 93 1 --

Assisting you to impact performance results - Tech Assistance 

Center (NCHE) 90 92 2 --

Support quality for collecting/submitting data - Tech 

Assistance Center (NCHE) 92 93 1 --

REAP-Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) Program 

Email announcements from REAP -- 94 -- --

Newsletter -- 50 -- --

U.S. Department of Education website -- 48 -- --

State educational agencies -- 58 -- --

Community organizations -- 28 -- --

Social Media -- 29 -- --

Clarity of instructions for accessing and completing the 

application 86 89 3 --

Ease of accessing the application using the unique link in the 

invitation email 88 88 0 --

Navigating the application on the MAX.gov survey tool 84 87 3 --

Preparing and completing the information requested on the 

application 88 89 1 --

Ease of submitting the application 90 91 1 --

Utilizing the confirmation email 89 89 0 --
2021 18

2020 2021 

Difference Significant 

Difference 

Aggregate 

Scores Scores Impact 

Sample Size 2,408 2,695 

Promise Neighborhoods 

ED Program Contacts quality of assistance 86 89 3 --

Urban Institute`s Needs Assessment Quality 75 84 9 --

Urban Institute`s other services 74 87 13 --

SCORECARD system 65 74 9 --

GRADS 360 system 52 54 2 --

Supporting Effective Educator Development Program 

Understanding of GPRA measures and associated measure 

definitions -- 79 -- --

Ability to collect and report accurate GPRA data -- 77 -- --

Understanding of all program requirements, including 

budgetary concerns -- 72 -- --

Understanding of practices other grantees use to address 

challenging areas -- 69 -- --

Timeliness of content -- 58 -- --

Accuracy of Information -- 69 -- --

Utility of content -- 62 -- --

User-friendliness of webpage -- 63 -- --

Assistance in improving program planning and implementation 64 65 1 --

Providing relevant information and ideas 64 67 3 --

Connecting you with other experts or practitioners 72 68 -4 --

Providing quality content during EED Summits -- 73 -- --

Providing direct technical assistance to individual grantees -- 63 -- --

Providing quality content on the Grads360 platform -- 58 -- --

Providing quality of content and connections of the 

Communities of Practice -- 60 -- --

Payments for Federal Property (Section 7002) 

Impact Aid staff`s responsiveness to answering questions 89 87 -2 --

Impact Aid staff`s supportiveness in helping complete 

application 90 88 -2 --

Impact Aid staff`s knowledge about technical material 89 90 1 --

Effectiveness of documents in helping complete application 84 81 -3 --

Demonstration Grants for Indian Children/Special 

Projects for Indian Children 

Usefulness and relevance of webinar-based technical 

assistance 80 83 3 --

Usefulness and relevance of project director meeting technical 

assistance 84 84 0 --

Usefulness and relevance of technical assistance resources 

on the OIE web site 72 79 7 --
2021 19

2020 2021 

Difference Significant 

Difference 

Aggregate 

Scores Scores Impact 

Sample Size 2,408 2,695 

Neglected and Delinquent State and Local Agency 

Programs 

Responsiveness in answering questions - Tech Assistance 

Center (NDTAC) 84 65 -19 ↓ --

Sufficiency of the guidance provided in responses to 

questions 86 66 -20 ↓ --

Meeting program compliance requirements - US Department 

of Education 72 76 4 --

Assisting you to impact performance results - US Department 

of Education 74 74 0 --

Support quality for collecting/submitting data - US Department 

of Education 77 76 -1 --

Meeting program compliance requirements - Tech Assistance 

Center (NDTAC) 87 60 -27 ↓ --

Assisting to impact performance results - Tech Assistance 

Center (NDTAC) 85 58 -27 ↓ --

Support quality for collecting/submitting data - Tech 

Assistance Center (NDTAC) 85 58 -27 ↓ --

Teacher Quality Partnership Program 

Understanding of GPRA measures and associated measure 

definitions -- 87 -- --

Ability to collect and report accurate GPRA data -- 84 -- --

Understanding of all program requirements, including 

budgetary concerns -- 83 -- --

Understanding of practices other grantees use to address 

challenging areas -- 83 -- --

Timeliness of content -- 85 -- --

Accuracy of Information -- 87 -- --

Utility of content -- 85 -- --

User-friendliness of webpage -- 87 -- --

Assistance in improving program planning and implementation -- 82 -- --

Providing relevant information and ideas -- 83 -- --

Connecting you with other experts or practitioners -- 84 -- --

Providing quality content during EED Summits -- 84 -- --

Providing direct technical assistance to individual grantees -- 79 -- --

Providing quality content on the Grads360 platform -- 79 -- --

Providing quality of content and connections of the 

Communities of Practice -- 85 -- --

School Climate Transformation Grants (LEAs) Program 

Helpfulness of technical assistance -- 84 -- --

Native Hawaiian Education Act Program/Education of 

Native Hawaiian 

Knowledge of staff on program grant administration issues 92 88 -4 --
2021 20

2020 2021 

Difference Significant 

Difference 

Aggregate 

Scores Scores Impact 

Sample Size 2,408 2,695 

Alaska Native Education Program 

Knowledge of grant and program administration issues 81 88 7 --

Program purpose 84 88 4 --

Program priorities 85 87 2 --

Selection criteria 85 88 3 --

Review process 86 87 1 --

Budget information and forms 86 88 2 --

Deadline for submission 88 92 4 --

Dollar limit on awards 84 87 3 --

Page limitation instructions 88 89 1 --

Formatting instructions 88 88 0 --

Program contact 87 90 3 --

Helpfulness of information on the website 67 76 9 --

Ease of navigating performance report on web 63 71 8 --

Innovative Approaches to Literacy Program 

Ability to work with you to resolve issues 86 89 3 --

Quality of information or feedback received from IAL program 

staff 88 91 3 --

Overall satisfaction with service provided by the 

representative 89 91 2 --

Helpfulness of project implementation and evaluation 86 91 5 --

Helpfulness of performance reporting 85 92 7 --

High School Equivalency Program - Migrant Education 

Accessibility and responsiveness of program staff 91 85 -6 --

Timely resolution of questions by program staff 88 84 -4 --

Clarity of information provided by program staff 89 89 0 --

Usefulness and relevance of technical assistance strategies 91 87 -4 --

Usefulness of updated technical assistance resources pages 

on HEP.ed.gov 85 87 2 --

College Assistance Migrant Program 

Accessibility and responsiveness of program staff 90 90 0 --

Timely resolution of questions by program staff 87 86 -1 --

Clarity of information provided by program staff 91 94 3 --

Usefulness and relevance of the strategies for technical 

assistance 92 91 -1 --

Usefulness of updated technical assistance resources pages 

on CAMP.ed.gov 88 88 0 --

Full-Service Community Schools (ESEA IV-F-2, section 

4625) 

ED Program Contacts quality of assistance 100 94 -6 --

Statewide Family Engagement Centers (SFEC) program 

Ability to resolve issues 100 90 -10 --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication 100 92 -8 --

Frequency of communication 98 90 -8 --

Overall satisfaction with service provided by the program 

officer 100 92 -8 --

Satisfaction with the Program Director’s Meeting 90 85 -5 --
2021 21

2020 2021 

Difference Significant 

Difference 

Aggregate 

Scores Scores Impact 

Sample Size 2,408 2,695 

Assistance for Arts Education Development and 

Dissemination Program 

Ability to work with you to resolve issues 88 85 -3 --

Quality of information or feedback received from program 

officer 90 86 -4 --

Overall satisfaction with service provided by the program 

officer 88 86 -2 --

Satisfaction with face-to-face AIE Annual Program Director’s 

Convening 92 79 -13 ↓ --

Helpfulness of staff on project implementation and evaluation 80 82 2 --

Helpfulness of staff on performance reporting 81 82 1 --

Javits Program 

Timeliness and Responsiveness of general programmatic and 

financial issues 75 78 3 --

Quality of information or feedback received from Javits 

program staff 81 78 -3 --

Knowledge of interim reporting requirements for mid-year 

check-in calls 82 80 -2 --

Overall satisfaction with service provided by the 

representative 78 81 3 --

Frequency of communication 73 78 5 --

Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief 

Fund

Ability to resolve issues -- 72 -- --

Ability to listen to, accept and act upon your feedback -- 78 -- --

Ability to assist you in defining your needs and requests -- 74 -- --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication -- 78 -- --

Helpfulness connecting you to resources and relationships to 

implement grant -- 76 -- --

Governors Emergency Education Relief Fund 

Ability to resolve issues -- 74 -- --

Ability to listen to, accept and act upon your feedback -- 80 -- --

Ability to assist you in defining your needs and requests -- 79 -- --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication -- 82 -- --

Helpfulness connecting you to resources and relationships to 

implement grant -- 74 -- --
2021 22

Dept of Ed OAGA – Aggregate (2020 v 

2021) Demographic Table 

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Program

Native American and Alaska Native Children in School Program 1% 15 1% 14

National Professional Development Program 3% 51 3% 73

Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA) Program 2% 41 2% 43

Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education State Directors 1% 25 1% 27

Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Education Program 0% 2 0% 3

Native American Career and Technical Education Program 1% 20 1% 19

IDEA – State Directors of Special Education (Part B) Program 1% 23 1% 31

IDEA – Part C Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities Program 1% 22 1% 28

RSA Vocational Rehabilitation Program 2% 31 1% 35

Rehabilitation Long-Term Training Program 1% 12 1% 40

IDEA National Centers Program 1% 11 1% 17

State Personnel Development Grants 0% 0 1% 28

Independent Living Services for Older Individuals Who Are Blind (ILOIB) 0% 0 1% 31

Strengthening Institutions Program 6% 107 4% 105

Alaskan Native and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions (ANNH)-

Part A 1% 23 1% 16

Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions 6% 110 4% 108

Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans 

Program 1% 15 1% 17

Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities (TCCU)-Part A program 0% 8 1% 15

Native American Serving Non-Tribal Institutions Program 1% 12 1% 14

Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander Institutions 

Program 1% 23 1% 19

Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad (DDRA) 1% 15 1% 25

Group Projects Abroad Program 1% 21 1% 25

Hispanic Serving Institutions - STEM and Articulation Program 0% 0 2% 51

Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships (FLAS) 5% 92 2% 47

TRIO Talent Search 0% 0 6% 156

Upward Bound Math and Science 0% 0 3% 74

Veterans Upward Bound 0% 0 1% 36

Ronald E. McNair Post-Baccalaureate Achievement Program 0% 0 4% 116

Training Program for Federal TRIO Programs 0% 0 0% 1

Historically Black Graduate Institutions (HBGI) Program 0% 0 0% 6

Transition/Postsecondary Programs for Students with Intellectual 

Disabilities 0% 0 1% 18

Centers for International Business Education 0% 0 0% 6

International Research and Studies 0% 0 0% 13

Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Language 0% 0 1% 24

Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies 

Program 1% 21 1% 38

Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants (Title II, Part A) 1% 26 1% 39

Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 7003) 5% 100 4% 120

21st Century Community Learning Centers 3% 49 2% 44

Student Support and Academic Enrichment 2% 36 1% 39

Immediate Aid to Restart School Operations 0% 5 0% 5

English Language Acquisition State Grants (Title III, Part A) 1% 26 1% 38

Migrant Education Programs (Title I, Part C) 2% 34 1% 37

Grants for State Assessments 2% 29 1% 32

Teacher and School Leader Incentive Grants (ESEA II-B-1) 1% 14 1% 18

Charter Schools Program (CSP) Grants to State Entities 1% 17 1% 20

Comprehensive Literacy State Development 1% 14 1% 28

Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools 1% 18 1% 24

Education Innovation and Research Programs 2% 44 3% 85

Magnet Schools Assistance Program 2% 33 1% 37
2021 23

2020 2021 

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency 

Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Education Agencies 

Program 4% 72 3% 86

Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program 2% 29 1% 37

REAP-Rural and Low Income School (RLIS) Program 2% 33 1% 28

REAP-Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) Program 3% 53 2% 46

Promise Neighborhoods 1% 12 0% 11

Supporting Effective Educator Development Program 1% 18 1% 23

Payments for Federal Property (Section 7002) 5% 96 4% 97

Demonstration Grants for Indian Children/Special Projects for Indian 

Children 3% 52 3% 70

Neglected and Delinquent State and Local Agency Programs 1% 24 1% 32

Teacher Quality Partnership Program 1% 21 1% 26

School Climate Transformation Grants (LEAs) Program 3% 53 2% 51

Native Hawaiian Education Act Program/Education of Native 

Hawaiian 1% 24 1% 30

Alaska Native Education Program 2% 32 1% 31

Innovative Approaches to Literacy Program 2% 31 1% 33

High School Equivalency Program - Migrant Education 2% 39 2% 41

College Assistance Migrant Program 2% 42 2% 44

Full-Service Community Schools (ESEA IV-F-2, section 4625) 0% 0 1% 26

Statewide Family Engagement Centers (SFEC) Program 0% 8 0% 9 

Assistance for Arts Education Development and Dissemination 

Program 1% 13 1% 17

Javits Program 2% 30 1% 25

Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund 0% 0 1% 22

Governors Emergency Education Relief Fund 0% 0 1% 19

Education Stabilization Fund-Rethink K-12 Discretionary Grant 

Program 0% 0 0% 6 

Number of Respondents 1,827 2,695 

Formula vs Discretionary 

Formula 31% 755 35% 936 

Discretionary 69% 1,653 65% 1,759 

Number of Respondents 2,408 2,695 

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 47% 1,143 45% 1,209

Agree 44% 1,057 46% 1,233

Disagree 6% 148 6% 166

Strongly disagree 1% 36 2% 55

Does not apply 1% 24 1% 32

Number of Respondents 2,408 2,695

Job role

Project/State Director 65% 1,571 67% 1,814

School Officer 2% 46 2% 67

Grant Coordinator 16% 374 14% 365

Superintendent 4% 101 4% 113

Business Manager 4% 97 3% 89

Other 9% 219 9% 247

Number of Respondents 2,408 2,695 
2021 24

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Length of time in role

Less than one year 9% 219 11% 287

Between 1 - 3 years 37% 881 33% 899

Between 4 - 10 years 32% 782 34% 905

More than 10 years 22% 526 22% 604

Number of Respondents 2,408 2,695
2021 25

21st Century Community Learning Centers

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 29 36 41 37 42 49 44

ED Staff/Coordination 73 71 82 78 85 87 87

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 76 74 83 83 84 91 90

Responsiveness to your questions 68 65 78 77 83 83 84

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- 95 93

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 76 67 81 76 83 80 83

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- 81 86

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 67 72 84 78 86 -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 59 73 84 82 84 87 85

Online Resources 61 60 70 74 69 71 73

Ability to find specific information 62 60 71 69 69 72 74

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- 71 74

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 62 61 69 70 67 70 71

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- 74 74

Ability to navigate within the site 65 65 70 76 70 73 74

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- 74 73

Documents 63 68 70 73 79 79 82

Clarity 63 69 71 74 80 80 84

Organization of information 66 73 73 76 82 83 84

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 61 67 67 72 77 77 81

Relevance to your areas of need 67 71 72 76 83 80 83

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 58 63 68 69 74 77 80

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- 81 81

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- 84 81

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- 77 76

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- 84 82

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- 87 85

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- 74 76

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- 81 86

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- 85 83

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- 89 85

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- 85 82

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- 83 82

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- 81 77

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- 85 88

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- 88 90

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI 54 59 67 68 74 80 82

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 60 65 73 74 80 86 86

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 52 56 63 64 74 77 79

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 50 56 64 66 68 75 79
2021 26

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Trust -- -- -- -- 80 91 90

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- 80 91 90

21st Century Community Learning Centers

Provides assistance that enhances the capacity to 

implement -- -- -- -- 80 85 82

Provides support that is timely and responsive to my 

State’s needs to implement -- -- -- -- 77 86 84

Helps my State address grant implementation challenges -- -- -- -- -- 85 85

Provides information about key changes to requirements -- -- -- -- -- 85 85

Helpfulness of information provided -- 77 84 88 85 89 85

Likelihood to recommend Y4Y website -- 89 89 92 91 96 95
2021 27

Demographic Table

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 49% 24 57% 25

Agree 47% 23 41% 18

Disagree 4% 2 2% 1

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 49 44

Job role

Project/State Director 82% 40 91% 40

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 8% 4 0% 0

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 10% 5 9% 4

Number of Respondents 49 44

Length of time in role

Less than one year 2% 1 2% 1

Between 1 - 3 years 39% 19 27% 12

Between 4 - 10 years 41% 20 48% 21

More than 10 years 18% 9 23% 10

Number of Respondents 49 44

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 

12 months

Received tech assistance 65% 32 64% 28

Did not receive 35% 17 36% 16

Number of Respondents 49 44
2021 28

Adult Education and Family Literacy to State Directors of Adult Education

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 38 32 31 42 34 41 43

ED Staff/Coordination 85 83 84 89 85 91 91

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 87 85 86 91 89 93 92

Responsiveness to your questions 87 84 85 91 89 93 93

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- 97 98

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 81 76 81 86 84 87 87

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- 91 90

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 86 85 83 87 83 90 89

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 82 83 81 87 81 88 87

Online Resources 79 73 74 75 68 72 78

Ability to find specific information 74 68 69 69 67 69 75

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- 78 84

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 79 73 72 75 67 71 77

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- 73 75

Ability to navigate within the site 74 69 72 73 67 71 78

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- 69 79

Documents 79 77 80 83 83 86 87

Clarity 82 78 80 84 84 86 87

Organization of information 82 81 84 84 85 89 89

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 78 73 75 81 81 83 86

Relevance to your areas of need 80 83 86 87 85 88 88

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 75 70 76 78 81 82 83

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- 82 80

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- 85 81

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- 69 72

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- 89 88

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- 90 86

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- 80 80

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- 78 75

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- 83 84

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- 89 88

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- 82 84

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- 81 84

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- 79 80

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- 80 83

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- 85 83

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI 75 72 72 75 76 81 83

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 82 78 79 81 83 86 89

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 71 73 69 74 74 79 79

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 71 66 68 71 72 76 80
2021 29

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Trust -- -- -- -- 93 88 93

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- 93 88 93

Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA) 

Program

Ease of reporting using the NRS web-based system 83 82 80 80 76 82 85

Usefulness of the training offered by OCTAE through its 

contract to support NRS 79 79 78 80 79 81 85

Being well-organized 85 87 82 -- 84 88 88

Providing pre-planning adequate guidance 87 90 83 -- 90 88 85

Setting expectations for the visit 87 90 85 -- 84 89 88

Being up-to-date 90 86 87 90 88 90 94

Relevance of information 88 89 89 88 87 87 92

Usefulness to your program 87 86 87 88 87 87 91

Usefulness of products helping your state meet AEFLA 

program priorities 78 79 80 83 83 83 87

How well TA addresses your program priorities and 

needs 75 78 76 78 -- 82 82

Website - Ability to find specific information -- -- -- -- -- -- 82

Website - Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- -- 87

Website - Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- -- -- -- 82

Website - Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- -- 82

Website - Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

Website - Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- -- 86
2021 30

Demographic Table

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 54% 22 65% 28

Agree 44% 18 30% 13

Disagree 2% 1 2% 1

Strongly disagree 0% 0 2% 1

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 41 43

Job role

Project/State Director 98% 40 98% 42

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 0% 0

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 2% 1 2% 1

Number of Respondents 41 43

Length of time in role

Less than one year 17% 7 16% 7

Between 1 - 3 years 29% 12 40% 17

Between 4 - 10 years 44% 18 33% 14

More than 10 years 10% 4 12% 5

Number of Respondents 41 43

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 

12 months

Received tech assistance 22% 9 19% 8

Did not receive 78% 32 81% 35

Number of Respondents 41 43
2021 31

Alaska Native Education Program

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 26 0 25 28 0 32 31

ED Staff/Coordination 80 -- 74 79 -- 84 89

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 83 -- 78 85 -- 91 92

Responsiveness to your questions 76 -- 67 72 -- 74 81

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- 92 93

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 85 -- 80 82 -- 86 88

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- 81 89

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 84 -- 62 82 -- -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 82 -- 73 79 -- 77 88

Online Resources 66 -- 67 69 -- 72 76

Ability to find specific information 67 -- 69 69 -- 76 75

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- 74 77

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 66 -- 69 70 -- 72 75

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- 76 81

Ability to navigate within the site 67 -- 67 69 -- 69 75

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- 71 72

Documents 70 -- 69 81 -- 75 81

Clarity 69 -- 69 80 -- 74 81

Organization of information 71 -- 71 81 -- 76 82

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 69 -- 68 81 -- 75 82

Relevance to your areas of need 71 -- 72 82 -- 75 78

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 69 -- 65 79 -- 74 79

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- 73 76

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- 75 78

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- 77 78

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- 69 70

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- 76 82

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- 73 77

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- 66 68

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- 77 75

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- 84 79

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- 80 75

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- 79 77

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- 80 74

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- 76 69

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- 100 96

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI 67 -- 64 75 -- 72 81

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 69 -- 68 79 -- 78 87

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 67 -- 60 74 -- 71 78

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 64 -- 63 71 -- 66 75
2021 32

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Trust -- -- -- -- -- 82 91

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- 82 91

Alaska Native Education Program

Knowledge of grant and program administration issues 79 -- 78 82 -- 81 88

Program purpose 88 -- 82 89 -- 84 88

Program priorities 88 -- 80 88 -- 85 87

Selection criteria 86 -- 80 89 -- 85 88

Review process 82 -- 79 85 -- 86 87

Budget information and forms 87 -- 83 88 -- 86 88

Deadline for submission 90 -- 85 89 -- 88 92

Dollar limit on awards 88 -- 85 89 -- 84 87

Page limitation instructions 90 -- 82 90 -- 88 89

Formatting instructions 89 -- 80 90 -- 88 88

Program contact 90 -- 84 90 -- 87 90

Helpfulness of information on the website 69 -- 66 71 -- 67 76

Ease of navigating performance report on web 61 -- 63 69 -- 63 71
2021 33

Demographic Table

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 47% 15 48% 15

Agree 44% 14 52% 16

Disagree 9% 3 0% 0

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 32 31

Job role

Project/State Director 56% 18 68% 21

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 22% 7 16% 5

Superintendent 9% 3 3% 1

Business Manager 3% 1 0% 0

Other 9% 3 13% 4

Number of Respondents 32 31

Length of time in role

Less than one year 19% 6 10% 3

Between 1 - 3 years 34% 11 48% 15

Between 4 - 10 years 28% 9 32% 10

More than 10 years 19% 6 10% 3

Number of Respondents 32 31

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 

12 months

Received tech assistance 3% 1 10% 3

Did not receive 97% 31 90% 28

Number of Respondents 32 31

Length of service as Project Director - ANE

Less than one year 19% 6 13% 4

More than one year 69% 22 71% 22

Not Director but served in leadership for less than one year 3% 1 3% 1

Not Director but served in leadership for more than one year 9% 3 13% 4

Number of Respondents 32 31

Program officer initiated tech assistance or Quarterly 

Monitoring Call - ANE

Initiated 56% 18 48% 15

Did not initiate 44% 14 52% 16

Number of Respondents 32 31
2021 34

Alaskan Native and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions (ANNH)-Part A Program

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 0 23 16

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- -- 81 85

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- 89 93

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- 65 72

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- 89 90

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- -- 84 86

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- 81 87

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- -- 79 80

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- -- 80 79

Online Resources -- -- -- -- -- 76 84

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- -- -- 72 80

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- 77 88

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- -- -- 75 85

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- 77 86

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- -- -- 78 84

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- 76 81

Information in Application Package -- -- -- -- -- 90 94

Program Purpose -- -- -- -- -- 91 91

Program Priorities -- -- -- -- -- 93 94

Selection Criteria -- -- -- -- -- 87 92

Review Process -- -- -- -- -- 87 83

Budget Information and Forms -- -- -- -- -- 88 92

Deadline for Submission -- -- -- -- -- 91 97

Dollar Limit on Awards -- -- -- -- -- 92 96

Page Limitation Instructions -- -- -- -- -- 92 96

Formatting Instructions -- -- -- -- -- 87 93

Program Contact -- -- -- -- -- 91 99

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- 75 76

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- 79 79

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- 74 76

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- 81 87

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- 75 79

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- 77 79

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- 61 59

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- 73 78

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- 73 78

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --
2021 35

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

ACSI -- -- -- -- -- 77 78

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- -- 83 84

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- -- 75 76

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- -- 71 74

Trust -- -- -- -- -- 85 89

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- 85 89

Alaskan Native and Native Hawaiian Serving 

Institutions (ANNH)-Part A

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- 69 76

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- 84 81

Ability to resolve issues -- -- -- -- -- 80 84

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication -- -- -- -- -- 83 87

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or 

financial issues -- -- -- -- -- 72 80

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- -- -- -- -- 81 84

Availability of funds with adequate time for 

implementation -- -- -- -- -- 84 82

Transparency of how funds are distributed among 

grantees -- -- -- -- -- 81 82

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- -- -- -- -- 78 81

Frequency of communication -- -- -- -- -- 71 78

Clarity of communication -- -- -- -- -- 82 82
2021 36

Demographic Table

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 52% 12 69% 11

Agree 39% 9 25% 4

Disagree 9% 2 6% 1

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 23 16

Job role

Project/State Director 78% 18 38% 6

School Officer 9% 2 6% 1

Grant Coordinator 9% 2 38% 6

Superintendent 0% 0 6% 1

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 4% 1 13% 2

Number of Respondents 23 16

Length of time in role

Less than one year 9% 2 6% 1

Between 1 - 3 years 22% 5 38% 6

Between 4 - 10 years 52% 12 38% 6

More than 10 years 17% 4 19% 3

Number of Respondents 23 16

Preferred method of communication - ANNH - Part A

Individual Email 91% 21 75% 12

Blast/Distribution list email 9% 2 19% 3

Telephone 0% 0 6% 1

Number of Respondents 23 16
2021 37

Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander Institutions Program

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 0 23 19

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- -- 91 86

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- 95 89

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- 94 85

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- 97 95

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- -- 90 90

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- 88 93

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- -- 92 93

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- -- 92 94

Online Resources -- -- -- -- -- 65 73

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- -- -- 65 73

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- 69 78

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- -- -- 66 70

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- 68 74

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- -- -- 67 77

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- 56 67

Information in Application Package -- -- -- -- -- 81 86

Program Purpose -- -- -- -- -- 85 88

Program Priorities -- -- -- -- -- 84 88

Selection Criteria -- -- -- -- -- 79 84

Review Process -- -- -- -- -- 77 83

Budget Information and Forms -- -- -- -- -- 74 84

Deadline for Submission -- -- -- -- -- 77 91

Dollar Limit on Awards -- -- -- -- -- 80 91

Page Limitation Instructions -- -- -- -- -- 81 77

Formatting Instructions -- -- -- -- -- 80 80

Program Contact -- -- -- -- -- 90 92

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- 73 75

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- 73 76

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- 74 74

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- 84 82

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- 72 80

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- 74 74

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- 63 63

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- 87 85

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- 87 85

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --
2021 38

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

ACSI -- -- -- -- -- 73 79

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- -- 82 85

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- -- 70 75

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- -- 66 75

Trust -- -- -- -- -- 86 87

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- 86 87

Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander 

Institutions Program

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- 94 91

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- 94 89

Ability to resolve issues -- -- -- -- -- 91 90

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication -- -- -- -- -- 90 88

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or 

financial issues -- -- -- -- -- 93 91

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- -- -- -- -- 46 64

Availability of funds with adequate time for 

implementation -- -- -- -- -- 63 64

Transparency of how funds are distributed among 

grantees -- -- -- -- -- 73 76

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- -- -- -- -- 81 85

Frequency of communication -- -- -- -- -- 80 86

Clarity of communication -- -- -- -- -- 81 85
2021 39

Demographic Table

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 39% 9 47% 9

Agree 57% 13 53% 10

Disagree 4% 1 0% 0

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 23 19

Job role

Project/State Director 61% 14 100% 19

School Officer 4% 1 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 22% 5 0% 0

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 13% 3 0% 0

Number of Respondents 23 19

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 5% 1

Between 1 - 3 years 35% 8 21% 4

Between 4 - 10 years 61% 14 68% 13

More than 10 years 4% 1 5% 1

Number of Respondents 23 19

Preferred method of communication - AANAPISI

Individual Email 83% 19 68% 13

Blast/Distribution list email 9% 2 16% 3

Telephone 4% 1 11% 2

Other 4% 1 5% 1

Number of Respondents 23 19
2021 40

Assistance for Arts Education Development and Dissemination Program

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 0 13 17

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- -- 89 86

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- 90 87

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- 87 80

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- 100 95

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- -- 89 84

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- 83 87

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- -- 78 80

Online Resources -- -- -- -- -- 80 72

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- -- -- 79 72

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- 78 71

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- -- -- 76 75

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- 82 68

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- -- -- 81 73

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- 82 74

Documents -- -- -- -- -- 82 84

Clarity -- -- -- -- -- 85 84

Organization of information -- -- -- -- -- 87 84

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs -- -- -- -- -- 83 84

Relevance to your areas of need -- -- -- -- -- 79 85

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face -- -- -- -- -- 77 82

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- 81 80

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- 77 82

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- 78 75

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- 94 88

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- 89 85

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- 80 80

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- 76 66

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- 81 72

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- 81 77

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- 80 71

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- 81 72

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- 74 69

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- 84 70

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI -- -- -- -- -- 72 73

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- -- 80 79

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- -- 70 70

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- -- 65 69
2021 41

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Trust -- -- -- -- -- 90 84

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- 90 84

Assistance for Arts Education Development and 

Dissemination Program

Ability to work with you to resolve issues -- -- -- -- -- 88 85

Quality of information or feedback received from program 

officer -- -- -- -- -- 90 86

Overall satisfaction with service provided by the program 

officer -- -- -- -- -- 88 86

Satisfaction with face-to-face AIE Annual Program 

Director’s Convening -- -- -- -- -- 92 79

Helpfulness of staff on project implementation and 

evaluation -- -- -- -- -- 80 82

Helpfulness of staff on performance reporting -- -- -- -- -- 81 82
2021 42

Demographic Table

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 54% 7 41% 7

Agree 31% 4 53% 9

Disagree 15% 2 6% 1

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 13 17

Job role

Project/State Director 92% 12 76% 13

School Officer 0% 0 6% 1

Grant Coordinator 8% 1 12% 2

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 6% 1

Number of Respondents 13 17

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 0% 0

Between 1 - 3 years 69% 9 35% 6

Between 4 - 10 years 23% 3 41% 7

More than 10 years 8% 1 24% 4

Number of Respondents 13 17

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 

12 months

Received tech assistance 0% 0 6% 1

Did not receive 100% 13 94% 16

Number of Respondents 13 17
2021 43

Carl D Perkins Career and Technical Education State Directors

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 23 24 24 30 26 25 27

ED Staff/Coordination 83 86 85 93 89 93 94

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 89 88 89 94 90 94 98

Responsiveness to your questions 82 85 90 93 93 96 96

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- 98 98

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 78 80 74 91 85 88 89

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- 94 93

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 82 85 82 93 89 90 92

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 90 85 85 92 86 90 90

Online Resources 68 76 75 83 80 77 84

Ability to find specific information 66 74 75 80 81 76 84

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- 81 89

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 68 74 75 85 81 76 84

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- 78 85

Ability to navigate within the site 69 77 75 83 76 75 83

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- 75 80

Documents 79 77 80 83 79 82 86

Clarity 78 75 79 83 83 84 87

Organization of information 79 81 82 84 81 84 87

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 76 75 81 83 76 80 85

Relevance to your areas of need 85 79 83 84 84 84 89

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 78 75 77 83 72 79 82

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- 83 83

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- 87 84

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- 74 72

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- 88 85

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- 91 93

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- 81 85

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- 74 80

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- 83 86

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- 92 92

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- 81 86

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- 78 82

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- 73 78

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- 85 85

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- 89 89

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI 71 72 77 79 78 80 85

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 77 80 83 83 84 87 88

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 69 68 75 78 75 77 84

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 65 67 72 74 73 76 81
2021 44

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Trust -- -- -- -- 92 93 95

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- 92 93 95

Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education State 

Directors

CAR`s user-friendliness 68 69 73 78 72 82 80

PCRN’s usefulness to your program 80 82 81 86 84 83 84

Effectiveness of DATE in helping you implement grant 

programs

-- -- -- -- -- 86 87

TA received on project implementation and budget 

questions -- -- -- -- -- 88 91

Usefulness and relevance of project director meetings in 

providing TA -- -- -- -- -- 87 86
2021 45

Demographic Table

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 60% 15 59% 16

Agree 40% 10 41% 11

Disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 25 27

Job role

Project/State Director 84% 21 96% 26

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 8% 2 4% 1

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 8% 2 0% 0

Number of Respondents 25 27

Length of time in role

Less than one year 8% 2 22% 6

Between 1 - 3 years 40% 10 30% 8

Between 4 - 10 years 32% 8 44% 12

More than 10 years 20% 5 4% 1

Number of Respondents 25 27

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 

12 months

Received tech assistance 24% 6 30% 8

Did not receive 76% 19 70% 19

Number of Respondents 25 27
2021 46

Centers for International Business Education

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 0 0 0 17 0 0 6

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- 97 -- -- 95

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- 97 -- -- 100

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- 99 -- -- 98

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- -- 94

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- 95 -- -- 93

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- -- 93

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- 96 -- -- 91

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- 98 -- -- 93

Online Resources -- -- -- 84 -- -- 89

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- 86 -- -- 86

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- 88 -- -- 94

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- -- 94

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- 84 -- -- 89

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- -- 94

Information in Application Package -- -- -- 89 -- -- 97

Program Purpose -- -- -- 89 -- -- 98

Program Priorities -- -- -- 96 -- -- 96

Selection Criteria -- -- -- 95 -- -- 94

Review Process -- -- -- 88 -- -- 98

Budget Information and Forms -- -- -- 93 -- -- 98

Deadline for Submission -- -- -- 96 -- -- 98

Dollar Limit on Awards -- -- -- 76 -- -- 98

Page Limitation Instructions -- -- -- 73 -- -- 93

Formatting Instructions -- -- -- 88 -- -- 98

Program Contact -- -- -- 98 -- -- 100

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 77

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 87

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- -- 72

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- -- 93

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- -- 81

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- -- 69

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- -- 56

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- -- 100

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- -- 100

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --
2021 47

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

ACSI -- -- -- 84 -- -- 73

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- 92 -- -- 85

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- 79 -- -- 67

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- 79 -- -- 65

Trust -- -- -- -- -- -- 71

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- -- 71

Centers for International Business Education

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- -- 100

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- -- 97

Ability to resolve issues -- -- -- -- -- -- 100

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 100

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or 

financial issues -- -- -- -- -- -- 100

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Availability of funds with adequate time for 

implementation -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

Transparency of how funds are distributed among 

grantees -- -- -- -- -- -- 84

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- -- -- -- -- -- 100

Frequency of communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 96

Clarity of communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 96

Supports instruction in fields needed to provide full 

understanding -- -- -- -- -- -- 93

Supports work in language aspects of professional and 

other fields of study -- -- -- -- -- -- 82

Supports research and training in international studies -- -- -- -- -- -- 96

Teaching of any modern foreign language -- -- -- -- -- -- 87

Instruction in fields needed to provide full understanding -- -- -- -- -- -- 93

Research and training in international studies -- -- -- -- -- -- 96

Language aspects of professional and other fields of 

study -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Instruction and research on issues in world affairs -- -- -- -- -- -- 98
2021 48

Demographics Table

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 0% 0 67% 4

Agree 0% 0 17% 1

Disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Strongly disagree 0% 0 17% 1

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 0 6

Job role

Project/State Director 0% 0 67% 4

School Officer 0% 0 17% 1

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 0% 0

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 17% 1

Number of Respondents 0 6

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 0% 0

Between 1 - 3 years 0% 0 33% 2

Between 4 - 10 years 0% 0 33% 2

More than 10 years 0% 0 33% 2

Number of Respondents 0 6

Preferred method of communication - CIBE

Individual Email 0% 0 33% 2

Blast/Distribution list email 0% 0 50% 3

Telephone 0% 0 17% 1

Number of Respondents 0 6
2021 49

Charter Schools Program (CSP) Grants to State Entities

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 26 17 20

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- 72 87 76

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- 72 92 81

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- 67 81 66

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- 94 89

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- 74 84 65

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- 85 77

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- 74 -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- 68 78 66

Online Resources -- -- -- -- 57 73 62

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- -- 58 76 60

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- 78 63

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- -- 55 71 63

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- 71 62

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- -- 52 69 60

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- 70 64

Documents -- -- -- -- 70 74 65

Clarity -- -- -- -- 68 77 64

Organization of information -- -- -- -- 71 82 71

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs -- -- -- -- 71 69 58

Relevance to your areas of need -- -- -- -- 71 72 71

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face -- -- -- -- 66 67 60

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- 74 61

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- 78 64

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- 74 66

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- 78 57

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- 82 64

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- 71 62

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- 58 48

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- 78 70

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- 82 78

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- 77 65

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- 79 66

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- 75 58

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- 80 74

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- 85 83

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI -- -- -- -- 62 71 62

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- 68 80 72

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- 61 64 58

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- 57 67 56
2021 50

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Trust -- -- -- -- 69 79 73

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- 69 79 73

Charter Schools Program (CSP) Grants to State 

Entities

Dissemination of resources and opportunities the CSP 

provides -- -- -- -- 60 78 76

Comms and info accessible and provided in timely 

manner

-- -- -- -- 62 76 61

Technical assistance receive on project implementation 

and budget questions -- -- -- -- 65 84 68

Assistance gives opportunity to give staff an 

understanding of your project -- -- -- -- 65 78 63

Guidance CSP provides on Federal grant compliance -- -- -- -- 57 64 56
2021 51

Demographic Table

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 24% 4 20% 4

Agree 76% 13 60% 12

Disagree 0% 0 20% 4

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 17 20

Job role

Project/State Director 82% 14 90% 18

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 12% 2 5% 1

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 6% 1 5% 1

Number of Respondents 17 20

Length of time in role

Less than one year 6% 1 15% 3

Between 1 - 3 years 71% 12 45% 9

Between 4 - 10 years 18% 3 30% 6

More than 10 years 6% 1 10% 2

Number of Respondents 17 20

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 

12 months

Received tech assistance 59% 10 55% 11

Did not receive 41% 7 45% 9

Number of Respondents 17 20
2021 52

College Assistance Migrant Program

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 0 0 38 41 0 42 44

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- 89 91 -- 93 94

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- 91 93 -- 93 96

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- 85 92 -- 91 89

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- 97 99

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- 91 91 -- 92 96

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- 93 94

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- 86 91 -- -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- 87 92 -- 92 90

Online Resources -- -- 77 84 -- 83 83

Ability to find specific information -- -- 75 81 -- 81 83

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- 84 83

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- 78 84 -- 82 82

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- 86 84

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- 75 83 -- 82 83

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- 84 83

Documents -- -- 85 83 -- 91 92

Clarity -- -- 85 82 -- 90 92

Organization of information -- -- 86 82 -- 91 94

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs -- -- 85 83 -- 91 92

Relevance to your areas of need -- -- 86 85 -- 92 92

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face -- -- 85 83 -- 89 89

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- 92 91

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- 91 93

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- 89 91

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- 96 94

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- 93 93

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- 93 90

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- 88 87

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- 90 88

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- 94 92

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- 91 89

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- 85 86

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- 86 84

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- 91 90

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- 100 --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI -- -- 79 85 -- 87 89

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- 85 90 -- 92 93

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- 76 84 -- 84 86

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- 75 81 -- 85 86
2021 53

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Trust -- -- -- -- -- 94 94

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- 94 94

College Assistance Migrant Program

Accessibility and responsiveness of program staff -- -- 91 90 -- 90 90

Timely resolution of questions by program staff -- -- 86 89 -- 87 86

Clarity of information provided by program staff -- -- 87 89 -- 91 94

Usefulness and relevance of the strategies for technical 

assistance -- -- 87 90 -- 92 91

Usefulness of updated technical assistance resources 

pages on CAMP.ed.gov -- -- -- 85 -- 88 88
2021 54

Demographic Table

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 64% 27 61% 27

Agree 26% 11 36% 16

Disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Strongly disagree 5% 2 2% 1

Does not apply 5% 2 0% 0

Number of Respondents 42 44

Job role

Project/State Director 83% 35 91% 40

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 10% 4 5% 2

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 7% 3 5% 2

Number of Respondents 42 44

Length of time in role

Less than one year 10% 4 16% 7

Between 1 - 3 years 21% 9 20% 9

Between 4 - 10 years 48% 20 39% 17

More than 10 years 21% 9 25% 11

Number of Respondents 42 44

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 

12 months

Received tech assistance 7% 3 0% 0

Did not receive 93% 39 100% 44

Number of Respondents 42 44
2021 55

Comprehensive Literary State Development

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 5 5 0 11 10 14 28

ED Staff/Coordination 59 75 -- 90 92 90 78

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 58 80 -- 89 92 92 81

Responsiveness to your questions 71 84 -- 91 91 82 65

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- 95 85

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 56 76 -- 85 91 90 73

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- 91 83

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 48 61 -- 89 92 -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 30 59 -- 88 86 91 --

Online Resources 29 66 -- 86 83 80 81

Ability to find specific information 31 63 -- 84 82 80 75

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- 79 82

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 31 63 -- 84 82 79 81

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- 80 80

Ability to navigate within the site 31 64 -- 91 82 79 82

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- 87 85

Documents 42 75 -- 88 89 91 82

Clarity 38 78 -- 87 88 90 82

Organization of information 40 75 -- 87 90 92 82

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 40 75 -- 87 89 92 83

Relevance to your areas of need 51 72 -- 90 89 92 81

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 40 75 -- 89 89 92 81

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- 82 68

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- 85 69

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- 81 62

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- 87 80

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- 88 77

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- 79 66

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- 68 57

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- 90 78

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- 91 78

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- 83 74

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- 90 76

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- 88 76

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- 94 83

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- 83 89

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI 45 66 -- 82 86 79 73

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 60 71 -- 85 91 85 77

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 38 64 -- 82 82 75 70

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 36 62 -- 79 83 75 70
2021 56

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Trust -- -- -- -- 91 87 79

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- 91 87 79

Comprehensive Literacy State Development

It is easy to get access to my ED program officer -- -- -- -- -- -- 57

My ED program officer is responsive when I reach out 

with questions or concerns -- -- -- -- -- -- 58

My ED program officer communicates in a clear and 

concise manner -- -- -- -- -- -- 62

My ED program officer cares about me, my program, and 

my success

-- -- -- -- -- -- 64

I am thankful we are a CLSD grantee and would 

recommend program to other SEAs -- -- -- -- -- -- 91

I find the Knowledge Management System (KMS) easy 

to use -- -- -- -- -- -- 73

I find the reporting requirements for CLSD to be 

appropriate -- -- -- -- -- -- 76

The KMS is useful to me beyond submitting required ED 

reports -- -- -- -- -- -- 68

My TA Liaison (from AIR) is helpful to me in a significant 

way

-- -- -- -- -- -- 78
2021 57

Demographic Table

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 50% 7 32% 9

Agree 50% 7 54% 15

Disagree 0% 0 7% 2

Strongly disagree 0% 0 4% 1

Does not apply 0% 0 4% 1

Number of Respondents 14 28

Job role

Project/State Director 93% 13 79% 22

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 7% 1 14% 4

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 7% 2

Number of Respondents 14 28

Length of time in role

Less than one year 14% 2 29% 8

Between 1 - 3 years 50% 7 54% 15

Between 4 - 10 years 29% 4 14% 4

More than 10 years 7% 1 4% 1

Number of Respondents 14 28

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 

12 months

Received tech assistance 57% 8 54% 15

Did not receive 43% 6 46% 13

Number of Respondents 14 28
2021 58

Demonstration Grants for Indian Children/Special Projects for Indian Children

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 0 0 30 32 39 52 70

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- 75 77 68 85 86

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- 81 84 71 89 86

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- 72 78 67 78 81

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- 90 92

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- 77 80 75 85 84

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- 80 85

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- 84 73 64 -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- 79 67 72 81 84

Online Resources -- -- 68 62 59 70 73

Ability to find specific information -- -- 70 63 58 70 77

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- 71 78

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- 70 62 58 66 72

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- 69 72

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- 66 58 59 70 70

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- 72 71

Documents -- -- 69 68 68 78 79

Clarity -- -- 70 68 69 78 81

Organization of information -- -- 69 71 69 80 80

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs -- -- 68 71 68 78 78

Relevance to your areas of need -- -- 69 69 70 79 78

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face -- -- 70 62 66 76 77

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- 70 71

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- 73 73

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- 72 70

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- 66 66

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- 72 75

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- 75 75

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- 62 65

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- 75 82

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- 79 86

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- 72 81

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- 71 81

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- 70 80

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- 82 84

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- 76 86

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI -- -- 68 70 61 77 78

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- 71 76 67 83 82

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- 68 68 57 75 77

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- 64 65 57 71 74
2021 59

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Trust -- -- -- -- 68 84 82

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- 68 84 82

Demonstration Grants for Indian Children/Special 

Projects for Indian Children

Usefulness and relevance of webinar-based technical 

assistance -- -- 74 67 75 80 83

Usefulness and relevance of project director meeting 

technical assistance -- -- 73 78 74 84 84

Usefulness and relevance of technical assistance 

resources on the OIE web site -- -- 68 67 67 72 79
2021 60

Demographic Table 

2020 2021 

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency 

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services 

Strongly agree 37% 19 41% 29

Agree 50% 26 51% 36

Disagree 12% 6 6% 4 

Strongly disagree 2% 1 1% 1 

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0 

Number of Respondents 52 70

Job role 

Project/State Director 54% 28 60% 42

School Officer 4% 2 1% 1 

Grant Coordinator 31% 16 23% 16

Superintendent 2% 1 0% 0 

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0 

Other 10% 5 16% 11

Number of Respondents 52 70

Length of time in role 

Less than one year 4% 2 13% 9 

Between 1 - 3 years 40% 21 43% 30

Between 4 - 10 years 40% 21 29% 20

More than 10 years 15% 8 16% 11

Number of Respondents 52 70

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 

12 months 

Received tech assistance 23% 12 30% 21

Did not receive 77% 40 70% 49

Number of Respondents 52 70

TA Priority Ranking-Data Collection - IELEA 

1st 15% 8 13% 9 

2nd 15% 8 14% 10

3rd 13% 7 21% 15

4th 15% 8 10% 7 

5th 8% 4 9% 6 

6th 12% 6 6% 4 

7th 17% 9 24% 17

8th 4% 2 3% 2 

Number of Respondents 52 70

TA Priority Ranking-Performance Reporting - IELEA 

1st 23% 12 16% 11

2nd 21% 11 17% 12

3rd 8% 4 14% 10

4th 12% 6 11% 8 

5th 4% 2 7% 5 

6th 6% 3 14% 10

7th 15% 8 6% 4 

8th 12% 6 14% 10

Number of Respondents 52 70
2021 61

2020 2021 

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency 

TA Priority Ranking-Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act 

- IELEA 

1st 10% 5 13% 9 

2nd 6% 3 9% 6 

3rd 8% 4 9% 6 

4th 6% 3 6% 4 

5th 4% 2 9% 6 

6th 8% 4 6% 4 

7th 10% 5 11% 8 

8th 50% 26 39% 27

Number of Respondents 52 70

TA Priority Ranking-Capacity Building - IELEA 

1st 17% 9 14% 10

2nd 13% 7 4% 3 

3rd 10% 5 9% 6 

4th 10% 5 17% 12

5th 15% 8 17% 12

6th 17% 9 11% 8 

7th 12% 6 19% 13

8th 6% 3 9% 6 

Number of Respondents 52 70

TA Priority Ranking-Parent Engagement - IELEA 

1st 8% 4 10% 7 

2nd 8% 4 11% 8 

3rd 27% 14 11% 8 

4th 12% 6 16% 11

5th 15% 8 17% 12

6th 13% 7 20% 14

7th 13% 7 10% 7 

8th 4% 2 4% 3 

Number of Respondents 52 70

TA Priority Ranking-Partnerships - IELEA 

1st 6% 3 0% 0 

2nd 15% 8 17% 12

3rd 6% 3 11% 8 

4th 15% 8 19% 13

5th 17% 9 20% 14

6th 19% 10 17% 12

7th 12% 6 9% 6 

8th 10% 5 7% 5 

Number of Respondents 52 70

TA Priority Ranking-Cultural Relevance - IELEA 

1st 6% 3 10% 7 

2nd 10% 5 7% 5 

3rd 17% 9 14% 10

4th 19% 10 13% 9 

5th 17% 9 11% 8 

6th 12% 6 20% 14

7th 12% 6 13% 9 

8th 8% 4 11% 8 

Number of Respondents 52 70
2021 62

2020 2021 

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency 

TA Priority Ranking-Allowable Costs and Budgeting 

Flexibilities - IELEA 

1st 15% 8 24% 17

2nd 12% 6 20% 14

3rd 12% 6 10% 7 

4th 12% 6 9% 6 

5th 19% 10 10% 7 

6th 13% 7 6% 4 

7th 10% 5 9% 6 

8th 8% 4 13% 9 

Number of Respondents 52 70
2021 63

Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 0 111 102 109 116 110 108

ED Staff/Coordination -- 85 91 87 84 88 91

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- 90 92 91 85 92 93

Responsiveness to your questions -- 81 89 85 82 84 91

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- 92 95

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- 84 93 91 84 87 92

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- 88 88

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- 83 90 87 83 89 92

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- 81 90 92 82 87 90

Online Resources -- 75 79 70 71 76 76

Ability to find specific information -- 72 77 71 69 75 77

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- 77 79

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- 75 79 72 71 76 76

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- 78 76

Ability to navigate within the site -- 72 76 71 71 76 75

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- 72 74

Information in Application Package -- 87 89 81 88 90 89

Program Purpose -- 88 90 80 88 88 90

Program Priorities -- 87 88 80 89 90 90

Selection Criteria -- 84 88 80 85 89 88

Review Process -- 82 86 77 85 85 86

Budget Information and Forms -- 85 87 77 83 86 86

Deadline for Submission -- 91 91 85 91 93 92

Dollar Limit on Awards -- 89 90 84 91 91 90

Page Limitation Instructions -- 89 91 84 90 89 91

Formatting Instructions -- 86 88 82 88 88 88

Program Contact -- 88 92 85 89 94 93

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- 76 77

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- 78 77

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- 73 76

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- 86 86

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- 76 77

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- 79 81

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- 63 65

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- 84 81

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- 84 81

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --
2021 64

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

ACSI -- 73 78 72 79 78 78

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- 79 84 78 84 85 84

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- 71 76 70 77 76 74

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- 69 74 66 75 73 74

Trust -- -- -- -- 86 88 88

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- 86 88 88

Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions

Responsiveness to questions -- 80 88 82 84 82 88

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies 

and procedures -- 87 92 88 85 90 89

Ability to resolve issues -- 87 91 87 85 86 89

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication -- 87 90 85 85 85 89

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or 

financial issues -- 83 90 85 84 85 89

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- -- -- -- -- 79 82

Availability of funds with adequate time for 

implementation -- -- -- -- -- 83 84

Transparency of how funds are distributed among 

grantees -- -- -- -- -- 88 89

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- -- -- -- -- 83 84

Frequency of communication -- -- -- -- -- 78 81

Clarity of communication -- -- -- -- -- 83 87
2021 65

Demographic Table

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 52% 57 47% 51

Agree 40% 44 47% 51

Disagree 5% 6 3% 3

Strongly disagree 2% 2 2% 2

Does not apply 1% 1 1% 1

Number of Respondents 110 108

Job role

Project/State Director 83% 91 82% 89

School Officer 1% 1 6% 6

Grant Coordinator 14% 15 8% 9

Superintendent 0% 0 1% 1

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 3% 3 3% 3

Number of Respondents 110 108

Length of time in role

Less than one year 15% 17 24% 26

Between 1 - 3 years 38% 42 36% 39

Between 4 - 10 years 31% 34 28% 30

More than 10 years 15% 17 12% 13

Number of Respondents 110 108

Preferred method of communication - DHSI

Individual Email 82% 90 86% 93

Blast/Distribution list email 7% 8 7% 8

Telephone 5% 5 4% 4

Webinar 5% 5 1% 1

Other 2% 2 2% 2

Number of Respondents 110 108
2021 66

Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad (DDRA)

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 29 0 0 0 0 15 25

ED Staff/Coordination 78 -- -- -- -- 85 74

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 84 -- -- -- -- 97 82

Responsiveness to your questions 69 -- -- -- -- 67 60

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- 90 84

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 82 -- -- -- -- 79 66

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- 85 79

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 78 -- -- -- -- 80 75

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 89 -- -- -- -- 87 64

Online Resources 64 -- -- -- -- 67 57

Ability to find specific information 67 -- -- -- -- 70 57

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- 64 59

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 64 -- -- -- -- 69 60

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- 70 62

Ability to navigate within the site 61 -- -- -- -- 74 63

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- 60 55

Information in Application Package 83 -- -- -- -- 87 79

Program Purpose 86 -- -- -- -- 93 81

Program Priorities 83 -- -- -- -- 93 81

Selection Criteria 84 -- -- -- -- 90 80

Review Process 82 -- -- -- -- 84 74

Budget Information and Forms 78 -- -- -- -- 82 67

Deadline for Submission 92 -- -- -- -- 92 77

Dollar Limit on Awards 78 -- -- -- -- 79 80

Page Limitation Instructions 82 -- -- -- -- 83 80

Formatting Instructions 75 -- -- -- -- 81 73

Program Contact 92 -- -- -- -- 93 86

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- 66 58

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- 70 58

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- 69 58

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- 75 65

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- 60 60

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- 56 55

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- 59 48

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- 75 72

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- 75 72

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --
2021 67

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

ACSI 65 -- -- -- -- 71 57

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 70 -- -- -- -- 80 64

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 63 -- -- -- -- 67 55

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 59 -- -- -- -- 65 50

Trust -- -- -- -- -- 79 65

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- 79 65

Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad (DDRA)

Responsiveness to your questions 70 -- -- -- -- 72 68

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies 

and procedures 83 -- -- -- -- 91 75

Ability to resolve issues 79 -- -- -- -- 83 74

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication 78 -- -- -- -- 76 71

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or 

financial issues -- -- -- -- -- 73 73

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- -- -- -- -- 57 65

Availability of funds with adequate time for 

implementation -- -- -- -- -- 61 68

Transparency of how funds are distributed among 

grantees -- -- -- -- -- 73 78

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- -- -- -- -- 78 61

Frequency of communication -- -- -- -- -- 73 60

Clarity of communication -- -- -- -- -- 77 60

Supports instruction in fields needed to provide full 

understanding -- -- -- -- -- 98 86

Supports work in language aspects of professional and 

other fields of study -- -- -- -- -- 96 87

Supports research and training in international studies -- -- -- -- -- 99 91

Teaching of any modern foreign language -- -- -- -- -- 92 76

Instruction in fields needed to provide full understanding -- -- -- -- -- 99 79

Research and training in international studies -- -- -- -- -- 97 88

Language aspects of professional and other fields of 

study -- -- -- -- -- 91 82

Instruction and research on issues in world affairs -- -- -- -- -- 94 82
2021 68

Demographic Table

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 40% 6 20% 5

Agree 47% 7 44% 11

Disagree 13% 2 24% 6

Strongly disagree 0% 0 12% 3

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 15 25

Job role

Project/State Director 80% 12 60% 15

School Officer 7% 1 12% 3

Grant Coordinator 13% 2 20% 5

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 4% 1

Other 0% 0 4% 1

Number of Respondents 15 25

Length of time in role

Less than one year 7% 1 8% 2

Between 1 - 3 years 20% 3 36% 9

Between 4 - 10 years 60% 9 40% 10

More than 10 years 13% 2 16% 4

Number of Respondents 15 25

Preferred method of communication - DDRAF

Individual Email 80% 12 68% 17

Blast/Distribution list email 7% 1 24% 6

Telephone 7% 1 4% 1

Other 7% 1 4% 1

Number of Respondents 15 25
2021 69

Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 37 35 36 32 29 29 37

ED Staff/Coordination 91 86 93 88 87 93 94

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 95 91 97 90 90 94 95

Responsiveness to your questions 91 84 93 87 84 93 92

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- 96 96

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 90 81 87 86 88 92 91

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- 93 94

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 86 91 95 88 88 -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 86 91 93 85 84 92 94

Online Resources 70 68 76 83 69 80 81

Ability to find specific information 68 65 79 85 72 80 77

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- 80 84

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 71 66 83 83 69 79 79

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- 81 81

Ability to navigate within the site 69 66 74 80 65 81 82

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- 82 81

Documents 86 81 89 83 88 86 89

Clarity 86 80 91 83 89 91 90

Organization of information 88 84 93 83 90 91 91

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 84 77 86 81 87 89 87

Relevance to your areas of need 89 84 93 87 89 86 89

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 85 80 86 81 83 88 87

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- 82 84

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- 85 86

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- 81 85

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- 84 90

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- 87 86

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- 87 84

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- 80 81

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- 84 87

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- 89 90

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- 87 87

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- 83 88

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- 85 86

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- 81 88

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- 92 90

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI 78 73 83 80 79 85 86

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 83 76 88 85 84 89 89

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 74 71 82 76 76 83 83

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 76 71 79 77 76 82 84
2021 70

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Trust -- -- -- -- 80 92 94

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- 80 92 94

Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program

Responsiveness in answering questions - Tech 

Assistance Center (NCHE) 96 95 100 98 91 94 94

Guidance provided in responses to questions - Tech 

Assistance Center (NCHE) -- -- -- -- -- 91 92

Meeting program compliance requirements - US 

Department of Education 87 84 92 88 88 87 90

Assisting you to impact performance results - US 

Department of Education 81 81 84 82 81 85 88

Support quality for collecting/submitting data - U.S. 

Department of Education -- -- -- -- -- 85 91

Meeting program compliance requirements - Tech 

Assistance Center (NCHE) 97 93 98 93 89 92 93

Assisting you to impact performance results - Tech 

Assistance Center (NCHE) 96 91 94 89 85 90 92

Support quality for collecting/submitting data - Tech 

Assistance Center (NCHE) -- -- -- -- -- 92 93
2021 71

Demographic Table

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 72% 21 62% 23

Agree 21% 6 35% 13

Disagree 3% 1 0% 0

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 3% 1 3% 1

Number of Respondents 29 37

Job role

Project/State Director 76% 22 73% 27

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 10% 3 14% 5

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 14% 4 14% 5

Number of Respondents 29 37

Length of time in role

Less than one year 10% 3 8% 3

Between 1 - 3 years 34% 10 38% 14

Between 4 - 10 years 31% 9 32% 12

More than 10 years 24% 7 22% 8

Number of Respondents 29 37

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 

12 months

Received tech assistance 69% 20 51% 19

Did not receive 31% 9 49% 18

Number of Respondents 29 37
2021 72

Education Innovation and Research Programs

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 40 44 85

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- 84 84 91

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- 84 82 89

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- 83 82 90

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- 93 95

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- 82 83 90

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- 87 91

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- 81 -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- 85 80 89

Online Resources -- -- -- -- 69 71 70

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- -- 69 70 72

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- 71 73

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- -- 68 71 71

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- 73 71

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- -- 69 71 68

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- 71 70

Documents -- -- -- -- 74 72 78

Clarity -- -- -- -- 76 74 79

Organization of information -- -- -- -- 75 75 80

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs -- -- -- -- 77 71 81

Relevance to your areas of need -- -- -- -- 72 70 75

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face -- -- -- -- 69 70 76

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- 74 73

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- 74 75

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- 73 76

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- 77 68

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- 80 76

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- 75 73

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- 63 65

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- 75 79

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- 82 82

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- 73 76

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- 78 79

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- 71 74

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- 69 77

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- 85 92

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI -- -- -- -- 75 74 75

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- 80 81 82

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- 74 70 71

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- 70 69 69
2021 73

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Trust -- -- -- -- 81 84 83

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- 81 84 83

Education Innovation and Research Programs

Assistance in improving your evaluation planning and 

implementation -- -- -- -- -- 86 89

Customized feedback tailored to my grant’s unique 

challenges and opportunities -- -- -- -- -- -- 87

Connecting with other experts or practitioners working on 

similar evaluations -- -- -- -- -- 74 82
2021 74

Demographic Table

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 39% 17 45% 38

Agree 57% 25 51% 43

Disagree 2% 1 5% 4

Strongly disagree 2% 1 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 44 85

Job role

Project/State Director 89% 39 69% 59

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 9% 4 13% 11

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 2% 1 18% 15

Number of Respondents 44 85

Length of time in role

Less than one year 25% 11 15% 13

Between 1 - 3 years 32% 14 36% 31

Between 4 - 10 years 27% 12 27% 23

More than 10 years 16% 7 21% 18

Number of Respondents 44 85

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 

12 months

Received tech assistance 20% 9 24% 20

Did not receive 80% 35 76% 65

Number of Respondents 44 85
2021 75

Education Stabilization Fund – Rethink K-12 Discretionary Grant Program

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 0 0 6

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- -- -- 95

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- -- 96

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- -- 93

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- -- 98

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- -- -- 94

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- -- 96

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- -- -- 91

Online Resources -- -- -- -- -- -- 85

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- -- -- -- 84

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- -- 82

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- -- -- -- 82

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- -- 87

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- -- -- -- 87

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- -- 87

Documents -- -- -- -- -- -- 88

Clarity -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Organization of information -- -- -- -- -- -- 87

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs -- -- -- -- -- -- 91

Relevance to your areas of need -- -- -- -- -- -- 87

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 61

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 70

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- -- 70

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- -- 70

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- -- 56

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- -- 71

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- -- 86

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- -- 76

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- -- 100

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- -- -- 78
2021 76

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Trust -- -- -- -- -- -- 93

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- -- 93
2021 77

Demographic Table

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 0% 0 33% 2

Agree 0% 0 67% 4

Disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 0 6

Job role

Project/State Director 0% 0 67% 4

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 33% 2

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 0 6

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 83% 5

Between 1 - 3 years 0% 0 0% 0

Between 4 - 10 years 0% 0 17% 1

More than 10 years 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 0 6

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 

12 months

Received tech assistance 0% 0 17% 1

Did not receive 0% 0 83% 5

Number of Respondents 0 6
2021 78

Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 0 0 22

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- -- -- 69

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- -- 69

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- -- 64

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- -- 88

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- -- -- 61

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- -- 67

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- -- -- 63

Online Resources -- -- -- -- -- -- 72

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- -- -- -- 74

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- -- 76

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- -- -- -- 70

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- -- 68

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- -- -- -- 70

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- -- 71

Documents -- -- -- -- -- -- 73

Clarity -- -- -- -- -- -- 73

Organization of information -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs -- -- -- -- -- -- 70

Relevance to your areas of need -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face -- -- -- -- -- -- 64

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 39

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 40

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- -- 32

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- -- 43

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- -- 44

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- -- 40

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- -- 35

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- -- 65

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- -- 64

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- -- 77

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI -- -- -- -- -- -- 57

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- -- -- 61

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- -- -- 55

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- -- -- 53
2021 79

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Trust -- -- -- -- -- -- 71

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- -- 71

Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief 

Fund

Ability to resolve issues -- -- -- -- -- -- 72

Ability to listen to, accept and act upon your feedback -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

Ability to assist you in defining your needs and requests -- -- -- -- -- -- 74

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

Helpfulness connecting you to resources and 

relationships to implement grant -- -- -- -- -- -- 76
2021 80

Demographic Table 

2020 2021 

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency 

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services 

Strongly agree 0% 0 14% 3 

Agree 0% 0 59% 13

Disagree 0% 0 18% 4 

Strongly disagree 0% 0 9% 2 

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0 

Number of Respondents 0 22

Job role 

Project/State Director 0% 0 73% 16

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0 

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 18% 4 

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0 

Business Manager 0% 0 5% 1 

Other 0% 0 5% 1 

Number of Respondents 0 22

Length of time in role 

Less than one year 0% 0 18% 4 

Between 1 - 3 years 0% 0 45% 10

Between 4 - 10 years 0% 0 23% 5 

More than 10 years 0% 0 14% 3 

Number of Respondents 0 22

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 

12 months 

Received tech assistance 0% 0 41% 9 

Did not receive 0% 0 59% 13

Number of Respondents 0 22

Preferred method rank - Video Call - ESSER 

1st 0% 0 8% 1 

2nd 0% 0 50% 6 

3rd 0% 0 42% 5 

Number of Respondents 0 12

Preferred method rank - Website - ESSER

1st 0% 0 13% 1 

2nd 0% 0 50% 4 

3rd 0% 0 38% 3 

Number of Respondents 0 8 

Preferred method rank - Telephone Call - ESSER 

1st 0% 0 20% 1 

2nd 0% 0 60% 3 

3rd 0% 0 20% 1 

Number of Respondents 0 5 

Preferred method rank - Individual Email - ESSER

1st 0% 0 76% 16

2nd 0% 0 14% 3 

3rd 0% 0 10% 2 

Number of Respondents 0 21
2021 81

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Preferred method rank - G5 Bulk Email - ESSER

2nd 0% 0 50% 2

3rd 0% 0 50% 2

Number of Respondents 0 4

Preferred method rank - ESSERGEER Newsblast listserv -

ESSER

1st 0% 0 19% 3

2nd 0% 0 25% 4

3rd 0% 0 56% 9

Number of Respondents 0 16

Greatest need for technical assistance - ESSER~

Allowable uses of funds 0% 0 23% 5

Reporting requirements 0% 0 86% 19

Subrecipient monitoring 0% 0 59% 13

Timelines for grant requirements 0% 0 14% 3

Understanding difference requirements between programs 0% 0 9% 2

Number of Respondents 0 22
2021 82

English Language Acquisition State Grants (Title III, Part A)

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 22 30 20 24 21 26 38

ED Staff/Coordination 67 71 76 84 74 79 82

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 73 72 85 85 73 82 86

Responsiveness to your questions 68 70 70 83 73 71 76

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- 92 96

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 70 70 79 86 75 75 78

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- 75 77

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 64 71 71 82 71 -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 59 65 74 85 68 73 77

Online Resources 55 63 60 68 61 70 72

Ability to find specific information 56 64 59 67 62 69 71

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- 73 73

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 54 62 59 66 59 71 69

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- 68 66

Ability to navigate within the site 52 59 60 66 60 68 71

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- 69 75

Documents 69 72 62 69 72 76 77

Clarity 72 74 63 69 75 78 77

Organization of information 70 75 68 71 75 79 80

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 66 69 55 68 71 72 73

Relevance to your areas of need 69 74 65 72 75 79 77

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 66 67 57 66 64 68 70

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- 65 66

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- 65 71

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- 65 67

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- 78 81

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- 69 73

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- 65 62

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- 56 55

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- 66 69

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- 74 76

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- 66 72

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- 64 67

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- 56 63

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- 57 58

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- 83 83

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI 56 55 57 68 61 63 63

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 60 61 61 73 67 69 69

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 52 50 54 66 61 59 61

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 55 52 54 63 53 60 57
2021 83

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Trust -- -- -- -- 63 69 69

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- 63 69 69

English Language Acquisition State Grants (Title III, 

Part A)

Provides assistance that enhances capacity to 

implement -- -- 74 76 62 65 65

Provides support that is responsive to my State’s needs 

to implement -- -- 65 70 64 62 64

Helps address implementation challenges -- 59 66 73 63 63 64

Provides information about key changes to requirements -- -- 72 77 73 75 75
2021 84

Demographic Table

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 12% 3 16% 6

Agree 69% 18 66% 25

Disagree 15% 4 13% 5

Strongly disagree 0% 0 3% 1

Does not apply 4% 1 3% 1

Number of Respondents 26 38

Job role

Project/State Director 81% 21 79% 30

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 8% 2 16% 6

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 12% 3 5% 2

Number of Respondents 26 38

Length of time in role

Less than one year 8% 2 16% 6

Between 1 - 3 years 50% 13 37% 14

Between 4 - 10 years 27% 7 26% 10

More than 10 years 15% 4 21% 8

Number of Respondents 26 38

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 

12 months

Received tech assistance 31% 8 32% 12

Did not receive 69% 18 68% 26

Number of Respondents 26 38
2021 85

Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships (FLAS)

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 0 81 0 0 0 92 47

ED Staff/Coordination -- 85 -- -- -- 96 96

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- 86 -- -- -- 98 96

Responsiveness to your questions -- 85 -- -- -- 97 97

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- 98 98

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- 82 -- -- -- 96 96

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- 94 95

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- 82 -- -- -- 93 92

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- 89 -- -- -- 94 94

Online Resources -- 66 -- -- -- 72 75

Ability to find specific information -- 65 -- -- -- 74 79

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- 75 79

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- 66 -- -- -- 73 74

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- 74 77

Ability to navigate within the site -- 66 -- -- -- 71 74

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- 66 72

Information in Application Package -- 86 -- -- -- 86 87

Program Purpose -- 87 -- -- -- 86 88

Program Priorities -- 86 -- -- -- 86 88

Selection Criteria -- 84 -- -- -- 85 84

Review Process -- 81 -- -- -- 78 83

Budget Information and Forms -- 84 -- -- -- 80 83

Deadline for Submission -- 87 -- -- -- 91 91

Dollar Limit on Awards -- 85 -- -- -- 87 87

Page Limitation Instructions -- 87 -- -- -- 87 89

Formatting Instructions -- 87 -- -- -- 83 86

Program Contact -- 89 -- -- -- 92 93

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- 71 73

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- 80 83

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- 63 65

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- 80 79

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- 78 81

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- 68 67

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- 58 59

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- 92 93

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- 92 93

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --
2021 86

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

ACSI -- 71 -- -- -- 83 81

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- 78 -- -- -- 89 88

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- 68 -- -- -- 80 78

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- 64 -- -- -- 78 74

Trust -- -- -- -- -- 91 91

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- 91 91

Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships 

(FLAS)

Responsiveness to your questions -- 84 -- -- -- 95 98

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies 

and procedures -- 85 -- -- -- 95 96

Ability to resolve issues -- -- -- -- -- 95 98

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication -- -- -- -- -- 95 97

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or 

financial issues -- -- -- -- -- 95 96

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- -- -- -- -- 72 79

Availability of funds with adequate time for 

implementation -- -- -- -- -- 73 76

Transparency of how funds are distributed among 

grantees -- -- -- -- -- 84 83

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- -- -- -- -- 92 95

Frequency of communication -- -- -- -- -- 89 94

Clarity of communication -- -- -- -- -- 92 96

Supports instruction in fields needed to provide full 

understanding -- -- -- -- -- 94 93

Supports work in language aspects of professional and 

other fields of study -- -- -- -- -- 94 94

Supports research and training in international studies -- -- -- -- -- 95 93

Teaching of any modern foreign language -- -- -- -- -- 95 92

Instruction in fields needed to provide full understanding -- -- -- -- -- 94 93

Research and training in international studies -- -- -- -- -- 93 93

Language aspects of professional and other fields of 

study -- -- -- -- -- 93 92

Instruction and research on issues in world affairs -- -- -- -- -- 93 94
2021 87

Demographic Table

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 52% 48 64% 30

Agree 47% 43 36% 17

Disagree 1% 1 0% 0

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 92 47

Job role

Project/State Director 33% 30 55% 26

School Officer 3% 3 2% 1

Grant Coordinator 47% 43 28% 13

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 7% 6 2% 1

Other 11% 10 13% 6

Number of Respondents 92 47

Length of time in role

Less than one year 7% 6 6% 3

Between 1 - 3 years 33% 30 26% 12

Between 4 - 10 years 29% 27 36% 17

More than 10 years 32% 29 32% 15

Number of Respondents 92 47

Preferred method of communication - FLAS

Individual Email 88% 81 96% 45

Blast/Distribution list email 4% 4 0% 0

Telephone 3% 3 0% 0

Webinar 3% 3 2% 1

Other 1% 1 2% 1

Number of Respondents 92 47
2021 88

Full-Service Community Schools (ESEA IV-F-2, Section 4625)

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 0 18 26

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- -- 87 78

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- 93 83

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- 85 72

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- 92 86

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- -- 81 76

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- 86 72

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- -- 87 70

Online Resources -- -- -- -- -- 78 68

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- -- -- 78 61

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- 81 70

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- -- -- 80 70

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- 80 70

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- -- -- 79 71

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- 76 72

Documents -- -- -- -- -- 85 66

Clarity -- -- -- -- -- 85 66

Organization of information -- -- -- -- -- 84 69

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs -- -- -- -- -- 82 65

Relevance to your areas of need -- -- -- -- -- 90 70

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face -- -- -- -- -- 89 63

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- 71 68

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- 70 64

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- 70 65

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- 60 78

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- 77 72

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- 77 71

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- 70 58

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- 78 63

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- 83 71

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- 80 69

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- 80 69

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- 76 58

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- 73 56

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- 78 67

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI -- -- -- -- -- 79 66

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- -- 85 73

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- -- 77 63

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- -- 73 59
2021 89

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Trust -- -- -- -- -- 85 77

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- 85 77

Full-Service Community Schools (ESEA IV-F-2, 

section 4625)

ED Program Contacts quality of assistance -- -- -- -- -- 100 94
2021 90

Demographic Table

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 50% 9 35% 9

Agree 33% 6 38% 10

Disagree 6% 1 23% 6

Strongly disagree 6% 1 0% 0

Does not apply 6% 1 4% 1

Number of Respondents 18 26

Job role

Project/State Director 72% 13 81% 21

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 11% 2 12% 3

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 17% 3 8% 2

Number of Respondents 18 26

Length of time in role

Less than one year 11% 2 35% 9

Between 1 - 3 years 56% 10 31% 8

Between 4 - 10 years 22% 4 27% 7

More than 10 years 11% 2 8% 2

Number of Respondents 18 26

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 

12 months

Received tech assistance 17% 3 8% 2

Did not receive 83% 15 92% 24

Number of Respondents 18 26

Asked for assistance not related to fiscal or grant 

administration issues - FSCS

Asked for assistance 39% 7 15% 4

Did not ask 61% 11 85% 22

Number of Respondents 18 26
2021 91

Governor’s Emergency Education Relief Fund

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 0 0 19

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- -- -- 74

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- -- 70

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- -- 70

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- -- -- 68

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- -- 80

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- -- -- 64

Online Resources -- -- -- -- -- -- 69

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- -- -- -- 68

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- -- 70

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- -- -- -- 69

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- -- 63

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- -- -- -- 69

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- -- 70

Documents -- -- -- -- -- -- 72

Clarity -- -- -- -- -- -- 71

Organization of information -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs -- -- -- -- -- -- 70

Relevance to your areas of need -- -- -- -- -- -- 75

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face -- -- -- -- -- -- 67

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 55

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 62

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- -- 56

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- -- 60

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- -- 53

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- -- 47

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- -- 47

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- -- 75

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- -- 75

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- -- 44

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI -- -- -- -- -- -- 66

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- -- -- 70

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- -- -- 64

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- -- -- 63
2021 92

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Trust -- -- -- -- -- -- 77

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- -- 77

Governors Emergency Education Relief Fund

Ability to resolve issues -- -- -- -- -- -- 74

Ability to listen to, accept and act upon your feedback -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

Ability to assist you in defining your needs and requests -- -- -- -- -- -- 79

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 82

Helpfulness connecting you to resources and 

relationships to implement grant -- -- -- -- -- -- 74
2021 93

Demographic Table 

2020 2021 

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency 

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services 

Strongly agree 0% 0 11% 2 

Agree 0% 0 84% 16

Disagree 0% 0 5% 1 

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0 

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0 

Number of Respondents 0 19

Job role 

Project/State Director 0% 0 63% 12

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0 

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 26% 5 

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0 

Business Manager 0% 0 5% 1 

Other 0% 0 5% 1 

Number of Respondents 0 19

Length of time in role 

Less than one year 0% 0 21% 4 

Between 1 - 3 years 0% 0 47% 9 

Between 4 - 10 years 0% 0 16% 3 

More than 10 years 0% 0 16% 3 

Number of Respondents 0 19

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 

12 months 

Received tech assistance 0% 0 5% 1 

Did not receive 0% 0 95% 18

Number of Respondents 0 19

Preferred method rank - Individual Email - GEER 

1st 0% 0 84% 16

2nd 0% 0 5% 1 

3rd 0% 0 11% 2 

Number of Respondents 0 19

Preferred method rank - Telephone Call - GEER 

2nd 0% 0 67% 2 

3rd 0% 0 33% 1 

Number of Respondents 0 3 

Preferred method rank - Video Call - GEER 

1st 0% 0 17% 1 

2nd 0% 0 67% 4 

3rd 0% 0 17% 1 

Number of Respondents 0 6 

Preferred method rank - Website - GEER 

2nd 0% 0 45% 5 

3rd 0% 0 55% 6 

Number of Respondents 0 11
2021 94

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Preferred method rank - ESSERGEER Newsblast listserv -

GEER

1st 0% 0 15% 2

2nd 0% 0 54% 7

3rd 0% 0 31% 4

Number of Respondents 0 13

Preferred method rank - G5 Bulk Email - GEER

3rd 0% 0 100% 5

Number of Respondents 0 5

Greatest need for technical assistance - GEER~

Allowable uses of funds 0% 0 37% 7

Reporting requirements 0% 0 79% 15

Subrecipient monitoring 0% 0 58% 11

Timelines for grant requirements 0% 0 16% 3

Understanding difference requirements between programs 0% 0 11% 2

Number of Respondents 0 19
2021 95

Grants for State Assessments

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 0 0 17 32 32 29 32

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- 73 82 84 92 88

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- 75 84 87 94 91

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- 70 86 82 94 90

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- 96 94

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- 71 82 83 90 83

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- 88 85

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- 69 81 72 -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- 70 78 77 87 82

Online Resources -- -- 64 70 74 76 76

Ability to find specific information -- -- 61 63 74 76 76

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- 80 77

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- 64 67 73 75 75

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- 74 76

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- 63 66 70 71 76

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- 74 76

Documents -- -- 69 76 80 84 82

Clarity -- -- 71 76 79 84 81

Organization of information -- -- 69 79 81 85 84

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs -- -- 66 73 80 83 81

Relevance to your areas of need -- -- 71 77 82 86 87

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face -- -- 66 71 80 81 78

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- 81 76

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- 83 78

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- 80 76

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- 85 79

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- 86 81

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- 79 74

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- 73 73

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- 83 81

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- 87 88

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- 84 80

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- 85 79

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- 81 80

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- 81 78

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- 83 61

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI -- -- 63 66 75 76 77

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- 68 74 80 83 83

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- 61 62 72 73 75

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- 58 60 70 70 71
2021 96

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Trust -- -- -- -- 78 86 81

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- 78 86 81

Grants for State Assessments

Provides assistance that enhances capacity to 

implement -- -- 68 69 77 79 77

Provides support that is responsive to my State’s needs 

to implement -- -- 67 69 80 84 79

Helps address implementation challenges -- -- 60 66 75 83 79

Provides information about key changes to requirements -- -- 71 72 82 83 82
2021 97

Demographic Table

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 59% 17 41% 13

Agree 38% 11 56% 18

Disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 3% 1 3% 1

Number of Respondents 29 32

Job role

Project/State Director 100% 29 88% 28

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 0% 0

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 13% 4

Number of Respondents 29 32

Length of time in role

Less than one year 17% 5 3% 1

Between 1 - 3 years 38% 11 31% 10

Between 4 - 10 years 38% 11 50% 16

More than 10 years 7% 2 16% 5

Number of Respondents 29 32

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 

12 months

Received tech assistance 17% 5 22% 7

Did not receive 83% 24 78% 25

Number of Respondents 29 32
2021 98

Group Projects Abroad Program

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 0 21 25

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- -- 95 91

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- 96 94

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- 93 92

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- 98 96

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- -- 92 89

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- 93 91

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- -- 95 92

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- -- 98 86

Online Resources -- -- -- -- -- 79 79

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- -- -- 79 78

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- 81 81

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- -- -- 78 78

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- 79 89

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- -- -- 79 77

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- 77 70

Information in Application Package -- -- -- -- -- 91 91

Program Purpose -- -- -- -- -- 91 90

Program Priorities -- -- -- -- -- 91 92

Selection Criteria -- -- -- -- -- 89 89

Review Process -- -- -- -- -- 88 87

Budget Information and Forms -- -- -- -- -- 82 83

Deadline for Submission -- -- -- -- -- 96 98

Dollar Limit on Awards -- -- -- -- -- 93 96

Page Limitation Instructions -- -- -- -- -- 93 95

Formatting Instructions -- -- -- -- -- 88 87

Program Contact -- -- -- -- -- 96 94

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- 81 72

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- 81 71

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- 81 72

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- 85 81

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- 84 80

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- 82 80

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- 70 60

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- 91 94

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- 91 94

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --
2021 99

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

ACSI -- -- -- -- -- 86 84

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- -- 89 88

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- -- 85 84

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- -- 84 80

Trust -- -- -- -- -- 96 92

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- 96 92

Group Projects Abroad program

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- 91 89

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- 93 92

Ability to resolve issues -- -- -- -- -- 94 91

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication -- -- -- -- -- 92 92

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or 

financial issues -- -- -- -- -- 92 91

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- -- -- -- -- 92 90

Availability of funds with adequate time for 

implementation -- -- -- -- -- 95 89

Transparency of how funds are distributed among 

grantees -- -- -- -- -- 90 82

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- -- -- -- -- 92 88

Frequency of communication -- -- -- -- -- 87 85

Clarity of communication -- -- -- -- -- 90 89

Supports instruction in fields needed to provide full 

understanding -- -- -- -- -- 92 95

Supports work in language aspects of professional and 

other fields of study -- -- -- -- -- 84 94

Supports research and training in international studies -- -- -- -- -- 92 94

Teaching of any modern foreign language -- -- -- -- -- 92 90

Instruction in fields needed to provide full understanding -- -- -- -- -- 96 95

Research and training in international studies -- -- -- -- -- 92 94

Language aspects of professional and other fields of 

study -- -- -- -- -- 93 94

Instruction and research on issues in world affairs -- -- -- -- -- 95 95
2021 100

Demographic Table

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 81% 17 56% 14

Agree 19% 4 44% 11

Disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 21 25

Job role

Project/State Director 67% 14 88% 22

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 14% 3 0% 0

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 5% 1 0% 0

Other 14% 3 12% 3

Number of Respondents 21 25

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 12% 3

Between 1 - 3 years 33% 7 28% 7

Between 4 - 10 years 19% 4 16% 4

More than 10 years 48% 10 44% 11

Number of Respondents 21 25

Preferred method of communication - GPA

Individual Email 86% 18 92% 23

Telephone 5% 1 0% 0

Other 10% 2 8% 2

Number of Respondents 21 25
2021 101

High School Equivalency Program – Migrant Education

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 25 25 34 37 0 39 41

ED Staff/Coordination 93 91 89 92 -- 93 91

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 96 90 90 92 -- 94 94

Responsiveness to your questions 94 89 89 93 -- 87 85

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- 97 97

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 92 90 89 93 -- 92 88

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- 93 92

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 92 94 87 91 -- -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 89 93 92 89 -- 91 89

Online Resources 85 83 80 77 -- 83 85

Ability to find specific information 84 80 79 71 -- 84 84

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- 85 87

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 85 84 81 74 -- 83 83

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- 83 89

Ability to navigate within the site 85 83 79 77 -- 80 83

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- 83 85

Documents 89 85 84 84 -- 90 90

Clarity 89 86 84 83 -- 91 91

Organization of information 90 85 86 82 -- 91 92

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 88 86 84 85 -- 89 90

Relevance to your areas of need 91 85 86 85 -- 92 91

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 88 85 83 84 -- 87 88

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- 91 92

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- 91 93

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- 90 92

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- 92 96

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- 94 91

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- 88 91

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- 91 90

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- 86 88

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- 91 90

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- 86 88

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- 82 85

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- 83 85

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- 89 90

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- 94 96

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI 81 85 82 80 -- 88 88

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 85 88 86 84 -- 92 91

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 77 83 79 76 -- 86 86

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 78 84 79 77 -- 85 86
2021 102

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Trust -- -- -- -- -- 92 91

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- 92 91

High School Equivalency Program - Migrant 

Education

Accessibility and responsiveness of program staff 94 93 86 90 -- 91 85

Timely resolution of questions by program staff 93 88 83 87 -- 88 84

Clarity of information provided by program staff 93 88 86 88 -- 89 89

Usefulness and relevance of technical assistance 

strategies 92 89 85 88 -- 91 87

Usefulness of updated technical assistance resources 

pages on HEP.ed.gov -- -- -- 86 -- 85 87
2021 103

Demographic Table

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 74% 29 68% 28

Agree 23% 9 32% 13

Disagree 3% 1 0% 0

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 39 41

Job role

Project/State Director 90% 35 88% 36

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 10% 4 10% 4

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 2% 1

Number of Respondents 39 41

Length of time in role

Less than one year 5% 2 7% 3

Between 1 - 3 years 26% 10 32% 13

Between 4 - 10 years 41% 16 34% 14

More than 10 years 28% 11 27% 11

Number of Respondents 39 41

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 

12 months

Received tech assistance 5% 2 7% 3

Did not receive 95% 37 93% 38

Number of Respondents 39 41
2021 104

Hispanic Serving Institutions – STEM and Articulation Program

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 0 0 66 51 0 0 51

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- 83 85 -- -- 92

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- 88 86 -- -- 92

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- 82 80 -- -- 90

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- -- 95

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- 80 83 -- -- 90

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- -- 92

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- 80 84 -- -- 91

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- 82 87 -- -- 91

Online Resources -- -- 73 58 -- -- 77

Ability to find specific information -- -- 69 59 -- -- 75

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- 73 55 -- -- 78

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- -- 76

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- 72 58 -- -- 74

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- -- 77

Information in Application Package -- -- 86 78 -- -- 89

Program Purpose -- -- 87 79 -- -- 89

Program Priorities -- -- 87 81 -- -- 91

Selection Criteria -- -- 84 79 -- -- 88

Review Process -- -- 82 73 -- -- 85

Budget Information and Forms -- -- 81 71 -- -- 87

Deadline for Submission -- -- 89 81 -- -- 93

Dollar Limit on Awards -- -- 85 83 -- -- 87

Page Limitation Instructions -- -- 87 80 -- -- 89

Formatting Instructions -- -- 85 73 -- -- 86

Program Contact -- -- 90 83 -- -- 93

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- -- 87

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- -- 79

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- -- 63

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- -- 84

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- -- 84

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --
2021 105

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

ACSI -- -- 72 67 -- -- 82

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- 77 74 -- -- 88

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- 69 65 -- -- 77

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- 68 62 -- -- 79

Trust -- -- -- -- -- -- 90

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- -- 90

Hispanic Serving Institutions - STEM and Articulation 

Program

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- 79 77 -- -- 88

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies 

and procedures -- -- 83 84 -- -- 89

Ability to resolve issues -- -- 82 80 -- -- 88

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication -- -- 84 83 -- -- 87

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or 

financial issues -- -- 79 77 -- -- 88

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- -- -- -- -- -- 79

Availability of funds with adequate time for 

implementation -- -- -- -- -- -- 82

Transparency of how funds are distributed among 

grantees -- -- -- -- -- -- 85

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- -- -- -- -- -- 84

Frequency of communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

Clarity of communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 85
2021 106

Demographic Table

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 0% 0 67% 34

Agree 0% 0 33% 17

Disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 0 51

Job role

Project/State Director 0% 0 86% 44

School Officer 0% 0 2% 1

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 8% 4

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 4% 2

Number of Respondents 0 51

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 4% 2

Between 1 - 3 years 0% 0 25% 13

Between 4 - 10 years 0% 0 61% 31

More than 10 years 0% 0 10% 5

Number of Respondents 0 51

Preferred method of communication - HSI STEM

Individual Email 0% 0 82% 42

Blast/Distribution list email 0% 0 10% 5

Telephone 0% 0 4% 2

Webinar 0% 0 2% 1

Other 0% 0 2% 1

Number of Respondents 0 51
2021 107

Historically Black Graduate Institutions (HBGI) Program

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 0 0 6

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- -- 96

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- -- -- 91

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- -- 93

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

Online Resources -- -- -- -- -- -- 79

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- -- -- -- 82

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- -- -- -- 82

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- -- 69

Information in Application Package -- -- -- -- -- -- 91

Program Purpose -- -- -- -- -- -- 91

Program Priorities -- -- -- -- -- -- 91

Selection Criteria -- -- -- -- -- -- 84

Review Process -- -- -- -- -- -- 87

Budget Information and Forms -- -- -- -- -- -- 91

Deadline for Submission -- -- -- -- -- -- 96

Dollar Limit on Awards -- -- -- -- -- -- 93

Page Limitation Instructions -- -- -- -- -- -- 93

Formatting Instructions -- -- -- -- -- -- 93

Program Contact -- -- -- -- -- -- 93

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 86

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- -- 93

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- -- 93

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- -- 85

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- -- 70

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- -- 94

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- -- 94

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --
2021 108

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

ACSI -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- -- -- 70

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

Trust -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Historically Black Graduate Institutions (HBGI) 

Program

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- -- 96

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- -- 96

Ability to resolve issues -- -- -- -- -- -- 96

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 96

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or 

financial issues -- -- -- -- -- -- 96

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- -- -- -- -- -- 67

Availability of funds with adequate time for 

implementation -- -- -- -- -- -- 84

Transparency of how funds are distributed among 

grantees -- -- -- -- -- -- 74

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- -- -- -- -- -- 93

Frequency of communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 84

Clarity of communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 96
2021 109

Demographic Table

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 0% 0 50% 3

Agree 0% 0 33% 2

Disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Strongly disagree 0% 0 17% 1

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 0 6

Job role

Project/State Director 0% 0 67% 4

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 33% 2

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 0 6

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 0% 0

Between 1 - 3 years 0% 0 33% 2

Between 4 - 10 years 0% 0 50% 3

More than 10 years 0% 0 17% 1

Number of Respondents 0 6

Preferred method of communication - HBGI

Individual Email 0% 0 83% 5

Telephone 0% 0 17% 1

Number of Respondents 0 6
2021 110

IDEA – Part C Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities Program

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 22 34 36 31 36 22 28

ED Staff/Coordination 80 88 85 88 82 83 90

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 86 90 87 89 82 84 90

Responsiveness to your questions 82 87 83 88 82 79 90

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- 91 97

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 79 87 82 86 81 78 86

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- 83 88

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 77 -- -- -- -- -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 80 -- -- 89 79 85 90

Online Resources 67 68 68 69 66 66 64

Ability to find specific information 62 63 62 68 65 63 61

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- 76 75

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 65 69 65 69 64 67 63

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- 63 65

Ability to navigate within the site 66 63 64 64 65 62 60

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- 62 64

Documents 74 71 76 75 78 73 77

Clarity 71 74 77 76 79 74 76

Organization of information 75 74 77 76 80 77 81

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 74 72 73 77 77 70 75

Relevance to your areas of need 78 70 79 76 78 77 80

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 70 66 75 72 74 65 74

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- 73 78

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- 72 85

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- 72 75

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- 73 72

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- 74 80

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- 72 75

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- 73 77

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- 80 81

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- 80 85

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- 78 79

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- 76 77

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- 76 79

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- 81 81

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- 89 92

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI 63 71 69 72 69 74 76

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 75 78 76 80 77 79 83

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 58 69 66 70 64 72 72

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 55 65 62 65 64 69 73
2021 111

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Trust -- -- -- -- 77 79 84

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- 77 79 84

IDEA – Part C Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities 

Program

Clarity of information received in developing applications 

and reports -- -- 82 81 74 84 80

Timeliness of responses -- -- 89 86 79 86 83

OSEP-funded TA provider -- -- 88 90 88 87 85

Education Department-funded TA provider -- -- 57 44 46 51 45

Professional associations -- -- 79 80 81 80 83

Conferences where research is presented -- -- 71 70 70 74 65

Books -- -- 59 48 55 49 44

Journal articles -- -- 63 59 60 60 59

Personal interaction with peers -- -- 82 79 80 87 75

IDEAS that work website -- -- -- 59 60 58 67

The Department`s new IDEA website -- -- -- 59 56 59 64

osep.grads360.org -- -- -- 76 70 62 62
2021 112

Demographic Table

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 36% 8 43% 12

Agree 59% 13 54% 15

Disagree 5% 1 4% 1

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 22 28

Job role

Project/State Director 64% 14 64% 18

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 18% 4 29% 8

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 18% 4 7% 2

Number of Respondents 22 28

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 14% 4

Between 1 - 3 years 27% 6 21% 6

Between 4 - 10 years 45% 10 43% 12

More than 10 years 27% 6 21% 6

Number of Respondents 22 28

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 

12 months

Received tech assistance 77% 17 79% 22

Did not receive 23% 5 21% 6

Number of Respondents 22 28

Frequency of technical assistance and support from State lead 

- IDEA-Part C

At least weekly 0% 0 11% 3

Monthly 68% 15 68% 19

Quarterly 32% 7 14% 4

Yearly 0% 0 7% 2

State Lead does not contact me 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 22 28

Helpfulness if automated grant submission and approval 

process - IDEA-Part C

Rated 0 - Not Helpful 9% 2 4% 1

Rated 1 9% 2 4% 1

Rated 2 0% 0 4% 1

Rated 3 5% 1 11% 3

Rated 4 9% 2 11% 3

Rated 5 - Very Helpful 68% 15 68% 19

Don ́t know/Not applicable 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 22 28
2021 113

IDEA – State Directors of Special Education (Part B) Program

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 17 38 32 32 30 23 31

ED Staff/Coordination 80 84 87 90 84 77 83

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 88 89 88 94 84 75 82

Responsiveness to your questions 79 83 85 89 85 80 82

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- 87 95

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 76 79 84 89 83 73 78

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- 76 83

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 77 -- -- -- -- -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 76 -- -- 90 81 69 78

Online Resources 63 65 66 73 64 64 72

Ability to find specific information 58 59 63 71 63 63 72

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- 71 80

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 63 63 65 72 63 65 73

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- 64 70

Ability to navigate within the site 58 60 62 72 63 61 69

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- 64 69

Documents 68 75 75 78 76 74 79

Clarity 67 73 74 76 77 75 81

Organization of information 75 77 77 79 77 77 82

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 64 74 73 76 73 71 77

Relevance to your areas of need 71 80 79 82 79 79 82

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 64 71 70 77 74 70 72

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- 74 78

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- 77 78

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- 71 74

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- 76 79

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- 79 83

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- 74 79

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- 69 76

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- 75 81

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- 77 80

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- 74 80

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- 72 79

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- 71 76

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- 72 78

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- 93 94

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI 61 66 69 75 71 71 74

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 67 72 77 81 76 75 82

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 59 63 65 72 70 70 70

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 55 62 64 70 67 66 69
2021 114

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Trust -- -- -- -- 81 75 81

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- 81 75 81

IDEA – State Directors of Special Education (Part B) 

Program

Clarity of information received in developing applications 

and reports -- -- 77 82 75 74 80

Timeliness of responses -- -- 81 86 79 79 84

OSEP-funded TA provider -- -- 82 88 85 89 89

Education Department-funded TA provider -- -- 57 57 62 68 73

Professional associations -- -- 81 83 81 80 80

Conferences where research is presented -- -- 75 75 74 68 69

Books -- -- 54 54 52 52 53

Journal articles -- -- 66 61 60 64 62

Personal interaction with peers -- -- 87 82 80 83 81

IDEAS that work website -- -- -- 73 61 68 75

The Department`s new IDEA website -- -- -- 74 60 65 76

osep.grads360.org -- -- -- 85 71 68 68
2021 115

Demographic Table

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 35% 8 35% 11

Agree 61% 14 58% 18

Disagree 0% 0 6% 2

Strongly disagree 4% 1 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 23 31

Job role

Project/State Director 91% 21 90% 28

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 9% 2 3% 1

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 6% 2

Number of Respondents 23 31

Length of time in role

Less than one year 9% 2 10% 3

Between 1 - 3 years 43% 10 29% 9

Between 4 - 10 years 26% 6 45% 14

More than 10 years 22% 5 16% 5

Number of Respondents 23 31

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 

12 months

Received tech assistance 74% 17 84% 26

Did not receive 26% 6 16% 5

Number of Respondents 23 31

Frequency of technical assistance and support from State lead 

- IDEA-Part B

At least weekly 13% 3 16% 5

Monthly 52% 12 71% 22

Quarterly 26% 6 13% 4

Yearly 4% 1 0% 0

State Lead does not contact me 4% 1 0% 0

Number of Respondents 23 31

Frequency of policy discussion with OSEP staff - - IDEA-Part B

At least weekly 4% 1 10% 3

Monthly 43% 10 42% 13

Quarterly 22% 5 29% 9

Yearly 22% 5 6% 2

Never 9% 2 13% 4

Number of Respondents 23 31
2021 116

IDEA National Centers Program

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 0 11 17

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- -- 92 94

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- 99 96

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- 92 95

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- 96 97

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- -- 96 93

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- 92 92

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- -- 92 93

Online Resources -- -- -- -- -- 75 68

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- -- -- 75 65

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- 80 72

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- -- -- 80 67

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- 74 68

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- -- -- 74 69

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- 73 70

Documents -- -- -- -- -- 81 82

Clarity -- -- -- -- -- 79 84

Organization of information -- -- -- -- -- 83 81

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs -- -- -- -- -- 79 85

Relevance to your areas of need -- -- -- -- -- 85 80

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face -- -- -- -- -- 78 81

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- 79 68

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- 87 79

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- 81 71

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- 70 55

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- 89 73

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- 78 69

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- 62 54

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- 83 82

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- 90 86

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- 88 81

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- 81 83

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- 78 79

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- 83 83

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- 100 85

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI -- -- -- -- -- 78 77

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- -- 84 86

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- -- 78 69

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- -- 71 73
2021 117

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Trust -- -- -- -- -- 87 78

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- 87 78
2021 118

Demographic Table

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 64% 7 53% 9

Agree 36% 4 41% 7

Disagree 0% 0 6% 1

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 11 17

Job role

Project/State Director 91% 10 88% 15

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 6% 1

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 9% 1 6% 1

Number of Respondents 11 17

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 6% 1

Between 1 - 3 years 18% 2 6% 1

Between 4 - 10 years 36% 4 65% 11

More than 10 years 45% 5 24% 4

Number of Respondents 11 17

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 

12 months

Received tech assistance 9% 1 18% 3

Did not receive 91% 10 82% 14

Number of Respondents 11 17
2021 119

Immediate Aid to Restart School Operations

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 0 5 5

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- -- 93 95

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- 93 96

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- 89 89

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- 100 98

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- -- 89 98

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- 93 96

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- -- 89 94

Online Resources -- -- -- -- -- 77 80

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- -- -- 82 80

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- 80 84

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- -- -- 78 73

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- 72 76

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- -- -- 73 89

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- 80 78

Documents -- -- -- -- -- 81 91

Clarity -- -- -- -- -- 80 89

Organization of information -- -- -- -- -- 82 92

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs -- -- -- -- -- 82 92

Relevance to your areas of need -- -- -- -- -- 84 92

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face -- -- -- -- -- 76 92

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- 76 86

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- 73 96

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- 73 84

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- 91 93

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- 84 89

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- 69 84

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- 62 67

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- 84 90

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- 91 96

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- 84 89

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- 72 91

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- 87 86

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- 75 86

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI -- -- -- -- -- 81 82

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- -- 87 89

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- -- 82 78

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- -- 73 78
2021 120

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Trust -- -- -- -- -- 91 91

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- 91 91
2021 121

Demographic Table

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 60% 3 60% 3

Agree 40% 2 40% 2

Disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 5 5

Job role

Project/State Director 100% 5 60% 3

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 40% 2

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 5 5

Length of time in role

Less than one year 20% 1 20% 1

Between 1 - 3 years 40% 2 60% 3

Between 4 - 10 years 0% 0 0% 0

More than 10 years 40% 2 20% 1

Number of Respondents 5 5

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 

12 months

Received tech assistance 0% 0 20% 1

Did not receive 100% 5 80% 4

Number of Respondents 5 5

Areas would like tech assistance - RESTART

General guidance and regulations 0% 0 60% 3

Use of funds 60% 3 0% 0

Subrecipient technical assistance or monitoring and oversight 40% 2 20% 1

Other 0% 0 20% 1

Number of Respondents 5 5

Preferred method to receive information - RESTART

In-person during convenings or meetings 20% 1 20% 1

Written communication sent through a listserv 60% 3 0% 0

Webinars or virtual presentations 20% 1 80% 4

Number of Respondents 5 5
2021 122

Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies Program

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 15 39 20 23 24 21 38

ED Staff/Coordination 86 70 77 75 75 79 87

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 88 69 78 74 78 81 90

Responsiveness to your questions 84 66 69 71 67 66 82

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- 89 93

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 87 71 81 73 73 74 84

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- 81 85

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 85 72 81 74 75 -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 81 70 81 74 72 79 84

Online Resources 66 65 68 54 55 61 67

Ability to find specific information 60 59 65 48 51 63 69

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- 68 70

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 67 64 67 50 55 59 67

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- 58 66

Ability to navigate within the site 59 63 66 53 54 59 66

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- 60 66

Documents 83 69 78 64 69 79 82

Clarity 81 70 78 66 68 78 82

Organization of information 82 72 79 67 69 79 83

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 85 68 76 59 66 79 80

Relevance to your areas of need 85 70 79 65 75 81 84

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 81 65 78 61 65 77 80

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- 63 70

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- 67 74

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- 61 71

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- 73 77

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- 64 76

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- 60 62

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- 54 62

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- 69 75

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- 74 83

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- 68 78

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- 64 73

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- 64 72

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- 63 66

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- 87 79

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI 68 58 66 57 59 64 74

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 76 65 72 61 65 70 79

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 66 55 65 57 54 60 70

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 61 54 61 54 57 60 71
2021 123

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Trust -- -- -- -- 63 71 84

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- 63 71 84

Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local 

Educational Agencies Program

Provides assistance that enhances capacity to 

implement -- -- 63 71 69 68 82

Provides support that is responsive to my State’s needs 

to implement -- -- 61 64 67 65 83

Helps address implementation challenges -- 54 67 60 65 66 81

Provides information about key changes to requirements -- -- 69 67 68 69 83
2021 124

Demographic Table

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 5% 1 34% 13

Agree 86% 18 61% 23

Disagree 10% 2 5% 2

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 21 38

Job role

Project/State Director 95% 20 79% 30

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 5% 2

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 5% 1 16% 6

Number of Respondents 21 38

Length of time in role

Less than one year 14% 3 11% 4

Between 1 - 3 years 33% 7 34% 13

Between 4 - 10 years 33% 7 37% 14

More than 10 years 19% 4 18% 7

Number of Respondents 21 38

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 

12 months

Received tech assistance 48% 10 55% 21

Did not receive 52% 11 45% 17

Number of Respondents 21 38
2021 125

Independent Living Services for Older Individuals Who Are Blind (IL-OIB)

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 0 0 31

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- -- -- 77

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- -- 82

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- -- 72

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- -- -- 75

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- -- 72

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

Online Resources -- -- -- -- -- -- 69

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- -- -- -- 66

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- -- 72

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- -- -- -- 73

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- -- 72

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- -- -- -- 66

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- -- 71

Documents -- -- -- -- -- -- 71

Clarity -- -- -- -- -- -- 70

Organization of information -- -- -- -- -- -- 73

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs -- -- -- -- -- -- 70

Relevance to your areas of need -- -- -- -- -- -- 72

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face -- -- -- -- -- -- 70

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 62

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 63

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- -- 60

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- -- 75

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- -- 62

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- -- 57

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- -- 58

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- -- 77

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- -- 74

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- -- 79

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- -- 79

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- -- 79

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- -- 82

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI -- -- -- -- -- -- 69

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- -- -- 76

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- -- -- 66

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- -- -- 63
2021 126

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Trust -- -- -- -- -- -- 72

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- -- 72

Independent Living Services for Older Individuals 

Who Are Blind (IL-OIB)

Data Collection and Reporting -- -- -- -- -- -- 75

Fiscal/Grant Management -- -- -- -- -- -- 72

Program Performance -- -- -- -- -- -- 71

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- -- 79

Training efforts/Dissemination of info - TAC at MSU -- -- -- -- -- -- 94

Utility of website for entering required data, retrieving and 

revising reports -- -- -- -- -- -- 69

Ease of navigating website -- -- -- -- -- -- 63

Usefulness of information available on the website -- -- -- -- -- -- 65

Website technical support -- -- -- -- -- -- 67
2021 127

Demographic Table

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 0% 0 23% 7

Agree 0% 0 71% 22

Disagree 0% 0 3% 1

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 3% 1

Number of Respondents 0 31

Job role

Project/State Director 0% 0 52% 16

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 10% 3

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 39% 12

Number of Respondents 0 31

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 6% 2

Between 1 - 3 years 0% 0 26% 8

Between 4 - 10 years 0% 0 39% 12

More than 10 years 0% 0 29% 9

Number of Respondents 0 31

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 

12 months

Received tech assistance 0% 0 42% 13

Did not receive 0% 0 58% 18

Number of Respondents 0 31
2021 128

Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Education Agencies Program

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 58 91 73 56 49 72 86

ED Staff/Coordination 87 87 87 85 86 86 88

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 87 87 87 85 87 88 87

Responsiveness to your questions 89 88 89 87 88 86 87

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- 92 91

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 85 86 85 83 83 85 86

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- 84 87

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 88 87 84 85 81 -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 89 85 85 83 80 83 87

Online Resources 81 82 83 79 71 79 78

Ability to find specific information 78 77 82 74 68 78 77

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- 82 81

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 83 83 84 80 71 81 78

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- 78 78

Ability to navigate within the site 81 82 83 82 70 80 77

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- 79 76

Documents 82 83 81 78 78 81 81

Clarity 80 82 81 78 79 82 81

Organization of information 82 84 81 81 78 84 83

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 83 83 82 77 79 81 80

Relevance to your areas of need 83 84 82 79 78 81 81

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 80 83 82 76 78 79 81

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- 77 79

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- 78 80

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- 74 77

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- 84 83

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- 81 81

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- 75 78

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- 68 73

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- 75 79

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- 83 86

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- 75 80

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- 75 79

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- 71 77

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- 71 75

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- 85 81

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI 80 80 80 74 75 77 80

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 84 84 84 81 81 81 84

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 79 78 78 70 72 75 78

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 77 79 77 71 69 74 78
2021 129

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Trust -- -- -- -- 79 83 87

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- 79 83 87

Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Education 

Agencies Program

Timeliness of staff -- 89 90 87 85 90 87

Quality of support -- 88 91 85 84 85 86

Comprehensiveness of documents -- 87 89 83 82 86 83

Ease of using EASIE system -- 89 89 82 84 84 81

Quality of training via webinars -- 86 87 80 81 81 80
2021 130

Demographic Table

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 42% 30 44% 38

Agree 46% 33 47% 40

Disagree 10% 7 6% 5

Strongly disagree 1% 1 2% 2

Does not apply 1% 1 1% 1

Number of Respondents 72 86

Job role

Project/State Director 10% 7 21% 18

School Officer 0% 0 13% 11

Grant Coordinator 53% 38 34% 29

Superintendent 18% 13 17% 15

Business Manager 6% 4 1% 1

Other 14% 10 14% 12

Number of Respondents 72 86

Length of time in role

Less than one year 1% 1 10% 9

Between 1 - 3 years 21% 15 31% 27

Between 4 - 10 years 38% 27 38% 33

More than 10 years 40% 29 20% 17

Number of Respondents 72 86

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 

12 months

Received tech assistance 11% 8 12% 10

Did not receive 89% 64 88% 76

Number of Respondents 72 86

Greatest need for technical assistance - OIE FORM~

Establishing parent committees 15% 11 16% 14

Expanding membership of parent committees 25% 18 30% 26

Verifying student information 21% 15 10% 9

Using the EASIE system 14% 10 26% 22

Allowable uses of funds 36% 26 38% 33

General grant program requirements, deadlines and milestones 38% 27 35% 30

Using the G5 system 31% 22 29% 25

Number of Respondents 72 86
2021 131

Innovative Approaches to Literacy Program

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 0 0 20 19 0 31 33

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- 97 97 -- 90 91

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- 97 95 -- 91 91

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- 97 98 -- 86 90

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- 95 95

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- 99 97 -- 91 91

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- 89 91

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- 97 95 -- -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- 96 94 -- 85 90

Online Resources -- -- 86 89 -- 84 91

Ability to find specific information -- -- 87 86 -- 82 88

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- 87 92

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- 88 91 -- 83 91

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- 84 90

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- 83 89 -- 83 92

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- 83 91

Documents -- -- 86 91 -- 89 86

Clarity -- -- 86 90 -- 88 88

Organization of information -- -- 84 90 -- 88 89

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs -- -- 87 91 -- 90 85

Relevance to your areas of need -- -- 87 91 -- 88 85

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face -- -- 86 92 -- 88 85

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- 83 87

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- 84 89

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- 84 87

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- 80 84

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- 84 88

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- 87 90

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- 78 86

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- 88 86

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- 90 86

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- 89 86

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- 89 86

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- 91 84

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- 82 79

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- 100 96

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI -- -- 85 87 -- 88 89

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- 93 92 -- 91 92

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- 81 87 -- 86 87

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- 81 82 -- 85 87
2021 132

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Trust -- -- -- -- -- 94 94

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- 94 94

Innovative Approaches to Literacy Program

Ability to work with you to resolve issues -- -- 97 97 -- 86 89

Quality of information or feedback received from IAL 

program staff -- -- 96 95 -- 88 91

Overall satisfaction with service provided by the 

representative -- -- 98 97 -- 89 91

Helpfulness of project implementation and evaluation -- -- -- -- -- 86 91

Helpfulness of performance reporting -- -- -- -- -- 85 92
2021 133

Demographic Table

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 74% 23 85% 28

Agree 26% 8 12% 4

Disagree 0% 0 3% 1

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 31 33

Job role

Project/State Director 58% 18 30% 10

School Officer 3% 1 3% 1

Grant Coordinator 23% 7 36% 12

Superintendent 6% 2 6% 2

Business Manager 3% 1 9% 3

Other 6% 2 15% 5

Number of Respondents 31 33

Length of time in role

Less than one year 6% 2 3% 1

Between 1 - 3 years 65% 20 55% 18

Between 4 - 10 years 19% 6 27% 9

More than 10 years 10% 3 15% 5

Number of Respondents 31 33

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 

12 months

Received tech assistance 6% 2 9% 3

Did not receive 94% 29 91% 30

Number of Respondents 31 33
2021 134

International Research and Studies

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 0 0 13

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- -- -- 91

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- -- 93

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- -- 85

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- -- 93

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- -- -- 91

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- -- 92

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- -- -- 90

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- -- -- 96

Online Resources -- -- -- -- -- -- 72

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- -- -- -- 72

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- -- 75

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- -- -- -- 75

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- -- -- -- 71

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- -- 65

Information in Application Package -- -- -- -- -- -- 92

Program Purpose -- -- -- -- -- -- 92

Program Priorities -- -- -- -- -- -- 92

Selection Criteria -- -- -- -- -- -- 92

Review Process -- -- -- -- -- -- 81

Budget Information and Forms -- -- -- -- -- -- 81

Deadline for Submission -- -- -- -- -- -- 98

Dollar Limit on Awards -- -- -- -- -- -- 94

Page Limitation Instructions -- -- -- -- -- -- 98

Formatting Instructions -- -- -- -- -- -- 95

Program Contact -- -- -- -- -- -- 95

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 73

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 76

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- -- 81

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- -- 72

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- -- 57

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- -- 88

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- -- 88

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --
2021 135

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

ACSI -- -- -- -- -- -- 82

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- -- -- 90

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- -- -- 79

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- -- -- 76

Trust -- -- -- -- -- -- 90

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- -- 90

International Research and Studies

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- -- 88

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- -- 93

Ability to resolve issues -- -- -- -- -- -- 96

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 90

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or 

financial issues -- -- -- -- -- -- 96

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- -- -- -- -- -- 93

Availability of funds with adequate time for 

implementation -- -- -- -- -- -- 94

Transparency of how funds are distributed among 

grantees -- -- -- -- -- -- 95

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- -- -- -- -- -- 87

Frequency of communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

Clarity of communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 88

Supports instruction in fields needed to provide full 

understanding -- -- -- -- -- -- 94

Supports work in language aspects of professional and 

other fields of study -- -- -- -- -- -- 95

Supports research and training in international studies -- -- -- -- -- -- 96

Teaching of any modern foreign language -- -- -- -- -- -- 90

Instruction in fields needed to provide full understanding -- -- -- -- -- -- 93

Research and training in international studies -- -- -- -- -- -- 88

Language aspects of professional and other fields of 

study -- -- -- -- -- -- 93

Instruction and research on issues in world affairs -- -- -- -- -- -- 91
2021 136

Demographic Table

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 0% 0 69% 9

Agree 0% 0 31% 4

Disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 0 13

Job role

Project/State Director 0% 0 77% 10

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 8% 1

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 15% 2

Number of Respondents 0 13

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 46% 6

Between 1 - 3 years 0% 0 31% 4

Between 4 - 10 years 0% 0 15% 2

More than 10 years 0% 0 8% 1

Number of Respondents 0 13

Preferred method of communication - IRS

Individual Email 0% 0 85% 11

Blast/Distribution list email 0% 0 15% 2

Number of Respondents 0 13
2021 137

Javits Program

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 0 0 0 23 0 30 25

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- 78 -- 83 85

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- 83 -- 82 86

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- 77 -- 81 79

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- 87 91

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- 92 -- 82 83

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- 83 84

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- 84 -- -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- 90 -- 84 84

Online Resources -- -- -- 72 -- 73 77

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- 67 -- 72 78

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- 71 76

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- 73 -- 73 78

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- 77 78

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- 75 -- 74 76

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- 76 77

Documents -- -- -- 78 -- 69 79

Clarity -- -- -- 75 -- 71 81

Organization of information -- -- -- 82 -- 73 83

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs -- -- -- 78 -- 68 80

Relevance to your areas of need -- -- -- 81 -- 75 80

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face -- -- -- 75 -- 68 80

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- 68 71

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- 73 73

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- 68 74

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- 66 70

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- 76 77

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- 67 73

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- 48 57

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- 68 74

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- 76 79

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- 65 73

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- 68 75

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- 61 74

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- 56 73

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- 100 78

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI -- -- -- 72 -- 69 73

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- 80 -- 75 80

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- 70 -- 69 67

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- 64 -- 62 70
2021 138

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Trust -- -- -- -- -- 80 88

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- 80 88

Javits Program

Timeliness and Responsiveness of general 

programmatic and financial issues -- -- -- 65 -- 75 78

Quality of information or feedback received from Javits 

program staff -- -- -- 62 -- 81 78

Knowledge of interim reporting requirements for mid-year 

check-in calls -- -- -- 72 -- 82 80

Overall satisfaction with service provided by the 

representative -- -- -- 63 -- 78 81

Frequency of communication -- -- -- 62 -- 73 78
2021 139

Demographic Table

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 33% 10 52% 13

Agree 43% 13 32% 8

Disagree 20% 6 12% 3

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 3% 1 4% 1

Number of Respondents 30 25

Job role

Project/State Director 53% 16 64% 16

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 20% 6 24% 6

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 27% 8 12% 3

Number of Respondents 30 25

Length of time in role

Less than one year 3% 1 8% 2

Between 1 - 3 years 30% 9 32% 8

Between 4 - 10 years 33% 10 40% 10

More than 10 years 33% 10 20% 5

Number of Respondents 30 25

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 

12 months

Received tech assistance 3% 1 4% 1

Did not receive 97% 29 96% 24

Number of Respondents 30 25
2021 140

Magnet Schools Assistance Program

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 29 33 37

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- 84 87 88

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- 84 87 86

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- 80 79 82

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- 96 96

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- 87 86 89

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- 88 88

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- 80 -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- 82 90 83

Online Resources -- -- -- -- 75 83 79

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- -- 75 82 78

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- 83 79

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- -- 77 83 77

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- 83 81

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- -- 75 81 78

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- 87 78

Documents -- -- -- -- 81 85 85

Clarity -- -- -- -- 79 87 86

Organization of information -- -- -- -- 82 89 87

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs -- -- -- -- 81 84 85

Relevance to your areas of need -- -- -- -- 85 85 86

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face -- -- -- -- 82 80 82

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- 84 83

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- 87 84

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- 77 77

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- 89 87

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- 89 89

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- 81 83

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- 80 77

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- 82 78

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- 85 82

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- 81 77

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- 81 76

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- 79 78

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- 80 73

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- 76 89

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI -- -- -- -- 79 79 78

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- 83 82 83

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- 78 77 75

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- 77 76 74
2021 141

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Trust -- -- -- -- 83 86 87

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- 83 86 87

Magnet Schools Assistance Program

Program Officer’s knowledge of project and ability to 

meet your specific needs -- -- -- -- -- -- 84

Content knowledge of your Program Officer in supporting 

your program’s success -- -- -- -- -- -- 84

MSAP Technical Assistance Center -- -- -- -- 85 86 83

Benefit of Grads360 system -- -- -- -- 60 62 54

Overall effectiveness of assistance received from MSAP -- -- -- -- 82 83 81
2021 142

Demographic Table

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 48% 16 49% 18

Agree 39% 13 46% 17

Disagree 12% 4 5% 2

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 33 37

Job role

Project/State Director 76% 25 76% 28

School Officer 0% 0 5% 2

Grant Coordinator 15% 5 14% 5

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 9% 3 5% 2

Number of Respondents 33 37

Length of time in role

Less than one year 6% 2 3% 1

Between 1 - 3 years 52% 17 32% 12

Between 4 - 10 years 33% 11 54% 20

More than 10 years 9% 3 11% 4

Number of Respondents 33 37

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 

12 months

Received tech assistance 21% 7 8% 3

Did not receive 79% 26 92% 34

Number of Respondents 33 37
2021 143

Migrant Education Programs (Title I, Part C)

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 30 33 37 32 35 34 37

ED Staff/Coordination 80 82 87 92 86 85 87

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 86 86 91 93 88 92 91

Responsiveness to your questions 77 81 85 90 83 73 75

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- 93 93

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 79 77 87 93 88 78 83

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- 87 91

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 80 86 90 91 89 -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 72 81 84 92 86 84 86

Online Resources 59 61 75 82 80 74 78

Ability to find specific information 55 58 77 83 81 75 76

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- 76 81

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 59 62 78 80 79 73 77

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- 74 77

Ability to navigate within the site 54 61 76 81 79 72 79

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- 73 79

Documents 74 78 81 88 86 87 86

Clarity 71 79 83 87 86 87 86

Organization of information 76 79 85 89 87 89 88

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 74 80 77 89 85 87 86

Relevance to your areas of need 78 79 82 87 88 88 88

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 71 75 78 86 86 84 83

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- 76 76

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- 76 79

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- 72 73

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- 81 78

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- 78 80

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- 74 72

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- 72 74

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- 79 80

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- 80 86

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- 81 80

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- 78 80

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- 77 78

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- 80 81

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- 70 87

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI 64 72 75 79 79 78 78

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 70 79 80 85 85 81 84

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 61 70 72 77 77 78 74

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 59 66 71 75 76 75 74
2021 144

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Trust -- -- -- -- 78 85 86

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- 78 85 86

Migrant Education Programs (Title I, Part C)

Usefulness of the Website -- -- -- -- -- -- 84
2021 145

Demographic Table

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 47% 16 46% 17

Agree 41% 14 46% 17

Disagree 12% 4 3% 1

Strongly disagree 0% 0 5% 2

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 34 37

Job role

Project/State Director 94% 32 97% 36

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 3% 1 3% 1

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 3% 1 0% 0

Number of Respondents 34 37

Length of time in role

Less than one year 6% 2 8% 3

Between 1 - 3 years 38% 13 41% 15

Between 4 - 10 years 38% 13 35% 13

More than 10 years 18% 6 16% 6

Number of Respondents 34 37

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 

12 months

Received tech assistance 9% 3 14% 5

Did not receive 91% 31 86% 32

Number of Respondents 34 37

Technical assistance topics needed - MEP~

Child Eligibility 12% 4 4% 1

Comprehensive Needs Assessment 12% 4 26% 6

Continuation of Services 9% 3 35% 8

Fiscal Requirements 26% 9 0% 0

Interstate Coordination 6% 2 0% 0

Parental/Family Engagement 21% 7 0% 0

Priority for Services 18% 6 0% 0

Program Evaluation 12% 4 0% 0

Identification and Recruitment Quality Control 18% 6 0% 0

Records Exchange including MSIX 12% 4 0% 0

Identification and Recruitment Methods and Strategies 24% 8 0% 0

Re-interviewing 0% 0 0% 0

Service Delivery Models 24% 8 0% 0

Service Delivery Plan including MPOs 9% 3 0% 0

Subgranting 12% 4 0% 0

Service Delivery Strategies 15% 5 35% 8

Subrecipient Monitoring 41% 14 0% 0

Data Management and Reporting 26% 9 0% 0

Other 6% 2 13% 3

Number of Respondents 34 23
2021 146

National Professional Development Program

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 69 64 29 46 45 51 73

ED Staff/Coordination 81 84 91 95 86 92 91

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 86 87 93 94 88 96 91

Responsiveness to your questions 80 83 86 95 83 88 89

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- 94 95

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 87 84 94 98 91 91 87

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- 92 93

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 81 88 95 97 86 93 91

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 90 90 97 95 91 91 91

Online Resources 78 76 66 77 73 80 86

Ability to find specific information 79 78 66 79 73 80 86

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- 83 87

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 78 76 68 78 73 80 87

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- 79 86

Ability to navigate within the site 80 77 64 75 70 79 84

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- 78 85

Documents 80 80 80 81 83 90 88

Clarity 78 79 82 80 84 90 89

Organization of information 81 81 83 81 84 90 89

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 80 80 77 79 80 89 88

Relevance to your areas of need 82 80 81 83 86 92 89

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 79 79 79 81 81 88 87

Information in Application Package -- -- -- -- -- -- 91

Program Purpose -- -- -- -- -- -- 94

Program Priorities -- -- -- -- -- -- 94

Selection Criteria -- -- -- -- -- -- 91

Review Process -- -- -- -- -- -- 86

Budget Information and Forms -- -- -- -- -- -- 86

Deadline for Submission -- -- -- -- -- -- 94

Dollar Limit on Awards -- -- -- -- -- -- 91

Page Limitation Instructions -- -- -- -- -- -- 88

Formatting Instructions -- -- -- -- -- -- 87

Program Contact -- -- -- -- -- -- 95

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- 77 81

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- 80 82

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- 79 84

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- 72 80

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- 82 85

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- 82 84

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- 65 72
2021 147

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- 85 81

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- 87 86

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- 85 83

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- 88 84

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- 84 81

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- 84 77

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- 93 84

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI 73 78 71 77 81 80 83

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 79 83 80 82 86 85 89

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 70 75 66 76 78 79 80

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 69 74 66 71 77 76 80

Trust -- -- -- -- 93 92 92

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- 93 92 92

National Professional Development Program

Technical assistance from OELA office -- -- -- -- 80 86 87

Technical assistance from program officer -- 72 74 84 82 82 85

Usefulness of OELA website -- 76 70 79 78 79 81

Usefulness of NCELA website -- 78 77 86 82 86 84

Usefulness of OELA Facebook -- 62 78 85 69 64 67
2021 148

Demographic Table 

2020 2021 

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency 

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services 

Strongly agree 63% 32 64% 47

Agree 33% 17 29% 21

Disagree 4% 2 4% 3 

Strongly disagree 0% 0 1% 1 

Does not apply 0% 0 1% 1 

Number of Respondents 51 73

Job role 

Project/State Director 69% 35 75% 55

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0 

Grant Coordinator 14% 7 19% 14

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0 

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0 

Other 18% 9 5% 4 

Number of Respondents 51 73

Length of time in role 

Less than one year 0% 0 4% 3 

Between 1 - 3 years 24% 12 5% 4 

Between 4 - 10 years 51% 26 67% 49

More than 10 years 25% 13 23% 17

Number of Respondents 51 73

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 

12 months 

Received tech assistance 12% 6 7% 5 

Did not receive 88% 45 93% 68

Number of Respondents 51 73

Frequency of tech assistance from OELA office - NPD 

At least weekly 6% 3 3% 2 

Monthly 25% 13 18% 13

Quarterly 47% 24 52% 38

Yearly 22% 11 27% 20

Number of Respondents 51 73

Frequency of monitoring tech support - NPD 

At least weekly 4% 2 3% 2 

Monthly 20% 10 14% 10

Quarterly 61% 31 64% 47

Yearly 16% 8 19% 14

Number of Respondents 51 73

Frequency of visiting OELA website - NPD 

Weekly 8% 4 1% 1 

Monthly 27% 14 32% 23

Every few months 63% 32 62% 45

Never 2% 1 5% 4 

Number of Respondents 51 73
2021 149

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Frequency of visiting NCELA website - NPD

Weekly 10% 5 5% 4

Monthly 41% 21 37% 27

Every few months 47% 24 53% 39

Never 2% 1 4% 3

Number of Respondents 51 73

Frequency of visiting OELA Facebook - NPD

Weekly 4% 2 4% 3

Monthly 10% 5 8% 6

Every few months 12% 6 11% 8

Never 75% 38 77% 56

Number of Respondents 51 73
2021 150

Native American and Alaska Native Children in School Program

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 9 13 12 9 16 15 14

ED Staff/Coordination 96 82 83 95 84 91 92

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 98 85 76 92 83 91 90

Responsiveness to your questions 95 81 89 99 83 91 91

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- 96 94

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 94 81 79 94 81 92 92

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- 91 93

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 95 80 84 94 83 87 90

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 95 78 81 97 84 87 92

Online Resources 91 67 60 84 67 78 87

Ability to find specific information 90 70 74 81 69 79 86

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- 78 90

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 94 68 58 79 67 79 87

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- 77 86

Ability to navigate within the site 92 67 58 83 66 77 87

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- 74 88

Documents 91 78 74 84 77 88 88

Clarity 89 76 73 81 78 89 87

Organization of information 92 76 75 84 78 90 90

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 92 79 77 85 79 88 87

Relevance to your areas of need 90 79 75 84 77 87 87

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 90 78 69 84 76 84 87

Information in Application Package -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Program Purpose -- -- -- -- -- -- 90

Program Priorities -- -- -- -- -- -- 90

Selection Criteria -- -- -- -- -- -- 90

Review Process -- -- -- -- -- -- 93

Budget Information and Forms -- -- -- -- -- -- 88

Deadline for Submission -- -- -- -- -- -- 90

Dollar Limit on Awards -- -- -- -- -- -- 88

Page Limitation Instructions -- -- -- -- -- -- 91

Formatting Instructions -- -- -- -- -- -- 88

Program Contact -- -- -- -- -- -- 92

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- 79 84

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- 83 86

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- 76 76

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- 79 79

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- 82 90

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- 76 87

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- 73 84
2021 151

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- 84 84

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- 90 89

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- 83 85

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- 83 85

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- 81 84

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- 83 80

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- 92 89

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI 90 75 66 89 76 85 85

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 95 81 70 95 81 91 91

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 86 74 65 86 74 87 80

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 89 69 63 85 70 76 83

Trust -- -- -- -- 82 89 89

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- 82 89 89

Native American and Alaska Native Children in 

School Program

Technical assistance from OELA office -- -- -- -- 78 87 85

Technical assistance from program officer -- 68 79 91 78 90 87

Usefulness of OELA website -- 66 72 85 76 76 84

Usefulness of NCELA website -- 76 80 88 77 76 75

Usefulness of OELA Facebook -- 22 -- 100 53 58 44
2021 152

Demographic Table 

2020 2021 

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency 

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services 

Strongly agree 60% 9 57% 8 

Agree 40% 6 43% 6 

Disagree 0% 0 0% 0 

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0 

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0 

Number of Respondents 15 14

Job role 

Project/State Director 87% 13 71% 10

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0 

Grant Coordinator 13% 2 21% 3 

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0 

Business Manager 0% 0 7% 1 

Other 0% 0 0% 0 

Number of Respondents 15 14

Length of time in role 

Less than one year 7% 1 0% 0 

Between 1 - 3 years 40% 6 36% 5 

Between 4 - 10 years 33% 5 43% 6 

More than 10 years 20% 3 21% 3 

Number of Respondents 15 14

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 

12 months 

Received tech assistance 27% 4 29% 4 

Did not receive 73% 11 71% 10

Number of Respondents 15 14

Frequency of tech assistance from OELA office - NAM

At least weekly 7% 1 0% 0 

Monthly 53% 8 7% 1 

Quarterly 40% 6 79% 11

Yearly 0% 0 14% 2 

Number of Respondents 15 14

Frequency of monitoring tech support - NAM

At least weekly 7% 1 0% 0 

Monthly 40% 6 21% 3 

Quarterly 47% 7 79% 11

Yearly 7% 1 0% 0 

Number of Respondents 15 14

Frequency of visiting OELA website - NAM

Daily 0% 0 0% 0 

Weekly 7% 1 0% 0 

Monthly 13% 2 21% 3 

Every few months 80% 12 79% 11

Never 0% 0 0% 0 

Number of Respondents 15 14
2021 153

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Frequency of visiting NCELA website - NAM

Weekly 13% 2 0% 0

Monthly 27% 4 21% 3

Every few months 40% 6 71% 10

Never 20% 3 7% 1

Number of Respondents 15 14

Frequency of visiting OELA Facebook - NAM

Weekly 0% 0 0% 0

Monthly 0% 0 0% 0

Every few months 27% 4 14% 2

Never 73% 11 86% 12

Number of Respondents 15 14
2021 154

Native American Career and Technical Education Program

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 0 20 19

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- -- 82 83

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- 84 83

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- 70 75

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- 92 90

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- -- 80 81

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- 83 87

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- -- 83 85

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- -- 92 78

Online Resources -- -- -- -- -- 69 69

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- -- -- 67 69

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- 74 74

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- -- -- 69 73

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- 65 67

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- -- -- 65 67

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- 69 66

Documents -- -- -- -- -- 75 81

Clarity -- -- -- -- -- 72 80

Organization of information -- -- -- -- -- 76 80

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs -- -- -- -- -- 75 84

Relevance to your areas of need -- -- -- -- -- 80 83

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face -- -- -- -- -- 78 84

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- 68 70

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- 71 70

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- 73 73

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- 74 77

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- 70 69

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- 68 72

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- 52 57

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- 70 65

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- 80 77

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- 73 64

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- 65 71

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- 63 53

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- 51 51

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- 44 100

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI -- -- -- -- -- 76 67

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- -- 83 73

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- -- 70 65

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- -- 73 61
2021 155

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Trust -- -- -- -- -- 91 83

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- 91 83

Native American Career and Technical Education 

Program

PCRN’s usefulness to your program -- -- -- -- -- 76 67

Effectiveness of DATE in helping you implement grant 

programs

-- -- -- -- -- 68 62

TA received on project implementation and budget 

questions -- -- -- -- -- 76 81

Usefulness and relevance of project director meeting in 

providing TA -- -- -- -- -- 79 70
2021 156

Demographic Table

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 50% 10 47% 9

Agree 35% 7 26% 5

Disagree 15% 3 11% 2

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 16% 3

Number of Respondents 20 19

Job role

Project/State Director 55% 11 74% 14

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 35% 7 16% 3

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 10% 2 11% 2

Number of Respondents 20 19

Length of time in role

Less than one year 10% 2 0% 0

Between 1 - 3 years 40% 8 26% 5

Between 4 - 10 years 35% 7 53% 10

More than 10 years 15% 3 21% 4

Number of Respondents 20 19

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 

12 months

Received tech assistance 5% 1 11% 2

Did not receive 95% 19 89% 17

Number of Respondents 20 19
2021 157

Native American Serving Non-Tribal Institutions Program

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 0 12 14

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- -- 85 84

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- 86 87

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- 86 74

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- 89 89

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- -- 87 84

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- 87 85

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- -- 78 100

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- -- 70 92

Online Resources -- -- -- -- -- 66 74

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- -- -- 69 69

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- 70 78

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- -- -- 66 72

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- 67 73

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- -- -- 60 70

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- 61 77

Information in Application Package -- -- -- -- -- 87 87

Program Purpose -- -- -- -- -- 87 95

Program Priorities -- -- -- -- -- 86 90

Selection Criteria -- -- -- -- -- 84 92

Review Process -- -- -- -- -- 86 90

Budget Information and Forms -- -- -- -- -- 85 89

Deadline for Submission -- -- -- -- -- 89 81

Dollar Limit on Awards -- -- -- -- -- 86 89

Page Limitation Instructions -- -- -- -- -- 86 94

Formatting Instructions -- -- -- -- -- 84 94

Program Contact -- -- -- -- -- 90 97

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- 75 78

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- 74 78

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- 79 77

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- 81 91

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- 79 80

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- 80 77

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- 61 67

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- 74 70

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- 74 70

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --
2021 158

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

ACSI -- -- -- -- -- 83 74

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- -- 92 80

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- -- 78 71

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- -- 77 70

Trust -- -- -- -- -- 91 88

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- 91 88

Native American Serving Non-Tribal Institutions 

Program

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- 82 78

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- 89 89

Ability to resolve issues -- -- -- -- -- 83 89

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication -- -- -- -- -- 83 81

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or 

financial issues -- -- -- -- -- 80 77

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- -- -- -- -- 72 81

Availability of funds with adequate time for 

implementation -- -- -- -- -- 71 85

Transparency of how funds are distributed among 

grantees -- -- -- -- -- 78 91

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- -- -- -- -- 78 84

Frequency of communication -- -- -- -- -- 67 79

Clarity of communication -- -- -- -- -- 79 84
2021 159

Demographic Table

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 50% 6 43% 6

Agree 50% 6 57% 8

Disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 12 14

Job role

Project/State Director 83% 10 93% 13

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 8% 1 7% 1

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 8% 1 0% 0

Number of Respondents 12 14

Length of time in role

Less than one year 17% 2 21% 3

Between 1 - 3 years 33% 4 21% 3

Between 4 - 10 years 42% 5 57% 8

More than 10 years 8% 1 0% 0

Number of Respondents 12 14

Preferred method of communication - NASNTI

Individual Email 67% 8 79% 11

Blast/Distribution list email 0% 0 14% 2

Telephone 25% 3 7% 1

Other 8% 1 0% 0

Number of Respondents 12 14
2021 160

Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Education Program

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 0 2 3

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- -- 85 80

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- 83 74

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- 78 78

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- 100 96

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- -- 83 78

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- 83 74

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- -- 100 94

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- -- 78 72

Online Resources -- -- -- -- -- 94 90

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- -- -- 94 94

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- 94 94

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- -- -- 94 94

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- 94 89

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- -- -- 94 83

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- 94 83

Documents -- -- -- -- -- 91 84

Clarity -- -- -- -- -- 89 85

Organization of information -- -- -- -- -- 89 81

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs -- -- -- -- -- 94 85

Relevance to your areas of need -- -- -- -- -- 89 85

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face -- -- -- -- -- 94 85

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- 81 78

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- 89 100

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- 83 81

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- 89 56

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- 83 83

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- 83 89

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- 56 59

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- 72 89

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- 78 100

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- 78 89

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- 67 94

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- 72 89

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- 67 83

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- 78 --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI -- -- -- -- -- 78 71

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- -- 89 78

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- -- 78 70

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- -- 67 63
2021 161

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Trust -- -- -- -- -- 100 85

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- 100 85

Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Education 

Program

PCRN’s usefulness to your program -- -- -- -- -- 83 94

Effectiveness of DATE in helping you implement grant 

programs

-- -- -- -- -- 78 94

TA received on project implementation and budget 

questions -- -- -- -- -- 83 83

Usefulness and relevance of project director meeting in 

providing TA -- -- -- -- -- 94 100
2021 162

Demographic Table

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 50% 1 33% 1

Agree 50% 1 33% 1

Disagree 0% 0 33% 1

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 2 3

Job role

Project/State Director 0% 0 67% 2

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 50% 1 33% 1

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 50% 1 0% 0

Number of Respondents 2 3

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 0% 0

Between 1 - 3 years 50% 1 33% 1

Between 4 - 10 years 0% 0 0% 0

More than 10 years 50% 1 67% 2

Number of Respondents 2 3

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 

12 months

Received tech assistance 50% 1 0% 0

Did not receive 50% 1 100% 3

Number of Respondents 2 3
2021 163

Native Hawaiian Education Act Program/Education of Native Hawaiian

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 0 24 30

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- -- 93 91

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- 92 93

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- 89 87

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- 98 95

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- -- 92 91

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- 94 91

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- -- 93 84

Online Resources -- -- -- -- -- 79 84

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- -- -- 79 85

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- 82 86

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- -- -- 79 84

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- 80 84

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- -- -- 78 83

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- 74 81

Documents -- -- -- -- -- 86 85

Clarity -- -- -- -- -- 86 84

Organization of information -- -- -- -- -- 87 84

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs -- -- -- -- -- 87 87

Relevance to your areas of need -- -- -- -- -- 87 86

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face -- -- -- -- -- 84 85

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- 77 76

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- 82 81

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- 76 72

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- 73 74

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- 79 83

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- 82 78

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- 74 68

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- 81 81

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- 89 85

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- 83 79

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- 79 79

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- 83 79

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- 81 74

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- 89 78

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI -- -- -- -- -- 82 82

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- -- 88 87

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- -- 81 79

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- -- 77 79
2021 164

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Trust -- -- -- -- -- 90 92

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- 90 92

Native Hawaiian Education Act Program/Education of 

Native Hawaiian

Knowledge of staff on program grant administration 

issues -- -- -- -- -- 92 88
2021 165

Demographic Table

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 54% 13 67% 20

Agree 46% 11 27% 8

Disagree 0% 0 3% 1

Strongly disagree 0% 0 3% 1

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 24 30

Job role

Project/State Director 63% 15 67% 20

School Officer 8% 2 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 21% 5 7% 2

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 7% 2

Other 8% 2 20% 6

Number of Respondents 24 30

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 7% 2

Between 1 - 3 years 38% 9 33% 10

Between 4 - 10 years 25% 6 23% 7

More than 10 years 38% 9 37% 11

Number of Respondents 24 30

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 

12 months

Received tech assistance 4% 1 7% 2

Did not receive 96% 23 93% 28

Number of Respondents 24 30

Staff initiated tech assistance during past 3-6 months - NHE

Initiated tech assistance 54% 13 70% 21

Did not initiate 46% 11 30% 9

Number of Respondents 24 30
2021 166

Neglected and Delinquent State and Local Agency Programs

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 30 32 32 36 25 24 32

ED Staff/Coordination 83 79 75 81 68 83 83

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 89 79 80 81 66 85 86

Responsiveness to your questions 84 73 70 80 65 78 80

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- 89 90

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 80 79 73 76 69 82 80

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- 81 82

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 83 83 80 83 74 -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 78 82 81 83 75 81 78

Online Resources 70 73 68 70 58 72 65

Ability to find specific information 69 72 69 70 58 70 62

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- 71 65

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 69 72 66 70 57 72 63

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- 69 63

Ability to navigate within the site 67 73 70 71 61 75 64

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- 74 73

Documents 77 72 66 72 67 76 67

Clarity 78 72 66 75 70 78 69

Organization of information 81 75 67 75 70 81 71

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 76 70 67 70 63 75 65

Relevance to your areas of need 77 72 67 71 70 77 66

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 75 71 63 69 60 71 61

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- 78 71

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- 82 76

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- 72 63

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- 81 76

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- 79 74

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- 76 66

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- 74 70

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- 82 65

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- 78 69

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- 81 72

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- 76 68

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- 77 64

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- 78 64

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- 94 55

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI 67 62 60 65 55 77 56

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 73 66 67 73 62 81 61

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 64 59 56 60 52 74 52

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 62 61 56 62 51 75 52
2021 167

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Trust -- -- -- -- 70 84 69

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- 70 84 69

Neglected and Delinquent State and Local Agency 

Programs

Responsiveness in answering questions - Tech 

Assistance Center (NDTAC) 81 80 79 81 87 84 65

Sufficiency of the guidance provided in responses to 

questions -- -- -- -- -- 86 66

Meeting program compliance requirements - US 

Department of Education 85 81 70 76 60 72 76

Assisting you to impact performance results - US 

Department of Education 81 79 64 70 57 74 74

Support quality for collecting/submitting data - US 

Department of Education -- -- -- -- -- 77 76

Meeting program compliance requirements - Tech 

Assistance Center (NDTAC) 86 85 80 83 80 87 60

Assisting to impact performance results - Tech 

Assistance Center (NDTAC) 84 84 83 82 78 85 58

Support quality for collecting/submitting data - Tech 

Assistance Center (NDTAC) -- -- -- -- -- 85 58
2021 168

Demographic Table

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 42% 10 9% 3

Agree 50% 12 50% 16

Disagree 8% 2 16% 5

Strongly disagree 0% 0 13% 4

Does not apply 0% 0 13% 4

Number of Respondents 24 32

Job role

Project/State Director 67% 16 72% 23

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 33% 8 25% 8

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 3% 1

Number of Respondents 24 32

Length of time in role

Less than one year 4% 1 19% 6

Between 1 - 3 years 50% 12 25% 8

Between 4 - 10 years 33% 8 47% 15

More than 10 years 13% 3 9% 3

Number of Respondents 24 32

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 

12 months

Received tech assistance 96% 23 69% 22

Did not receive 4% 1 31% 10

Number of Respondents 24 32
2021 169

Payments for Federal Property (Section 7002)

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 48 0 77 48 47 96 97

ED Staff/Coordination 81 -- 84 90 90 91 89

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 82 -- 85 90 88 91 89

Responsiveness to your questions 83 -- 79 90 91 91 88

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- 95 92

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 76 -- 83 90 91 91 88

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- 89 86

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 77 -- 84 -- -- -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 81 -- 83 -- -- -- --

Online Resources 74 -- 78 81 81 83 78

Ability to find specific information 69 -- 71 79 78 82 77

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- 85 82

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 76 -- 80 83 83 84 79

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- 84 80

Ability to navigate within the site 71 -- 78 77 78 82 75

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- 84 77

Documents 70 -- 78 82 85 87 83

Clarity 69 -- 76 82 84 87 83

Organization of information 72 -- 79 84 85 88 84

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 71 -- 79 81 86 87 83

Relevance to your areas of need 71 -- 80 83 86 87 83

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 68 -- 77 82 86 87 83

ACSI 70 -- 76 77 83 84 82

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 74 -- 79 82 89 89 87

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 68 -- 75 75 78 80 78

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 66 -- 73 75 81 82 79

Trust -- -- -- -- 86 88 85

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- 86 88 85

Payments for Federal Property (Section 7002)

Impact Aid staff`s responsiveness to answering 

questions 81 -- 86 94 95 89 87

Impact Aid staff`s supportiveness in helping complete 

application 83 -- 89 94 97 90 88

Impact Aid staff`s knowledge about technical material 81 -- 90 93 97 89 90

Effectiveness of documents in helping complete 

application 76 -- 82 84 -- 84 81
2021 170

Demographic Table

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 49% 47 48% 47

Agree 48% 46 46% 45

Disagree 1% 1 5% 5

Strongly disagree 1% 1 0% 0

Does not apply 1% 1 0% 0

Number of Respondents 96 97

Job role

Project/State Director 0% 0 0% 0

School Officer 7% 7 9% 9

Grant Coordinator 6% 6 10% 10

Superintendent 35% 34 37% 36

Business Manager 30% 29 33% 32

Other 21% 20 10% 10

Number of Respondents 96 97

Length of time in role

Less than one year 5% 5 2% 2

Between 1 - 3 years 27% 26 32% 31

Between 4 - 10 years 20% 19 26% 25

More than 10 years 48% 46 40% 39

Number of Respondents 96 97

Contacted Impact Aid Program for technical assistance - PFP

Contacted 49% 47 51% 49

Did not contact 51% 49 49% 48

Number of Respondents 96 97

Used written instruction and guidance documents for 

application - PFP

Used 84% 81 91% 88

Did not use 16% 15 9% 9

Number of Respondents 96 97

Participated in meetings where Sec 7002 prog info provided -

PFP

Participated 61% 59 51% 49

Did not participate 39% 37 49% 48

Number of Respondents 96 97

Presentation or materials helped understand responsibilities -

PFP

Helped understand 98% 58 98% 48

Did not help understand 2% 1 2% 1

Number of Respondents 59 49
2021 171

Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 7003)

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 66 81 77 49 50 100 120

ED Staff/Coordination 71 79 85 85 88 88 89

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 74 78 85 87 89 89 89

Responsiveness to your questions 71 80 84 82 88 87 87

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- 92 92

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 71 77 81 86 87 87 88

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- 84 87

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 67 75 82 -- -- -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 67 78 85 -- -- -- --

Online Resources 72 77 78 75 75 79 77

Ability to find specific information 70 72 73 73 73 79 76

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- 81 81

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 73 79 79 75 76 80 77

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- 77 77

Ability to navigate within the site 71 74 78 74 74 76 75

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- 79 78

Documents 67 75 78 79 83 82 82

Clarity 65 76 78 78 83 82 82

Organization of information 67 77 80 80 84 83 83

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 67 75 78 79 82 82 81

Relevance to your areas of need 68 76 80 79 83 81 81

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 66 76 77 77 82 80 80

ACSI 64 71 74 75 79 78 78

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 69 76 79 80 82 82 84

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 61 67 72 73 78 76 75

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 62 69 71 71 78 76 75

Trust -- -- -- -- 85 82 87

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- 85 82 87

Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 

7003)

Responsiveness to answering questions -- -- -- -- -- 88 87

Supportiveness in helping you complete your application -- -- -- -- -- 91 87

Knowledge about technical material -- -- -- -- -- 90 89

Effectiveness in providing TA or instructions regarding 

performance reports 72 79 82 79 80 82 82

Ease of reaching person who could address concern 69 72 81 75 83 87 84

Ability to resolve your issue 69 73 82 78 85 87 87
2021 172

Demographic Table 

2020 2021 

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency 

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services 

Strongly agree 35% 35 41% 49

Agree 58% 58 52% 62

Disagree 4% 4 3% 4 

Strongly disagree 3% 3 3% 3 

Does not apply 0% 0 2% 2 

Number of Respondents 100 120 

Job role 

Project/State Director 0% 0 2% 2 

School Officer 4% 4 9% 11

Grant Coordinator 12% 12 18% 21

Superintendent 18% 18 24% 29

Business Manager 33% 33 27% 32

Other 33% 33 21% 25

Number of Respondents 100 120 

Length of time in role 

Less than one year 3% 3 5% 6 

Between 1 - 3 years 22% 22 27% 32

Between 4 - 10 years 35% 35 35% 42

More than 10 years 40% 40 33% 40

Number of Respondents 100 120 

Contacted the Impact Aid Program for technical assistance - 

FCC 

Contacted 67% 67 64% 77

Did not contact 33% 33 36% 43

Number of Respondents 100 120 

Used written instruction and guidance documents for Impact 

Aid application - FCC 

Used 94% 94 93% 111 

Did not use 6% 6 8% 9 

Number of Respondents 100 120 

Attended meeting where Sec 7003 prog info or review process 

provided - FCC 

Participated 67% 67 57% 69

Did not participate 33% 33 43% 51

Number of Respondents 100 120 

Presentation or materials helped understand responsibilities - 

FCC 

Helped understand 99% 66 94% 65

Did not help understand 1% 1 6% 4 

Number of Respondents 67 69

School district contacted by Impact Aid Program in past year - 

FCC 

Contacted 29% 29 34% 41

Was not contacted 71% 71 66% 79

Number of Respondents 100 120 
2021 173

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Letter provided sufficient explanation to prepare documents 

for review - FCC

Provided sufficient explanation 93% 27 95% 39

Did not provide sufficient explanation 7% 2 5% 2

Number of Respondents 29 41

Receive timely communications regarding outcome of review -

FCC

Received 56% 56 70% 84

Did not receive 44% 44 30% 36

Number of Respondents 100 120
2021 174

Promise Neighborhoods

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 11 12 11

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- 81 93 92

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- 82 93 93

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- 81 94 94

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- 96 95

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- 82 89 90

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- 90 90

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- 79 -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- 81 91 91

Online Resources -- -- -- -- 63 78 76

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- -- 62 81 75

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- 77 75

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- -- 66 80 76

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- 76 75

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- -- 61 78 75

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- 78 78

Documents -- -- -- -- 72 84 87

Clarity -- -- -- -- 70 87 87

Organization of information -- -- -- -- 73 84 88

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs -- -- -- -- 72 86 87

Relevance to your areas of need -- -- -- -- 74 81 88

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face -- -- -- -- 70 79 86

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- 74 77

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- 81 79

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- 61 67

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- 76 77

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- 84 87

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- 76 78

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- 64 74

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- 80 85

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- 82 89

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- 72 85

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- 81 87

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- 78 77

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- 90 90

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- 90 78

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI -- -- -- -- 78 79 83

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- 81 83 88

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- 79 77 79

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- 75 77 80
2021 175

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Trust -- -- -- -- 74 87 93

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- 74 87 93

Promise Neighborhoods

ED Program Contacts quality of assistance -- -- -- -- 87 86 89

Urban Institute`s Needs Assessment Quality -- -- -- -- 79 75 84

Urban Institute`s other services -- -- -- -- 76 74 87

SCORECARD system -- -- -- -- 77 65 74

GRADS 360 system -- -- -- -- 53 52 54
2021 176

Demographic Table

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 42% 5 55% 6

Agree 50% 6 45% 5

Disagree 8% 1 0% 0

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 12 11

Job role

Project/State Director 83% 10 73% 8

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 9% 1

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 17% 2 18% 2

Number of Respondents 12 11

Length of time in role

Less than one year 8% 1 9% 1

Between 1 - 3 years 50% 6 36% 4

Between 4 - 10 years 33% 4 45% 5

More than 10 years 8% 1 9% 1

Number of Respondents 12 11

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 

12 months

Received tech assistance 58% 7 55% 6

Did not receive 42% 5 45% 5

Number of Respondents 12 11

Asked for assistance in areas unrelated to fiscal or grant 

admin issues - PN

Asked 33% 4 45% 5

Did not ask 67% 8 55% 6

Number of Respondents 12 11
2021 177

Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans Program

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 0 0 17 0 0 15 17

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- 82 -- -- 85 99

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- 91 -- -- 90 100

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- 75 -- -- 74 99

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- 86 100

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- 88 -- -- 82 100

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- 86 98

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- 79 -- -- 93 99

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- 79 -- -- 93 97

Online Resources -- -- 77 -- -- 82 89

Ability to find specific information -- -- 76 -- -- 83 88

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- 85 92

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- 77 -- -- 82 90

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- 86 90

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- 75 -- -- 83 88

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- 80 87

Information in Application Package -- -- 88 -- -- 90 97

Program Purpose -- -- 85 -- -- 89 97

Program Priorities -- -- 89 -- -- 90 96

Selection Criteria -- -- 87 -- -- 87 94

Review Process -- -- 85 -- -- 89 94

Budget Information and Forms -- -- 81 -- -- 85 96

Deadline for Submission -- -- 94 -- -- 92 98

Dollar Limit on Awards -- -- 93 -- -- 92 98

Page Limitation Instructions -- -- 87 -- -- 93 98

Formatting Instructions -- -- 87 -- -- 88 94

Program Contact -- -- 97 -- -- 93 99

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- 82 91

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- 79 90

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- 88 90

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- 85 95

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- 81 93

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- 83 92

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- 73 86

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- 77 96

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- 77 96

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --
2021 178

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

ACSI -- -- 76 -- -- 86 93

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- 82 -- -- 88 97

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- 74 -- -- 84 91

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- 72 -- -- 84 91

Trust -- -- -- -- -- 87 99

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- 87 99

Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for 

Hispanic Americans Program

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- 84 -- -- 75 98

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies 

and procedures -- -- 84 -- -- 77 97

Ability to resolve issues -- -- 83 -- -- 75 99

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication -- -- 83 -- -- 74 97

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or 

financial issues -- -- 79 -- -- 76 97

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- -- -- -- -- 90 95

Availability of funds with adequate time for 

implementation -- -- -- -- -- 90 96

Transparency of how funds are distributed among 

grantees -- -- -- -- -- 84 99

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- -- -- -- -- 84 97

Frequency of communication -- -- -- -- -- 76 99

Clarity of communication -- -- -- -- -- 79 98
2021 179

Demographic Table

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 80% 12 94% 16

Agree 13% 2 6% 1

Disagree 7% 1 0% 0

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 15 17

Job role

Project/State Director 67% 10 88% 15

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 13% 2 6% 1

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 20% 3 6% 1

Number of Respondents 15 17

Length of time in role

Less than one year 7% 1 0% 0

Between 1 - 3 years 40% 6 65% 11

Between 4 - 10 years 40% 6 18% 3

More than 10 years 13% 2 18% 3

Number of Respondents 15 17

Preferred method of communication - PPOHA

Individual Email 87% 13 88% 15

Blast/Distribution list email 7% 1 6% 1

Other 7% 1 6% 1

Number of Respondents 15 17
2021 180

REAP – Rural and Low Income School (RLIS) Program

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 23 11 6 25 31 33 28

ED Staff/Coordination 81 87 85 78 84 90 90

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 82 86 85 85 82 90 90

Responsiveness to your questions 76 87 78 70 79 87 86

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- 96 95

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 77 84 94 77 84 89 91

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- 88 90

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 82 89 78 79 84 -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 78 83 83 75 80 85 88

Online Resources 71 79 71 67 70 78 86

Ability to find specific information 70 78 74 68 73 77 86

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- 79 88

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 73 81 69 68 68 77 87

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- 77 85

Ability to navigate within the site 71 78 70 67 71 78 85

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- 80 83

Documents 67 73 65 74 79 85 89

Clarity 70 72 65 74 79 87 90

Organization of information 71 75 69 76 80 87 89

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 66 72 67 73 78 85 87

Relevance to your areas of need 66 74 69 78 81 85 92

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 60 68 57 70 79 81 88

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- 76 78

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- 84 79

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- 78 80

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- 82 85

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- 87 81

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- 72 75

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- 68 70

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- 77 80

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- 84 86

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- 80 83

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- 78 74

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- 71 81

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- 74 77

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- 83 69

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI 62 64 64 67 72 77 78

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 69 69 69 72 76 81 83

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 57 63 61 64 70 76 77

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 59 61 63 63 71 74 73
2021 181

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Trust -- -- -- -- 81 88 89

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- 81 88 89
2021 182

Demographic Table

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 55% 18 36% 10

Agree 36% 12 54% 15

Disagree 9% 3 7% 2

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 4% 1

Number of Respondents 33 28

Job role

Project/State Director 73% 24 75% 21

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 21% 7 11% 3

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 3% 1 4% 1

Other 3% 1 11% 3

Number of Respondents 33 28

Length of time in role

Less than one year 12% 4 11% 3

Between 1 - 3 years 36% 12 21% 6

Between 4 - 10 years 36% 12 43% 12

More than 10 years 15% 5 25% 7

Number of Respondents 33 28

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 

12 months

Received tech assistance 27% 9 14% 4

Did not receive 73% 24 86% 24

Number of Respondents 33 28

How heard about REAP program updates and events -

REAPRLIS~

Email announcements from REAP 97% 32 100% 28

Newsletter 27% 9 21% 6

U.S. Department of Education website 24% 8 39% 11

Other 9% 3 4% 1

Number of Respondents 33 28

Future technical assistance needed for grant - REAPRLIS~

Use of grant funds 27% 9 43% 12

Use of G5 15% 5 14% 4

Use of Max.gov 18% 6 25% 7

Providing Technical Assistance to Grantees 48% 16 25% 7

REAP eligibility data and estimating award amounts 39% 13 32% 9

Consolidated grant application process 6% 2 11% 3

Grant eligibility data review and submission 30% 10 14% 4

Fiscal accounting procedures 15% 5 11% 3

Monitoring RLIS grantees 45% 15 64% 18

Use of grant funds for administrative costs 9% 3 11% 3

Reporting and use of data 24% 8 39% 11

Other 0% 0 4% 1

Number of Respondents 33 28
2021 183

REAP – Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) Program

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 29 46 45 79 83 53 46

ED Staff/Coordination 88 84 83 83 83 90 91

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 88 84 83 85 84 90 93

Responsiveness to your questions 88 84 80 82 83 91 90

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- 93 95

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 90 82 81 87 86 93 94

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- 89 90

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 88 85 81 84 85 -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 82 86 82 85 86 84 95

Online Resources 75 73 64 73 70 78 83

Ability to find specific information 68 69 60 72 68 76 80

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- 80 84

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 75 73 66 76 75 80 85

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- 78 83

Ability to navigate within the site 75 70 61 70 68 76 83

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- 78 82

Documents 74 74 72 77 77 81 90

Clarity 74 73 70 75 75 81 90

Organization of information 75 74 72 77 75 82 89

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 71 73 71 77 76 83 90

Relevance to your areas of need 77 75 74 77 80 81 90

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 73 73 70 77 79 81 89

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- 80 84

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- 82 85

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- 80 84

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- 85 87

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- 82 87

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- 81 86

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- 72 82

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- 80 89

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- 82 91

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- 79 89

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- 81 91

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- 80 89

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- 80 85

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- 100 87

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI 64 69 72 73 76 83 86

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 66 72 75 77 80 88 89

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 64 68 71 71 73 79 84

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 63 67 70 72 73 80 85
2021 184

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Trust -- -- -- -- 82 87 93

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- 82 87 93

REAP-Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) 

Program

Email announcements from REAP -- -- -- -- -- -- 94

Newsletter -- -- -- -- -- -- 50

U.S. Department of Education website -- -- -- -- -- -- 48

State educational agencies -- -- -- -- -- -- 58

Community organizations -- -- -- -- -- -- 28

Social Media -- -- -- -- -- -- 29

Clarity of instructions for accessing and completing the 

application -- -- -- -- -- 86 89

Ease of accessing the application using the unique link in 

the invitation email -- -- -- -- -- 88 88

Navigating the application on the MAX.gov survey tool -- -- -- -- -- 84 87

Preparing and completing the information requested on 

the application -- -- -- -- -- 88 89

Ease of submitting the application -- -- -- -- -- 90 91

Utilizing the confirmation email -- -- -- -- -- 89 89
2021 185

Demographic Table

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 58% 31 63% 29

Agree 40% 21 35% 16

Disagree 2% 1 0% 0

Strongly disagree 0% 0 2% 1

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 53 46

Job role

Project/State Director 0% 0 2% 1

School Officer 4% 2 9% 4

Grant Coordinator 6% 3 7% 3

Superintendent 47% 25 50% 23

Business Manager 36% 19 22% 10

Other 8% 4 11% 5

Number of Respondents 53 46

Length of time in role

Less than one year 4% 2 2% 1

Between 1 - 3 years 28% 15 35% 16

Between 4 - 10 years 42% 22 28% 13

More than 10 years 26% 14 35% 16

Number of Respondents 53 46

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 

12 months

Received tech assistance 2% 1 11% 5

Did not receive 98% 52 89% 41

Number of Respondents 53 46

Future technical assistance needed for grant - REAPSRS~

Use of funds 51% 27 0% 0

Use of G5 38% 20 72% 21

Grant application process 45% 24 0% 0

EDGAR 9% 5 0% 0

REAP flexibility 51% 27 0% 0

Reporting and use of data 21% 11 0% 0

REAP eligibility data and estimating award amounts 40% 21 0% 0

More communication of resources 4% 2 0% 0

Opportunities to learn from other LEAs implementing SRSA 0% 0 31% 9

Other 2% 1 10% 3

Number of Respondents 53 29
2021 186

Rehabilitation Long-Term Training Program

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 0 12 40

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- -- 85 86

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- 77 85

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- 84 84

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- 96 91

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- -- 79 84

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- 86 86

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- -- 85 86

Online Resources -- -- -- -- -- 66 73

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- -- -- 63 74

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- 69 74

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- -- -- 62 72

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- 66 71

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- -- -- 67 72

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- 68 71

Documents -- -- -- -- -- 76 78

Clarity -- -- -- -- -- 70 76

Organization of information -- -- -- -- -- 78 77

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs -- -- -- -- -- 76 78

Relevance to your areas of need -- -- -- -- -- 80 81

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face -- -- -- -- -- 76 77

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- 65 69

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- 65 70

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- 72 71

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- 63 70

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- 66 72

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- 65 69

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- 56 60

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- 61 72

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- 74 83

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- 62 72

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- 56 64

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- 60 65

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- 56 64

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- -- 100

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI -- -- -- -- -- 68 71

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- -- 80 76

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- -- 61 70

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- -- 61 65
2021 187

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Trust -- -- -- -- -- 73 79

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- 73 79

Rehabilitation Long-Term Training Program

Usefulness of messages that are disseminated via RSA 

listserv -- -- -- -- -- 75 74

Timeliness of messages that are disseminated via RSA 

listserv -- -- -- -- -- 75 78

Effectiveness in training vocational rehabilitation 

counselors for employment -- -- -- -- -- 94 90
2021 188

Demographic Table

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 50% 6 33% 13

Agree 33% 4 53% 21

Disagree 8% 1 10% 4

Strongly disagree 8% 1 3% 1

Does not apply 0% 0 3% 1

Number of Respondents 12 40

Job role

Project/State Director 75% 9 68% 27

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 17% 2 25% 10

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 8% 1 8% 3

Number of Respondents 12 40

Length of time in role

Less than one year 8% 1 10% 4

Between 1 - 3 years 25% 3 23% 9

Between 4 - 10 years 8% 1 20% 8

More than 10 years 58% 7 48% 19

Number of Respondents 12 40

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 

12 months

Received tech assistance 0% 0 10% 4

Did not receive 100% 12 90% 36

Number of Respondents 12 40

Training would like provided - RLTT

Statutory and regulatory program requirements 58% 7 14% 5

Payback requirements 17% 2 33% 12

Uniform Guidance 17% 2 19% 7

Calculating the required 10 percent match 8% 1 8% 3

Other 0% 0 25% 9

Number of Respondents 12 36
2021 189

Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 12 18 24

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- 65 56 65

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- 81 62 68

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- 64 55 62

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- 67 76

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- 77 50 56

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- 48 65

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- 51 -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- 63 44 56

Online Resources -- -- -- -- 55 56 70

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- -- 54 56 70

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- 53 70

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- -- 52 56 70

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- 51 75

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- -- 61 56 80

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- 61 73

Documents -- -- -- -- 65 50 67

Clarity -- -- -- -- 59 51 70

Organization of information -- -- -- -- 64 52 74

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs -- -- -- -- 67 48 66

Relevance to your areas of need -- -- -- -- 72 53 65

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face -- -- -- -- 66 47 60

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- 40 53

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- 40 55

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- 49 63

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- 41 50

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- 39 56

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- 36 51

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- 31 34

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- 40 52

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- 47 61

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- 32 48

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- 34 50

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- 30 45

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- 41 47

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- 50 100

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI -- -- -- -- 59 48 57

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- 61 54 63

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- 56 46 55

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- 58 42 52
2021 190

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Trust -- -- -- -- 60 56 57

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- 60 56 57

Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter 

Schools

Dissemination of resources and opportunities the CSP 

provides -- -- -- -- 59 55 67

Comms and info accessible and provided in timely 

manner

-- -- -- -- 50 54 60

Technical assistance receive on project implementation 

and budget questions -- -- -- -- 63 53 52

Assistance gives opportunity to give staff an 

understanding of your project -- -- -- -- 54 52 57

Guidance CSP provides on Federal grant compliance -- -- -- -- 50 46 49
2021 191

Demographic Table

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 11% 2 8% 2

Agree 33% 6 63% 15

Disagree 50% 9 21% 5

Strongly disagree 6% 1 8% 2

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 18 24

Job role

Project/State Director 44% 8 71% 17

School Officer 6% 1 4% 1

Grant Coordinator 33% 6 17% 4

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 6% 1 4% 1

Other 11% 2 4% 1

Number of Respondents 18 24

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 8% 2

Between 1 - 3 years 50% 9 38% 9

Between 4 - 10 years 44% 8 42% 10

More than 10 years 6% 1 13% 3

Number of Respondents 18 24

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 

12 months

Received tech assistance 11% 2 4% 1

Did not receive 89% 16 96% 23

Number of Respondents 18 24
2021 192

Ronald E. McNair Post-Baccalaureate Achievement Program

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 0 0 116

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- -- 88

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- -- 66

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- -- -- 77

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- -- 78

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- -- -- 74

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- -- -- 79

Online Resources -- -- -- -- -- -- 72

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- -- -- -- 74

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- -- 70

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- -- -- -- 72

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- -- 74

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- -- -- -- 72

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- -- 66

Information in Application Package -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

Program Purpose -- -- -- -- -- -- 86

Program Priorities -- -- -- -- -- -- 85

Selection Criteria -- -- -- -- -- -- 85

Review Process -- -- -- -- -- -- 76

Budget Information and Forms -- -- -- -- -- -- 79

Deadline for Submission -- -- -- -- -- -- 87

Dollar Limit on Awards -- -- -- -- -- -- 81

Page Limitation Instructions -- -- -- -- -- -- 84

Formatting Instructions -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

Program Contact -- -- -- -- -- -- 86

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 72

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- -- 72

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- -- 84

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- -- 77

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- -- 70

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- -- 54

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- -- 71

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- -- 71

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --
2021 193

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

ACSI -- -- -- -- -- -- 69

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- -- -- 76

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- -- -- 65

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- -- -- 65

Trust -- -- -- -- -- -- 76

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- -- 76

Ronald E. McNair Post-Baccalaureate Achievement 

Program

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- -- 64

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- -- 76

Ability to resolve issues -- -- -- -- -- -- 71

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 71

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or 

financial issues -- -- -- -- -- -- 60

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- -- -- -- -- -- 68

Availability of funds with adequate time for 

implementation -- -- -- -- -- -- 74

Transparency of how funds are distributed among 

grantees -- -- -- -- -- -- 76

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- -- -- -- -- -- 75

Frequency of communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 67

Clarity of communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 73
2021 194

Demographic Table

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 0% 0 28% 32

Agree 0% 0 57% 66

Disagree 0% 0 13% 15

Strongly disagree 0% 0 1% 1

Does not apply 0% 0 2% 2

Number of Respondents 0 116

Job role

Project/State Director 0% 0 91% 105

School Officer 0% 0 2% 2

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 4% 5

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 3% 4

Number of Respondents 0 116

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 8% 9

Between 1 - 3 years 0% 0 24% 28

Between 4 - 10 years 0% 0 31% 36

More than 10 years 0% 0 37% 43

Number of Respondents 0 116

Preferred method of communication - McN-PBAP

Individual Email 0% 0 78% 90

Blast/Distribution list email 0% 0 6% 7

Telephone 0% 0 8% 9

Webinar 0% 0 6% 7

Other 0% 0 3% 3

Number of Respondents 0 116
2021 195

RSA Vocational Rehabilitation Program

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 38 31 35

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- 64 75 74

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- 70 76 81

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- 59 72 65

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- 90 90

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- 63 66 67

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- 72 72

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- 56 66 66

Online Resources -- -- -- -- 53 61 66

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- -- 52 57 63

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- 63 70

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- -- 55 59 64

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- 62 66

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- -- 52 60 64

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- 63 65

Documents -- -- -- -- 60 71 69

Clarity -- -- -- -- 59 68 66

Organization of information -- -- -- -- 65 76 74

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs -- -- -- -- 54 67 68

Relevance to your areas of need -- -- -- -- 70 77 77

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face -- -- -- -- 53 66 61

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- 65 63

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- 68 67

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- 55 55

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- 70 68

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- 69 64

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- 64 64

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- 65 59

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- 64 67

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- 70 73

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- 61 66

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- 59 63

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- 60 60

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- 62 61

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- 91 92

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI -- -- -- -- 49 60 61

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- 57 68 66

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- 46 56 59

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- 42 55 57
2021 196

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Trust -- -- -- -- 56 66 69

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- 56 66 69

RSA Vocational Rehabilitation Program

Responsiveness to questions and requests for technical 

assistance -- -- -- -- 61 71 76

Supportiveness in helping complete Unified or Combined 

State Plan -- -- -- -- 64 70 72

Dissemination of subregulatory guidance -- -- -- -- 61 74 76

Provision of effective training and dissemination of 

relevant information -- -- -- -- 58 65 62

Data Collection and Reporting -- -- -- -- 56 74 72

Fiscal/Grant Management -- -- -- -- 67 73 68

Programmatic -- -- -- -- 59 72 72

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- 59 71 69

Utility of website for entering required data, retrieving and 

revising reports -- -- -- -- 62 66 59

Ease of navigating website -- -- -- -- 57 64 56

Usefulness of information available on the website -- -- -- -- 57 68 65

Website technical support -- -- -- -- 67 66 59
2021 197

Demographic Table

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 13% 4 20% 7

Agree 58% 18 43% 15

Disagree 16% 5 29% 10

Strongly disagree 13% 4 9% 3

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 31 35

Job role

Project/State Director 90% 28 83% 29

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 3% 1

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 3% 1

Other 10% 3 11% 4

Number of Respondents 31 35

Length of time in role

Less than one year 3% 1 3% 1

Between 1 - 3 years 39% 12 40% 14

Between 4 - 10 years 42% 13 31% 11

More than 10 years 16% 5 26% 9

Number of Respondents 31 35

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 

12 months

Received tech assistance 39% 12 49% 17

Did not receive 61% 19 51% 18

Number of Respondents 31 35
2021 198

School Climate Transformation Grants (LEAs) Program

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 45 57 55 59 40 53 51

ED Staff/Coordination 94 94 96 96 75 93 95

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 93 92 95 96 79 95 97

Responsiveness to your questions 95 95 97 96 76 88 90

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- 97 97

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 96 94 93 97 74 91 94

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- 93 95

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 93 94 95 97 76 -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 94 93 95 94 72 91 93

Online Resources 78 83 86 90 67 83 87

Ability to find specific information 81 87 86 89 71 82 87

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- 85 90

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 79 85 89 89 65 81 87

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- 83 87

Ability to navigate within the site 77 83 87 88 69 82 83

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- 84 85

Documents 78 88 88 91 74 87 91

Clarity 77 87 88 91 75 87 92

Organization of information 79 88 88 91 78 87 91

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 78 87 89 92 75 88 91

Relevance to your areas of need 79 88 89 93 77 87 90

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 78 87 88 92 72 86 90

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- 82 84

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- 83 89

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- 82 85

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- 77 81

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- 83 87

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- 86 85

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- 80 75

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- 84 87

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- 84 88

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- 84 85

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- 87 92

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- 83 86

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- 82 83

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- 92 98

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI 75 84 87 90 77 82 85

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 80 88 91 95 80 86 90

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 73 83 84 87 76 80 80

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 71 81 84 88 74 79 83
2021 199

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Trust -- -- -- -- 76 92 92

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- 76 92 92

School Climate Transformation Grants (LEAs) 

Program

Helpfulness of technical assistance -- -- -- -- -- -- 84
2021 200

Demographic Table

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 60% 32 67% 34

Agree 38% 20 33% 17

Disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Strongly disagree 2% 1 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 53 51

Job role

Project/State Director 72% 38 45% 23

School Officer 2% 1 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 21% 11 31% 16

Superintendent 2% 1 10% 5

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 4% 2 14% 7

Number of Respondents 53 51

Length of time in role

Less than one year 43% 23 4% 2

Between 1 - 3 years 42% 22 75% 38

Between 4 - 10 years 4% 2 10% 5

More than 10 years 11% 6 12% 6

Number of Respondents 53 51

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 

12 months

Received tech assistance 25% 13 25% 13

Did not receive 75% 40 75% 38

Number of Respondents 53 51

Frequency of tech assistance from OSSS office - SCTG LEA

At least weekly 0% 0 10% 5

Monthly 0% 0 65% 33

Quarterly 0% 0 22% 11

Yearly 0% 0 4% 2

Number of Respondents 0 51

Most helpful form of tech assistance - SCTG LEA

Written guidance 0% 0 10% 5

Email communication 0% 0 33% 17

Annual meetings/conferences 0% 0 33% 17

In-person training or site-specific support 0% 0 20% 10

Other 0% 0 4% 2

Number of Respondents 0 51

TA content most useful - SCTG LEA~

Using data for effective student outcomes 0% 0 71% 36

Leveraging alignment, integration and sustainability 0% 0 67% 34

Effectiveness and efficiency of communications 0% 0 22% 11

Leveraging public/private partnerships for sustainability 0% 0 35% 18

Federal project management 0% 0 27% 14

Federal grant fiscal management 0% 0 20% 10

Federal grant contracting do’s and don’ts 0% 0 20% 10

Federal grant regulations 0% 0 10% 5

Federal grant administration 0% 0 4% 2

Other 0% 0 8% 4

Number of Respondents 0 51
2021 201

State Personnel Development Grants

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 0 0 28

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- -- -- 92

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- -- 93

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- -- 92

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- -- 95

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- -- 91

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- -- -- 96

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 79

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- -- 81

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- -- 69

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- -- 81

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- -- 87

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- -- 76

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- -- 88

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- -- 85

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- -- 84

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- -- 90

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- -- 92

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- 91

ACSI -- -- -- -- -- -- 79

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- -- -- 85

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- -- -- 75

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- -- -- 76

Trust -- -- -- -- -- -- 90

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- -- 90

State Personnel Development Grants

OSEP-funded TA provider -- -- -- -- -- -- 69

Education Department-funded TA provider -- -- -- -- -- -- 49

Professional associations -- -- -- -- -- -- 64

Conferences where research is presented -- -- -- -- -- -- 62

Books -- -- -- -- -- -- 60

Journal articles -- -- -- -- -- -- 65

Personal interaction with peers -- -- -- -- -- -- 75

IDEAS that work website -- -- -- -- -- -- 53

The Department`s new IDEA website -- -- -- -- -- -- 51

Helpfulness of ED Staff in supporting growth of 

grant/improve project -- -- -- -- -- -- 87
2021 202

Demographic Table

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 0% 0 57% 16

Agree 0% 0 36% 10

Disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Strongly disagree 0% 0 7% 2

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 0 28

Job role

Project/State Director 0% 0 93% 26

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 7% 2

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 0 28

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 21% 6

Between 1 - 3 years 0% 0 36% 10

Between 4 - 10 years 0% 0 25% 7

More than 10 years 0% 0 18% 5

Number of Respondents 0 28

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 

12 months

Received tech assistance 0% 0 75% 21

Did not receive 0% 0 25% 7

Number of Respondents 0 28
2021 203

Statewide Family Engagement Centers (SFEC) Program

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 0 8 9

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- -- 97 99

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- 96 100

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- 100 100

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- 100 100

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- -- 99 98

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- 93 98

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- -- 97 99

Online Resources -- -- -- -- -- 74 86

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- -- -- 74 89

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- 76 86

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- -- -- 69 89

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- 81 95

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- -- -- 78 82

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- 69 82

Documents -- -- -- -- -- 85 93

Clarity -- -- -- -- -- 81 96

Organization of information -- -- -- -- -- 85 96

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs -- -- -- -- -- 89 93

Relevance to your areas of need -- -- -- -- -- 89 93

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face -- -- -- -- -- 81 89

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- 84 84

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- 86 79

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- 88 80

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- 97 88

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- 93 94

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- 74 81

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- 65 79

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- 84 89

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- 96 94

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- 76 90

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- 76 91

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- 76 78

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- 84 89

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- 72 63

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI -- -- -- -- -- 83 86

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- -- 88 91

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- -- 79 83

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- -- 81 83
2021 204

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Trust -- -- -- -- -- 96 94

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- 96 94

Statewide Family Engagement Centers (SFEC) 

program

Ability to resolve issues -- -- -- -- -- 100 90

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication -- -- -- -- -- 100 92

Frequency of communication -- -- -- -- -- 98 90

Overall satisfaction with service provided by the program 

officer -- -- -- -- -- 100 92

Satisfaction with the Program Director’s Meeting -- -- -- -- -- 90 85
2021 205

Demographic Table

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 63% 5 78% 7

Agree 38% 3 11% 1

Disagree 0% 0 11% 1

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 8 9

Job role

Project/State Director 100% 8 100% 9

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 0% 0

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 8 9

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 11% 1

Between 1 - 3 years 100% 8 67% 6

Between 4 - 10 years 0% 0 11% 1

More than 10 years 0% 0 11% 1

Number of Respondents 8 9

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 

12 months

Received tech assistance 50% 4 33% 3

Did not receive 50% 4 67% 6

Number of Respondents 8 9
2021 206

Strengthening Institutions Program

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 102 0 0 120 144 107 105

ED Staff/Coordination 78 -- -- 82 84 88 79

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 83 -- -- 86 84 91 87

Responsiveness to your questions 70 -- -- 79 81 81 73

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- 93 86

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 76 -- -- 84 86 86 80

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- 85 84

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 82 -- -- 83 85 86 84

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 85 -- -- 87 86 88 78

Online Resources 72 -- -- 63 69 74 73

Ability to find specific information 67 -- -- 64 69 73 71

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- 75 73

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 72 -- -- 62 69 74 72

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- 74 74

Ability to navigate within the site 72 -- -- 66 70 74 76

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- 71 73

Information in Application Package 85 -- -- 84 87 86 87

Program Purpose 85 -- -- 86 88 85 88

Program Priorities 85 -- -- 84 88 85 86

Selection Criteria 81 -- -- 84 85 84 85

Review Process 79 -- -- 83 82 81 84

Budget Information and Forms 82 -- -- 80 83 83 83

Deadline for Submission 88 -- -- 86 90 90 91

Dollar Limit on Awards 86 -- -- 87 88 88 89

Page Limitation Instructions 87 -- -- 85 87 87 88

Formatting Instructions 85 -- -- 81 85 84 85

Program Contact 86 -- -- 86 90 88 88

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- 70 70

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- 70 71

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- 71 68

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- 81 83

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- 68 64

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- 72 74

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- 61 58

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- 76 68

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- 76 68

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --
2021 207

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

ACSI 67 -- -- 64 77 75 70

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 73 -- -- 73 84 82 76

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 65 -- -- 61 74 72 66

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 62 -- -- 58 71 70 64

Trust -- -- -- -- 85 82 78

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- 85 82 78

Strengthening Institutions Program

Responsiveness to questions -- -- -- 76 82 77 73

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 85 -- -- 81 86 86 82

Ability to resolve issues -- -- -- 80 87 82 79

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication -- -- -- 78 85 80 78

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or 

financial issues -- -- -- 74 83 78 75

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- -- -- -- -- 78 79

Availability of funds with adequate time for 

implementation -- -- -- -- -- 80 80

Transparency of how funds are distributed among 

grantees -- -- -- -- -- 87 86

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- -- -- -- -- 78 74

Frequency of communication -- -- -- -- -- 72 69

Clarity of communication -- -- -- -- -- 77 75
2021 208

Demographic Table

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 43% 46 42% 44

Agree 42% 45 40% 42

Disagree 9% 10 13% 14

Strongly disagree 4% 4 3% 3

Does not apply 2% 2 2% 2

Number of Respondents 107 105

Job role

Project/State Director 64% 69 63% 66

School Officer 5% 5 7% 7

Grant Coordinator 25% 27 25% 26

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 1% 1

Other 6% 6 5% 5

Number of Respondents 107 105

Length of time in role

Less than one year 16% 17 17% 18

Between 1 - 3 years 49% 52 53% 56

Between 4 - 10 years 33% 35 22% 23

More than 10 years 3% 3 8% 8

Number of Respondents 107 105

Preferred method of communication - SIP

Individual Email 91% 97 83% 87

Blast/Distribution list email 4% 4 5% 5

Telephone 1% 1 3% 3

Webinar 3% 3 7% 7

Other 2% 2 3% 3

Number of Respondents 107 105
2021 209

Student Support and Academic Enrichment

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 0 0 0 31 22 36 39

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- 69 62 82 84

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- 77 68 84 85

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- 70 54 77 77

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- 92 89

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- 76 69 79 80

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- 78 87

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- 72 65 -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- 74 57 77 85

Online Resources -- -- -- 64 60 71 70

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- 61 60 70 69

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- 70 71

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- 62 60 68 69

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- 68 69

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- 64 61 70 72

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- 72 75

Documents -- -- -- 64 69 80 83

Clarity -- -- -- 66 74 80 84

Organization of information -- -- -- 69 73 83 85

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs -- -- -- 61 66 78 82

Relevance to your areas of need -- -- -- 65 73 81 84

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face -- -- -- 60 57 76 77

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- 64 72

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- 70 76

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- 59 67

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- 76 83

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- 76 82

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- 55 65

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- 54 62

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- 80 79

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- 83 82

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- 77 77

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- 77 78

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- 76 75

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- 86 83

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- 85 81

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI -- -- -- 56 51 75 74

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- 61 56 81 80

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- 52 47 71 71

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- 54 51 70 70
2021 210

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Trust -- -- -- -- 61 87 82

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- 61 87 82

Student Support and Academic Enrichment

Usefulness of the Website -- -- -- -- -- 73 78

Usefulness of the Portal -- -- -- -- -- 84 81
2021 211

Demographic Table 

2020 2021 

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency 

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services 

Strongly agree 33% 12 41% 16

Agree 61% 22 46% 18

Disagree 6% 2 13% 5 

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0 

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0 

Number of Respondents 36 39

Job role 

Project/State Director 69% 25 59% 23

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0 

Grant Coordinator 19% 7 21% 8 

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0 

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0 

Other 11% 4 21% 8 

Number of Respondents 36 39

Length of time in role 

Less than one year 22% 8 8% 3 

Between 1 - 3 years 44% 16 62% 24

Between 4 - 10 years 25% 9 28% 11

More than 10 years 8% 3 3% 1 

Number of Respondents 36 39

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 

12 months 

Received tech assistance 67% 24 54% 21

Did not receive 33% 12 46% 18

Number of Respondents 36 39

Frequency of visiting the Website - SSAE 

Daily 0% 0 3% 1 

Weekly 22% 8 36% 14

Monthly 31% 11 36% 14

Every few months 36% 13 21% 8 

Never 11% 4 5% 2 

Number of Respondents 36 39

Frequency of visiting the Portal - SSAE 

Daily 6% 2 3% 1 

Weekly 44% 16 41% 16

Monthly 31% 11 38% 15

Every few months 0% 0 13% 5 

Never 19% 7 5% 2 

Number of Respondents 36 39

Most helpful form of tech assistance - SSAE 

Written guidance 0% 0 54% 21

Email communication 0% 0 8% 3 

Annual meetings/conferences 0% 0 23% 9 

In-person training or site-specific support 0% 0 5% 2 

Other 0% 0 10% 4 

Number of Respondents 0 39
2021 212

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

TA content most useful - SSAE~

Using data for effective student outcomes 0% 0 51% 20

Leveraging alignment, integration and sustainability 0% 0 44% 17

Effectiveness and efficiency of communications 0% 0 15% 6

Leveraging public/private partnerships for sustainability 0% 0 15% 6

Federal project management 0% 0 36% 14

Federal grant fiscal management 0% 0 38% 15

Federal grant contracting do’s and don’ts 0% 0 21% 8

Federal grant regulations 0% 0 33% 13

Federal grant administration 0% 0 33% 13

Number of Respondents 0 39
2021 213

Supporting Effective Educator Development Program

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 14 18 23

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- 80 68 77

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- 85 71 73

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- 72 70 80

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- 82 85

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- 92 65 74

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- 56 78

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- 75 -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- 77 57 71

Online Resources -- -- -- -- 67 65 62

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- -- 68 67 54

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- 67 62

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- -- 67 66 57

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- 62 61

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- -- 70 64 62

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- 64 64

Documents -- -- -- -- 79 59 68

Clarity -- -- -- -- 76 63 70

Organization of information -- -- -- -- 78 62 70

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs -- -- -- -- 79 59 67

Relevance to your areas of need -- -- -- -- 81 58 68

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face -- -- -- -- 79 50 66

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- 52 70

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- 49 66

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- 57 66

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- 58 82

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- 55 74

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- 56 67

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- 33 62

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- 61 72

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- 65 72

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- 58 80

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- 61 83

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- 56 79

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- 50 74

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- 93 78

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI -- -- -- -- 68 57 65

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- 75 62 71

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- 65 54 63

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- 63 54 61
2021 214

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Trust -- -- -- -- 74 60 77

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- 74 60 77

Supporting Effective Educator Development Program

Understanding of GPRA measures and associated 

measure definitions -- -- -- -- -- -- 79

Ability to collect and report accurate GPRA data -- -- -- -- -- -- 77

Understanding of all program requirements, including 

budgetary concerns -- -- -- -- -- -- 72

Understanding of practices other grantees use to 

address challenging areas -- -- -- -- -- -- 69

Timeliness of content -- -- -- -- -- -- 58

Accuracy of Information -- -- -- -- -- -- 69

Utility of content -- -- -- -- -- -- 62

User-friendliness of webpage -- -- -- -- -- -- 63

Assistance in improving program planning and 

implementation -- -- -- -- 71 64 65

Providing relevant information and ideas -- -- -- -- 74 64 67

Connecting you with other experts or practitioners -- -- -- -- 74 72 68

Providing quality content during EED Summits -- -- -- -- -- -- 73

Providing direct technical assistance to individual 

grantees -- -- -- -- -- -- 63

Providing quality content on the Grads360 platform -- -- -- -- -- -- 58

Providing quality of content and connections of the 

Communities of Practice -- -- -- -- -- -- 60
2021 215

Demographic Table

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 6% 1 22% 5

Agree 39% 7 52% 12

Disagree 39% 7 13% 3

Strongly disagree 6% 1 13% 3

Does not apply 11% 2 0% 0

Number of Respondents 18 23

Job role

Project/State Director 61% 11 48% 11

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 28% 5 35% 8

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 11% 2 17% 4

Number of Respondents 18 23

Length of time in role

Less than one year 6% 1 13% 3

Between 1 - 3 years 44% 8 39% 9

Between 4 - 10 years 33% 6 22% 5

More than 10 years 17% 3 26% 6

Number of Respondents 18 23

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 

12 months

Received tech assistance 17% 3 17% 4

Did not receive 83% 15 83% 19

Number of Respondents 18 23

Have right amount of interaction with SEED officerdivision 

staff - SEED

Have right amount of interaction 0% 0 78% 18

Don’t have right amount 0% 0 22% 5

Number of Respondents 0 23

Ideal frequency of communication - SEED

Monthly 0% 0 26% 6

Quarterly 0% 0 74% 17

Number of Respondents 0 23

Quality of customer service provided - SEED

Excellent 0% 0 48% 11

Very Good 0% 0 35% 8

Average 0% 0 4% 1

Fair 0% 0 9% 2

Poor 0% 0 4% 1

Number of Respondents 0 23
2021 216

Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants (Title II, Part A)

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 19 31 24 28 17 26 39

ED Staff/Coordination 69 74 74 78 72 83 84

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 71 73 81 79 75 86 89

Responsiveness to your questions 68 70 69 78 64 81 84

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- 91 94

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 66 71 72 74 79 81 82

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- 80 76

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 64 80 80 75 79 -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 65 79 78 80 72 74 73

Online Resources 55 63 70 64 47 51 66

Ability to find specific information 49 59 65 65 48 53 63

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- 58 70

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 53 62 71 66 48 50 63

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- 51 65

Ability to navigate within the site 50 58 66 61 45 45 66

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- 52 72

Documents 58 70 78 70 68 66 75

Clarity 61 69 78 73 70 67 77

Organization of information 60 73 83 74 71 69 78

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 52 66 76 67 64 64 75

Relevance to your areas of need 59 73 80 70 72 68 75

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 58 67 74 67 64 59 73

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- 61 72

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- 65 71

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- 62 69

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- 71 79

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- 65 77

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- 55 65

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- 51 67

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- 68 75

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- 69 81

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- 64 73

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- 61 71

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- 52 64

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- 61 66

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- 85 84

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI 50 61 64 58 52 58 66

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 58 65 68 67 58 65 73

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 46 59 61 51 49 54 63

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 44 57 61 54 48 55 59
2021 217

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Trust -- -- -- -- 57 80 82

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- 57 80 82

Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants (Title II, 

Part A)

Provides assistance that enhances capacity to 

implement -- -- 66 68 59 63 74

Provides support that is responsive to my State’s needs 

to implement -- -- 65 67 59 67 74

Helps address implementation challenges -- 66 67 65 63 63 70

Provides information about key changes to requirements -- -- 74 73 66 67 74
2021 218

Demographic Table

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 8% 2 18% 7

Agree 62% 16 62% 24

Disagree 15% 4 8% 3

Strongly disagree 4% 1 5% 2

Does not apply 12% 3 8% 3

Number of Respondents 26 39

Job role

Project/State Director 77% 20 69% 27

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 19% 5 28% 11

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 4% 1 3% 1

Number of Respondents 26 39

Length of time in role

Less than one year 12% 3 23% 9

Between 1 - 3 years 46% 12 36% 14

Between 4 - 10 years 23% 6 28% 11

More than 10 years 19% 5 13% 5

Number of Respondents 26 39

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 

12 months

Received tech assistance 42% 11 38% 15

Did not receive 58% 15 62% 24

Number of Respondents 26 39
2021 219

Teacher and School Leader Incentive Grants (ESEA II-B-1)

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 19 14 18

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- 81 81 84

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- 82 84 83

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- 82 81 82

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- 87 94

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- 78 79 81

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- 74 87

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- 89 -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- 81 87 79

Online Resources -- -- -- -- 70 88 76

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- -- 71 88 74

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- 91 73

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- -- 70 87 80

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- 92 79

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- -- 70 89 78

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- 94 76

Documents -- -- -- -- 79 83 76

Clarity -- -- -- -- 76 84 79

Organization of information -- -- -- -- 80 86 77

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs -- -- -- -- 78 83 78

Relevance to your areas of need -- -- -- -- 80 84 75

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face -- -- -- -- 78 81 72

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- 81 80

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- 78 79

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- 89 80

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- 93 90

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- 77 82

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- 83 79

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- 66 68

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- 81 79

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- 82 78

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- 85 76

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- 82 77

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- 81 78

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- 88 88

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- 93 76

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI -- -- -- -- 79 75 77

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- 84 81 81

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- 76 71 74

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- 75 71 75
2021 220

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Trust -- -- -- -- 85 73 81

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- 85 73 81

Teacher and school leader incentive grants (ESEA IIB-1)

Understanding of all program requirements, including 

budgetary concerns -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

Understanding of practices other grantees use to 

address challenging areas -- -- -- -- -- -- 75

Timeliness of content -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

Accuracy of Information -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

Utility of content -- -- -- -- -- -- 79

User-friendliness of webpage -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

Assistance in improving program planning and 

implementation -- -- -- -- 72 87 74

Providing relevant information and ideas -- -- -- -- 72 90 74

Connecting you with other experts or practitioners -- -- -- -- 78 88 78

Providing quality content during EED Summits -- -- -- -- -- -- 86

Providing direct technical assistance to individual 

grantees -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

Providing quality content on the Grads360 platform -- -- -- -- -- -- 77

Providing quality of content and connections of the 

Communities of Practice -- -- -- -- -- -- 78
2021 221

Demographic Table

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 57% 8 50% 9

Agree 29% 4 44% 8

Disagree 7% 1 6% 1

Strongly disagree 7% 1 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 14 18

Job role

Project/State Director 64% 9 44% 8

School Officer 0% 0 6% 1

Grant Coordinator 14% 2 33% 6

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 21% 3 17% 3

Number of Respondents 14 18

Length of time in role

Less than one year 14% 2 11% 2

Between 1 - 3 years 50% 7 33% 6

Between 4 - 10 years 29% 4 39% 7

More than 10 years 7% 1 17% 3

Number of Respondents 14 18

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 

12 months

Received tech assistance 21% 3 33% 6

Did not receive 79% 11 67% 12

Number of Respondents 14 18

Have right amount of interaction with TSL officerdivision staff -

TSL

Have right amount of interaction 0% 0 94% 17

Don’t have right amount 0% 0 6% 1

Number of Respondents 0 18

Ideal frequency of communication - TSL

Monthly 0% 0 22% 4

Quarterly 0% 0 78% 14

Number of Respondents 0 18

Quality of customer service provided - TSL

Excellent 0% 0 44% 8

Very Good 0% 0 28% 5

Average 0% 0 28% 5

Number of Respondents 0 18
2021 222

Teacher Quality Partnership Program

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 0 21 26

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- -- 92 89

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- 90 87

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- 91 91

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- 96 95

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- -- 88 87

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- 92 86

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- -- 94 86

Online Resources -- -- -- -- -- 83 82

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- -- -- 83 81

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- 84 81

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- -- -- 84 81

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- 84 81

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- -- -- 82 79

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- 83 81

Documents -- -- -- -- -- 86 84

Clarity -- -- -- -- -- 86 85

Organization of information -- -- -- -- -- 86 87

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs -- -- -- -- -- 84 83

Relevance to your areas of need -- -- -- -- -- 90 84

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face -- -- -- -- -- 84 82

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- 84 83

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- 86 79

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- 80 84

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- 88 92

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- 89 85

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- 87 80

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- 72 76

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- 83 85

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- 84 86

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- 86 81

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- 87 83

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- 68 81

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- 78 88

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- 70 72

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI -- -- -- -- -- 82 79

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- -- 89 85

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- -- 79 76

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- -- 76 74
2021 223

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Trust -- -- -- -- -- 92 85

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- 92 85

Teacher Quality Partnership Program

Understanding of GPRA measures and associated 

measure definitions -- -- -- -- -- -- 87

Ability to collect and report accurate GPRA data -- -- -- -- -- -- 84

Understanding of all program requirements, including 

budgetary concerns -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

Understanding of practices other grantees use to 

address challenging areas -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

Timeliness of content -- -- -- -- -- -- 85

Accuracy of Information -- -- -- -- -- -- 87

Utility of content -- -- -- -- -- -- 85

User-friendliness of webpage -- -- -- -- -- -- 87

Assistance in improving program planning and 

implementation -- -- -- -- -- -- 82

Providing relevant information and ideas -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

Connecting you with other experts or practitioners -- -- -- -- -- -- 84

Providing quality content during EED Summits -- -- -- -- -- -- 84

Providing direct technical assistance to individual 

grantees -- -- -- -- -- -- 79

Providing quality content on the Grads360 platform -- -- -- -- -- -- 79

Providing quality of content and connections of the 

Communities of Practice -- -- -- -- -- -- 85
2021 224

Demographic Table

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 67% 14 50% 13

Agree 19% 4 35% 9

Disagree 10% 2 15% 4

Strongly disagree 5% 1 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 21 26

Job role

Project/State Director 71% 15 73% 19

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 14% 3 12% 3

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 14% 3 15% 4

Number of Respondents 21 26

Length of time in role

Less than one year 10% 2 8% 2

Between 1 - 3 years 38% 8 50% 13

Between 4 - 10 years 29% 6 23% 6

More than 10 years 24% 5 19% 5

Number of Respondents 21 26

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 

12 months

Received tech assistance 14% 3 8% 2

Did not receive 86% 18 92% 24

Number of Respondents 21 26

Have right amount of interaction with TQP officerdivision staff -

TQP

Have right amount of interaction 0% 0 96% 25

Don’t have right amount 0% 0 4% 1

Number of Respondents 0 26

Ideal frequency of communication - TQP

Monthly 0% 0 35% 9

Quarterly 0% 0 65% 17

Number of Respondents 0 26

Quality of customer service provided - TQP

Excellent 81% 17 65% 17

Very Good 5% 1 19% 5

Average 10% 2 12% 3

Fair 5% 1 4% 1

Number of Respondents 21 26
2021 225

Training Program for Federal TRIO Programs

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Information in Application Package -- -- -- -- -- -- 75

Program Purpose -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

Program Priorities -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

Selection Criteria -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

Review Process -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

Budget Information and Forms -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

Deadline for Submission -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

Dollar Limit on Awards -- -- -- -- -- -- 67

Page Limitation Instructions -- -- -- -- -- -- 67

Formatting Instructions -- -- -- -- -- -- 67

Program Contact -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 87

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- -- 56

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- -- 56

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups

-- -- -- -- -- -- --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI -- -- -- -- -- -- 67

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- -- -- 67

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- -- -- 56

Trust -- -- -- -- -- -- 67

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- -- 67
2021 226

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Training Program for Federal TRIO Programs

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- -- 56

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- -- 56

Ability to resolve issues -- -- -- -- -- -- 56

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 56

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or 

financial issues -- -- -- -- -- -- 56

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Availability of funds with adequate time for 

implementation -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Transparency of how funds are distributed among 

grantees -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Frequency of communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Clarity of communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 89
2021 227

Demographic Table

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 0% 0 0% 0

Agree 0% 0 0% 0

Disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 100% 1

Number of Respondents 0 1

Job role

Project/State Director 0% 0 100% 1

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 0% 0

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 0 1

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 0% 0

Between 1 - 3 years 0% 0 0% 0

Between 4 - 10 years 0% 0 100% 1

More than 10 years 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 0 1

Preferred method of communication - TP-TRIO

Individual Email 0% 0 100% 1

Number of Respondents 0 1
2021 228

Transition/Postsecondary Programs for Students with Intellectual Disabilities

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 0 0 18

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- -- 84

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- -- 71

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- -- 93

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- -- -- 76

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- -- 85

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- -- -- 88

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

Online Resources -- -- -- -- -- -- 68

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- -- -- -- 67

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- -- 67

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- -- -- -- 60

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- -- 59

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- -- -- -- 75

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- -- 75

Information in Application Package -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

Program Purpose -- -- -- -- -- -- 86

Program Priorities -- -- -- -- -- -- 81

Selection Criteria -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

Review Process -- -- -- -- -- -- 79

Budget Information and Forms -- -- -- -- -- -- 75

Deadline for Submission -- -- -- -- -- -- 87

Dollar Limit on Awards -- -- -- -- -- -- 85

Page Limitation Instructions -- -- -- -- -- -- 86

Formatting Instructions -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

Program Contact -- -- -- -- -- -- 86

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 69

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 68

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- -- 67

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- -- 71

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- -- 70

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- -- 70

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- -- 62

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- -- 81

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- -- 81

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --
2021 229

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

ACSI -- -- -- -- -- -- 74

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- -- -- 81

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- -- -- 70

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- -- -- 69

Trust -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

Transition/Postsecondary Programs for Students 

with Intellectual Disabilities

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- -- 82

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- -- 88

Ability to resolve issues -- -- -- -- -- -- 85

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 82

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or 

financial issues -- -- -- -- -- -- 79

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- -- -- -- -- -- 82

Availability of funds with adequate time for 

implementation -- -- -- -- -- -- 71

Transparency of how funds are distributed among 

grantees -- -- -- -- -- -- 88

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- -- -- -- -- -- 75

Frequency of communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 66

Clarity of communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 71
2021 230

Demographic Table

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 0% 0 33% 6

Agree 0% 0 56% 10

Disagree 0% 0 6% 1

Strongly disagree 0% 0 6% 1

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 0 18

Job role

Project/State Director 0% 0 78% 14

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 11% 2

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 11% 2

Number of Respondents 0 18

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 39% 7

Between 1 - 3 years 0% 0 11% 2

Between 4 - 10 years 0% 0 28% 5

More than 10 years 0% 0 22% 4

Number of Respondents 0 18

Preferred method of communication - TPSID

Individual Email 0% 0 78% 14

Blast/Distribution list email 0% 0 11% 2

Other 0% 0 11% 2

Number of Respondents 0 18
2021 231

Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities (TCCU) – Part A

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 13 0 0 0 0 8 15

ED Staff/Coordination 82 -- -- -- -- 85 85

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 79 -- -- -- -- 83 85

Responsiveness to your questions 85 -- -- -- -- 89 84

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- 97 90

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 79 -- -- -- -- 82 82

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- 86 87

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 81 -- -- -- -- 79 87

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 80 -- -- -- -- 80 84

Online Resources 74 -- -- -- -- 75 72

Ability to find specific information 67 -- -- -- -- 71 70

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- 79 70

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 78 -- -- -- -- 76 73

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- 71 70

Ability to navigate within the site 79 -- -- -- -- 73 72

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- 78 74

Information in Application Package 92 -- -- -- -- 84 87

Program Purpose 91 -- -- -- -- 81 85

Program Priorities 92 -- -- -- -- 85 87

Selection Criteria 91 -- -- -- -- 78 84

Review Process 88 -- -- -- -- 76 85

Budget Information and Forms 91 -- -- -- -- 79 84

Deadline for Submission 94 -- -- -- -- 90 90

Dollar Limit on Awards 93 -- -- -- -- 84 87

Page Limitation Instructions 93 -- -- -- -- 86 90

Formatting Instructions 84 -- -- -- -- 76 87

Program Contact 96 -- -- -- -- 100 93

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- 69 73

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- 68 76

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- 64 64

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- 82 86

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- 71 79

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- 69 69

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- 61 66

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- 68 81

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- 68 81

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --
2021 232

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

ACSI 72 -- -- -- -- 90 81

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 76 -- -- -- -- 94 87

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 68 -- -- -- -- 88 79

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 69 -- -- -- -- 88 76

Trust -- -- -- -- -- 94 90

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- 94 90

Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities (TCCU)-

Part A program

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- 85 88

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies 

and procedures 90 -- -- -- -- 87 82

Ability to resolve issues -- -- -- -- -- 85 86

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication -- -- -- -- -- 81 82

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or 

financial issues 93 -- -- -- -- 89 87

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- -- -- -- -- 74 84

Availability of funds with adequate time for 

implementation -- -- -- -- -- 86 83

Transparency of how funds are distributed among 

grantees -- -- -- -- -- 90 83

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- -- -- -- -- 85 83

Frequency of communication -- -- -- -- -- 88 79

Clarity of communication -- -- -- -- -- 90 84
2021 233

Demographic Table

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 38% 3 80% 12

Agree 63% 5 20% 3

Disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 8 15

Job role

Project/State Director 63% 5 53% 8

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 25% 2 20% 3

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 13% 1 27% 4

Number of Respondents 8 15

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 0% 0

Between 1 - 3 years 13% 1 20% 3

Between 4 - 10 years 50% 4 13% 2

More than 10 years 38% 3 67% 10

Number of Respondents 8 15

Preferred method of communication - TCCU

Individual Email 88% 7 73% 11

Blast/Distribution list email 0% 0 13% 2

Telephone 13% 1 7% 1

Other 0% 0 7% 1

Number of Respondents 8 15
2021 234

TRIO Talent Search

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 0 0 156

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- -- -- 88

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- -- 85

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- -- 93

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- -- -- 88

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- -- 88

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- -- -- 84

Online Resources -- -- -- -- -- -- 77

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- -- -- -- 77

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- -- 79

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- -- 79

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- -- 75

Information in Application Package -- -- -- -- -- -- 84

Program Purpose -- -- -- -- -- -- 87

Program Priorities -- -- -- -- -- -- 85

Selection Criteria -- -- -- -- -- -- 86

Review Process -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

Budget Information and Forms -- -- -- -- -- -- 79

Deadline for Submission -- -- -- -- -- -- 90

Dollar Limit on Awards -- -- -- -- -- -- 84

Page Limitation Instructions -- -- -- -- -- -- 81

Formatting Instructions -- -- -- -- -- -- 76

Program Contact -- -- -- -- -- -- 88

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 85

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- -- 77

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- -- 87

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- -- 81

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- -- 79

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- -- 73

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --
2021 235

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

ACSI -- -- -- -- -- -- 76

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- -- -- 82

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- -- -- 73

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- -- -- 71

Trust -- -- -- -- -- -- 81

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- -- 81

TRIO Talent Search

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- -- 82

Ability to resolve issues -- -- -- -- -- -- 79

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or 

financial issues -- -- -- -- -- -- 79

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- -- -- -- -- -- 60

Availability of funds with adequate time for 

implementation -- -- -- -- -- -- 70

Transparency of how funds are distributed among 

grantees -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- -- -- -- -- -- 81

Frequency of communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 77

Clarity of communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 81
2021 236

Demographic Table

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 0% 0 35% 55

Agree 0% 0 58% 91

Disagree 0% 0 3% 5

Strongly disagree 0% 0 2% 3

Does not apply 0% 0 1% 2

Number of Respondents 0 156

Job role

Project/State Director 0% 0 93% 145

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 3% 4

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 4% 7

Number of Respondents 0 156

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 8% 13

Between 1 - 3 years 0% 0 26% 40

Between 4 - 10 years 0% 0 29% 46

More than 10 years 0% 0 37% 57

Number of Respondents 0 156

Preferred method of communication - TRIO TS

Individual Email 0% 0 83% 129

Blast/Distribution list email 0% 0 7% 11

Telephone 0% 0 6% 9

Webinar 0% 0 1% 1

Other 0% 0 4% 6

Number of Respondents 0 156
2021 237

Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Language

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 0 0 24

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- -- -- 92

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- -- 98

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- -- 88

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- -- 96

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- -- 83

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- -- -- 95

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- -- -- 90

Online Resources -- -- -- -- -- -- 75

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- -- -- -- 77

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- -- -- -- 76

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- -- 86

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- -- -- -- 75

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- -- 65

Information in Application Package -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Program Purpose -- -- -- -- -- -- 90

Program Priorities -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Selection Criteria -- -- -- -- -- -- 84

Review Process -- -- -- -- -- -- 82

Budget Information and Forms -- -- -- -- -- -- 82

Deadline for Submission -- -- -- -- -- -- 98

Dollar Limit on Awards -- -- -- -- -- -- 92

Page Limitation Instructions -- -- -- -- -- -- 91

Formatting Instructions -- -- -- -- -- -- 88

Program Contact -- -- -- -- -- -- 94

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 69

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 62

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- -- 75

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- -- 73

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- -- 73

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- -- 67

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- -- 61

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- -- 86

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- -- 86

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --
2021 238

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

ACSI -- -- -- -- -- -- 79

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- -- -- 87

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- -- -- 73

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- -- -- 75

Trust -- -- -- -- -- -- 90

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- -- 90

Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign 

Language

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- -- 92

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- -- 93

Ability to resolve issues -- -- -- -- -- -- 93

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 90

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or 

financial issues -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- -- -- -- -- -- 84

Availability of funds with adequate time for 

implementation -- -- -- -- -- -- 76

Transparency of how funds are distributed among 

grantees -- -- -- -- -- -- 93

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- -- -- -- -- -- 84

Frequency of communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 81

Clarity of communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 87

Supports instruction in fields needed to provide full 

understanding -- -- -- -- -- -- 96

Supports work in language aspects of professional and 

other fields of study -- -- -- -- -- -- 96

Supports research and training in international studies -- -- -- -- -- -- 96

Teaching of any modern foreign language -- -- -- -- -- -- 95

Instruction in fields needed to provide full understanding -- -- -- -- -- -- 95

Research and training in international studies -- -- -- -- -- -- 96

Language aspects of professional and other fields of 

study -- -- -- -- -- -- 96

Instruction and research on issues in world affairs -- -- -- -- -- -- 93
2021 239

Demographic Table

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 0% 0 71% 17

Agree 0% 0 25% 6

Disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Strongly disagree 0% 0 4% 1

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 0 24

Job role

Project/State Director 0% 0 63% 15

School Officer 0% 0 8% 2

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 13% 3

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 17% 4

Number of Respondents 0 24

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 21% 5

Between 1 - 3 years 0% 0 33% 8

Between 4 - 10 years 0% 0 21% 5

More than 10 years 0% 0 25% 6

Number of Respondents 0 24

Preferred method of communication - UIS

Individual Email 0% 0 75% 18

Blast/Distribution list email 0% 0 13% 3

Telephone 0% 0 4% 1

Webinar 0% 0 4% 1

Other 0% 0 4% 1

Number of Respondents 0 24
2021 240

Upward Bound Math and Science

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 0 0 74

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- -- -- 75

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- -- 65

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- -- 84

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- -- -- 73

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- -- 75

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- -- -- 69

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- -- -- 76

Online Resources -- -- -- -- -- -- 72

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- -- -- -- 74

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- -- 70

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- -- -- -- 72

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- -- 74

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- -- -- -- 73

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- -- 69

Information in Application Package -- -- -- -- -- -- 84

Program Purpose -- -- -- -- -- -- 85

Program Priorities -- -- -- -- -- -- 86

Selection Criteria -- -- -- -- -- -- 84

Review Process -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

Budget Information and Forms -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

Deadline for Submission -- -- -- -- -- -- 88

Dollar Limit on Awards -- -- -- -- -- -- 85

Page Limitation Instructions -- -- -- -- -- -- 82

Formatting Instructions -- -- -- -- -- -- 77

Program Contact -- -- -- -- -- -- 85

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 73

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- -- 67

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- -- 81

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- -- 72

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- -- 74

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- -- 65

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- -- 74

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- -- 74

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --
2021 241

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

ACSI -- -- -- -- -- -- 73

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- -- -- 71

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- -- -- 70

Trust -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

Upward Bound Math and Science

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- -- 61

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- -- 68

Ability to resolve issues -- -- -- -- -- -- 68

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 67

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or 

financial issues -- -- -- -- -- -- 63

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- -- -- -- -- -- 70

Availability of funds with adequate time for 

implementation -- -- -- -- -- -- 76

Transparency of how funds are distributed among 

grantees -- -- -- -- -- -- 77

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- -- -- -- -- -- 74

Frequency of communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 70

Clarity of communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 73
2021 242

Demographic Table

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 0% 0 41% 30

Agree 0% 0 46% 34

Disagree 0% 0 9% 7

Strongly disagree 0% 0 3% 2

Does not apply 0% 0 1% 1

Number of Respondents 0 74

Job role

Project/State Director 0% 0 93% 69

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 0% 0

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 7% 5

Number of Respondents 0 74

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 3% 2

Between 1 - 3 years 0% 0 19% 14

Between 4 - 10 years 0% 0 38% 28

More than 10 years 0% 0 41% 30

Number of Respondents 0 74

Preferred method of communication - UB-MS

Individual Email 0% 0 76% 56

Blast/Distribution list email 0% 0 11% 8

Telephone 0% 0 11% 8

Other 0% 0 3% 2

Number of Respondents 0 74
2021 243

Veterans Upward Bound

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 0 0 36

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- -- 84

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- -- 73

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- -- 90

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- -- -- 75

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- -- 77

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- -- -- 81

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- -- -- 82

Online Resources -- -- -- -- -- -- 72

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- -- -- -- 74

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- -- 74

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- -- -- -- 74

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- -- 71

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- -- -- -- 71

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- -- 66

Information in Application Package -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

Program Purpose -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

Program Priorities -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

Selection Criteria -- -- -- -- -- -- 82

Review Process -- -- -- -- -- -- 81

Budget Information and Forms -- -- -- -- -- -- 79

Deadline for Submission -- -- -- -- -- -- 90

Dollar Limit on Awards -- -- -- -- -- -- 85

Page Limitation Instructions -- -- -- -- -- -- 84

Formatting Instructions -- -- -- -- -- -- 81

Program Contact -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 72

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 72

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- -- 73

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- -- 79

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- -- 73

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- -- 70

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- -- 64

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- -- 74

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- -- 74

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --
2021 244

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

ACSI -- -- -- -- -- -- 67

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- -- -- 70

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- -- -- 62

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- -- -- 68

Trust -- -- -- -- -- -- 79

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- -- 79

Veterans Upward Bound

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- -- 63

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- -- 72

Ability to resolve issues -- -- -- -- -- -- 67

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 65

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or 

financial issues -- -- -- -- -- -- 59

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- -- -- -- -- -- 68

Availability of funds with adequate time for 

implementation -- -- -- -- -- -- 77

Transparency of how funds are distributed among 

grantees -- -- -- -- -- -- 79

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- -- -- -- -- -- 69

Frequency of communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 63

Clarity of communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 65
2021 245

Demographic Table

2020 2021

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 0% 0 28% 10

Agree 0% 0 56% 20

Disagree 0% 0 8% 3

Strongly disagree 0% 0 8% 3

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 0 36

Job role

Project/State Director 0% 0 94% 34

School Officer 0% 0 3% 1

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 3% 1

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 0 36

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 11% 4

Between 1 - 3 years 0% 0 33% 12

Between 4 - 10 years 0% 0 39% 14

More than 10 years 0% 0 17% 6

Number of Respondents 0 36

Preferred method of communication - UB-V

Individual Email 0% 0 69% 25

Blast/Distribution list email 0% 0 6% 2

Telephone 0% 0 19% 7

Webinar 0% 0 3% 1

Other 0% 0 3% 1

Number of Respondents 0 36
211

Appendix C: 

Verbatim Responses by Program 
1

21st Century Community Learning Centers

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Simplify the name of documents, increase word search capacity, provide a toolbar with specific 

titles for access to information - EDGAR, Non-Regulatory Guidance, ESSA, SEA Trainings, 

Professional Development, Upcoming Events, State Contact Guide, Individual State Resources 

- RFA, Forms, Guidebooks, Resources, etc.,

The current version of the website is a big improvement over the previous version, but it is a 

little outdated and missing important new updates. The FAQ page has only 1 item listed. The 

Funding Status page only has info up to 2019. There is nothing about the new GPRA 

measures. And it drives me crazy that we still only have non-Regulatory guidance that is now 

18 years old and pre-ESSA.

Provide current information under the Frequently Asked Questions section of the 21st CCLC 

webpage.

It seems like the website is fractured. I can sometimes find what I need but other times what I 

am looking for directs me to another site. I think it would be helpful to do a short tutorial.

It is sometimes difficult to find updated information. I usually have to go to an alternative site.

I didn't realize you were asking about the 21st CCLC area of the Department's website 

previously. I answered based on the question, which was about the Department's website. The 

21st CCLC area is fine. I rely more on staff assistance than on the website.

Make it more user friendly

The website's most recent re-design is better than the previous design. I usually search what I 

need from Google and the results for the website are in the top search results. I find this easier 

than trying to search on the site.

Have a flow chart for Big "P" and small "p" decisions for SEA Directors.

More resources

A common Google search for 21stCCLC at the U.S. Department of Education continues to 

generate the old website address. https://www2.ed.gov/programs/21stcclc/index.html 

Stakeholders, especially those outside of education, search for information in this way and I 

have to intentionally add a url and say "look for OESE in the url" to find the current webiste.

Making it more interesting and not so bureaucratic. Not super user friendly.
2

Updated grantee guidance

The website is informative and more up-to-date than it has been in the past. No issues with 

navigation. Easy to use.

Possibly adding an announcement section that provides important dates for SEA leaders.

I always find it useful when tabs are created that speak directly to a grantees needs... i.e. "I am 

an SEA looking for" and then drop down informationMost of the information I need or am interested in with guidance on grant management and 

allowability is not listed. An FAQ or something similar with common questions SEA coordinators 

ask could be helpful. I do want to say that our program officers are always available and quick 

in response to any questions I have so I never feel without information even if the website 

doesn't have it.

Improved search engine

N/A

I think we need to look at the trigger words when searching for item/s. My contact normally 

takes a while to return with responses, so I would rather find information via the Search on the 

site. Site responses are currently all over the place; or we have to visit different sites for 

information regarding 21st CCLC funding and uniform guidelines.

I rarely access the website. Perhaps the department could embed a more visible link to the 

website in all its communication with grantees.

Possibly the 21st CCLC Webpage could have toggle buttons representing different program 

components (i.e. guidance, FAQs, GPRAs, Reporting, etc.).

I would be helpful if the website could be updated more regularly and utilized as a portal to 

access the website for the SEA meetings, a one stop spot, to know we can always go there and 

find any information.

I have no suggestions at this time.

Ensure that all information is current and accurately reflects current law.

Improve search functions, more intuitive layout/navigation, it can be really hard to find the most 

recent versions of things. Doesn't feel like it is designed to support SEAs.

Updated program guidance

No suggestions at this time
3

A to Z guide

More updated information

Q21. Please describe how the PROGRAM OFFICE could improve the quality and 

usefulness of our documents, including policy-related documents. In your response, 

please identify the name or type of document(s) your comments address (e.g., nonregulatory guidance, newsletter, blast emails).

I think a national 21st CCLC Newsletter would be a great idea.

Most documents are fine. One major need is comprehensive and complete information about 

the new GPRA measures, including a data guide and answers to questions that have been 

raised by SEAs. By far the biggest improvement would be providing us with a new overarching 

21st CCLC non-regulatory guidance document. It's not really acceptable that all we have is 

something from 2003 addressing a previous version of the law that authorizes the program.

We have not received a lot a guidance or policy-related documents recently. The emails from 

the 21st CCLC listserv are very helpful.

n/a

The naming conventions and descriptions of the purpose of the recent 21APR webinars has 

been confusing and difficult to follow. The implementation guidance around the new GPRA 

measures would've been much more helpful a year ago. Changing procedures doesn't happen 

on a dime, and all of our SEA procedures and trainings necessarily follow the 21APR 

information, which has dribbled out to us in the form of webinars (which we have to attend every 

single one in case there happens to be one more new point of information provided). I 

appreciate that they (the Tactile Group) is using an iterative process, but it would have been 

much more effective if that had occurred long ago. Then we could've received a comprehensive 

guide with all of the information as soon after that as possible.

Provide more examples of best practice policies from states

The Non-Regulatory Guidance is from 2003. It needs to be updated.

Timeliness could be better, even though I know this is not always under the purview and 

discretion of the program. We need the non-regulatory guidance asap as it is long overdue. A 

newsletter would be helpful.

Regular Non-regulatory guidance training.

We are really, really need our long-awaited updated non-regulatory guidance. Emails are 

coming from too many people and places.
4

More frequent updates where policies stand and updates regarding the non-regulatory 

guidance.

more updated

The field has been waiting on the updated Non-Regulatory Guidance document. The Guidance 

needs to be updated in all sections. Please move forward on updating/revising the document 

and distribute to the field.

Non-regulatory guidance needs updated, in cooperation with SEA leads to identify key issues.

I would list them by date and topic

There are times I feel like we receive many emails. It would be helpful to possibly streamline 

these communications in one place. For instance, webinars, trainings and TA opportunities 

might be shared once a week or every other week in correspondence?

The program documents show that the team is listening to states.

The non-regulatory guidance is from 2003. It would be helpful if OGC could have a quicker 

turnaround since USDE usually asks them most questions before confirming an answer with the 

SEA.

N/A

When we get Newsletter and Updates that do not clarify how this information is being used. I 

have to perform research to gain understanding. It seems that everyone understands the 

general information provided and how it should applied. I wish that all of the information 

forwarded had some suggestions on how they should be used.

I understand that the department was limited in the amount of guidance program officers could 

provide under the previous administration. The 21st CCLC non-regulatory guidance has not 

been updated in more than a decade. The next iteration of the non- reg. guidance document 

should be thoroughly vetted by a technical work group made up of SEA coordinators and staff.

With so much change happening and new information being provided, there are a large number 

of emails being sent. Providing a way to distinguish the emails between topic - or number 

regarding the topic would be helpful.

This is a struggle for all agencies, but focusing more on the core of the message.

I have no suggestions

Update the non-regulatory guidance based on current law.

Too many emails that don't apply to 21st CCLC; notices frequently arrive too late to attend a 
5

training or meeting; still waiting for non-reg guidance updates under ESSA; suggestion to 

publish a newsletter just for 21st CCLC on a regular, predictable schedule instead of so many 

blast emails to sort through

No suggestions at this time

N/A

n/a

Q33. How could we improve the grant reporting process?

With the new GPRA Measures and all the trainings currently taking place, they are all really 

good.

We are now into the new GPRA measures and we still don't have a data guide or data 

dictionary or access to a dummy site. More importantly, we don't have clarity on major, 

important decisions that impact data policy decisions at the state level. For example, we still 

don't know if will be expected to report the number of students for whom we have outcome data 

and how we will be expected to treat students for who we do not have data. It's incredibly 

frustrating.

There are no suggestions for grant reporting at this time. The Tactile Group has been very 

supportive and responsive to our needs with reporting grant information in 21APR.

New GPRA's could be more clear with more guidance and the summer expectation to collect on 

new data was not realistic.

Hmm. That's what I talked about in the last narrative response box. So I'll say this about staff 

with 21st CCLC at the Department (maybe what you wanted in the last box?): Everyone is so 

helpful, friendly and professional. You couldn't have better people in my opinion!

Provide training that could be sent to grantees as well. Even though we train them, it would be 

beneficial if ED offered a direct to grantees training on the importance of the APR and how to 

capture data over the course of the year so that they have accurate submissions.

NA

Provide a subgrantee-level data system Add more "reports" to 21apr so can more easily check 

data accuracy and also to have more options for seeing state's aggregated data, and center's 

data.

Continue to offer robust training for the transition to the new GPRA.

Some of the changes for APR and the GPRA are pretty challenging for a large state that is local 
6

controlled. Would have been good to do a pilot year and then implement the changes. I am still 

behind with communicating the changes but will be there soon.

Communication to the field around reporting has RECENTLY improved. We are thankful for 

greater communication; however, while the reporting process has gotten easier, it is complex. 

More support from for the Department in ensuring the field understands the new requirements.

There are too many data points. The cost of reporting, not just in the systems themselves, but 

also in the time it takes program staff at both the SEA and LEA level to gather the data is 

overwhelming and costly. It becomes a burden that takes away from needed technical 

assistance and professional learning that SEA staff could be providing.

I think the process is changing and still somewhat unfamiiar. I have an amazing Federal Officer 

who can assist when I feel lost.

The reporting site from one year to the next changes. At times, it is also difficult to find 

assistance regarding a specific question. The person offering assistance may not know the 

answer.

We recognize the improved consistency and guidance.

none

Trainings... Step by step instructions on how sections of the forms should read and be 

understood.

The transition to the new GPRA measures has been particularly challenging. The 

implementation guide even if it is iterative should have been one of the first thing shared with 

grantees. A test site should have been available at the same time the new measures were 

introduced. SEAs should have had the opportunity to provide input on the implementation 

timeline before it was finalized.

N/A

More SEA sessions on how to utilize 21APR data for the quality improvement cycel.

I have no suggestions

Cannot obtain center level reports.

Grantees have had issues where data did not save which should be addressed. Inconsistent 

reporting dates makes it difficult for SEAs to coordinate state reporting due dates -

improvements here would be helpful. It would also be an improvement if SEAs could access the 

data but it is clear that 21APR is not for us, so there is no expectation that improvements would 

be made in this area. **We answered these questions thinking back not forward, so didn't 

reflect on the new GPRA reporting requirements. If we had, the scores would have been 

different.
7

No suggestions at this time

NA

N/A

Q39. Describe how the technical assistance that Department staff provide could be 

improved to better support your program needs (consider content, structure, format, 

timing, etc.).

Staff are excellent, always helpful, and understand your needs. Assistance is provided in a 

timely manner and it is greatly appreciated. Staff are caring and enjoy their jobs.

I really valued meeting in-person before the pandemic. I learned so much from my colleagues 

during those down times before, after and in-between sessions for questions specific to my 

program. I also miss the informal conversations with ED staff. These are really helpful and 

sometimes in a more formal meeting I feel bad about asking my specific state question so I 

don't monopolize the time for programs who do not need the discourse. We miss the personal 

touch although you are doing a great job in the virtual setting. Thank you for all the support. 

This specific 21st CCLC ED team is truly exceptional! My colleagues who work in other federal 

programs are envious sometimes regarding all the support we get.

This has been an area that has been much better the past several years than it had been 

previously. I appreciate the increased opportunities for peer-to-peer sharing and networking. 

Please keep it up!

N/A

There is been a lot of PD, however it is sometimes difficult to determine which would be better 

for programs and what would be for SEA staff.

They do a great job. I like how they work with us to develop agendas and format. I also really 

like how they introduce us to other resources relevant to our work from the Department, and set 

up partnerships with relevant agencies, too (e.g. NASA).

The emails about training opportunities and webinars are sent out a few days before the event. 

They need to be sent out earlier.

We need more technical assistance on evidence-based practices and helping subrecipients 

identify ESSA levels of evidence and programming associated with those levels.

Technical Assistance is timely and exactly what we need to navigate the Big "P"/small "p" 

decision world of 21st CCLC.

The listserv (peer-to-peer) is currently the only way I know to find out if there are other states 
8

who may have a document or resources that could help me in creating one for my state.

We have been pretty satisfied with the TA we received last year. No changes are necessary at 

this time.

The 21st CCLC state meetings have improved drastically over the years. I feel we are at a 

place where we have more peer to peer conversation regarding our internal processes, RFAs, 

monitoring, etc. and have even started our own monthly calls without ED to stay connected.

-

The team is very responsive to technical assistance requests, providing timely responses and 

being available by phone and email. There needs to be an on-going to connect SEA leads on a 

more regular basis for peer-to-peer learning. Possibly monthly - also support from national 

professional learning groups like NSLA, Alliance, NAFSCE would be helpful, in addition to Y4Y.

I cannot think of anything at this time.

none

Trainings and actual technical support needs to be provided. Especially, to staff that are not 

familiar or have never been exposed to this Programs requirements and obligations.

The department is making a concerted effort to provide a platform for networking and SEA 

driven professional development.

Consider not having SEA summer meetings and summer symposium in different weeks.

I have no suggestions at this time as my needs have been meet.

Department staff provide limited technical support, however contractors provide more in depth 

support.

The peer to peer learning opportunities have been great - please continue to do that! Most 

information is program focused and not necessarily focused on how to be a good SEA staff -

project management, running effective grant competitions, braiding funding, best practice in 

government grant management, equity in grantmaking, how to evaluate SEA practices.

Provide recordings of webinars with the presentation slides would be helpful.

No concerns regarding TA

N/A
9

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that 

provided technical services to you.

Y4Y - we are planning a three-part sustainability series for grantees.

Regional Lab. You for Youth.

REL Southeast Readiness and Emergency Management for Schools Technical Assistance 

Center Youth for Youth

Y4Y

Individualized instate assistance

Federal Program Office [REDACTED], Textile Group

Y4Y scheduled a training with us to be conducted in the Fall.

- Comprehensive Centers - Youth for Youth: Online Professional Learning and Technical 

Assistance for 21st Century Community Learning Centers

Tactile

Regional Laboratory (McREL)

The Tactile Group

R15 Comprehensive Center as an entire Department are going through a Community of 

Practice regarding our monitoring as a whole within the Department.

Y4Y and I can't think of their company name ([REDACTED], [REDACTED] and [REDACTED]) 

They were AMAZING. Very knowledgeable and willing to support the field in any area. We 

trusted them to support and honestly care about our progress.

You for Youth

Comprehensive Centers

NASA Y4Y Virtual Audit Team

Y4Y

We have asked You 4 Youth to attend and present at our state conference. Our sub grantees 

attend You 4 Youth online training.
10

Youth for Youth Tactile Group

Youth for Youth

Youth for Youth

Y4Y

You for Youth: This system has been an excellent resource to our new grantees and in 

preparation for the ARPA Afterschool and Summer Grant set-aside.

Y4Y

We had Y4Y and the comprehensive present to our annual conference participants.

Youth for Youth

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role?

State Coordinator

SEA Coordinator

Program Manager

SEA
11

Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA) Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

make it user friendly by have a beta with state staff

Improving graphics; better links interconnections.

FYI, the website referenced on the prior page was the OESE website and not the DAEL 

website, but I answered the questions about the DAEL ED 

(https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ovae/pi/AdultEd/index.html) website and the new AEFLA 

ED website (https://aefla.ed.gov/). It would be helpful if there were an updated list of all 

relevant guidance documents, potentially organized by topic and not just date. If there were a 

way to just search DAEL's part of the website and not all of ED that would be helpful.

it has to be time friendly. This means that most of the important webinar are done at 4,5am.

I've been using the new aelfa.ed.gov website which is much more user-friendly than the USED 

website.

Easier access and clarity for most frequently used resources.

Allow searches by key words which direct to links. The website is clunky. I am always brought 

to "the law" which usually doesn't answer my question. A page where perhaps the law spelled 

out in layman's terms would be helpful as well.

Hyperlinks to the NRS website and Reporting website could be helpful.

No recommendations at this time.

None at the moment

It's a great website already. Continue to provide updated information to states.

I would like to see more tools and guidance for state AEFLA offices that are written in plain 

language and respond to the questions we typically have. Those of us who are new directors 

have to struggle to find clear answers to questions. I would like to see models, templates, etc. 

When I asked about this, I was told that if you were to do that, you would be "monitoring 

yourselves." For the states, this feels like a "gotcha" mentality. That is, you won't tell us how to 

do something, but when we do it wrong, it's a problem. I've been amazed at how much time I 

spend simply trying to find out how to do something the "right" way. I want to be compliant with 

the regulations. But I'd love for that to be made easier for me, so that I can go about doing all 

the other things in my state that are so important for the adult education field.
12

I have no suggestions.

The website could be orgaized by topic / priority areas and a seperate page specific for AELFA.

No comments at this time. New website is an improvement.

na

I think there have already been some improvements and it is working very well. I guess just to 

continue to ask for feedback and adjust as needed.

Ideally, if searching for AEFLA, the first recommendation would lead to OCTAE's AEFLA/WIOA 

page. Instead it leads to numerous PDFs. It would be helpful if documents on the DAEL 

websites (PDFs typically) had a version or publication date. Many of the AEFLA PDFs (fact 

sheets, resource guides, etc.) do not have a version or publication date in the document that is 

easily found.

The searches result in old documentation that might not be relevant. You have to know what 

you are looking for and spend a lot of time to actually find information that is not one of the 4 

general categories listed on homepage.

Q21. Please describe how the PROGRAM OFFICE could improve the quality and 

usefulness of our documents, including policy-related documents. In your response, 

please identify the name or type of document(s) your comments address (e.g., nonregulatory guidance, newsletter, blast emails).

non-regulatory guidance

The challenges of COVID -19 made the clarity and content of communications extremely 

important and OCTAE came through.

I have not encounter any issues so I WOULDNOT know.

I know some federal employees use legal speak but it's really nice when you don't just quote 

legislation or Program memos and explain things in relevant language.

Those documents serve my needs pretty well.

States could use more concrete examples on the difference between credentials and 

certifications. We know that ServSafe and OSHA are not considered credentials; however, will 

there ever be any consideration to count them as they could lead to employment for some 

companies.

More information on program developments, particularly in the areas of IET's, IELCE for 

rural/frontier states.
13

I have no issues with the documents from DAEL.

In public comments regarding a proposed change, can respondents question any changes that 

could be made or just make comments on the specific change be proposed?

No recommendations at this time.

None at the moment

DAEL provides states with high quality and useful documents.

Please use plain language and maybe have them vetted by directors in the field. I'm speaking 

mostly of the policy-related things. I often don't find the answers to my specific questions in 

these documents. The tone is distant and seems to assume background knowledge that we 

might not necessarily have.

I have no suggestions.

South Dakota's WIOA Title II Program could potentially benefit from receiving guidance specific 

to Single-Area WIB States.

Providing a one stop shop document for new Directors, which contains coming due dates, dates 

of importance, etc. along with related links to references/ resources to help complete required 

tasks associated with the due dates.

More guidance and FAQ documents

There could be assosicated and specific webinars based on topic areas, such as the new 

Workplace MSGs.

na

n/a

Sometimes the policy-related guidance is just restating what is in the law without providing 

more clarification. I understand that they need to always be consistent with what's in the law but 

sometimes we need really clear interpretation and good examples that help with real 

understanding.

The guidance is never specific enough. For example, understanding what is considered an 

industry recognized credential is never clearly defined.

Q33. How could we improve the grant reporting process?
14

self access videos on topics.. short videos

We need more information about the statistical adjustment model and how it actually functions.

I am new at this so I am still learning.

Nothing worse than getting a change to the tables a month before it's due. We did get plenty of 

notice on the new changes and the webinars help but you really don't understand the impact 

until you'll loading the data.

Not sure. I haven't actually been involved in the actual reporting process yet.

The October 1 deadline to submit the follow-up measures is a very tight timeline. Although the 

fiscal year ends June 30, states usually give the field 15-30 days to submit data and ensure its 

accuracy. In August/September, we are working with partners to data match and sometimes it 

takes a while depending on their workload. We also use the SWIS to optimize our employment 

information. Nonetheless, we have submitted our data by the deadline, but it has been a 

challenge. I enjoy getting the statistical data on how my state compares to others. It's very 

beneficial and works as a motivator for continuous improvement. I would like to see OCTAE 

provide more national trends by demographics so states can make comparisons.

Nothing at this time.

Provide more technical assistance on reporting requirements.

None

Continue to provide guidance to states.

I know regulations prevent, but moving data reporting back to 12/31.

I believe a pendulum-swing [back] toward Adult Education's articulated Purposes, as opposed 

to our current USDOL-centric framework, would strengthen or reinforce the educational, 

familial, civic, and equity-related emphases of the WIOA Title II Program.

Providing a one stop shop document which contains upcoming due dates along with related 

links to references/ resources to help complete required tasks associated with the due dates.

We have been allowed to serve students with provisional assessents, but we remain unclear 

as to how to place them in NRS reports.

The grant reporting process is good. Another level of upgrade might be the ability to submit the 

data report through the local system such as the LiteracyPro System. Like Turbo Tax.

na
15

I think that the reporting process has gotten much better in the last 2-3 years.

The credential attainment indicator is extremely difficult to obtain because it blends different 

cohorts and measures multiple outcomes. For a state where we need to pay for postsecondary 

and employment information and where employment data cannot be returned individually, we 

have to do hours and hours of work costing thousands of dollars to obtain the data for the 

credential attainment indicator.

The reporting guidelines change very often. Some members of the agency are very informed 

and articulate about explaining things, but some of the state relationship managers are not as 

helpful. It would be helpful to have a basics training once in a while or have different levels of 

explaining the reporting on the AEFLA website.

Q39. Describe how the technical assistance that Department staff provide could be 

improved to better support your program needs (consider content, structure, format, 

timing, etc.).

monthly calls with regional rep.

At our end, our IT team need to be responsive when needed.

We would love to learn about additional best practices that occur across the country. We have 

the opportunity to learn about some during the Annual State Directors Meetings, but maybe 

best practices from states could be shared during Shop Talk sessions that occur more often.

OCTAE staff is very helpful. When answers are not immediately available, the staff researches 

and gets back to the state in a timely manner.

No recommendations at this time.

none

DAEL provides high quality and timely TA to states.

I have been grateful that my area representative has been so open to meeting with me and 

answering my questions. He is accessible and down-to-earth, which I really appreciate. My 

interactions with other program staff have also been good. They clearly do want to support me. 

It feels a bit nerve-wracking to speak with some of the senior staff there. They are so steeped in 

the nuances of the interpretation of the legislation that they feel out of touch, sometimes, with 

the real-life struggles of the state director and their staff. Again, there can be sort of a "gotcha" 

feeling about all of this - if I dare ask a question, I risk opening a huge can of worms and 

spending hours fixing problems that I didn't even know existed. My staff tells me not to even call 

OCTAE. But I want to, because I want to do this the best way possible. But I end up creating 

havoc in my office when I do so, because so many things seem like they have to change.
16

I have no recommendations.

I would appreciate a [joint] AEFLA Fiscal Training for our Programmatic and Fiscal staff. 

Additionally, it seems we have not discussed Data Validation recently. Could we better learn

how these efforts intersect with the Data Quality Checklist?

Technical assistance has been good and with fast help. I have not had opportunity to be in a 

peer group would be a great idea and resource. So much is lost providing only a virtual 

opportunity! Ready for some collaborative opportunities.

na

The TA that we have received from Department staff has been excellent.

Additional clarity for states and local providers on research based effective practices and how to 

innovate while still using research based effective practices would be helpful.

There are not many opportunities for states to share best practices. There is a National 

Director's meeting and then the NRS meeting. It would be helpful to know best practices from a 

variety of people or to bring regions of the country together more often. We should know what 

others states are struggling with to know if it is a problem across several states, etc

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that 

provided technical services to you.

NRS, STAR, SIA

Manhattan Strategy Group Maher and Maher American Institutes for Research (AIR)

our finance dept.

Teaching Skills that Matter and STAR

AIR NRS training

Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education (OCTAE) Division of Adult Education and 

Literacy (DAEL)

AIR

AIR
17

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role?

State Staff

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

AEFLA - 2021 - Q3.11. What can DAEL do over the next year to meet your state’s 

technical assistance/program improvement needs?

Have higher standards for the contractors' execution of activities; AIR generally does a 

great job providing actionable content that is well facilitated. The other technical 

assistance contractors have facilitation of widely varying quality and a lot of the content 

is too high-level to be actionable. Ensuring that contractors deeply understand the 

relevant laws, regulations and guidance is also important.

Keep providing opportunities for states to work with content experts except maybe not 

offer so many at one time.

Not sure yet.

Work with USDOL to help them develop guidance for state level DOL that includes 

information about adult education and vocational rehabilitation and the need for these 

programs to receive individual, not aggregate, earnings and employment data.

Address new issues caused by COVID closures, including retention, overall 

performance, technology within programs, effects on reliable testing, and need for more 

money to do the work expected.

Offer technical assistance in an appropriate time zone so that we may participate.

None at the moment

Continue to have great team members with diverse experiences that are able to 

respond to the TA needs of states.

We really need many more tools, templates, and models. I need to know what are 

examples of states who are doing things well, so that I can model my work after theirs. 

This doesn't need to be so hard. If you feel that something is important, just tell us how 

to do it. Then we'll tell our programs how to do it, and everybody will be compliant and 

happy. Everything feels so complex and convoluted. Think of the hours that would be 

saved if you just said, "You know what? Here is a two-page description of exactly how 

we want you to and your programs to handle instructional costs, administrative costs, 

and indirect costs. Here is a long list of examples of those things that are instructional 
18

costs. Here is a long list of thing that are counted as admin costs. Here is a list of 

examples that illustrate tricky gray areas that are left to your and your programs' 

discretion. Here is a case study or two that illustrates these areas and helps you 

imagine how you can translate this guidance to your state." Instead, I pore over 

memos, bits of recorded trainings, conversations I've had with OCTAE staff, other 

states' tools that I find online.... I spend hours of my time in the office that I wish I could 

spend on program improvement in my state. What is the point of this? I honestly do not 

understand why you cannot just tell us plainly what it is you want and how you want it.

Continue the sharing of best practices. Once/if we are able to return to face to face 

meetings the natural sharing of information with colleagues will help.

I was heartened to see in a recent Shop Talk a "Calendrical Overview" of sorts from 

LINCS so states can better plan their Professional Development initiatives in concert 

with LINCS' offerings. Additionally, I would like to see more advance notice for the 

NRS Regional Trainings. Moreover, it can prove difficult for small states to assemble a 

team for some of these national initiatives (e.g., TSTM, ANI 2.0).

Although the trainings have been informational, its hard to digest all of the information 

being provided remotely.

Need in-person collaboration. It is too difficult to provide trainings and resources on a 

virtual meeting. Time is not dedicated to meeting when it is virtual. Just not the most 

effective way to meet needs.

na

Continue to offer the high quality training and Targeted TA in relevant areas.

The technical assistant needs to be more involved with meetings and should be able o 

answer questions without always having to contact others.

AEFLA - 2021 - Q3.18. Please describe how the Division of Adult Education and 

Literacy could improve its AEFLA.ED.GOV website 

A comprehensive list of guidance and regulations by topic area would be helpful.

As a new Director, We have implement an AEFLA Program yet.

Not sure.

No recommendations at this time.
19

None at the moment

The website is a valuable resource.

I have no suggestions.

Please post the current version of DAEL's Monitoring Tool/Modules.

na

The ability to search and find information has improved a lot recently.
20

Alaska Native Education Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

It would be convenient if once you submit a Goal/Objective in Year 1, that reports moving 

forward would retain the Goal and Objective verbiage, so you don't have to re-enter it every 

time. Or if you could upload a completed template that is provided by ANEP and have it auto 

populate the form. This would save a tremendous amount of time. Thank you.

Step by step comprehensive instructions (preferably with video) would be helpful.

Current grant opportunities are not always listed in easily accessible ways. It would be 

wonderful to be able to search among funded applications for key words in order to find ideas 

and possibilities. Considering it is an Alaska Native program, it is very sterile. Warming it up 

with AKN cultural lifeways through images and language would be a powerful way to share that 

ANEP honors those lifeways.

The layout and visual presentation of text is often cluttered and difficult to read through. There 

are limitations in the document formatting, with multiple columns of text in the standard format. 

This is difficult to read and navigate. The search function is hard to navigate if you do not know 

the specific name of what you are seeking.

The best approach is to keep the information current, most current. The most helpful element I 

have found has been knowing what kinds of projects are funded. Information on current and 

prior grantees is always appreciated. Thank you.

I did not use the web site in the past 12 months.

Add resources to explore grantees' programs.

I have not viewed the website.

No suggesions

It is fine now.

The website is not the easiest or most intuitive to navigate - at times, it has taken us time to find 

the appropriate documents. However, I cannot think of any specific suggestions on how to 

improve it.

I have no specific feedback at this time.

It is easy to navigate at the moment, would only change ability to download full APR documents 

prior to submitting as an option rather than specific pieces independently.
21

I have a hard time navigating. Creating a clear path to materials and resources would be 

helpful.

N/A

No suggestions

it is good now

no input

I am pleased (very pleased) with the ANEP website.

No recommendation at all.

I think the website is intuitive as is.

All I need to do on the website is file an annual report. The report comes in something like 8 

separate documents. Each document requires finding the right category among many in the 

menu that might be applicable, then getting to a list, then selecting a radio button beside the 

document, then selecting an enter function, but if that isn't the right document, then backing all 

the way out, etc. Too many clicks to get to the simple stuff, too hard to edit. Too many small or 

hidden requirements to file a report.

Make it easier to find information - commonly asked questions, etc.

no commit

remove any old links when searching some links are still going to the older website

discontinue the old ANEP website and merge its old files into the new site. When I google 

search, I often get led to the old site and struggle to find the new one. A simple re-direct may 

solve that. But the old site still has old data on grant awards, etc that is helpful to have access 

to.

I Primarily us G5, and just looked at the oese.ed.gov site for the first time. It looks attractive.. 

But at this time I don't have much experience with the site to say anything useful about the user 

experience.

Q21. Please describe how the PROGRAM OFFICE could improve the quality and 

usefulness of our documents, including policy-related documents. In your response, 

please identify the name or type of document(s) your comments address (e.g., nonregulatory guidance, newsletter, blast emails).
22

The documents that have been sent seem to work as they are. No suggestions to improve at 

this time.

Descriptive titles could be improved. Two lines at the beginning of the extensive 

emails/documents would help the reader to know what the document is addressing and how 

urgent it is. When we receive 500+ emails daily, a quick scan for urgency is often necessary.

I can't really recall a newsletter. Communication has been typically confined to meeting notices 

where detailed information has been provided. There have been a few opportunities during the 

COVID era where guidance was offered. It was quite helpful. Have found communication 

overall to be sufficient to carry out programs without being too burdensome. Necessary 

information seems to go out regularly. Would appreciate more notice on key meetings. At least 

two weeks would be helpful. Typically, we have received notice with less than a week and had 

to rearrange other meetings to accommodate.

I don't have any suggestions for improvement.

Less is more. Lots of guidance on content (too much) but little on how to actually enter things 

into the site.

information is sufficient.

No reccomendations

No suggestions - documents are user-friendly and comprehensive.

Information on younger age groups and schools that were not too affected by COVID.

It is helpful to have the documents emailed with the email letting us know reports are due, or 

have the links embedded in the email. Sometimes finding the documents can be tricky.

the communication is great now

no input

I especially have appreciated the one-on-one attention given when a meeting was requested 

and conducted by staff, especially as it related to the Annual Performance Report.

APR due date was different than that on G5. APR webinar was scheduled during Demo grant 

conference, though the date was changed. It implied that there was little inter-departmental 

coordination or communication.

Hey, you guys are a Federal agency writing one-size-fits-all notices. I don't know what can be 

done about that. But all supporting documents I receive definitely seem to come from a Federal 

agency writing one-0size-fits-all documents. Nothing that really addresses my particular needs.
23

Update and simplify.

did not receive many communications.

In the last ANEP grant announcement (2021), there was a component regarding a 10 point 

preference priority that would be awarded for providing high speed internet access, devices and 

software. In a different area of the document the language stated high speed internet access, 

devices OR software. When faced with a large priority advantage, this seemed like a big 

distinction. ANEP staff responded to us quickly that any one of those provided would meet the 

priority-- therefore "Or" was the correct version. Many communities in alaska have ZERO way 

to get access to high speed internet as their connections are via satellite.

n/a

Q33. How could we improve the grant reporting process?

Submitting the APR online has been nice, but it is not very smooth. We use the old PDF forms 

and word docs to produce the info, then copy and paste each section into the online sections. 

Each section in the performance measures has to be added one at a time. It seems like it could 

be improved somehow. I don't know exactly how, but the workflow and submission format could 

be adjusted so it is not as repetitive or time-consuming. It does work as-is, but there is always 

room for improvement.

G5 can be difficult to use. It does not allow for flexible ideas or methods.

The interface for submitting, G5, requires you complete forms/responses off line and then 

upload them when complete and final. The process would be streamlined if there were useful, 

fillable/editable, electronic documents that could be utilized for this purpose. We have created 

our own that are working, but why not make that available to all grantees?

G5 is cumbersome. Half the data points we collect are not easily entered into G5, e.g. a number 

like 2.32 cannot be entered into the system and we end up using "999" a lot and entering 

information into the narrative. Technical issues with G5 have been legion -> there was a long 

stretch were others could not be assigned work on our report without help from the back end 

tech folks from G5. There is no way to print out the full report. It has to be downloaded into 

section and the pdfs knitted together. As far as grant reporting - irrespective of the tool - it is 

appreciated that we are moving away from having to use state testing data on student 

achievement considering the data has vacillated between poor and unavailable. Moving to 

systems where grantees are able to secure and provide student achievement data and other 

appropriate systems for GPRA will reduce frustration and allow projects to build out data 

systems and processes that allow for meaningful data about achievement and set standards for 

continuous quality improvement. Having been a part of projects that have provided a lot of 

granular detail in the past and are moving to providing more essential, core measures through 

reporting, it would be helpful for DOE to do more with current and prospective grantees as well 

as with proposal reviewers about strong practice in data for ANEP. Some guidance that keeps 

folks from falling into the trap of offering up 45-50 data points when maybe 15-20 might do 
24

would be helpful. There is a lot of pressure to offer information, especially when working with a 

government funder. Proposal reviewers can be finicky. Stronger guidance for all would be 

helpful. Thank you for the opportunity to provide information on our experience.

I have noticed that this process has become more clear and easier for us in the past 12 months, 

compared to earlier years. The quality of assistance available to us from ANEP staff could not 

be improved!

G5 is sufficient.

No suggestions

No suggestions.

The past 12 months provided more help in terms of forms/formats to use and webinars to help 

answer any questions from grantees. Much appreciated.

Being able to download the report as a whole and even entering goals/objectives as a whole 

rather than independently entering.

Remind us that the WORD documents are only a template, but that we will have to copy and 

paste into the system. This way, we don't spend time worrying about formatting.

I'm not sure how reporting as much information as we are required to submit helps the program 

or the kids we're serving.

the system is not as user friendly as others we have experience with

no input

I think what you do is very clear to grantees; it's the G.5 that is sometimes a challenge to get 

through, but I have especially appreciated how staff have "walked me through" the process 

when it was needed.

Pre-printed Section A did not correspond to grant goals/objectives. Did not know how to 

respond to it, but noted not applicable and proceeded on with completing APR.

It has become more streamlined over recent years, and for that I am grateful. Thank you for 

making the reporting more straight forward.

The annual report does nothing to serve the program that I am in charge of, other than meeting 

the requirements to receive funding. And, I guess that's what Federal Annual Reports are for.

Update and simplify.

grant wasn't "open" to submit final performance report
25

G5 system needs to be updated into a new interface.

It is straight forward and relatively simple.

Last year, because of COVID and dealing with large available balances, regrouping, needing to 

shift funds around (e.g travel funds to supplies/technology) there were what felt like a lot of 

extra reporting requirements. I understand why a granting agency would need to handle it this 

way, and it seems that there were efforts made on ANEP's side to keep the extra reporting 

fairly simple, but it did add significantly to the administrative burden of staff already stretched 

thin working hard to make things work out in the very difficult environment created by COVID. I 

honestly don't know what ANEP could have done differently, except look out for opportunities to 

further simplify these measures in the future.

Q39. Describe how the technical assistance that Department staff provide could be 

improved to better support your program needs (consider content, structure, format, 

timing, etc.).

I don't have any working knowledge of this to share.

I have never encountered any of the technical assistance items asked about. I stepped into the 

grant mid-way, in the second year, and did not access technical assistance.

We have not seen a lot of technical assistance on this front. Most of the assistance has been 

with respect to managing the grant. Our project has a lot of strong resources already available 

through other channels. DOE has not appeared to be sufficiently staffed to provide this level of 

assistance. We have seen some increase in staffing in the last several months, but we have 

largely seen DOE staff do what they can with very little resource. There are a lot of strong instate educational resources and technical assistance for the kinds of programs funded under 

ANEP in Alaska. Development of resources from DOE on this front should not be a duplication 

of some of the great in-state opportunities already available.

Sorry cannot think of any improvements.

I have not had much interaction for technical assistance.

No suggestions

No suggestions.

Response time for technical questions could be improved. We know slow response times have 

been slow due to staffing and workload, but we are still waiting for support, and are worried that 

no one has responded.

x
26

I think the technical assistance that I have received from the Department staff has been very 

adequate for my needs. I appreciated the quick responses to my requests for assistance.

At the start of the grant, a staff change(s) took place so there was limited support. Yet, the 

grant model proved to be a very effective model to support students and families, even in 

COVID times. Staff contact was always positive and helpful.

I would welcome increased opportunities for professional learning communities that are specific 

to Alaskan Native Education issues. Particularly after the challenging last few months, it would 

be beneficial to hear from other grantees for peer to peer sharing, lessons learned, 

troubleshooting challenges etc.

Provide initial training for organization staff when a grant is first awarded and periodic / 

continuous training for staff working with the grants to provide information on updates.

If there were any webinars with the ANEP grant to help assist, I was unaware of them.

I want to make it clear that I have never felt that the technical assistance has been lacking. I 

think we receive the assistance we need when we need it. I may have selected don't know/not 

applicable on some areas, or not given full marks on some of the areas, but I never felt that our 

ability to implement and report on our programs suffered from a lack of support.

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that 

provided technical services to you.

Youth for Youth

Youth for Youth

ANEP staff

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role?

Project Director under Grant

Grant Project Manager

Fairbanks Native Association Program Director

CEO
27

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

ANE - 2021 - Q62.7. What technical assistant topics can the ANE program provide 

at Project Directors’ meetings to support the implementation of your grant 

projects more effectively?

An ideal complete example of the report being asked would be extremely helpful. This 

would give us a better idea of what's being asked. like a template. It is not always very 

clear on how the info is best presented or what is needed and more importantly, what is 

not needed in the reports. I feel like we gather a lot of info that is not needed, but we do 

it anyway just in case. Maybe it makes things too cluttered on your end. IDK.

NA

Continued support and training prior to when annual performance reports are due. This 

has been very helpful and should continue.

More opportunities for sharing with other grantees and spotlighting best practices.

suggestions of webinar trainings would be helpful in relation to project and grant 

administration.

Sharing best practices with other grantees

No suggestions.

x

I think we can all use more support for the implementation of our projects in the face of 

such major impacts of such events like the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Webinar at the inception of the award for new grantees, sharing general information 

and resources available to support the grantee project director and staff.

an interest in how the program is actually operating, and what the real barriers are to 

success. Tech Assistance right now is focused on how we grantees can get out 

information to fit the needs of the agency.

Training for organizations awarded grants - initial training and ongoing training to keep 

up to date on changes.

More coordinated venues to highlight Grantee work throughout the state. We can often 

learn from each other and it is great to see what each other are doing.

I think they do a good job at covering the bases.
28

ANE - 2021 - Q62.9. What suggestions do you have for improving the annual 

performance report process?

A smoother method for reporting each section. Clarification on whether or not a real 

signature is still needed. There was some confusion. An updated way to report online. 

There were 2 conflicting due dates posted. Stick with one for clarity. Have a deadline 

time and timezone listed. Give an example of an ideal report so that there is something 

to go on. I'm sure you get a range of quality and quantity from all programs. Each 

program is different but a target to shoot for would help. Kind of like a rubric.

I feel the portal lacks the flexibility to report in ways that are supportive to formative 

assessment of our programs. The cells are limited and don't always match what we 

are able to include on the Word document formats of the 524.

I put this in the other suggestions about the website.

Ensure that projects for which reports are due can be located easily.

G5 is sufficient.

No suggestions

No suggestions.

Ability to upload goals/objectives as a collective whole rather than independently.

The G5 site is a bit outdated. The deadline for reports due is usually not the "real" 

deadline which also confuses project directors.

x

It would be very helpful if there was a check list of activities that lead up to the activities 

that needed to be completed to have a successfully completed APR for submission.

Sorry, I thought I already answered this. So hard to find and edit the documents. Too 

many clicks to get a document open, edited, submitted.

Update forms and simplify.

need to update the G5 system with a more modern interface

It's a bit finnicky getting into the right place on the website to start the reporting. 

Something about the interphase makes it less intuitive than it could perhaps? In any 

case, as much advance notice as possible and early access to the online reporting 

forms, guidelines, etc is always helpful. Having downloadable editable forms to prepare 
29

info that needs to be copied and pasted into online forms is also helpful. But I think we 

already have this to a large extent.
30

Alaskan Native and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions (ANNH)-Part 

A

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Provide training to PIs. I asked for this in the last survey. Putting on a self-service website is not 

sufficient.

no suggestions

Unfortunately I have never used the website.

No comment

More frequent updates on ANNH site and upcoming grant forecast. Those sites used to be 

updated regularly, but in the last few years, they are rarely updated.

Design of site

no suggestions

using multi factor authorization and extending the length of changing password.

I really don't have any suggestions.

Make website more visually appealing.

Improve search engine

Perhaps indicate effective dates of documents and policy and checklists for future proposals.

Q33. How could we improve the grant reporting process?

Improve APR platform. Very antiquated and clunky. Provide training to PIs in multiple 

modalities.

Our grant was written by my grant office, I only administered it. The reporting process is 

adequate. My first year submitting reports was confusing, but I think I now understand how it 

works. It can be difficult coming up with ratios or percentages of things. I wish those weren't the 

only two options when rating my objectives and activities.
31

I don't fully get the link between the reported information and the usefulness for reviewing goals 

and objectives

Provide access to grant reporting website to both Project Director and designee.

I liked the format with the broad executive summary better than the new format. The previous 

format gave enough space to talk about what the project actually did and accomplished; now 

there is very little space for that and it focuses on general department metrics like graduation 

rates and persistence. My campus serves majority part-time adult students and a good portion 

of the students are in certificate programs. The ones in associate degree programs tend to 

spread it out over multiple years while they juggle the other aspects of their lives, so they take 

longer to graduate. Those in short-term programs don't need to continue past one year because 

they are done. We are providing higher education they need in ways that work for them, but its 

not the conventional full-time student signing up for a four year degree program.

If the APR could be open earlier to when the reporting year ends, so it is easier to remember 

that reporting year before the next year starts.

my only concern regarding the reporting has been the inconsistency off the time frame during 

which reporting must be done.

I think the website should for the Interim report be more clear about realistic expectations for 

reporting. We haven't had to submit an Annual report yet so these questions weren't applicable.

NA

This past APR was much improved over previous years. It's still difficult to make the connection 

with our specific grant deliverables with overall institutional graduation, retention rates, etc.

None at this time.

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role?

PI

College Administrator

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

ANNH - Part A - 2021 - Q15.2. Please tell us how the technical assistance you 

received from your program specialist this past year was affected by the 
32

pandemic, as well as any suggestions you have to improve the technical 

assistance you received should we be faced with future national emergencies.

Remove individuals from communication positions if they are unable to respond to 

requests in a timely manner. Appoint someone to answer questions in an employees 

absence. Receiving an out-of-office response is not sufficient. Communicate the 

intended response time (48 hours, 72 hours, 5 business days). This is a wonderful 

program for ANNH students but not as good for grant managers, especially new PIs. 

PIs need face-to-face training opportunities to learn more about the grant process, 

purpose, how APR data are used, reporting, etc. Putting info on a website is not 

enough. I am unclear why this survey keeps being administered, yet there is not 

obvious improvement occurring to better serve grantees, applicants, APR platform, 

information dissemination, etc.

Perhaps offer grantees Zoom meetings to address concerns about spending down 

funds in the midst of travel and face to face activity restrictions

The pandemic hit everyone hard this last year. I assume that the delay in responding to 

my emails (or not at all) was due to the Department of Ed's Covid mitigation 

requirements for staff. Ensuring that program staff have all the necessary means to 

conduct business from wherever they need to work, or assigning others to in their stead 

when needed. There was a long delay of several weeks where I didn't get a response.

No comment

My program officer, [REDACTED], is very responsive and helpful. I don't think she 

always had clear guidance from the department, in part that is because it was, and still 

is, an evolving situation. I don't know where else to put this, but I want to say that 

[REDACTED] is so helpful resolving problems or answering questions during the 

eligibility and reporting processes. I contact him for technical assistance every year, 

sometimes multiple times, and he is so knowledgeable and helpful. He is absolutely a 

10.

I am just waiting on a response for a no cost extension based on the Covid-19 health 

crisis which caused delays in the project.

No impact at all.

I don't think this assistance was affected by COVID.

In the beginning of the pandemic there was a delay in response from program specialist 

regarding questions. Over time, the communication and responsiveness has improved.

It was very helpful and timely. We received everything we needed when we needed it.
33

During the pandemic, I received timely information via email and this was very 

beneficial in terms of the continuation of our grant program, which needed to shift our 

services to remote delivery.

ANNH - Part A - 2021 - Q15.5. What can the ANNH-Part A do to improve 

communication with you?

Webinars, newsletter, ANYTHING besides a random, generic e-mail

More communication in general would have been helpful once Covid hit.

No comment

Please share information with both PI and PD.

This comment is in relation to an earlier question abut the timeliness of awards. I don't 

know that there is much that can be done about it, but starting grants October 1 makes 

it really difficult to get faculty in the first year of a new project.

I know how busy the program officer is, but just more timely responses to requests.

Timely responses

nothing, communication has always been excellent

Hold more ANNH webinars that bring together the various programs.

No suggestions, our program contact is wonderful.

A suggestion to improve communication is to provide an annual newsletter with 

updated information regarding policies and or procedures as well as upcoming events, 

meetings, or webinars.

ANNH - Part A - 2021 - Q15.7. How would you advise on improving the overall 

process and protocols associated with this grant competition?

Do not put entire RFP only in grants.gov as one has to create an account to get the 

materials to decide if they will apply. Please post on a public website.

More communication.
34

No comment

Recommend to host Technical assistance seminar and other events where grantees 

can collaborate and dialogue with one another and sponsor.

I think the application process is good.

More time between the grant notification and submission of grant proposal. Thank you!

No suggestions

NA

More time to prepare and submit proposal from the time the federal register is 

published.

I would consider email blasts to program directors to ensure timely information 

regarding overall process and protocols associated with this grant competition.
35

Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander Institutions 

Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

The website needs to upgrade its search function so that users can get the information they 

seek quickly.

The website limits the page size because it devotes nearly a quarter of the page to How Do I 

Find / Information About which isn't relevant for 90% of what I'm there for. Why not make those 

drop downs in a help bar and allow the content of the page to be 100% for easier reading. A 

cookie crumb navigation to allow me to get back to previous pages easily would help 

navigation. The search results are a block of text; more differentiation between headers and 

search snippets would aid readability. Lastly, the look and feel of the ed.gov site needs an 

overhaul

N/A

Provide more information about past/current grantees, links to applications and relevant 

information, and clarification of "Native American"

The upcoming RFPs on the first priority and updated research materials that are on the website 

and sent as an email link, newsletter announcements.

Have RFP timeline up on webpage of when announcements are made and when awards are 

selected.

Most current information and access to lists of grantees and awards and abstracts. Updated 

FAQs for questions that come up with the regional AANAPISIs that would be helpful if shared to 

the wider audience. Anticipated schedule of funding opportunities and other funding resources 

to support higher ed targeting AANAPISIs

Make sure the information is kept updated more frequently.

I'm not sure as I don't use the website.

Visually, the website tries to cram too much information in one web page, so that it looks 

overwhelming to the eye and does not elicit interest in engaging with all the information. Please 

consider organizing the web page so that it shows a few links that are 'easier' on the eye and 

can make it more inviting/engaging.

No comment.

no feedback. I think it includes the basic information.
36

There is so much jargon, and while I understand that is critical to the grant, it would be helpful 

to break it down (especially for first-time recipients).

Q33. How could we improve the grant reporting process?

Feedback is important. We feel our grant reports do not receive enough feedback and input.

The nesting of reporting fields is annoying. Allow all the fields needed to be available, even in a 

pdf format so that it can be shared with all contributors to the report.

N/A

Move the deadline for the annual report to the summer when programs are less "on" with 

student support.

More allowance for qualitative data and uploading of charts and graphs, .

It has gotten better this last year. Thank you.

Information in advance. Reporting requirements changed. Information requested changed. If 

we knew that in advance, we could collect data that would make answering the questions make 

sense. The submission website is getting better, but the reporting of performance objectives is 

very challenging and it used to be easier to provide performance data that really tells the story 

of what the project has impacted that are not as broad as the performance objectives. Though 

the interim reports of a decade ago may have taken more to read, they were more telling of the 

real progress being made. How it is now is repeating or responding to the same limited 

information asked a different way. So much of our story goes untold by the questions that are 

asked and the way they are asked.

The new grant reporting system for 2021 APRs was improved. However, the focus on 

institutionalization for each activity does not correlate with the expectations of the grant program 

since institutionalization is not a specific measurement in the application. It could be added. 

There is never any communication from the grant program or program officer after APRs are 

submitted. It's not clear whether they are being read nor how we are being measured in relation 

to the APRs.

Make it simpler and more streamlined. There are currently so many layers.

For the 2016-2021 AANAPISI Part F grants, we were informed quite often that the reporting 

format would change. That was challenging, to deal with different APR formats. I will say, 

however, that the format for the Year IV APR was so much better. In previous years, the data 

requested, e.g., selecting 2 measures for each grant goal I believe, was not a very effective 

approach in my view. It asked for too many details, and it wasn't clear why reporting those 
37

details would really help me or my AANAPISI team understand how the APR can help us 

further improve implementation and evaluation of our grant activities. The format reinforced 

'scattered' thinking instead of helping a project director think more coherently about the impact 

of the grant. I think the Year IV APR format was more streamlined and succinct and finally got 

things right. Including the questions on how the grant impacted enrollment, retention and fiscal 

stability in the Executive Summary made it very clear that the capacity-building intent of the 

grant needs to impact these institutional indicators. Reporting the expenses in one section was 

also so much better. Some suggestion I would like to make regarding the reporting of budget 

expenses by LAA categories is that there was no clear category for where we should put the 

expenses for Project Evaluation conducted by our External Evaluator. Also, please consider 

providing some examples for each LAA category to make things easier to understand and more 

concrete, esp. for first time project directors. Finally, in the last five years, there was no 

consistency in the dates of the APR website becoming available. It would help if there was 

always a consistent period during which the website opens every year, so that people can plan 

for it. I would also suggest that the APR reporting period open mid-January with the customary 

90 days to write and submit it. The problem with writing an APR that supposedly should start 

10/01 and be submitted by 12/31 is that there are too many holidays, including the long winter 

break, when critical offices like Institutional Research and our Business Office are closed. If a 

Project Director has last minute questions to clarify certain data, they may not be addressed. 

For me, a mid-January to mid-March APR reporting period is better and more in synch with the 

semester schedules of colleges and universities.

Make the directions clearer. Include examples with explanations.

I think the grant reporting process is fair. I appreciate the support if we have questions.

It would have been really helpful to get feedback from the mid-year report.

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

AANAPISI - 2021 - Q20.2. Please tell us how the technical assistance you 

received from your program specialist this past year was affected by the 

pandemic, as well as any suggestions you have to improve the technical 

assistance you received should we be faced with future national emergencies.

We received time and excellent guidance

The assistance I have received from my program specialist has been great, both preCovid and during Covid. Great responsiveness, knowledgeable, and proactive 

communications are hallmarks of my program specialist and I think those qualities will 

serve well in any situation.

N/A

It would have been good to have better guidance for use of funds or carryover funds 

that we were not able to use during the shutdown. It was stressful to not be able to 
38

deliver the programming. It would have been helpful for the USDE to be more proactive 

and reach out to grantees to provide guidance - at least support that the USDE does 

not expect us to deliver programs as usual.

Continue to allow fiscal adjustments needed when there is emergency situations that 

impacted the college and the program.

First, I need to say that I have been directing Title III projects since 2000. I have had 

several program officers (specialists) over the years. NONE were as accessible, 

responsive, informed, and truly interested in providing support as the program officer, 

Pearson Owens, has ever been. Is there room for the Dept of Ed AANAPISI program 

to improve - certainly. How does it compare to what I learned is "standard" - I am 

thankful for the AANAPISI program to have the support they do. When I have a nonAANAPISI project to direct, we'll see how much the rest of the support has improved...

Our program officer was very responsive at the beginning of the pandemic to inquiries 

related to how we might be able to reallocate funds to meet student needs due to 

COVID. He was also helpful in identifying limits to how we could reallocate. He also 

communicated about federal funds being disbursed to our institution as part of the 

CARE Act.

I really liked that our program specialist was always very quick and up to date about 

sending communication regarding pandemic-related information that was relevant to all 

AANAPISIs. Our program specialist was also very helpful in consistently referring us to 

the web links for official announcement on pandemic-related information relevant to all 

MSIs and in particular, AANAPISIs. I think that for future national emergencies, it will 

help to maintain the current system of communication. One of the things I also 

appreciate very much about our program specialist is that I feel he is very much 

engaged and a part of our AANAPISI Community of Practice. Whenever our 

community initiated discussions related to important advocacies, our program specialist 

would be present. This allowed us to get immediate responses to our questions and 

needed clarifications. It also helps me to feel that I could communicate with our 

program specialist anytime. He was not distant from us. He demonstrated presence. 

That is very important to me.

This was a time like no other we had experienced. We all were trying to figure it out.

Due to the pandemic, we had to make some adjustments in the focus of our grant as 

travel was eliminated and programming shifted to online programming. Our program 

specialist was very helpful in supporting our efforts.

I don't know that it was impacted by the pandemic.

AANAPISI - 2021 - Q20.5. What can the AANAPISI do to improve communication 

with you?
39

Personal calls from program staff would go a long way in improving communication with 

us.

N/A

Communicate information on a regular basis, including funding/training opportunities, 

deadlines, etc well in advance of the events.

Monthly electronic newsletter.

RFA and Award notification timeline could be better.

Legislation process and selection process takes time. It's unfortunate that more 

information isn't known to be communicated out so we out in the field can plan and 

prepare.

Provide more updates or information about changes or shifts in timeline for APR and for 

posting of the grant RFP. More information about the public comment cycle would have 

been helpful as well as some advanced notice about it if possible.

While there are guidelines on how grant proposals may be evaluated, it's not clear how 

the USDOE chooses who will sit on the team of evaluators. Also, no explanations are 

offered on why the scoring system was changed in the 2021 competition. I also think 

that we were thrown a left curve ball when the yearly budget was slashed by $50K. 

There was no real solid reason provided for that in advance. Please consider telling us 

why certain changes are made in the way the point system is designed, how grant 

evaluators are chosen, and how funding changes are determined. The 2021 Part F 

competition opened on 5/28 I believe and the deadline to submit is 6/28. Why are 

AANAPISIs given only 30 days vs. some MSI grants that are given 60 days? What's 

the rationale for that? That does not feel equitable, in my view, given that there are a 

signficant number of AANAPISIs across the county. Finally, I hope award notifications 

are announced by mid-July or early August so that institutions have enough time to set 

up their leadership structures, teams, and the hiring of grant-funded staff. Finally, why 

are we given

A quarterly meeting with program specialist and grantee would be helpful to make sure 

grantee is on track with progress.

Provide access to the AANAPISI listserv, if there is one.

communications occur in a variety of ways, usually when the aanapisi eligible colleges 

are together in a space. Recommend we continue the effort to provide communications 

with all aanapisi grantees on a regular basis if for no other reason to keep aanapisis in 

contact with each other.
40

I now get things that are irrelevant to me. I want to know about my particular grant and 

not necessarily all the other items. It can be confusing and overwhelming to wonder if I 

am supposed to be doing something or not, but it's related to a different opportunity.

AANAPISI - 2021 - Q20.6e. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly 

with your program specialist?

email, telephone for complex, webinar to education, & blast for general interest/updates

AANAPISI - 2021 - Q20.7. How would you advise on improving the overall 

process and protocols associated with this grant competition?

45 days is not enough time to respond. 90 days would be better.

Give grant award notifications ahead of the start of the fiscal year, to help awardees 

have more time to plan properly.

The rating and scoring can be updated to look at to support those who are just 5 points 

or below. Also, giving points for new innovate approaches and having students on the 

review of the proposal to comment on the proposal (feedback from the students and 

community)

Advance of when it is likely to be released, the maximum amount and expected 

priorities in advance of actually posting so the proper institution-wide engagement in 

the process can be had. The timeframe is short for proper data collection, input and 

preparation of a competitive grant, especially if new relationships for cooperatives can 

be formed.

It would be helpful to have a consistent timeframe when RFPs will be posted and due. 

This past year it was posted on May 14 while the previous year it was posted at the end 

of Jan. The four-month difference makes it hard for institutions to plan. The time 

period to write the grant could be extended to 60 days. Given that many staff and 

faculty who write these grants do not do it as their full-time responsibility, but have other 

teaching and administrative responsibilities, 45 days and less is too little time. The 

previous year's 27 days was almost impossible and created very difficult conditions. 

This year's 45 days is also challenging given it's after a year of the pandemic. If it could 

have posted earlier and had a longer timeframe to write such as 90 days, that would 

have been helpful. There is a discrepancy between the Federal Register guidelines 

noting that everything in the application should be double-spaced to the webinar where 

it's noted charts, tables, etc. can be single-spaced.

1. Open grant completion in April and give institutions at least 60 days to write and 

submit their proposals -- meaning, a June deadline. Also, explain the rationale behind 
41

the scoring system, how funds are distributed, how grant evaluators are selected. 2. 

Offer webinars and info sessions for first-time & current grantees. Notify grant 

awardees no later than mid-August, to give institutions ample time to prepare their 

grant teams, structures, and hiring protocols.

Perhaps more advance announcements of upcoming grant opportunities.

None
42

Assistance for Arts Education Development and Dissemination 

Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

I love the website. Very easy to use and informational.

If there were a grantee portal with all documents and templates easily accessible.

Not sure. It's quite clear and straightforward.

NA

I believe the website could provide more information about the outcomes of the program and 

support dissemination of materials and research produced from the projects. For instance, our 

projects and others I am familiar with have produced numerous publications on research from 

the grant and numerous curriculum materials disseminated through project websites.

The site could include more information about the grantees and could feature updates to the 

program. The site feels very barebones and therefore I don't trust that it is accurate or up-todate.

Difficult to determine what forms and documents to use as resources, reports, etc.

More user friendly. Easier to navigate

One very specific suggestion is to offer some guidance to those who are not familiar with all of 

the acronyms that are used in some search fields. For example those used under the Program 

Office field when trying to narrowing down a search.

Q21. Please describe how the PROGRAM OFFICE could improve the quality and 

usefulness of our documents, including policy-related documents. In your response, 

please identify the name or type of document(s) your comments address (e.g., nonregulatory guidance, newsletter, blast emails).

Everything has been great. The only thing would possibly be giving some "for example" 

examples so that it's more real to grantees.

None.

Often, we receive emails about upcoming trainings or meetings days to hours before they are 

scheduled. We have so many things scheduled, it would be very useful to have a "tentative 
43

save the date(s)".

NA

I struggled to think of any documents I have received, so I don't have any specific feedback

I don't really receive any non-regulatory guidance. A few times I have been invited to DOE-led 

webinars but they have not been specific for our grant program.

We receive very little guidance as to how/why we need to access these documents. Only 

receive guidance when reports are due.

Q33. How could we improve the grant reporting process?

The APR is fine for the most part but there are some minor formatting challenges when 

inserting charts.

I think making sure the questions asked are really about student and teaching improvement.

Some of the questions are redundant or don't apply.

NA

I think the reporting process is pretty strong and flexible already. The student achievement data 

will be very hard to incorporate for this cohort of AAE grants because of the pandemic and 

some guidance from the program would be helpful.

It is unclear what the purpose of the reporting is other than compliance. This is a question that I 

raised at our in-person conference in DC in 2019 - I was told by DOE staff that I was right to not 

understand this because the data collected had not been used for any larger purpose. If the 

purpose of the reporting is just compliance then I would like to make the reporting process less 

time consuming.

It has been particularly difficult during the pandemic. Obtaining data and information has been 

overwhelming.

At times we have learned about relevant data that has been collected and analyzed at the end 

of the grant cycle (year 4) when it feels too late to utilize the information in our current grant.

Webinars delivered prior to reporting deadlines could be more specific, and changes to the 

reporting process could be communicated to grantees in a more timely manner.

Q39. Describe how the technical assistance that Department staff provide could be 

improved to better support your program needs (consider content, structure, format, 
44

timing, etc.).

Think the assistance we get is wonderful. I know that the pandemic slowed everything a little, 

but with everything now going back to normal, I know things will get even better.

Still need the in-person networking and hope to return to it next year

None.

I think staff offer opportunities for development, however, it is often communicated days in 

advance. I need weeks in advance to be able to schedule the opportunities.

NA

I think more opportunities to share stories, insights, and materials could enhance the 

community of grantees. I have asked program staff if they would share out some of the 

published research findings from our project across the program, but I haven't had much 

responsiveness on helping us disseminate our work within this community.

I have never received any support in this area from DOE staff. Requests have been made for 

collaboration and additional program-specific trainings but that has not yet been provided.

Additional interaction between grantees and Department staff.

I have found the check in calls with the department staff /program officers to be very helpful. 

The conversations that take place often lead to a sharing and problem solving process that is 

relevant and helpful.

Hope to go back to face to face director meetings soon.

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that 

provided technical services to you.

I am unclear about how to answer this question ~ I'm sure that I have received technical 

assistance however, I'm unclear what department that the assistance came from.

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role?

Project Director
45

Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education State Directors

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Could be updated to look more modern

Could not find CTE/Perkins at https://oese.ed.gov whatsoever. I primarily use the PCRN.

The site is unobtrusive with minimal graphics; however, the text size and colors are easy to 

read. Placement on each page follows a pattern which allows the user to locate information 

more easily. The Calendar and newsroom could be combined under events. Some of the 

headings do not clearly convey what is on the site: Legislation and Regulations is clear, but not 

sure what is distinguishes the other headings.

More user friendly, less clicks to get to information desired, too much text---need more graphics

Nothing specific, it is just "plain". but, our website for our state is much worse.

Having only used the website a couple of times, I think it is set up in a way that is easy to use 

and understand. I don't think they need to make any improvements as of now.

The OCTAE staff are always helpful. Always prompt and sincere.

An update user interface is needed. The website look and feel is outdated. A modernized 

approach with more graphics and more concise terminology is needed.

I have found it easy to work with once I had experience with it. At times you have to decide 

what to click on to find what you need. I suggest more explanation such as" revising budget: 

click here).

More resources and guidance. It would be helpful to know what others are asking and the 

responses to other state's questions.

It would be helpful to have all the information in Spanish

The website is difficult to navigate and find the information we are looking for. There is so much 

information which makes it hard to know where to look.

It would be interesting to see what resources/materials are most used/requested/viewed and 

make those items more prominent. In doing so, move to visual representation of 

products/services/etc. vs text. Difficult to find contact information for staff, e.g., phone and 

email. Difficult to find org. chart and roles/responsibilities for direct questions/feedback.

Websites are always a challenge to keep up to date and easily accessible. I have nothing 
46

specific that I can think of that needs to be improved.

Minimize evasive changes if possible. I do not visit the website often, but when I do, I know 

what and where I am looking for the information. Changes to websites for appearance, etc.. 

can be frustrating and not time sensitive to the user (this is true of most websites)...and I am not 

a person who is afraid of change, but my time is valuable.

NA

Perhaps refreshing the appearance and doing some user testing around the navigation 

pathways. What's the most used resource? How intuitive is the navigation to get there.

Q21. Please describe how the PROGRAM OFFICE could improve the quality and 

usefulness of our documents, including policy-related documents. In your response, 

please identify the name or type of document(s) your comments address (e.g., nonregulatory guidance, newsletter, blast emails).

none

When the non-regulatory guidance was rescinded the program quality components left 

everyone out there on their own. It would be helpful to provide more specific, even nonregulatory guidance, back to States as we all strive to do what's best and providing leadership 

and guidance (that isn't required) is hugely beneficial. Just as local recipients look to the State 

to provide such guidance.

When referring to reglulatory guidance, providing clarifying language as part of FAQs could be 

helpful.

Unknown as they are so few and far between I honestly can't remember any in the last year

I don't think there is a need for improvement at this time on any of the documents.

OCTAE staff recognize that the states have different state regulations.

The guidance could be more concise and clear. I often have to read documents several times, 

attend the webinar, and refer to other documents before I am clear on what the guidance 

document is describing.

They are appropriate for my needs. I cannot identify a specific document that would need 

improving.

It would be helpful to have all the information in Spanish

We miss the regulatory guidance information although we understand the change in policy 

around this issue. The blast emails are usually helpful, although the information is provided with 
47

every little advance notification. More notification would be especially helpful.

This past year is perhaps not the best example. But there were a number of unusual issues 

that arose, e.g., revised state determined performance levels, etc. where limited guidance was 

offered, answers differed based on who you spoke with, and very little was communicated in 

writing.

No improvements come to mind. Information received is always timely and clear to understand.

NA

Documents are always very carefully written to meet the Act. Sometimes this is go carefully 

written the content isn't clear. What impact, literally, will the letter, guidance , etc. have on the 

requirements of my work?

Q33. How could we improve the grant reporting process?

None, they are great

Technical assistance provided is excellent. It is not always clear how and when to certify.

The CAR reporting system was very frustrating this year. The amount of back-and-forth 

between our RAS and states was frustrating. All feedback should come at once so all 

updates/corrections/clarifications can come as once. The data submitted are not very useful 

outside of Perkins reporting. Because states still have differences in definitions, comparisons 

are impossible. The basic data submitted is somewhat helpful relative to Perkins but must be 

combined with other data sources for impactful program improvement purposes.

The reporting process is clear.

Our issues are primarily on our end. We do struggle to get accurate and consistent information 

from local staff and other entities within our agency.

There is no need for improvement at this time.

During the COVID reporting year, OCTAE was able to assist states as we established, as 

applicable, new SDLP. They provided training and have been open to questions. The staff that 

assist with the portal are always helpful and able to assist.

The grant reporting process is excellent.

The amount of data categories by the cluster is cumbersome. We do not use the clusters in 

defining our program. We have to assign a program's data to what cluster if fits closely to.
48

It would be helpful to have all the information in Spanish

Reporting requirements can be difficult to understand - example: duplicate head counts, 

definitions for participants and concentrators. Sometimes the messages are not as clear as they 

could have been to help us get it right the first time. Gender issues have also been difficult to 

apply.

This is pretty straight forward. You should share your practices with the US DOL. You have a 

much better system.

The system for reporting information and data is easy to understand and use.

Some of the performance indicators, specifically the assessment data for math, science and 

ELA are out of the control of the CTE educators. It does not give a true picture of the work 

occuring. There should be different data points.

I sometimes have difficulty with the Consolidated Annual Report accepting the data that I input. 

At times it can be frustrating.

NA

Not sure at this time.

Q39. Describe how the technical assistance that Department staff provide could be 

improved to better support your program needs (consider content, structure, format, 

timing, etc.).

none, they are amazing

There is very little provided and when it is, it's quite vague (the old Data Quality Institute 

notwithstanding). State Directors must rely on other groups (e.g., Advance CTE) to provide 

technical assistance in the areas mentioned here.

Sessions I've attended have been most helpful

None at this time.

Training for specific areas such as budgets, data, performance measures.

I would love more assistance in understanding best practices, how Perkins can be braided with 

other funding sources, and focus on how to improve practices.

It would be helpful to have all the information in Spanish. My assistant is in spanish
49

DATE staff are amazing - no suggestions for improvement. They are quick to respond to our 

questions and help us find the answers we need.

Positive is that the office is using more webinars/virtual convening models to present content, 

seek feedback, etc. However a number of webinars are scheduled one/two weeks in advance 

of the implementation date, which is often difficult to accommodate. Other webinars occur as a 

series and it is difficult to make each session, e.g., national activities. For reoccurring/existing 

info. that occurs annually, I would encourage the office to define webinar/events at the start of 

the program year to include topics, dates, etc. and share that info. well in advance of the 

implementation date. To the degree possible, ad-hoc webinar/events should be scheduled at 

least one month out to maximize participation.

I can't think of anything specific that isn't already being provided.

My regional coordinator is WONDERFUL! Very helpful, knowledgeable and responsive to my 

requests.

NA

The data reporting area has just been and continues to be a challenge.

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that 

provided technical services to you.

Regional Laboratories

REL-Central

Great question---[REDACTED] with the Quality Data Project for the post secondary attainment 

indicator

Region 4 Comprehensive Center

REL

[REDACTED]

RTI International

CAR Portal support
50

Centers for International Business Education

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

I was not aware of this website so cannot speak to improvements needed.

Provide examples of best practices on defined frequently asked questions

I'm not terribly technical--getting the passwords reset is a daunting process.

I don't know

Q33. How could we improve the grant reporting process?

It does not make sense for shared projects to be reported on by multiple CIBEs. Perhaps the 

information could just be reported by the primary CIBE for the project with all contributors 

clearly identified.

Don't overemphasize numerical reporting requirements and balance with more qualitative 

reporting approaches

Running an objective review of submissions. Evidently our latest proposal received a very 

favorable evaluation from one reviewer and a very negative (and biased) evaluation from the 

second. In such instance, a third independent reviewer was much needed, and more so, if my 

rebuttal message would have given proper consideration. Unfortunately, no one in the US DOE 

responded to that message.

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role?

Principal Investigator

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

CIBE - 2021 - Q32.2. Please tell us how the technical assistance you received 

from your program specialist this past year was affected by the pandemic, as 

well as any suggestions you have to improve the technical assistance you 

received should we be faced with future national emergencies.

We have been able to teach our program specialist with ease and no delay
51

We were awarded to CIBER grants but, as stated before, our third submission was not 

properly evaluated. One of the two reviewers was totally biased against our proposal. 

Unfortunately, the program specialist (or for that matter the entire Department) did not 

even acknowledge having received our clearly stated rebuttal of each and every 

negative item of that biased evaluator; let alone go alone with our request to reconsider 

/ appoint a third reviewer to bring objectivity into the process, and solve the significant 

differences between the two reviewers. In consequence, our School was not awarded 

a new grant, and we have not been served by the Department during the pandemic. If 

the CIBER program is to continue, it is essential to start by improving the review 

process, so as to regain the trust and transparency that existed when [REDACTED] 

directed it.

CIBE - 2021 - Q32.5. What can Centers for International Business Education do to 

improve communication with you? 

fine as is

The above evaluation refer to the ongoing services (which we do not receive). The 

evaluation of the services we received in the past (with two grants through 9 years) 

would be very different.
52

Charter Schools Program (CSP) Grants to State Entities

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

It appears the website is filled with quite a bit of helpful information. However, I was unaware 

that it was available. If there are helpful resources on the website, our usability would increase if 

we are directed to areas that are helpful on the website. Additionally, at the next Project 

Director's Meeting USED team should do a brief workshop on the website and its resources.

I do not have specific suggestions. Generally well organized.

it always seems out of date. Also, I can never find the page I want.

It's very text heavy. Breaking up some of the information would help.

It would be great to have a running list of current CSP Program Directors from other states so 

we can reach out to one another as needed.

Although I am unable to replicate the issue at this time, I have come across broken links on the 

SE and SEA (2015 grantee) webpage. The links tend to redirect to to older versions of the CSP 

webpage before the move to OESE.ED.GOV webpage.

The website is a little on the busy side, but it still works.

I honestly never even look at it.

Have not really interacted with the website at all.

It is difficult to navigate and to find specific answers to questions about the CSP.

Most of the time, I refer back to old emails. If any non-regulatory guidance comes out, I would 

probably go search for it on the site. That is also when I get on the site.

Q21. Please describe how the PROGRAM OFFICE could improve the quality and 

usefulness of our documents, including policy-related documents. In your response, 

please identify the name or type of document(s) your comments address (e.g., nonregulatory guidance, newsletter, blast emails).

Timely release of information and response to follow-up questions about guidance

The Non regulatory guidance dates from 2014 and some parts of it are mute since passage of 

ESSA. Yet, it retains the status of sacred text.
53

Non-Regulatory guidance is almost 10 years out of date and not aligned with the the ESSA 

version of ESEA.

The non-regulatory guidance needs an update.

Nonregulatory guidance available on the webpage is outdated - or, if it is still relevant has not 

been updated or at least include a note that this is still the most up to date information available.

The instructions for the APR/FPR submissions should be updated. They aren't very clear to the 

user. Also, no ESSA NRG has been issued by the department. It has been almost two years 

since the stakeholder meetings were held.

It would have been helpful to receive the monitoring guide earlier in the process. When you 

receive it a month or so prior to your monitoring, it is too late. Presenting that guide when 

groups are awarded would make things easier for everyone and potentially make the monitoring 

process easier for the grantees and the monitors.

It would be super helpful if we could receive sample documents (RFA, monitoring guides, etc) 

so that every grantee doesn't have to try and figure things out on their own.

The Annual Performance Report and ED 524 budget form does not make sense at all on how 

state are reporting balances. The directions provided are unclear and provide little or no help. 

G5 is a antiquated site that needs to be replaced with something more user friendly.

Documents providing instructions for the annual performance report could be more detailed, 

especially regarding the applicable periods. What is the difference between performance 

period, budget period and reporting period and which should be used for what questions and 

reporting metrics? After completing 2 of these reports, there is still much confusion.

Overall great, but it has been hard not having any non-regulatory guidance on the ESSA grant.

Q33. How could we improve the grant reporting process?

For the annual report, it would be great if the SECTION A - Performance Objectives Information 

and Related Performance Measures Data could be saved and submitted as PDF instead of 

entering the information in the template and then reentering everything into the submission 

system.

I cannot think of ways to improve the grant reporting process.

The process is fine and the support, when needed is good in navigating G5 and the forms. 

Additional guidance at the outset regarding the objectives to be tracked would be helpful to new 

grantees.

not sure
54

G5 needs to be more user friendly, particularly when working on annual performance reports.

G5 is difficult to use and lacks in technology capabilities when trying to enter the performance 

measures and corresponding data. The timing of report guidance is not sufficient as it takes 

more than 30-40 days to pull relevant data from our internal and external sources and then 

reports have to route internally before uploading.

The instructions for the APR/FPR are confusing and not very helpful. Also, G5 is not very user 

friendly. G5 text limitations are too low.

If all of the reporting requirements were provided to grantees on a one-page handout with the 

due dates and the components of the report, that would be a useful guide and help address 

some of the reporting issues that are unclear.

The instructions for the ED524 are confusing.

This reporting platform is extremely hard to use. something more user friendly

G5 is a disaster and needs to be replaced.

Add defined terms and more detailed instructions for what each section is reporting.

It can be a little tricky working in G5. It would be nice if we could report our data in word/excel 

document vs the web template. Otherwise it's pretty straightforward at this point.

Q39. Describe how the technical assistance that Department staff provide could be 

improved to better support your program needs (consider content, structure, format, 

timing, etc.).

More frequent opportunities for peer-to-peer best practice sharing

The Director's meetings are well put together - engaging with other grantees is always the most 

useful. The virtual meeting was very well done, given the challenges of not being in person. I 

understand that the staff has changed a lot and is overloaded. This causes delays.

The presentations, via webinar, are typically dry, and less engaging.

Previously, quarterly calls with a grant recipient and program officer were held. These calls, 

although sometimes redundant or short in length, were helpful along the way and ensured any 

questions or concerns were answered in a timely manner. Following the phase out of this the 

quarterly calls, the Department provided quarterly TA calls with program staff and all grant 

recipients. This was extremely helpful in providing general and timely updates/reminders with 

time at the end for questions and anecdotal examples, etc. These calls have sense been 

phased out as well. *****Worth noting, looking back over the support and structures in place 

since 2015 (I serve as PD for 2015 grant and 2020 grant and have been in my role since 2015), 
55

I have seen the institutional knowledge decrease at the department. While it is understandable 

that staff come and go, there has also been a decline in the overall feeling of support. To clarify, 

when asking questions or for assistance, it is provided but sometimes after an extended wait 

time. From an SE perspective, this is not due to lack of response or willingness to help but 

general staffing shortages and coverage. It appears that the staff in the program are doing the 

best they can with the resources available but additional staff (with proper training/knowledge 

related to CSP) are desperately needed. ****

Timing is really the only issue that we've had. The Department staff sometimes takes more than 

a month to respond to an email, and when you finally get a response, it may or may not address 

the questions that were asked.

Again, providing a playbook or resources guide, along with templates, would be very helpful. It 

seems that we get our examples of documents from other SE grantees instead of from the dept.

The TA now being offered to new grantees is outstanding and appreciated.

Don't just read the slides; provide context and examples.

I enjoyed the virtual conference this year. It was well planned. I also appreciated the focus on 

monitoring prep.

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that 

provided technical services to you.

National Charter School Resource Center

NCSRC

WestEd

National Charter School Resource Center

WestEd, Manhattan Strategy Group, National Charter School Resource Center.

WestEd

West Ed

Charter School resource Center

WestEd
56

REGIONAL LABORATOIES

Wested
57

College Assistance Migrant Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

I think website looks good.

Website is a great resource with accessible information.

Perhaps it is my inability to search correctly, but I find it difficult to locate updated training 

material. I think it would be helpful to have a site that has something like "The CAMP Starter 

Kit" with all the material a new director would need to take over/start a grant (i.e. fed regs). 

Then another section for "Professional Development" where we could find all 

material/presentations (new and old) from the ADMs. Again, if that already exists and I'm just 

not finding it, maybe making it easier to find?

The CAMP website could improve and serve as a helpful resource to new and veteran directors 

if the website included an interactive forms page to assist in with the APR reporting process. 

Having the opportunity to interact with the APR forms on the website can assist directors in 

learning more about the information to include on the APR as well as learn how to fill out the 

forms. The interactive forms can include indicators of when the APR has been filled out 

incorrectly with an explanation to include what needs to be corrected. By providing this 

interactive learning tool, directors will have the opportunity to engage with the APR process as 

a way to increase their professional knowledge of the APR.

Make sure that content downloads and appears.

A chat function.

No suggestions at this time.

Reach out to all programs not just through the HEP CAMP Board through a survey to learn 

what key topics they would like it covered in the annual directors meeting.

I have worked with other state and federal programs but CAMP is amazingly organized and 

informed to provide the best policy-driven assistance of any program with which I have ever 

work. I am always assured that the advise they provide is supported by federal policy.

The website has improved as time has progressed.

Have updated information easily available.

content is informative, but more practice on how to access the information.

Overall I am pleased with it.
58

No suggestions for improvement at this time.

I realize it's a governmental site, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't include photos of the 

students CAMP serves. Government services are for the people and should therefore represent 

the people.

I think with the recent refresh many of the concerns that I had before have been addressed. I 

imagine as information and the continued maintenance of necessary departmental updates 

occur that there will be more suggestions or concerns in the future. For now, things are good!

Keep updated information in the web.

actualize information

Without a bookmark, it is much easier to find OESE's CAMP website/information via Google. 

Even searching just CAMP in the search bar doesn't help. However, spelling it all out will direct 

you to the main CAMP website. It would be helpful for the hyperlinks to include how up-to-date 

the links are or have it say on the PDF/Word documents we are able to download.

no suggestions

make it more friendly.

Update data more often.

chat box video hosting site, meeting requests online and interactive FAQ.

no comment

Website works well for me.

I would like to see the technical resources updated. Most documents are four years old.

Content and reports need to be updated more frequently, some links are broken or/and direct 

you to an outdated page.

Q21. Please describe how the PROGRAM OFFICE could improve the quality and 

usefulness of our documents, including policy-related documents. In your response, 

please identify the name or type of document(s) your comments address (e.g., nonregulatory guidance, newsletter, blast emails).

N/A, doing an excellent job in communications
59

N/A

With the abundance of emails, sometimes documents can get lost in the emails. The quality 

and usefulness of these documents such as non-regulatory guidance and newsletters would be 

helpful if they were made available on an CAMP OME shared drive that CAMP Directors would 

be granted access to go back to as needed. Maybe within the G5 system for example and 

communicating that these documents are accessible in the G5 system when blast emails are 

sent to notify directors on where to locate the documents.

No suggestions at this time. All emails I've received regarding CAMP are clear, concise and 

relevant.

I do not know how to improve the quality and usefulness of the CAMP documents. I appreciate 

that they are policy driven but practice oriented.

I believe the documents are readily available. I am not sure if they could be made simpler to 

understand as they are "dummied down" quite a bit.

No comment.

All is great... thank you

No concerns on usefulness or quality of policy documents.

n/a

N/A

The communication is good.

no comments

NA

blast emails could provide more information about current COVID updates.

N/A

It is impossible to have an example for all scenarios, but possibly new staff could take a look a 

the Non-regulatory guidance available and consider updating current examples.

Q33. How could we improve the grant reporting process?
60

I think APR works well.

N/A, grant reporting process is efficient to navigate

Same as first comment. Include an interactive feature onto the DOE OME website to have 

directors engage with a mock APR reporting process to learn more about and gain experience 

with the grant reporting process.

No suggestions at this time.

I like that the grant reporting process is aligned with the practice. One has to understand the 

practice which is program implementation.

The reposting process is good. Having the webinars prior to submitting the reports really helps 

clarify any questions that might normally come up while working on the report.

more timely response to questions

Continuing to have opportunities where programs can address specific questions to program 

officers.

I feel that the mentorship initiative is a great support project for all new directors. It should be 

available for recruiters and advisors of CAMP and HEP programs.

I happy with the reporting process.

It is not user friendly to enter a lot of text in a excel spreadsheet. Block D would be better if it 

were in a word document instead. Also, since we are required to include evidence of promise in 

our applications, it would be good if OME wanted the data we collect. Yes, it's for us, but I'd like 

to see ED take an interest as well in terms of data they want from us.

It seems challenging to understand the process for accessing some information related to 

program performance overall based on the APRs that are submitted.

keep consistency in submission date

This past year was my first time during the CAMP APR/IPR. It was a fairly straightforward 

process. I do have a couple of recommendations that have to do more with formatting. I feel like 

the cover sheet needs to be updated in a way where entering the information does not change 

the entire format or shift text as entered. Maybe making it a PDF Fillable form would be easier? 

I also am not a fan of entering large text information on the excel sheet. I know this can 

probably make it easier to keep all the information on one document, but I would need to type 

everything out in Word and then copy/past it to Excel. I did find the Grantee Student Workbook 

the most helpful for completing the APR/IPR. A really useful tool to use and transfer over.

no recommendations
61

NA

hosted online fill out form.

N/A

Offer virtual office hours to provide technical support (like an open virtual front desk for people 

to drop-in).

Current reporting process is ideal.

the number reporting and calculating part of the APR in excel is great but should remove the 

text part and put in a word or a fillable PDF

Q39. Describe how the technical assistance that Department staff provide could be 

improved to better support your program needs (consider content, structure, format, 

timing, etc.).

Technical Assistance currently offered is helpful.

N/A

It would be insightful to be able to have a meeting or two with new directors during the year to 

acquire the knowledge of specific items to execute the program more precision and effectively.

I am pleased with the assistance on behalf of the Department staff. Thank you for your support 

and guidance.

Provide a "101" guide for brand new directors

Understandably the in-person New Directors Training could not take place but strongly ask for 

this in-person training to be reconsidered in the future.

I believe that the listserv process could be improved and should be open to "all" the staff not 

just the director.

The technical assistance has been very consistent.

Hold general meetings, but also have breakout rooms by area or by type of institutions (4 year 

vs 2 year). While CAMP has one mission, there are many ways to carry out the mission and not 

all will be relevant for all programs.

I enjoy that there are different days and tines to attend these webinars and power point 

presentation are shared soon after.
62

Current system seems to work well.

I don't feel any of these areas are particularly well-addressed in TAs: Enhancing staff skills 

needed for successful program management, Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities, Assistance with developing resource materials for use in the program, 

Creating opportunities for sharing best practices via peer-to-peer learning groups. However, we 

do have the opportunity to address them at the ADM. The Natl HEP/CAMP Association and 

board puts more emphasis on these areas and addressing needs as they arise, as well as 

ample networking and learning group opportunities.

Create meetings where we could share best practice periodically.

NA

monthly training with parts 1,2, 3 etc. too many times we cram too much information in one 

training.

N/A

Create more breakout rooms with different guiding questions to open the conversation.

There are directors who still need additional assistance in "using evidence-based practices in 

implementing program activities".

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role?

Project Director

Grant Director-Key Personnel

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

CAMP - 2021 - Q65.6. What additional topics would you like discussed during 

CAMP meetings, webinars, or phone calls to help you implement a high-quality 

program?

I think we need to have a discussion re: technology and its availability/access--or lack 

thereof--in our MSFW communities.

I do not have any topics to include at this time.

Collaboration with MEP and NFJP programs
63

Continue to provide overview of APR, how other programs are tracking their promising 

practice outcomes. Provide the power points of presentations prior to the webinars

I believe that all webinars, training, and listserv should be available to all staff from the 

director to the recruiter

Most of the topics I have an interest in listening are presented at the conferences each 

year. I do recommend webinars with more frequency.

Suggested topics: different types of programming that occurs to meet program 

objectives/goals, getting to know CAMP Director colleagues for best practice sharing, 

and continue topics such as how to select consultants for project 

assessments/evaluations and technical assistance.

webinars or phone calls where advisor from other CAMP programs can talk with other 

advisors and recruiters to recruiters and directors to directors.

None at this time.

My other needs are met by the association and networking with mentors and 

colleagues.

More emphasis on research component of evaluations-how we make these work in 

practical terms

Update Power Point presentations and add new examples for trainings.

no suggestions

Clarify why projects must complete a research project into the project and as part of the 

proposal

student engagement, online resources, and student needs assessments.

Program performance inventively impact by covid 19

Follow-up services for CAMP Completers. Steps to avoid withdrawals. More ideas to 

use budget for allowable expenses.

Using evidence-based practices in implementing program activities.

CAMP - 2021 - Q65.7. What could the CAMP team do to improve the content of 

technical assistance?
64

I am satisfied with the content of the technical assistance I have received thus far. No 

improvements to consider at this time.

I have appreciated the "acknowledgement" message that my emails have been 

received and that a response will be sent later.

Make it available to "all" the staff.

N/A

No comments. The information and delivery is pretty straightforward.

Stay focused on being partners with the grant projects.

Make them more interactive

Simplify and clarify project evaluations.

offer more trainings and broader topics for all CAMP staff.

N/A

If not doing it, I would suggest the team to go out to the field and experience the 

implementation of program services first-hand from successful projects. (When possible 

of course).

CAMP - 2021 - Q65.8. What could the CAMP team do to improve the structure or 

format of technical assistance?

Being that this is my first year as a CAMP Director, I do not have any improvements to 

the structure or format of the technical assistance at this time. I may have additional 

feedback in the future after having additional years of experience beyond this first year.

It is tough to say because OME as well as specific programs have regulations as to 

what virtual program to use and some are more reliable than others to stream the 

presentations.

It could be improved by making it more interactive.

Nothing that I can think of.

More opportunities during the presentation for knowledge check-ins.
65

n/a

Current structure and format seems to work well.

It's hard when questions cannot be addressed live and we have to wait some time for 

an answer or have to send follow ups.

no suggestions

NA

offer in person trainings for specific staff across the country. i.e., Counselor training, 

recruiter training, director training etc.,

N/A

Hoping to meet in person again (even if it's once a year). Perhaps meet with the 

projects according to state to allow for more fruitful conversations and partnerships.

When CAMP returns to their office, the wi-fi and bandwidth issues will resolve any 

structure issues.

CAMP - 2021 - Q65.9. Please share any comments on how the CAMP team can 

better support your work. Please include any ideas that the HEP team may use to 

better support your work as it relates to your project’s specific needs.

Maintain website with continued updated information and rescourses

As a first year director, I do not have feedback to contribute in this area. I can say that I 

have appreciated the communication from the Department when the transition of staff 

has occurred and immediate connection and the opportunity to meet and greet with the 

new staff member when they have arrived onboard. This is very helpful for first year 

directors.

None

I have appreciated the access to the HEP CAMP Tool Kit and understand the 

"disclaimer" that OME needs to put in place for each presentation. Having access to 

previous presentations on best practices by programs was very helpful and no longer 

having access seems not helpful to those of us that found the Tool Kit helpful.

It could be open to "all" the staff.
66

My current program officer is very responsive. I do not have to wait for days or even 

weeks to receive a response anymore. She always has an answer for me. I feel 

supported. Knowing that I have a good support system starting with my program officer, 

is very important.

Address/Discuss the impact of COVID in our nation and how that will translate to 

program outcomes if they fall under the traditional reporting measures.

Comments; I feel it takes "time in" to experience and take part on the mentor initiative. 

This is a great project. I give directors the opportunity to ask questions in an informal 

setting. I think we need to have this opportunity for advisors and recruiters work with a 

mentor.

Just keep working on identifying what challenges projects have in the field.

[REDACTED], [REDACTED], and [REDACTED] are a solid team and my needs have 

been by them in a timely manner. It usually took longer to get a response from 

[REDACTED], but she's no longer here.

The only thing I can think of right now is that I wish we could avoid some of the turnover in staff.

Please take geographical distribution into consideration when determining new awards. 

Too many projects in a limited area hampers the projects' ability to excel.

NA

monthly virtual coffee chats

Continue to provide the new directors training.

A faster response to email inquiries would be greatly appreciated.

Try to offer virtual "office hours" or "drop-in" options to provide Directors and 

opportunity for informal meet and greet or provide successful student stories and 

updates.

CAMP - 2021 - Q65.10. Are there any other federal programs providing you 

technical assistance in form and/or content the HEP/CAMPteam should consider 

as a model?

None at this time.
67

I believe that CAMP is the most interactive, policy-driven and practice based of any of

the federal program with which I have worked. It also works with a knowledgeable, 

client driven staff.

None that I can think of.

No

NA

i am not familiar with any

NA

TRIO training grants

None
68

Comprehensive Literacy State Development

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

At this time, I do not have any recommendations for improving the website. I find it easy to 

navigate and obtain information.

The landing page has several inactive links: https://www2.ed.gov/programs/clsd/index.html

For now, I'm satisfied.

I did not even know there was a website, so information sharing/publicity would help.

I think it is well organized. It is just a lot to sift through.

The KMS is very confusing to following when submitting reports. Wording like "Year I, Update 

1" causes lots of confusion.

N/A I haven't used the website.

Navigating specifically to information about the CLSD grant is not smooth from the OESE.gov 

website overall. On the Offices/Programs page there are also many lists of links that are 

organized, but perhaps a page with just the titles of the Offices that person would see first 

would help to eliminate scrolling without really knowing what might be listed would be helpful. I, 

for one, do not know the names of all the Offices so I'm not always sure what I'm scrolling to 

look for. If this already exists, I did not encounter it in my search.

I have not used this website before. Perhaps a webinar on the resources available would be 

helpful.

Q21. Please describe how the PROGRAM OFFICE could improve the quality and 

usefulness of our documents, including policy-related documents. In your response, 

please identify the name or type of document(s) your comments address (e.g., nonregulatory guidance, newsletter, blast emails).

I do not have any recommendations for improvement.

Most technical assistance is provided by the external liaisons with SEI Services. They also 

provide a discussion board, communities of practice, topical meetings, the national convening, 

and connections to online resources. The only communication I receive from federal CLSD 

program officers is directives for the quarterly and annual report. Quarterly meetings with my 

federal program officer, [REDACTED] did not often occur, however, the webinar prior to 
69

submission of each annual report is always very helpful. [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] are 

professional and helpful.

Guidance is satisfactory.

More timely and organized reporting guidance. Have been getting emails the week before that 

are sometimes confusing. Having an entire year guide for upcoming reporting requirements 

would greatly help our team to have accurate and effective reports available. We do not receive 

any email communication from DoE in between these emails, although we do regularly get 

communication from our TA providers.

A suggestion for outlying areas, maybe some time to meet on similar issues, challenges, and 

environmental context. there is relevance and connection across outlying areas.

Refrain from using old Word documents for budget templates. Please offer excel spreadsheets 

for budget or an online system when such large amounts of money are asking to be approved.

I have not received any documents from the Department, but have received very useful 

information from the TA contractor.

I don't get any blast emails or newsletters from CLSD staff.

Formal documents and blast emails are very informative and clear.

Q33. How could we improve the grant reporting process?

I do not have any recommendations for improving the process. I receive timely notices of 

reporting deadlines and the Department provides helpful technical assistance on the process.

We report to an external "KMS" system which is very user-friendly. During the first year of our 

grant, I didn't understand that our reports would be submitted to G5 on our behalf. Clarity for 

beginning grantees about the submission to KMS/G5 would be beneficial.

The requirements for developing Project Specific Measures is unclear. I have worked with 

multiple people who have given different responses on what is required. I also noticed the 

sample given for developing Project Specific Measures in the worksheet is unclear and could 

lead to measures that are difficult to accurately assess or gives information that isn't useful.

We experience problems with the due dates of our quarterly reports. Our budgeting periods 

don't coincide. For instance, the end date for the quarterly report is June 30. Our books don't 

close for that period until mid-July. The July 16th due date doesn't give us time to give actual 

reporting numbers and get the appropriate signatures to submit the report on-time.

The student level outcome data required is not relevant in the first two years of the grant if 

subgrants went out in year 2.
70

The pandemic tested us with our reporting, especially with our data. Summative assessments 

were not conducted SY19-20 and SY20-21.

Describe how and what you need the reporting process for and why. Allow more time for us to 

gather the necessary paperwork from our end with a detailed description of where to find items 

and how.

Have never had regular touchbase with Program Officer to review status of grant.

Program staff are not effective at explaining GPRA measures.

Provide PDFs or web examples of the forms required at the outset of the process. Provide 

samples/examples of narrative that is required. The reporting mechanism should list specific 

forms/reports/narratives required instead of the generic "upload report" language. Improve the 

navigation. Add a progress bar. Add an indication that a save has been successful.

I had a few technical difficulties submitting parts of the reporting requirements. Assistance was 

somewhat helpful but could have been more informed. The reporting site could be more userfriendly.

Would like more collaboration to help up review data and find similarities across states so we 

can work together to problem solve data use. More detail on how the Department uses state 

data ongoing - not just at the end of the program.

BIE struggles with collecting data form various numbers of states because of different state 

assessments. There is no one set of data that BIE works with. This makes the data reporting 

very challenging, especially during the pandemic.

It's gets a little confusing due to the state fiscal year not matching up with the federal fiscal year.

Since we have only submitted one report so far, and since this is year 1 with subgrants only 

recently having been awarded, we are not yet sure how it will help us to improve our grant work. 

We are also not entirely certain what effect the data collected from the various SEAs has on the 

USED, i.e., how it is used.

The grant reporting process doesn't seem designed to allow us to improve our work. Instead, it 

feels like an opportunity for a "gotcha" or simply a compliance measure.

More guidance around defining "significant progress" and how our reporting data is used.

More clarity around what is meant by substantial progress and how data is used to show that 

substantial progress has been made.

Q39. Describe how the technical assistance that Department staff provide could be 

improved to better support your program needs (consider content, structure, format, 
71

timing, etc.).

I do not have any recommendations for improvement

Technical assistance provided by SEI Services is excellent. All liaisons are professional, 

knowledgeable, and helpful.

We have received limited TA from Department staff outside of reporting requirements and 

requesting modifications to our program.

Our TA provider frequently cancels or reschedules our calls. They do not follow through on todo items they said they would do. I often am unable to find resources or support I need to 

answer my questions from our TA provider.

None and we are grateful for the continued support and guidance.

More explanatory content or beginning content. Support from where and how to start with 

subgrantees when you are in the beginning stages of the grant.

Have not received any technical assistance from Department staff. We receive consistent and 

high quality TA from the contractor, SEI Services.

Sometimes when we asked questions, we felt like we did not receive specific responses. They 

were more generic and often the resources that were provided were links copied from the 

discussion board that we can already access.

The strength of the TA provider is connecting peer to peer conversations and sharing. 

Sometimes we need help developing resource materials and we are told that is not what they 

do but they can share others materials.

The strength of the Department is providing the peer to peer TA sessions because it is nice to 

learn and see what other states are doing that may be successful.

We are in the early stages of developing easily accessible resources for our subgrantees.

I appreciate the vast offerings and support with the TA providers, however, there are a lot of 

opportunities which I don't have the ability to attend because I have other responsibilities 

outside of the CLSD. I'd suggest narrowing the focus on topics and splitting the audience 

between new grantees and returning grantees to reduce the burden on project staff.

For the National Convenings that last for several hours on Zoom, a longer break between 

sessions.

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that 

provided technical services to you.
72

American Institute for Research

REL Comprehensive Center Equity Center

I am unsure of the name of the group. However, they lead the yearly National Meeting and the 

COP meetings that are spread throughout the year. They seek input on the meetings and plan 

them to meet the needs of the state grant directors.

REL-Southeast.

AIR

RELHawaii

Regional Lab, Comp Center

Comprehensive Center

AIR/Wested CC 18-19 REL

REL-SE, Comprehensive Centers

Regional Laboratories and SER Services

Synergy Enterprises Inc.

Synergy and AIR

REL Midwest laboratory Region 8 comprehensive center

SEI Services

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role?

CAO

Administrator

CUSTOM QUESTIONS
73

CLSD - 2021 - Q46.10. The most important thing I want ED to know about my 

experience with CLSD is: 

My Program Officer, TA liaison and other staff are very helpful with providing any 

assistance I request. The Communities of Practice, Topical Meetings and other 

webinars provide a wealth of information that can be used by the Project and teachers.

While the age category requirements are difficult to manage, I believe it has been very 

beneficial to ensure that literacy is seen as a lifelong process, beginning at birth. Many 

school districts had not often connected with their "birth to age 5" peer providers and 

this is a necessary part of literacy growth. It also forced schools to determine and meet 

the needs of middle/high school students, because typically, emphasis is placed only 

with the elementary grades. Overall, the guidance and experience has allowed us to 

initiative evidence-based practices to meet the needs of our state, and this local control 

is also necessary. However, I feel it would be very beneficial to grantees to begin with 

a 1-year plan phase prior to statewide rollout with subgrantees. An explicit process of 

planning prior to implementation could lead to more impact. We have a 3-year Striving

Readers grant which is NOT enough time to implement. I'm thankful new CLSD grants 

are given 5 years.

Overall awesome experience for the state.

My program officer works tirelessly to assist me with any challenges I am facing. She 

is willing to meet with others within my department to discuss solutions to any problems 

we might face.

We are very appreciative of the flexibility extended from ED relating to COVID-19 

disruptions to the planned timeline.

There is a significant lack in support for what evidence-based practices should look like 

at the secondary level, yet this is a primary component of the CLSD program. It has 

been very challenging to support subgrantees with this part of the project with little to 

no guidance from the DoE. The last IES practice guides on this made available were 

from 2008. The discussion board is difficult to navigate and find information that might 

be helpful to our State.

[REDACTED] is very approachable, ready to assist and respond to questions we have, 

the team support with CoP is outstanding bringing us collectively to share best 

practices and I'm forever grateful.

SEI Services has provided great resources through CoPs and monthly touch base 

meetings. No interaction, support, guidance or checkins with DOE Program Officer.

I wish my program officer was more responsive and interested in our program.

We are very appreciative to have these grant opportunities. They have driven a 

significant focus on literacy in our state. The peer to peer sharing is very good and we 

learn a great deal from our state colleagues. Without these opportunities, we would not 
74

be in the positive place we are in our state. Our only disappointment is that we have 

had three program officers and one switch occurred during COVID. This has proven 

difficult to get responses to our questions.

The KMS is hard to use and understand.

Your friendly approach is a breath of fresh air. You can tell you really care about your 

subgrantees and want to see them succeed.

The TA Support through AIR is absolutely outstanding. [REDACTED] has helped us on 

a regular basis and is always available to us when we have questions. Our Program 

Office is helpful when we hear from her, but too many times when we have questions 

and reach out, we do not get a timely response.

I do not feel that our ED program officer is confident in her responses when questions 

are raised. She often talks about what used to be the requirement and what is now the 

requirement and admits that things are confusing, but doesn't seem to provide a 

concrete response to questions raised. In particular, the question about evidencebased practices is significant and many states are grappling with it, but she has not 

suggestions for what to do. However, the TA providers are phenomenal!

Ed program officer is not responsive. This is my biggest complaint by far.

I think the CoPs are very useful.
75

Demonstration Grants for Indian Children-Special Projects for Indian 

Children

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

A listing of current past funded programs would be helpful with a brief description. This should 

be sorted under the different types of projects. That would allow us to follow up and learn from 

each other in developing our highly successful programs changing lives of American Indian 

children.

Ok

I was unaware of this resource. I have mainly interacted with my Project Officer and the OIE 

technical assistance.

It does not need to be improved.

Its outdated and not very easy to navigate.

I am currently a new Director of the program and will need to start to review the website and 

see what is available.

Bullets points to connections, single pages would be nice, bouncing around can be difficult to 

keep track of what you are looking for.

The website is good. It is well thought out.

The new website is very interactive and the contact information for the current program officers 

is current. The only feedback is that you have to know what you are looking for when you go on 

the website. I don't know if people who are not associated with a grant through the department 

would be able to navigate it as easily to find what they are looking for?

No recommendations at this time; the website meets our needs.

The department holds incredible training, placing them on the website to access for those of us 

who aren't able to attend would be extremely helpfu.

A link on this website to the Technical Assistance padlets that are shared in the Talking Circles 

would be helpful.

The data entry for the APR is a bit archaic. We look at data differently now and the ratio 

requirment doesn't really fit all goals and objectives well.

I can't access what the programs officer is seeing as far as grant budget? I have to collaborate 
76

with our business office and what the programs officer sees. It doesn't always match up. I would 

like if all directors have access to their budget section of the grant that they manage.

I have not recently used the website.

I do not have any suggestions at this time.

It appears the website has been improved upon.

Additional trainings on website navigation would be great. Some of us that come in half way 

through a grant really struggle at finding things at first.

Like any new website it takes time. DOE website is user friendly, the ease of navigation, and 

fairly easy to define.

N/A - I never used the website.

I would like it to be more interactive. There's great information on the website, but I want it to be 

more engaging.

Nothing at this time

I do not recall utilizing the site. I mostly utilize g5. in general, as long as I can find required 

forms and instructions for required forms I'd say the website is fine.

There is SO much information and when searching I often found things in multiple places and I 

wasn't sure which content to use. And perhaps it was just a transition thing but I would find 

something one time and then it would be moved and I couldn't find it again. Also, logging in 

would sometimes be a challenge to me.

I have had a lot of trouble with the login in the past and so it stopped me from using the site 

more. It may be better now.

Add more tabs, informative content and graphics.

Include links to the reporting documents.

More friendly user operating system.

Breakdown by specific grant.

It is not very user friendly. A revamp of the site in order to make it accessible to all individuals, 

regardless of technical expertise.

The website doesn't really have much information on it, or I'm not seeing what is there. If 

intended to show the basics of the program, I see that, but reporting on success or any types of
77

guidance, I don't see.

Organization by Grants and types of services/technical assistance services available. I rarely go 

to the site as it is a jumble of stuff.

Update the videos from webinars faster. You could include email or contact information for 

other grantees, this way we could reach out to other programs for guidance or to bounce ideals 

off them.

It feels as though program specific information could be better organized, and ensuring that all 

links are functioning.

remove old links when search for info some old links are still active and directing to older 

webpages

No comment at this time.

Clear categories and links that work.

1) All APR forms contained in one doc (in Excel spreadsheet if required by OIE). 2) Separate 

grant instructions, etc. for rural schools and urban schools. Small rural schools do not have the 

same resources. 3)

The changes already made make is easier to access information needed.

Updated information

Provide some stories from communities and make them come to life with pictures :)

It is workable. I have no request for improvement.

G-5 is very hard to access and often must update passwords or is too sensitive

I think my issue is more on my end of technology. Our wifi network is not ideal for navigating 

websites sometimes.

Q21. Please describe how the PROGRAM OFFICE could improve the quality and 

usefulness of our documents, including policy-related documents. In your response, 

please identify the name or type of document(s) your comments address (e.g., nonregulatory guidance, newsletter, blast emails).

No recommendations for improvement.

There are times that information provided are a bit confusing. I have found that clarification is 
78

gained on a one-on-one conversation with my program officer or in the next grantee technical 

assistance meeting - which I highly appreciate.

More topical FAQs would be helpful.

No improvements needed. It is set up to where our documents are easily identifiable and 

accessible yet still fully secured.

Have a page for new information and events.

Reviewing documents - in a short time as the Director, documents I have received look good.

More newsletter updates :)

The newsletters, non-regulatory guidance, and blast emails are great. They usually contain a lot 

of different topics and information. Sometimes it is easy to miss things as the emails are long. I 

would like to see more condensed emails where it only highlights one or two items. Maybe 

increase email frequency but only touch on a couple items at a time.

I feel like there is adequate communication from the department to awardees.

GPRA Measures versus Program Measures

The documents presented in the trainings are very useful.

Non-regulatory guidance on defining, designing, measuring impact, and implementing both a 

comprehensive Parent Engagement program as well as comprehensive teacher professional 

development program as a part of demonstration grants would be helpful.

The website never addresses current issues within native country. The website is only used for 

me as a tool to file annual reports.

Some questions are so specific, they must be addressed individually and can't be addressed 

through overall guidance.

I do not have any suggestions at this time.

The documents coming from the program are more regularly provided in the blast emails.

Most of the documents are wonderful resources. Although, I will admit that at times its difficult to 

keep up with the influx of emails. Perhaps condensing the items into one email would be great.

Blast emails - Are helpful with reminders of deadlines,upcoming events, webinars etc.

No change
79

I enjoyed the newsletters, they were helpful - no improvement needed.

Making the FAQs more easily accessible for each of the demonstration grants.

N/A

There was a lot of 'this is for NYCP only' or ACE only etc. This made it feel like o needed to 

wade through a lot to get what I needed. I guess also the massive amount of regulation makes 

me sad because it means that there has been a lot of abuse of the system. It makes it more 

difficult for those who truly wish to serve the children and families.

As of now, I think the quality and usefulness of your documents are good and up to par. I am 

new to the position and so far have not had any problems with your documents or policy-related 

documents.

The documents have been helpful and I do not feel there is a need to change them.

Weekly reminders with documents in emails. And send the emails through BCC to avoid other 

grantees responding to all recipients with irrelevant information.

Non-regulatory guidance.

Make the site user friendly.

Sometimes the blasts are not fully accurate so another one that looks the same are sent with a 

small correction. This can be confusing. Also, some notices are long, which is challenging 

when inboxes can receive 250-500 emails per day. Clearly headed with bullets below would be 

helpful for scanning quickly and then linking to needed/relevant information.

Have not received any documents or newsletters; only the grants award notice.

No improvements necessary.

1) OIE docs must be relevant to my small rural school district that serves Native American 

students. 2) Larger national education related issues we have no control over and are not 

useful.

Always make it accessable to before and after meetings.

Sometimes the forms are not formulated correctly ex: budget forms they want us to use.

Emails are sent out regarding the next webinar which is awesome. They are usually sent out 

about 10 minutes before the session starts which is often problematic. It would be better if those 

were sent out at least an hour or two in advance.
80

budget guidance documents have been the most helpful

It would help if they sent hard copies of information. My email system and the wifi network in my 

rural area lack dependability and sometime messages are lost or never received.

Q33. How could we improve the grant reporting process?

The information and resources were outstanding this year. Thank you!

Grant reporting process (APR) was not nearly as taxing as I had suspected it may be:)

The grantee reporting process has become clear in the past few years through support from the 

technical assistance provider and our program officer. Information in years past was confusing.

Sometimes the reporting period doesn't allow us the claim all of the activities and data in the 

report. It reflects poorly for our accomplishments. The report for the quantifiable data is tough 

to report in some cases and doesn't easily allow for qualitative data reporting. I don't think the 

apr is a true reflections of the success of our projects

G5 is clunky and hard to maneuver. It times out too quickly.

No improvement needed.

N/A

It would be easier if you could report everything in one or two modules. Each data point and 

each section requires you to paste, save, and close out. Then you have to open another 

modules to report another data point. It would be a lot easier if they were on the same module 

or sheet. When you have many data points to report it gets confusing to track your place.

For our grant we are serving an additional school district that is not a partner on the grant and 

because we do not have a MOU/partnership with that school district it has made it difficult to 

obtain GPA and attendance records for the students served at that site. It would be helpful to 

have some type of letter from the department that we could take to the school to let them know 

that it is a federal requirement for us to access those details for reporting purposes.

G.5 is always a challenge to wade through

No recommendations. Trainings on reporting process are outstanding.

It is doubtful that there is anything you can do to improve the standardized forms you are 

required to use for the APR. The 4,000 character limit and the structure of the section in which 

you're supposed to provide details is difficult to work with as it doesn't allow for bullet points or 

any other kind of formatting (colored font, highlights, italics, etc.). Also, if we are only supposed 
81

to use Ratio boxes, take the other boxes away - that's confusing. Also, provide a format for how 

you want the budget reported. It doesn't seem very useful to have a draw down number on the 

cover sheet, but no required information on ANYTHING else financial, just an optional Section 

B with no guidance on how this area should be formatted, what should be reported, what the 

Department's focus is on - basically, no clue what you're really looking for, and so it feels 

unstructured and lends to either rambling on in the Section or not providing enough information. 

Same for Section C. It's difficult to structure when it is just a huge blank slate, and you're trying 

to continue what you were saying in Section A's charts. Having to cut off explanations and say 

See Section C, and yet nothing in Section C lends itself to organizing the information isn't 

helpful. Perhaps, if there is more information in Section A that needs to be in Section C have a 

button that you click or a check box, and a Section C form is generated with the Section A's tied 

information or better yet, just provide more room in Section A - which as I stated above is WAY 

too small. The process of the Executive Summary and Cover Sheet being tied together doesn't 

work well. Why the Executive Summary has to be uploaded and not directly entered into G5 is 

also confusing and awkward. Also, I get you want us to print off the cover sheet and upload it, 

but why are they (the cover sheet and Executive Summary) merged together? Why not a place 

to upload the signature page, and a separate line to upload the Executive Summary? More 

flexibility in organizing the sheets within the report would be nice. Once they are entered into 

G5 they cannot be renumbered or reorganized so if you skipped one of your project objectives 

when initially creating the Section A forms, then you have to redo everything instead of simply 

being able to reorganize the pages (think like Adobe Organize Pages feature). Inputting the 

APR data takes a way longer time than the paperwork reduction act statement on estimated 

time; WAY WAY longer especially when G5 times out while your typing and everything you've 

been working on gets lost. It would be nice if it would save automatically from time to time. I 

know that it is expected that you paste from a Word document, and I tend to, expect when the 

4,000 character limit stops me, and I have to try and make everything fit or then am forced to 

deal with Section C and making notes on my Word document on what now has to go into 

Section C. Overall, the reports don't seem very useful to us as grantees, and as demonstration 

grants, when we discover something isn't working and we change the way we do things to get 

the end result, it impacts the data that is gathered, but we cannot change any of the reporting 

measures. It would be nice if there is a place to say "this reporting measure doesn't apply 

anymore" not just for changes, but for things that are actually completed mid-grant 

implementation, like something started in year 1 and ended in year 2 and won't be in years 3 

and 4. Perhaps I am dwelling on this because the pandemic made some of reporting measures 

useless or unobtainable. Also, it is frustrating trying to report on measures that make no sense 

anymore to the implementation (see above Pandemic statement). Being able to write the report 

in a style and method that the grant application were written would be easier, so I guess, what I 

am saying is that the reporting structure should be "baked in" to the grant application and that 

each performance measure should be written out with the ratios and all of that set up - using 

the actual Section A reporting form as a part of the grant application. It would certainly 

streamline reporting.

I had issues with logging in, which took some time to finally get in. Also, the clarification of what 

reports are to be submitted, especially if there are a new style of reports to be submitted.

G5 is difficult to use. It would be good to have specific guidance on how to meet grant goals. 

We set up our own parameters to report and were unsure if it was adequate.

No suggestions at this time
82

This too has improved through the trainings provided, thank you.

G5 is beyond out dated and difficult to use. We need training for those of us new to DEMO 

grants on the G5 website and navigation. I'm sure it would be difficult to switch to a more 

updated system, but G5 is definitely needing an upgrade.

I see no needed improvements at this time. What's most difficult is when you learn the process 

it changes.

I asked my grant officer for copies of the reports from before I came on as project director and 

never received a response. The reports were not available online. It was very frustrating.

Providing feedback on the APRs. We submit the reports, but we don't hear back from the 

program. I assume that when we receive a GAN it means that our APR was approved?

I'm not really sure to be honest. It's complicated, especially for small tribes in smaller isolated 

communities but we are learning to access help with reporting requirements. We basically have 

to pay people to help us jump through the hoops and we rely on the school people and our 

partnerships. I imagine that everything is required to be complicated so that everything is in 

compliance with regulations so a broad suggestion might be to simplify regs which may help the 

complicated reporting processes. I just don't know. It's really a challenging question. 

Reporting requirements have long been a burden.

I REALLY appreciate the abundant training opportunities this year for reporting. They did a 

great job with that! I am not a fan of G5, however. It seems to be a one-size-fits-all platform and 

it doesn't really fit. Also, the reporting periods and VERY non-conducive to education. My 

reports include data that often cannot be measure until a month or so after the reporting period. 

This essentially requires me to compile data and make sense of it twice. I wish the Grant 

calendar aligned with the school calendar of nearly every school system in the country.

I wish that prior years data came over to the APR and that information did not have to be reentered for every APR. Goals that was done and completed should be able to carryover to the 

following year. Mistakes can get made when data is re-entered each time and then there are 

inconsistencies.

I think you could improve the reporting process by not having so much requirements. I recently 

did my first report and I was only given a week to submit, while other grantees were given 

almost 2 months. I think the reporting deadline should be extended by a few weeks or months 

to give proper time to report the data. There is a lot of data to report on and I needed 

assistance and my questions were not answered back in a timely manner.

More lead time would be appreciated with grant reporting requirements, especially when things 

change from year to year with the format and report requirements.

Having a video available to watch the explains how to track and manage GPRA and Program 

Measures. Also, have a document that explains the reporting process and best practices.

Use one consistent way to report data. Over the course of the grant we were instructed to 
83

complete the same form but in three different ways and using three diftime timeframes.

Simplified reporting. Better, more complete directions as to what information they are looking 

for.

I think G5 should have a workspaces feature like Grants.gov. Then, we could have a 

collaborative reporting process rather than handing reports over to a single person to enter. I 

believe that this process makes report entry cumbersome.

The webinar was good, but some questions regarding G5 balances and actual expenditures 

were poorly communicated. Reporting webinars and training might be accomplished earlier in 

the award process, allowing grantees opportunity to design and identify goals to work toward; 

for both GPRA and the Project.

Additional office hours during reporting period would be helpful. A couple dedicated talking 

sticks to the APR would be nice. The one that was provided was really helpful so 1 or 2 

additional would be great.

We have been a grantee since 2018. I feel this past year was the first year grant reporting 

process was the easiest. The first year, there was zero to little guidance. But it has drastically 

improved.

revamp the G5 system to be more user friendly.

No comment at this time

The new team for TA has been extremely helpful and informative. Keep up the good work!

1) APRs are required for the first 6 months of a school year; then requires schools to project the 

remaining 6 month of the grant year. Late OIE award notification can cause a school one

semester of start up time to begin their project (hiring process, etc). 2) If a grantee is awarded 

a Planning Year, the process must be clearer with allowable and unallowable costs, etc.

Revise the G5 system !! We should be able to key in data for the grant the first year and only 

the new information each year afterward. Goals and objcetives will be the same each year of 

the grant no need to have to type that in ech year. You should be able to view each years data 

at any time. That data would include: goals objectives, progress each year, and budgets.

Be consistent rather than changing the way we enter data.

The g5 system can be hard to navigate through sometimes but the helpdesk is pretty helpful

It improved my final year (2020), but in previous years, the reporting guidance was muddy and 

inconsistent. Keeping the date ranges consistent year-to-year would be extremely helpful.

G5 has submission limitations (characters, portions of forms, etc.) as compared to how we 

complete the actual forms, making the completion process challenging.
84

It does help to have talking sessions with other grantees to discuss issues and solutions, but 

sometimes the project staff on the DOE side of this are so busy they do not have much time to 

discuss a situation.

Q39. Describe how the technical assistance that Department staff provide could be 

improved to better support your program needs (consider content, structure, format, 

timing, etc.).

The technical assistance staff have gone above and beyond to provide the needed assistance 

to make sure our program needs have been met.

The technical assistance provider has been well connected and responsive to grantees to 

answer questions and assist, including clarification as necessary by the program officer. It 

would helpful if the technical assistance provider or program officers would provide an 

orientation to USDOE and OIE to all new grantee coordinators on the ground. Maybe they 

could provide this on a quarterly basis.

The technical assistance has improved. More peer interaction. We learn from each other

TA resource staff is very knowledgeable. They have helped me navigate through the very 

complex ACE budget and operation details. They provide timely response and come across as 

a supportive member of our team.

Our current support is timely and responsive. We just want to ensure Department staff and 

executives understand these challenging times especially in the area of having to expend funds 

within a very limited context due to the ongoing pandemic.

Post all information after trainings. Its hard to find.

N/A

I think the peer to peer information is really good. I would like to see more technical assistance 

and guidance on activities that the department thinks the programs should implement.

Opportunities for continued funding would be a very helpful resource for our program.

No comment; the TA that I have received was to the point and satisfactory.

No recommendations.

I don't know that I have received technical assistance from Department staff as I have used the 

contractors that they have hired to provide technical assistance rather than the US Dept of ED 

staff themselves - at least if I am supposed to be thinking about the last 12 months. So - I 

guess, US Dept of ED Staff have provided no direct technical assistance to our program or staff 

in the last 12 months - it has either come from [REDACTED] or [REDACTED].
85

Our program contact changed 4 times during our grant. We got different guidance from each 

one.

Sometimes email is slow to where issues never get handled and/or logging in issue are 

constant.

I appreciate the frequency of the OIEServices technical assistance sessions.

No suggestions at this time

The staff has definitely improved on providing more content in the training, are working on 

structure and formatting and getting back to us in a more timely manner, thank you.

The zoom webinars are helpful. Attending online is convenient and sharing the presentation 

content with other program staff helps as well.

I always felt supported by the technical assistance from the department. Timeframe is timely. 

Useful source for determining the specific needs of the tribes programs.

I enjoyed the webinars, they were very helpful.

Providing more webinars at the beginning of the grant fiscal year.

I'm not really certain. I used it once on reporting requirements and it was helpful.

This was the best year for collaboration and learning opportunities. The monthly meetings were 

more useful than ever with opportunities to break out with other PD's and/or share in the larger 

group. I cannot express how grateful I was to hear stories from so many other programs. It was 

so helpful for our own implementation here. The director meeting in particular was fabulous this 

year!!

The technical assistance has been great.

I think the department staff could be improved by answering calls/emails back in timely manner. 

I needed assistance and to reschedule a call but was never emailed back.

I have enjoyed the technical assistance formats this past year.

only provided one day program training which was once a year but not every year. Most 

questions were answered with - we will get back to you on that as staff was ever changing.

Once again, actual communication and a user friendly website.

I appreciate the online gathering. It was well directed and orchestrated. I prefer in-person, of 

course, but realize that COVID made it impossible.
86

More on Communication ideas for working with Native families and LEAs Types of professional 

Development provided and presenter bios Referrals and orientation to professional Native 

organization that OIE works with

Could really use "how to videos"

No improvements at this time

1) Have separate webinar training for Rural School Districts; then one for Urban School 

Districts. 2) OIE staff must have options for small rural school districts. My school district has a 

half-time Business Manager (we share with another school district).

The TA group we are currently working with has has done a wonderful job.

The Planner seems to be extra task and not really helpful to us.

Most of our meetings are presentation style, information sharing, and not a lot of interaction 

between grantees to learn more about one another's work, because of time constraints and the 

focus on providing information due to changes occurring

It seems difficult to get people to participate in discussions sometimes, but I think some of this 

has to do with project directors being very busy and it is hard to fit it into our schedules during 

certain times of the year.

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that 

provided technical services to you.

Youth for Youth

Comprehensive center

Help with contract language and budget revisions

Synergy Enterprises, Inc.

OIE

The Millennium Group International LLC

I forgot

Comprehensive center and regional laboratories
87

Equity Assistance Center

OIE Technical Assistance Team

OIE

The training we are receiving is from team that have been hired by the Office of Indian 

Education.

I just did in the last questions - [REDACTED] and [REDACTED]. They changed over on 

October 1, 2020 - so in the last twelve months BOTH of the different contractors have provided 

TA.

OIEServices

State departments of education receives technical assistance for state Indian Education from 

regional lab, comp centers,

Synergy Enterprises

Synergy Enterprises

OIE

Youth for Youth

Forms they seem to have created needed more clarity.

comp centers

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role?

Fairbanks Native Association Program Director

CEO

Director of Grant

Assistant Superintendent

State Indian Education
88

Director of Education

Tribal Administrator

Sr Director, Education

Project Coordinator

executive director

Education/Project Director
89

Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

No suggestions. Serves us just fine.

No recommendations at this time.

N/A.

They could remove out of date information from the front page sooner and place in archive 

folders.

more user-friendly and keep it current.

Very difficult to find information and uploaded materials. Luckily staff is helpful and knows 

inormation.

I never used this website nor did I realize it was connected to the HSI grant. I relied upon 

https://www2.ed.gov/programs/idueshsi/index.html and emails with our Program Officer for all 

updates and information. We are a college and do not utilize secondary / elementary grants.

I work at a post-secondary institution (community college) so do not use the OESE website 

designed for primary and secondary institutions.

Search engine appears to be generic and often does not give helpful results.

Redesign to make it easier to navigate and visually more attractive.

No changes.

Information on the website could be updated more frequently. Additionally, it would be ideal of 

some of the information that is archived could be more clearly indicated. Also, it would be 

helpful if all archived information could be made available on the website.

It can sometimes get confusing in the reporting section--I've lost data when moving between 

boxes on the form.

The only suggestion I have is on the new grant calls, where the multi-column format makes 

applications difficult to work with.

Simplify directions and have links directly accessible from document (eg. interim report)
90

Up to date, robust content & resources

Website currently seems outdated. A revised, modern website would suffice.

It's extremely confusing to use, so I avoid using it if I can.

More userfriendly, updates found at the top, news/announcements found easily, updated 

contact information

The current Department/Office of Postsecondary Education website is easy to access, 

navigate, and use. No feedback on how it could improve at the moment. Thank you!

It could be more interactive with easier access to the latest information

The previous question asked about "online resources on the OESE.ED.gov website" which is 

the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. I do not utilize this resource and cannot 

comment on the site itself.

The Department/Office of Postsecondary Education and its website is excellent.

I asked for assistance to the help desk because I was not able to access my GAN, besides the 

DUNS number never matched me as a Project Director in the system. My program officer is the 

one that sends me the GAN. Up to today I have never had access to my project through the 

website.

The website needs to be more intuitive and user friendly. For example specific rules and 

regulations for DHSI must be easily available on the website with one click. There's also not 

enough info on the website concerning grant competitions such as whether a institutions will be 

funded down the slate for a certain grant competition say for e.g. the FY 2020 Individual Part A 

Title V Grant Competition.

Integration of information. I am a new program director and I had to update my information in 

different parts of the system. I can see that links are broken in the DHSI website.

I have not used it enough to provide feedback at this point.

Pretty easy to navigate.

Provide better navigation and availability of CFR's for example. I had to look for this information 

separately.

Timely information about grants and project results.

During the interim report period, it seems that some of the questions were cut and pasted from 

the annual report site. As such, some of the questions did not apply. As such, it made it 

difficult to near impossible to answer some of the questions.
91

I am a brand new grant director. I think intro videos to have a general understanding on the 

website would be helpful. The liaison has been extremely helpful, but I think being able to 

navigate a general tutorial would be helpful for new Grant Directors.

I was looking for the slide deck from a particular application workshop and it took me forever to 

find it. There seem to be a lot of different websites for different groups associated with OPE 

(https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/programs.html), and I kept getting lost. It would be 

good to have the search results where you could filter by time and date. There are some very 

old things that wind up in the list, and it would be good to have "things in the last year" or some 

other daterange on top.

Could improve as mention is made and continue to collaborate with the grant

No improvements/changes are requested at this time.

The website is monotone. Could use a little more change in color and add some visuals.

I do not have any suggestions at this time. I have been able to find what I need as a new grant 

project director.

no recommendations at this time

The website is still not very user friendly.

Make it more intuitive for users.

N/A

I came on board in late April, so I think I might've missed the initial information regarding the 

additional resources on the website. I will make sure to access it, and provide more information 

in future surveys.

Information is very general and occasionally information is from last few years (not current). It is 

impossible to find forms or assistance so I have to contact the program officer. It has gotten to 

the point I do not even look at the website a 2nd time I just email the program officer. I am not 

the only one so all of us emails the program officer and then she has 100s of emails to review 

and it takes a few days to get the info back. I would love an internal site that only HSI grant 

recipients can access where up to date forms and links are located.

Updated info, more categories to click on

Search results provide too many responses and are too broad. If this can be tailored or a 

directory of information created, that would be helpful. Often looking for information leads to 

circular results (landing on the original page you started on). It's also time consuming.

It's workman like. I understand the need for government website conformity. Used to more 
92

Infographics.

The website is complete, organized, and has the necessary information accessible to users.

More user-friendly to navigate. Ability to hover over dense text, with a help tip or people terms.

n/a

This is my first time as Project Director the staff, resources, information are excellent. My 

Education Program Specialist is excellent and available to answer my questions.

When using it, navigating boxes and verifying documentation isn't the easiest based on how it is 

labeled. A button to sort from most recent to older documents would help that.

Update information more often

Have a team of experienced and new program directors make recommendations on what is 

helpful on the website.

It would be helpful to have estimated timelines of future grant competitions (i.e. estimated when 

application for eligibility will open, when the grant competition itself will open, when it will close, 

when awardees will be notified, etc. Or at least an outline of past timelines for past years' grant 

competitions would be helpful.

During the Interim Report documents were not labeled accordingly. A PDF version of an Interim 

guide referred only to annual reports and not interim criteria. Additionally the Interim Report 

itself would not allow multiple objectives to be added unless the data could be added.

Considering the many performance objectives and narrative needed to be included it would 

helpful if portions of information could be uploaded and then details such as final data be added 

later.

easier access

No Comment

I am not sure if it is an issue of improving the website or one of my lack of understanding terms 

and how to navigate in the Title V grant world. Sometimes it is difficult to find things as I think of 

them. When I reach out to the program officer, I am directed appropriately.

None that I can think of.

Highlight different sections e.g., boxex, font colors, Include a more detailed table of contents.
93

Q33. How could we improve the grant reporting process?

Satifisfied with the existing reporting process

No recommendations at this time.

Allow for more characters in the narrative. Give Project Directors warning when you are going 

to change the reporting so we don't have to scramble for data at the last minute. Revise the 

budget and LAA portion. This cycle I was unclear if you wanted personnel included in the LAA 

calculation.

Could put more detailed explanations as a link in the reporting system.

Differentiate between IPR and APR instructions. Clarity on how to report qualitative data as it 

does not fit the template/format.

Once the package is found it is easy to understand with exception of dollar amount and 

requirements of what works clearinghouse.

If there is a way to connect the PAR to the original proposal that would be excellent. If the 

profile could require translating proposal goals / objectives into the PAR, then we could 

consistently be called to report on those ongoing objectives and goals or directly modifying 

them, rather than starting from scratch each year (less consistency between reporting years, 

unless the individual filling out the reports is always the same). It would also be helpful to note 

that IPEDS information will not be available for grant years due to lags of information -- we used 

IPEDS for our graduation rate reporting to provide consistency. It was unclear if we could have 

used institutional data instead.

The legislative priorities and reporting definitions in the APR were very confusing. It took a very 

long time to understand what was being asked in the different sections of questions.

Eliminate replicated questions. Simplify the data requests. Make the report more useful to the 

user. Clarify how the data from the report is used- what is the purpose?

For grantees with an initial report and only 6 months into the grant, there were areas that were 

not applicable and directions could have been expanded for initial reports. It was not always 

clear how to complete performance measures (eg. surveys with multiple sections and not a 

total score). The user manual could provide more descriptions and examples.

No changes.

The APR format has been updated a number of times, affecting the way in which the data is 

reported with regards to impact. Additionally, the recent template provided in advance differed 

from the final version (example: approximately 200 words vs. 1500 characters with spaces was 

a significant difference.).

I am unclear re: the feedback process after the report is submitted.
94

None at this time.

To date we have only completed the interim report.

Aggregate information, shared results, best or emerging practices would be helpful

Clarity on APR instructions as well as workshops geared towards better understanding APR 

process.

Understanding the needs of the data the DOE is collecting could help the grantee collect the 

right kind of data.

Provide the purpose and intent of acquiring such data. Would like to see a benchmark analysis 

of how we are performing compared to other institutions. Feedback on reports.

It would be helpful to know how the reporting information is used and to have live trainings and 

webinars for every grantee before submitting a report. It is also confusing to complete the report 

as changes are being made in the system. The system changes should not be happening while 

grantees are actively completing the report. Some grantees may have lost data during those 

changes.

The option to copy from prior year reporting to current year and then edit for the copied content 

to current year would be ideal.

Provide the APR template in a easy to edit Word format instead of PDF and a year in advance 

so that we can complete it throughout year and guide our work. If new changes come end of 

year, it can sometimes be more challenging to collect data or write narratives. Also, it doesn't 

completely align with the online template, so that can create confusion too. I feel like the APR 

template could use some minor edits to make it more useful, it is very close to that.

They should provide more time in the Deadline for Submission and in increase the word 

quantity allowed to answer the questions, as they are limited.

This is my first time as a Project Director and because this is year 1 we submitted an IPR. I 

never understood the numbers and formulas of the objectives. Thankfully my project consultant 

was able to help me.

The APR could be streamlined and focused a bit more, at the moment it is quite lengthy and 

takes a considerable amount of time to complete. I think quarterly reports should be abolished 

especially when I consider how detailed & lengthy the APR is. Quarterly reports merely 

consume time that could otherwise be devoted towards grant management and activities.

Training for new directors or when there is a new report format. This year, I knew of the training 

by a friend after the training had happened. It is not clear how the DOE uses the information in 

the report. I would like training on how to evaluate the project, because i would benefit from 

learning more about program evaluations. The grant has a 5-year contract with external 

evaluators, but I feel we could have more orientation on what are best ways to evaluate for the 
95

HSI goals.

I am newly appointed to this position and this is my first time with the grant reporting process. I 

will be able to provide more feedback after I submit my annual report.

More clear directions as to attachments and appendices for the interim and annual report.

The APR should match the program goals and objectives as stated in the original funded grant 

proposal. The questions asked have moved in this direction over the 3 years of reporting but 

there is a lack of consistency across years and it's unclear how the information reported will be 

used to evaluate that grant goals and objectives were met or if not, why they were not met.

I think having webinars for new project directors can help navigate the APR process.

Provide a format in advance of opening the report. A consistent format from year to year would 

be helpful so we can start working earlier on compiling data, information. Provide us with a 

date for when the report will be or is anticipated to be made available. Ensure the report works 

correctly (with no errors) - we had to submit a ticket to fix a tech issue. Communicate early and 

often regarding deadlines and extensions - we weren't notified there was an extension to the 

reporting deadline until a couple of days before the original deadline. Allow for more document 

uploads rather than requiring us to fit our unique respective grant activities into a specific format 

(e.g. allow the upload of a spreadsheet for the budget/expenditures rather than having to 

individually type numbers into fields or allow for a .csv import of the data) The report format is 

difficult to see what information will be required throughout because it populates other areas as 

you enter data/text. We experienced getting almost finished with a section and then realizing we 

had to go get more data, but only after we entered information did we realized more was 

needed.

I had questions with regards to the Institutionalization section of the APR since our Project was 

just completing Year 1. Thus, the instructions should clarify what beginning projects are 

expected to do in that section. In addition, the instructions for the section: Approved Line Items 

should also be expanded or made more concrete to lead new directors towards accurate data 

to fill.

I found it VERY difficult to work with narrative passages because I could not resize the text 

boxes to accommodate the text. I have seen this feature on other sites. In fact, I see this 

feature on THIS survey! :-) I hope they can add that in the future. I also did not get a receipt 

when I submitted my IPR, and I wanted that information for my records. I got a receipt by email 

when I submitted the APR. I think the forms now are much better than they were the first time I 

completed them several years ago.

We are satisfied with the presentation

No changes are requested at this time.

More information on post grant award and expectations and desired outcomes of required 

reports.
96

I have only submitted one APR so far, and do not have enough experience to be critical of the 

process.

more technical assistance sessions during the year and summer

Provide clear instructions for each section of the APR.

N/A

I appreciate the ability to provide a narrative. However, the system locks you out after a specific 

amount of characters. I would suggest to remove the limitation. In regards to the support I 

received, our Program Manager was and continues to be extremely supportive and helpful.

The instructions are confusing. I would love to see the report that is prepared for congress.

More feedback on the APR

IPR instructions were not clear. For example, there was a question regarding institutional 

privacy polices. It was unclear as to whether it should be uploaded. Also, what constituted 

appropriate documentation was in question. No budget narrative was required, however after 

submission, my program officer dinged me on not having submitted a budget narrative.

When a new element of reporting is introduced (such as the cross tabs of expenditures to 

legislated DOEd earmarks), it would be helpful to get an advance "FAQ" resource, in framing 

our data processing.

The process for submitting reports is simple and well organized.

Provide more guidance and specific text about data requirements prior to APR opening date. 

Information about how you use the reports. Allow multiple users/administrators to login for 

viewing purposes.

n/a

When making it into a PDF, having it save in a format that doesn't cut off in awkward manners.

I was locked out of my account just before the submission deadline. This was due to the 2-

factor authentication and Verizon wireless having issues with SMS on that particular day. It was 

very stressful. I don't know how to prevent this in the future. I'm sure I was not the only person 

to have issues on that day.

It was helpful for me to see previous examples to make sure I was on the right track when I 

completed my APR. It happened to meet another director right before my first APR and they 

shared what they submitted a prior year for their grant.

1. Set and publish the due date or extended due date earlier to allow for better planning. 2. It 
97

would be helpful to have project manager workshops on preparing the APR well in advance of 

the annual due date (this would help to accomplish our next suggestion #3). 3. It would have 

been extremely helpful to see examples of completed APRs; these examples be discussed at 

APR training workshops and could be embedded in the template or provided as a separate link. 

4. The template could be reviewed to make sure that the "guidance" offered in some sections is 

actually illuminating information or examples and not just circular information that brings one 

back to the place they started with no better understanding. 5. Clarity on how these reports are 

used and whether any feedback is offered?

having examples available would be helpful. One section that could use more clarity is the 

budget reporting section. When grant director's use grantee flexibilities to make budget 

changes throughout the year, it has always been unclear to me how to report this on the current 

budget reporting template.

The sample version of the reporting form does not contain all of the questions. Sometimes 

there are additional drop down questions that appear that I was not expecting once I got into 

the actual form. Also, we had a lot of confusion over the endowment questions as we have a 

past Title V grant with an endowment and this one with an endowment that we have not yet 

begun to draw down. It was unclear how to answer some of the questions.

As a first-timer I struggled with the difference between guides and workbooks and it took me a 

few times to read to understand.

While completing the Interim Report, guides were not appropriately referencing material on the 

interim instead it was for the annual report. The cover page had some confusing language 

around privacy data and submitting certification. The inability to enter performance metrics and 

narrative without having the data was troublesome. Considering the time needed to enter the 

performance metrics and narrative it would have been nice to preload this information then 

return later as data was available and input it. Many of our metrics were out of order due to this.

I think if there was a chat service to the APR that would be excellent. As a first time user to this 

system it was very challenging and cumbersome trying to find all the information needed to 

complete this task. The system also wouldn't let me login for a full 5 days which put me in an 

ever bigger time crunch for the deadline.

Project Directors should always be notified of changes that are coming down the road. This 

years' APR was slightly different and we were not notified ahead of time what the changes were 

going to be. It is suggested that face to face when applicable or virtual trainings be conducted 

once a year to refresh and update all project administrators

Provide a session to review the report and allow participants an opportunity to ask questions.

There appears to be a disconnect between the application process and the reporting process. 

In the application we address ACTIVITY objectives, which are often outputs and processes 

versus for the grant we have measurable student objectives (enrollment, retention, completion, 

etc.). When we are asked to report annually, are we reporting on the ACTIVITY objectives or 

the grant objectives? Maybe this is an issue of how we wrote the grants, but it has never been 

clear to me what is expected on the annual report.
98

It is unnecessarily lenghthy, which means that time is taken away from providing services to 

students to complete the report.

Keep a consistent format. Explain APR to new grant recipients early in the award cycle. Make 

sure the evaluation in the grant proposal is aligned to APR expectations.

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role?

Title V Grant Director/Coordinator at my site.

Grant Project Director

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

DHSI - 2021 - Q16.2. Please tell us how the technical assistance you received 

from your program specialist this past year was affected by the pandemic, as 

well as any suggestions you have to improve the technical assistance you 

received should we be faced with future national emergencies.

The technical assistance was unaffected by the pandemic.

Technical assistance went well.

My program specialist is always responsive. Please provide guidance on things like 

airline credit in the future.

The Program staff were quick to send letters of guidance and information related to 

how the grantees could adapt their methods and grant activities to compensate for the 

pandemic. I think considering the magnitude of the adjustments and dispersal of funds 

they were faced with, they did an exemplary job.

N/A

n/a

She was always responsive and helpful!

Monthly reporting was transferred to another officer, but little guidance was given on 

how we should maintain monthly reporting or whether we had to. We all just went dark. 

Our grant ended in September, so we were able to wrap up cleanly without issue and 

the project was already complete, but if it had been mid-project we could have seen 

real communication and reporting barriers.
99

One issue is that I asked for a meeting and was denied an even thirty minute 

appointment due to lack of staff availability. It is hard to work through a complex issue 

over email alone such as a request for modifying a program objective due to the 

pandemic, so the ability to have a 15-30 zoom meeting would be very helpful.

I didn't receive any and did not know it was available.

More personal interactions.

Understandably, it has taken a little more time than usual for answers/guidance. 

Perhaps creating a blog that is updated frequently with program information? Emails 

are fine, but it would be helpful to have a site that can be reviewed for relevant updates 

that we may have missed.

n/a

Going through a key personnel change, program officer was supportive and 

understanding of challenges related to pandemic.

Timely guidance from the Department rather than a delayed response. Program officer 

was helpful answering in questions, but Department provided no guidance at onset of 

pandemic and project directors relied solely on other project directors for guidance on 

how to navigate through the pandemic.

I didn't receive or request any information.

Provide a national conference for directors during the time it is needed, not afterwards.

I did not need to depend on my Program Officer as much as other schools because my 

University provided a good plan of action, but whenever I submitted a request, my 

Program Officer was very responsive. It would be good to have a call or Zoom next 

time with all grantees to check-in on how they are doing and allow us to have a moment 

of peer support and open Q&A with Program Officers.

The technical assistance that was received from the program specialist last year was 

not affected by the pandemic. The program specialist always provided excellent 

service.

My Program Officer is excellent, [REDACTED] is easy to approach. I have o 

observationas, she is competent and reliable.

The Program Officers have a lot on their plate so sometimes the are not able to 

respond in a timely manner. I also think more info about funding institutions after grant 

competitions needs to be made available. We need to know for instance if funding 

down the slate after major grant competitions is standard practice or not and if not why 

it is done in some competitions and not in others? For instance funds for Programs that 

were funded down the slate after the FY 2015 Individual Part A Title V Grant 
100

Competition have now become available in 2021 yet right now we don't know if 

institutions will be funded down the slate for the FY 2020 Individual Part A Title V Grant 

Competition?

She was extremely responsive to all of my inquiries. She provided me with additional 

materials/resources that I was able to share out with the leads, in respective areas, that 

provided clear guidance on the implementation of the grant objectives.

I have received prompt and clear responses to my emails. I have not received general 

guidelines or instructions from the program specialist. Going back to the section on the 

Developing HSI program website, today is the first time I see this website. I didn't 

receive any orientation when I became a project director. I only received help from 

another director in the same institution and from AHSIE.

I am newly appointed to this position and did not request any technical assistance from

our program specialist.

Please provide more funding to the Program Officers. They have overflowing work 

plates. Department of Education staff like [REDACTED] have so much to deal with 

include direct contact with Grantees. Her staff work flow is overwhelming.

It became better with the new administration

Our program specialist was responsive to all inquiries; however, we didn't require 

technical assistance from our program specialist this past year during the pandemic.

Having an enhanced understanding of the local and state context in which the project is 

implemented.

As the new project director, I needed to get access to the APR as the new director, 

The help was quick, and I really appreciated the swiftness of the response,

I think the periodic emails we got from the program officer "checking in" with us and 

reminding us that assistance was available at need was very welcome. I think it would 

have been good to have a technical assistance workshop on dealing with COVID 

related strategies/expenses would have been nice, as we might have gotten more 

ideas from other grantees to help us serve students. I am generally pleased with the 

breadth of information that the program officers send out to grantees, but I would have 

liked more guidance specifically related to the pandemic and what program officers 

found acceptable and unacceptable with respect to our response as project directors.

It was not affected. They gave me a quality service.

Under the circumstances we have no complaints.

n/a.
101

Amazing support and flexibility during the pandemic

none. It was business as usual.

The program specialist was very effective and efficient when working with our program.

N/A

Since I came onboard, our Program Manager has been very supportive and has 

continued to keep us informed of changes and professional development opportunities. 

In addition, she is always available and willing to meet, which is extremely helpful as a 

new Director. I am extremely satisfied with the support I've received this far, and I look 

forward to continue to work with our Program Manager, [REDACTED]. She is truly 

amazing.

By Fall 2020 the assistance was great. I hope there is not another national emergency 

but if there is hopefully this experience helps set it up quicker.

Timely, useful info

The program officer assigned to me during the pandemic was not responsive. Though 

very knowledgeable, it was difficult to get email responses from them. I now have a 

worked with two new program officers. One is very responsive and knowledgeable. 

The other is also very responsive, however, this person is not knowledgeable to offer 

much assistance at this point.

Working from Home, 100% virtually, affected everyone, both here at our college and at 

the DOEd. We also know that the CARES Act implementation took a tremendous 

amount of energy on the part of the DOEd Staff. P.D.s had one Conference Call 

(Summer 2020). Webinars seem to have been reserved for Case Studies from 

successful Grantees. My first national DOEd conference with my HSI-related 

colleagues and our FPOs, did not occur in 2020. Our new grant (staff) tried to bridge 

this disconnect from your Website resources. We also attended the ASHIE 2021 

conference, which was virtual.

From the beginning of the COVID Pandemic, the communication was clear with a 

message of support and resilience. We received practical examples of how to access 

the new reality during the process of the pandemic. The assistance throughout the 

process was direct and assertive.

None

Several times I had to submit technical assistance requests (or password resets) to the 

administrators of the site where our Interim Annual Progress Report was submitted and 

the responses were sometimes hours later. In some cases, the reset codes I was sent 

were only good for a limited window of time that was exceed prior to actually receiving 

the code, thus, I had difficulty logging in on more than one occasion.
102

[REDACTED] was always communicative and responsive when requested. I'd 

appreciate for directors like him and specifically with the pandemic, being empathetic 

was helpful.

Overall the technical assistance I've received this year has been great. The only thing 

that I was concerned about was that I didn't receive early notification about the window 

for the APR opening.

Program specialist is always easy to get a hold of and helpful. I wish we had more 

resources FAQ's' listerv, best practices, traininings, and ease of finding things on the 

website.

We continued to receive excellent support from our program specialist and the program 

overall. We thought that the flexibility allowed in some areas, such as extending report 

deadlines, was extremely helpful.

I appreciated the initial guidance that was given about how we could use existing grant 

funds to help the College respond to COVID. However, I would have appreciated more 

guidance as time went by about how long the ability to use grant funds in this way 

would last. I know we were able to use grant funds towards our pandemic response 

efforts in Spring 2020, however, it was not clear to me whether this flexibility continued 

to apply in the Fall 2020 or the Spring 2021 semester.

General assistance has been lacking. We have sent at least 3 emails to our program 

coordinator and have yet to receive a response.

I would say that considering the situation of the pandemic the specialist did an excellent 

job at assisting us and returning calls in a reasonable and timely manner

I received three types of assistance. 1. Budget assistance. When we were not able to 

travel or arrange for some of the activities, we were supported in moving the funds to 

things we could do. 2. Program assistance. Because we had unspent funds we were 

allowed to move those funds to provide more support for students in online learning 

(purchase lending computers, etc.) that had not previously been planned. Support for 

students became integral to meeting grant objectives 3. CARES Funding. My institution 

had many questions about whether the use of MSI CARES funding came with 

restrictions. I reached out to the program officer for clarification and was able to share 

that with my institution.

I think it remained pretty much the same.

I did not see any change in the technical assistance I recieved from my program 

specialist during the pandemic.

DHSI - 2021 - Q16.5. What can the Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions do to 

improve communication with you?
103

Satisfied with the current communication

No recommendations at this time.

Easier access via phone would be nice.

Our program officer, [REDACTED], has been an excellent resource for us and a steady 

support through a tumultuous few years! We are so lucky to have had her. I do wish 

that we could have had a connection between the monthly and annual reporting, as 

well as clarify on the necessity of the monthly reporting (it often felt perfunctory and we 

easily forgot it in the hubbub of other duties). I also know that there is not a lot of clarity 

for when the next DHSI will be released, but a little more transparency on the website 

around "we are working on it" or "what to expect" would help.

It would be good to have an opportunity to have a 15-30 minute zoom meeting with the 

Program Officer when there is a complex issue to resolve. Thank you.

More communication.

The notification of the award was only 1 month before the start of the grant which was 

not enough time to plan for implementation, particularly during the pandemic (which is 

likely why the notification was late). The timing made it quite challenging. In general, 

all other communications have been very good.

More frequent updates.

Short "form letters" could benefit from a little more context and 'personality'

n/a

Communicating more often and about relevant information pertaining to prevailing 

topics of discussion on a national level.

Communicate on a more consistent basis, ie: monthly.

Provide updates about expectations, changes in legislature, and matters affecting us 

via email and on the website.

I have noticed that different grantees receive different information or resources, but 

they are relevant to almost all grantees. It would be helpful if APR trainings, webinars, 

and other resources and updates were made available through a common 

communication source to ensure that all grantees receive the same information.

Communication is excellent.

Communication is excellent, I do not have complains or observations.
104

Answer any question presented to them definitively and in a reasonable time frame. For 

example I asked if institutions will be funded down the slate for the FY 2020 Individual 

Part A Title V Grant Competition and up to now I still haven't received a 

response/answer.

In seven months in my position I received the communication to one workshop and this 

survey. I consider the communication non existent, I didn't know they communicated 

with Project Directors.

I have been satisfied with the communication from DHS.

All good.

More webinar

I think DHSI communicates adequately, and have been responsive to any and all 

inquiries.

N/A

[REDACTED] is awesome. She is very supportive and provides guidance when 

needed.

It seems that many of the communications that are sent are followed with a correction 

shortly afterwards. It creates confusion. More frequent and clear communication 

regarding reporting timelines, report format and and related changes as they occur.

I love the webinars, especially those from other grantees that focus on specific things 

that are useful to project directors. I would like to see more on assessment, on 

EDGAR, and on strategies for student success. I would like more guidance on how to 

appropriately build a culture valuing diversity, similar to the webinar from[REDACTED] 

we were invited to recently. I am thrilled that the Project Director's Conference will be 

online this year. I am looking forward to that. I hope that we will continue doing more 

meetings virtually so that we do not have to travel. I think that is much more efficient 

with respect to use of funds.

Communications have been timely and as expected. I am answered within hours.

no recommendations at this time

none. good job

Improve? Just maintain the professional leadership for us.

N/A
105

n/a

(I know it is difficult) but it is 8 months or so between application and award. The timing 

can be difficult when we receive an award notice late summer.

I'm not sure who the specialist is; if it's [REDACTED], she's excellent!

One of the current program specialists hosts virtual office hours. Many novice project 

directors bring up random questions and the specialist doesn't always know what 

guidance to provide. I would recommend stopping this practice until the specialist is 

more well versed in regulations.

Maybe monthly list-serv news e-mails? We recognize that legislation/administration 

was unprecedented.

At the moment I have no recommendations to improve communication because it is 

clear, continuous, and efficient.

More town hall meetings and one-on-one check-ins.

n/a

It's good.

NA

1. Provide more project manager trainings, including a first year training as soon as the 

grants are announced, and more detailed trainings on specific topics such as preparing 

a solid APR report and maintaining the budget including process for requesting 

changes and alterations. 2. Communicate report deadlines or additional reporting 

requirements with more advanced notice, or at least communicate about when 

communications will be forthcoming. As the end of our first year approached, we 

wanted to know when the APR was due. The website posting was too vague to provide 

any guidance so we inquired directly and received several different answers including 

"October 1" (which was quickly corrected to "around October 31"), and then we 

received these responses to our follow up inquires: "about three months after the end 

of the fiscal year," "sometime after November" and "no sooner than January 1." It was 

a relief when the website was finally updated to with the actual April deadline.

Not having the project directors meeting during the Pandemic, though completely 

understandable, was a real disappointment for me. As a new project director, I really 

felt like I needed in person communication with the program director and peers who 

were going through the same experiences as me. I am hopeful that the online event 

this year will help me to feel that I am in better communication.

We have not heard back from our specialist despite multiple emails.
106

Our new officer is great.

I do not feel I have needs in this area.

Nothing. My Program Officer is great.

No imporviement needed

DHSI - 2021 - Q16.6e. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with 

your program specialist?

MS TEAMS

email is best whether it is individual or a blast doesn't matter

DHSI - 2021 - Q16.7. How would you advise on improving the overall process and 

protocols associated with this grant competition?

No recommendations

No recommendations at this time.

It would be easier to have longer lead times from announcement to application 

deadlines.

N/A

n/a

In addition to email phone conferences would be helpful.

Have at least one team member act as the radical outside-the-box thinker for an 

idealized version of grantmaking. This grant is based on more equitable practices for 

Latinx students and their success. Reflections on equity in grantmaking are leaning 

toward Participatory Grantmaking ([REDACTED]) and Community-Centric Grantmaking 

([REDACTED]). The Wikimedia Foundation is a major organization operating in multiple 

countries that struggles with the bureaucracy of grantmaking, and they have a lot of 

smart practices around community-based and de-colonized grant giving. At the very 

least, it is useful to recognize how the grant application process is rife with barriers to 

entry and blocks the participation and success of the very institutions you are looking to 

support. I have been very impressed with the NSF ADVANCE Catalyst track which 
107

allows an open-ended deadline for brand-new applicants and gives them support from 

a program officer as they develop their first application to the program. The NEH offers

a review period, which would be a welcome addition for new applicants. On a higher 

level, it would be very generous to offer an institutional submission test or feedback to 

identify whether lack of funding is due to proposal issues or submission errors (e.g. 

missing or wrong information in the various forms on grants.gov). Finally, as an 

awarded institution that is still new to the process, we are just developing the habit of 

preparing our application well in advance of the RFP. It would be much appreciated to 

have a guided workshop on how to draft a successful application BEFORE the RFP is 

released (e.g. most of section A can be developed ahead of time, and institutions could 

prepare their project logic model, timeline, and org chart as supplemental and 

informative materials to support the proposal writing).

Understanding if applicants can apply for a multiple grants at the same time, or when 

we can re-apply for a subsequent grant is hard to obtain. Clearer more available 

information on this applicant eligibility would be helpful. Also, the eligibility waiver 

process is fairly onerous.

Early notification of grant competitions for planning purposes.

No changes.

Some of the language could be clarified. A recent competition included conflicting 

information.

Additional, up to date options for required research.

NA

Provide a FAQs and 2-3 national webinars during the competition.

Provide specialized assistance to institutions who are new to applying or do not yet 

have the experience or resources to complete a competitive grant application.

I will like more trainings as Project Directors, Chancellors and other staff. Sometimes I 

feel that I need everybody's approval before sending a simple message to my Program 

Officer. I will like that the HSI Dept. of Ed. offer a mass workshop for my Institution but 

focused only on our project to answer questions.

The process by which institutions are funded under DHSI need to be more transparent 

and there definitely needs to be an APPEALS PROCESS after proposals are scored by 

the 3 Reviewers. At least there needs to be a standard concerning how Reviewers can 

differ when they score a particular proposal: e.g. scores for a proposal of 109, 108, and 

99 are not fair - what did the 3rd Reviewer see that the other 2 Reviewers didn't?

I don't have experience with grant competition.
108

I don't know.

More time to complete the package

N/A

Overall I am satisfied. I am very happy that DOE communicates with me regularly

(1) The Dept. of ED RFPs (the proposal guidelines) are not as clear as with other 

agencies. For example for NSF the RFP can be a PDF document of several pages with 

very clear info on the formatting, merit points etc. The Dept. of Ed does provide that 

information, but the format of these RFO (usually in the column format) is not as "eye 

friendly" as with the other RFPs that I am used to. (2) Also, some programs open for 

solicitation once every few years (e.g. the McNair Program), but that is not very clear in 

the website. As an early career faculty member, I am not very aware of these program 

deadlines which come out in cycles, the website could be more explicit on that.

The technical assistance workshops are great, but sometimes they are too close to the 

submission deadline. I had a difficult time finding the slide deck which was posted 

sometime later. The registration process was easy and worked well. It was concerning 

when the submission website sometimes failed close to the deadline and you did not 

know whether the deadline would be extended or not. I like getting all the emails that 

confirm when each step of the process is completed between submission and 

assignment of the project number. Having these receipts is very useful.

Great process in place, no improvement suggestions.

When grants are scored and comments returned, there is no way to complain if there is 

a mistake in the scoring. We have had project elements with cited weaknesses that 

have not belonged to the grant application in prior competitions. There is no recourse 

for correction when this happens.

Teams webinar did not work well at all. A lot of vagueness with requirements. Some 

conflicts in what is in the federal register and what is in the application guide (84.031C). 

Would greatly help to have standard forms instead of broad statements about what 

needs to be submitted/attached, including abstract, promising evidence, and budget 

narrative. A lot of micro-level details in the application guide which can be easy to miss 

and cause big loss in points. With all this said, Jymece has been amazingly responsive 

to questions and we appreciate her guidance and support. She was a great hire and is 

doing fabulous work so far.

n/a

more transparent feedback from reviewers that align numerical scoring with qualitative 

feedback.
109

Frequent follow-ups to remind us about the process and protocols. Speaking for 

myself, I have administrative, teaching and research responsibilities on campus and 

need gentle reminders.

N/A

n/a

Dont know, just more information

No suggestions

Create more targeted webinars that can be archived and accessed as needed - on all 

parts of the grant - from application to grant closing.

N/A. Our grant staff were not yet hired when the grant application was made.

The overall process and protocols associated with this grant competition it's clearly 

aligned with the goals, objectives, and purpose of the agency.

Make it more accessible and spread awareness to institutions who are eligible.

n/a

Announce earlier and provide examples.

NA

clarity but overall it is fine.

Clarify whether you are looking at grant goals, grant objectives, activity goals or activity 

objectives and how to think about that structure. In my experience, institutions use the 

concepts of goals, objectives, indicators, measures, outcomes, and outputs in very 

different ways. Perhaps sticking to the logic model would work, asking applicants to 

clearly identify the outcomes (objectives) of their grants as they relate to the Title V 

Goals (enrollment, retention, completion...). Setting the logic models up this way would 

clarify what we address in our reports. It might also provide clearer guidance for 

evaluations of grants. I advise creating a logic model for each grant objective that is 

specific to the activity. Providing a template for this logic model would be very helpful to 

the writers and the readers and can force institutions to think through their proposals 

carefully.

No advice.

I do not have any advise about this issue.
110

Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad (DDRA)

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Sometimes the current year's data are not updated

They could provide more detailed information about the grant process, both the application and 

the guidelines for awardees/country specific information, perhaps adding the fellow handbook 

and that type of information in a more searchable format. Something more user-friendly, similar 

to the IIE Fulbright program's website (state dept.)

The DDRA website (https://www2.ed.gov/programs/iegpsddrap/index.html) is not visually 

appealing. It is static, and rarely updated. There are no photos or engaging stories. The 

information on grantees is broken out year by year (and sometimes missing for a given year) 

and the data are not presented the same way for each year. Sometimes there is a Word doc, 

sometimes only a Google map with pins. At a minimum, having a searchable database with 

search parameters (e.g., country of grant, US institution, discipline of grant) would be useful.

Update the look; consolidate historical information on the sites/pages under relevant headers so 

it was easier to find

Keep it up-to-date and move the most relevant information for applicants from the very long 

PDF to the website.

I may have evaluated the wrong website. I couldn't find Fulbright-Hays Doctoral Dissertation 

Research Abroad when searching the OESE.ED.gov website. I primarily use the 

https://www2.ed.gov/programs/iegpsddrap/applicant.html website so that's what I evaluated. My 

biggest complaint about that site is that the application instructions are a 118 page word 

document that sometimes contains conflicting information.

Archaic and outdated language. Lack of reference materials of the application to send to 

applicants, often unavailable and I have to use an old application. No up to date videos or 

tutorials and those that are available have bad audio quality.

Does this site (referenced in the question) even have Fulbright-Hays DDRA information on it? 

I've only found this site: https://www2.ed.gov/programs/iegpsddrap/applicant.html Very little 

information is available, which is frustrating for someone who does not work with grant 

applications very often yet is expected to serve as Project Director. The site looks dated.

In setting up a new PI for our account, it was very confusing to understand the different 

levels/terms associated with the PI role.

The RFP for the upcoming grant cycle , once released, should be available on the website as 

well as in G5
111

No suggestions here. I have not personally experienced any issues.

The site is very "government" in that it contains a lot of information and users need time/training 

to access it.

I was not aware this website was associated with the DDRA program. The websites associated 

with DDRA are dated.

Q33. How could we improve the grant reporting process?

I believe a more reasonable application timeline and the deadline for the DDRA application 

process would make the application/report process a lot easier.

The IRIS system is cumbersome and outdated. It would helpful to have a dashboard of all 

active grants instead of a separate login for each. In addition, it would be helpful to have easyto-view information on when things like no-cost extensions or hiatus requests were approved. 

The reporting requirements for the fellows themselves is fairly straightforward, but the 

management of fellows before and during their grants is clunky.

Our recipient this year was not able to travel due to the pandemic so extended his award.

Clarity on website with a resource section dedicated to PIs.

Reporting requirements are not clear. We were told that one school had developed some 

resources as a guide, but they were never shared, and it doesn't seem like Dept of Ed has any 

in-house materials. We could use some kind of calendar of when things need to be processed.

Simplify. Make easier to access what needs to be submitted when -- and not just in a confusing 

handbook.

The pandemic has caused our student to delay travel and we have not had reporting 

requirements (that we are aware of).

The pages on the DDRA Application Instructions document should be numbered

Overall it is fine. I am an experienced user, thus have learned the idiosyncrasies.

I am not familiar with this report.
112

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role?

Assistant Dean of the Grad School

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

DDRAF - 2021 - Q21.2. Please tell us how the technical assistance you received 

from your program specialist this past year was affected by the pandemic, as 

well as any suggestions you have to improve the technical assistance you 

received should we be faced with future national emergencies.

It's been an understandably difficult year with regard to research abroad and I know 

there were a lot of unknowns at all level. But communication is still rather spotty and 

vague and there are answers to questions about delayed reopening/extension of grant 

time frames that I have not been able to get clear answers on. And, there seemed to 

be some lack of cohesion.

Of course the pandemic caused enormous problems in the DDRA program, and I feel 

like our office extended plenty of grace considering the circumstances. However, we 

have had ongoing problems getting questions answered, and getting firm answers even 

when we do get a response. Some of this is due to the ever-shifting playing field, I 

understand, but we feel the program officer could be much clearer in communication 

and in answering questions. We ask things so our own campus oversight departments 

have back-up for monitoring our grant, and feel like it's difficult to pin down answers 

from Washington.

There were a few times when I did not receive a response to a question, or received a 

response that the issue was being looked into but then I never heard back again. That 

said, more recently the responses have been more timely as things start reopening for 

student travel.

N/A

We were granted several important exceptions for fellows that were enormously helpful 

and made the process less stressful and made experience for fellows much easier in a 

high-anxiety time.

Please communicate more clearly about grant extensions. It was somewhat buried.

I believe that any shortcomings on the part of DDRA program specialist were a result of 

the nature the pandemic in that no one had comprehensive knowledge/understanding 

of the even-changing situation
113

The main issue during the pandemic was the uncertainty of international travel. Lots of 

questions did not have clear answers because there were no clear answers.

Answers from the DDRA office are often slow. Some communications are unclear.

[REDACTED] (and her team) did a very impressive job responding reasonably and 

flexibly to an unprecedented situation. The students and I were grateful for that 

flexibility.

DDRAF - 2021 - Q21.5. What can Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad 

Fellowships do to improve communication with you?

I have great communication with [REDACTED]. Early on in this pandemic period, 

communications around funding availability and next steps did require some 

interpretation and conversations between myself, my Director, and the Associate Dean 

of Student Support. After that work was done, I followed up with [REDACTED], who 

was able to answer all my questions. She still continues to answer my questions and 

help me navigate DDRA funding in this pandemic period.

Reply to emails in a timely manner, with clear and full answers.

Please respond to our questions that we ask. I've found that about half of my questions 

go unanswered and I have to prompt [REDACTED] again by email for a response. This 

is particularly frustrating because I'm often asking questions on behalf of my grantees 

or applicants - they aren't supposed to reach out.

It would be helpful to have more of a heads up on when the deadline will be. It's already 

difficult that some years the deadline is in February and some years it's in April, but 

made even more difficult by the fact that there is not much advanced notice so once the 

application opens it is a scramble to get everything done in time with internal deadlines. 

I'm on a listserv of graduate fellowship advisors and there was chatter in January 2021 

on our listserv because nobody knew when the application would open or be due, 

which makes it difficult to advise students.

Weekly emails summarizing important reminders instead of emails that seem to be last 

minute.

Probably a couple webinars on COVID-19 issues would have helped as things 

developed.

Respond to questions.

I felt like I was supposed to be the DDRA expert when serving as Project Director when 

I received little to no guidance -- other than to read the handbook, which was often very 
114

confusing and not helpful. There was a webinar for the application, but no other 

webinars or trainings for Project Directors.

Create opportunities to share ideas with other PDs

Responsiveness to questions/issues is generally good. I do get the impression that 

staff at DDRA are overworked because sometimes response time is delayed.

Be more timely both in providing broadly applicable information and answering specific 

questions. Allow student applicants to contact the DDRA office directly.

Perhaps occasionally being a little friendlier.

Reply to emails in timely manner, provide sufficient and clear information, and provide 

updates on a regular basis.

DDRAF - 2021 - Q21.6e. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly 

with your program specialist?

Depends on circumstance -- all of the above at times. Training - webinars; updates -

blast email; specialized questions - email or phone
115

Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

No comment.

Great website - but nothing replaces the TA we receive in person at meetings.

I do not have any input at this time.

Searches often result in old documents that are not in effect and that is difficult to determine 

without a careful review.

Searchability of information could be improved.

N/A

While we realize the vetting process is exhaustive prior to providing us information, this delay 

causes much anxiety at the state level

It's just the nuts and bolts because NCHE provides more detailed info - it is what it is. Super 

formal.

I rarely use the website and rely solely on links provided by EHCY staff.

No suggestions

n/a

I would like to see additional resources on working with our funding, including strategies, forms, 

and, language to use in communications, defining terms related to funding specific to the 

EHCY, and resources for potential opportunities that could be made available to meet with our 

federal director in small groups to discuss funding and obtain guidance.

Improve the links to the complete McKinney-Vento Act; especially the one without red line 

changes.

Not sure what to recommend, but I just feel like the site is hard to use. I have also had several 

homeless liaisons tell me that as well. It just does not seem user friendly for me as a state 

coordinator

no suggestions at this time
116

Excellent website.

None

Really can't think of anything

Better search capabilities.

When you search within ed, it seems to pull up old documents. It would be helpful if all 

documents posted were ADA compliant. I always know if I go to USED EHCY, it is only for a 

couple of basic items. But since ED provides us with a TA center for the rest of the items, I 

guess that is okay.

The site is very "vanilla" and plain. Also, some documents are difficult to find because of the 

organization of the forms. Coming from a state coordinators perspective, perhaps a section 

dedicated to state coordinator resources would be a great feat.

No ideas

Q21. Please describe how the PROGRAM OFFICE could improve the quality and 

usefulness of our documents, including policy-related documents. In your response, 

please identify the name or type of document(s) your comments address (e.g., nonregulatory guidance, newsletter, blast emails).

Guidance is often tailored to meet the needs of larger urban districts with access to a wide array 

of programs and services in the local community. Information is often not well-suited to districts 

located in rural and frontier communities.

I can't think of anyway to improve - just keep adding new information.

N/A

N/A

The speed at which the non-reg guidance is dispersed is slow, but great guidance once it is 

released.

ARP non regulatory guidance, continue with newsletter and emails.

n/a

Please see the last comment provided.
117

N/A

Sometimes there are questions that are hard to answer as they are grayer than the wellhandled black and white - and those questions are most often ignored. I'd like to see 

documents that help untangle some of the gray.

I think the documents provided are useful and easy to follow

Overall documents are well organized and very helpful - no suggestions at this time.

None

None

Organize files and materials in order of importance and relevance.

I would love more guidance on managing the fiscal part of the grant. Examples of SEA/LEA use 

of funds, if allowable, and if not, the citation on why it isn't allowable. Texas used to have a 

Compliance Handbook for MV EHCY subgrantees with a supplemental FAQ with answers. 

While it is very state specific, something like that from the USED would be helpful, for both the 

SEA and LEA level. I know the intent of being vague is to allow for flexibility, but it makes me 

feel more vulnerable to get in trouble if I am not following the letter of the law. Not once have we 

been provided PD on EDGAR or other fiscal grants management areas. Posting examples and 

promising practices is helpful, like the monitoring and the state plans, has been very helpful.

No ideas

Q33. How could we improve the grant reporting process?

No comment

It was helpful at the State Coordinators meeting when John described how data was 

incorporated into the risk factors for monitoring, It would be helpful to have more of this.

Have McKinney-Vento Coordinator more directly involved with data submission

I can not think of any improvements at this time.

Data collection guide is published AFTER the dates for the data that must be collected.

N/A

N/A
118

I wish that I had the previous year's data earlier than December/CSPR so that I could do 

program planning around it.

n/a

I do find that I have a clear understanding of what I need to submit/ report to the USDE 

although I do with the data. If there are other reports then I would like maybe a communication 

at the start of the year of what it is with the due dates and the document, a mid-year reminder 

say in January, with the forms and deadline date, then one reminder 30 to 45 days before the 

deadline.

N/A

No suggestions at this time

Another Department in our Agency submits the reports.

None

None

Once you have done it a few times, it gets pretty easy. It would be nice if ED could provide 

SEAs with a was to easily pull data from the CSPR report that would fill a template of a nice 

report comparing outcomes by subgroups and MV trend data. Or at least create a template and 

tell us where to find the data to fill it in by hand. It is hard to get SEAs to do anything with data if 

it is not required by ED, and some SEAs want to sweep gaps with specific subgroups under the 

rug, especially race. They definitely don't like us pointing out the difference between housed 

and homeless students in poverty, or students in poverty versus students not in poverty. And 

MAKE Title IA report their funding to outcomes!!! I am feel that you have not explained 

specifically what date we must report for ARP-HCY. They say it's the same as what we typically 

report, but in the dear colleague letter, it says we are to be able to report students identified and 

outcomes from programs funded by the ARP Homelss funds.

It would be helpful to have all states on the same cycle of distribution and make all a 3 year or 2 

year cycle. More consistency would be great. Best practices for states would also be 

appreciated. Information by state for roles within the office would be helpful as well.

More guidance needed

Q39. Describe how the technical assistance that Department staff provide could be 

improved to better support your program needs (consider content, structure, format, 

timing, etc.).

Department staff have never made me aware of the possibility of requesting their assistance in 

developing program materials. The department has never offered peer-to-peer learning 
119

opportunities to me. I have had opportunities to do this through the TA center, but not with 

USED staff.

I appreciate US. ED staff participating in National Association meetings/conferences (NASPA 

(summer & winter sessions, NAEHCY, etc.) and would like to know when they will be 

participating in others. I appreciate when they hold question & answer sessions during NCHE 

events - webinars, annual meeting, etc. Thank you for taking feedback regarding how the 

ARP-Homeless should distributed.

Move up Department Staff that is familiar with the program.

N/A

N/A

I feel like we need more guidance for the ARP funds.

I have not participated on or aware of a lot of TA opportunities through EHCY.

n/a

I would like to see more creative documents to use with districts such as a tool for expanding on 

data with the liaisons so that they can begin to understand what their data means and how to 

make program decisions using it, informing others, etc. The data feedback we receive is robust 

from [REDACTED] and I would like to see more,

N/A

All TA calls and opportunities to connect virtually have been very helpful, especially in the last 

year. No suggestions at this time.

None

Quick replies on technical assistance questions is imperative

I have basically been (not from ED)n told to go to NCHE for such things, not to bother ED 

unless it is a question about the law or a dispute, etc. But as I said earlier, PD on fiscal 

management (EDGAR, CFR, MV, etc.) on allowability and common findings.

the team has been extremely helpful. They can be duplicated :) for more assistance. LOL

No ideas
120

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that 

provided technical services to you.

National Center for Homeless Education

- Regional Laboratories (REL Northwest - Ed. Northwest)

All the above except 21st Century

NCHE

NCHE

NCHE

Specific information on ARP- Homeless 1 funds.

National Center for Homeless Education (NCHE)

Comprehensive Centers - direct TA Attended webinars from the following: Regional Labs, 

REMS TA Center, and Y4Y

NCHE

NCHE

National Center for Homeless Education

NCHE

NCHE

NCHE

NCHE

NCHE

Equity assistance centers and readiness/emergency management for schools

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role?
121

state coordinator

State Coordinator

SEA Staff

Program Specialist/State Homeless Coordinator

state coordinator, program consultant
122

Education Innovation and Research Programs

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

The navigation is tricky. It may be that users (like me) may lack understanding in the different 

types of programs & may stray into other programs' information. I find myself back in OESE 

pages often & have to re-direct my search for EIR-specific information.

N/A at this time

Better translation of Federal Register information about grant programs, and qualifications for, 

and descriptions of grant programs

No suggestions. Everything I need from the website is readily available.

There isn't really a website for existing EIR grantees. It would be helpful to have one.

I think it would be helpful to not have so many connecting links to find the information you are 

looking for.

It's sometimes hard to find prior-year RFAs. Also, last year I recall some delay in posting the 

winners' applications.

I think the website is sufficient.

This is pertaining to the reporting task - it was difficult to use with all browsers.

If we could be sent alerts with links, I would use this site more.

It's fine.

Include more timely updates.

More timely and up to date information, including research reports from grantees that have 

completed their grants. Contact information for program directors, external evaluation partners, 

information from technical assistance providers, etc.

It is cumbersome to navigate and the information seems outdated.

The website is great in that it includes information from past grant recipient proposals and 

reviews. There is not much about what to expect for future programs. I understand you may not 

know that, but most of the times I have visited the site it has been to learn about future 

programs.
123

I am currently satisfied with the site for purposes needed.

The initial visits to submit invoices required assistance from customer service who really helped 

learn to navigate the system. The instructions on these initial pages could cue users how to 

navigate the site would be helpful.

It could be more attractive and user friendly. Right now it is more like a library of resources 

rather than organized attractively by topic area.

As a project director i had 0problems looking at the records of grant documents. Not sure why it 

is NOT straight forward to see all dcoumentation ralted to the grant.

I haven't looked at the website, sorry.

Well designed.

N/A. Our team didn't utilize the website throughout the grant.

It is not intuitive in most instances. It takes several tries or guesses to find the info needed. This 

is cumbersome and often frustrating.

The website needs some freshening. The information is there but as a whole it needs a new 

look, and a new structure.

The documents are often difficult to find and information often seems outdated.

It's not some place, because of the design, that I go to for resources. I go to the website to read 

other funded grants or look at my own. I may occasionally look for a powerpoint from a meeting.

As a grantee, I don't use the website much at all. I/we reference it mostly in planning for future 

competitions.

Fewer words per page - better categorization so we can get a sense of the "buckets" and then 

click into what we want detail on.

Website needs easy navigation of partners or others doing similar work Regular and timely 

updates on website

My sole piece of advice is to keep the layout modern and make sure all of the information is 

current. In other words, keep up the good work, and thank you.

Program officers could point grantees to resources available on the website.

I only recall using the website while preparing our i3 grant proposal in 2014. I don't think I have 

meaningful feedback since I spent so little time on the website. One issue we had was with 

securing our private matching funds. The i3 Foundation Registry was not useful. I would 
124

suggest either deactivating that feature, or finding a way to make it more useful to prospective 

grantees. (Maybe host webinars where foundation program officers can discuss their priorities 

and representatives of prospective grantees can attend and make contacts?)

I have not used the website very much and therefore have no opinion on how to make it more 

useful.

The search engine pulls up too many unrelated documents. Seems like it could improve in 

pinpointing to the information one is interested in finding. Maybe have it by category. Also 

seems to operate on an "or"" operator if you put in multiple search terms. Maybe provide the 

option to search with an "and" to limit hits.

Remove expired links from Google search

I have often felt in the past that the site is outdated, and there is not an easy way to find current 

information. I also notice sometimes there are some redundancies / loops when I have tried to 

navigate the site - keep getting bumped back to the same page, even though that's not what I'm 

looking for.

Add dropdowns beneath the menu options in the toolbar across the top of the page. It takes 

many clicks to arrive at your intended destination. Dropdowns would help to make it more 

obvious what's contained within each section of the website.

Keep information current. Last Modified: 06/21/2017.

The website could be more user-friendly with an interface that guides the user to where 

he/she/they might find the needed information.

The reporting process was very difficult to navigate. There are so many different forms requiring 

the same information and I was only made aware of one of the forms by reading the fine detail 

on another form. It was all very cumbersome.

maybe it needs to be, it just seems like very simple, basic, and limited information is available 

for grantees. certainly meets many needs for those inquiring about the program.

Finding information can be a bit challenging. In searching for information, the title has to be 

specific or there is an immense amount of information to sort. This may be an issue that cannot 

be rectified due to the number of grant awards and awardees.

The website has some broken links and is not always updated on when webinars are viewable. 

The forms are labeled, but descriptors of their uses are vague. Sometimes the links from help 

topics are not what is needed. The help search engine you use often is not as useful as a 

Google search for topics/ names/ terminology that are on your forms.

None

Awardees were broken up into early phase, mid phase, and expansion projects. We found it 
125

difficult to find information specific to each phase and how they are related to each other.

Q21. Please describe how the PROGRAM OFFICE could improve the quality and 

usefulness of our documents, including policy-related documents. In your response, 

please identify the name or type of document(s) your comments address (e.g., nonregulatory guidance, newsletter, blast emails).

Although not every communication specifically applies to our project, that is not a fault. No 

communication plan could be designed to perfectly fit each recipient. I don't have suggestions 

here.

N/A at this time

More clarity on the purpose of the documents. They sometimes lack accompanying context 

which makes it hard to know why I'm receiving them. Also, some emails come from other 

organizations on behalf of DoE, and their relevance to the support currently being received from 

DoE is unclear.

none

More communication (e.g., a newsletter) would be helpful. There currently is none.

I think that in order for the documents that are sent to be relevant or make sense the program 

office needs to take a minute or two to explain what we are about to see or read -- my officer 

was changed several times and half the time they had no idea what was going on with our 

project or how they could help.

I like the blast emails.

No problems here.

The APR documents could include a checklist and some additional specific examples. This 

would be especially helpful for new grantees/PIs.

We don't get many newsletters and without in person directors' meetings it has been hard to 

learn from other partners.

Get a proof-reader. Sometimes the cut and paste from previous work is comical.

None at this time.

I can't think of how to improve communications across grantees and the varied questions/needs 

of the large group. It's my job to scan the communications to see what is relevant which you 

make easy to do when receiving details.
126

As a 2016 grantee, I have seen a wide range of technical assistance. When I started I had 

regular meetings with my program director and it seemed like there was a wide range of 

available support if I needed it. In the last couple of years, these emails/newsletters seemed to 

have become a lot fewer. I have appreciated the webinars and someone on our team has 

attended a couple of them.

We are trying to figure out how to ask for more time or a match waiver due to COVID impacts. I 

don't know which document might include that information but I haven't seen anything relevant 

to my issues that I can recall.

Documents received in a timely manner.

Too much legalese/ jargon is used overall. The writing style is stilted and one has to read some 

sections a couple of times to figure out the message and intent. I am a PhD and former English 

teacher, and thus technical writing would not receive high marks!

Policy and webinar documents need to be more detailed. I understand they must be general 

but there have been times when key details are missing. I understand that there were lapses in 

oversight during the previous administration and the staff has done a brilliant job of fixing 

certain situations that arose from gaps in forward-facing documents. Every question I've had 

has been IMMEDIATELY and expertly answered by a cadre of hard working staff. I would name 

names because I feel that strongly about their commitment and passion in the most difficult of 

times. Suffice it to say that I have not been disappointed by their knowledge and caring. 

Everyone from [REDACTED], [REDACTED], [REDACTED], and [REDACTED]- the program 

has succeeded because of their efforts.

In the past 12 months, we did not receive many documents other than some COVID guidance 

documents. Those documents were helpful in a directional sense. We did find some 

slowness/lack of coordination when we posted questions related to the pandemic impact and 

the Program Officer did not have an answer. Questions sent to the wider ED COVID response 

did not receive timely or clear answers.

NA

Customization of documents for grantees Examples and support for communication to 

stakeholders

Nothing

More specific information related to the grant we received and the goals we are trying to 

accomplish.

I think it's difficult for a document to address the full range of grantee situations. Whenever I had 

a question about how a document applied to my specific situation, [REDACTED] l helped us. I 

don't really have any specific concerns about the documents we received.

I noticed that the instruction for completing the APR on G5 this past year were not as clear and 

complete as in other years. I had to pull up an older instructions document.
127

Perhaps it's just the listservs I am subscribed to but my fellow grantees often have to forward 

me pertinent emails I haven't received whereas I often get blast emails that are unrelated to our 

current grant or interests.

It might help to ask grantees what questions or concerns they have and address the most 

significant concerns in a timely matter.

They seem to be written from the point of view of the administrator wanting the information but 

not from the perspective of the PI giving the information. A bunch of User Experience Testing 

would be useful I think

increase the frequency of communications (slightly)

Bulleted information with less words and organize the data by subheadings for specific grants.

I'd like things explained in a more verbally instructive way. It is often difficult to know what is 

needed, the source of dat for forms, and/or the depth of detail being sought.

None

We are currently too early into our implementation of the project to provide useful input related 

to the quality and usefulness of the documents.

Q33. How could we improve the grant reporting process?

No suggestions. General directions are good; specific questions can be handled by program 

officer. Most recently, our program officers have been excellent in their communication efforts 

(but not always the case in the past).

After submitting the interim and annual reports, it would be helpful to receive confirmation the 

report was received and feedback on what was submitted.

Everyone has been very helpful and smooth reporting process

The system used to submit the APR is not terribly user-friendly, but that may just be the user. :-)

Simplified online upload, be more realistic on the front end of accepting applications about 

reporting specific data points. Encourage applicants to cut down on reportable areas as much 

as possible, and perhaps have some optional additional reporting categories if programs want 

to.

Reporting requirements are especially hard for new grantees to understand. I find myself having 

to consult other grantees with more experience to obtain advice on how to file reports and 

changes to grant status (such as changing PIs, etc.)
128

Improve the userfriendlyness of entering the information online.

I would like to know more about how the Dept uses the data provided. The G5 is sometimes 

hard to navigate.

More clarity on where IRB information is supposed to go. Forms for reporting specific 

performance measures could be more flexible, e.g. allowing numbers and ratios, and allowing 

space to report aggregate and disaggregated outcomes for same measure. It's also a bit 

onerous to have to upload a separate form for each measure.

Having to use the online interface to enter information for each indicator seems very inefficient. 

Perhaps there is a document that could be submitted instead.

The part of the APR where you input #'s and percentages could use more explict instruction or 

examples of how to input the data/numbers.

Feedback on quality/content of the annual report would be great. We did not receive any 

feedback.

It was difficult to navigate the reporting requirements for the 1st year. It is actually quite 

complex. By the 5th year, it was much easier. Also, not all browsers were user friendly with the 

report requirements. Tech help was available and helpful. It was never made clear what 

happens to the report once it is received by the USDE.

The grant reporting process is fine.

G5 is not clear and requires prior knowledge to work in it. Things like delegates and how you 

have to separately submit each piece.

The G5 website is not very user friendly. Entering information and uploading documents is 

cumbersome. It's not clear which document is the most recent in the grant documents section. 

And, it doesn't include all the grant documents or information shared by program officers.

The G5 system is terrible. Half the time we end up emailing everything to our program officer 

because there aren't places to upload everything that is asked for in the APR

It is in-depth and useful, but I have no idea how they use it.

Not sure how the department uses the data collected from the grant; have never received 

feedback on the APR over the 5 years.

Our research design changed significantly from our proposal. We didn't know that we should 

update our data fields based on the evaluation changes until our current Program Officer 

mentioned it to us. The session held to review this data was extremely helpful. Questions were 

promptly answered when we asked questions when submitting our annual report.

It is fine. It never occurred to me to know what you all used the data we reported for (I assumed 
129

compliance), but it would be interesting to know.

Make it less cumbersome. I can never remember how to do the GPRA forms, and each year I 

have to figure it out again.

Reporting requirements were clear

I don't have any targeted improvement, but I can share that I found the conference that I 

attended very useful for both the evaluators and the programs/grantees, the topics were wide 

and interesting, the facilitators were excellent and there were many opportunities for peer-topeer collaboration during and after the events.

Thankfully our independent evaluator handles most of these reporting requirements. I have 

read over the instructions and got a headache, then referred the report to our evaluator!

I am very satisfied with the grant reporting process. I've been involved with DOE grants for a 

while and the process is much better now.

The performance objectives that were submitted when the application was submitted and 

ultimately awarded are likely to change based upon reality for the project. There is essentially 

minimal way to address or change these in the annual reports or within the online reporting 

system. I would suggest some level of flexibility to rewrite or amend these based on project 

goals that may change once the project has been awarded.

G5 is a bit clunky, but I find it to be self-explanatory. Our Program Officer has always been very 

responsive and helpful when we've had questions on reporting.

I understand that you need specific data on outcomes. Not all these data are essential for our 

internal improvement. Not sure what to do about that!

[REDACTED] is a true partner. She makes the process easy.

Don't know yet, haven't yet been through the grant reporting process.

It would be helpful to be able to review all of the required documents/parts for the Annual 

Report submission in one document (rather than having to open multiple files one at a time). 

This would allow us to better assess the entirety of what we need for the report at one time. It's 

hard to get a big picture of what is needed for the report when you can only click/see one 

document at a time.

Data entry in G5 is a bit tedious. It would help if we could somehow copy the previous year's 

report as a starting point for a new report. If that's possible I never learned how to do that. It 

would also help greatly if project directors could designate one other person who could log onto 

G5 and only have access to enter reporting data.

I answered this on last question.
130

G5 is so clunky. And I only work with it a few times a year! I imagine an investment in upgrading 

that system would really help Department workloads, thereby helping everyone, including 

grantees. Your staff is so good, I hate to imagine them spending their valuable time on that 

system!

For some reason, our organization had lots of trouble accessing the G5 system. It took many 

tries to actually get access.

While tutorials for reporting in G5 exist and are very comprehensive, they are difficult to find and 

lengthy to adequately support users in navigating a system that is not very intuitive. Making 

these resources more obvious, even by highlighting them in email during reporting periods, 

and/or offering quick start guides would be helpful.

Improve the ease of use of the G5 system and provide accurate technical documents that 

actually match content the user should be seeing on their screens. Provide project officers 

viewing capability, so they see what the end user can see to avoid being bounced back and 

forth between the G5 help desk staff and program officers, especially when the help desk staff 

is unable to provide specific programmatic assistance.

This is our first year in this grant (first 6 months) so I don't know how the reporting will be yet.

The process is easily understood but cumbersome. It might help to let grantees know that they 

cannot wait until the last minute to submit a report.

Autofill information that overlaps forms. Don't ask for the same budget information in different 

ways. Have the Performance measures doc more user-friendly, flexible, and relevant to 

different types of grants

It would be great to have training and help tutorials on how to do the forms for new staff. Ofen 

we are faced with delays as our team talks with your team to solve questions. There are no 

good guides for the process.

I have only had to submit one APR to date, but during my first experience, I found G-5 to be 

unintuitive to navigate and is clunky to use. The format of the data reports, for example, is far 

from self-explanatory. Also, I found the multiplicity of written guidance (cover letter, instructions, 

etc.) to be dense and somewhat contradictory, as opposed to helpful.

None

Not applicable. We are not required to report until 2022.

Q39. Describe how the technical assistance that Department staff provide could be 

improved to better support your program needs (consider content, structure, format, 

timing, etc.).
131

As things get back to a post-pandemic new normal, perhaps the frequency could be increased, 

with a variety of delivery options.

The most technical assistance we receive is from the contractual group for evaluation. There's 

been little to no communication with the department staff in the last few years.

N/A at this time

Smaller facilitated meetings with people working on similar grants. Examples of well done 

research papers and APRs. Community driven problems of practice (e.g. collecting parental 

consent).

Program officer relationship and communications works quite well. But other assistance is hard 

to gauge. Some of the services mentioned in the previous page I don't know about.

Assistance can be improved by having the program officer understand the program you are 

implementing and being responsive to emails when we have questions -- sometimes it would 

take over a month to get a simple response

My TA has been utilized for the evaluation tool development. Her expertise and assurance that 

my evalutors are experienced and know what they are doing has been comforting. She checks 

in often to make sure our evaluators are on schedule to meet the submission dates.

[REDACTED] was a wonderful person to assist us through our project. She was kind, 

insightful, helpful and knowledgable. She was always trying to problem solve and enhance our 

project, considering the unique situations.

I wasn't that clear about what this is referring to. The webinars have been ok but not always 

must see.

Program officer ([REDACTED]) is amazing.

Provide a website or portal to access the services and/or links to webinars. Consider having an 

in-person conference instead of skipping it like in 2019 or having a virtual one in 2020. A virtual 

conference is better than no conference, though.

The department could do more to encourage collaboration among grantees. It is unfortunate 

that the directors' conference is not in person this year. That is always a great opportunity to 

learn from other projects.

There's a lot of dead space between the beginning support and end support.

I believe this was a stronger component at the beginning of the grant. Project director's 

meetings (f-2-f) were great, but there were a couple of years when project director's meetings 

did not occur (and this did not include COVID. I'm sure this was due to a change in 

administration, but nonetheless was disappointing not to be able to have on a yearly basis. 

Also, a big part of the grant is the program officer. We had SEVERAL and the two most helpful 
132

and engaging program officers were [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] - they were outstanding. 

It was difficult to have so many though.

The TA for the program evaluation and research has been extremely helpful and responsive to 

our program. Our Program Officer this past year has been extremely helpful and asks questions 

that help us learn about ways to leverage the resources within the program. It helps to 

participate in the best practices webinars to learn more about approaches, modifications, etc. to 

improve program outcomes. Sometimes you don't know what you don't know. It could be 

helpful to summarize the resources available so grantees are more aware of the resources.

As a 2016 grantee, I met with my program officer monthly for the first year of the grant. After 

that, I only talked to my program officer if I had a question. That program officer left (and she 

never reached out to say that she was leaving) and a new one took her place. He introduced 

himself via email and has always been very responsive to any question I might have. I suppose 

there are ways that our project could benefit from a more proactive program officer, but I have 

appreciated the trust that things are working well.

I miss having the project directors meetings as that was where we got the most information, 

help and insight into programmatic goals.

Creating purposeful relationships with related grantees would enhance the opportunity for 

success.

Thus far, I have not received any helpful assistance for implementing our project, but we have 

also not needed much except clarification on a few requirements. I was very disappointed with 

the virtual conference sessions in this past fall's conference. They were primarily directed to 

project evaluators, not to directors if projects. It was difficult to find anything applicable to my 

role or project.

The evidence practices can be a challenge for all because there seems to be changes to some 

of the evidence language from competition to competition.

To be honest, I am unclear what TA from the Department staff should include or look like. Our 

PO has always been very communicative, responsive and attentive. But they have not 

provided things beyond funder management activities.

This is a difficult role for ED to play....We are so focused on deep implementation that our 

experience and needs feel unique. We are reluctant to "pull up" and find the common threads 

and lessons. This work needs to be done extremely well not to seem like an insufficient use of 

our time. This was made especially difficult in a pandemic year.

When we were facing difficulties, [REDACTED] found us another grant partner that could assist 

us.

Specific technical assistance related to the common challenges for grantees, resource 

materials, resources for new grantees.

The PI conference was very helpful.
133

Aside from project director meetings and webinars hosted by the Department, we receive most 

of our technical assistance from Abt because they are able to more closely tailor their advice to 

our project and evaluator's needs.

The responses pertain to implementation-related TA, which we have not needed. The 

evaluation-related TA provided by Abt has been very useful.

None

We are too early in the implementation of our project in order to provide input on improvement.

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that 

provided technical services to you.

REL Appalachia

Evaluation service provider

Abt

Abt

Abt Associates evaluation services are extremely helpful and proactive. I am not failiar with 

others.

[REDACTED], subcontrator for Abt Associates

[REDACTED]

REL Northwest

Technical Assistance for EIR grant evaluators.

Our external evaluation team received technical assistance on WWC requirements.

We've received technical assistance from ABT Associates in relation to evaluation and data as 

we're getting ready to launch our program.

We have received assistance from our own Region II Equity Assistance Center as well as some 

assistance from other Regions. We have had occasional chats from comp centers.

EIR APT Support
134

Regional Laboratories

Abt, through i3 evaluation TA

Abt Associates

Abt Associates

abt Associates

[REDACTED]

ABT Associates

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role?

researcher

Professor - PI

Program Director

Professor and PI

Director Of Operations

Non Profit Leader

Project Officer/Advisor

University Faculty

Research Director

Advisor

Project Manager

PI and Program Chair

researcher
135

PI of grant

Research organization

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

EIR - 2021 - Q48.4. In what ways can i3/EIR program staff strengthen its support 

of your project-specific work? 

No suggestions, sorry.

The webinars have been very convenient and helpful

I want to mention here that [REDACTED] is an absolute gem of a program officer, and 

has been so knowledgeable and supportive throughout our various ups and downs 

over the course of the grant, and in particular this last year. If you can, please clone 

her, and have her run the whole program she is incredible. The technical assistance 

has felt non existent this year, and the annual meeting didn't feel particularly helpful. In 

the past aside from the annual in person meeting I don't feel like the TA was useful 

either. I'm not really sure what it would look like, but I am imagining more of a mentor 

type relationship across similar grantees. It would have been great in my first year to be 

paired up with a more advanced program to help navigate the complexity of the EIR 

grant, and I would be happy to give that time to someone else just starting. I feel 

completely separate from the rest of the grantees, and would like more opportunities to 

connect on a personal level with folx.

Connections to grantees doing similar work

A clear description of the support roles and services so its easy to know who or what 

department to contact for what kind of help.

Cross-project sharing around implementing similar school improvement strategies. 

Support for project directors to keep abreast of new research and programs relevant to 

our projects.

More opportunities to learn and share best practices and learnings would always be 

welcome.

Perhaps quarterly scheduled check-in and protocol with talking points to have 

conversations with between the i3/EIR staff and project director to ensure the project is 

on track and all expectations are being met. My Program Officier is fantastic with 

prompt replies to questions and providing details when I ask questions. The 

recommendation would be so I have assurance I am asking the right questions and 

meeting expectations.
136

[REDACTED] has been very responsive.

I didn't deal much with Abt, but our evaluators seemed to have no problems

We've had 4 program officers in 4 years. Stability in that role would be great because if 

the program officer doesn't know our project (or others) they can't connect us to other 

project and they can't promote our work.

My program officer and abt support person have been excellent. Very supportive of our 

success but also firm in holding us accountable to the program criteria. However in 

planning for the 2021 cycle I made a request to the EIR office on June 7 and have 

never received a response other than the standard "we will respond to your email" 

statement.

Have project director's meetings on a consistent, yearly basis, f-2-f (when possible). 

Encourage grantees further along to provide lessons learned to new grantees working 

on similar goals. Perhaps they could act as "mentors" for new grantees. Additionally, 

and not sure where this frustration belongs, but it hasn't gone unnoticed that those 

entities who seem to be receiving the funding opportunities appear to be companies, 

universities, etc. with little funding opportunities going towards elementary and 

secondary education school districts. Although these entities may put their product into 

elementary and secondary school districts as research opportunities, the oversight 

does not occur within the district, nor does the funding. I would encourage the office of 

elementary and secondary education to rethink who receives the funding and 

understand the implementation, oversight and funding would be better served directly 

with school districts and be of greater benefit to students in those districts.

Our research partner have been very pleased with their interactions and guidance 

received by Abt.

I suppose that program staff could be more proactive about our project and check in 

more regularly to support us.

The Abt TA is one of the best parts of the EIR Program, she has been very helpful and 

informative.

We received quality assistance

I think scheduling quarterly check-in or more frequent contact throughout the 

partnership.

The past few years have been difficult for cross-project collaborations. During the 

Obama administration, there was face to face opportunities that lacked remote followup. During the last administration, it was ALL remote and that was absolutely not 

always great. Grantees absolutely need both.
137

We have appreciate ABT Associates. I often run things by our assigned mentor prior to 

discussing with our program officer because she seems to have more knowledge and 

experience. We have greatly benefitted from this resource.

NA

Na

More guidance for new grantees on the expectations such as reporting, and costsharing. Opportunities to learn from other projects who are doing similar work.

I did not work directly with the evaluation TAs, but our evaluator was very happy with 

her collaboration with Abt.

The technical assistance we have received has been outstanding and very helpful. 

Thank you!

Offer regular check ins (monthly or bi-monthly) with the program officer assigned to the 

project.

We are well supported and appreciate the teamwork.

Abt has a way of doing things that isn't always the best fit for a project. When we were 

able to sit down and discuss, after several meetings, we were able to be 

accommodated, but it wasn't without stress. I think more listening rather than talking 

from Abt up front would have circumvented a lot of the ill conceived preconceptions.

None

No specific recommendations at this time.

EIR - 2021 - Q48.5. What technical assistance experiences enhanced your 

capacity to implement your i3/EIR grant? 

Redesign of evaluation model and strategies (resulting from the effects of the 

pandemic).

n/A

Abt has been wonderful in assisting us with our evaluation. We really appreciate their 

services and expertise.

I can't think of any.
138

Abt has been helpful in asking questions to push our thinking as we design the 

evaluation.

Evaluation support from Abt Associates

[REDACTED] has been exceedingly helpful with the evaluation plan. [REDACTED] is 

our program officer and she is amazing. She is always available if we have a question 

and the monthly check-ins were wonderful.

Project Director/Evaluator convening Fit/fidelity webinars Discussions with program 

officer (churn early in the grant was challenging in this regard but once stabilized has 

been great)

Opportunities to collaborate with the TAs on the fidelity matrix.

She meets with us and helps us deal with issues caused by the pandemic.

Calls with our program officer.

Opportunities to network with other grantees.

We really haven't had any.

working with the abt consultants. meeting with program officer to show her our work 

and getting her feedback.

Definitely having a program officer that was engaging and enthusiastic about the goals 

and objectives of your grant. [REDACTED] and [REDACTED], in particular were 

phenomenal to work with, very responsive to emails, and very helpful.

We had to redesign our entire evaluation model so Abt scheduled working sessions 

with us to walk through the changes we needed to make. It was really helpful that we 

submitted drafts in advance of our working sessions and our Abt rep came prepared 

with feedback and suggestions.

Networking with other grantees and personalized support provided

I very much appreciated the annual conference. My program officer has been 

supportive when we have spoken.

We have had many discussions about evaluation design and have learned a lot.

Timely and corrective feedback

Our first assigned program officer was very kind, but not very detailed in her 

assistance. She has since retired and our new program officer has quickly learned his 
139

role, read up on our project, and has been very helpful and responsive. [REDACTED] 

has been a pleasure to work with.

During our I3 grant, [REDACTED] advised from the very beginning at the first DC 

meeting. Our staff and [REDACTED] met for many hours after that first meeting. We 

had consistent meetings about our project that allowed us to implement a rather 

complex model seamlessly. [REDACTED] came to San Antonio to see how our project 

worked. It was a fantastic experience and one helped program implementation. He 

consistently gave us advice during key transition times in our EIR grant as well. 

[REDACTED], who has retired, helped us greatly during our APRs in our EIR grant. 

While the system had occasional issues, she helped us answer questions about our 

program objectives. [REDACTED], solve GAN and key personnel questions within 

minutes- literally. He is a great partner for our current EIR endeavors. Their work has 

been invaluable.

Direct conversations about moving project objectives and performance objectives due 

to the pandemic. Conversations about evaluation of our project and writing statements 

for the annual evaluation report.

meeting with the ABT consultants to get feedback on the research design

I think the only major TA support in the past 12 months was the Project Director's 

meeting last fall. It was OK - there were some good sessions. The technical set-up 

where no one but presenters were on video led to some lower engagement in my 

opinion.

Uncertain if our evaluator had TA and the extent to which they found it helpful. Our 

program officer has always been extremely responsive.

Na

Regular check-ins with program officer. Technical assistance webinars.

Availability to meet with Abt jointly with external evaluators to discuss challenges and 

brainstorm solutions.

I don't really have any examples of technical assistance for implementation. I'm sure 

they were very good but I don't recall seeking their help.

Guidance in changing evaluators; guidance in adjusting our research design.

They provided useful information on the evaluation standards.

Assistance with process, design, and technical details associated with execution of the 

RCT portion of the project. Very helpful!

Opportunities to talk with grantees doing similar work/experiencing similar challenges.
140

Discussions about rethinking measures and outcomes as we tried to address the 

changing landscape of pandemic education.

Our program officer, [REDACTED], is THE BEST. Though all the other parts of this 

project have been very difficult, she has been the shining star above it all. I don't mean 

to sound unnappreciative for the EIR grant. We are very lucky to be able to do this 

work. But the technical systems, and amount of reporting, is a major drain on the 

project's productivity.

Regular and customized technical assistance. This helps us address any issues as 

they occur and keep the project moving on track and aligned to expectations.

Evaluating performance measures and determining assessment needs for project.

Monthly discussions, shared power points, and questions answered especially on 

writing performance objective and preparing for the APR

The technical assistance provided by ABT to our research team has provided clarity 

and direction to proceed with our IRB process and program design.
141

Education Stabilization Fund-Rethink K-12 Discretionary Grant 

Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

NA

It is easy to navigate. Looks good

As we move into year 2 of the grants, new resources posted that help to identify supports and 

ongoing updates, particularly to support the APR process.

Q21. Please describe how the PROGRAM OFFICE could improve the quality and 

usefulness of our documents, including policy-related documents. In your response, 

please identify the name or type of document(s) your comments address (e.g., nonregulatory guidance, newsletter, blast emails).

NA

None

Q33. How could we improve the grant reporting process?

NA

None

We have just begun to prepare for our first APR for this grant so these questions are somewhat 

premature. I anticipate having more feedback later in the year.

Q39. Describe how the technical assistance that Department staff provide could be 

improved to better support your program needs (consider content, structure, format, 

timing, etc.).

None

We have not had a lot of formal opportunities for TA/gatherings. I don't believe this grant has 

much of a budget for this. However, our Project Manager always asks what help we need and 
142

has always attempted to meet our requests informally.

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that 

provided technical services to you.

[REDACTED] HAS BEEN AN EXCELLENT LIASON FOR THE RREV GRANT. SUPER 

RESPONSIVE AND HELPFUL IN A VERY TIMLEY MANNER.
143

Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

More direct paths to the three different ESSER programs

More options in the heading titles

No comment regarding website revisions at this time.

Ensure all materials are posted in a timely manner.

The location of the "resources" link in blue box on the right hand side of the screen doesn't jump 

out as an active link. It would be helpful to link it with the other hyperlinked resources that are 

directly in the main text of the program description.

It is simple and straightforward

Improve the search capability. When I need something I just look for it because the search 

does not find what I am looking for. It might be I am not using it correctly but it does not seem 

intuitive like other website searches I use.

The search box on the pages has not been especially helpful in trying to find guidance. Also, it 

would be helpful to have the actual CARES Act bill easily accessible on the webpage.

Inquiries are responded to in 60 days or more and past take the ability from the SEA to respond 

to LEA with a reasonable timeframe.

Record information sessions with slides and place them in a prominent place on the website.

Overall the new design of the website made it easy to locate many of the necessary files 

needed for the ESSER program.

Q21. Please describe how the PROGRAM OFFICE could improve the quality and 

usefulness of our documents, including policy-related documents. In your response, 

please identify the name or type of document(s) your comments address (e.g., nonregulatory guidance, newsletter, blast emails).

Understand the challenges of starting this new program, but there were delays in getting 

guidance out that hurt implementation

No comments at the moment, they are very good.
144

The major issue regarding the FAQ's was the timing of the releases. There were many decision 

points needed regarding allowable cost the kept states and local school systems on hold 

regarding implementing their plans due to lack of final resolves (i.e. how to handle construction 

cost with ESSER funds).

The largest challenge is the timing on the release of the documents. I certainly appreciate that 

the U.S. Department of Education staff are working under extreme timelines due to 

congressional action. However, it's challenging to have state due dates for action while FAQ 

documents are still pending. An example of this would be expectations that ESSER II was

awarded prior to the release of the updated FAQs. It would be helpful to consider the state due 

dates in alignment with the availability of guidance.

The most recent USED FAQ was definitely welcome in its level of comprehensiveness. 

Previous documents had sometimes not achieved a level of detail that was sufficient to address 

our concerns or issues.

Share more about allowable and unallowable uses.

Much of the guidance changed and requirements were not released as quickly as they were 

needed. Non-regulatory guidance was helpful.

FAQ lack the ability to fully provide all applicable aspects related to UGG and EDGAR which 

the SEAs need have to ability to understand.

Continue to provide the language. Then answer the questions posed with "yes," "no," or 

"maybe." Program managers could even say, "Yes, as long as....," or "No, not unless....," or "It 

depends on how the SEA interprets...."

ESSER reporting requirements are not clear. Idaho had many unfilled data elements in the 

ESSER I annual report because we did not know beforehand the level of detail USED wanted. 

Will the next annual ESSER I report require the same data collection? I understand that the 

completed ARP ESSER State Plan fulfills the CRRSA Act ESSER II 6month reporting 

requirement - but what will be required for the next CRRSA Act ESSER II report? The reporting 

section in the ARP ESSER GAN (Attachment T) was helpful, but more guidance is needed.

Changes throughout the program in relation to Equitable Services made the documentation 

difficult to use at times.

Q33. How could we improve the grant reporting process?

There were significant challenges with the ESSER reporting portal, including accuracy and 

clarity, These concerns are ongoing as we get closer to the next reporting period. Also, the 

reporting period does not align to established grant periods and state fiscal years, leading to 

data challenges.

More time in between every report.
145

There appears to be an assumption at ED that states have the data requested for reporting 

readily available, however in many instances this is further from the truth. The specifics of the 

data need to be shared on the onset of the release of the funds so that states can develop 

proper reporting protocols for school systems to provide the data timely to complete the report. 

Because states are rushed with data reporting it reduces the level of quality of the data.

The release of the grant reporting platform with less than 60-days for training and data entry 

was very challenging. As a state leader, I ran into challenges creating a password for access. I 

reached out to the help desk every 48 hours for over three weeks before they were able to get 

me in. This left very little time for data entry and validation. The timing was an incredible 

challenge. Additionally, as a state we received feedback that there were errors in our 

reporting. However, when we went to address the errors, the system did not allow for editing 

(such as questions that used "yes/no" slider responses, where we were asked to remove our 

answers, which was not possible in the reporting platform since once you answered you had to 

choose "yes/no"). Ultimately, we were told to ignore the feedback from our data review. This 

was also challenging, as state staff spent time to find a solution that was directed from the U.S. 

Department of Education that was ultimately not possible.

The data collection for ESSER did not set SEAs up for success, was too rushed, and did not 

leave SEAs time to set up effective data collection infrastructure.

Reporting requirements not defined with grant award. Cannot tell LEAs what they are going to 

report on ahead of time for tracking and coding. Specific data requirements not easily tracked or 

captured (do not cross walk to accounting systems). Redundant emails to confirm data (5 

separate emails to confirm that our data was correct). Reporting requirements are a major 

concern for our LEAs and SEA.

NA

nothing specific for this process.

Excel data uploads requested from SEAs are beyond a basic users ability and usually takes 

multiple attempts to accomplish. What to report is not extremely clear and subjective based on 

FAQs provided.

Inform SEAs in advance about the data that will be required. That way we can be collecting 

data from the start and not have to overwhelm LEAs with last minute surveys or mine multiple 

sets of data that our SEA collects at the last minute.

See previous text box.

It would be helpful to receive the data requirement in advance of the portal opening.

Q39. Describe how the technical assistance that Department staff provide could be 

improved to better support your program needs (consider content, structure, format, 

timing, etc.).
146

[REDACTED] has been incredible.

A more dynamic treatment and a better timing in their responsiveness. Also, they should 

provide more details in the meeting agenda about the topics they will discuss in the meeting so 

that the [REDACTED] could obtain the data in advance and use the meeting time in a more 

effective way.

The Department should be in a posture to expound more on the guidance and FAQ's rather 

than read a script to states that really doesn't provide the fundamental information states need 

to implement effective and efficient ESSER programs. States are vulnerable in this area and 

really won't find out if implementation protocols are on point until the programs are monitored 

and audited.

I appreciate that slides have been made available in a timely fashion from current office hours. 

Those resources are very helpful and should be continued.

Our Program team ([REDACTED]and [REDACTED]) are an important and reliable resource. 

We have experienced significant delays in getting urgent questions addressed (not from 

[REDACTED] and [REDACTED], but from working groups).

Do more than just read slides which is basically what office hours is.

Having non-regulatory guidance and DCLs are more helpful than webinars. Also, if the 

department is hosting webinars, please solicit questions in advance so answers can be given 

on the webinar.

Set up a teleconference. Explain the why the requirements are what they are in clear language.

Idaho has a great program officer with [REDACTED]. He is one of the most attentive and 

responsive program officers we've had. We really appreciate him. I understand that there are 

times when [REDACTED] must confer or send a state question to the policy team. The content 

in some of the responses we receive are vague and some are not timely. Perhaps more staff 

would help?

The Office Hours format has been helpful.

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that 

provided technical services to you.

Northeast Comprehensive Center

Our state is receiving technical assistance from the Comprehensive Center to build our states 

capacity to calculate ESSA program allocations.

Regional Laboratories
147

WestEd

NDTAC

I think it was region 13

Comprehensive Center 17 and Ed NW REL provide excellent support. I'm curious about the 

Equity Assistance Center...

WestEd

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role?

Policy Advisor

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

ESSERF - 2021 - Q70.8. Describe how the Office of State and Grantees Relations 

can further empower you to make decisions about the implementation of your 

ESSER grants

By providing more information directly to us.

OSGR can empower state representatives by updating guidance timely regarding 

program requirements and articulating data reporting elements closer to the release of 

the funds.

At this point, we have awarded all of the funds as required by federal direction. We 

would seek additional support in subrecipient monitoring, noting the expedited timeline 

around awarding and implementing these funds.

More realistic timelines, better guidance regarding CDC recommendations.

N/A

Provide responses to questions within 14 days.

Really need subrecipient monitoring specifics and at the moment 'pre-approval' capital 

asset projects. Current FAQ does not address all UGG requirements.

Offer regional (because I am in a small state) live office hours rather than webinars.
148

The clarifying guidance is important. I'm using this space to make a couple of extra 

comments: 1. The Neglected or Delinquent Education TAC has not been helpful or 

useful this past year. Communication is poor; the website and resources are no longer 

available like they used to be; and responses to questions are untimely and not helpful. 

2. CCSSO is another very helpful resource.
149

English Language Acquisition State Grants (Title III, Part A)

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

A bit frustrated to hear of DoE rep for title III say that your best guidance is via power point. I 

would like to see guidance on the interplay of title III and: private school specifically that is not 

outdated, consortium practices, what exactly should be monitored specifically for title III and 

how that could or would relate with civil rights issues, interplay with other titles, I feel like some 

of the guidance for Emergency funds is coming post pandemic and throughout was not specific 

enough for title III. I would like to see more guidance on allowable expenses and would like the 

title III grant GAN to come a bit earlier, so title III doesn't lag behind other grants. I think it 

would be great to have State Stakeholders meetings where we can ask direct. questions.

There is just so much to go through when looking for something. A chat feature would be 

helpful.

I think the website is a lot better now.

Perhaps it's me, but I have difficulty when searching specific 20 USC citations. The supporting 

guidance documents are excellent and easier to find.

I find the USDOE Title III site difficult to use.

Provide specific guidelines as it relates to students and not just the law. Answer questions as it 

relates to state and school level. Communicate with State level assigned designee and offer 

assistance and guidance monthly. Send any necessary information that is need to that specific 

state as it becomes available.

Make Title III and English Leaner information easier to find. Separate it out and make sure it's 

updated.

It would be helpful if there was an "internal" aspect to the website, that SEA contacts could use 

to log on and submit requests for help or technical assistance directly to our State contacts @ 

USED. It would also be helpful to have a common space where SEA leads could collaborate 

and find access to all prior TA webinars or guidance docs in one place.

It's not very intuitive. Things are difficult to find. I am a state coordinator and hardly use this 

website as a resource. It also feels like a lot of resources are outdated.

I think there needs to be a clearer connection between the Title III pages and OELA's 

resources/pages. For instance, I don't see a link on the Title III page to the OELA page which 

houses all of the toolkits.

I have not used the site enough to provide feedback.
150

Continue to maintain the sites current and up to date with needed information. Help us support 

communication with parents and advocates.

Can't think of anything at this time.

It would be extremely helpful for this program in particular to have the civil rights requirements 

laid out so they could be shared with LEAs as to what they are required to do before Title III

funds could be used.

Sometimes, I could not tell if guidance was the most recent.

The website now seems to be improving in leaps and bounds. The most important operating 

principle is to make sure that users can easily navigate and understand the connections 

between all the various offices and programs that are intended to help SEAs, LEAs, and the 

public improve language instructional education programs for ELs and their families.

More user friendly.

I've had significant issues trying to locate specific documents since the transition to the new 

site. There's so many broken links on ed.gov, but i can't find the related materials on 

oese.ed.gov

There seems to be some outdated material on the site. It is also challenging to use search 

terms to access resources or technical support materials, and despite modifying search terms 

and searching for material in different ways, I often have a hard time finding what I need. I have 

more trouble finding what I need when on the site than when I put in my search terms on 

Google.

Search engine's response to specific questions and/or FAQs

Make it more attractive and organize the material so that it is readily accessible. Maybe include 

working options for search engine response.

No suggestions

Q21. Please describe how the PROGRAM OFFICE could improve the quality and 

usefulness of our documents, including policy-related documents. In your response, 

please identify the name or type of document(s) your comments address (e.g., nonregulatory guidance, newsletter, blast emails).

What newsletter? What blast emails? Don't just regurgitate what is specifically written in the 

law. We could use an entry point interpretation also. With the understanding that I can take 

that back to my state lawyers and context to parse out the interplay within our own context. 

Please explain what this means more clearly " These presumptions are rebuttable if the SEA or 

LEA can demonstrate that it would have not provided the services in question with non-fed 
151

funds had the federal funds not been available... I believe LEAs interpret that to mean that they 

can spend it on core programs because we don't have other money to do it. For edfacts 

reporting on LIEPs. How should refusal of services be handled... the program is not missing?

Guidance documents are useful

Most issued guidance are broad and not specific to today's general questions from districts 

and/or schools.

unsure

We would love to see some specific guidance / information / newsletters etc. from Title III about 

use of ESSER funds in conjunction with Title III.

We have LEAs in our state/region who have recently settled agreements relevant to Title III and 

English learners with the US DOJ or USED OCR Office. Those agreements contain very 

specific guidance in a number of areas (i.e., instructional hours for EL students; types of 

professional development LEA should provide, etc.) and the non-regulatory guidance we 

receive from the USED OELA Office does not always match or provide as much detail. This 

puts the LEA in an awkward place.

Using the COVID fact sheets as an example - there was still some lack of specificity at times. 

We recognize of course that things were moving fluidly over the last year+ and that you can't be 

too prescriptive - but some key issues (i.e. how EL services should look remotely to satisfy Lau 

requirements) were left vague.

Continue to gather questions from the field to develop guidance documents. Provide guidance 

in a more timely manner.

It would be very helpful if guidance could be more detailed with examples from high, mid, low 

incidence as well as variations to allow for languages and proficiency levels.

Not aware of documents, so more appreciated.

None at this time.

non-regulatory guidance provides resource links to source documents, but when getting to 

those source documents, you sometimes have to go to another document to find the actual 

citation or source within the law that substantiates the information.

By providing a list of clearly defined civil rights requirements to share with LEAs as to what they 

are responsible for prior to using Title III funds.

Be clear when guidance is related to ELs, immigrant students, or families who do not speak 

English as the primary language in the household.

The Title III Non-Regulatory Guidance that was developed with the reauthorization is a very 
152

helpful document. I know that there is a Title III SEA List Serve, but the content often does not 

seem to be specifically focused on the issues encountered by Title III directors. NCELA 

newsletters have been increasingly helpful for learning about resources, webinars, I would like 

to see more technical assistance and professional learning to SEAs to address the needs of 

states with lower incidence EL populations. Staffing and available resources at the state and 

local levels are often more limited. Small state minimum funding has not increased in proportion 

to the programmatic requirements for SEAs and LEAs.

I appreciate the resources and level of communication that is shared by OESE. While the 

resources do not always address all of the questions or challenges with which we are faced, I 

attribute this to the nuances of different state contexts. At times, it does seem like some of the 

guidance has shifted over time. For instance, my state as well as others and our national 

professional organization have received guidance on the timeframe in which a student must be 

screened to determine EL status when he/she arrives during the school year and when the 

parent/guardian must be informed. This guidance has changed over time. While this is not 

necessarily a problem, this can cause confusion. Other times, guidance is general in nature, 

making interpretations of guidance inconsistent across states. This can be challenging when 

trying to ensure that we are all doing the right thing and what is expected of us as Title III 

program directors at the state level.

Updated information.

Think through scenarios and details not currently considered. Provide guidance for several 

options.

No suggestions

Q33. How could we improve the grant reporting process?

Not completely my area. I don't see what happens with the data later or how my state stacks 

up.

The reporting system that was used a couple of years ago was very good. It seems like

reporting systems have been changing a lot in the last couple of years. It would be helpful to 

have guidance on how to use the data to inform programmatic decisions.

This is difficult because each state defines their programs with different terminology. Perhaps 

including a description of what the category would include could help us also determine which 

data to include in which category. If that exists, then I just haven't seen it.

I find the data requirements difficult to understand and data gathering is very cumbersome.

N/A

unsure
153

Explain how you use the data.

It is not always clear how we collect certain data points that are required--for example, we are 

asked to estimate the shortage of ESOL teachers over the next three years, but it is unclear 

how best to calculate that estimate. More clarity, guidance or model suggestions in the areas 

where the data is not always easily compiled or measured would be very helpful.

I work with our assessment and data team for Ed Facts grant reporting. The grant reporting 

process may be more clear to the coordinator in charge of data reporting, but as the Title III 

coordinator it is still very unclear what information is needed and on what dates. I am unsure of 

how this data is being used and how it should be informing our state grant programs.

With CSPR the question regarding number of licensed teachers in LIEPS has caused much 

confusion amongst our state and that of other states. There appears to be differences in how 

that question is interpreted, meaning data that is collated may not be accurate. For instance is 

that question asking for number of EL-specific licensed teachers? Or all teachers of ELs? Is it 

just in those LEAs that receive/accept Title III funds or all LEAs in the state? That area in 

particular needs clarification.

Provide additional training specific to the reporting requirements for Title III, A. This could help 

develop more consistent reporting.

Reduce requirements, provide more specified methodology for questions such as the number of 

teachers needed.

None at this time.

It would be nice to have a better understanding of where the data goes, what it is used for and 

how it impacts what USED does. We have had some terms that needed better clarification so 

that we would know exactly what data to pull and submit.

Release reporting requirements as early as possible so that data-collection can be built into 

applications and reimbursement requests.

This is an area where there needs to be a lot more communication. The US DOE could provide 

Title III SEA administrators with more specific, user- friendly guidance on their role in data 

collection and reporting process. Explain clearly how the EdFacts files submitted by data 

specialists in SEAs are designed to meet Title III reporting requirements and inform 

improvement of SEA and LEA programs/services for ELs and their families. There can be a 

disconnect between data teams responsible for submitting multiple files as part of the CSPR 

and the program personnel who depend on data teams to support state-level analysis of 

demographics and performance data for monitoring effectiveness of programs for ELs. For 

example, how are LEAs doing at meeting interim and long-term goals in the State Plan? How 

can the data be used to inform decisions about exit criteria and reclassification? Data should be 

used to evaluate and guide programs; this requires a lot of two-way communication and 

collaboration to be used for meaningful purposes, rather than just meeting reporting 

requirements.
154

There is so much grey area in some definitions for reporting.

As alluded to in the last area for written comments, sometimes the definitions for reporting are a 

bit unclear or nebulous, resulting in different interpretations across state contexts. One example 

is on the CSPR where states are asked about the number of certified teachers. It is unclear to 

many state Title III directors whether this means certified individuals in general or certified 

individuals in the areas of ESL/bilingual. As a result, the data is inconsistent across state 

reports, which can potentially make the data difficult to interpret.

It is adequate

Explain purposes of data and include more details and possibilities in instuctions.

No suggestions

Q39. Describe how the technical assistance that Department staff provide could be 

improved to better support your program needs (consider content, structure, format, 

timing, etc.).

I would like some specific state stakeholders meetings. Where I can submit questions to a jam 

board- even if they are addressed later in an FAQ or some other format.

Provide more webinars for SEAs on different program requirements.

We haven't had an opportunity to do much of these things with Title III over the course of the 

pandemic.

I have not had a chance to participate as state director level but for the past two weeks. My 

interactions with OELA have been in a subordinate role. However, I do know that OELA has 

supported our state with conference calls, coordination amongst programs, and with 

compliance questions connected to OSS.

Except for non-regulatory guidance, very little TA is provided.

Offer more resource materials.

unsure

We would love to have peer-to-peer opportunities similar to how the Office of Migrant Education 

provides such opportunities. In addition, there hasn't been a Title III Conference in a while 

where we can learn more about the programs and talk to other SEAs. It has been at least 4 or 

5 years since this happened. More frequent communication. More collaboration between OELA 

and OESE Title III. We no longer have a single point of contact with the Title III program, this 

makes it difficult for us to get answers for questions. We feel like there is less of a relationship 
155

and partnership between us and ED because of this.

There are high quality TA webinars offered, but very little in other formats. SEAs need more 

sustained connection to an assigned program officer at USED, who can answer specific 

questions and coordinate other SEAs with similar goals or questions, etc.

It would be helpful to have more monthly check-ins or webinars which provide a community of 

practice. I work with coordinators through our work with CCSSO, but would like to have a 

working community through OELA. The webinars are helpful but they are not provided in a 

regular basis.

Provide additional opportunities for SEA leads to collaborate as it relates to the compliance, 

improvement and reporting required by USED.

Communicate with and offer directly to state directors. It seems that TA/USED presence is only 

offered in conjunction with other things such as CCSSO

Simply more opportunities for support and training.

I'm the newly appointed Title III Coordinator and have not had any interactions with USDE staff 

related to this program.

N/A

The reduction in Title III staffing after the 2016 election was very noticeable. While the staff has 

remained responsive, it seems like a lot of guidance was rescinded and the level of technical 

assistance to SEAs decreased just at a time when ESSA had been reauthorized. The 

Department needs to explicitly communicate with SEAs now to help us better understand the 

current content, structure, format, and timing of Technical Assistance--maybe webinars to 

clarify the relationship of Title III SEA programs within the OESE and also how OESE and 

OELA intersect. Also, small states have much more limited resources and specialized staffing 

for meeting the same program requirements as states with more state-level support and 

administrative capacity. Technical Assistance needs to take these contextual differences into 

account.

Having more opportunities to interact with Department staff and to meet with peers in other 

states would be very helpful.

No comment

Quicker response time if SEA calls for technical assistance. Stronger interaction with 

assessment companies and the needs that are required by assessment.

Work with the What Works Clearinghouse to expand documentation related to evidence-based 

programs that effectively build English language development and academic achievement of 

English learners.
156

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that 

provided technical services to you.

Neglected or Delinquent Education Technical Assistance Center.

Region 15 Comprehensive Center

Comprehensive Centers, Neglected or Delinquent Education Technical Assistance Center

Regional Laboratories, Comprehensive Centers and Equity Assistance Centers

Education Northwest

Comprehensive Centers

Not directly - but the REL resources have proved valuable.

OELA/NCELA

Regional Laboratories, Comprehensive Centers

N/A

REL

WestEd/RELWest

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role?

State Coordinator

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

TITLEIII - 2021 - Q41.5. Think about services offered in the previous year to 

support your State’s implementation of your Title III grant. What services 

provided by the Department have been most helpful or effective? Please cite 

specific examples.

Non-regs, Dear colleague letters, toolkits from OELA... FAQs.. Reminders of 

available resources that may at one time been announced, but for people coming in 

new may not know about.
157

Any opportunity to speak with [REDACTED] is positive. I have always like the way she 

works and her demeanor.

Meeting one on one with program staff has been helpful. Setting time up individually to 

ask questions.

Dear Colleauge letters and other written guidance.

Guidance documents; conference calls; updates at EL SCASS and other collaborative 

CCSSO convenings

Webinars

webinars and publication of non-regulatory guidance and Fact Sheets

Providing professional developments, webinars, listservs to LEAs and monthly virtual 

meetings .

documents

The Title III Training modules that were emailed out a while back. Non-regulatory 

guidance is useful but needs to be updated.

The webinars by regional centers.

Non-regulatory guidance and Fact Sheets

This is my first year in the role and unfortunately I haven't been able to take advantage 

of all of the opportunities offered. I can cite the interactions I've had with the Tilte III and 

OELA staff, which have all been very positive. Guidance and fact sheets released 

during COVID were helpful in shaping our policy/approach this past year. And 

presentations on the various issues that presented themselves from COVID (i.e. at EL 

SCASS) were extremely helpful.

Covid guidance documents and FAQs. Responses to specific questions.

None to mention at this time.

Scenarios of allowable and not allowable approaches to distributions, procedures, 

funding etc.. For example, a list of what SEAs are doing with Immigrant Funds, with %s 

and allotments, etc.. to sub grantees.

I am new to the Title III Coordinator role and have not had any interactions with USDE 

related to this program.

n/a
158

N/A

webinars, collaboration calls, and peer learning

The last year and a half of COVID have made everyone's job at national, state, and 

local levels much harder. Most of the opportunities for peer learning and collaboration 

have occurred through our membership in the WIDA Consortium. Our participation in 

WIDA has actually helped us most in responding to the requirements of ESSA. The US 

Department of Education's webinars with Title III OESE staff and OELA have been 

informative and helpful/

Collaboration between states.

The EL toolkit has been the most helpful tool for me.

Direct interactions through the national professional organization; opportunities to 

engage with OESE and peers in other states

Emails with updates

Webinars

Response to specific state inquiries related to COVID-19 issues.

TITLEIII - 2021 - Q41.6. How can the Department’s services be improved over the 

next year to better meet the needs of your State as you implement your Title III 

grant?

Please cite specific examples.

PLEASE give more guidance on private schools that is specific to title III. Also more 

information on consortia, effective programs... Opportunity to ask questions in nonthreatening means.. especially for people who have not been in the position for many 

years.

It would be helpful to have more webinars around Title III requirements. It would be 

interesting to hear what other states do with their Title III funds. Webinars on monitoring 

procedures would be helpful as well.

It would be nice to building a working realtionship with the Title III progra staff at USED. 

Our emails USED go into a catch all email address for each state and that's fine. 

However,there is something missing in this approach that allows for connections to be 

made. Also, let's get back to ESSA consolidated grant conferences, which includes 

Title III, Part A, even if it may be virtual or hybrid.
159

Provide state directors opportunity to meet quarterly to network and receive updates 

beyond what CCSSO provides. Specific information regarding federal perspectives on 

program implementation, and see how other state directors perceive the work. Two 

hours quarterly should suffice.

I don't think of any.

Conduct meetings for Title IIIA grantees and provide opportunities for peer learning. 

Provide timely responses to grant questions. Timely response to current issues having 

an impact on Title IIIA guidance. Establish a Title IIIA community of practice.

Continue with webinars, listservs etc.

better website organization

1. Provide a Title III knowledgeable contact person that is assigned to our SEA so we 

can a) build a relationship with that person b) get consistent more timely responses and 

c) improve our own understandings of Title III. 2. Provide additional opportunities for 

training and peer-to-peer connections such as conferences, video meetings, TItle III 

Director's meetings, discussion groups, etc. 3. Improve regularity of communication 

with the field. Communication currently feels sporadic and isn't very helpful.

Provide more peer learning, collaboration calls and grantee meetings.

I am somewhat in the "don't know what you don't know" mode - so nothing specifically 

at this point. I think I will know more after a full year of interactions and grant 

administration.

More timely guidance documents and responses to questions would be helpful. While 

it is appreciated that the program officers acknowledge receipt of questions it 

sometimes can take a long time to receive a response to the questions.

No references at this time.

A one-stop shop document with citations and other sources. An advisory group made 

up of SEA stakeholders.

I am new to the Title III Coordinator role and have not had any interactions with USDE 

related to this program.

n/a

N/A

It would be very helpful to get timely responses to questions.
160

Regular updates from the Department on its current goals and plans related to ELs 

More opportunities for peers to interact with Title III Program staff, preferably as part of 

a regional approach with states that have similar needs, challenges, and resources 

available

n/a

I'd like there to be more opportunities to engage with Department staff. Also, I 

completely understand that technical assistance answers often have to go through 

different channels before being shared with SEAs, but sometimes responses take 

awhile. it would be great to have shorter turnaround times. Despite there being some 

room for improvement (like everywhere), the OESE staff have been extremely helpful 

and accessible, and I am grateful for their support and expertise. Brenda Calderon has 

been awesome, and she'll be missed!

No recommendations

More interaction with SEAs. Perhaps regional meetings or meetings of SEAs similar in 

size.

No suggestions
161

Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships (FLAS)

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

I was not aware of the OESE.ED.gov website.

I think that the website is well laid out and content creative, easy to read, and regularly updated.

I frankly have yet to use the website so really can't provide any suggestions.

More materials online, rather than downloadable PDFs, which are not easily viewable on all 

devices

It's fine as is given my uses of it.

I haven't used it enough to know

No suggestions at this time.

Thank you for all the work you do, which makes our lives as faculty immensely easy and 

produce some fantastic research. We're happy with the website.

VIsual representation of offices, rather than long listings, would be more user-friendly. I don't 

understand the logic of the ordering of offices in the Offices/Programs by Office listing.

The IRIS website has always been difficult to navigate. Recent updates have made it almost 

impossible to access. Instructions do not advise that you cannot cut and paste your password 

from the email that provides it. It doesn't even indicate an error, it simply goes blank. 

Accessing forgotten passwords now is not automatic but can take hours or even days. The site 

freezes regularly--and gives no indication to what the problem is. Since we need to help 

students filling out reports and instructors filling out evaluations these problems multiply....and 

require an in-house document alerting people of all the possible problems navigating the 

website. It is a very frustrating process for all involved.

I appreciate the consistency across the IFLE web pages and that helps make the FLAS website 

logical and easy to navigate. The site has a pretty bureaucratic feel--but that is ok and 

appropriate for what it is.

It has actually gotten better in recent years.

No improvements needed

Improving the ability of the FLAS coordinator to see the reports of students in IRIS so we can 

make sure all the necessary information is there before submitting the final report would be 
162

helpful so we don't have to follow up months later and resubmit the report.

Much more up to date information. Make information for grantees and non-grantees clearly 

defined.

I honestly don't use the website https://oese.ed.gov/ Most often I need to log into 

https://iris.ed.gov to do my work.

0

More information about recent updates, changes. Include slide decks from recent 

presentations, etc.

I have never used that website and did not know that it is a resource for FLAS. If it is, it should 

be communicated more.

Previous survey page sends the responder to the wrong website.

Site works well; we do not use it frequently.

I simply don't use this.

We have not used the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE) Website, since 

FLAS is a higher education program. We mainly use the IRIS site for FLAS-related purposes.

The PAM seems to be the central reference point, but it is laborious and its length makes it 

difficult to pinpoint information.

Q33. How could we improve the grant reporting process?

The IRIS site often has us report the same data in different reports. Sometimes we are able to 

upload/download such data, and sometimes we cannot. For instance, the reports ask us to list 

degrees offered by the university every year. For the most part, the (many) degrees we offer do 

not change from year to year. This is a page that asks for specifics about degree, major, 

requirenents, description, etc. Quite tedious and time consuming to enter the same information 

in every annual report.

The IRIS reporting system is a bit clunky, but it gets the job done, after a bit of an orientation to 

the system.

The FLAS report forms for the current cycle retained the priorities from the previous cycle--that 

is, the report form was never updated to reflect new priorities. Also, it should be made easier for 

two different instructors to complete the language survey inasmuch as many academic year 

awardees complete first semester and second semester of the language requirement with 

different instructors due to institutional staffing arrangments.
163

Instructors have difficulty logging in, especially since have to change passwords regularly, and 

have to submit reports for multiple grants. A more straightforward login (and password 

reset/reminder) apparatus would be helpful

Fine as is.

The current leadership of our Center has not yet had to do much grant reporting

We spend hours inputting the data and clicking on each drop down menu to put it in. We all put 

this info into an excel or google sheet to prep for inputting the data into IRIS. It's a really dumb 

waste of time, because then we have to retype it all into the IRIS system. It would be so much 

easier and time-saving if the DoE could provide a formatted excel or google sheet with the info 

that they want that we could just type it into once, instead of twice. We would fill it out through 

out the year, and then just check it before the report is due and, and then upload it. DoE could 

lock the spreadsheet so that we could only provide the answers it wants in the dropdowns. This 

double work is just one example of how harder it is for smaller institutions without the money to 

pay many staff members to do this kind of work that is not very useful). I understand why DoE 

wants this info -- I'm not arguing against that -- but just to provide us with a system where we 

don't have to retype everything.

I have no suggestions at this time.

We would appreciate some general feedback on the reports we submit.

It would be great to have a better sense of what is done with the data we provide. For the least 

commonly taught LCTLs there are not any standardized assessment tests (though we are part 

of a Luce-funded project working on this)--so that makes some of the questions confusing for 

fellowship recipients and instructors. I wish the NLRC for Southeast Asian languages proposed 

by UWisc had been funded in the last cycle because we would be much further along in 

addressing this lack of consistent proficiency guidelines, let alone assessments.

The system can be clunky. Degree etc Descriptions section is frustrating. It should alphabetize 

after every entry. When adding new dept/major programs they go to the bottom unalphabetized. 

Frustrating when edits are needed. Not enough character space to include all the appropriate 

data (program requirement, credit hours, mandatory courses). It is too time consuming for the 

editing needed to fit and to decide what important data should be left off). The Degree to 

Placements auto-populate is inaccurate. It would be better if we could upload outreach data 

instead of enter one at a time, similar to the language course upload.

The only problem I encountered in reporting on my FLAS award was in obtaining specific career 

information on past FLAS awardees. This is not a problem that the Dept. can solve; tracking 

post-graduate awardee placement is extremely difficult.

The PAM provides a basic overview, but some important factors, like what counts as enough 

area studies content to count toward the course lists, or what amount of hours is enough to 

count as a concentration in an area is not clear in the PAM. I also have little idea how the 

reports are interpreted by program officers and would be interested in getting yearly feedback 

about the reports so we know where we stand and how we can improve.
164

Simplify the reports even more than they are now. The most challenging aspect for most 

grantees is chasing the students to complete their reports.

The login system to iris.ed.gov is abysmal. For those of us with multiple roles (e.g. project 

director AND a language teacher, which means I complete several FLAS reports each year for 

my students) it's impossible to keep track of passwords. In the past it wasn't so bad, since we 

could re-set our password by providing an email address. But the site has changed in the last 

year, where now we need to contact the Help Desk to ask them for a new password. 

Sometimes they take up to two days to respond! When we're under deadline to submit reports 

and perhaps working late at night, after the Help Desk closes, it's extremely frustrating and 

counterproductive.

It is not always clear how to report the financials and it is sometimes challenging to determine 

how/why someone has not completed their part of the report.

0

Some students or language instructors just do not respond so if there was a way to decrease so 

much reporting that would be helpful

It is very hard for some language instructors to report on their students' language level because 

the websites are all in English.

IRIS can be difficult to use and both students and language instructors have reported difficulties 

accessing the required information for reporting.

The Department asks for information that is actually impossible to locate (e.g., location of 

former graduates). We also haven't got a clue what you actually do with this data that we are 

required to obtain, at great cost in terms of labor. The reporting entry is just fine, however, and 

doesn't take too much time (meaning, your interactive website works).

Students do not always seem to understand some of the requirements for their individual 

reports, such as reporting all of their courses and waiting until they have received their final 

grades to do so. These guidelines could be made clearer in the instructions that FLAS students 

receive from IRIS for completing their reports.

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role?

educational coordinator

Assistant Director of an Area Studies Center

department administrator

assistant project director
165

FLAS Coordinator/Outreach Coordinator

Faculty research university

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

FLAS - 2021 - Q24.2. Please tell us how the technical assistance you received 

from your program specialist this past year was affected by the pandemic, as 

well as any suggestions you have to improve the technical assistance you 

received should we be faced with future national emergencies.

The office webinars were very informative and anticipated and answered almost all of 

my questions. Our program officer is extremely knowledgeable.

Our Program Officer was very responsive to our changing needs, responding to 

inquiries in a timely and understanding manner. We couldn't ask for a better team of 

professionals to work with.

Assistance was excellent in all respects.

Technical assistance was delivered in a timely way even in the pandemic.

We had more questions and more uncertainty, meaning that we leaned on our but the 

assistance we received was excellent.

They were excellent and accommodating.

It was not significantly affected from my point of view.

The pandemic was incredibly challenging. Personnel worked with us to implement 

distance/ remote learning beautifully. I am grateful for the sort of quick response and 

support we received.

We appreciated enormously our program officer's responses to our individual 

questions. We suggest that in the future, depending on the circumstances, that it 

would be more effective to create information specific to area studies regions, rather 

than to issue a blanket technical information about allowing FLAS fellows to travel. 

Given the differences among regions, announcements tailored to each geographic 

region regarding openness of travel for students would have been more helpful.

We receive excellent support from the program officers. Our only concern is the 

consistent problems with the reporting system.
166

Responsiveness and helpfulness remain superb.

We really appreciated the guidance and the flexibility in the face of changing pandemicrelated circumstances.

The additional flexibilities offered by IFLE/FLAS program officers allowed us to quickly 

pivot to ensure continuity of instruction in African languages. All of our usual in-person 

summer programs were cancelled and we were forced to quickly identify online 

solutions. The program was extremely supportive and flexible. The outcome was great 

for our students, and we are so thankful.

My program specialist was extremely helpful in providing assistance to mitigate the 

problems to the FLAS program caused by the Covid pandemic. She provided creative 

suggestions and approved ways for FLAS awardees to be able to use their awards in 

cases where travel was not possible during the pandemic.

I appreciated the webinars provided by the program officers detailing how to deal with 

students wanting to defer and how to handle virtual programs. The flexibility provided 

as students sometimes had to change their program last minute was great. I also 

appreciated timely, detailed communication about safety requirements and best 

practices when a student's plans fell through due to either COVID regulations changing 

or family situations. I felt supported and like the program overall centered the needs of 

students. I think the program did a good job navigating the pandemic and I appreciate 

the quick adjustment FLAS made to language learning in this new environment.

The IFLE staff was phenomenally helpful and worked extremely closely with us to pivot 

our programs and provide intensive language instruction virtually

The webinars and other trainings we received from our program officer and the other 

program officers was excellent. My only complaint is that sometimes different program 

officers will give contradictory information (I know this from consulting with colleagues 

at other centers).

Very responsive and exceedingly helpful.

0

My program specialist was and is amazing. She responds promptly and clearly, and 

works with me/us to achieve the best possible results for students.

She was helpful in supporting our adjustment to new programs and program deliveries.

Good immediate shifts. But some of the shifts in place for last year would still be nice to 

have for this year, especially this summer.

Our program officer has been a tremendous resources throughout the grant cycle, but 

particularly since the emergence of COVID-19.
167

Our program officer reached out to us immediately and his advice and counsel were of 

great importance and help.

Our program specialist had to provide guidance and approval for us to switch our 

Summer FLAS courses to an online format. We were pleased with how this was 

handled. The one slight issue we had was that our staff did not receive email 

notification of a webinar that was being held by IFLE on pandemic-related issues until 

we accidentally found out about it very shortly beforehand through another email 

inquiry to our program officer.

Our program officer, [REDACTED], was highly responsive and supportive during this 

challenging time. Thanks to her guidance we were able to maintain continuity and 

adapt our FLAS program to the new, challenging, and unprecedented environment 

presented by the pandemic. Because of this, our students were able to receive 

invaluable FLAS fellowship support and maintain their forward momentum in pursuing 

foreign language and international education while staying on track to graduate on 

time.

FLAS - 2021 - Q24.5. What can Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships 

do to improve communication with you?

Communication is excellent and sufficient

I truly can't think of anything. Communication has been excellent throughout the grant 

period.

Level of communication provided by our program officer and his colleagues is superb--

no suggestions come to mind.

Fine as is.

N/A

I have not issues relating to communications.

Communications from our current program officer are excellent.

Maybe a document defining the exact relationship between FLAS coordinators and the 

IFLE program specialist.

Prior reminders of upcoming reporting deadlines (as with the regular NRC reporting 

deadlines) would be very helpful. For some reason, we did not receive these 

notifications for at least a couple FLAS reporting cycles.
168

Doing fine. The biggest issue--not communication related--is that the amount of the 

fellowships has not been increased in many years and is no longer adequate in many 

instances to support students. This is of greatest concern for self-funded students and 

institutions without the capacity to top off almost 50% of more to reach standard tuition 

and stipend rates.

Normally GAN timing is fine (Years 2-4). However, the award notifications in Year 1 are 

always tricky. We run our FLAS competitions early in the year and typically award by 

March or April. In Year 1, we award very conservatively and with contingencies, 

because we do not yet know about the award selection. We strive to provide complete 

transparency to our students about the risk of the program not receiving funding. As a 

result, many students pursue other sources of support for the upcoming academic year, 

often leaving us with a surplus early in the grant. If the grant competition could take 

place in Fall with award notifications by early February, this would enable us to 

seamlessly transition from one grant cycle to the next in order to best support our 

students and capture the top language learners.

As much as possible provide advance notice of application announcements and 

deadlines.

I sometimes had issues reaching my program officer and they would be out of office 

when I had a time sensitive to address. I appreciated it when they would provide 

alternative contact information so I knew where to turn for timely assistance. Having 

advance notice of when program officers are unavailable would be helpful to managing 

my workflow.

If there were more Program Officers, they could do more individualized check-ins with 

grantees

0

We are satisfied with this level of communication.

In a complicated world, I believe this agency works truly well--even exceptionally. There 

are two hitches. One is that we receive notification of grant "winning" too late to put any 

teaching and some programming into effect the first year. Courses and hires for LCTLs 

require at least six months notice. Two is that sometimes the data requested is just 

unavailable, or would require a team of four to do.

Communication is generally good. I would just recommend ensuring that all 

notifications of events such as grant administration webinars are delivered in a timely 

manner, as indicated in my previous response.

I think the website could be improved and IRIS as well (I was delighted to know they 

hired a team to work on the IRIS interface). The PAM feels outdated, or overly weighty -

streamlining it would make it a much more useful, efficient reference tool. We mainly 

rely on direct communication with our program officer, which has been extremely 

helpful and an invaluable resource.
169

FLAS - 2021 - Q24.6e. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with 

your program specialist?

individual emails for specific questions; blasts for overall programmatic info; webinars 

for 'how-to' and complex instructional guidance
170

Full-Service Community Schools (ESEA IV-F-2, section 4625)

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

In general, the oese.ed.gov/ houses good information with some patience to follow different 

click paths. The actual FSCS webpage does not contain much information beyond supporting 

applicants. It would be very helpful to have examples of grantees with successful projects,

examples of reports, or other materials to bridge the gap. I have found our Project Officer to be 

beyond kind and incredibly helpful when asked a very specific question. At this stage, there is a 

lot of "you don't know what you don't know". A richer website would help me identify where I still 

have gaps in my understanding so that I could ask more targeted questions.

One problem is legacy pages when doing searches. If these could be cleaned up, that would be 

a big help. Also, a little unclear what the relationship between supporting agencies (Urban 

Institute, etc.) when looking at website. Overall, I can find what I need with a little searching.

It would be helpful to share more stories and resources from the field, and make this more of a 

community of practice where grantees can learn from one another.

Would be great to be able to access more resources, upcoming events, etc. I know this requires 

another level of upkeep, but as a grantee having a place to go for resources would be nice. Or 

even contact information for other Project Directors. Not having a space where we are able to 

regularly share information, ideas or network makes you feel like you are sometimes on an 

island.

An outdated version of the website comes up in the search- that site should maybe be archived 

so that when people click the "funding status" link, they don't think the program ended in 2015 

(last date shown). https://www2.ed.gov/programs/communityschools/index.html

have a clear section on the website for FSCS grantees, and those interested in implementing a 

FSCS approach; offer a FSCS toolkit section (data tools, school and community best practices); 

break down resources by common challenges like chronic absenteeism, student 

suspensions/office discipline rates; better connect to other departments like HHS/SMHSA for 

best practices in school based mental health, trauma informed schools ,etc.

I just think it is pretty text heavy, so things get lost at times. Maybe including more navigation 

options and less wording?

Unsure - haven't used it because I haven't been able to find the information specific to our grant 

for questions beyond the basics that I've had.

I have no recommendations

I think the website is user-friendly and have no recommendations for improvement.
171

The website should have all of the up to date grantees and links to their website along with 

highlights of the things that they are doing.

I don't use it. I think I went on when I initially started working on the grant and didn't return 

because it was confusing. If there are resources there we can use, I would like to know more 

about it.

No suggestions for the website

We have no suggestions for improvement.

Maybe consider reclassifying information where it is more detailed and the search will be come 

easier for some (me at least).

Q21. Please describe how the PROGRAM OFFICE could improve the quality and 

usefulness of our documents, including policy-related documents. In your response, 

please identify the name or type of document(s) your comments address (e.g., nonregulatory guidance, newsletter, blast emails).

I may still not be included on some relevant listervs but I have not seen any newsletters or blast 

emails outside of reporting notices and 2 webinars. If there are more regular communications, I 

would love to be included. It would be very helpful to see things like spotlights in a newsletter or 

examples of how work is progressing in other communities.

Documents, including webinar information, has been pretty good. The most help has been the 

annual conference for getting specific questions answered. The Urban Institute materials have 

also been very helpful. Things keep getting better.

The communication is fairly minimal. It would be helpful to have access to recorded webinars 

after they happen, grant timeline checklists, and other program management information.

As the Project Director, I would like to see the frequency of information increased. It would be 

helpful to have a video of the webinars that help FSCS recipients prepare for grant reports in 

addition to a copy of the slides. As a new grantee, I would have appreciated more support at 

the onset of the grant in preparing for the reporting requirements.

I am not sure that we receive very many documents so it was hard to answer the previous 

questions. I have not received a newsletter or FAQs or Blast emails. Totally think they would be 

useful to help further our programming!

the only documents I received are the reporting overview ppt slides and the actual reporting 

templates. I don't receive any other communication. a digital newsletter with best practices 

would be appreciated.

Regular communication would be very helpful. We rarely hear anything from our program officer 

or from the FSCS national program.
172

I have no recommendations

More documents should be sent out and often that ties all of the groups together so that we can 

share best practices.

I have never received anything in several of your categories.

We have not received them regularly to comment on them.

The documents are always clear and most have a technical assistance meeting associated with 

it.

We have no suggestions for improvement.

I did not know that the reporting categories were combined and changed until I completed the 

Annual Performance Report. I never received an email with that notification.

Q33. How could we improve the grant reporting process?

(1) It would be fantastic if there was an opportunity to schedule a time to meet with our project 

officer to ensure that we approached our first report accurately to ensure the Year 1 report 

meets expectations. (2) From speaking with other grantees, there still seems to be confusion 

about the non-APR section with some grantees reporting the aggregate of all services renders 

(e.g., Sally attended 10 yoga sessions and 5 tutoring sessions = 15 services) and others 

reporting the aggregate of service areas (e.g., Sally attended 10 yoga sessions and 5 tutoring 

sessions = 2 services). If this is the template that will be used going forward, it would be so 

helpful to see an example of a well done report or have a follow up webinar with concrete 

examples of student data we could encounter and how to share this information accurately.

This is an area that has gotten much better over the life of our grant. Team has worked hard to 

clean up forms and get rid of duplicate entries. Team has also been flexible as we have faced 

various data issues.

As a new grantee, it would be helpful to receive a copy of the grant report requirements at the 

outset of the grant. Our team appreciated being able to email our final APR report rather than 

submitting it via G5.

It would be great to have acces to people who can answer our questions as we are working on 

them.

Sometimes it is hard to know if anyone is reading the reports that we spend a lot of time putting 

together. Without knowing if we are doing things correctly it is hard to know if anything should 

change from report-to-report. I have liked the change over to the word document. Overall this 

report is a lot of work, and gathering the data from schools has not always been easy but we 

continue to work to find ways to more efficiently gather the required data and are likely better 
173

because of it. The new way of reporting the number of times services were offered this past 

reporting round was a bit tough with little guidance, and seemed as if it was more up to the 

grantee on how that was reported. While we work with a formal evaluator we did work through 

formulas on how to figure that data out, but do hope we were doing it in the right fashion or way 

it was intended to be reported.

We should be given advance updates about how changes are being made/incorporated for the 

reporting. Most recently, the pipeline services were changed, but there was no direct mention of 

that, not even during the reporting instructions webinar. It wasn't until we received the reporting 

template that I noted that.

The reports are just very long with lots of different boxes and information to pull that seems 

repetitive. I wonder if they could be streamlined a bit.

Online submission using spreadsheets for data and budget rather than using Word and 

submitting via email.

Using G5 is an appalling experience. MRNC's experiences are already well documented in calls 

and emails with the FSCS staff.

The on-line platform where reports are submitted is a bit glitchy and was not easy to navigate. It 

also seemed that there was a redundancy in the information and data requested.

We would greatly appreciate feedback on our reports. We have never received feedback or 

comments on our reporting and would like to ensure we're meeting standards

The form itself is now better than it used to be, but it's still not totally user-friendly. It would be 

especially helpful if there were boxes to enter the data so it stands out from the narrative.

NA

The report templates for FSCS was complicated. Something more user friendly would have 

been great. A narrative format would have been easier.

The number of pages to report were reduced for this reporting period which, helped a great 

deal.

Q39. Describe how the technical assistance that Department staff provide could be 

improved to better support your program needs (consider content, structure, format, 

timing, etc.).

I am thinking that our location may not be receiving all of the emails coming out for FSCS or 

there may be an issue on our end with a spam filter. The options listed above would be fantastic 

and truly appreciated!

Given the small size of the program team, I understand that they are not available to do much 
174

technical assistance and they depend on consultants to help. What I have seen is a big 

improvement over 5 years in the materials available to grantees. The annual conference has 

become a huge help in connecting grantees in sharing best practices. Between the webinars 

and the annual conference (and with the support of consultants and Urban Institute), most 

grantees should have what they need to be successful.

Increased technical assistance would be of benefit, including support for new grantees to begin 

preparing for the APR at the onset of the grant. Quarterly meetings with other Project Directors 

would also be of benefit in order to learn from one another's work and strategies to support 

children, their families, and community.

I didn't realize that those supports listed in the multiple choice question were even supports we 

could have potentially received. Providing the scope of our relationship and support would be 

helpful moving forward.

I think more peer-to-peer engagement would be wonderful! Would love to hear how others are 

implementing their FSCS grant. At this point I have not been added to any listservs to be able to 

get in-touch with other grantees. Additional training opportunities would be welcomed. Toolkits 

or other resources would also be very beneficial!

I haven't received anything I would call as technical assistance from the DOE staff. They have 

answered questions I've had about the grant, budget and reporting, but that's it. It would be 

helpful if DOE staff offered monthly or quarterly technical assistance sessions for FSCS 

grantees on topics identified as needing support (like evaluating impact, addressing housing 

and homelessness, meeting needs of English Language Learners or Special Education 

students, etc.). It would also be helpful if DOE staff facilitated FSCS peer cohorts on a regular 

basis.

Regular meetings (monthly, every other month or quarterly) scheduled as TA with a different 

topic pre-announced. Scheduled meetings where we can meet and discuss with other grantees 

to share issues, concerns and successes. I think there is a need for more staff . . . our program 

officer seems to have too many grantees to keep track of to allow for time to assist in a timely 

manner. He's helpful when we do finally connect, but it's pretty hard to find a time to talk with 

him. Example: We are in our first year (start of Oct. 1, 2020) and did not have an approved 

budget until April 1 of 2021. And, we missed a December conference/event due to lack of 

communication.

None

Our program officer is very busy, so responses have been delayed in some cases.

More work needs to be done around making sure that the grantees all know one another and 

that they can work together and share best practices. Monthly calls would be great or even PD 

opportunities for the Community School Coordinators.

The grant management sessions and networking are valuable, maybe have quarterly or biannual meetings?
175

NA

I oversaw this grant in the last year of the contract so my perspective is limited. However, my 

communication with our grant administrator was very helpful ( [REDACTED] ). He was 

responsive to my emails and calls. He helped with uploading our reports and was flexible with 

us in guidance with budget modifications.

I would like to make a phone call and have my questions answered instead of writing an email 

and wait for a response.

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that 

provided technical services to you.

Synergy Enterprises

Jane Guitard

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role?

Professor

Manager of the FSCS Grant
176

Governors Emergency Education Relief Fund

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

The search engine for me turned up irrelevant information

The updated website for the GEER program, provides an easy to navigate platform to locate 

necessary documentation.

Ability to subscribe to updates made on the page.

I think the overall usefulness of the site has been really good. I've found it to always have the 

information needed for GEER

No suggestions for improvement

Office hour resources could be included for technical reference.

A lot of the content is in PDFs, would be helpful to include some content/hyperlinks within site, 

including information clarifying date. With two rounds of GEER, additional clarification on 

similarities and differences between the two would be helpful.

Organizing by date is not the most helpful approach in searching for specific information. 

Topical might be a better approach.

Q21. Please describe how the PROGRAM OFFICE could improve the quality and 

usefulness of our documents, including policy-related documents. In your response, 

please identify the name or type of document(s) your comments address (e.g., nonregulatory guidance, newsletter, blast emails).

Changes related to equitable services caused issues with implementation of the GEER program 

and the non-regulatory guidance that was provided.

More information on lessons learned from other states would be very useful.

Sometimes I get the same email four or five times. Might look into a way to coordinate mail list.

Send important documents as attachments not just hyperlinks.

No additional areas of improvement were noted.
177

Providing more specific examples and concrete guidance.

The regular weekly email blasts covering a variety of topics and where to go has been great 

and very helpful in catching upcoming deadlines, etc. The most recent FAQ document has been 

helpful and more in-depth, but still some questions remain and seem a little more geared 

towards K-12.

There was very little on this program until the most recent USED Allowable Costs FAQ, which is 

by far the most comprehensive document. We were lucky in that our GEER program was 

simple and straightforward, but if not, I don't think that the guidance prior to May 26, 2021 would 

have been adequate.

Q33. How could we improve the grant reporting process?

Email the template document as early as possible.

coordination with technical teams - lots of finger pointing which is hard from the customer 

experience

A little more clarity on how the information is being used by USED.

No suggestions for improvement.

Our state had significant issues with the new reporting platform. We were unable to generate 

passwords when the reporting platform was launched, and the technical support took over three 

weeks to address that issue. When we logged into the platform, we noted our GEER award 

data did not match the comprehensive FFATA/FSRS data that we were expecting. The delay in 

launch of the platform, along with these technical issues made the reporting efforts very difficult.

Will the same annual report be used for GEER 1?

A common theme across GEER and ESSER has been that the reporting requirements have 

come well after the grants have been designed. Grant recipients will have to scramble to get the 

required data on an ad hoc and non-systematic manner. If USED could look at the data they 

already collect and leverage that information (specific to the funding source, if needed) the data 

they receive will be far more comprehensive and consistent.

Q39. Describe how the technical assistance that Department staff provide could be 

improved to better support your program needs (consider content, structure, format, 

timing, etc.).

Timing of guidance was not optimal. If possible, please provide guidance documents as quickly 

as possible.
178

Our program would benefited from seeing FAQ and related resources updated more regularly 

based on new questions submitted by grantees and peer-to-peer information sharing.

I think the TA is great. [REDACTED] is awesome.

No suggestions for improvement.

No additional areas of improvement are noted.

Our team of [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] has been an absolute lifeline, but (not their fault) 

we have sometimes waited weeks or even months for key decisions that impact our programs. 

For GEER we did not get responses on period of performance or allowable costs for weeks. We 

are very grateful for the work that everyone is doing at USED, but the telescoped time frame 

requirements do not align with the slow pace of responding to questions. As a general 

statement, the USED webinars have not been informative and tend to assume that the 

attendees have not already read the guidance, so they become a summary of information we 

already have in hand.

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that 

provided technical services to you.

WestEd

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role?

Deputy Asst. Supt.

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

GEERF - 2021 - Q71.8. Describe how the Office of State and Grantees Relations 

can further empower you to make decisions about the implementation of your 

ESSER grants

Provide additional technical assistance with monitoring and data reporting 

requirements.

Continued support on FFATA reporting requirements and expectations as they relate to 

unique nature of GEER grant. Share answers to questions from other states, related to 

use of funds, subrecipient monitoring, and reporting. Provide further guidance on GEER 

use of funds related to postsecondary education settings, similar to the May 

GEER/ESSER FAQ document, which focused on K-12.
179

Continue what you've been doing

No suggestions at this time.

Responding to the request in a timely and concise manner so that we can make 

decisions.
180

Grants for State Assessments

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Possibly have a link on the main page that allows state agency to click. If there is one available, 

it's not visually apparent.

N/A

Feel the website serves its purpose.

Improving the search feature would be greatly appreciated.

Post templates

N/A

I was completely unaware of the https://oese.ed.gov/ website. It seems I must have missed 

communication regarding its development and implementation. I typically go to ed.gov website 

which is a significant challenge to navigate.

Update web content at https://www2.ed.gov/programs/gsa/index.html. Info is old. Not sure how 

you get to Peer Review info from this page. For example, Peer Review page found through a 

google search is at https://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/nclbfinalassess/index.html but it 

still says NCLB on the top.

(1) Reorganization to most current topics/relevant topics

N/A

It's hard to find information, and I am not quite sure what I am supposed to do with the 

information once I find it. More guidance for this new guy would be helpful!

N/A

It works well for the intended purpose.

There is such an abundance of information, which is greatly appreciated, but the outline format 

and organization can make it difficult to find what you are looking for quickly. Specifically, I am 

speaking about the Standards and Assessments subpage, as that is the page that I use most 

frequently.

upgrade search function
181

The previous format for the peer review information was easier to navigate with fewer needed 

clicks and better searchability. We appreciate having all the guidance letters on one page; 

however, the webpage is dense with multiple links for various details. We would really 

appreciate a better organization of the webpage by separating the historical details under 

archived pages so that the current information is obvious and easy to locate.

Update old information. Make it more user friendly. Change the fonts.

Q21. Please describe how the PROGRAM OFFICE could improve the quality and 

usefulness of our documents, including policy-related documents. In your response, 

please identify the name or type of document(s) your comments address (e.g., nonregulatory guidance, newsletter, blast emails).

N/A

I think more clear guidance on Peer Review, specifically outlining or noting the areas that are 

consistently missed by states or that need further evidence and what that is that is needed to 

demonstrate. From the lessons learned, it would be great to have a more proactice approach 

with a checklist of evidence needed to be planned for with a potential timeline of that work 

relevant to the timing of the OP test.

Comprehensive as is.

Give concrete guidance and insight, share resources and best practices freely from other states 

for increased collaboration; don't be the "keepers" of information.

Quality of staff communication is excellent... always well thought out and written. We may not 

always like the answers :-) but the quality is great and info is very relevant.

The information contained in the document needs to be related to the most common questions 

asked by the grantee.

N/A

I am not sure what I am supposed to do with the documents. When notified, I go in and save 

the documents and inform our finance office where I saved them.

NA

The documents were well-written, distributed appropriately, and were accompanied with followup.

I would love to see a Peer Review Handbook (think Peer Review for Dummies).

We think that the number of blast emails has increased significantly in the past few months and 
182

would appreciate a strategic approach to information dissemination.

Q33. How could we improve the grant reporting process?

N/A

provide a template and sample; provide clear and specific requirements for reporting

Solid as is.

Sometimes it feels like feedback from the department regarding how data is used is a black 

hole or will be used in a non-supportive or punitive manner.

Consolidate reporting requirements across different Titles. Federal funds typically supplement 

existing state/local initiatives.

N/A

The fields do not always allow for state-specific situations.

I haven't had to report anything, so I am not sure. Unless I'm missing something?

N/A

It has appropriate guard rails for accountability and latitude for flexibility that states need.

Reporting requirements (e.g., CSPR) have not been clear and have changed unexpectedly. 

This is likely due to the pandemic but has been frustrating.

Be consistent with the format. And, we had a training where a preview of the platform couldn't 

even be provided. So that made it really difficult to prepare.

Q39. Describe how the technical assistance that Department staff provide could be 

improved to better support your program needs (consider content, structure, format, 

timing, etc.).

N/A

I think more proactive measures would be much appreciated to let SEA's know what is available 

and hold regular webinars to update and incorporate listening sessions to identify SEA's needs 

more quickly.
183

N/A

Staff support is fantastic. [REDACTED], [REDACTED] and the team are extremely 

knowledgeable and bring a wealth of experience to [REDACTED] work. While they don't offer 

opportunity for inter-state sharing (that is typically left to the support orgs like CCSSO or the 

RELs), they do collaborate with them and connect with the states that way which is most 

appreciated.

There is need to include more technical services explaining the "how to" for the grantees.

N/A

NA

[REDACTED] and [REDACTED] team are awesome! They provided very helpful technical 

assistance to all grant recipients. In addition, the Peer Review process helped me learn how to 

do my job better at the state Department of Education.

More opportunities to hear from states that have been successful would be helpful. The 

upcoming webinars on peer review are a good example of helpful TA.

We recommend virtual meetings for ease of attendance and would appreciate the department 

sharing the archived presentations immediately after the meeting and the resources prior to the 

meeting.

I am not sure besides CSPR, what was provided this year.

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that 

provided technical services to you.

Center for Assessment, REL(s)

I did not work directly with in my division but I know the SEA did work with REL.

R2CC

Comprehensive Centers

REL/CC

RELs and Comp Centers

REL, CTAC
184

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role?

Finance Coordinator

Assessment

Assessment Director

I was formerly the CAO of the Iowa DE
185

Group Projects Abroad Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Less text until users click for details. Less jargon / there is specialized vocabulary that is not 

always self evident

It is user friendly. I have no suggestion for improvement

It would be great to have more stories of people who have benefited, in a newsy manner

Make call for proposals easier to find.

Though the website has a wealth of information, it is at times, not so easy to navigate. Overall, 

it is a great a site. For example, it is not easy to find tangible information on former grantees 

even though they show on the map.

I had a hard time finding previous grantees, and information about what a Fulbright-Hayes 

seminar participant should put on their resume/cv

I did have a bit of difficulty with the end of project reporting site. I was not certain how much of 

the participants' projects to put on the site and it only accepted a limited upload. I clearer end 

reporting visual would be nice.

At this time I don't have any suggestions.

Consider the user's experience. For example, the FAQs page might be organized by the type of 

questions asked. A list of 48 questions in random order is overwhelming. The amount of small 

text on each page is confusing and makes finding what you are looking for challenging.

Some navigation is not intuitive thus it is harder to find the right term to follow

Better navigation and organization of information about the program, resources for applying for 

the GPA grant, and much more information about past awards.

More interactive, improve "use-ability" of the site

I LOVE the Fulbright-Hays Group Project Abroad. We had a terrific experience in the field, 

exceptional hosts who now are life-long collaborators, amazing final projects, well-received final 

teacher interventions, lifetime friendships across all the US states represented on our trip, great 

district reception, and now 2 very solid basis for Teach Africa! Workshops to spread the wealth 

to 150 regional teachers. The main issue is that I don't know which resources, personnel, or 

control came from the Dept of Ed or the State Department or our wonderfully talented and wellinformed project managers. In fact, this mystery survey came to me through a series of 
186

Spammed phone calls from a "CGI group" that my project manager had never heard of before. 

He advised that it was unknown and phishing. He was unaware of the sender, the audience, 

the pressing need for an answer, the impact on political funding, the use of the data, or the 

relationship to his work. I therefore was wary and refused to respond. I also had no means to 

call [REDACTED] to clarify vs. use email which also seemed illegitimate. I did not respond with 

his caution and since the email had the US DOE seal. I can't wait for our next project to be 

allowed and COVID-cleared so that we can keep up the momentum. I would have appreciated 

much more clear insight into the political need and uses of this survey. Please keep my 

program manager in the loop, as that its the key person we trust to explain DC buearocracy and 

politics to us. THANKS!

It is sometimes frustrating using IRIS but I am not sure if that is what you are asking

None at the moment

Provide clear, easy access to information. I would like to note that this has improved over the 

past 10 years.

I was able to get all my questions answered and had no need to navigate the site.

Q33. How could we improve the grant reporting process?

I have not yet reported, so I have no advice yet

The process is clear

The IFLE webpage is just unwieldy, I have to create a new password for just about every time I 

enter the system, since I have done years of reporting, the numbers are hard to find -- isn't it 

possible to have one person get one password for access to a menu of all the years below the 

top level?

The process is excellent overall. I just do not know much about how data are used.

Make the information more easily accessible

I haven't reported yet since we postponed our seminar due to the pandemic.

A bit more clarity on what specifically should be submitted from the participants. The site only 

accepts a minimum upload.

None.

I am very confused by what is required in the IRIS system. Some of the terms used to identify 

what is required are convoluted and unfamiliar. I cannot find definitions for what is sought.
187

We have yet to administer the grant because of the pandemic.

I would like to do some hands on training to feel more comfortable

Provide data from all programs to review past projects.

The SF 524 and other budget forms can be hard for a new person to understand and do not 

correlate completely with the budget template information requested in IRIS. Still, the system, 

reports and forms are easy to find and complete after one has some experience with them. My 

colleagues and I appreciate the fact that the website includes forms with instructions that are a 

great help. Our business manager prefers using the NSF site, and suggests that as a model.

We could get data from most of our participants to provide final accounting. I understand the 

need for their candid feedback to go directly to you. But with only numerical data after the fact, 

we can't do much to understand what and how to improve. There were considerable issues 

with uploading, the portal being closed or non-functional for days at a time before the deadline. 

When we asked for help, it would be nice to be able to talk to a person versus email 

ceaselessly. Usually, that person was helpful. We'd like opportunities to share our videos, 

YouTube, etc as evidence of success. Also, means for non-numerical and narrative responses 

would be helpfu, since those are the elements that have made the difference in the 3 years 

since then in sustaining our contacts and institutional partnerships. The PEOPLE at each 

stage have been more energizing and helpful than paperwork or FYI guides.

It is hard to use IRIS It is hard to figure out where to report specific information--under 

priorities? Under some other heading? Also sometimes the fields don't work. Also sometimes 

the drop-down menus don't work

None at the moment

Align reporting requirements more closely with required program assessments.

It's hard to come up with recommendations without knowing how your office is using the data 

and for what purpose. I would like to see the report submission deadline extended at least six 

moths after the program is implemented so that more outreach activities could be reported.

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role?

Research Administrator

Professor

faculty

CUSTOM QUESTIONS
188

GPA - 2021 - Q22.2. Please tell us how the technical assistance you received from 

your program specialist this past year was affected by the pandemic, as well as 

any suggestions you have to improve the technical assistance you received 

should we be faced with future national emergencies.

Things went well, there was just some delay as GPA staff talked with in-country staff to 

see about postponement of the program

We were given sufficient information about the impact of the pandemic

It was really great to work through this serious challenge with my program specialist. 

The communication was clear and the flexibility of the policy should allow us to make 

use of grant money in the coming year for the purposes of the GPA, even though some 

of the budget could not be used this year due to the pandemic.

[REDACTED] was outstandingly helpful. We had some complex personnel issues 

unfolding before the pandemic even began, and he was responsive and 

knowledgeable, and transparent when he had to discuss things with higher-ups. We 

could not be more pleased or grateful for the support and information we received 

throughout the process from [REDACTED] and his colleagues. It's clear that their goal 

was very much ours - finding solutions that would lead to successful outcomes for the 

project and our participants and partners. Thank you!

N/A

N/A

I think ultimately no one knew what was happening, and that's not the departments fault 

necessarily. Unfortunately, I think a lot of the confusion was due to the administration at 

the time and the people they put in charge - so, put people in positions who know what 

they're doing, not your golf buddy?

NA

None.

Response to our questions could be more timely.

Did not seek technical assistance this past year.

The pandemic necessitated the postponement of 2 GPA programs. Our program 

officer was very helpful in sharing information with us and in responding to our 

questions.

N/A- very helpful
189

He jumped in and proactively worked with us to give the automatic extension since we 

obviously could not go to that region in summer, 2021. I hope that we all have a plan 

for recruiting teachers and moving a timeline since 2022 is unknown. We, along with 

most projects, will need to move it back to summer 2023, with no impact. Our partners 

are crying to see us, they are surviving, and the teachers need to plan. We have a 

whole cadre of applicants that is growing with each added year. How will we work to 

have a no-fault extension to 2023? Service so far has been candid and honest and 

recognizes that both at our university, their local levels, and the DC levels we just 

cannot know many key variables at our sites. Right now we can reach him whenever 

we need, but essentially everything is simply on hold. No one here or abroad at our 

sides has died or gotten really ill. But they are suffering far more than we are. All we 

can do is hold one another in love and forbearance. No deadline, CDC mandate, or 

State Dept travel advice can be comprehensive or static. Our program officer, like us, 

knows that it is about the quality of our GPA and helping, not endangering one another. 

We are eager to go and willing to hold tight. We are all in this together, and appreciate 

all that you are doing to keep this all afloat.

Our program officer is excellent--a vast improvement over that officer's predecessor 

who was always AWOL. Our program officer answered all my questions and worked 

with us as we had to make changes to our program because of the pandemic. I want to 

stress that our program officer is wonderful. However IRIS needs improvement. For 

instance the IRIS reporting fields do not reflect the changes due to the pandemic and I 

don't know how to fill out the section on overseas experience.

None

Timely communication on impact of emergency on program timelines and funds.

Due to the pandemic, I will not be able to execute the program until summer 2022. 

[REDACTED] l has been very helpful guiding me through the process of requesting nocost extensions and providing me updates in a timely manner.

GPA - 2021 - Q22.5. What can Group Projects Abroad do to improve 

communication with you?

With the postponement of my program, it would be helpful to have occasional 

reminders when deferral forms and such are due. As my program is delayed 2 years, 

it's been a while from grant award to program completion

Communication is efficient. We promptly receive answers to questions

I just hate going into the IFLE website -- so I delay as much as possible. So, any 

improvement to that access would make me happier with the whole program.

N/A. The IFLE newsletter is very helpful
190

Our GPA is postponed due to COVID-19. We'd appreciate updates on formally 

postponing our grant.

I think everyone was a little overwhelmed, but I sent emails that were never answered. 

When I did finally get in touch with the person I needed to, they were very helpful and 

nice.

none.

Answer questions without having to send question several times.

My rating for this relates only to the previous Program Officer, who did not provide 

much clarification to questions we had about our program before the overseas phase. 

The current Program Officer, [REDACTED], is wonderful and I would rate his response 

to questions and issues about our program with a "10" across the board!

More frequent communication and clarity of expectations for reports and timing

Just send us quarterly updates. We are asked all the time by the teachers and GPA 

prospective members. We know that things are uncertain, but some sense of how 

extensions and things will be managed and which criteria will be used across the 

different country sites will be helpful. We are being asked all the time. Ask us about the 

good news that we have - we can help you showcase the good of this project and the 

GPA system. We can help uplift one another as we all sit out another round since play 

is suspended. Work on developing ways to publish and PR our good work. That's a 

win-win

our program officer is excellent. It is hard to get technical help with IRIS reporting 

though

At peak periods of GPA activity, when normal exchanges of information by e-mail or 

phone may not be possible, it would be helpful to know how best to contact program 

staff, i.e., whether by phone, text, e-mail.

None

n/a

GPA - 2021 - Q22.6e. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with 

your program specialist?

It depends on the issue. For information related to our program, I prefer email. For 

general information, blast list email is fine. I appreciate information about new 

regulations and processes that is shared through webinars.
191

[REDACTED]
192

High School Equivalency Program - Migrant Education

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Would be helpful to be able to access program data to examine trends, etc. Also, more 

information about research studies being conducted by grantees would be helpful since 

comparison groups for HEP participants are difficult to obtain. More opportunity for idea and 

data sharing would be beneficial.

More user friendly.

The website currently is fine.

I think it works well know.

Share best practices

Update annual reports and Reports to Congress

Improve close out instructions please.

n/a

More content on best practices and materials that can be used in grant implementation.

Not sure if there is already one, but if not, then a calendar that woul contain the dates for APR 

reports or other important infomation would be useful

No comments

Easier to search content

n/a

No improvements are needed

Search queries more general.

The website has always been user friendly and if I ever have had a problem one phone call to 

someone has helped me work to resolve my problem or questions.

More user friendly.
193

Website its fine

All is fine

Additional resources would be helpful.

Clearer sections and being conistent throughout. Language at times is very technical.

N/A

Q21. Please describe how the PROGRAM OFFICE could improve the quality and 

usefulness of our documents, including policy-related documents. In your response, 

please identify the name or type of document(s) your comments address (e.g., nonregulatory guidance, newsletter, blast emails).

No changes needed

OME always keeps us up to date with any changes.

The summary on emails introducing the topics is always appreciated. It allows for a quick 

glance of each topic, allowing for decision-making on priority.

N/A

N/A

I think it might be better to separate the emails and title each with the content.

no comments

Have not been part of HEP long enough to identify the usefullness of documents or identify 

specific documents. My experience with the Annual Performance Report was good in terms of 

the materials that were available to help complete the report. These I found to be clear and 

easy to understand.

no comments

Non regulatory guidance, little late in addressing critical issues like pandemic

n/a

No improvement is needed
194

More scenarios, or possible applications to the programs.

N/A

Weekly announcements are good

I have no recommendations at this time.

Everything is useful to the work that I do with the project.

Q33. How could we improve the grant reporting process?

None

I think new grantees or less experienced management in those grantees, need greater 

emphasis on the particular datasets (e.g., how to report persisters/returning students from one 

year to another, etc.) including the narrative portion.

Clarity on definitions for each sections - We would like to know what specifically OME is looking 

versus what we assume.

Excel report works well for me.

N/A

I think that when you simplified the process due to the limited staff, you opened the door for 

fraudulent reporting. I think you need to return to gathering more information.

no comments

Providing more detailed information on what the department would like to see.

This may already be done, but if not, I would suggest cleary defining the data elements that will 

be asked in the future APR. That way tools can be created to obtain the data before the start of 

a new fiscal year. From what I have been told the data being asked for on the APR sometimes 

changes without the grantees being clearing informed well before the start of a new program 

year. This creates a situation where the program may not be able to produce the quality of data 

that is expected. Even a minor change in the data being requested should be communicated to 

grantees well in advance of a new program year.

no comments

n/a
195

Develop a process to submit forms online, via e-forms, or some mechanism to be able to 

complete forms on the web and submit online.

No improvement is needed

n/a

All is good for our program.

More on one communications, as each program has different needs and help, not a one size 

fits all format

Reports are fine

Some transparency in how prior performance points are calculated during grant competition 

would be helpful.

I appreciate the ability to calculate the formulas and adding data on excel for reporting purposes 

but for the text part of the APR it should be word or pdf.

no comment

Q39. Describe how the technical assistance that Department staff provide could be 

improved to better support your program needs (consider content, structure, format, 

timing, etc.).

None

I still believe that OME is understaff to manage the growing number of HEP and CAMP 

grantees, plus the state programs. Nonetheless, a credit to the devotion and commitment of the 

current OME personnel, they do a magnificent job supporting grantees. Additionally, the many 

facets of collaboration with the National HEP/CAMP Association (e.g., annual meeting, 

mentoring initiative, etc.) has helped on strengthening project development and better services 

to the local MSFW communities served.

additional time for other members to contribute and share their experience for new directors

Continue to partner similar institutions such as colleges with a college for the HEP Coaching 

Mentorship.

N/A

My poor ratings are due to the cuts to OME staff. You need more people in order to be able to 

do your job effectively.
196

no comments

I think that an onboarding process for new HEP Directors would be a great idea. I have not 

been with the program long enough to provide an educated response to this technical 

assistance question. Although I have had one-on-one conversations with Department staff I 

have not been exposed to enough assistance at this point in time. I am however looking 

forward to any and all training opportunities that can be provided.

no comments

n/a

No improvement is needed

I have appreciated the collaboration with fellow directors, and hope this continues.

I have never had a question or problem that I didn't get an answer in a timely manner.

At the beginning of the grant is when the support is needed, not mid way through the year.

Good technical assistance and provide enough opportunities to have open discussions with 

other programs

Once we are able to return to face to face meetings that will improve things. The annual 

meeting has been cut short due to covid closures, so the offerings, while good, are limited in 

scope.

encourage MEPs to collaborate more. I know this is done already but maybe assess which 

MEPs could do more in their states.

Sometimes the platforms online are not user-friendly. That's out of the control of the department 

but it does influence the way we get to interact online.

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that 

provided technical services to you.

TA Webinar on Evaluation TA Webinar on HEP & CAMP Services TA Webinar on 2020 HEP & 

CAMP IPR TA Webinar on 2020 HEP & CAMP APR ADM 2020

OME HEP staff

OME
197

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role?

HEP Director

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

HEP - 2021 - Q64.6. What additional topics would you like discussed during HEP 

meetings, webinars, or phone calls to help you implement a high-quality 

program?

Need to address issues related to difficulty implementing high level quantitative 

research studies with HEP participants.

recruiting strategies

I think the structure covers most relevant topics and has added topics to better serve 

needs over the years.

How report performance negatively impacted by covid 19.

N/A

I would like OME to responde to our questions.

no comments

The technical assistance workshops are too technical. Staff reads of powerpoint but 

does not explain how the content applies to our actual work.

More tool related to digital learning.

Discussions on purchases that can be made with grant money for the intention of 

helping students be successful. For example, the purchase of snack foods, water, 

coffee and other such supplies that make the program and classroom conducive to 

student learning. What is possible? What are other programs doing? Best practices 

from successful programs.

Strategies for data collecting for reporting

n/a

How to amend additional state requirements on high school equivalency programs
198

Practical applications of different programs and how they manage them.

New educational trends and how they help learners with low academic skills

Allowable costs Q & A sessions

HEP - 2021 - Q64.7. What could the HEP team do to improve the content of 

technical assistance?

More responsive

the HEP team has been great

In general, OME needs to continue to reinforce who it is that we serve- the MSFW 

communities throughout the USA- and what it means 50+ years after the founding of 

the HEP (and CAMP) grants. This is particularly important as the number of funded 

grantees increases and that all grantees understand the mission at hand- to serve the 

MSFW community within their service areas. I think underlining this and reinforcing it at 

every turn by OME (the funding source) will ensure local institutions securing the 

funding understand and fully commit to it.

N/A

Provide more scenarios on eligibility

Respond to questions from programs.

no comments

Revise presentation to make it interactive. Focus on how the information relates to 

program.

Be as accessible as possible.

They are doing a good job

n/a

No improvement is needed
199

More in-depth examples of how different programs interpret guidelines would be 

helpful. It often feels like technical assistance webinars are just someone reading the 

text from a document we've already received.

Continued collaboration with current Directors, experts in their fields.

Allow for more sharing time with other HEP programs

Post technical training slide presentations on website.

provide additional trainings throughout the year.

HEP - 2021 - Q64.8. What could the HEP team do to improve the structure or 

format of technical assistance?

Not sure

Website works well for me.

More interactive

Sometimes in interactions, OME staff have not had visual contact, I think that is 

important for meaningful interaction. I like the presentations with space for people to 

answer questions to test their (our) knowledge.

no comments

Maybe be more specific or intential about what technical assistance can be provided. 

The phrase "technical assistance" can mean a lot, but when it comes down to exaclty 

what the HEP team can provide - that should be explicit.

Constant reminders of data collection for reporting

n/a

No improvements are needed

The format would be difficult to change other than to provide smaller group settings to 

provide more time for questions.

program by program basics
200

Once we have a session, have videos available for review

no suggestions

HEP - 2021 - Q64.9. Please share any comments on how the HEP team can better 

support your work. Please include any ideas that the HEP team may use to better 

support your work as it relates to your project’s specific needs.

Responsive to emails

continue with up to date information through webinars, etc..

I think OME is doing just fine. However, perhaps a mechanism where new grantees 

receive greater support during the first couple of years of funding.

Student accommodations during and post pandemic. Virtual learning vs hybrid classes. 

Pandemic effects on Performance GPRA1 and GPRA2

I trust that with a more supportive Department of Education, the HEP team at OME will 

regain footing.

no comments

Continue to provide trainings with fellow HEP programs and guidance on the APR as 

well recruitment and eligibility.

Pull programs together and have round table discussions about concerns. This is a 

way to get to core issues that maybe many programs have.

no comments

n/a

No improvements are needed

NA

The only issue I've had with is with responsiveness--everything else has been great. I 

had a question about a time-sensitive issue and emailed and called two people and did 

not get a response from either. Luckily, I was able to resolve the issue so it did not 

impact my program, but I'm not sure why I never received a response.

Continue with the quarterly meetings with different topics and Q&A sessions Record 

meetings and make them available to project staff
201

Increase the maximum awards for HEP to keep up with inflationary costs.

Keep up the good work

HEP - 2021 - Q64.10. Are there any other federal programs providing you 

technical assistance in form and/or content the HEP/CAMPteam should consider 

as a model?

No

no

Not that I am aware of.

No

None

COABE

no comments

None, but assessement tools to use for audits might be useful

no

N/A

n/a

No

NA

no suggestions

No.
202

Hispanic Serving Institutions - STEM and Articulation Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Sometimes there's outdated information.

Improve navigation for people not intimately familiar with jargon.

More regular and timely bulletins, sharing info from other colleges, best practices (with 

permission)

I have only visited the National Center for Education Statistics-informative.

Needs to be more user friendly. Easier to find documents, etc.

I just visited this website (oese.ed.gov) and I think it was my first time seeing this page. This 

does not reflect the content related to my grant program. The Office of Postsecondary 

Education website is very simple, and not regularly updated. I do not refer to this page for 

"news" but rather for past information, ongoing regulations, etc.

N/A

Update regularly

I am comfortable with the way information is currently presented on the website. Occasionally, 

there are some challenges with locating materials when new information is added or you need 

access to archival information. But I have always been able to find what I needed - even if it 

took some time.

When searching, I often end up back where I started after a few clicks and I haven't found the 

information I needed. Perhaps have an index.

I am happy with the program officers' responses and guidance. The website is thorough but 

searching could be more unambiguous.

Provide PD about this website.

It would be helpful if there were more online resources for HSI STEM (Title III Part F) directors.

It took too long for the new format of annual report to be functional. The reporting format can be 

simpler and more straightforward.

It is to be updated more frequently, and provide access to resources, including grantees. A 
203

recurrent highlight of interventions that work will be most useful.

Make sure information is up to date

more resources

It is difficult to find information, I suggest to develop a better search method (using: keywords, 

phrases, etc.)

The search feature give an overwhelming amount of suggestions. The menu on the right hand 

side "How do I find and "Information About" is not relevant and looks like it was added and 

forgotten.

The APR has changed over the past several years. Providing a webinar to explain the changes 

would be helpful. As an example, this year the budget was different. It wasn't explained if we 

should include/exclude the grant director/evaluator. Different program officers provided 

different direction. The grant directors talk to each other because they are nervous to contact 

the program officers. We could tell that program officers weren't talking to each other.

N/A Is Excellent to Navigate

Please improve the APR submission portal as well as the portal from which we access our 

GAN.

None

N/A

No suggestions, it seems fine.

Provide more details about resources and upcoming conferences. How to connect with other 

HSI leadership.

Perhaps include a threaded conversation feature so program directors could ask and respond 

to questions and other PDs could view and learn from the discussion threads.

The site is one of the better government websites I use with respect to information. It is a textheavy website, and might benefit from a broader use of hyperlinked graphics.

N/A

Q33. How could we improve the grant reporting process?

I would like feedback from the Program Office on grant reports.
204

More advance notice and a template that can be completed offline prior to logging in to the 

system.

The report itself is very opened for interpretation. The questions are a bit confusing.

I recognize that there are many things outside of the control of the people sending notifications 

that the APR system is open. I appreciate the heads up, blank templates, and anticipated 

timeline so that our team can work together to pull and prepare data for the report to ensure it is 

submitted in a timely manner.

Provide a benefit to the grant for the submission of each report.

The grant reporting process is appropriate, providing us the opportunity to report our progress 

to the Department team.

Overall the HEPIS system works well when it comes to sharing the required information for the 

reports. The biggest challenge that I have encountered is with the limitations of the system for 

reporting the results. Most responses are character limited to 1500 characters with a few 

responses that have larger character limits. This is especially challenging when the response to 

the question requires some accompanying context. While there is the option of providing up to 3 

attachments to the report - it would be really helpful if there is some flexibility when it comes to 

the character limited responses; as we spend a lot of time rewriting what needs to be reported 

and try to make it all fit. I recognize that some limits are necessary given the volume of reports 

that the department has to process but perhaps there is a nice compromise somewhere 

inbetween that makes for less busy work for PD's.

Some of the data reporting is redundant. Also, prior to my first time completing the report, I 

didn't understand the that LAA's were to be tied to budget expenditures. Had I known that 

before, I would have prepared better all along the way instead of reorganizing my budget all at 

one time for the prior year.

It lists all the different requirements for different programs together and it is very confusing to 

know which one is applicable to any particular program. I wish it could customize the questions 

to particular project or particular institution.

Debrief grantees on the reports will help improve future grants and or institutions.

I do not have a good understanding of how the reports are used or what kinds of data are most 

important.

I previous comments about the reporting software should have written here.

Provide more information on how the Department will use the data to improve HSI.

Over the last 5 years reporting has become more streamlined and easier to understand what 

we have to report. i am not sure, however i know how our data will be used. Making it explicit 

will be helpful.
205

Structure grant applications such that the APR and final reports use the same format making it 

much easier to align the approved grant, data collected and the APR document. Also, some 

information requested in the APR (e.g. information regarding overall university enrollment, 

demographics, etc.) is not easily available to Project Directors as it is university level 

information that would typically be accessible by university administration. Removing such 

requirements from the APR and requesting that information through a separate process to 

university grants offices.

Some of the reporting requirements are kind of opaque, and it's really unclear from the reporting 

process what actually happens to the data we report. It's different with NSF --- maybe I'm just 

more used to the way they operate?

clear instructions or an info session on how to complete.

N/A

The reporting requirements should be detailed in the grant call and the form should not keep 

changing over the grant award period.

Give more transparency on how the data is used by the US Dept. of Education after submission 

from the grants. Send an APR template that is specific to each type of grant (Title III, Title V, 

etc.) The template we received ahead of time did not have character limit specified in there 

while the online portal had a character limit on the different areas of the APR.

There have been frequent changes to the APR. It would be helpful to have webinars archived 

to describe the change, the rationale for the change and directions on how to complete the 

newer version of the APR. Grant Directors are grilled by others on why there are changes. The 

program officers are always kind and helpful...but when we are in the process of submitting a 

new grant...we don't want to look like we don't know what we are doing.

N/A

How does the Department of Education use the data on program outcomes that we've amassed 

over the life of our Title III STEM Grant? I find this information more easily accessible and more 

user-friendly on the Excelencia website.

None

Currently the reporting process is detailed and questions are relevant to the project objectives 

and outcomes.

N/A

The revised APR has greatly improved, thank you for the slight simplification, it made a big 

dfference.

I think some of the data requests reflect federal requirements rather than useful data that really 
206

reflect what is going on with grant initiatives.

I appreciate the character limits implemented during this year. That has helped make the 

reporting process more streamlined, with a focus on clarity and concision.

N/A

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role?

Grant Director

Project Manager

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

HSI STEM - 2021 - Q23.2. Please tell us how the technical assistance you 

received from your program specialist this past year was affected by the 

pandemic, as well as any suggestions you have to improve the technical 

assistance you received should we be faced with future national emergencies.

Program Officer was non-responsive.

Our Program Specialists assistance was seamless during the pandemic.

[REDACTED] was very clear about how the Department of Education was adjusting 

program expectations due to the pandemic.

The program officer provided timely support, regular updates, and a genuine concern 

for our status and situations. Outstanding service to our institution and our efforts!

One of the strengths of the HSI-STEM and Articulation Program Staff is their 

responsiveness. From the Division Director to the Program Officer - they care deeply 

about the program and the issues and provide thoughtful and timely responses any 

time I have had a question. They are truly exemplary!! Thank you [REDACTED] and 

[REDACTED]!!

I had a different program specialist during the onset of the pandemic. She was never 

very responsive and less so during the pandemic. She didn't acknowlege a revision 

request submitted 8 weeks before the end of the grant year and didn't acknowledge a 

subsequent carry-over plan. In January 2021 I was assigned a different specialist who 

has been very responsive, knowledgeable, and professional.

She has always responded quickly and with clear directions.
207

N/A

My last DOE program officer has been very helpful. I have been very satisfied with the 

quality of my interactions with her.

The Department staff was excellent in providing assistance in various terms; 

communications, flexibility, and additional financial support.

Early on it really wasn't very clear what would happen to our project, but we just kept 

going, and eventually the HSI-STEM program was very forthcoming, and even provided 

additional assistance, which was extremely welcome.

The HSI department was very supportive, my program officer helped with any 

questions or clarifications I needed to resolve.

The assistance I received was sufficient in allowing us to make changes and adapt 

quickly to the pandemic. At times it does felt like the program specialist have lot on their 

plate and unable to work as efficiently as they would if they had a lighter workload.

Unlike a normal natural disaster, everyone was impacted. The program officer I work 

with responded quickly when I sent a question. I appreciate that it wasn't easy for them 

either. Connecting us to each other...even more than they tried...would've been helpful. 

A colleague has a program officer that offers weekly coffee hours. It lessens the stress 

of asking dumb questions because you already have a relationship. They conveyed 

the sense of support...or maybe my program officer did...it would've been helpful to 

hear that more often. Changing the APR in an already difficult year wasn't 

particularly helpful. It would've helped if we had a reason we could pass along to our 

bosses. I am hopeful they will be understanding of a request for a No Cost Extension. 

Please God...no more national emergencies.

N/A

for the most part it was seamless. Enjoyed the virtual services.

The interaction with my program officer and supplemental grant funding helped us in 

identifying items and implementing processes to further enhance students' learning and 

engagement through virtual environment.

N/A

Everyone was available by email. Perhaps a zoom meeting with project directors could 

have been useful to discuss challenges.

The agency provided much needed flexibility in responding to the pandemic.
208

I didn't have much need for technical help until I started working at home during the 

pandemic, so I don't have a point of comparison. However, the technical help I 

received while I worked on the APR was very timely, professional and helpful.

Th technical assistance was not affected by the pandemic.

HSI STEM - 2021 - Q23.5. What can the HSI - Science, Technology, Engineering, 

or Mathematics and Articulation program do to improve communication with 

you?

Respond to emails in a timely manner (within a week).

The webinars a very, very helpful but promises re: Fand Qs getting published were not 

kept . . . that alone was very disconcerting

Maintain and support the current program lead, who is responsive, articulate, 

professional and caring. The leadership of the program is the best it has ever been in 

my 15 years of association with same. We are grateful for the ongoing engagement, 

support, and assistance provided by the HSI STEM & Articulation program team!

I appreciate the excellent communications from the HSI-STEM Program staff 

colleagues! They are outstanding and I can't thank them enough for their outstanding 

support, responsiveness and caring.

Again, for most of the grant, I had an unresponsive program specialist. The college 

had to enlist the assistance of the college president in trying to get a response on more 

than one occasion. Since January 2021, the new assigned program specialist has 

been excellent.

Happy with the service and communications provided by the program officer

Schedule a phone call at least one time per year to review questions about grant or 

new federal policy.

My rating in previous screen was based on the experience I have had with my latest 

program officer.

Our Program Officer maintains excellent communication and is responsive to our 

questions. Perhaps short bimonthly meetings could help keeping them inform, and 

receive updated information.

I recognize the dependence of awards notifications on reviewers, budget approvals by 

congress, federal fiscal year timing (October 1) but most of us begin our terms in the 

middle to the end of August so not knowing whether funding is available until October 1 

delays implementation of activities.
209

I appreciate the email, webinars, conferences and other forms of communication the 

department has engaged with us throughout the years.

Provide more regular announcement and updates. Create more platform for Project 

Directors to work with each other and share best practices, especially through the use 

of technology. The use of Teams for the webinars is a bad idea. Use a method where 

attendees are not distracted by the large volume of questions coming in.

More! It seems that other organizations take on the task of connecting and supporting 

new grant directors. They are in the position of hosting the relationship and cultivating 

networks of learning among grant administrators. Don't worry about filling our inbox. 

I'd give anything for some one to call and ask me what's working or what my concerns 

might be.

N/A

More frequent communication from our Program Officer

None

Currently i have an excellent communication with my project officer related to the HSISTEM project, activities and its implementation process.

N/A

The Program Officer answers all emails promptly and enthusiastically.

provide a monthly newsletter of upcoming competitions, when to expect 

announcements and information about best practices.

I had a great experience with my program officer. Communication was prompt, clear, 

and useful.

All is well.

HSI STEM - 2021 - Q23.6e. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly 

with your program specialist?

Any and all of the above are fine
210

HSI STEM - 2021 - Q23.7. How would you advise on improving the overall process 

and protocols associated with this grant competition?

Offer the webinar early on and post the F and Q froms the session right away. . . 

perhaps offer more than one webinar

Maybe make it more of a collaborative cohort working on innovative projects than a 

competition. Once the grant applicants are selected, they can all work together to 

ensure the success of their individual projects.

See my prior comment, don't change a process that is valuable, working well, and 

successful :)

Overall the processes and protocols appear to work well and the department makes a 

great effort to provide guidance through informational webinars. I recognize that the 

timing of the announcments depends on other factors but it would be good to announce 

it earlier than later - especially as we get towards the end of the school year. This year 

the announcement in the congressional register was on 04/30 and the deadline for 

submission was 06/14. As a limited submission opportunity many of us had to go 

through an internal competition to earn the right to submit a proposal and that took a 

couple of weeks in our case. This meant that the window to develop and submit the 

proposal was barely 4 weeks. Keeping that in mind it would have been great if we had 

an additional two weeks at the front end when the competition was announced so that 

we could have about 6 weeks to develop and submit the proposal.

More clarity of instructions.

none

N/A

The only advice I have is more time announcement of then new RFPs

Longer anticipation. Last time we had only 45 days to respond.

More time between opening of competition and submission of projects

Make the budget requirements clearer

earlier notification

The roll out of the grant competition was extensively delayed. The grant is tied into 

student progress, and livelihood of the staff and students that are hired on the grant. In 

the future it will be helpful to have some extra cushion between the end of previous 

cycle and the announcement of following 5-year awards.
211

I don't have any advice.

N/A

None

Currently, the overall process associated with the grant competition is fair

N/A

No suggestions. We are grateful for the webinar that provided information for submitting 

a proposal.

I appreciate the guidance, clarity, and helpfulness of the staff, especially Program 

Officer [REDACTED] and HSI Division Director [REDACTED]. [REDACTED] is 

extremely helpful and knowledgeable, and [REDACTED] is simply outstanding.
212

Historically Black Graduate Institutions (HBGI) Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Develop more of a flow from Title III to the part to the grant. Once at the grant level, clearly link 

relevant legislation, regulation, and relevant documents for that grant.

The website should be made to be more user friendly and easier to navigate.

Update information periodically

Not sure what OESE.ED website contains. (Not familiar with the acronym.) Will try it after this 

survey.

need to add some specifics regarding do's and don'ts.

Q33. How could we improve the grant reporting process?

I think the recent improvements in the APR have been good. I think the instrument is much 

better than it was in the past. The current design allows institutions to report on the impact that 

the grant is having at the institution based on how the grant is being deployed, rather than 

canned questions that may or may not address what the institution is doing.

No recommendations.

N/A

Give more clarity in how to set up and report on endowments; how to establish/determine 

suitable matching fund sources.

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

HBGI - 2021 - Q30.2. Please tell us how the technical assistance you received 

from your program specialist this past year was affected by the pandemic, as 

well as any suggestions you have to improve the technical assistance you 

received should we be faced with future national emergencies.

My program specialist is knowledgeable, but I did not have the need to interact 

regarding this grant during the past year.
213

I requested assistance via email, and the response was clear, concise and very timely. 

I did not see a difference in the service I received.

My program specialist is always responsive.

Appreciated the the second year extension for the carryover funds. The department 

was sensitive to the needs of the schools. It was greatly appreciated.

HBGI - 2021 - Q30.5. What can HBGI do to improve communication with you? 

N/A

No recommendation.

I would suggest an annual meeting to discuss effective programs.

Communicate more frequently and give a general overview of what programs other 

schools supporting with their funds;

HBGI - 2021 - Q30.7. How would you advise on improving the overall process and 

protocols associated with this grant competition?

N/A

No recommendation.

N/A

More transparency is needed in how the level of funding is determined.
214

IDEA – Part C Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

There are many links & tabs. Sometimes difficult to find something when told "it's on the 

website." Maybe the query feature could be expanded?

It is still very hard to find things. A CONSISTENT tree like structure with a guide for suggested 

search terms would help.

No suggestions at this time.

The variety of sites available to access for resources and information makes it difficult to know 

what to find where. It would be better if there was a page that acted as a landing page and 

linked to other web pages based on information being sought.

No comments at this time

I love the improvements that have been made - particularly the navigation "tiles" or boxes on 

the Family and Provider pages! But there are still a lot of long lists, which makes finding things 

seem daunting (e.g. Guidance page). The categories on Programs helps, for example, but still 

seems overwhelming - especially for someone new or doesn't know exactly what to look for 

when they begin looking at the site. Perhaps a way to have searched items more "friendly" than 

the current list formatting would help, too. My favorite part is the Family section - yessss!

continue to keep us posted with new information.

It may be more of the fact that the specific content I wanted wasn't available at that time but I 

had difficulty finding it.

Increase access to material for Infant Toddler section

Please offer more clear categories (e.g., distinctions between resources and research is not 

always clear). There are broken loops (e.g., RDA) that return the user to the same place.

have a Part C specific section,

Improved search results. Consolidation. Stop creating new sites fix the sites you have. Think 

of what the grantee needs and build the site. Use stakeholders from states.

Not an expert here but it is challenging to actually find specific information using the search 

engine. I wonder if the search engine could be tiered: - first choose the Program or area such 

as Part C and then enter key words from there. The color of the font and the page are not easily 

readable. Maybe this is built on columns rather than a grid but a grid format is easier to view.
215

Better separation between Part C resources/info and Part B resources/info

search engine does not accurately find the info i'm looking for

Search results could be more accurate, navigability could improve

USDOE has a couple of sites, ideas that work and sites.ed.gov, and others. It's difficult to know 

which site to look for information on. The info on ideas that work is difficult to find, most is 

embedded deep in the site.

Q21. Please describe how the PROGRAM OFFICE could improve the quality and 

usefulness of our documents, including policy-related documents. In your response, 

please identify the name or type of document(s) your comments address (e.g., nonregulatory guidance, newsletter, blast emails).

There are so many unknowns with all the changes so I'm not even sure which documents we 

are referring to but the DMS 2.0 protocols were in mind.

Not always clear differentiating between information that is relevant for IDEA Part C and that for 

IDEA Part C. This is confusing to new state staff.

No suggestions at this time.

Many documents that are used as guidance (such as memos) may be directed to a particular 

state issue and may not fully respond to a nuanced need from my state. Information provided 

tends to be high-level and, on occasion, does not speak with enough specificity for me to 

understand how to apply it to my state's needs. Information disseminated comes from several 

different sources, which makes it difficult to do an email search to find the information that was 

sent a few days/weeks later if I do not save it immediately. That said, my state lead is excellent 

at forwarding relevant information, so many times I can search for his emails. However, that 

isn't something I can solely rely on.

None at this time.

The frequency of communication is wonderful! It feels responsive and as timely as possible -

and I especially appreciate that when there is no information on something, that the team is 

transparent about this instead of just being silent. This has really been helping build 

relationships, I think! Sometimes info is still a LOT all in one document, so breaking things into 

sections helps - and sometimes there just is a lot of info and no way around this! :) One thing 

that might be helpful is to make sure that the most current things are always most visible, 

especially in searches - I worry sometimes that I will be following old guidance when there are 

multiple items for one topic. If that makes sense!

documents that are provided to us are clear.
216

I wish the documents were completed in a more timely manner. For example, the COVID 

guidance was released at least 6 months after the pandemic was declared. The initial guidance 

(early) basically said do what you think is best. Then, months later the policy document was 

released and had specific guidance that may not have been the same approach that a state 

used.

Not sure there would have been a way to improve policy-related documents during the 

pandemic; we were all learning as we went.

none

be more specific and targeted to Part C, rather than have what is often the little guidance for 

Part C buried in the message to Part B

Timeliness: Guidance is slow coming and very broad - sometimes creating more questions 

than it answers. I would appreciate clarity in every statement. If there is no clarity, then 

describe that the grantee may interpret the statement very broadly.

documents and guidance could be more timely and relevant to Part C programmatic needs, 

States and local programs need guidance quickly and it seems to take forever to get this from 

OSEP--great example was the lack of COVID guidance and support to States

Would be more useful if guidance were available in languages other than English since the 

purpose of these documents is to provide direction in program implementation and 

requirements.

Guidance issued during COVID came out too late and was a re-stating of regulations/law, we 

needed flexibility not regs to support children and families during the pandemic.

Q33. How could we improve the grant reporting process?

First off PLEASE put the Part C application online vs a MS Word file... The shift to EDFACTs 

was tough but is getting better - still clunky. Not 100% sure how all the data is used and some 

is duplicative (618 / SPP) and that takes time.

Please ensure all forms that must be made 508 compliant are compliant in design.

The 508 compliance requirement makes completing and submitting reports very difficult. The 

templates are helpful, but the do hinder providing graphic representations of our data. I do not 

know how OSEP uses these data at the federal level for program improvement at the federal 

level.

None at this time

Spread the due dates out throughout the year instead of concentrated in the Spring.
217

To be honest, I have been thinking quite differently this past year around data and data 

requirements. I gave a "5" for usefulness because I am wondering if we are measuring what we 

need to be measuring for families and their identified needs and wants at this time in our world, 

Tribal Nations and the BIE, the US, Territories, Outlying Areas, and Freely Associated States. I 

struggle with how to shift from focusing on the outcomes to also focusing on the processes. 

Also, other items I marked a little lower are either tied to me being still relatively new and 

needing to keep learning about the processes, and sometimes feeling like communicating the 

"why" and how states' data is used may be happening more than I realize, and I just don't know 

where to look for some of this. There is doubt, however, that I feel completely 110% supported 

and valued in the reporting process and all other aspects of our work for children and families.

reporting process is good. no comments here

It didn't make sense that the ICC certification had to be 501 compliant. The document was sent 

to states from OSEP. Why can states attest that the document was signed or allow the ICC 

chair access to certify within EMAPS? The effort to make it compliant took lots of time and all 

states had to figure it out.

none

Please allow for a single upload for the reporting requirements rather than so many text entry 

fields. Please provide 508-compliant templates for use.

Ability to upload documents. Use fillable pdf documents.

As we enter into a new data management system, collecting data appropriately leading to valid 

and reliable reporting is tricky. I've appreciated the business rules found on IDC. This 

information should be readily available for every reporting indicator from OSEP. I somewhat 

understand how the data is used but am concerned the data is used out of context in which it 

was collected.

Take away the requirement for 508 compliance for documents submitted to OSEP and not 

posted publicly; open the reporting system earlier to allow more time to enter data and 

summaries before the due date

clarity in how OSEP uses the data would be beneficial, ease in making forms 508 compliant, 

data tables in EMAPS were not always accurate and getting these changed or corrected was 

difficult

Some language requirements such as reporting on correction of noncompliance is circular. Say 

the same thing over and over and never seems to satisfy. The online system doesn't allow for 

some of the requirements, such as tables and charts to report data in. The formats are terrible 

for stakeholder sharing.

Q39. Describe how the technical assistance that Department staff provide could be 

improved to better support your program needs (consider content, structure, format, 
218

timing, etc.).

The OSEP staff don't really help with EBPs; they contract that out. The TA centers are helpful 

but that wasn't the question.

I am uncertain about this.

None at this time

Not sure I am reading this section correctly! I am approaching it as state staff, not a TA center. I 

believe some of these questions are for TA folks. I feel good about the support to states from 

TA centers!!

TA is awesome. quick to respond. always keeping me in the loop via email. always answers 

my questions.

none

perhaps I'm misinformed but i was not aware that Department staff provided TA, as the Part C 

coordinator i have not ever experienced this.

Timing: TA needs to be just as quick as the expected implementation by grantees. The ARP 

funds are a case in point for Part C - the guidance, when received, was broad. I just requested 

additional assistance based upon requests from the Legislative Commission that met for the 

first time yesterday to review the activities and funds associated for the ARP funding.

N/A

technical assistance from department staff could be more timely, content could be more clearly 

written, while meeting with all programs at one time is easier for the department--it might be 

better if information was provided by department teams (small groups)

More timely. Since the Department contracts for TA centers, let the centers do the work. 

Approve their products more quickly.

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that 

provided technical services to you.

ECTA

ECPC, CIFR (Thank you for expanding their scope), DaSY and ECTA

Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center for IDEA Data Systems
219

DaSy and ECTA

ECTA DaSy CIFR SRI

Comprehensive Centers

DASY

ECTA; DaSy; CIFR

[REDACTED]

Learning Collaborative - SRI Also - Data assistance through DaSy

ECTA CADRE

DaSy

DaSy

ECTA Center

ECTAC

ECTA CIFI

CiFR ECTA IDC DaSY

DaSY, ECTA, and CIFR

Equity Assistance Center

CIFR, ECTA, DaSy, CADRE, ECPC

DaSY ECTA CIFR

DaSY, ECTA

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role?

Part C Coordinator
220

Part C Coordinator

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

IDEA - Part C - 2021 - Q8.4. Think about the types of technical assistance and 

support provided by OSEP...Which types of assistance were most effective in 

helping you meet federal requirements and/or improve program quality?

1:1 Calls with our state lead and her ability to pull in others to help. The Monthly TA 

calls are helpful but the information could just as easily be share with clear infographics 

and slide decks in advance leaving the time on the call for Q&A.

All of them are helpful as there is an enormous amount of information to learn and 

know. It would be great if there was one website that linked to all of the others instead 

of having to search each site individually for information. Our state enjoys the 

webinars, monthly calls with our state lead and written information.

Guidance provided directly by my OSEP state lead as well as the monthly topical 

webinars

TA Calls, State-to-State sharing facilitated by TA representatives, sharing of documents 

across States on specific topics, TA assistance with connecting with content area 

experts, Q&A provided by TA via email, resources on TA center websites, Q&A 

provided by OSEP State Lead, OSEP Monthly calls, and topical webinars.

Monthly TA calls.

First, just want to say I gave an 8 for timeliness not due to my state lead, but due to 

them being too busy that sometimes overload of work makes it hard to get back to us, 

or them waiting on info from other parts of the process (legal, etc.) - but we have 

developed a system for items that need quick response that works great and totally 

meets our needs!! / Assistance the were most effective this past year for us were: 1) all 

communications with our state lead (emails, calls, virtual meetings); 2) the new format 

for the MSIP TA calls and getting to see OSEP as they present, the increase in 

interactive content, and ample and responsive Q&A time; 3) [REDACTED] transparent 

emails, and with increased frequency; 4) Q&A docs

the OSEP Director's News Letter, TA Calls and webinars

TA calls are helpful

discussions - written documents

we have not received assistance
221

Q &A documents Topical Webinars MSIP Monthly TA Calls

Monthly TA calls

Topical webinars

Q/A documents

None of these. We work very closely with our Federal TA providers and this is how we 

have received the most effective assistance.

Monthly TA calls and webinars

Newsletters were useful, timely. Guidance documents/Q&A documents not as effective 

due to lack of flexibility for implementing program changes due to COVID.

IDEA - Part C - 2021 - Q8.5. Which types of assistance were least helpful?

The measurement table is overwhelming and silly - too many words. Be concise! All 

the verbiage in the APRs makes them inaccessible to average readers and parents. Is 

it really needed?

None that come to mind.

Dear Colleague letters and listserve notices

None that I can think of at this time.

he newsletter

none is least helpful. i appreciate all information. i dont use all, but when i need to 

clarifiy things, i read the newsletter, re watch the webinars, email Lucille, etc. it all 

depends on how much support i need to get things clarified.

weekly emails

none

lack of responsive to questions, no guidance on ARPA, no insights into how to 

implement directions

All works great for me.
222

Dear Colleague

Emails and letters

newsletters

Webinars

COVID guidance. 618 reporting questions to address year-to-year changes is very 

confusing.

IDEA - Part C - 2021 - Q8.8. In light of the challenges (e.g., need for policy 

guidance) that emerged this year because of the pandemic, how effective was the 

TA you received from your state contact or project office?

It was helpful to hear what other states were doing and to use that information to make 

decisions in our state. Some uniform guidance around data might have been helpful, 

but appreciate OSEPs willingness to work with state's whose data was impacted 

greatly by the pandemic. For states that weren't as impacted (from a data perspective) 

it would be nice if some flexibilities could be looked at elsewhere for them.

My OSEP state lead was very helpful throughout this year.

TA was helpful as our questions were answered to the extent possible.

It was ok

First in response to the last question: If the grant application process is fully automated, 

then I take this to mean we would not continue to get the support we get, which is why I 

put "0". If, however you mean that we would no longer have to send in a paper copy 

and/or the wet signature, then I am 100% fine with that! / In light of this past year's 

challenged, or TA - both from OSEP-funded TA sources and OSEP/MSIP/RTP/etc was 

INDESPENSIBLE!! We could not have gotten through this without you all and the ways 

you shifted quickly (when you could). The TA centers were AMAZING - I don't even 

have enough words. And not just for the pandemic, but after [REDACTED] murder and 

as we have been working so hard to shift and change to do a better job in equity for 

kids and families.

very helpful and timely

TA was effective in validating how the state managed Part C services during the 

pandemic.

very effective - responsive
223

while i appreciate the commitment to have our state lead regularly reach out, the calls 

have not been useful

My OSEP contact is very effective.

Extremely effective.

Effective - the pandemic and its ramifications were a moving target. ECTA, other 

States, OSEP (to some degree) provided TA and information as quickly as it was being 

received and digested.

Very effective but not always timely

not effective bc our state contact was brand new - became employed about halfway 

through the pandemic and had never worked in a similar position before. is on a steep 

learning curve.

We never received any TA from our state lead. Our lead never reached out to us to 

see how we were doing or to ask if we needed assistance.

Very effective. Helped shedding light to manage issues in our state.

Not very effective--slow to come out, basically restating regulations, no flexibilities 

offered. The ARPA guidance still not out.

IDEA - Part C - 2021 - Q8.9. Please provide any suggestions you have to improve 

the technical assistance you received should we be faced with future national 

emergencies. 

The department could hold weekly Q&A up front to make sure they hear and we all 

hear the same questions even if OSEP can't answer them right away. The time and 

requirement for clearance should be waived during the emergency so OSEP is free to 

be responsive.

Get information out sooner to states.

More timely guidance re: requirements or allowable exceptions.

None at this time.

The only things I can say are this: Please keep the processes you and the TA centers 

developed during this time - they made things better, and enhanced our relationships 

with you immensely. Which in the end trickles down to kids and families! Also, anything 

you can do to get the processes you can't control prepared, so that next time they 
224

aren't holding you up from supporting and providing guidance for us. And finally -

please use this opportunity to collaborate and model for us collaboration across federal 

agencies in future national emergencies.

none. i am very satisfied.

It may be helpful to have regional or individual calls with states as early as feasible 

during an emergency to understand problems on the ground in real time.

none

reach out earlier, more often and with at the very least a general message of tone or 

intent - the silence and 'we'll be providing guidance soon' mantra was super unhelpful

Timely. States had to revise polices and initiate services within weeks of the system 

shutting down. States were also quick to return to in-person services. All these 

activities were done before guidance was provided.

ITCA did a great job of bringing coordinators together. OSEP could have done that as 

well with greater frequency.

need more timely guidance. the Q/A's were extremely helpful - but need this info more 

timely

Timely TA, expediency in releasing guidance, FAQs, TA, etc.

Allow for flexibilities and be timely in issuing them.
225

IDEA – State Directors of Special Education (Part B) Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Easily accessible TA topics - there's way too much text on the front page - better organization 

for more easily searchable TA topics and hot topics

na

The website is good. its just the delay the Department experiences ion getting permission to 

post guidance, etc. that is frustrating at times.

Easier access to documents, questions, and examples.

Making sure everything is 508 compliant; more user friendly (less clicks to get to 

resources);getting things posted in a timely fashion (sometimes it takes weeks before a webinar 

is posted)

I have worked with several staff from the Department. My experiences varied; however, I 

cannot say enough good things about my state liaison.

N/A

I haven't really used this website much.

The OSEP Fast Facts site is excellent. The information is concise, readable, and usable. It is a 

model for improvement throughout the OSEP website.

improve search features....difficult to determine what "tags" to use to find needed information.

Searches can be more general to include key phrases of the topic..

I think it is meeting my needs currently.

Improved navigation and search functions - topical index maybe (e.g., like the policy letters)? -

ability to sort search results by different characteristics (e.g., sort most to least relevant, sort 

newest to oldest, etc.)

I think the fast fact sheets have been helpful and putting information in that format would be 

more helpful than trying to find a letter to a colleague or an obscure presentation from several 

years ago to find information on a topic.

Not able to give feedback at this point.
226

N/A

I find it very hard to find things I need related to special education on the USDOE website. I 

would like OSEP items to be organized in one or two central areas.

Hard to navigate

Improvement to the search function

I can rarely find what I need. I don't know if the naming functioning needs to improve or the 

search criteria but it's very difficult to find the latest, greatest (most recently released/updated) 

information.

The websites and resources are great and very useful when users are familiar and used to how 

the resources are mapped out throughout the website. So, a dashboard with 

compartmentalized resources in specific areas that are also linked to TA centers and their 

related resources would help with visual clarity of sites and resources. Link in state level 

resources showing best-practice and similar resources oftentimes are look for by users like us.

Q21. Please describe how the PROGRAM OFFICE could improve the quality and 

usefulness of our documents, including policy-related documents. In your response, 

please identify the name or type of document(s) your comments address (e.g., nonregulatory guidance, newsletter, blast emails).

I currently do not receive any email blasts from the Preschool Grant Program and am unaware 

of a newsletter. I have been able to locate some non-regulatory guidance which has been 

somewhat of assistance.

na

Again, its the delay in the Departments ability to get the information out. For example: COVID Q 

and A's, Compensatory Services guidance.

Have items listed under specific topics.

It would be great to improve the search feature for Dear Colleague Letters. In many instances, 

these letters are used to support local implementation of guidance and can be difficult to locate 

using the search features. Also, some DCL letters should be addressed with technical 

assistance to clearly describe the guidance and next steps.

Guidance needs to be provided in a much more timely manner in order to be useful.

An opening summary section with document and other references would help in understanding 

the document information and its' subsequent referral, assignment, and use.
227

specific guidance in a timely manner. Offer any guidance provided is well past the time it was 

needed. Especially during COVID, there was little to no guidance and when it was provided, it 

was weeks and months behind the need.

The documents serve the purpose intended are quite useful.

I need to understand more about IDEA funding.

The documents I receive are meeting my needs.

Commit to a position and what you expect of states - try to be a little less ambiguous (and we 

recognize that it's a tough position for OSEP because of how much state control there is in 

education).

When things are presented to us virtually but not included in a document or email it is hard to 

get all of the information because if I missed the presentation I don't always have time to go 

back and watch it to get the information I need that I have been referred to when I ask a 

question.

Nothing at this point.

timeliness of document distribution.

I don't always feel in the loop when new information is released. I also wish there was a page 

and specific resources for State Director's that was sponsored by OSEP. More support for SEA 

leaders in this work.

Increase the timeliness of responses, particularly during COVID.

The non-regulatory guidance has been lagged in the past year regarding the pandemic. it was 

difficult to provide guidance in a timely manner to our local education agencies.

quicker. much quicker release.

No comments.

Q33. How could we improve the grant reporting process?

increase in frequency and type of specific training and TA - also highlighting real life exemplars 

from other SEAs of varying size would be helpful.

na

live demonstration for new SEA staff, step by step process for new staff
228

NA

Consistency of reporting

I am not sure since I think it is currently meeting my needs.

We're not sure about the process itself, but we feel it's hard to use the data to improve 

programs when the data is very old by the time it's included in the SPP-APR, etc. Also, 

additional clarity is needed on public reporting requirements - we have heard inconsistent 

responses from OSEP, and have heard from other states that they received different 

information than we did in this regard.

Almost all of the support we get around the reporting process comes from TA centers rather 

than the US DOE. The TA centers are extremely helpful in walking us through areas we are 

unclear on or need assistance with.

The SPP/APR tool is cumbersome, times out, and is in great need of a modern upgrade.

More training

since State Determinations have been the same for many years, consider other ways to include 

data for the results matrix.

it's hard to find the info I need on your website.

Mailing hard copies can pose challenges at time. If every reports are to be submitted 

electronically, it would really make submission easier for small states out in the Pacific.

Q39. Describe how the technical assistance that Department staff provide could be 

improved to better support your program needs (consider content, structure, format, 

timing, etc.).

na

Additional technical assistance is needed to understand general supervision and how to have a 

result-driven accountability system

NA

Currently assigned OSEP staff and OSEP-funded TA providers have been exceptionally helpful 

inmeeting program needs. Consistency in OSEP and OSEP-funded TA personnel and 

programs would be helpful.

better align with the TA provided by NASDSE.
229

Need in person training instead of virtual trainings and meetings.

I think our TA providers are TERRIFIC and get back with us when we present a question that 

needs research.

From our perspective, OSEP provides minimal direct technical assistance to our state, with 

most of the TA we receive being from OSEP-funded centers. We would be able to speak with 

more certainty about the quality of support received from TA centers (which is generally 

excellent).

Again almost all of our TA comes from TA Centers not the Department Staff. It is actually 

difficult to get assistance from staff as they typically will just state the law and that we need to 

be within the law.

Technical Assistance Centers are very helpful to States.

quicker information.

We greatly appreciate when our State Contact and other Department Staff schedule conference 

calls on their evenings so Pacific entities do not have to join calls in the early hours of the day.

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that 

provided technical services to you.

ECTA

IDC, CIFR, NCSI, CADRE,

CIFR, IDEA Data Center

I get so confused on what centers are funded by OSEP-I apologize if I have included centers 

that are not OSEP funded. IDC WestEd-NCSI, fiscal team CIFR TAESE NTACT:C Early 

childhood centers

NCSI ECTA NTACT DASY

Regional Labs

NCSI and NTACT

WestEd

NCSI
230

Center for IDEA Fiscal Reporting National Center for Systemic Improvement

OSEP and Technical Assistant and WestEd

TIES Center

NCSI

NCSI, CADRE, CIFR, NCEO

National Center for Systemic Improvement, National Center for Intensive Intervention, 

CEEDAR, ECTA, CIFR

CIFR IDC NCSI

For the SPP and anything around grants we worked with IDC primarily and CIFR however we 

work with many of the TA centers for different things.

IDC and ECTA

NCSI

Comprehensive Centers

NCSI

Cadre NCSI Cifr Idc

CEEDAR NCSI IDC

IDC, NCSI

IDC NCSI CIFR

Comp center

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role?

619 coordinator

SEA MANAGER
231

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

IDEA - Part B - 2021 - Q7.5. Think about the types of technical assistance and 

support provided by OSEP ... Which types of assistance were most effective in 

helping you meet federal requirements and/or improve program quality?

Answering questions

Newsletters, topical webinars

topical webinars

OSEP's Directors letter, monthly MSIP calls

Question and Answer documents

Dear Colleague letters, Question and Answer documents, MSIP monthly TA calls, 

OSEP-Director's newsletter, topical webinars

MSIP monthly calls Question and Answer documents Dear Colleague Letters

Calls and topical webinars

Weekly TA call with OSEP State lead and State Lead's summaries of meetings and 

call.

all of the above

Q& A, Monthly TA Calls, Dear Colleague letters, one-to-one calls with OSEP Leads.

Our TAs for OSEP and WestEd are the BEST!

monthly TA calls, webinars, Q&A

Having a consistent person to meet with monthly has been of great benefit. Our current 

consultant is very helpful and provides us with timely information. He also takes our 

questions, researches a response, and shares it with us.

Dear Colleague letters and policy documents, monthly TA calls, Q&A documents

All of these are helpful but can be difficult to find or interpret. Monthly calls seem to be 

good but the notification of said calls seems to be inconsistent and sometimes I don't 

get notification.

weekly TA meetings with ECTA
232

MSIP monthly TA calls

topical webinars, OSEP monthly calls.

Monthly TA calls have increased in quality and frequency, they are tremendously 

helpful and our staff get to see USDOE staff as human; Q & A documents have also 

been very helpful. Dear Colleague letters are always helpful, but have been less 

frequent; Fast Facts graphics have been fantastic

Monthly TA calls

GENERAL & STATE SPECIFIC TA CALLS DEAR COLLEAGUE LETTERS Q & A 

DOCUMENTS

The assistance is always helpful; however, it often takes too long to receive responses 

to questions.

Question and Answer documents, topical webinars

TA calls and Q&A docs.

All the types mentioned above are helpful but face to face meetings and conferences 

are always the best when we can share and learn from colleagues dealing with the 

same issues and challenges.

IDEA - Part B - 2021 - Q7.6. Which types of assistance were least helpful?

na

COVID Resources

Due to the delay in getting information from OSEP as it related to COVID. 

Unfortunately, the state lead could not answer many questions as it was not finalized at 

the federal level.

questions sent to our previous state contact

one time and short-term assistance

Monthly webinars are frequently less helpful.
233

None

n/a

Being on a zoom where the organizers did not have definitive information to share 

about topics of concern to the field. I know that some things are outside of department 

leaders control. They are polite and listen to our concerns.

NA

timeliness of Q and A.

OSEP/OSERS newsletters are largely unhelpful

I can't think of anything.

Dear Colleague letters

director newsletter, TA calls that share redundant information

The newsletter is useful but sometimes it does not give you the direct information you 

may need understand an issue/situation. It is useful to announce new resources and 

guidance but it does not have the specific information we may need. Again, all the 

methods are useful but the most useful type of assistance is when a state staff sits 

down and work with a state on a specific issue.

IDEA - Part B - 2021 - Q7.8. Describe the impact it might have on the State if 

OSEP were to fully automate the IDEA formula grant submission and approval 

process.

Considering the high turnover of state directors of special education, the rapidly 

changing expectations for reporting and the challenging times we are living in - a fully 

automated system without the opportunity for TA and support with the many 

submission issues that currently crop up could be disastrously inefficient and have a 

negative impact on efficiency

na

Very efficient, time saving.

This would be a very efficient way to process the grant and get a quicker response.

No impact
234

Tremendous time savings

Very helpful; most acceptable. and most welcome!

I believe it would be streamlined if automated

it would greatly streamline the process and make it more efficient.

Not sure of the immediate impact.

It would be fully accepted.

Because we are an outlying territory, we may have unique situations compared to other 

states so having a human interaction with the grant submission and approval process is 

more beneficial for us.

I am not sure until I see what format they are offering and the process for entering data. 

I think it would provide a continuity to the process and make it easier to complete.

It would depend on what "fully automate" means. We certainly are in support of 

automating manual processes to the extent possible. Getting rid of required wet 

signatures would be especially helpful. Submission of revisions requiring emails to give 

OSEP a heads up seems archaic.

This would be great as it would take less time to compile and submit.

It would be terrific! Save time and need for multiple submissions - paper and email 

submissions. Let's do it!

It would increase efficiency (time and effort). We would fully support a transition to fully 

automate the grant submission and approval process.

This would reduce the time and stress required to prepare and submit the application, 

especially compared to when the application had to be submitted with a wet signature. 

This would be a huge resource savings.

Positive impact

NOT SURE WHAT IS INVISIONED SO DIFFICULT TO SAY

It may be a quicker turnaround time.

hallelujah! quicker and simpler is always better!
235

An automated grant submission and approval process will greatly help. We look 

forward to submitting our grant application and receiving GAN notices electronically.

IDEA - Part B - 2021 - Q7.9. In light of the challenges (e.g., need for policy 

guidance) that emerged this year because of the pandemic, how effective was the 

TA you received from your state contact or project office?

Adequate

very useful

moderate

Unfortunately, things were moving so quickly that it was a very long lag in getting 

information from OSEP to share out with the LEAs. The LEAs needed answers quickly 

and often would contact the SEA and we could only provide guidance from the state 

but not the federal government.

I appreciate the high quality TA. It was difficult for SEAs since the Department was 

limited in relief and guidance relative to IDEA.

Effective and timely

not effective at all because not much was provided and what was provided was not 

timely

N/A

little TA was provided from OSEP in general.

The TA was effective in conjunction with the guidance documents such as the Q & A.

Our TAs were very supportive and receptive to our needs. If they were unsure, would 

come back with an answer or suggestions for us. Our State Contact was just as 

supportive. Very thankful for them all.

It could have been more effective. We received limited support in regards to the 

pandemic. That may be due to not having a permanent state contact right now.

I would have liked more guidance. I thought the guidance was thorough but slow to 

present.

It was hard to get support as we had to submit questions to the generic mailbox and 

wait for a response. Typically my state lead would not answer the question unless it 
236

had already been addressed by higher level administration. The first question I 

submitted in March of 2020 did not get an answer until September 2020. Not extremely 

helpful.

Absolutely critical and so appreciated! We used the policy guidance and Q and A 

documents to help clarify questions from stakeholders so we could post our own state 

COVID 19 guidance on due process, programming and service delivery and fiscal 

issues related to special education and FAPE.

Additional guidance in a timely manner would have been appreciated.

My state contact was reassuring and kind, but did not provide new information.

IDC highly effective

DELAYS IN OBTAINING UPDATED PANDEMIC RELATED GUIDANCE BEFORE THE 

START OF THE 2020 SCHOOL YEAR WAS CHALLENGING

Responses were delayed and some questions were never answered.

I feel the state contacts are doing the best they are able to do. During the pandemic, 

they were not able to give much TA regarding the challenges of the pandemic. That 

was what states needed but I recognize that without any flexibilities granted very little 

could be suggested or voiced. NCSI helped state directors tremendously during the 

pandemic. They gave us a safe platform to discuss and develop guidance based on our 

needs.

good but slow

It was very helpful. I am very pleased with the time it took for the centers to start calls 

and sharing resources with each other and the states and not waiting on someone. 

Those resources shared around were very useful for us to know what we are dealing 

with, how we can serve students and staffs moving forward. Because of the passion 

and commitment of colleagues, and their willingness to share and help one another, 

there were no catastrophic situations in any of the states that serve children with 

disabilities, that I know of.

IDEA - Part B - 2021 - Q7.10. Please provide any suggestions you have to improve

the technical assistance you received should we be faced with future national 

emergencies. 

I would recommend a regular review of contacts for email and contact lists to ensure 

speed and accuracy of emergent TA as well as established and tested delivery 

methods with pre and post surveys to assess usability and effectiveness.
237

na

the timeliness of the TA was problematic

If questions are raised from the SEA, oftentimes the meetings will need to be 

rescheduled due to not having the "right" person on the call from USED. Possibly a list 

of areas of point of contacts

Timely and frequent communication

Clear understanding of PWN. Also, the Department released guidance relative to 

distance learning plans specific to school closures. This guidance left many questions 

regarding purpose and implementation beyond this point. Compensatory Services 

requirement has been difficult to address in light of IEP Teams not normally required to 

make this determination.

Provide timely TA

N/A

Should we be faced with future national emergencies, TA should be specific to what 

can and cannot be done. Provide examples of possible scenarios, include state 

directors in the discussion of next steps, and provide a direct hotline for assistance.

None

Just keeps us posted on information as you receive it. We appreciate it when we know 

what is going on as soon as you know.

Set expectations for states to follow. A lack of Federal response led to significantly 

different (and uncertain) state responses. Especially in times of crisis, states need 

Federal leadership.

Anything would have been more helpful. Referring to law, suggesting documents from 

other states, discussing what we were thinking of implementing in our state and giving 

feedback, anything would have been more helpful.

Please find a strategy to speed up the process for approval on OSEP guidance 

documents in the future. All clarification on various issues needs to be more timely.

Receiving information in a timely manner.

States were faced with a tremendous amount of crisis at one time and OSEP provided 

a lot of TA, but it took a lot of time for it to be developed. Frequently, our state had 

already developed guidance using old Dear Colleague letters and other legal guidance 

in order to answer questions that had to be dealt with before formal guidance was 
238

available. It would be helpful if there was protocol already developed that could be 

adapted right away for another crisis of similar impact.

More communication and outreach. Felt in the dark.

ADDITIONAL FLEXIBILITY FOR IDEA REQUIREMENTS IN FUTURE NATIONAL 

EMERGENCIES

Speed of responses and consistency among staff

Give open and timely technical assistance. This was very challenging without much 

guidance from OSEP in a timely manner. I do understand this takes Congress to make 

flexibilities or waivers; however, our LEAs did not realize this and was waiting for the 

State to give waivers. This made it difficult for state directors to constantly explain we 

are waiting on Congress to meet to consider the flexibilities that State Directors put 

together in a joint letter.

it has to be more timely. We can wait weeks and weeks for guidance, it has to be 

immediate.

We should not allow ourselves to think we can now rest. We need to put something 

together in expectation of another pandemic or natural or man-made disaster. We need 

to have a plan and a reserve of resources to back that plan up when something 

happen. Each state program would have to develop a plan that is aligned to the 

nation's. More importantly, our children with disabilities will be provided, to the extend 

that it can be allowed, continued services even during a national emergency. This is our 

job and it is what we do best-helping our children with disabilities.
239

IDEA National Centers Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

It would be great to have everything in one place. There are two many separate websites and I'm 

never sure which of the websites I need to visit to find the information I'm looking for.

Clear links on Ed site to resources from each national center

Access to older guidance letters.

Search feature was difficult to locate/navigate on mobile device.

none

The "placemat" on the IDEA TA Center website is very useful 

(https://osepideasthatwork.org/sites/default/files/OSEP%20TA%20Center%20Infographic_508.pdf). 

If there was a link to the list and descriptions of TA Centers that is on the IDEAS That Work 

website at https://osepideasthatwork.org/find-center-or-grant/find-a-center, that would be an 

improvement.

Q21. Please describe how the PROGRAM OFFICE could improve the quality and 

usefulness of our documents, including policy-related documents. In your response, 

please identify the name or type of document(s) your comments address (e.g., nonregulatory guidance, newsletter, blast emails).

Newsletters could include more links to resources from the TA/D Centers

So much information is shared in weekly and monthly communications, it takes some time to 

digest. It is thorough.

None

Translate all documents at least into Spanish

Q33. How could we improve the grant reporting process?

The G5 system is not friendly. It would be nice to be able to upload documents instead of 

having to hand enter all of the information in Section A. It would also be nice if the cover letter 

and executive summary were separate documents.
240

G5 is a very frustrating system to work in, it is not user friendly nor does it provide the ability to 

present the data in the best possible way.

The character limit in G-5 is a barrier. I'm also not sure how the Department uses the data that 

is submitted.

G5 is just awful to use. So buggy and challenging. Needs a complete overhaul.

We annually are "randomly selected" submit data to inform the Department of Education 

strategic plan - through an independent panel's review of the quality, usefulness, and relevance 

of a new product and TA event. I have once (in the aggregate) seen the results of these data. It 

would be useful for the projects to receive the scoring that informs the overall program.

G5 shutdown periods sometimes occur within days of final submission deadlines which can be 

very disconcerting when working to upload materials

The budget template cannot be edited which is a problem for us because it does not match our 

reporting. Consider allowing one pdf upload for the report.

Enable an organization to have more than one person as a project co-director and have the 

same access to all reporting mechanisms

Q39. Describe how the technical assistance that Department staff provide could be 

improved to better support your program needs (consider content, structure, format, 

timing, etc.).

I am always impressed the responsiveness, helpfulness and support of the OSEP project 

officers. We had [REDACTED] until she moved into a new position and now have 

[REDACTED]. They are both wonderfully supportive and dedicated staff and I really appreciate 

what both of them have done in support of my project.

The re-start of convening project staff to share ideas around the topics noted in the previous 

questions will be useful.

Provide more small group opportunities to collaborate with TA providers funded by other 

agencies and divisions.

Every TA Center is supposed to work with families and parent centers, the Department's 

investment in family engagement in the states, DC and the territories. That really hasn't worked 

well until the Department got engaged in getting those TA centers to contract with the CPIR 

and/or RPTACs to help them reach and work more effectively with parent centers and families. 

The Department should reconsider how it builds in family and family org. engagement into its 

RFPs and consider adding funding to the CPIR so that it can take a lead in working with all the 

other TA&D centers around family and parent center engagement.

The Engage site is not a great way to collaborate
241

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that 

provided technical services to you.

REL

Equity Assistance Centers

Center for Parent Information and Resources (which should be listed here!!) Region 1 Equity 

Assistance Center

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role?

Parent Center & PTAC

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

IDEA - NAT - 2021 - Q11.1. Think about the types of technical assistance and 

support provided by OSEP...Which types of assistance were most effective in 

helping you meet federal requirements and/or improve program quality?

Being able to have open dialogue where we can discuss the challenges we are facing 

and possible solutions.

One to one meetings to discuss project progress, national context, and plans

In recent years, my OSEP Project Officers have facilitated collaboration with other 

related projects and other stakeholders, provided support as we develop new guidance, 

and helped clarify Department policy questions. These have all been very helpful to the 

success of the project.

[REDACTED] is an outstanding resource for us in guiding what products and services 

would be most useful. We consider her support instrumental for the success of our 

TA/D Center.

Review of products and discussions of implementation strategies and scope.

Email communications and announcements, One on one assistance calls

Sharing forms to complete.

Knowledge of the departments beliefs and directions
242

Clear and timely federal guidance

IDEA - NAT - 2021 - Q11.2. Which types of assistance were least helpful?

Large group calls where the content may or may not have been relevant to our work 

scope.

Web meetings with other TA providers where the agenda was ambiguous or not related 

to the work we do

All are helpful

It would be helpful to receive requests for information in a more timely manner (more 

than a couple of days or 1 week's notice).

APR review

Delays in decisions for a specific project activities

Our project officer is extraordinarily helpful always and in every way

IDEA - NAT - 2021 - Q11.3. In light of the challenges (e.g., need for policy 

guidance) that emerged this year because of the pandemic, how effective was the 

TA you received from your state contact or project office?

Highly effective

It was fine. Given the nature of my project, we were less affected by the COVID-19 

changes than some others.

Excellent! Information was clear and rationales were provided.

Helpful. Supportive.

excellent

effective

Very helpful. Policy guidance could have been more explicit especially at the beginning 

but it got better over time
243

IDEA - NAT - 2021 - Q11.4. Please provide any suggestions you have to improve 

the technical assistance you received should we be faced with future national 

emergencies. 

Depending on the national emergency, perhaps a meeting with Department leaders to 

discuss policy and any concerns affecting our work

Central location to pose questions and see responses.

I know there are concerns about large available balance in some cases due to 

emergencies. National emergencies create unique challenges in that it allows greater 

focus and urgency to do conduct specific work to address immediate needs (which 

leads to great work quickly). However, it also creates surplus because we aren't always 

able to do other proposed work in the same time frame, either because the contractors 

supporting the work also had to pivot short-term, travel is put on hold, and staff are 

reallocated to respond to immediate project requests (which changes the budget). It is 

important to realize that many projects, in order to address immediate needs, had "all 

hands on deck" which is not reflected in staffing costs ( we can only charge so many 

hours). This all hands on deck is not sustainable although it was necessary. 

Unfortunately, it creates a blip in the budget in terms of high output but not necessarily 

increased billing to reflect the high output (hope that makes sense). It also can't be 

recouped later with billing as things begin to normalize. Not exactly sure how to 

address it but wanted to provide some context.

Plan ahead and share plans. Timely responses once the emergency occurs.
244

Immediate Aid to Restart School Operations

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Website is adequate and user-friendly.

Update the website to include more up to date information and remove dead links. It is difficult 

to find grant programs through a search engine.

N/A

The Department could update the options in the search that appear in the heading of the 

program website.

Q21. Please describe how the PROGRAM OFFICE could improve the quality and 

usefulness of our documents, including policy-related documents. In your response, 

please identify the name or type of document(s) your comments address (e.g., nonregulatory guidance, newsletter, blast emails).

No improvement needed at this time.

I don't believe I ever received any.

N/A

They work perfectly for us.

Q33. How could we improve the grant reporting process?

Support has been wonderful through this process. [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] have been 

very responsive!

Create an online reporting tool. Not sure how data is used when submitted to DRU.

N/A

More time in between each grant report submitting date.
245

Q39. Describe how the technical assistance that Department staff provide could be 

improved to better support your program needs (consider content, structure, format, 

timing, etc.).

No improvement needed.

Provide training to new POCs on the program.

N/A

More time in between every staff meeting.

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that 

provided technical services to you.

Comprehensive Center Neglected or Delinquent Education Technical Assistance Center

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

RESTART - 2021 - Q40.1d. In which of the following areas would you like 

technical assistance?

Subrecipient technical assistance or monitoring and oversight, state application best 

practices, improper payment review
246

Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies 

Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

There are often broken links and 404 messages, which is frustrating. I think one of the biggest 

things you could do is to provide examples of compliance documents that you have found over 

the years to be great, good, and/or unacceptable for LEA level documentation. This would give 

SEA level people somewhere to start when they are brand new or when other information is 

lost.

Maybe search engine could take you to resources or documents instead of articles.

I'm not sure the Department has a website that speaks only to the Title I program requirements. 

It would help if there were specific tabs for all of the ESSA programs with easy access to 

program guidance/letters/releases.

Update the site with relevant guidance. A number of helfpul guidance was archived under the 

previous administration and I believe that left a gaping hole in having any guidance whatsoever.

There are many broken links

Need more up-to-date resources

I often used the table of contents for the regulation, which is now gone 

https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/legislation/index.html My searches brings me to the 

Pdf version which is hard to track where you are in the document.

Organize the materials more intuitively. Include a banner at the top of the page (or somewhere 

noticeable) to inform users and highlight new content. Update the webpages more frequently 

(the last update for the page was 10/24/2018).

Sometimes it is difficult to figure out what is the most recent guidance.

modernize, archive old info

Up to date guidance. Clear descriptions of current guidance vs. outdated guidance.

Include more real time information. Although the material on the website is very well-done, 

there seems to be a long lag time to adding new information.

Do not use this website regularly but rather other sources - non regulatory guidance 

documents, LRP publications, etc.
247

I feel it meets my needs so I have no improvement to recommend.

I really like the new website. I find it more user friendly.

The website is currently very good, maybe making it more user friendly.

Update all guidance documents and remove non-applicable ones

Thank you for creating a specific page where all guidance documents can be found. This is very 

helpful and a great improvement over the way the website housed these documents in the past.

The Title I webpage is informative and up to date. I am able to find resources as needed.

No suggestions at this time

Updating it's resources

Suggest that most current/up to date documents be listed at top of web-pages/linked pages.

Much of the information is outdated and not sure if it still applies. It would be nice to organize 

Title I resources by program topics, i.e. Title I Eligibility, Schoolwide, Targeted Assistance, 

Fiscal, FAQs, Equitable Services, Parent and Family Engagement, Paraprofessionals, etc. 

There is still information from NCLB.

No improvements notes at this time.

Make the guidance sections more distinguishable and somehow indicate if the Pre-ESSA 

guidance is still applicable or what aspects of the guidance are. The topics are general to 

multiple programs, so somehow calling out which programs it applies to may be helpful.

Q21. Please describe how the PROGRAM OFFICE could improve the quality and 

usefulness of our documents, including policy-related documents. In your response, 

please identify the name or type of document(s) your comments address (e.g., nonregulatory guidance, newsletter, blast emails).

While I understand why the non-regulatory guidance documents have not been updated 

recently, it is a little hard to use documents from 2003 and 2004 to justify some of our 

responses to compliance issues with districts. It is getting increasingly hard to maintain respect 

from LEAs when there is no current information to use 20 some years later.

All documents are well-written and understandable. I appreciate the clarity and the detail.

Documents should be written in clear manner and not always FAQs
248

No recommendations at this time.

We haven't see any new TIA program guidance recently. See my previous comment.

With current issues like the 15% waiver, it would be nice to be able to go to a "bulletin board" to 

see the latest information.

Non-regulatory guidance: update more frequently as states communicate the need for clarity or 

as new situations arise.

N/A

give a straight answer

Do not have even constructive criticism to offer; mailings, emails, documents, etc. meet the 

needs at hand.

The program currently meets my needs.

Documents are usually slow in being developed

I am very pleased with the current processes. No recommendations at this time.

No suggestions at this time

Updating it's resources

There hasn't been much information released to support the Title I program recently; therefore, 

it would be nice to see some updates, FAQs, or information released on supporting Title I 

program administration at the SEA fiscally and programmatically.

No improvements noted at this time.

The Draft Within-District Allocation guidance was pretty good. would like to see it move from 

draft to final.

Q33. How could we improve the grant reporting process?

The data required to be collected does not always stay inline with the law. For example, one of 

the reports requires us to determine schools that are eligible to go schoolwide but are not 

operating as a schoolwide program. Now that schools can go schoolwide after applying for a 

waiver, it seems to me that every school out there could be eligible to go schoolwide at any 

given time and asking that question is silly.
249

Maybe simpler language? Half of the reason comments are returned is because of confusing 

requests.

No recommendations at this time.

Templates for how we should collect the data from the LEAs on the front side- incorporating the 

instructions/definitions for what data they should be reporting.

The CSPR reporting tool has changed over the past 2 years. Having a consistent platform to 

do this work will help. Also, the most recent reporting tool did not display numeric data that is 

submitted through EDFacts like the reporting tool did 2 years ago. Viewing the EDFacts data 

helps reduce data validity errors.

N/A

Understand the work, time, and effort that reporting takes for the SEA and LEAs. The reporting 

burden has consistently increased over the years and is currently a very heavy lift. Data is 

important and necessary, but the amount of it currently being collected is a tremendous amount 

of work.

As before, everything here is done very well. Have no criticism to offer nor even ideas for a 

better delivery.

You are currently meeting my expectations.

Unsure

I am currently satisfied in this area. I have no recommendations.

No suggestions at this time

nothing as of now

Grant reporting, seems that the reporting/requirements change unnecessarily, then directions, 

3rd party collectors all change. Never clear cut reporting from year to year which could add to 

better knowledge/reporting as SEA.

I may not be the person submitting or collecting the data for this report so might not be familiar 

with all reports. Again there seems to be minimal communication on the grant reporting process 

for Title I; however, it may be an embedded process with a data management system which I 

may not oversee.

No improvements noted at this time.

Not sure how the information is used. Knowing how many students are served doesn't really 

help in determining how effective the programs are. I'm not sure what would would be better at 
250

the national level. We are thinking about how to measure this at the state level. It is difficult to 

isolate the effects of the Title I programs/services in schools.

Q39. Describe how the technical assistance that Department staff provide could be 

improved to better support your program needs (consider content, structure, format, 

timing, etc.).

I think what SEAs need the most is faster responses to questions because by the time we are 

asking questions of US ED, we are usually in a situation where we need answers for our LEAs 

quickly. Webinars are good, presentations at national conferences are GREAT, but quick 

responses to email queries are terrific.

Target technical assistance to each state's needs

I'm not sure I recall any intentional live technical assistance provided by ED other than the 

release of the guidance documents.

We have not had any TA sessions offered to us by Dept. Staff specific to Title I, Part A. 

Perhaps this is as a result of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Offer office hours to meet with states to address any burning questions/issues. Office hours 

can be set up to utilize 2-way communication where Department staff can provide responses to 

questions and provide updates to states.

N/A

PD on evidence-based practices.

All technical assistance received via mailings, emails, etc. has been fantastic. I suspect a more 

timely one-on-one contact is very difficult given the volume of calls received, etc. Marked my 

responses as "Don't Know" given I have not engaged the US Department of Education.

The TA being provided is meeting my needs.

We would like to see more opportunities offered for professional growth through department led 

trainings.

No suggestions at this time

nothing at this time

Knowledgeable presenters, clear concise technical assistance from staff will always be helpful.

It would be nice to have a Title I program toolkit to support our work. We typically only receive 
251

fiscal updates/information.

No improvements noted at this time.

regular virtual meetings, perhaps regional or by topic, to discuss problems of practice and good 

examples from other states.

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that 

provided technical services to you.

Neglected or Delinquent Education Technical Assistance Center Youth for Youth 

Comprehensive Centers

SERVE

REL, West Ed

Comprehensive Centers and the Equity Assistance Centers.

Regional Laboratories Neglected or Delinquent Education Technical Assistance Center

Neglected or Delinquent Education Technical Assistance Center Comprehensive Centers

Region 10 MWCC

Neglected or Delinquent Education Technical Assistance Center

ED NW and Comp Center 17

NDTAC

REL at Marzano Research

Comprehensive Centers Neglected or Delinquent Education Centers

WestED Region 15 Comprehensive Center

N and D Technical Assistance Center

Equity Assistance Centers

[REDACTED] and [REDACTED]
252

[REDACTED] is always very helpful with Technical Assistance.

Comprehensive Centers, Neglected or Delinquent Education Technical Assistance Center

Comp Center for school improvement (team of staff in our office) NDTAC for the N&D 

coordinator (not myself personally) I'm not sure about the others as it may be other staff within 

the agency.

Neglected or Delinquent Education Technical Assistance Center

I work directly with [REDACTED] and she is wonderful. I have also worked with [REDACTED] 

during Covid and he has also been very helpful.

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role?

Title I Administrator

Monitoring and Compliance Administrator

State Education Specialist

Project/Assistant Director

Title I Program Director

Associate Commissioner
253

Independent Living Services for Older Individuals Who Are Blind (ILOIB)

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

I have no specific information to convey on this matter.

If I remember correctly, there is more than way to access information about the various RSA 

programs. On some of the pages you find one chunk of info and another page or two, you find 

different information. And, there doesn't seem to be a way to move in between the two, or three, 

different entry points. (Sorry, I don't have specifics.) It would be nice if ALL of the info was in 

one place: awards, descriptions, previous reports, data entry, etc...

It could be a little better on accessibility functions. Also, the instructions are not easy to 

understand. Getting to the data entry on the 7OB report requires a few unnecessary steps to 

get there. One forgets from one year to the next what steps needs to be followed to complete 

the form.

Provide more data from other states for comparison in an easily accessible format.

It is not user friendly, and accessibility with screen readers is sometimes questionable.

Less clutter. Group like things together.

I really go to the TAC website when I need info. I need to take a closer look at the RSA website.

CLEARER DELINIATIONS OF PROGRAMS where to find information about IL-OIB

simplify categories of information such as regulations, FAQs, resources, etc.

not sure

Have an empty template of the newest 7-OB report with the directions. I had to go to the OIBTAC and they sent me a copy.

Timeliness of posting submitted federal reports, posting responses from frequently asked 

questions, updates regarding matters of the OIB program discussed in hearings and 

committees

More user friendly(organization of the website). More visually appealing.

maintain up to date data
254

I have no suggestions for improvement.

I do not have any suggestions

I don't really think about it. I am looking for materials, so I don't tune into the aesthetics of the 

website.

Q21. Please describe how the PROGRAM OFFICE could improve the quality and 

usefulness of our documents, including policy-related documents. In your response, 

please identify the name or type of document(s) your comments address (e.g., nonregulatory guidance, newsletter, blast emails).

As a newer OIB manager with minimal staff and funding, clearly presented documents related 

to updated changes of the 7OB could be beneficial. Samples, tools and resources of how we 

can collect the information from vendors that we use for services when we have no in house 

providers.

I have found the guidance provided to be adequate to our needs here in Connecticut.

The OIB Program does not have very clear guidelines and regulations to use for implementing 

the program.

The Federal report data site... and the prior years reports..?

Verbiage is very confusing.

policy related documents and instructional guides for 70B reporting documents could be in 

more user friendly language and be clearer.

I rarely, if ever, receive emails from RSA.

Since not all documents come to me, I do not know what comes in and when to expect them.

N/A

no suggestions for change.

It is understandable that most communications coming from RSA and Dept. of Ed are focused 

on Vocational Rehab. Although the OILB program does touch on VR for the younger seniors, 

there is rarely a focus on this very important program for the older population. The majority of 

our cases in MA are for the older blind population.

I can't I can recall having received documents
255

So much seems written in legalese. I would like a very simple explanation of whatever I am 

seeking. I often have to call to obtain clarification.

Q33. How could we improve the grant reporting process?

See previous answer. Many of the issues are likely internal.

In Connecticut, several employees of the Department of Aging and Disability Services 

collaborate to gather the required information. It would be useful to clearly point out at the 

outset of the reporting that only one person can input the required information, because last 

year that was somewhat unclear.

It is difficult to sufficiently answer the narrative section of the report; because the same 

questions are asked each year and the type of services are not changed from one year to the 

next. Sometimes, we find ourselves repeating the same answer over and over. Our methods of 

service delivery do not change from one year to the next. So, other than the number of 

consumers we serve and the number who are successful with their rehabilitation, there are no 

changes in our methodology.

the ability view / extract prior years reports.

We would like more information on how to use the data, and have access to the final report 

issued to Congress for OIB overall.

The 7OB is not clear and everyone does something different. As far as funding we have never 

received additional funds and from what we have been told is we likely never will. Very 

frustrating for our state as it is rural and no one considers the travel. With more measuring of 

time for each area (ie. AT, DLS, etc.) staff are frustrated because they feel like they are not 

professionals anymore because they have to account for every minute.

7-OB has fields which are not screen reader accessible.

information gathered could be made clearer. Templates/formulas of collecting data so that there 

is consistency from state to state.

Entering the numbers on line can be odd at times. Sometimes picky about decimals, auto 

populates percentages that are non-sensible or not transparent.

Provide an overview of summary of performance nationwide.

Communicate more with me or ensure my agency communicates more effectively me when 

they receive information regarding the grant I am responsible for.

Step by Step training manual for completing reports
256

RSA representatives have listened to the OIB program managers about issues related to grant 

reporting. It has been very helpful.

The data that goes into the 70B is quite comprehensive. I am interested in knowing how the 

data is parsed by the RSA and to learn about what areas they are looking at in determining the 

success of each state's program.

With Mississippi State's help the state programs were able to understand the new 7OB 

reporting requirement. It's still unclear to me why RSA collects the info it collects.

This is the first year for the new 7-OB. I'm hoping it will be easier.

I am responsible for completing and submitting the 7OB report and have just been responsible 

for doing this for one year, last year. I am in a training/discussion group through the OIB-TAC 

and this will be our topic of discussion tomorrow afternoon. I will find out tomorrow and this fall 

how the report differs from last year's report. I did not have much difficulty understanding the 

one I completed and am hoping that the new one is not more difficult.

We'll see how the reporting works out this year for the new 7OB.

Q39. Describe how the technical assistance that Department staff provide could be 

improved to better support your program needs (consider content, structure, format, 

timing, etc.).

In Connecticut, the Department of Aging and Disability Services employs Social Workers (as 

case managers), as well as Rehabilitation Teachers and Orientation and Mobility Instructors. 

Offering a session in which all three groups of staff can participate together in training on how to 

interpret the program guidelines would be extremely helpful.

I've never received TA from "Department staff". I have received TA from the OIB-TAC. I didn't 

think you were asking about that, so that is how I based my answers.

The technical support is adequate and I have no further needs that are not met.

The only technical assistance we have received is from the OIB-TAC staff, not from RSA staff.

It is nice to collaborate with others to find out how they are doing things. I love the conferences 

and the new PSA as this is going to be beneficial to our citizens.

Calling or emailing people back would be the first thing, and when returning a call or email that 

it is not weeks later but within a reasonable amount of time. Thank God for OIB-TAC for 

assistance.

TA assistance comes from the TAC group for me.
257

The OIB-TAC does a fantastic job of providing support and resources. RSA staff is less able to 

provide direct answers, which limits what OIB-TAC can do

I did not answer these as it was unclear if you were referring to OIB-TAC or not. I could not get 

by without OIB-TAC, they are a wealth of documents, assistance and answers. Concerning 

technical assistance coming from RSA, the typical response is "I'll get back to on that later", 

"email me the question", or, after emailing months go by without a response.

Staff provide ample opportunity to obtain feedback from states for needed training and share 

best practices from other states

I guess I am not sure if we are talking about RSA itself or OIB TAC. OIB TAC has been 

excellent and very effective in helping me.

The BEST activity the department has in place is the support from and relationship with the IL 

NRTC-TAC at MSU. I value the work they do and really appreciate the relationship they've 

cultivated to support the OIB program.

The technical assistance provided by OIB-TAC has improved tremendously over the past 3 

years. The information on the website is so valuable in many areas and it has provided 

directors with guidance and knowledge in a variety of subjects, which enable managers to 

improve on their respective programs. I have no suggestions for improvement at this time.

When I rate technical assistance, I'm rating OIB-TAC. They are the best

So far, RSA joining the OIB-TAC program managers' meetings every quarter or so has been 

quite helpful.

Not sure at this moment.

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that 

provided technical services to you.

OIB

OIB-TAC

I do not know. I just email the to the email address on the website when I need technical 

assistance. Also, I usually ask for help from the OIB-TAC for needed information.

OIB-TAC at MSU NRTC

MSU OIB-TAC
258

Not sure if they are Department funded but OIB-TAC at Mississippi State University has been a 

great resource of information and help.

NTAC

OIB TAC

OIB-TAC

Assistance operationalizing the newly implemented 70B report.

OIB-TAC HKNC Hadley School

OIB-TAC at Miss. State

OIB-TAC at Mississippi State University

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role?

Program manager

ILOB grnt manager & supervisor of IL services for adults in Connecticut

program manager

Program Specialist

Program Specialist

Program Manager

Program Manager

program manager

Project Officer

Program Manager

Unit Program Manager within my state Rehab agency/OIB Program Manager

Program Manager
259

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

IL-OIB - 2021 - Q13.4. In light of the challenges (e.g., need for policy guidance) 

that emerged this year because of the pandemic, how effective was the TA you 

received from your state contact or project office?

We don't have enough staff or time to utilize TA at this time. It takes all we can do to 

run the program day or day.

Effective

Especially in light of the pandemic, I found the guidance extremely helpful.

We did not receive much information from RSA. We did receive good information from 

the OIB-TAC Program.

We have not really received TA from our state contact. The OIB-TAC at MSU provided 

all the TA we received.

Very helpful in providing ideas to help in serving clients

Received great support from OIB-TAC

Very effective.

excellent

N/A, worked with the OIB-TAC program

I don't know of any state contact or project office that provided any guidance.

sufficient

Fair

Very effective.

2020 was a very challenging year for all of us, specifically our older blind population. 

The most difficult area for managers and case workers was that we had to stop all 

home visits with our seniors. The TA provided by the OIB-TAC helped to guide us 

through the pandemic through virtual ZOOM meetings monthly and provided us with an 

open forum geared to a variety of pandemic related trainings, sessions where we were 

able to share our sadness, frustrations, our organization's response and solutions our 

states put forward, etc. We never felt alone in this OIB program challenge.
260

Miss. State was awesome and full of good ideas and opportunities to network with 

other states

The TA was excellent.

Not sure I understand the question...

IL-OIB - 2021 - Q13.5. Please provide any suggestions you have to improve the 

technical assistance you received should we be faced with future national 

emergencies. 

More funding so we can hire more staff

Webinar on usage of equipment being used e.g. zoom.

The ease of availability of guidance should continue, and additional supports will be 

welcome.

It would be nice to have some guidelines and regulations regarding emergencies and 

what is acceptable types of service deliveries methods are appropriate. For example, 

we were unable to visit clients when the state was closed and therefore the services we 

provided via phone and websites were not sufficient. Many of our clients did not have 

access to computers or smart phones and therefore were unreachable.

Clear communication on what is permissible, suggestions for how to modify services.

the benefits were seen by OIB TAC and the meetings

more referrals to the TAC and their staff

OIB-TAC is by far the best conduit between RSA and OIB program directors. It is 

frustrating waiting for months for a clear answer back from RSA.

Availability of earmarked funds for the OIB to ensure each state program has access to 

the use of the funds to enhance services during emergencies.

More communication should be made directly with me regarding how to complete the 

financial aspect of the 7OB

I really appreciated the routine conversations with the IL-OIB TAC; the newsletters, 

conference calls, and ongoing support. They provided wonderful guidance.

It's not TA we need most. The senior population is large and growing larger. Even in my 

state, where 75% of our budget are state funds, we can only serve about 15% of the 
261

eligible population. The IL OIB program has never had an increase in funding meaning 

that the program has actually had a funding reduction due to the fact that the cost of 

providing services has gone up substantially.

Not sure.
262

Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Education Agencies 

Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

The website could be a bit more streamlined. Documents easier to find.

For first time applicants or new administrators of the grants the website may need to have a 

very specific entry level page identifying the state, federal laws pertaining to the grants.

It could be more user-friendly and the language more precise.

Hyperlinks in the Part I and Part II applications would be helpful

Anytime I called for assistance I was helped and the people were very patient and willing.

At this point it works for me I do not have any useful information for improvement to the website.

I don't personally find the site user friendly. It is often times difficult to find what I am looking for 

on the first search and I usually have to exit the site and search on google to be take to the 

information I am looking for.

It seems too cluttered for most.

Website fine. Personnel fine. New online grant application sucks. Although the information 

requested was the same, the new application was difficult, to say the least. It needed to be fine 

tuned before having us use it. The OLD application (1) had smoother navigation, (2) ability to 

print pages as needed, (3) less scrolling to find or locate information, (4) provided a complete 

copy of the application to present to parents, teachers, administration, and district, (5) had 

concise directions. What was positive about the old application, could not be said of the new. I 

would volunteer to assist in improving the application. Please contact. Sandy

Hesci! I'm not certain why the "Budget" section with next years application was being that 

difficult for me! Otherwise, you all are doing an awesome job! MVTO!

Change is always hard to encounter and the learning curve takes some time to absorb. 

Everyone that I have had contact with are always very professional and willing to assist in any 

manner possible. Very helpful at all times.

I believe it is fine the way it is.

I think it is fine the way it is.
263

Easier access to find documents. Access to budget receipts is difficult to find and requires too 

many steps.

A director of staff phone contacts and emails

So far I have not needed a lot of information so improvement is sort of a moot answer as this 

time.

The website formatting with regard to the tables used were sort of "clunky" in navigating them. 

It would be helpful to be able to work in various areas of the grant application at a given time. 

Currently, you are required to have information entered before you can move on to latter 

portions of the application. The problem with that is you don't always have the information you 

need to fill in a section, and then have to enter nonsense responses to be able to work on in the 

application. That is a waste of time. It would be better if the application process could be 

expanded so that you can work from any area of the application and save that progress. That 

would be convenient.

I find it hard to navigate to find certain information at times. Recently has been easier and 

updated more frequently.

NO COMMENTS

For me, it was just a bit confusing finding the information.

the site is very useful. there is not much that has to be changed because the information that is 

given is written so it can be understood and implemented accordingly.

it needs to be far more simple

I'm not always sure where to find the correct link or button, if that makes sense.

I had to redo this grant a few times. There was confusion on documents needed even when I 

worked to confirm them and then got a second notice that they were missing and then after 

writing and submitting was told again that I did not need to submit the docs that I was told to 

submit and not submit and re-submit again. A bit confusing. :)

not sure

n/a

Not really an issue, but it is easy to accidentally move into the main DOE website - a standalone website would be helpful.

It took awhile to find a Title VI program contact person, phone numbers listed for specialists 

were not accessible, one had a voice mail for a staff member who is no longer in the 

department; other phones went to message that mailbox was full.
264

N/A

I think the website as well as the grant was easy to use.

The website meets the needs .

The IPCA Form was difficult to load.

With more graphics, a site map, clear instructions and headings.

No comment at this time.

List specific examples of program ideas (activities, strategies) that are allowable and have 

shown positive results in academic and social-emotional growth for students.

I have not used the website at this point.

More write-able documents, better search abilities for those of us who do not frequent the 

website.

The functionality of the website works fine.

As the project director, I feel the online dialogue from webinars is an extremely helpful tool. An 

online discussion forum would be beneficial to applicants to share what is working or beneficial 

with their project objectives.

When trying to print out the application or grant after the award has been granted I had to reach 

out to the department to get a PDF. Even with the PDF that was emailed to me, the format was 

not user friendly or easy to read. The grant is not easy to access. So when members of the 

parent committee ask for a copy or just want to see the grant before they sign, it is not easy to 

do, which makes it look like the LEA is being difficult or trying to not be transparent.

no change. Support and services to complete the program was no problem. Help was available.

The site was very user friendly. No suggestions on improvement.

It is extremely user friendly as it presently stands.

Make the chart interaction more user friendly. Some of the charts were almost impossible to 

navigate due to poor layout and graphics.

Don't have any comments to improve, jus make sure the workers are informed and educated in 

the grants,

My concern is not with the website as much as it is with the browser. I run firefox on my Mac 
265

that is locked by the school and if I cannot fill out certain aspects of the grant/APR, it gets hard.

It is fine the way it is

The website is versatile and navigational. It is quite functional and allows for easy access.

More updates

Q21. Please describe how the PROGRAM OFFICE could improve the quality and 

usefulness of our documents, including policy-related documents. In your response, 

please identify the name or type of document(s) your comments address (e.g., nonregulatory guidance, newsletter, blast emails).

Documents are sometime a bit too "governmental" would like the points just put in the 

beginning so we do not have to search the entire document.

n/a

Detailed answers to questions, many answers are vague.

All good for me. No improvements needed as far as I am concerned

I think the new forms are great.

The blast emails could be more succinct, a bit clearer and cleaner; so I can find the info easier.

Reduce the reminders sent to applicants. At times the documents were not concise, too wordy, 

and needed to do a better job of emphasizing the warranted information.

N/A

I realize these forms are all needed for our program. The 506 Form was updated, which was 

needed. Our parents still make mistakes on the form.

I can not think of any improvements.

none at this time

It would be nice if there would be quarterly consultations with the LEAs to share best practices; 

even if it were via zoom with those LEAS with similar demographics.

So far everything is fine
266

I think overall we are informed of what is going on and what is relevant.

Would be easier to have information more mainstreamed and in one location which includes all 

aspects of the grant, regulatory and non-regulatory guidance.

no improvements are needed.

it needs to be clearer

When I have had a question in the past, it was not easily answered by looking on the website. 

However, whenever I email or call the staff are incredibly responsive and helpful.

Need to be clear on what a school is to submit. It is confusing. We really want to make sure 

that we are meeting the standards.

idk

n/a

No comment

I wasn't listed on the listservice for information. I found out through another entity that I should 

be looking for grant information.

None

I think the website works great.

The only thing that was confusing to me was how to upload the IPCA FROM. I feel that the 

system was fairly easy to navigate. Also anytime that I needed assistance that the Partner 

Support Center was very eager to help.

More information for Tribes that apply in lieu

I feel like they are overwhelming - I understand that they documents are used for a variety of 

situations - but I am always reading and re-reading the documents trying to figure out what I 

need to do. I feel like I get so many emails. I have a masters degree and I literally feel 

overwhelmed by this process. I'm sure its just because I'm new to it - but Wow - just Wow

Use more common language and less jargon, so that parents and/or non-educators are able to 

understand.

None at this time

No recommendations at this time
267

nothing at this time.

At this time, they have made significant changes over the year so I am satisfied.

Documents provided are sufficient for the grant.

Please keep sending the emails and updates! I appreciate the communication!

Time was limited for school year 2020-2021. Small group for student instructions.

Program was very clear on documentation and following up through phone calls.

Overall, the documents are good.

No comment

The documentation is sufficient.

The portion concerning Tribe in Lieu of an LEA, Tribes should be made more aware that they 

have more than one LEA and if so more guidance on dealing with multiple LEA entities.

The documents are useful as is.

Q33. How could we improve the grant reporting process?

I could not answer the previous questions; this will be my first year to complete these forms.

Sometimes the technicalities are confusing, especially when reporting the parent committee 

members. The chart would allow for increasing the number of cells, but you weren't allowed to 

put multiple names in a cell either. We were directed to print multiple sheets of the same form 

to accommodate parent names. Very awkward.

I think the program is efficient.

I would appreciate more one on one guidance. My grant reporting process seems to be different 

than others.

No comment.

N/A

I believe you are doing a good job.
268

I think it is fine.

None at this time

I believe it is done fairly well.

none

the grant reporting process is excellent as it is, no change is needed.

There seemed to be a lot of issues with the website when it was time to complete the 

application.

In my experience, the reporting window and deadline is not always the same year over year, so 

it would be helpful to know all of the due dates up front so the data can be compiled in an 

accurate and timely manner.

I had to resubmit the grant more than once. Some information was unclear such a 

documentation for community meeting.

it's good as is

n/a

Continue with as much of the pre-loaded data as possible.

Guidance needed for document collection, data review during pandemic.

None

It works fine.

I felt that the grant reporting process was effective.

Transference of more data from previous years grant.

None at this time.

No recommendations at this time

None at this time

No issues at our District.
269

The webinars make the grant reporting process simple.

To be honest, this question has me wondering if I have completed this step. I hope I didn't 

miss this part of the process.

No change.

Not sure, haven't completed a report yet.

No comment

It is sufficient.

We are a first year New Applicant and have not yet participated in this process.

Reminders and changes (especially) reported out in a more timely manner.

Q39. Describe how the technical assistance that Department staff provide could be 

improved to better support your program needs (consider content, structure, format, 

timing, etc.).

I am a new director with the program, so I am learning about everything.

I would like to see more peer-to-peer offerings.

Powerpoint presentations- not just read presentation, but go into detail to provide examples and 

clarity of presentation.

The technical assistance I received was very good and always responsive in a timely manner

With the new forms I needed a lot of help. Everyone was so patient and extremely helpful!

Check earlier comments.

N/A

All is fine.

They are quick to respond, but not very knowledgeable. I wanted clarification on how the grant 

can be spent and whether specific expenditures are allowable and although they sent a 

confirmation acknowledging my request, I never got an answer.

I'm not aware of any best practices or sharing of what other programs do. This would be helpful.
270

I know technical assistance is available, but we rarely access it.

none at this time

More LEA consultation and sharing

It would be helpful to have more information regarding program management, program 

activities, and resource materials for program use, and more peer-to-peer sharing of program 

management. Most of the information is regarding the actual grant application and how-to, but 

more in depth information and sharing would enhance ideas for development of programming 

and activities.

technical assistance does a good job. The formats are good, structured real well and as far as 

timing goes this needs very little improvement if any at all.

the grant is great and very much needed. The application process is time consuming and had 

many misses this year. I did receive quick response the few times I had to call in for support.

idk

n/a

No comment

We could both improve communication (LEA's and OIE staff).

N/A

Everything works great.

Technical Assistance was always ready to assist with whatever question needed to be 

answered.

Overall I think the Department Staff does a good job of communication, and is effective.

None at this time.

I would like more opportunities to hear from other programs (ideas to better serve our students).

None at this time

We are satisfied with the assistance received.

The technical assistance center staff are courteous and professional! Peer to peer open 
271

discussion and idea sharing would be beneficial and informative.

No change.

Professional development is always the key. I have not accessed program staff for these 

purposes so I don't have anything else to add.

The TA is working well.

We are a first year New Applicant and have not yet received any technical assistance.

I have received excellent technical assistance support

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that 

provided technical services to you.

21st CCLC and Regional Laboratories

[REDACTED]

The writers of the new online grant application.

Application submission questions, concerns and technical assistance.

OIE-is this a Comprehensive Center

I'm not sure who but they helped me to locate the name/number of my new area representative.

ED Facts Support

21st century

Most of my help comes from the Partner Support Center

Forgotten passwords or issues that asked for more information.

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role?

Project Director
272

Federal Programs Director

District Director

Tribal Education Director

District Director

PRINCIPAL

Indian Education Coordinator

Project Director

Director of Federal Programs

Principal

Tribal Project Director

Chief

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

OIE FORM - 2021 - Q50.7. What professional development training or conferences 

do you or your staff attend locally, regionally or nationally to improve the 

performance of your programs (i.e., State Conferences, National Associations, 

Federal Program Conferences, etc.)?

We only attend the state JOM grantee meeting yearly.

We are currently hiring a new project coordinator and their knowledge of the Title VI 

Grant program is very limited. Shared information pertaining to any of these programs, 

or conferences would be greatly appreciated.

NIEA

state conferences

MASBO, ASBO, OPI all offer education and training on grants.

We attend state and local conferences.
273

What to do when you cannot get parents to attend? An overall recap or review of 

allowable practices with grant money.

State Conferences. In, Oklahoma we have a State Consortium of Indian Ed directors 

and we meet monthly (via ZOOM) to stay up to date and share best practices, etc.

State Title VI Coordinator Zoom Meetings

State Conferences, Federal Program Conferences, and Federal Program Conferences.

We are too isolated to attend workshops and conferences. Online works.

Through recommendations and requirements from our Board of Directors as well as my 

immediate supervisor, I try to attend various types of trainings / conferences. Always 

believe in staying educated and involved in improvements and understanding of 

programs.

NIEA-use to attend until OIE banned attendance; State Native Conferences; 

Boys/Girls Club Native Conferences

California Conference on American Indian Education and National Indian Education 

Association Convention

we attend the state JOM education conference to network and learn about new 

techniques and practices to assist our students.

New Mexico Government to Government Indian Education Conference

State and Federal Conferences related to Native American Students and Families 

before pandemic

I have not attended any training in this regard.

None at this time. We would welcome suggestions.

None - there is nothing offered in our area.

We do not attend any trainings unless available online or recorded. We use data from 

within our system and state to improve the performance of our programs with input from 

the Parent Advisory Committee.

The National Indian Education Conference held in Bismarck, ND, Several State 

Conferences held at Lake Region Junior College in Devils Lake ND.

We attend both state and federal professional development opportunities around all 

areas in education.
274

state conferenes

Webinars are helpful and if recorded to view again.

National Conferences and State Collaboration Meetings. Always welcome additional 

training, information, and best practices with other programs.

State and national organization membership, state and national conferences, tribal 

meetings.

state education meetings OIE state program & policy updates NIEA ESSA conference

N/A

National Conference of School Discipline

Regional District program development. Vermont Department of Education. Working 

in conjunction with the Vermont Commission of Native American Affairs.

National Indian Education Association and Federal Program. Conferences

State Conferences

Data analysis for students

State Conferences

I attend Federal Program Conferences. I have also attended the NIEA conference, but 

I do not recommend the OIE staff reading their slides to the attendees.

National Indian Education Association and United National Indian Tribal Youth 

conferences

Gear UP, Montana Indian Education Association Conference, National Indian 

Education Association Conference, Impact Aid Conferences

State Conferences, Johnson O'Malley Conference, National Johnson O'Malley 

Conference, Tribal Meetings, National Indian Education Convention, Webinars

State conferences

federal program conferences, and tribal conferences relevant to program title topics.

State conferences.
275

Parent Training is needed.

In House Training

regional training, WWNAEC

OIE FORM - 2021 - Q50.8. Over the next year, what can OIE do to better meet your 

technical assistance and program improvement needs?

I would like to set up a zoom training session for the new coordinator and myself. I 

would like for us to begin this new school year with informed one on one knowledge of 

the program.

peer-to-peer interactions

provide assistance to new coordinators and directors

This program had the most helpful staff.

Be available to answer our questions by phone or email.

Just keep working on improving the new online grant application.

N/A

Again, my own learning curve with the system changes take some time. Whenever I 

have needed help, everyone I have been in contact with have been extremely 

professional and helpful.

Not sure.

I am satisfied with the current level of services.

The new application site is now more difficult. We are not able to print a draft of the 

application to be able to present it to the public hearing and to the Parent Committee 

and Tribal community prior to submission. The number of pages used for the 

document has increased from 5 in the past to 20 plus. Accessing a PDF copy prior to 

submitting the document is important when we are sharing.

Do more of an in depth training on the program application, maybe make it a one day 

workshop as a virtual training.
276

Make adjustments to in the grant application to allow a person to work on in the 

application without having to have worked sequentially through the application as I had 

mentioned before.

It would be helpful that have more information regarding the actual working of program 

management, program activities, and peer-to-peer information sharing.

The webinars are a very useful tool to get information from that is helpful for our 

program.

Keep your great staff.

The application process. Not having to go back numerous times to complete the grant. 

Also on the initial grant having clear directions for what education institutions need to 

complete vs other organizations. That piece was difficult to weed through.

idk

Continue webinars and ability to view at a later date.

Webinars geared toward professional and program needs and developments.

Personal contacts

email deadlines, I was lucky to have another entity let me know of upcoming deadlines

When I went to print out the certified grant this year, it came out with tiny print on 

several pages, not at all like in the past. I might need to know how to get a good copy, 

as opposed to how it came out. I tigured it was just the new system?

Everything was great nice and simple.

More training.

Have more specific resources/documents for Tribes that apply in lieu

Clear Instructions

Unsure

More opportunities for collaboration and discussion between program directors

Nothing at this time, I have had great assistance when needed
277

There are strict perimeters on allowable use of funds. I wish we would have a survey to 

be allowed to have more flexibility on the allowable approval for spend down of our 

funds. There is no flexibility at this time and we have families that could use more 

assistance.

We are satisfied with the efforts.

Continue to communicate via email! Webinars or meetings to discuss objectives and 

how to best meet the needs of our Native American students.

Record on-line training for review purpose.

Improve the website interface for completing the grant.

Continue with the use of electronic programing, etc

None at this time.

We are a first year New Applicant and have no basis for answer.

More support in targeted areas, less reproof.
278

Innovative Approaches to Literacy Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

I would suggest the option to upload reports rather than completing the forms on the site.

The site could be more intuitive for use.

I have never had any problems finding information or receiving assistance. I can not think of 

any improvements at this time.

Notifications of any additions to the website would be good--possibly through an email maybe?

Typing "Innovative Approaches to Literacy" in a search engine takes us to an old site as the first 

link. This link should be disabled and changed to link to current information, with any necessary 

old information embedded on that page.

NAI do not have any suggestions for improvement. I have had my questions answered in an 

efficient manner.

Seems very user friendly.

The first to make sure directors are told about it. After three years i have not used it or knew 

about it.

I wasn't aware of the website until this survey. The topic didn't come up in the search bar using 

"IAL" grant. I needed to type the entire wording. Would love to see a variety of innovative 

strategies used successfully in other districts/schools.

I honestly haven't used it much. On the other hand, G5 is a nightmare to navigate and the 

password changes are always more work than they should be.

I have been satisfied with the site

We had no issues at all with the department website. We occasionally found working around 

some issues in G5 for the grant administration to be confusing or difficult, but we always 

checked in with and got feedback from our contact(s) at the Department when that happened.

At this time there are no notable improvements that should be made to the website.

The Department gas been great accommodating us during the COVID 19 pandemic.
279

I did not use the website.

I did not access the website for information, so I have no suggestions for improvement. I have 

only accessed the G5 site to complete and submit necessary reports.

I have had no problems with the IAL program website.

No recommendations at this time.

This is our 3rd year in the grant and while I was not the supervising the grant when we first 

applied I have been connected to the project the majority of the time. For the most part 

communication has been great with the DOE personnel but I will say I had never been shared 

the OESE.ED.gov website. This would have been a valuable resource and would probably be 

a benefit to remind project leads about the site in email signatures or even as they check in.

Q21. Please describe how the PROGRAM OFFICE could improve the quality and 

usefulness of our documents, including policy-related documents. In your response, 

please identify the name or type of document(s) your comments address (e.g., nonregulatory guidance, newsletter, blast emails).

I think some summary pages would be helpful to give an overview of different aspects and 

portions of the various documents.

Information is shared on a timely basis. I do not have any further recommendations.

Some of the information seems a bit overwhelming. At times there was too much information to 

process.

The staff and our coordinators have all been able to find grant guidance with ease. The 

documents sent out by our direct contacts for the IAL grant have been [REDACTED] and 

[REDACTED]. They have both been wonderful to share information and respond quickly to 

emails!

I think everything is good at this point.

NA

I have not complaints or suggestions

Never one saw a newsletter.

We haven't received newsletters or email blasts. I enjoyed having a conversation with the team 

leader and [REDACTED].
280

All seems good here.

I have no problem with the quality and usefulness of the documents.

I do not receive any newsletters, etc. I actually get very little information from IAL program.

At this time, there are no notable improvements to make to the documents. We find them very 

useful.

Better understanding of small size rural districts in Alaska would help.

All documents I have received have been clear and very useful.

No recommendations at this time.

Q33. How could we improve the grant reporting process?

I welcome an option to upload all documents, rather than completing the document on the link.

N/A

These reports could come out in quarterly emails or possibly share a link to the data. But, 

overall the sharing of information is assessable through our IAL coordinators.

I think the grant reporting process is fine at this time.

Email submission is easier than g5.

G5 can be difficult and complicated to use and navigate in. A more user friendly system would 

assist in making reporting more efficient, timely, and less taxing.

NA

I have no suggestions.

samples of the evaluation portion.

It is not an issue from your reporting process. Sometimes the G5 factor is confusing, however, 

the help desk has always assisted successfully.

Some issues with G5 but that's about it.
281

Publish an annual calendar of due dates.

It was not always clear how we should fill out parts of the APR/IPR forms. In all of these cases 

we were able to get guidance from people at the Department, but it sometimes required a 

phone call or email to discern what G5 needed.

Fortunately, the grant officer for the Colusa County Office of Education supplies IAL grantees 

with Microsoft Word draft versions of the reporting paperwork. This allows us to complete the 

paperwork before it is due. However, when submitting the Project Status Chart report, the 

grantee first must create the chart and its sections, and then type all of the information into the 

chart. This includes not only percentages, but also performance measures, explanation of 

progress, additional efforts, etc. A suggestion would be that grantees have the option of directly 

uploading the Word Document version of their Project Status Chart as part of their report. 

Additionally, the Colusa County Office of Education has a large quantity of backup supporting 

documents for reporting. There is a location in G5 where we are able to add these documents 

as part of our evidence, yet the MB size is quite small. A suggestion would be to either 

increase the MB size, thus allowing for higher resolution and a larger quantity of documents to 

be submitted, or additional upload sections be added to the report for such attachments.

More time to complete reports.

I have had no issues with the IAL reporting process.

No recommendations at this time.

The G5 system has some issues but in all honesty it isnt terribly difficult to navigate and submit 

documents. There is only a small learning curve but the resources given to us made the 

process that much easier.

Q39. Describe how the technical assistance that Department staff provide could be 

improved to better support your program needs (consider content, structure, format, 

timing, etc.).

No comment.

N/A

At this time, the technical assistance and formatting of documents or digital items have all been 

excellent and our grant team sees no need for any changes.

I feel that technical assistance is great. My questions have always been answered and 

communication has always been quick.

NA
282

I have had no difficulties with this. Whenever I have called for assistance, I have received it.

There was COVID and many transitions in program leadership so i have had little to no 

communication with program officers.

Because we were a delayed addition for funding, I don't think we were connected to a peer 

group. I connected privately to another IAL grant recipient in my state. I visited and we email 

as needed. Because I transferred from the supervisor of instruction office to this position, I 

have the knowledge of instructional procedures/strategies necessary to improve literacy goals. 

I haven't been given any specific suggestions, guidance, or training on this topic.

From our experience, it is quite difficult to add essential IAL grantee members to G5. For 

example, one of our staff who is involved with the fiscal side of operations does not have 

access to G5 making it impossible for him to view our reports. The grant officer referred him to 

tech support for assistance, but in the end he still does not have access to our G5 account. A 

suggestion would be to grant up to three grantee members permission to G5 for a specific site. 

For example, it would be reasonable to allow access to a supervisor, grant manager, and fiscal 

representative for each site.

Perhaps, when COVID 19 travel is easier a face-to-face conference to share data will help.

I did not seek out technical assistance, therefore I am unable to suggest ways to improve.

When I have emailed a question to my representative, the feedback was quick and helpful.

No recommendations at this time.

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that 

provided technical services to you.

Equity Assistance Center and the Youth for Youth

[REDACTED]

Youth for Youth

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role?

Curriculum Manager

Director of Elementary Education
283

Project Director

Digital Literacy Specialist

School District Director
284

International Research and Studies

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Provide links to social media where the department is posting additional details and relevant 

content.

I think it is easy to navigate through the site and find the required information. I have no 

suggestions at the moment.

it seems quite out of date. It would be good to keep the materials more up to date

Q33. How could we improve the grant reporting process?

First report (end of year one) was difficult because of lack of instruction/direction. After 

completing year one, the reports were relatively easy/straightforward to complete. A bit more 

lead time and training prior to end-of-year-one report would be helpful.

I had a bit problem understanding how to build in-direct cost in the budget through the online 

application. The application asked for an approved federal rate, and I did not have it. To some 

extent, I pay for those (indirect) costs out of pocket.

The website if very clunky and difficult to naviagte

In proposals, we design projects according to fiscal years, but the reporting periods don't line up 

to that, so determining project goals and budget updates for the reporting period takes some 

additional work. It would be great if the proposal could explicitly instruct us to design project 

goals and our budget to coincide with the reporting periods.

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role?

Faculty Member

PI

CUSTOM QUESTIONS
285

IRS - 2021 - Q33.2. Please tell us how the technical assistance you received from 

your program specialist this past year was affected by the pandemic, as well as 

any suggestions you have to improve the technical assistance you received 

should we be faced with future national emergencies.

I don't believe that the pandemic affected the technical assistance that I received. The 

support is outstanding.
286

Javits Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Sorry. I really haven't used the website.

nothing specific.

Perhaps by providing upcoming information/possible funding opportunities through Javits and 

aligned to the mission of Javits.

providing more information about funding opportunities the relationship of the program to other 

related grant topics providing more information about other grants

It would be great to include more information about past projects and potentially contact 

information for current/past project directors. There is a lot of good work that has emerged from 

the Javits program over the years, and it would be helpful to have access to some of that 

information.

Would have liked to have access to other Javits GT Grantees either through a PLC type of 

group or a website that lists what they are doing with this grant.

Please provide information that is current, as well as a way to access previous information.

A few news blasts about the existing projects would create community among the projects.

I have not used the website for anything since submitting the application. I do not know of any 

information it could provide that would be useful for me. Synthesizing previous findings may be 

helpful for users generally.

Buttons that assist in navigation from one area to another.

Under 'Program' there is so much visual information. Perhaps keep everything hidden until the 

main topic is selected.

I cannot think of anything

The website is informative but can be difficult to find information. I usually am able to locate 

items needed, usually with assistance from contract management staff

Q21. Please describe how the PROGRAM OFFICE could improve the quality and 

usefulness of our documents, including policy-related documents. In your response, 
287

please identify the name or type of document(s) your comments address (e.g., nonregulatory guidance, newsletter, blast emails).

nothing to improve. all documents looked clear.

The timeframe between now and the last survey has demonstrated much more effective and 

efficient services from the department personnel. Invitation to the national department 

presentations was an appreciated addition. Please continue to send such information. 

Information related to upcoming Javits opportunities needs to be posted.

Overall, we receive very little communication from the team. Recently, they have increased 

notifications around opportunities such as webinars from other program areas - which is great -

but often the communication comes at the very last minute (e.g., notification at 4:15 pm for a 

webinar starting the same day at 4 pm). Additional supports would be appreciated, especially if 

provided with a little more notice.

All communications are professional, efficient and effective.

Non-regulatory guidance could have more detailed information provided. Thank you.

A newsletter would be a wonderful addition to the Javits programs. As a director, I would read it 

regularly and contribute when asked.

Some information is not relevant to gifted and talented education or Javits grant recipients.

I would like for information to be cumulative so that you can easily refer to past documents in all 

reports. This would also be helpful for Budget information. Name, grant number, etc. should be 

a part of all documentation. That information should not have to be entered more than once.

The documents that were sent to me for reporting purposes were not editable and difficult to 

use. Some colleagues who also have a Javits directed me to a site and walked me through 

which documents to use and how to complete them. I lost several hours trying work with what 

was sent to me.

Hardly any communication so improvement would be to communicate

I have had several Javits grants so I do not require additional documents

Most communication has been good, but we did receive last minute emails regarding 

workshops that made it difficult to participate.

Q33. How could we improve the grant reporting process?

The G5 system is not adaptive to the visual and table representations that clarify the grant 

objective progress and data.
288

The last time we had reports due, it required multiple emails to get the correct forms with the 

correct due dates in G5. It just seems like there are inefficiencies happening that need to be 

addressed.

I would love to know how the Department uses our data and reports. I don't believe we've 

discussed anything beyond using the data to determine whether we've met our stated grant 

goals or if we are on target to do so. I'd love to hear about any larger findings.

The pandemic certainly impacted the availability of data. Clarity regarding expectations of data 

reporting when data collection was impacted by the pandemic would be helpful.

The forms are horrific and not user friendly. The forms could live on the website.

Character limits make it impossible to tell the whole story in a meaningful way. The reporting 

template is cumbersome and outdated. The G5 site needs to be overhauled!

provide more flexibility for different kinds of grants.

Keep a document with continuous data and information for each grant. That way the grantee 

could refer to previous documents when doing reports.

The documents that were sent to me for reporting purposes were not editable and difficult to 

use. Some colleagues who also have a Javits directed me to a site and walked me through 

which documents to use and how to complete them. I lost several hours trying work with what 

was sent to me. Please send usable, editable, and typable documents. I cannot stress how 

important this is.

Clarity beyond reading transparencies during a presentation

I have used the reporting forms for many years and they are fine.

We are in year one and have not experienced the reporting process as of yet.

Q39. Describe how the technical assistance that Department staff provide could be 

improved to better support your program needs (consider content, structure, format, 

timing, etc.).

didn't request any TA

More opportunities to share with other Javits recipients. Feedback related to the annual reports 

(question or commentary related to objectives and progress) would be appreciated.

The Department staff has made several efforts to try to engage project directors and provide 

some supports by inviting people to share aspects of their work. These efforts have often 

seemed a little bit unclear and disconnected, without clear goals or sense of the audience. I 
289

recognize the challenges of the remote work everyone has been doing and appreciate the 

degree to which the team is trying to build some resources and supports.

Having grantees gather together, even virtually, with activities focused on sharing would be 

great.

We certainly appreciate the webinars. It would be wonderful to have small group opportunities 

to share more successes/challenges. Perhaps even a formal time connected to another 

professional meeting would be beneficial.

I read the question several times and either do not understand what is being asked or find that 

the activities being described so far from my interactions that the distance is causing my 

confusion. How would Dept staff help create learning groups or the development of materials?

New grantees are "on their own" when trying to initiate and implement grants. Little-to-no 

guidance is available for completing EYO reports, as all of the information in the webinars is 

designed for those familiar with the process and terminology. GPRA has never been mentioned 

before, and yet it is now part of the reporting. What is it? Why is it now required? The questions 

seem to be to help ESDE and not the grantees. Are we doing your work?

it depends which staff member you are working with--some are excellent, others not as good.

I have been part of the grant for 9 months and have not received any technical assistance from 

Department staff related to our grant. Any technical assistance would be helpful.

Having individuals with a familiarity of the field at large (e.g., gifted education)

Lots of us in schools have struggled during the past couple of years due to the pandemic. It 

has been impossible to accomplish our original grant goals because of this, and I do feel that 

our grant and students will be penalized unduly for this.

Due to COVID, we did not ahve a meeting of project directors, but it seems the Javits Program 

could have developed and provided some zoom sessions, particularly for new directors

Information during year one has been made available, but not clear at times. We are getting a 

better understanding of requirements and are working with contract management.

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that 

provided technical services to you.

reporting session

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role?
290

District Admin/Grant Coordinator

PI

professor

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

JAV - 2021 - Q69.6. What topics would you like discussed during Javits meetings, 

webinars, or phone calls to help you implement a high-quality program?

new funding opportunity

reporting of data, listing of difficulties that could generalize to all grants, using network 

to disseminate and address issues

It would be helpful to have more opportunities for sharing experiences, challenges, and 

lessons learned, as well as to have a sense of project progress among others and 

upcoming potential directions for the program.

None at this time

It would be beneficial to share strategies to manage pandemic impacts, including site 

involvement and stresses experienced by school personnel.

The peer to peer sharing was very informative. The next step would be to have time to 

interact and project directors after hearing peer-to-peer presentations.

The Javits meetings are very helpful for complying with Department rules and filing 

reports. But the large group meetings are not relevant to my implementing a highquality program.

GPRA

Knowing what other grants are doing that is effective, how to successfully complete the 

grant during a pandemic,

Completing reports; timelines (send in print more often); Topics have been interesting 

and informative. This pandemic has just confused everything! I would hope that there 

would be an automatic extension of teh grant for those of us who have been trying to 

continue implementation during these past 2 years.

There has been minimal meetings, etc. due to COVID
291

Especially for year one, receiving timely information on reporting and required 

documentation is key. We have been provided good support so far.

JAV - 2021 - Q69.7. Please share any comments and/or ideas on how the Javits 

team can improve its support of your project-specific work.

nothing specific. Thank you very much for your continuous support and fast reply!

If at all possible provide funding updates in a more aligned manner for yearly awards. It 

is a balancing act when aligning budgetary requirements for the federal agency, 

university agency, and local educational agency. The timelines are different and when 

personnel decisions are made for rehiring in June, and notification of award comes in 

August/September, there are many necessary and inefficient work arounds involved. 

However, I understand funding is not automatic and the budget needs congressional 

approval. Not sure how to address the issue perhaps just to let grantees know if 

substantial progress has been made in executing the project objectives, the yearly 

award will be approved, providing congress approves the budget. This allows grantees 

to navigate a balancing act with budgetary considerations.

The Javits team staff members have been very helpful and it has been a pleasure 

working with them so far.

we have noted improvement in the departments' responses in dissemination of 

information

I appreciate the efforts of the Javits team to strengthen communication and structuring 

of the reporting requirements. I have continued to face communication challenges with 

my specific program officer, and last fall's communications around reporting 

requirements and timelines were confusing and consistently changing. Some 

consistency from meeting to meeting would be very helpful in ensuring we can provide 

appropriate reports in a timely fashion.

I appreciate our program liaison, Jeanette Horner-Smith. She is responsive, supportive 

and knowledgeable, though it took us three iterations to get assigned to her. She has 

played a role in the success of our grant implementation in very thoughtful and 

effectives ways.

Create more opportunities for project directors to share successes and challenges.

My project officer is a model of timeliness. I receive immediate feedback and 

responses. Thank you.

Continued understanding and the need to be flexible would be wonderful.

Again, some of the staff are excellent, others are not as good.
292

My Javits team has been phenominal with providing help with questions. I realize they 

are operating under tight restraints when providing assistance and serving a large 

number of folks who need assistance. I don't know how they do so much!

As a director of several multi-year Javits grants, I do not need additional support from 

the Program

So far the contract management team has been responsive and helpful. There was 

confusion at the beginning of the contract term but things have improved.
293

Magnet Schools Assistance Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

I have not had much experience with it.

Often when searching for specific information related to magnet took several searches to locate 

needed information.

Perhaps in the main menu bar under MSAP Grantees, there could be a spot for upcoming grant 

opportunities. It would be great to see when new grant applications become available.

Text that serves as links should be more clear/obvious. Took four clicks before I was able to 

reach the MSAP grant section of the website. Search feature did appear to work well. Looks 

like there is just so much content to capture on this website that streamlining that content may 

be a little challenging.

Navigation to find resources

More drop down screens with specific information.

Add some pictures. It looks bureaucratic.

It's adequate as is.

Update information -even if it is -it is June 15, 2021 and our new round of funding dates have 

yet to be determined.

If you are referring to oese.ed.gov, I am barely aware of it as a resource. I believe I've been on 

it a couple of times to look at what other grant recipients might be doing, so that I could learn. 

To improve it, I'd need direction on how it might benefit my work.

There are a lot of clicks - window opens another window and such. Could some of those be 

streamlined to more easily reach the desired destination?

Add resources from prior national conferences. Things disappear and it would be nice to have a 

library of links and resources shared at conferences. Having a live chat function would be great, 

sometimes it's easier just to chat with someone. I would like to see old applications for all the 

grants that were accepted over time, there is a lot of learning that can happen by looking at 

examples. Add on-demand section for past meetings so that they are easily accessible. Emails 

get lost and it would be a great way to refer back to old material.

Clearer navigation; up to date information on grantees/awardees; easy to find information on 

best practices; archive old information sooner so that the most relevant info is accessible
294

There seems to be a delay in posting information that has been announced to grantees via 

emails. The link to MSAP Regulations in 34 CFR 280 is helpful, but it would be more helpful to 

have additional guidance on allowable and unallowable costs, perhaps with examples from past 

grantees. I understand that allowable/allocable costs vary depending on grant project details, 

but additional guidance could improve the website.

No comments

No suggestions

more resources concerning desegregation

No recommendations.

n/a

Although the program officer is amazing, I would like to have more scheduled check-in times 

just to keep me reporting on a regular basis.

Q21. Please describe how the PROGRAM OFFICE could improve the quality and 

usefulness of our documents, including policy-related documents. In your response, 

please identify the name or type of document(s) your comments address (e.g., nonregulatory guidance, newsletter, blast emails).

Most communications from MSAP have been clear.

resources and emails have been helpful

For example, your blast emails such as the "Spring/Summer MSAP Update Note" are very 

useful and outline need to know information.

Not sure

No additional suggestions at this time.

Communications could be simpler and clearer. There's often no need to long, in-depth 

explanations.

I am satisfied.

Initial GAN reports regarding allocation of future year funding unclear, required follow up.

In general, there is SUCH a high level of detail, that the documents are cumbersome to sift 

through. It would be helpful to have simplified documents with links if we need to search for 
295

more in-depth information.

The newsletter provides informative bits of information, but the non-regulatory guidance is not 

always as relevant as it is difficult to meet the needs of so many entities. Could there be a way 

to ask participants their questions in advance and then publish those questions?

Programs struggle in a number of common areas, direct all resources and materials to those 

areas of need. Sustainability is also a great area to focus on. Share grant writing materials, 

possible grant opportunities, maybe even create a workshop on how to apply for additional 

grants within your community. Tips and tricks.

This has greatly improved over the course of the grant (multiple cycles). Better coordination 

with the MSAP Center so that information coming from the program office and the center are 

more consistent. Occasionally there are discrepancies but they are promptly addressed. I wish 

that better information and clearer guidance was released as it pertained to our grant 

implementation and COVID.

No comments

increase current research articles related to desegregation and integration

No recommendations

n/a

Nothing at this time.

Q33. How could we improve the grant reporting process?

Nothing at this time

During the grant reporting webinars, the process could be improved by scaffolding the 

information in them. For example, when attending the demonstration webinar, much of the 

information has not changed. Perhaps providing a "What's New" webinar to highlight the 

changes could be beneficial to returning users.

The system times out far too quickly and does not let you know that you have been logged off 

until AFTER you save. That often results in much wasted time entering data that has to be 

reentered.

No additional suggestions at this time.

Much of what we are required to report is repetitive from one year to the next. It is quite 

challenging to share the requests with our partners and schools so that they know what we 
296

need. We've ended up having to create duplicate forms in MS Excel or MS Word and send 

those to our partners to complete, so that we can then go online and enter the data into the 

reporting system. There are also a number of places where questions are asked and it's not 

clear what's really expected. such as the long range of options on Part I of the GPRA reporting 

forms, where we are to enter a code for how each school is classified.

Time frame allowed for response regarding data often not sufficient.

Narrow what the requests are each reporting cycle so that we can have a more comprehensive 

view of a particular set of objectives rather than the entire scope of the work every time.

Maintain consistency of data required throughout grant project. Changes/additions to reporting 

requirements should be communicated at the beginning of a grant year, rather than when the 

reporting process is opening in the Spring.

There are two questions that occur in several places throughout the report...questions re the 

student selection process in our district and questions regarding efforts we have made and will 

make to reach our MGI targets. Additionally, the question re how many students are enrolled in 

AP classes, etc, is just hard to find data on...and it's not one of our performance measures. 

Additionally, IF every district in the country has end of course/grade data at the end of the year, 

I don't think we need to have that piece in our APR report. It is a document that we must click 

through and save and say "data to come" several times. I think it would be better to have the 

request for that data ONLY in the Ad-Hoc.

There should be a way of showing improvement in implementation with explanations rather 

than such specific categories, met, making progress, not met. I know this is the intent with 

making progress but it is discouraging when reporting significant changes, however small, 

seems as if you are not being successful. There should also be a way of counting students who 

are assigned (zoned) to a specific who choose to remain or come back to the school as "new" 

students. International Baccalaureate (IB) courses should be included in reporting along with 

AP and Dual Enrollment courses.

The webinars are very helpful but the wording on some of the items is sometimes more difficult 

to interpret than it should be.

I would love to see examples of exemplary reports that have been submitted.

The grant reporting portal can be difficult to navigate and key data tables are found in subtabs 

of subtabs in any given section of the report. Occasionally, the guidance on the portal page is 

different from what was shared/discussed during the MSAP Center webinar. I keep the 

transcript of the MSAP Center webinar (thank you for providing these!) open when completing 

the reports so that I can cross-reference/verify before entering data to ensure I am pulling from 

the correct reporting period.

No comments

It would useful to have the ability to upload or import Excel documents into the portal.
297

It is a lot of information to obtain for April reporting that is not complete or we are in the middle 

of completing such as application information and our performance objectives as examples.

include questions about district sustainability planning

n/a

Sharing feedback regarding the report beyond the acknowledgement of it being received.

Q39. Describe how the technical assistance that Department staff provide could be 

improved to better support your program needs (consider content, structure, format, 

timing, etc.).

Nothing at this time

Perhaps during the Midyear and Ad Hoc reporting window, having an option to subscribe to an 

office hours set up, where grantees can log in and ask questions as they arise.

More cross-regional meeting.

No additional suggestions at this time. [REDACTED] has been tremendously responsive and 

helpful during the course of our time working with her.

This is probably more about the MSAP Center staff -- it's not very helpful when most of the 

questions raised during a webinar on the APR and Ad-Hoc reports and using the MAPS system 

receive replies, saying "You'll need to discuss that with your program staff." It can feel as if the 

MSAP Center staff really don't know the answers.

Ensure those presenting have working knowledge of K-12 systems.

Review of budget allocations, even when minimal, could be made more efficient and timely. 

LEA required to remind staff to respond to requests - doesn't seem to be Department priority.

I think they DO have good resources, and the recent webinar that went through the toolkit was 

an eye-opener. I think the FORMAT of the webinar (and this could be user error) is antiquated. 

To be looking at a ppt and listening to my phone is too many steps to jump on a meeting, and it 

provides no opportunity to interact with my peers and unsatisfactory opportunity to interact with 

presenters.

Webinars should be more interactive with opportunities to have questions answered and 

changes made based on suggestions and experiences.

More opportunities for collaboration with other educators and/or districts to share best practices 

and innovative approaches. More highlights of what's working outside of the annual awards.
298

Training in areas of need would be helpful. Not just in terms of grant management but training 

in instruction and integration would be great. There are experts all over the united states, why 

not hire them and produce a series of trainings to help schools in different areas of 

implementation.

Perhaps having successful grantees provide tips on best practices during webinars regarding 

the subject matter being addressed - concrete examples are very helpful , especially for new 

grantees

I don't think that any of those things happened but if they did, I think some of them would have 

been helpful. If they did happen, then there is some communication that I am definitely not 

receiving.

No comments

more opportunities for technical assistance such as monthly workshops, seminars, etc.

n/a

nothing at this time

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that 

provided technical services to you.

Youth for Youth

n/a

IDRA

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role?

Assistant Superintendent

Department Director

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

MAGNET - 2021 - Q49.6. Please provide candid thoughts on any challenges you 

have experienced and suggestions for improvement 
299

Nothing at this time

The GRADS360 platform does not serve as a purposeful, operational function for 

grant/program implementation. The information that is entered does not lend itself to 

the actual means of successful implementation.

We deeply appreciated our MSAP Program Officer letting us know that the GRADS360 

component was no longer required. It took a large chunk of time to monitor and 

maintain and provided us with little benefit.

Grads 360 was helpful to write out specific implementation plans initially but it has been 

less useful over time.

Attention to requests and response rates by Department staff could be improved.

n/a

The main challenge has been the understanding by all involved of what an impact 

study is and how it should be evaluated. The guidance and expectations should be 

made clear from the beginning and all should be on the "same page." The Grads360 

document is NOT a user-friendly or productive platform.

It's difficult in implementing all aspects and ensuring sustainability as there are 

inevitable adjustments that have to be made.

Work on the website, continue to survey grants and ask what they need or the types of 

training that would be useful. Have more experts at conferences and less schools 

presenting their work. I have found tremendous learning and new ideas at the sessions 

with experts in the field. Balance the two so that there is more variety for participants. 

Grads 360 was a nightmare and waste of time and effort, it was completely useless and 

did not drive grant objectives forward at all. Please consider eliminating it.

The MSAP team has ALWAYS been responsive and timely when support has been 

needed- the only suggestion i would make is that perhaps webinars and training could 

be separate for new grantees and veteran grantees

The relationship between our project and our program officer has suffered because of 

the frequent changes in staff. I don't think our current program officer has any 

understanding of our project. The few times we have reached out to the Center for TA, 

they provided a list of information that I had already obtained through my own Google 

search and made it clear that they did not make recommendations and were not 

familiar with the content that they provided. It's difficult when you are looking for an 

expert response and do not know where to turn. We have identified experts on our own 

when could but access to true technical assistance would be a blessing.

No comments
300

GRAD360 is a very unfriendly program/system for updating as well as managing our 

program updates. COVID-19 has been a very challenging time for us in trying to 

continue our activities as originally planned. As new grants are opened, it would be 

wonderful to have sustainbility funds available for current MSAP awardees so that we 

could sustain our magnets at full capacity as we have with our grant funded years such 

as transportation, out of school field experiences, as well as full time staffing of our 

integration teachers such as dance, exploration lab, coding/robotics, etc.

GRAD360 site was not always functioning.
301

Migrant Education Programs (Title I, Part C)

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Sometimes when I search it--it takes me to the USEd main page and I would just like to search 

within the TItle I Part C part.

more user friendly and upgrade the search functionality

The RESULTs website is a valuable tool.

It is often difficult to find a common item. Ex. "Title I-C non-regulatory guidance" yields nothing. 

"Non-regulatory guidance" brings up many items. "Non-regulatory guidance migrant education" 

brings up the March 2017 migrant education non-regulatory guidance, but it is the last entry on 

the page.

Update information, timely posting of webinar in an easily accesible location.

Provide more variety of information; more FAQ

By improving the resources tab with more MEP-related topics.

I have found it to be very helpful and full of valuable resources.

More timely updates and elimination of dated materials.

Add the FAQs to the website.

When searching for specific answers, often many options pop up related, but not the answer 

sought. It takes too much time to find the direct answer to some questions.

It is good as it is. More program materials, curriculum, state contacts, are all on Results.ed.gov 

which is a good complement to the OESE site.

All in all the resources on the webpage are well-assembled and laid out. One suggestion would 

be to utilize dropdown boxes. For instance, the text can get lengthy and with a lot of text 

together it's not as simple to parse out what you need to find. An example of this is in 

Resources, under Data, Evaluation, Studies, and Surveys.

We use the results.ed.gov website more than the oese.ed.gov website. We rarely use 

oese.ed.gov so we don't have much feedback.

possibly a better search engine
302

Under related topics include links to RESULTS website and links to states' MEP websites.

There is a lot of information, Maybe a chat function.

Policy Q&As - have topics by topic and issue date, also if available a PDF

More information is available on the Results website than the OESE website.

This website offers very high level, broad information. It's confusing to me why the results page 

is separate from this page. I rarely visit this page.

Make it more appealing to look at, colors, etc. graphics. Maybe more icons?

n/a

More up date information and reader friendly

Q21. Please describe how the PROGRAM OFFICE could improve the quality and 

usefulness of our documents, including policy-related documents. In your response, 

please identify the name or type of document(s) your comments address (e.g., nonregulatory guidance, newsletter, blast emails).

N/A

most helpful ones are USDOE non regulatory guidance and FAQs. miss the quarterly migrant 

related FAQs documents that used to be sent out on a regular basis.

ListServe is very valuable and has timely information

It would be helpful to have examples from the field of allowable uses of the supplemental Title IC funds.

Including practical examples would be very helpful.

I think that MEP does a great job with documents and e-mails.

The Non-Regulatory Guidance has sections that have been updated with ESEA including 

eligibility chapters 2 and 3, but the other sections have not been updated in years and still use 

science based research for example it would be beneficial to have the other sections of the 

guidance also updated. I really love to FAQ but maybe including those in the email list serve 

when OME answers state questions so everyone knows what the answers are.

Great information but can always use more samples on allowable use of funds.
303

By providing specific examples and by updating the Q&A section on RESULTS web page.

Often times the guidance is vague and specific examples of information being shared for 

example ways ESSER III funds can be used in combination with Title I, Part C funds would be 

extremely helpful.

n/a

Non-regulatory guidance could improve with more useful examples of eligibility issues. A 

comprehensive list of data collection elements necessary at minimum for the CSPR, 

MSIX/State Specific data bases, Evaluation, Comprehensive Needs Assessment, Service 

Delivery Plan, ID and R plans, and CIG data collections would be useful in order to streamline 

the enormous amount of data collection SEAs are required to conduct on an annual or semiannual basis.

I appreciate the blast emails. Sometimes the non-regulatory guidance information takes alot of 

time to search through to find the information I'm looking for.

The Policy Q&A is very helpful. For a time it wasn't updated based on the former administration 

directive. I hope this will be reversed and the Q&A will be updated with questions from all 

states and OME's responses.

no suggestions at this time

Provide examples, details, scenarios.

Maintaining and publishing an updated bank of Q&A.

communication could be better by asking us what our needs are and providing information to 

support our needs

All materials are great.

n/a

I think a better job could be done with preparation for the CSPR. This is always a point of 

contention in the state.

n/a

Q33. How could we improve the grant reporting process?

It is just SO much data to collect.
304

The CSPR has improved, but still requires more data then other programs.

It would be helpful to have training on the CSPR long before it is due. For example, reports that 

were due last February were turned in to my state for approval many weeks prior to the 

February deadline. Some of the training occurred after my internal deadline.

Small states should have fewer data reports.

I love the forms that OME uses and supply to state directors to help us see any issues prior to 

submission. I think continuing to supply these forms is extremely helpful. I like it when last years 

numbers are already present in all areas and then we only need to add the current years data 

and compare. I miss using EDEN so we could easily see the reports and print them out in a 

clear way. It would be nice if there was a way to print out the reports prior to submission so we 

can see numbers and percentages.

No recommendations; it works well.

By providing clear guidance in what is expected.

In the last three years the process has seemed to change. Providing continuity in the process 

may help.

It needs to be streamlined and targeted. It has improved, but still needs some thoughtful 

revisions.

I'd like to see more information shared, as in our last workshop time, about the funding formula 

is determined for states.

It's good as is. The only difficulty we have is collecting GED data, which isn't done by the SEA, 

but by another state agency. We will get there.

Narrow the focus to essential data. It seems that we report more data to Migrant than to any 

other program.

I have no complaints.

Ensuring states can keep a copy of reports submitted. Prompt response to questions.

Stay consistent from year to year. Over the past few years it seems we are asked for different 

types of clarifying information.

I truly hope we can begin to rely on the technology available and pull this data from MSIX. It 

seems duplicative.

It changes every year which can be confusing and challenging to new and experienced 

directors. Establish a process and then ask the field for input on changes instead of just 
305

implementing them and expecting the field to comply

Just aligning what is requested from the CSPR up with our MIS2000 reports.

The migrant education program requires more reporting than any other federal program.

n/a

The reporting process is incredibly burdensome, confusing and time-consuming. The input 

systems are archaic. Assistance is unhelpful. Reporting needs to be rethought, modernized for 

user-friendliness and streamlined. My entire team dreads and loathes this train wreck posing as 

a process.

n/a

Q39. Describe how the technical assistance that Department staff provide could be 

improved to better support your program needs (consider content, structure, format, 

timing, etc.).

It seems as if you need to be part of IMEC or other groups to stay informed.

Sometimes regional network meetings get bogged down by one state wanting to dominate the 

conversation but overall, it is a good effort.

The format of the MSIX training by Deloitte is very stiff and dry. Recruiters and other staff need 

practical training on how MSIX could be used to communicate with other states and districts as 

well as how parents might use MSIX. I believe there would be more buy in with the recruiters in 

the field if they had a better understanding of MSIX's usefullness.

Scheduling virtual check-in meetings (quarterly or bi-annually) is a great opportunity to provide 

TAs one-on-one.

The department has done an excellent job providing assistance and "unofficial" assistance. The 

issue is when states ask questions receiving timely responses has been difficult. I think this has 

been worse during COVID because there has been so many unknowns not because their lack 

of guidance. I am still waiting on some written guidance. The way they make themselves 

available to IMEC and present at meetings is very helpful so please continue this.

Timing could improve; could get information to us in a more timely manner. The structure and 

format works well.

By providing monthly webinars on topics related to program management and OME 

expectations.

Responses to emails should be sent in a timely manner.
306

The OME staff is amazing. They are always very responsive and attentive. My only suggestion 

would be to perhaps add a staff member to the team and to host quarterly check-ins with the 

State Directors.

The virtual ADM did a good job at eliminating unnecessary and/or repetitious information. The 

content needs to be aimed at providing better educational and supportive services to migrant 

students rather than focusing on other less important topics.

I really enjoyed the last training set up. It was nice to have breakout sessions and alot of time to 

ask questions and share what is working and what our challenges have been.

It is very, very good and quite responsive to our requests. [REDACTED] started regional 

quarterly calls, which has brought our area even closer together. I wouldn't change anything. 

Keep up the great work.

no suggestions at this time

Quicker turn around on questions.

The following topics could be beneficial for new directors. These can be webinars. Enhancing 

staff skills needed for successful program management Using evidence-based practices 

in implementing program activities Assistance with developing resource materials for use 

in the program Creating opportunities for sharing best practices via peer-to-peer learning 

groups

I thought the virtual ADM was very good and gave me more opportunities in the small groups to 

learn and share. I think the ADM should continue to have a virtual option.

I have enjoyed the regional meetings.

n/a

Technical assitance should be conducted in a timely manner and revelant to the issue in 

question. More 1-1 technical assitance should be provided.

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that 

provided technical services to you.

IDRC Consortium

Results website

Regional Education Laboratory - Ed Northwest
307

Title I Part C.

Regional Laboratories

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

MEP - 2021 - Q42.1. How can the program office’s services be improved over the 

next year to better meet the needs of new State Directors in implementing the 

MEP? (Please cite specific recommendations).

The timelimess of answers would help when we have a situation.

it's been challenging with COVID so definitely COVID related TA documents would be 

greatly appreciated.

More opportunities to collaborate with directors from similar states. Hopefully, will get 

to do ADM in person. Find a way to share information shared with IMEC with all states. 

Sometimes feels as if there is "an inside group" in the MEP. Can feel a bit clickish

The response to questions whether by phone or by email typically takes 2-3 days. It 

would be helpful if I received confirmation of receipt of the email as well as a message 

indicating they would be in touch.

Return regularly updated Q&A section to results.ed.gov website.

Small and large states should provide with different Technical assistance regarding 

program services.

If there could be timelines when sending written questions so state directors know it 

may take 3 weeks to get an answer. This way we can better prepare when to ask 

questions about certain topics. Will OME be able to provide any on-site visits to meet 

state specific needs such as attending conferences or presenting at conferences?

Help states with more mental health resources

Answer questions in a more timely manner when possible.

By answering questions as quick as possible.

Knowledge and understanding of the public school systems in the USA, flexibility 

regarding the implementation of federal supplemental programs which support 

schools as they change their modes of service delivery; understanding of the changes 

in the country's agricultural forecast and the influence that weather, drought, climate 
308

currently have on agriculture and agriculturally related sectors of the economy. 

Understanding of successful supplemental services through experience and practice in 

public schools and teaching.

OME is consistently available and helpful whenever questions arise. They provide 

explanation regarding necessary changes. They are also open to engaging in two-way 

conversations about how to improve the program overall.

More time to collaborate with other state directors and hear their questions and 

challenges and the guidance from OME

It would be helpful (though maybe not possible) to get responses to questions a little 

faster. I know they take time to research and set precedence, but it would be helpful to 

have answers sooner, maybe within 2 weeks.

With this being my first year in the role, I'm not quite sure yet!

More regular opportunities for training throughout the year instead of just one massive 

training each year.

More open forum discussions with other MEP providers.

Staff may be available to hold conversations over the phone.

More consistent and timely answers to questions. It is customary to wait months for an 

email response to a questions and it is rare that somebody will answer a phone call.

new staff need in depth training on what the mep program looks like in each state 

before providing technical assistance to the states

I hope they continue with the virtual format of the annual meeting.

n/a

Modernize, streamline and simplify reporting process/requirements for the MEP.

Update and on time information Prompt responses to questions from the filed

MEP - 2021 - Q42.2s. Please check up to three technical assistance topics that 

you will need in the future, in order to improve the performance of your MEP.

Please select a maximum of three topics below.

Coordinated services with other state, federal, and local programs
309

Updated research for the 7 Areas of Concern

unaccompanied/secondary student services - how to support the students and districts;
310

National Professional Development Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Some of the Fast Facts info sheets which existed before are no longer available -- same link, 

but an updated form is accessed when you click on the link. This is problematic if you 

reference the item in a publication or want to revisit the item. For example, Office of English 

Language Acquisition (OELA) Fast Facts. (2015). Profiles of English Learners (ELs). Retrieved 

from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oela/fast-facts/pel.pdf [Google Scholar] There was 

information on the original form which has changed.

I have not used the website - I've only used the KMS system and G5 for reporting purposes.

The website is great. Practice and Research resources in the form of reports, toolkits, and 

policy. The font could be a little larger for easier viewing. One suggestion might be that for the 

Educational Experiences of English Learners that elementary and middle school indicators be 

added. How many ELs are in different types of programs, how many ELs in each of the 

language proficiency levels. I also know this info is in other places

NA

N/A

N/A

The resources are useful.

Often the information provided on the website is very general, so perhaps more FAQs or 

updated FAQs as new questions come in from grantees would be helpful.

Wished it could provide some guidance with covid challenges that impact grant study and other 

activities related to grant.

I think it is very good. Perhaps more details and examples could be added.

No comment.

I'm not sure. I haven't used the website much.

No additional recommendations at this time.

There is a plethora number of resources available . They could be group differently
311

Update information

I find the website appropriate and easy to navigate. It may enhance the access to different 

projects so we grantees can learn from each other.

I do not really refer to this.

Seems fine to me.

I did not use the OELA website much for the grant. We received pertinent emails (perhaps they 

were links to the site)...they probably were. We used the KLM and G5 more. I also used a lot 

of the newsletters that were sent out...was that part of the site?

The previous item asked about the oese.ed.gov website, which I don't use. As for the OELA 

website, I think it could be more obvious where to find information, including lists of current 

grantees and information about/links to their programs. I don't understand why things have to 

be so secretive. OELA should be a hub for this activity. Instead, the website makes it look and 

feel like you have to "on the inside" to get it. It's the same treatment that we say we're working 

against in terms of our ELs. Just like there's a secret code to school that they have to figure 

out, there's one that we have to learn in order to deal with OELA/ED. Disclaimers could be 

enough to disassociate--but there's no reason we couldn't just go to OELA and find (quickly--no, 

instantly) a list of grantees and their project websites. If not, why have NPD?

I don't know.

Defining different programs more succinctly (e.g., OELA, NCELA)

The G5 system is confusing especially the GPRA measures--it would be helpful to have 

examples and more clear guidance on this for the new PIs/PRoject Directors

Not sure. I don't really use it

Simplify, less clicks to get to where you want quickly.

Creating a Multilingual Home Page for Families to find resources

N/A

I'm not sure

Make it more user friendly and post webinars so that they can be accessed.

I believe the website reaches its purpose. It will be a matter to find other mechanisms so 

everyone can find the information that they need as we do.
312

Ease of navigation and ability to locate needed information.

I think it could be a bit more visually appealing rather than just a sidebar of resources (which 

are really helpful though).

There were no issues for our grant.

NA

More information (perhaps a tutorial at the beginning of the grant) on how to use the website.

I would like to thank the NPD program staff for their highly dedicated and professional service. 

They strive for excellence in everything they do. Specifically, I would like to convey my gratitude 

and kudos to [REDACTED], [REDACTED], [REDACTED], and [REDACTED].

While I have always found what I need, I know people new to OELA and to the NPD Grants 

often tell me they can't find things. I usually go on and send them the link they need, but it 

suggests helping novices to the program find things could be improved.

Haven't used it in a while, but generally avoid it if I can. Cannot give specific methods to 

improve, other than to try and make the most requested data more accessible - perhaps a drop 

list of frequently visited sites, or a clearly visible menu. Sorry not to be more specific.

I think is great already.

I'm confused by the survey re: staff. I am assuming that this does NOT include the PO and only 

the OELA staff (eg [REDACTED])

The website's look and feel and accesibility of content are excellent. I have not had any issues 

while searching or accessing information or links shared by the OELA.

Nothing in particular at this time.

A directory of personnel for program officers and key personnel would be helpful. It is findable, 

but it's a bit of a search. Program highlights from current and historic NPD projects could be 

more readily accessible.

Provide updated information. There are some documents for example that were included in the 

2021 competition that were pertinent to the 2016 competition. This however has been a 

COVID-ravaged year so this might explain things.

I don't often use it unless I'm looking for a grant application package or a document.

I am not an expert on websites, so I am not sure.

The OELA website is not currently loading so I can't offer more detailed feedback."This page 
313

isn't working www2.ed.gov took too long to respond. HTTP ERROR 504"

no suggestions

Provide additional instructional resources

Make links to each information, so we do not have to scroll down for the specific information. 

Thanks.

Q21. Please describe how the PROGRAM OFFICE could improve the quality and 

usefulness of our documents, including policy-related documents. In your response, 

please identify the name or type of document(s) your comments address (e.g., nonregulatory guidance, newsletter, blast emails).

Perhaps share newsletters on a consistent weekly or monthly basis. Perhaps send us a 

questionnaire to let us share with you what we are interested in receiving.

Update the News Section. It has the 2017 info and that the 2021 info is coming.

NA

N/A.

N/A

We have found documentation useful.

I think FAQs with frequent updates - perhaps even a FAQ highlight in the newsletters - would 

be really helpful.

It would be helpful to have helpful hints of information regarding aspects of grants: ex. FYI, 

Updates, Did you know? etc. as it relates to News, Updates, etc.

Some more examples could be provided in the blast emails.

No comment.

No additional comments at this time.

OELA documents at times are a bit too dense with too much information.

These were awesome. They were very useful and if not to me, I would send them to others to 

use. I do wish there was a way to suggest topics. I want to see the different in achievement of 
314

separation of language programs and translanguaging programs. We have a parish that we 

think is translanguaging in immersion and they are having REAL difficulties with language and 

academic learning. So..that is my unsolicited request for a newsletter (or research study)

Overall, they probably do the best they can, and it could be worse. But the fact that there's 

never a definitive answer to anything is exhausting, and I'm sure it is so on both ends. We 

know this is why it takes forever for an explanatory webinar to be put together or for new forms 

to come out--and even why some forms are promised and then we're told there won't be a form 

after all. It always feels like there's a contest between us (grantees) and them (OELA/ED) and 

we're waiting to see which side can hold out the longest.

Update of samples provided

GPRA measures--work to improve understanding of these and how to best structure these 

among new PIs.

Not sure

I do not have any recommendations for improvements. I would like to express appreciation for 

the newsletter - we find them particularly well organized, informative, and relevant.

N/A

the NPD does not post policy issues that may be of use to grantees This includes budgetary 

regulations.

I find the informtion provided of high quality and we use as much as we can.

I don't know that there is anything on a wide scale OLEA could so since each project is very 

different and has its own needs and foci.

No issues for our grant.

NA

Since I took over as Program Director after the previous Program Director retired, I didn't 

receive this information. I did receive information about meetings and some trainings.

OELA's materials and publications are impeccably researched and presented.

There isn't as much on the website about meeting the needs of content area teachers of 

English Learners. The bridge between content teachers and EL specialists is an important one. 

Many of our NPD grants focus on just this type of work, but there is not as much put out on this 

important topic. Plus there is little on leading for systemic change. We are making our own 

content on this front, which has been exciting, but systemic leadership (with administrators) at 

building and district levels is not systematically addressed. You showcase successful district 
315

leaders who have done great work, but don't offer guidance, briefs, or support for how others 

become those leaders. This is an issue of sustainability (which I have seen you address at NPD 

meetings), but not as part of research or experiences from our NPD grants etc.

Guidance on annual reports should be reviewed and updated.

All the information I receive from OELA is very helpful and cutting edge.

Some of the information shared in blast emails is not comprehensive enough to address the 

issues that we specifically deal with in our grant. Other than that, the articles were very useful 

and informative.

Nothing in particular at this time

Communication from our PO is regular with the sharing of recent developments in the field and 

celebration from her supervised projects. OELA guidance on deadlines could be more timely.

The OELA team typifies efficiency. All e-mails and workshops delivered are clear and staff 

respond in a timely fashion to queries. This is a fabulous program which could serve as an 

example to other agencies!

n/a

The documents are extremely clear. I am not sure how they can be improved.

Overall, I felt like OELA documents were clearer than Office of Innovation documents and more 

user-friendly. In general, clear language is what sets your documents apart.

Blast e-mails sometimes contradicted the information provided to us in webinars, which likewise 

contradicted the information provided by the Program Officer. For some documents (NCE 

timeline/procedure is one recent relevant example) it would be wonderful to have a one-page 

attachment that outlined timeline and could be saved or printed on its own. Information 

embedded in an e-mail or in webinar slides is always harder to keep track of.

no suggestions

None.

Q33. How could we improve the grant reporting process?

The KMS reporting system is very challenging to use. I hate not being able to see more than a 

limited number of characters when you are entering data. The system should be open for more 

time to allow us to add and revisit entries as we wish. I never used the networking function -- it 

was not helpful at all.. The G5 system is not user-friendly at all. We were constantly knocked 
316

out of the system while entering data. Data was often lost. Some of the character/word 

limitations make it difficult to enter what you want.

The reporting process improved somewhat but I found the focus on numerical data difficult for 

some of the aspects of our project. Better guidance was needed for establishing clear project 

objectives that could be reported on with numbers. I had a fair amount of trouble with the KMS 

site nearly every year - I was provided with assistance, but honestly, it was extremely stressful, 

as this was the first time I had managed such a large grant and I wanted to be sure I was 

following instructions to the letter. I don't feel like I received very clear help from my PO.

In the G5 I did not easily see how to print the report. I found it later after I had submitted the 

report. The G5 reporting is fairly easy. The KMS is also fairly easy. I like them both.

NA

The target vs actual percentages are not applicable to much of our data. We prefer to submit 

charts and narratives to fully describe how we meet objectives.

It would be useful to get feedback on the level of detail we provide in the reports (too much? not 

enough? just right?) We have assumed that no feedback means it is being done appropriately.

For the NPD grant, the use of both G5 and the KMS was a sticking point for our project. The 

budget numbers, in particular, didn't line up and despite a number of attempts to clarify and fix 

these inconsistencies, they remain. While the interface with the KMS was easy to navigate and 

helpful, when we were sending reports via excel to our program officers it felt like we had a 

much better sense of tracking how our numbers squared with the numbers that the US 

Department of Education had.

When KMS is done on a quarter basis, sometimes the responses have a word limit, so it would 

be helpful to know before "you are cut off." Also, there is a place for notes, question, etc., but 

there is usually no follow up from the Washington side. Follow up would be helpful, especially 

when there are questions on the report that were addressed.

It would be helpful if the US Department of Education would make it clearer how it uses our 

data. Also, it would be helpful to have a clearer understanding of what to do when it is 

impossible to meet some of our grant goals. For example, some of our grant goals were 

impossible to meet during the pandemic because our partner school districts were closed to us.

No comment.

Impossible to upload separate documents on G5 when completing the APR. All materials had 

to be combined into one big document and submitted in the end of the report. Specifically, 

there is no place to report the Grant Specific Measures, or Section C.

It is difficult to measure program impact on second language learners in such a short period of 

time, great student mobility, and time needed to acquire a language
317

Improve KMS

The system sometimes slows down or does not have fully updated data, but I assume these are 

technical glitches that are monitored and corrected

Working in two separate systems is not easy. In the KMS you have to click save after each line 

in the budget, otherwise you lose your work. It is such a difficult system to use.

I would love to know how they use the data. I remember at one of the NPD meetings in 

Washington, some of the data was discussed, but I do want to learn more about that.

The annual report system is clunky and outdated. The world has moved on. I have little 

patience for the random-feeling way in which new entries are created and report forms are 

generated. Google and MS Forms are easier to use and are now capable of much of what's in 

the system. There was a time when a system like our reporting system was impressive. That's 

no longer true, and that fact makes the current system look and feel antiquated and difficult.

training for the use of the various systems or just have one system for reporting.

GPRA measures--work to improve understanding of these and how to best structure these 

among new PIs.

None

Less reports! Standardized form based reports would make things simple, quick and if everyone 

is filling out same form the data could be easier to compare.

The reporting structure and format has improved over the 5 years of the grant. There are times 

when we have run into technical difficulties (entries not saved, etc...). The use of different 

reporting platforms has also been challenging for some on our team.

N/A

The KMS still seems illogically organized to the extent that I need to re-learn it each time I need 

to submit an update report.

The grant reporting process is done both on the G5 and on a KMS reporting system We have 

no access to G5 draw downs and this makes it difficult since this is the reporting system that 

OELA uses to track the expenditures. Decisions are made according to G5 which does not 

reflect monies encumbered or money spent since there is a time lapse for the university 

reporting system. Very little guidance is given to grantees.

I think the grant reporting process is fine in the way that it being implemented.

G5 and KMS budget alignment is needed and would be very helpful
318

It is very tedious. Could it be a 3 times a year process rather than 4 times a year? Update 2 is 

due and then a couple months later the annual report is due. The timing also makes it seem we 

are not spending as much money. Sometimes it also depends on when the tuition/scholarships 

are processed by the university. Given that spending is linked to tuition, if some of the update 

deadlines could be changed, it may be more representative of spending.

We switched quarterly reporting systems to KMS, and initially, that was rather confusing. 

However, we got feedback and the hang of it, so it was fine.

The quarterly reports are very inflexible. For instance, the goals/targets form has numbers in it 

that I cannot change even though they are incorrect and were not input recently by my staff. 

Having all reporting in the same system (eg, G5) would make reporting more consistent and 

easy.

The KMS system has had a few glitches that need to be improved. It hasn't been easy for me 

to navigate.

The grant reporting process was practical and clear. It wasn't easy, but complex is what is 

expected with a large multi-year project.

Thank you for simplifying the annual performance reporting process, connecting it to GPRA 

measures. The quarterly updates on project goals is labor intensive, but not having to repeat 

those updates for the APR is a welcome improvement. Despite decades of submitting reports, 

the only item that remains tricky to get right for you is the reporting of completers. I am never 

quite sure if I am doing that right. It would be easier if we always used the 5th year or 

cumulative goal as the denominated and reported progress toward that on a year-by-year basis. 

Sometimes I think you want the nominator/denominator to be for one particular year's goal. I 

wish you could decide to always use the cumulative stated goal for the denominator and allow 

us to report progress toward that each year.

Again, guidance for annual reports should be updated.

I have had much trouble with the Manhattan site. To start, I can never find the link! In all OELA 

ppts and communiques, can you PLEASE put the link in the materials? The reports are 

awkward. Why are we submitting different periods (not all quarterly)?

The reporting process went through some changes for the better. At the beginning we had 

issues with the former system but the changes were very helpful to us.

I really appreciate the support that I have received. My grant officer is so thoughtful and 

supportive. She has guided through some technical issues by locating the right person to help 

me.

Improve KMS platform

My PO is good about offering feedback on my reports in KMS (interim measures) and the G5 

(final reports per year), but I know this is not the case for all NPD projects. It would help to have 

people share this at the annual OELA meetings.
319

The KMS system can be glitchy and sometimes needed data to be input several times. While it 

is understandable that we need quarterly reports, data reporting did get overwhelming with us 

filing four reports each project year (to include the APR). It might be efficient to cut reporting to 

perhaps two reports before the APR? This could reduce some of the paperwork burden.

Please remove the dual reporting system of KMS and G5 and just use G5 if possible. Having 

two systems has been a huge headache for my project -- the financial reporting in G5 matches 

our university financial records exactly but G5 does not. There is information from pre-KMS 

reports that was never uploaded, missing information etc. in KMS. It has impacted our carryover 

totals. At one point the project officer asked our financial people to resolve the difference and 

we cannot due to all the missing information. I feel like there is a lot up in the air with a no cost 

extension request because I just don't know how all this will pan out. Other federal departments 

do not have two separate reporting systems for grants.

The online platform is clunky.

I like the process the way it is now.

Overall the process is just fine. We were given a very tight deadline for an APR report this year 

(days), but when we called and discussed it, that deadline was extended to be manageable. 

That is a small instance, overall our experience has been great.

God bless G5.... It is not the easiest system to navigate. The inability to download a template to 

work from, combined with its auto-timeout, really complicates reporting. And navigation within 

the G5 website is not user-friendly. KMS has been a challenge since the rollout, but we 

appreciate the technical assistance provided by OELA and Manhattan Strategies. Our main 

issues with KMS reporting were: 1) The budget reporting page. It works GREAT as long as 

there are no unusual circumstances in the budget. But our allocations were incorrect for two 

years, and this meant that the automatically calculated locked fields were also incorrect. All we 

could do was document the discrepancies and back up our records with a spreadsheet of the 

correct values. We found budget reporting during Year 1, when we submitted a spreadsheet 

directly to our Program Officer, to be much clearer and more efficient. 2) The pages in which 

we reported individual program activities, and then identified all budget categories into which 

the activity fell, did not seem to be a useful exercise. For example, nearly every program activity 

was funded by Personnel, Indirects, and Fringe. Travel activity was always funded by Travel, 

Personnel, Indirects, and Fringe...etc. It is unclear how OELA could get any useful information 

out of this. Again, the Excel spreadsheet of activities sent to our Program Officer during Year 1 

was clearer and easier to complete than KMS.

I learned as I went through the years. I learned that all program objectives should be entered in 

KMS in first year even if not applicable that year. I learned that certain browsers work better 

than others. The tech help for KMS was responsive and helpful.

no suggestions

Feedback for each performance report would be helpful.
320

Q39. Describe how the technical assistance that Department staff provide could be 

improved to better support your program needs (consider content, structure, format, 

timing, etc.).

It would be great to be able to network and share with other grantees, but the minimal time we 

had to get to know each other during the conferences in DC, and the networking option on KMS 

made it difficult and unattractive to pursue.

When I am having troubles with the G5 or KMS report, I am able to call or email the agency and 

they trouble shoot quickly. The program managers I have had are great, they are 

knowledgeable and accessible.

NA

The Project Officer assigned to our particular project is knowledgeable, helpful, and insightful!!

We need monthly webinars to share best practices with peer to peer learning communities.

The NPD annual meetings were incredibly important to our learning about a number of the 

criteria items in the last set of questions. Of course, COVID closures meant that we didn't have 

the same access to that learning experience in 2020. Co-learning with other grantees was the 

single-most beneficial part of those meetings so it was disappointing not to be able to do that -

even in the virtual environment.

Having quarterly webinars would be helpful with issues directly pertaining to grantees. The 

annual meetings are full of good information and sharing. It would be helpful if pertinent themes 

could be addressed throughout the year.

Perhaps some useful materials developed by past grants could be shared with current and 

future grants. For example, we developed a survey for parents and a survey for teachers on 

how effective teachers and parents found school-family communication and collaboration is. 

These survey tools might be useful for other NPD grants. The US Department of Education 

could establish a way for these materials to be shared with other grants.

No comment.

Improved responses to questions.

For the most part, the Department staff are phenomenal. They respond promptly to emails and 

provide the requested information. If they don't know the answer to a question immediately, 

they check and get back ASAP. However, the quality of the Program Officers is not the same 

across the board. My first experience was with a Program Officer who was personable, 

responsive, and enthusiastic. The one I have now is just the opposite. This person never 

responds to emails, and never has the answers I need. I have been asked to send the same 

documents multiple times to him/her, over the course of several months to a year! This person 

only responds, with delay, around program reporting time, and then does not act on the issues 

after that.
321

The Department provides high-quality TA in every aspect of the program.

Most of this we did at the NPD meetings. The virtual one wasn't as successful at this. I wish 

we could meet face to face again.

Regular online events for interaction and exchange of ideas would be good. It seems that each 

program officer could do that with the small group of projects that report to them. Now that 

we've all become used to that, it would be instructive and help build collegial relationships

among grantees. As is, I feel like I'm always in competition with the others and that secrets 

have to be maintained. It's the same thing as when we're told that we can never discuss our 

salaries with fellow faculty/employees. That indicates there's something unhealthy in the 

culture.

timing of when due

None

Having dates for such tech assistance webinars much earlier would increase attendance and 

help all of us be able to utilize this resource. I have missed some meeting due to conflicts with 

my university schedule, teaching responsibilities...

n/a

There needs to be better access to staff. They never answer their phones. There is a delay in 

answering emails. If there is a problem with the expenditure of funds, they need to give 

grantees adequate notice and help grantees with issues that are connected to the way higher 

level institutions process payment. During COVID there was a significant delay in processing. 

There is also inconsistencies with the amount people are allowed to carry over. If there is a plan 

for the carry over it is disregarded or not facilitated. Program Officer decisions are not always 

supported. This is money to serve children, It should not be used as a political pawn. There are 

huge discrepancies across grant on the number of participants served. Grantees are getting the 

same money for serving 30 people as others are getting to serve 300. Also, research done on 

these grants is disregarded, There is no posting or sharing on the effect of the professional 

development on student achievement. This is crucial, Why are we doing these grants if we are 

not improving instruction for ELs to accelerate learning and to close the achievement gap. The 

emphasis is on dual immersion programs. This is not the only way to serve ELs . Innovation is 

not encouraged or shared. Results are not the goal. There is no procedure for colleagues to 

interact.

I think, the most essenctial components such as content, structure, timing, etc. are fine. No any 

additonal recommenation to this point.

I know there are places in KMS where we could share, but I don't know if that is utilized a lot. In 

terms of peer-to-peer sharing, I do it more on a personal level with other project directors I know 

rather than through the KMS system.

NA
322

Including more programs and their data into webinars as examples would be helpful for 

enhancing the PD's clarity and encouraging further connection/efficiencies between programs

The director meetings have been very helpful but it would have been helpful to have more 

opportunity to share information with other grant recipients. The format of the meetings 

became more like a conference and less like a meeting where conversations can be shared 

with others.

Peer to peer sharing has been limited by not meeting in person due to COVID

The Annual Conference is an extraordinary resource.

Everything I have attended put on by the technical assistance staff has been excellent. I offer 

no complaints and only praise on this front. [REDACTED] has been so proactive, positive, and 

always helpful in getting answers to questions at all stages.

Have not needed technical assistance - am a former staff member in Title III office, have had 

NPD grants for many years.

The technical assistance we received was excellent. We don't see any areas that need 

improvement.

I am fine at this time.

Technical assistance can also be facilitated by successful NPD projects. I would like to see 

more of this.

While we had some useful annual meetings where grantees had opportunities to share, it would 

be nice for us to have contact with programs with similar outcomes. Especially in the virtual 

sphere of sharing, it was hard to "see" who grantees were as the platform used did not let us 

know who were participants in meetings. This might be difficult to arrange but perhaps 

spotlighting a few projects via NCELA might be a way for grantees to share useful information 

with each other.

I didn't know my project officer could do some of these things. I have very little contact with my 

project officer except when I ask a question.

The staff are tremendous. I apologize, but I am not sure how assistance can be improved.

Short videos and model example documents would be useful.

Each project is unique and it would be helpful to learn from those who share the same program 

officer. Specific learnings include main activities conducted by each grant and challenges

no suggestions
323

Use zoom meetings more of often

It might be better if we had opportunities to share our study - success indicators and challenges 

with other awardees.

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that 

provided technical services to you.

WEEAC and REL Northwest

I contact any time for specific technical assistance and when we truly need specific information. 

Always they are there to assist us.

Manhattan Strategy Group

Equity Assistance Center (IDRA)

Manhattan Group

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role?

Compliance Officer

PI

Principal Investigator/Grant Director

Project Director and Principal Lecturer at an IHE

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

NPD - 2021 - Q2.11. What, if any, improvements have you seen in OELA over the 

last year?

The NPD Director's Meeting has always been very professional and of high quality. In 

the last two meetings I have seen OELA partner with IES and other agencies. These 

agencies are invited to the NPD Annual Meeting and are part of the presentations. The 

NPD reporting process is streamlined (G5 and KMS) are online reporting systems. The 

program managers have always been responsive and helpful. The discretionary grants 
324

provide institutions of higher education to improve their teacher education programs to 

be more inclusive of English learners.

NA

Same high standard is evident.

Excellent webinars to support teachers and project staff during the school closings due 

to the pandemic.

N/A

I have been the project director of our current NPD grant for less than a year so I not in 

a position to make that judgment.

No comment.

OELA has been very accommodating given the pandemic which has been extremely 

helpful.

The presence of OELA in social networks have increased and the quality of information 

provided is higher (clearer content and usefulness of information).

These are not improvements because they have always been in place, but worth 

noting.... I have had two program officers over the course of my grant. Both have been 

excellent. I cannot imagine what it is like for a program officer to get assigned a new 

program midway through its implementation. Liz has been amazing! OELA's leaders 

are simply fantastic - great communicators, positive, and wants what is best for our 

children.

I really like the facebook page. It makes it easier to get messages. It would be great if 

they had a YouTube (do they?) and then I could turn on notifications when new items 

come out.

Somewhat more responsive and visible given the effects and implications of the 

pandemic on all our operations. But even during this time, it seems that there was still 

this secretive approach. Even though what everyone needed--in all things--was some 

definite answers, we rarely got them. It's always an "it depends" situation. To an 

extent, that's understandable, but if we could at least shift to a mode in which scenarios 

were given so that we could have some sense of where things stand, that would be a 

big improvement.

I have seen improvements in the communication/information sharing and organization 

of the online materials. While there are still multiple platforms for reporting, the 

reporting requirements and structures have been clearer over the past couple of years.

N/A
325

New Secretary of Education with the potential of more support for English Learners.

It has been difficult during COVID to get responses in a timely manner. There has been 

a stated emphasis on resaerch but results are not focused upon.

Several improvments with high quality.

I appreciated the flexibility and support offered as projects tried to navigate how the 

pandemic and school closures affected program implementation.

NA

Continued tweaks to improve content and delivery. I cannot point to a specific example, 

but I feel overall the improvements are consistent and incremental

OELA has been supportive as we were all challenged by a global pandemic. None of 

us had any idea that we would have to deal with something that impacted so many lives 

in such a dramatic way and as the Project Director of our grant, I was thankful for that 

support from OELA.

This year's publications were prolific, timely, extraordinarily helpful with guidance during 

the pandemic. There were multiple times the publications and presentations than in 

prior years. I was contacted more frequently to check in on how we were doing during 

the pandemic. There were many accommodations made to assure that the projects 

were successful despite the pandemic emergency. OELA collaborated significantly 

more with the other offices within ED to disseminate pandemic-related trainings, 

advisory, and resources. OELA facilitated a new grant competition, and the 

preparations for this competition were much improved in that the RPF reflected a major 

revision, which required a very significant amount of work from OELA staff.

I have appreciated the offering of many more webinars on important topics, such as 

heritage language speakers and culturally sustaining practices.

More communication, more up to date information about a variety of topics related tp 

English learners, more webinars, more resources.

I did not notice any great changes. In my opinion it has always been very good and 

informative.

My program officer is so responsive and supportive. Her support and affirmation are so 

meaningful to me especially during the pandemic

More timely responses by POs and OELA staff to questions.

This has been a very tough year with COVID-19-pandemic induced disruptions yet 

OELA staff under the exemplary leadership of [REDACTED] were able to organize our 

annual Project Directors meeting as well as run a new competition. These 
326

administrative feats were impressive indeed, and trainees in our project--in service 

teachers in rural Maryland-- have been so grateful for the opportunity.

My interaction with OELA is limited -- I do use the website as previously mentioned. I 

follow OELA on Facebook but most posts are things not directly related to my grant. I 

feel like my relationship with my project officer is friendly and professional, s/he 

responds to questions when I ask them, but I hear from other project director's that their 

project officer is much more involved in regular communication, in promoting their 

project's visibility etc. I do not have that kind of interaction with my project officer 

although his/her response times to e-mail questions have gotten faster, which I 

definitely appreciate! I know s/he is very busy.

Better responsiveness.

Information about adjustments to projects as a result of the pandemic and technical 

assistance for no-cost extensions were timely and clear, which I really appreciated.

A dedication to NPD grants to help us through the COVID pandemic.

OELA staff have been great about guiding us through the changes to the program 

associated with COVID-19.

no comment

The NPD grants are essential

OELA PO has been very helpful and collaborative whereas the technical support could 

have been better in terms of timeliness and problem solving, especially for KMS 

reports. Thanks.
327

Native American and Alaska Native Children in School Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

All gov. websites are not user friendly. OELA is actually one of the better ones. MUCH better 

than Grants.gov. I really don't have a suggestion as it is difficult to provide so much information 

to a plethora of people with varying degrees of technological knowledge.

I depend greatly on just the emails the program officer sends. I don't tend to take time out to go 

to the website unless I've been directed to find something based on content of an email I 

receive from my program officer.

Website is informational. No need to improve.

More pictures and a little more flashy.

The search function seems to loop you back to the point the search originated or takes you to 

outdated sites.

More photos from programs and links to slide presentations for examples of projects and 

evaluations underway.

It is ok.

I really have not used the website, I just email my program officer.

Q21. Please describe how the PROGRAM OFFICE could improve the quality and 

usefulness of our documents, including policy-related documents. In your response, 

please identify the name or type of document(s) your comments address (e.g., nonregulatory guidance, newsletter, blast emails).

Documents received from OELA have been excellent in comparison to some we have had to 

decipher. There has not been anything trivial, and all information is professionally written.

I prefer the newsletter or social media versus the website, and really just like the information on 

documents about the NAM grant be emailed to me personally.

The email line could be more specific and when individuals are sending notices having their title 

in the line would help. When staff changes are made grantees are often not familiar with the 

names.

More consistent timing â€” eg monthly newsletter 3rd week of the month etc
328

non-reg guidance helps...

They are good.

Q33. How could we improve the grant reporting process?

KMS system was challenging. However, the OELA team was very kind and supportive.

I've had issues with the portal used for reporting NAM project objectives but the program 

contact has been very patient and helpful.

The G5 is a bit outdated. KMS is better

KMS Software is not easy to navigate and the data does not necessarily provide usable 

information for reference. Spread sheets accompanied by narratives aligned to budget and 

program reporting would provide more information for the grantee as well as the agency.

One platform only

GPRA targets don't align with project allowable age ranges (preschool). But our Program 

Officer ([REDACTED]) kindly assisted us in adapting our measures to work with the required 

performance targets.

Making everything simple to follow.

No comment

The KMS site is a bit difficult to utilize, especially the budget page. It would be beneficial if we 

were able to edit more or our information when we make an error.

Q39. Describe how the technical assistance that Department staff provide could be 

improved to better support your program needs (consider content, structure, format, 

timing, etc.).

Improve the technical assistance onsite web portal.

I am hopeful that a return to in person annual conferences will occur. There is much to be said 

for networking and sharing among grantees as well as the personal connections that could be 

developed with grantees and the program staff.

Unsure
329

timing of due dates on reports could be changed to consider spring breaks and Summer breaks 

for contract staff.

No comment

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that 

provided technical services to you.

I've received emails and alerts on most of the given examples.

Regional Laboratories and Youth for Youth

Access to KMS and related info

Youth for Youth for our 21st Century Learning Centers.

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

NAM - 2021 - Q1.11. What, if any, improvements have you seen in OELA over the 

last year?

They have always been very kind and supportive. No changes

Online trainings and technical assistance

The staff seems to have found their footing and are providing strong support for 

grantees. I hope the staff continues to grow in their ability to serve grantees.

Flexibility in response to data and socioeconomic challenges of the pandemic

Increased focus on Heritage language development in addition to English

Forms are not so hard to understand.

No comment
330

Native American Career and Technical Education Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

It could be better colors and bigger more expansive pull down menus.

No response

If possible condense information into segments that are easier to read and work with. Too 

much information maybe not needed?

More timely responses to questions. In depth answers would be beneficial including noting 

where program information could be found.

Honestly, I did not use the website.

Not too sure. I don't regularly use this site.

I find the website very helpful.

Include the website in the signatures of all emails from NACTEP staff. Send quarterly 

newsletter that refers back to the website.

Make sure to review and update system before asking grantees to start using it. The website 

could add additional information regarding how the GPRA works, identify best practices, and 

suggest ideas for how to make improvements

The website is very vague in my opinion, I feel like more detail and information would improve 

the website.

No suggestions. Thank you for the privilege of offering student support to our targeted students.

The site is not updated often enough. If it was more interactive it would be great. Also, maybe a 

chat button or some other more immediate means of communicating with DOE staff would be 

wonderful.

none at this time

Reduce content, fewer buttons, add an option for a newsletter type update around legislation 

and new program guidance.

Q21. Please describe how the PROGRAM OFFICE could improve the quality and 
331

usefulness of our documents, including policy-related documents. In your response, 

please identify the name or type of document(s) your comments address (e.g., nonregulatory guidance, newsletter, blast emails).

No response

Provide additional documentation in regards to reporting other than the "dear colleague" letter. 

Have been impressed with the level of support provided to grantees from the Office of Indian 

Education. Some of the services have included email blasts, technical assistance sessions, 

regular meetings, and slide decks for reporting.

Some announcements for the NACTEP grant needed clarification, deadlines or needed more 

information. Response time could be better.

I do not have any suggestions.

Each program is unique. Learning about the future direction of NACTEP is very informative.

Language of documents needs to be less "governmentese" and more simple "civilian" or 

layman's terms

the newsletter is a good resource for programs. I don't have a problem with the emails.

The forms for the semi-annual and annual reports in G5 can be confusing at times, or unclear. I 

know the system now and understand what information is needed, but new grantees are 

probably lost at times as I know I felt that way in my beginning years.

No suggestions. I appreciate the timeliness of responses.

I have not seen a newsletter. That would be informative and helpful to get one quarterly. The 

policy related documents should cite specific policy. As a new director for this program, and 

new to federal grants, I did not know much about reporting, etc. If there were literature on this it 

would be so helpful to many NACTEP programs.

none at this time

Overall the documents sent now are better than what was previously sent out in terms of 

reporting guidelines. It would be great to have summary information for the regulatory guidance.

Q33. How could we improve the grant reporting process?

The G5 system: It's good, but seems dated. Navigation of the G5 system could use 

improvement. I understand it but it's not an easy system and makes me nervous.
332

No response

G5 needs to be scrapped for something more user friendly.

Technical assistance during reporting time.

The same reporting documents have been used for years. An upgrade would be beneficial. 

Raw score, % rate information on the semi annual reporting and final reporting can use more 

explanation. Even with assistance of an external evaluator, it can be puzzling.

Grant project directors response time could be improved.

Allow grantees to have easier access to the G5 system. Passwords are extremely case 

sensitive and expire to quickly. Ensure the reporting forms are online and grantees are allowed 

to submit using the G5 system.

With the retirement of our long term program specialist, we've had little communication with the 

office. Our experience and the experience of our project evaluator is very helpful in the grant 

reporting process.

Hold annual directors conferences. Share reporting data from other programs.

Providing information about how the program should be evaluated, what do you look for so we 

can improve the outcomes. Are there other performance indicators used to reflect the 

workforce

The G5 system seems to have several flaws, especially when reporting GPRA performance 

measures and can be extremely confusing when using ratios, actual, etc.

It would be helpful to require an Annual Performance Report and an opportunity to provide 

supplementary information, when available, rather than a Semi-Annual Performance Report 

and an Annual Performance Report.

At the beginning of the grant DOE could provide literature, or seminar at the initial D.C. 

NACTEP meeting of directors and DOE staff, that would provide a helpful overview of the 

process. It seems since I've started the process is a bit different with each reporting period i.e. 

sometimes we mail it in and sometimes it's submitted on G5. It's a confusing process for 

someone new to grants in general and new to NACTEP.

none at this time

It would be nice to have assistance setting measurable objectives based on institution size. I 

think more examples within the forms of how to portray information in the needed format or 

wording. The reporting in G5 can be a bit complex when the software requires specific actions. 

It would be good for the department to define the things they are looking for so that grantees 

can better track that information and focus efforts on gathering that data.
333

Q39. Describe how the technical assistance that Department staff provide could be 

improved to better support your program needs (consider content, structure, format, 

timing, etc.).

Was not aware these services were available.

I enjoyed the Director's Meeting for the NACTEP grant, however this is a one time meeting for 

the life of the grant. Possibly meeting once a year, even if virtual would've been ideal. We 

received very little technical assistance, or didn't know where to find it.

I do not have suggestions at this time.

Communication with grantees and providing training would be extremely helpful.

We didn't know that this was available.

Technical assistance can be offered to Native communities in providing guidance and direction 

in completing the application. Provide feedback as to the goals and objectives created by 

programs. Are they on target or not, what needs to be improved.

The format and structure is often unclear, the content needed and timing is usually very clear 

and always with plenty of time to complete the task.

Not familiar with technical assistance opportunities

Providing a quarterly, or more frequent, venue for program directors to meet and discuss issues 

is a great idea.

none at this time

If it would not be too much I think it would be good to offer some webinars once per month or 

even quarterly. At this time there are so few interactions that it seems we are only connecting 

with the department during reporting periods.

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that 

provided technical services to you.

Youth for Youth

RTI

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role?
334

Program Director

Project Director
335

Native American Serving Non-Tribal Institutions Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Make it less difficult to reset a password.

Continue to improve search functions

It is an intuitive website...easy to navigate

Giving better information about its existence, features, and resources.

N/A

The website is not always current.

N/A

To be frank, I'm still relatively new to the "grant-world" and I didn't know about the site until I 

saw it in the survey.

Q33. How could we improve the grant reporting process?

Some questions were slightly ambiguous or jargon filled

Too many sub-divisions of information.

A sample report would help newbies

The help desk is well, very helpful and kind.

Sending updated information regarding resources available such as WICHE. Bringing Directors 

and other staff together in conferences.

I have no issues with the grant reporting process.

The electronic filing system usually has some glitches within the format.

N/A
336

The only improvement I would suggest is to have an auto-save feature.

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

NASNTI - 2021 - Q19.2. Please tell us how the technical assistance you received 

from your program specialist this past year was affected by the pandemic, as 

well as any suggestions you have to improve the technical assistance you 

received should we be faced with future national emergencies.

I at first had trouble logging inti the reporting system but assistance was great and all 

resolved

NA

I had no issues with technical assistance and was pleasantly surprised when 

comparing to other government entities

The support we receive is consistently good. I don't have any suggestions for 

improvement.

Most of my experience was positive, receiving timely needed support.

There were no issues regarding the technical assistance.

When a technical issue is resolved, I do not always receive a follow-up email.

It felt very slow to receive communication, even slower than usual.

NASNTI - 2021 - Q19.5. What can the NASNTI do to improve communication with 

you?

Nothing at this time

NA

No suggestions for improvement.

I am happy with the current communication process.

I have no issues with the communication.
337

The only concern I had was waiting on notification of the RFP being released. I didn't 

know whether to apply for different job openings on campus or how much time I should 

allow.

NASNTI - 2021 - Q19.7. How would you advise on improving the overall process 

and protocols associated with this grant competition?

Keep information coming in a timely fashion

To the extent feasible, publish what is upcoming

The process is well defined and protocols communicated.

Have the Education Department send regular and direct communication with the 

Program Director.

Allow more time from the opening to the closing of applications.

The entire process was nerve-wracking. There were two websites I would check daily, 

and I would keep in close contact with my Compliance Office, just in case I overlooked 

the announcement for the competition. I would even call and speak with the grant 

writer, who was also frustrated with not knowing the time frame the announcement 

should be released.

The success of Native American students is very community centric. Native students 

thrive within community, the best way for our nations to build community is to gather. 

We do this regularly, however because the grant doesn't allow to purchase food we 

make those purchases out of pocket. Our success is gauged by our students success 

and they have thrived within our community centric model. We focus on 

community/sense of belonging, Leadership growth/development, and Peer to peer 

engagement/civic engagement/volunteerism. All three of these areas provide a sense 

of ownership for our students which in turn amplifies the retention and graduation rate 

of our students. A larger focus on co-curricular activities would strengthen these 

programs. Those activities provide opportunity that our students would not otherwise 

have and truly are the building blocks of a strong campus community.
338

Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Education Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

PCRN is currently very helpful and updated frequently. Possibly more links to respective 

research matter, i.e., CTE at middle school, CTE at High School, CTE at Community College, 

CTE at Employment, CTE at stipends, etc.

Q21. Please describe how the PROGRAM OFFICE could improve the quality and 

usefulness of our documents, including policy-related documents. In your response, 

please identify the name or type of document(s) your comments address (e.g., nonregulatory guidance, newsletter, blast emails).

Haven't received a lot of documents or communications

Q33. How could we improve the grant reporting process?

Report sometimes can't be accessed in online g5 system and has to be submitted via email.

Continue with OCTAE, [REDACTED] CTE National Activities Showcase workshops through 

ZOOM or TEAMS, which include excellent presentations by high-level knowledgeable staff. 

Miller's letters to directors, which include specific grant notification matter is helpful. Continue 

with program officer model, i.e., [REDACTED] on-going technical assistance and understanding 

of specific grants' progress and audit-specific instructions/data. Possibly face-to-face 

compliance visit to grantee and sub-grantees' sites.

Q39. Describe how the technical assistance that Department staff provide could be 

improved to better support your program needs (consider content, structure, format, 

timing, etc.).

No technical assistance provided
339

Native Hawaiian Education Act Program-Education of Native Hawaiian

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

no specific comments.

Chat room, blog, where grantees share questions and NHEPs responses.

nothing at the moment

some webinars and information, time critical, are removed almost immediately, while 

documents and webinars from years ago are still on the website

No improvement needed at his point.

I have found the staff within NHEP to be consistently caring, professional and responsive. I am 

a grant receipt of other programs and have grown to appreciate NHEP tremendously - for these 

very reasons. Mahalo nui loa for all you do

The G5 is very cumbersome. That is the only thing I would change. [REDACTED] and 

[REDACTED] are great and super helpful!

It works well for our program needs.

I have not utilized the website so I have not feedback on it at this time.

It feels like email has been more important for resource dissemination. For this reason, perhaps 

the website doesn't need improvement. The variability in what information is provided about 

awardees proved somewhat disorienting but not challenging to the support of essential program 

functions.

It is sometimes difficult to find information on the Guidance and Resource section of the 

website. Either segregating out subcategories or reorganizing those sections may help users to 

find relevant information.

Long List, It would be nice to have an added section list to help narrow in on programs by state, 

content, kind, short description, currently available grants.

Maybe make it look more updated/user friendly.

Make it visually more appealing.

I don't go on the website much but I have excellent communications with my Program officer 
340

[REDACTED]. She responds to my emails quickly and sets up conference calls with me when 

needed. She is always personable and very encouraging with any issue or concern I might 

have.

I didn't realize there is a website; all of my communications and information comes directly from 

our grant officer.

Q21. Please describe how the PROGRAM OFFICE could improve the quality and 

usefulness of our documents, including policy-related documents. In your response, 

please identify the name or type of document(s) your comments address (e.g., nonregulatory guidance, newsletter, blast emails).

no specific comments.

Applications and Performance Report docs have had very clear instructions. I've had a few 

questions, and have searched through links and found answers to them. This takes time. 

Would be nice to have a questions/responses chat room for applicants and grantees.

none

have timely information. and whatever is not time critical, put it in archives, but still accessible.

None at this time. The documents have been extremely clear dan helpful.

Shorter and clearer.

For cost extension folks, it was unclear what was due because we were emailed to attend an 

APR meeting. I made the assumption that we needed to complete the APR. This was 

confusing. Create a separate No-Cost Extension email update for data needs etc... to prevent 

confusion.

Documents in general are of high quality and usefulness. Blast emails sometimes contain more 

information than necessary or are organized in a way that the pertinent information isn't readily 

discernible.

Documents are overall helpful and informative. Sometimes documents may have contradictory 

information, which may require clarification.

include a few samples. simplify the amount of information required in the proposals.

no comments.

NA
341

Nothing I can think of to help improve in regards to documents or policy related documents.

Communications directly from our grant officer are always useful, helpful and relevant. Other 

emails, webinar, training opportunities are not as clear or relevant; they seem more generic in 

nature. G5 is extremely confusing as is submitting SAPR and APR.

Q33. How could we improve the grant reporting process?

nothing to improve. the webinar about grant reporting was very informative.

The data required in APRs is specific to the project. Outcomes are related to the activities of 

the law, (NHEP). Eg., Professional Development is an NHEP activity, therefore the data 

grantees report on a PD grant award, should be relevant to the PD outcomes, eg., teachers 

improve in instruction based upon a specific teacher instruction tool/measure. The GPRA, is 

often not relevant. The next round of awards will be based upon project specified outcomes. 

That will help.

none

decades of research on evaluation in education and USDOE doesnÊ»t know how and what 

methodology to use. thatÊ»s disappointing and frightening.

More workshops and seminars to help understand the grant reporting process.

The electronic system is often a challenge to navigate but has gotten a bit better over the years. 

Logging in is often difficult.

Improve the G5.gov website.

I appreciate that the department is searching for ways to make data more informative. This 

demonstrates that they listen and understand. Mahalo nui loa

Improve the G5

In our the webinar on how to complete our report, there was some misinformation and 

differences between the guidance provided and what was in the FFR. Also within the meeting 

one team member said a one page abstract single spaced was OK while another team member 

said a two page abstract double spaced is preferable. The FFR said the abstract should be one 

page.

The website could allow for greater fluidity in revising various elements of the necessary 

reports.

It is difficult accessing the portal to submit reports due to limited hours (particularly since we are 

working on PST) and updates to the web portal.
342

Like the short executive and budget summaries aligned to the logic model direction. It also 

helps in the proposals.

Better clarity of how data is used for overall improve of program.

Nothing I can think of to improve current reporting process.

Completely revamp G5, allow more qualitative narrative, explain metrics processes better, 

make it simpler to access and navigate G5, make the GAN's more concise and updated -

especially if no cost extensions or budget revisions are approved. Or better yet, allow grantees 

to submit written reports and DOE can enter the results into any portal they see fit, but please 

share outcomes and data with grantees.

Q39. Describe how the technical assistance that Department staff provide could be 

improved to better support your program needs (consider content, structure, format, 

timing, etc.).

didn't receive TA

Survey grantees to determine common issues. Priorities those that are most common. Conduct 

a conf call/chat room to address the common topic. These are most helpful BEFORE the APR 

is due or the APP is due.

Sometimes the content is so general and we could use specific guidance. The guidance is 

available, but maybe not quickly available.

The staff is not Native Hawaiian, nor do they have experience working in Native Hawaiian 

education. Their ability to provide any technical assistance on this subject matter is nonexistant.

The assistance has been useful and pertinent to our work. The assistance is always helpful. I 

am not sure how you could make improvements.

I love NHEP and particularly [REDACTED]. Whenever we have a technical assistance call, 

[REDACTED] always demonstrates that she has been following our work - as she is familiar 

with changes and shifts we have made. She is aware of our strengths and the issues we are 

working on improving. I appreciate this about [REDACTED]. And, I feel [REDACTED] 

genuinely cares about the keiki and community we serve.

No change really. The pandemic made things very hard on everyone and timing of deadlines 

wasn't always the best but I realize this was largely due to the pandemic.

timing of report requests and emails for no cost extension should align better to the due date.

We have not utilized any TTA services during our time with this grant.
343

Peer-to-peer opportunities seem beneficial but somewhat irregular.

The Department staff provides excellent feedback and technical assistance!

The collaboration with the NHEC has made the session more useful.

more could be done in this area but I think the DOE staff are very shorthanded so this is likely 

not feasible until more funding is provided to add staffing.

Not sure what technical assistance I would need to improve my current program needs.

Nothing to say in improving technical assistance for my program needs.

Perhaps hire more people so responses are faster. But other than that, our grant officer is 

excellent, supportive, helpful and informative.

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that 

provided technical services to you.

The NHEC hired a provider for these services.

Equity Assistance Centers, readiness and Emergency management for schools...

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role?

Project Coordinator

PI

Project Coordinator

Compliance Officer

Grantee

PI and Coordinator of NHEP grant

CUSTOM QUESTIONS
344

NHE - 2021 - Q61.4. What technical assistant topics can the NHE program provide 

to support the implementation of your grant projects more effectively?

Application for NHEP

Ideas of how other programs may be dealing with similar issues our projects are facing, 

best practices in data collections.

n/a

All have been useful to date. I havenÊ»t had need for other topics but would welcome 

learning from whatever NHEP offers.

I have participated in general tech asst that is related to the overall program; and 

technical assistance related just to my program. I appreciate both

Evaluation support would be helpful.

More support for future grant proposals

I appreciate the responsiveness and support from NHE program staff, especially with 

navigating the pandemic needs!

updating logic models Answers regarding ongoing research COVID related information

Not sure.

Now that the world is opening back up again, in person assistance and training would 

be helpful but should take place here in Hawaii as it would cost less to bring 1-2 people 

here than for all Hawaii grantees to travel to the continent.
345

Neglected and Delinquent State and Local Agency Programs

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

No major improvements are needed. The website has been helpful. Keeping updated and 

relevant resources assists in providing equitable services to our grantees.

There needs to be more guidance on program models, FAQs, etc. The guidance is minimal.

Provide more information.

Overall, it's not bad. However, for those of us who are new to the programs, it could be a bit 

more intuitive.

The "Resources" area links to the National Evaluation & Technical Assistance Center (NDTAC) 

- for the past year their website has been non-functional. Currently, their website "Our Mission" 

has old contact information referencing the previous contractor - AIR personnel and reference 

to NCLB. https://neglected-delinquent.ed.gov/about-us/our-mission. It doesn't promote 

confidence in the new contractor that they are not aware of the difference between NCLB and 

ESSA.

First and foremost we did not have a website for most of the year, that was a major problem for 

many of the new coordinators who were unable to find information that they needed.

Make sure all links are up to date.

Improve navigation of resources on website.

Many of the links are broken

The website is lacking in content. There is no FAQ document and very little in the way of 

resources. What little there is is in the form of a link to NDTAC, which has only posted material 

developed by the previous contractor.

Many links were broken (now that NDTAC is operational, this may be remedied). The website 

is not user friendly and it is like finding a needle in a haystack when searching for information. I 

would suggest breaking information into more manageable chunks and making it easier to read. 

The font is super small, and it seems "crowded"

Updated NRG's

I like the way NCHE has their website designed.

I do not have any recommendations at this time.
346

na

Making the navigation of the website coherent and clean to find the most useful items first. 

Connecting to relevant information on other USDE sites that impact the program.

Overall searchability of website needs improvement. Include more examples and templates.

Elaborate on Title I, Part D programs (allowable use of funds, updated definition of terms, 

guidance in layman's terms, etc.).

Implementing a user-friendly responsive system.

The website could be more user friendly. Perhaps a list of hot topics that users can click and 

lead them to the most relevant information.

Q21. Please describe how the PROGRAM OFFICE could improve the quality and 

usefulness of our documents, including policy-related documents. In your response, 

please identify the name or type of document(s) your comments address (e.g., nonregulatory guidance, newsletter, blast emails).

guidance needs to be both more specific and provide different options for interpretation in the 

different contexts that we work

Update the Non-regulatory Guidance

The documents that I have seen (so far) are useful. However, the ways that the programs are 

administered in our state are a little different than many.

We have been waiting for US Ed to publish Non-regulatory guidance for the past three years. 

There have been three different individuals leading the NorD program each year for the past 

three years that I have been the NorD state coordinator - some with more understanding of the 

program than others. The NDTAC - through AIR was the stabilizing force in the program with 

the institutional knowledge and longevity helping the program to run smoothly. Currently with 

the new contractor they don't even seem to know the answers - as they always refer back to US 

Ed to answer simple questions.

I think at this point there are many people working at the NDTAC that are still trying to learn 

about the programming. This has put the veteran coordinators in a strange position, where 

many have more knowledge than the support we are provided.

Please provide regulatory guidance or add sections to existing guidance that might address 

small vs. large states.

More information regarding specific institution identification and how that relates to each 

subpart in non-regulatory guidance and statute.
347

The most recent non-regulatory guidance dates to NCLB. I do not receive a newsletter and 

cannot find one to sign up for.

Non-regulatory guidance is WAY outdated. I have only been in my position for a few months, 

and because NDTAC was not operational, and the resources ED had were outdated, hard to 

find, and people I reached out to seemed too busy to help-I feel behind in my job as state 

coordinator.

Stay current with topics as they occur.

Update the Non-Regulatory Policy Guidance for Title I Part D (June 19, 2006).

I do not have any recommendations to improve documents at this time.

Update Non Regulatory Guidance

Non-Regulatory guidance needs to be updated and there seems to be specific areas in defining 

terminology that are antiquated but need to be defined in modern juvenile justice and child 

welfare terms and processes (N&D). The guidance and connections possible with Family First 

and the significant changes in the juvenile justice system should be addressed in clear 

guidance and ways to make the most of the educational programming possibilities with TI-D 

programs.

I don't recall receiving any guidance from the Department of Ed for Title I, D other than the 

forms for annual count and CSPR. Other than this, they are pretty silent.

No improvements noted at this time.

Provide clarity on use of funds and definitions of types of programs. Provide specific examples 

of Title I, Part D Program exemplars.

The non-regulatory guidance needs a revamp.

Examples around 1) Non-regulatory guidance programmatic sections 2) Allowability of funding 

examples

Q33. How could we improve the grant reporting process?

More examples, more conversations, more TA opportunities for new and slightly seasoned SEA 

point of contacts

N/A

The reporting process is fairly easy. No significant changes are needed.
348

Provide more technical assistance like the presentation that was provided at the annual 

conference around CSPR.

Collecting the data needed is very time consuming and we have to create surveys and getting 

the data from the facilities is very difficult.

There has to be a more uniform and efficient way to collect and report data. I'm not sure what 

that is...

It would be helpful to have federal reporting workshops both at the annual conference in 

preparation for the count and a how to report webinar as the reporting window comes due.

Make it due the end of the school year rather than midwinter

I do not have any recommendations at this time on how to improve the reporting process.

na

Some of the data is not as relevant or helpful in driving program improvement. It should be 

studied and adjusted to determine what is the most effective data to improve Title I-D 

programming and that is the data that should be collected. If it is already collected then it would 

be helpful to have support in identifying such data as information that is research driven to 

support program improvement.

The reporting process is excellent and staff are always helpful. [REDACTED] has been the 

most helpful person at the department. He is always able to answer my questions and provides 

exemplary customer service and technical assistance.

No improvements noted at this time.

Have a standardized collection tool that all States could use, that would tally the aggregate for 

all facilities receiving Title I, Part D funding.

The reporting process, while stressful, its not as convoluted. Thank you!

When CSPR questions are sent back to state, would be good to have the LEAs name noted not 

just the NCES #. This would assist in our finding a response in a more timely manner.

Q39. Describe how the technical assistance that Department staff provide could be 

improved to better support your program needs (consider content, structure, format, 

timing, etc.).

Current, relevant information and clarity on the statutory program requirements.
349

The new NDTAC is too new to be really measured accurately. They have a good start.

To date, I have not requested much technical assistance. However, considering the few 

isolated instances, everything was fine.

More clarity on U.S. Department of Education Staff and staff at NDTAC. Who do we go to for 

what?

More peer to peer sharing opportunities.

TA Center doesn't understand the program and struggles with helping states and allowing 

states to help each other.

I have never spoken to anybody from U.S ED Title I.D staff, all interactions have been with 

service providers

Again, now that NDTAC is available, this is probably a moot point. But as a new state 

coordinator I felt very much like I was not supported by ED. It would take several days to 

receive any documentation I asked for, and I still am unsure of many aspects. However, I am in 

a COP with NDTAC and feel like I am getting support from them.

I would like more access to staff, as the TA center has not proven to be helpful or 

knowledgeable when it comes to the legal requirements for the program. I would also like to 

have more training from ED staff on the proposed monitoring model.

TIPD peer structured meeting have recently begun again allowing for sharing of ideas and 

materials.

I do not have any recommendations at this time on how to improve technical assistance

na

Interactions with the technical assistance provider have been limited. Developing more 

consistent communication in when TA occurs (if live), having options for calls or virtual 

meetings, developing options to meet specific program needs not subgrantee needs. There are 

TA providers for the subgrantees but as the SA those are different and should be identified as 

such.

The department doesn't really lead any of these activities directly so it is hard to evaluate.

No improvements noted at this time.

We have not received any technical assistance from Department staff over the past year.

The department staff have been very responsive to our questions.
350

Arizona is updating ESSA State Plan, specifically Title I-D, LEA and State Agency. We will be 

reaching out for technical support relating in assisting with developing resource materials for 

use in the State program.

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that 

provided technical services to you.

NDTAC

- Neglected or Delinquent Education Technical Assistance Center

NDTAC

NDTAC

NDTAC

Neglected or Delinquent Education Technical Assistance Center

NDTAC

New NDTAC

NDTAC

NDTAC. Provided Tool Kits, we have had 2 COP meetings that were super helpful. 

[REDACTED] has been fantastic. I recently asked her for needs assessment guidance, and 

within minutes-she provided me with guidance. She even did a deeper dive and gave me more 

guidance the next day.

Child Trends TA provider

Neglected or Delinquent Education Technical Assistance Center

Neglected or Delinquent Education Technical Assistance Center

NDTAC

Neglected or Delinquent Education Technical Assistance Center

NDTAC-childtrends/longevity
351

NDTAC

NDTAC

Neglected or Delinquent Education Technical Assistance Center

Longevity consulting.

Attended the NDTAC National Conference.

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role?

Coordinator Program
352

Payments for Federal Property (Section 7002)

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

As if someone was brand new to position, what would they need to know to navigate the 

website and process. This was my first year and it was difficult to naviate and get quetions 

answered.

It works just fine

Nothing that I am aware of.

For me, because I have been doing this in various iterations since early 2000- specifically 

saying what is different or new first would help. I am only contracted a few hours a year to do 

this.

I'm not a fan of "timing out" for user names and passwords. This has caused me to reset my 

password way too often.

It is a bit clunky to use. Not smooth and simple to use. Right now I am having difficulty getting 

on and your help process is not very good or user-friendly at all. No one to personally talk to.

Not sure

More updates on current legislative proposals / results.

I did not find a glossary of terms that would have been helpful as a new to Impact Aid (7002) 

administrator.

Overall, I think it is user friendly.

I was using Google and I got to the section for Legislation, Regulations and Guidance it was 

very sluggish and then dropped me out. I don't know if this was a browser issue, an internet 

issue or the website.

Stop changing the website. Once one is used to finding what they need, the website undergoes 

a change and then it is harder to find what you are looking for.

The application website needs to be more user friendly and needs to have links to pertinent 

information and reviewed information.

its okay

Provide more specific instructions on how to fill out and submit an application.
353

concise information pathway

I am not computer savvy and the site is hard for me to understand and navigate. We had 

technical trouble with the site, which we kept reporting to our representative, they were not a lot 

of help. We had a new superintendent and your system kept saying he was not valid, which he 

completed his application on time. Therefore we missed completion date because we could not 

SUBMIT, and we tried frequently to submit but kept receiving the error. Therefore we are being 

penalized for your technical problems

None noted

Just continue to update the user interface, feel, and appearance to stay up with the times and 

user friendliness that most people expect. Thanks!

N/A

Embedded help links

The ability to see revisions immediately after you save your changes needs more attention

It has been improved greatly. I do not have further suggestions.

Make it more user friendly.

Simplify

More efficient navigation on the website is needed.

Sometimes difficult to find correct screens or takes a while to load information

I just think the way the information is organized is confusing. I have to search a lot and go into 

and out of things that I don't need.

The new website is a massive improvement.

I don't have any suggestions at this time.

The department of Impact Aid Payments is very responsive and does a great job.

The website is very good at this time. I appreciate the up to date information shared and the 

number of contacts that can be found.

I do not have any suggestions.
354

We have always just had a hard time navagating the site

N/A

I find the website very helpful and efficient, and have no suggestions for improvement.

No improvements needed. We do this application once a year and its still straight forward and 

simple.

I struggle with the website. But maybe I missed a training on how to maneuver through the 

website. Nor could I find a handbook on how to complete the process of applications and then 

finding the documents and payments later. I am a handbook person since I don't use the 

website frequently.

I had (and continue to have) a hard time finding a place which confirms that my application is 

complete and filed on time. I got an email to that effect but the website still showed the 

application looking like it has not been filed. We wound up filing twice because we weren't sure 

the first application was filed. I also find it cumbersome that only the Superintendent can set up 

the application and then assign it to me. It would be easier if I could set it up, even if it was 

subject to his approval before letting me change anything. I could not see anything until he set 

up the application. Then, I could only see it if it was in My Tasks. This just seems very 

cumbersome for small entities.

Perhaps easier "lookback" to previous year's responses and more explicit directions.

More personable when n the phone and more responsive. They do not email back very quickly

Having both 7002 and 7003 links on the same home page is very confusing.

It could provide much easier access to the vouchers and printing them off.

Q21. Please describe how the PROGRAM OFFICE could improve the quality and 

usefulness of our documents, including policy-related documents. In your response, 

please identify the name or type of document(s) your comments address (e.g., nonregulatory guidance, newsletter, blast emails).

Can't think of any

Everything was incredible long. Very difficult to sift throught to find the necessary information 

that required action on our part.

We are very pleased.

Nothing that I am aware of.
355

I would appreciate having the emails, and or newsletters highlight upcoming changes to the 

requirements and format prior to receiving the grant application. That way I would know where 

to focus my attention. Thank you.

To generic. Didn't help solve my concern.

blast emails - short highlight of the email so you can see very quickly if you need to read the 

complete email.

The payment voucher is not as informative as the previous one.

No comment.

More non-regulatory guidance.

Nothing to add here.

Application could be more clear and easy to navigate with a submission review page prior to 

and after submission. Also where it is in the review que could help.

it very useful

same as previous comment

None noted

The forms are mildly difficult to navigate for an unfamiliar user. Possible a printable diagram 

identifying the most important information.

No Comment

Make them easier to find.

Simplify

In regards to the non-regulatory guidance communications I would recommend the documents 

to be more simplistic.

I don't recall receiving information other than the grant due date.

NA

I don't have any suggestions at this time.
356

Documents are concise and explain things adequately. Thanks.

NA

keep a history of payments received.

Newsletters and blast emails are always good. Any information that is related to policy could 

have a blog associated with it that gives it more relevancy.

I do not have suggestions in this area.

Just had difficulty at times

N/A

No suggestions for improvements.

In general, the quality and usefulness are very sufficient and easy to find.

Same as before - basics - keep it really simple.

A bullet list for important points

Na

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role?

Admin Assistant

Fiscal Officer

Assist. to BA

Accounting Manager

Assistant Superintendent for Business

Finance Director

School Secretary

Sr Accountant
357

School Treasurer

School Finance Director

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

PFP - 2021 - Q56.9. Please explain.

The presentations are very helpful, as in any communication with staff afterwards.

Materials were very clear and very helpful when submitting data.

I find the application itself not very user friendly. I use the materials to help navigate.

Webinars on how to complete and submit applications are informative

Clear explanations and examples were given

I attend training almost every year. It is always informative and usually a staff member 

from the U.S. Department of Ed. is there to answer any questions that we might have.

the Q&As are always helpful and the tips to avoid

The presentations and materials were both clear and concise.

I gained more knowledge of the source check forms.

Everything was presented in a clear and concise manner

Webinars were good.

The best presentation addressed using the new website.

The webinars I have watched have always offered clarification.

They were great at giving the information necessary.

I was able to reference notes from the presentation to help us fill the application out
358

Presentation explained every aspect of the website and how to navigate through it. It 

also was very thorough in assisting with completion and submittal of the district's 

application.

Materials were very helpful.

7002 Overview gave me a better understanding of Impact Aid overall.

They gave all the appropriate information

PFP - 2021 - Q56.10. What additional communications would you like to receive 

regarding the status of your application, prior to receiving a payment?

Can't think of any

None

We did not qualify yet

None at this time

Notices of Payment or any allocation changes

NA

Anything important that needs to be communicated with those of us filling out the 

application. I have tried calling recently and it said to call back when the lines were not 

so busy. I've tried this numerous times and get the same message. How can anyone 

get through and get answers when the phone is not answered.

All issues as previously mentioned

[REDACTED], technical support, was extremely helpful in completing this year's 

application.

It would be great if there was a "review" that happened prior to final submission. 

Perhaps the designated consultant reviewed everything first?

Up until last year's application I can say only positive things about our representative 

and the help he gave us in understanding the application and what if any changes we 

needed to make. Last year, I don't know if the rep was new but she was not very much 
359

help at all in helping with the technical problem of getting our new superintendent 

enrolled and the retired superintendent removed.

Would like to know if webinars are available before completing the application process.

Emails

The total amount of the award prior to receiving payments.

Confirmation that the application was received and approved.

Bi-weekly status updates would be nice to receive.

Wish the website was more user friendly.

An email is fine

N/A

I did not submit my application on time because I missed the very last step (where you 

actually click submit) and it just sat there in unfinished mode. I did not realize this until 

the deadline had passed. It seems like the system could send an automated email that 

warns that you have an application in unsubmitted status or something. It was my first 

time doing it.

I am happy with the email.

Just a heads-up that the payment is coming so that I can notify the treasurer to be on 

the lookout.

An email letting me know the status of our application and the amount of funding we 

can expect to receive (and WHEN) would be very helpful.

None.

All is pretty good.

it was fine

The amount we receive now is sufficient, but would like to receive emails notifying the 

district when payments are sent out for both initial and remaining funds payments.

none
360

None needed. The entire application process from submitting gathered documents to 

requesting an early payment to actually receiving that payment can't be simpler.

none that I can think of

Application still says Application Review. Would like notification when review is 

complete and has been accepted.

I'm always nervous that I haven't fully completed the form(s) and will miss out on aid, so 

a final email letting me know everything is in good order would be appreciated.

It being a new application method was challenging. Still not certain if it was done 

correctly or approved.

PFP - 2021 - Q56.11. Please provide any additional specific suggestions for how 

the Impact Aid Program can improve customer service.

None - they do a great job. Are a good example of what staff should be in Federal 

programs

None

I want to commend the staff who try to trouble shoot problems encountered during the 

application process. We are a tiny district in northern California and no other schools 

apply for 7002 funds because they consider it "chump change". Our basic payment has 

a HUGE impact on our tiny mountain school district. We have a retired teacher who is 

contracted for 8 hrs total to collect, complete and submit the application. Without the 

support of your staff we would have a very hard time, even thought the new forms are 

far more succinct and easier to complete. Thank you.

IAP staff are always courteous and helpful.

My experiences have all been positive. Ty

I am satisfied with the customer service. They have always been able to answer any 

questions.

Have your analyst, pick up their phone's or even during Covid, couldn't they have their

phones forward to their homes. Or have them return your calls with-in a certain amount 

of time.

Answer the phone when there is an issue and your given a number to call. The issue is 

with something that has been updated on the SAM.gov website and never asked 

before. I filled out the new information but it is saying that something does not match. I 

called for assistance and can not get through on the line because of the number of calls 
361

that are already on hold apparently and was given a message to call back when lines 

are not as busy.

Improve training for state representatives/support personnel so they are more familiar 

with state requirements

If you have a new person giving guidance, have someone overseeing them until they 

understand your system completely

none

No suggestions I've always received excellent customer service.

n/a

None at this time.

Answer a phone call

n/a

Answer emails in a timely fashion.

[REDACTED] is the point of contact for our District. He has been continually excellent 

in helping us be successful with Impact Aid.

It is disgraceful that the processing of payments takes so long. This is the most 

important aspect with regards to client satisfaction and as of 6-21-21 7002 FY2020 

payments have not been made. All the years of holding back payments seemed to be 

corrected - until now. Great job!

Keep [REDACTED] on board. he has been very helpful and responsive over the years.

Because of Covid it took longer than normal to get information (folks working from 

home and call not going to thier cell/home phone. Not anyones fault just a problem due 

to Covid

none- extremely responsive and helpful.

None needed

Continue to simplify the directions and process.

During the Covid-19 application period, it seemed like the responsiveness was less 

than previous years. Hopefully that won't be a problem going forward.
362

Better communication
363

Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 7003)

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

The website is easy to navigate and to process payments

Editing applications is a bit confusing.

The website moves very slow and is hard to get it working for other users

It's not clear what is a link to more information and what is not.

No comment

I have no suggestions.

Sections of the website are not intuitive in nature. The page has come a long way, and 

continued refinement will be beneficial.

I find the new IAGS website very difficult to use. There are not enough clear directions on 

where to go to find what you need and or step by step directions when filing the application. 

You just have to figure it out on your own and I am not comfortable with that.

I believe it is well developed and very user friendly.

I was a first-time user. As a first-time user, I was hoping it would be a little more user-friendly.

I have no recommendations at this time.

It's not user friendly for those new to the program.

Takes a lot of clicks to get to the content requested. Maybe use tabs more efficiently.

It is better.

I think it does not need many improvements. Very "user friendly"

By using language that doesn't seem like I'm reading Federal Tax Code! I don't work for the 

federal government, and I find Impact Aid guidance to be cumbersome and so wordy it has to 

be read multiple times to begin to understand it. Less is more, and will allow a clearer 

understanding of requirements and expectations. Posting recorded training 

sessions/PowerPoints that we can refer to as needed, and in a timely manner. Webinars in late 
364

Nov-Jan are not helpful when we begin distributing our survey in late Sept.

Finding the Federal Properties is quite difficult, especially when related to the Choctaw Nation 

properties. The Casinos and Travel Plazas need to show the name of the town in the name. 

Otherwise, every casino or travel plaza has to be opened to determine if it is the correct one.

I can't ever locate our properties via the search feature. That is the BIGGEST frustration I have 

with the website.

Sometimes there are difficulties with the tables of values not adding up as expected. Any help 

with this would be appreciated. Thank you

No improvements needed. I am satisfied.

I feel its hard to find things without going through each tab

I think the website is pretty straight-forward. I have some issues with the way the vouchers look 

but that may be a question/answer for later in the survey.

It is just not user friendly in finding answers to specific questions about completing the form

Nothing to add

It has been great to work with. I would only make the voucher easier to print, rather than having 

to do a work around by creating a pdf and then having the voucher. The reason that would be 

helpful is that we need to send to the business office as soon as possible upon receipt of a 

payment. Other than that, I am so impressed with the system.

N/A

Went Well

Not sure.

The website is well done. Continue to send out emails with links to information that are on the 

website has been beneficial.

There needs to be something that is more direct on how to get to the actual grant itself. The 

grant writing portion does not allow a save and move on feature. This would be helpful to have 

the ability to complete some portion and move on rather than having to wait to have all the 

information at one time.

I think it will be good, it was just new to me and I had a hard time navigating.

It has been very good. No changes.
365

I think the website is cumbersome. It is not easy to navigate. There are always issues putting 

new locations into the system.

Many of our parents work on federally qualified addresses. Sometimes it is a bit difficult to 

verify if the property is federally qualified or not, so we do not include those in our claim.

This past year was a challenge and we used the prior years' data. We really did not get to use 

the system in full.

I think the application process has improved over the years! It would be nice to have some form 

of an award predictor or estimated award based on the application submitted.

It's fine. I'm not on it enough to make suggestions. Some of my opinion is probably due to lack 

of experience with some of the features. As I use it more in the future, maybe I can give better 

feedback.

You can correct your programming. For two years, you have sent out the following incorrect 

messages.: [REDACTED] I believe corrections should be made to your programming and quit 

telling districts they are ineligible due to improper programming. We still haven't received 

definitive approval for FY 2021.

NA

I find G5 a little difficult to navigate.

Great

As a new Business Manager for the Mary Walker School District, in attempting to access grant 

funds, the process is challenging. I have yet been able to access those funds, as my 

registration in the Impact Aid site, does not tie into the grant claiming, and would like assistance 

in helping me have access. I would like to know if I have to complete an application on behalf 

of Mary Walker School District in order to have access to claiming those funds. Thank you. 

[REDACTED]

The website is very good and once the staff and I got into the system and made notes on how 

to get to our Section ,7003, the navigation and steps to complete the application was very easy 

to follow. Thank you.

Make it more user friendly. It is hard to get around in different areas.

Better search features. There is a lot of information on that site. It is really hard to wade 

through everything to find what you need.

A little more clarity on who approves and what is approved.

I think you do an excellent job of notifying and providing feedback when it is requested.
366

If possible, they could provide a little more training in the area of how to calculate the 

information on the membership and ADA. Is there a form to help calculate this information?

It is hard to search for information within the site. Key words to not always show up. Overall not 

a user friendly site.

I think the more I use it, that it may become easier.

There are a lot of clicks to get to a page I want to be at. I did like the old payment 

documentation for the information I needed. Change is hard, at times, and will give the new 

website time for me to learn and improve.

Make it easier to navigate by adding more instructions or even a frequently asked questions 

tab. When I go into the website now, I just start clicking on buttons to figure out where I need to 

start hoping to accidentally find where I need to go. It isn't very user friendly.

Access to the website is arduous.

It takes a very long time to load and often times out before I can reach my destination within the 

site.

I feel the organization does a good job with the website.

Possibly add a search function to help find what is needed.

I find it confusing as to which section I need to be in for certain information in the Home page vs 

the LEA page.

Current updates section/page.

I'm not sure that you can

Make it simple to navigate Easy to find current year and past year's payments Ability to find the 

full application

I think it is fine.

It was difficult to carry out the approval process and find the documents on the web site. A 

clear link when approvals, amendments, etc. are needed would be helpful. Most of us only use 

the site once a year, so we/I forget how to navigate the site.

None

N/A. I believe the website is well organized and user friendly.
367

N/A

Q21. Please describe how the PROGRAM OFFICE could improve the quality and 

usefulness of our documents, including policy-related documents. In your response, 

please identify the name or type of document(s) your comments address (e.g., nonregulatory guidance, newsletter, blast emails).

No recommendations on improving documents.

I've not received any documents. So improvement would be sending me some.

No Comment

I do not know.

Overall, we appreciate all aspects of the documents provided. Being a small rural district, focus 

on improving our processes and reporting requirements would be helpful.

May just friendly reminders from time to time.

I did not regularly receive those documents and I am not sure to what they are referring.

I have no recommendations for improvement at this time.

Offer a help guide to understand material and process of program

n/a

Simplify and clearly stated, easy-to-understand terminology. I am referring to the Impact Aid 

User Guide Nov 2020. I printed it, put tabs in it, highlighted it, and still have to read and re-read 

it to try to understand it. Some of your description just baffle me. I really don't know what the F 

& G calculation is.

During the application process, if there is a subset of students that should not be included on 

the application, because we don't meet a certain threshold, then there should be notice on the 

application that the section is not required, or even grey it out, so we don't cause confusion or 

delays.

None

Again, not clearly defined instructions on the "how to" of the application itself

More Specific Emails and less fluff
368

no comments

Don't know.

All the information is valuable.

The documents are very informative

The usefulness has been fine.

There are times I get emails to check the system and then can't find the documents.

I do not have any specific issues at this time.

Again, the lack of experience with some of these communications may be causing me to score 

them lower. Anytime we deal with federal agencies we automatically understand that there will 

be more hoops to jump through. This is probably just the nature of federal money, in general.

Same as before. Correct your programming errors. [REDACTED]

Nothing to improve

NA

I would like more opportunity to train on the process of desk audits, perhaps record live 

trainings that I was not able to attend.

No improvement needed.

We make numerous calls to our military families annually to have them come and redo surveys 

that were filled out incorrectly. We have issues with two things. 1) It seems that frequently 

families fill the form out for 1 child and not the others or don't put their children's names and 

expect us to know that they have more than one child. 2) We regularly have families that say 

they are military but don't identify Branch and Rank. We have to call and have them come back 

in.

You do a good job conveying information.

With the federal property, is there a master list so I could print? It would be helpful possible we 

could printout a master list especially for the area that we live in.

No comments

Better guidance and examples of acceptable IPP's and supporting documents and procedures 

for creation and revisions.
369

Guidance documents and trainings are good.

Honestly, other than the occasional email, I do not recall getting any of these.

No input

Documents are fine

N/A

I'm not sure you can

I am satisfied with what is provided.

N/A

They're good.

More newsletters and technical assistance opportunities.

N/A I believe the quality and usefulness of your documents is sufficient.

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role?

Deputy Chief Academic Officer

Impact Aid Coordinator

Finance Coordinator

Director Student Services

Completes the report

Director of Human Resources

Assist Superintendent

impact aid coordinator

Accounting Manager
370

district budget

Impact Aid Specialist

Assistant Superintendent

Director of Special Education

Director of Finance

Administrative Assistant

FEDERAL PROGRAMS EVALUATOR

Impact Aid Coordinator

Administrative Assistant

Federal Programs Director- LEA

Administrative Assistant

Director of Finance

Administrative Assistant

Executive Secretary

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

FCC - 2021 - Q37.8a. Please explain.

The presentation is a nice review of the application process

Only somewhat, more detail step by step instructions would be helpful

no what data are you talking about?

They were helpful in my understanding of the process since it was my first time 

applying.
371

Well laid out.

Good clarification

Webinars are helpful, especially Q&A from others who are experiencing similar 

challenges.

Training always helps.

Information and examples were clear and easy to understand.

It provides information or documents that I can access to prepare my reports.

Good review.

There is a lot of helpful information available. I believe everything we need to know is 

probably available. The only issue is that I have other job requirements that are also 

time consuming, so I don't always have time to read through everything available to 

answer my question. I appreciate the help offered by staff to direct me to the exact 

location of pertinent information.

The documents help me to complete the application

The presentations are well done.

Every meeting or webinar i attend, i am able to ask questions and learn.

We attend the OSAC Fall Conference every year to get more information on Impact Aid 

and changes to the program. This is a very productive meeting and someone from 

Washington usually joins by teleconference. I have had a person that does the Impact 

Aid application each year but she has now retired. I am just getting started on how to 

collect some of the required information from tribal agencies and submitting the 

application. It's probably more that I am unfamiliar with the process than it is that the 

documentation or the system isn't helpful enough.

Made it easier

I watched and read information on the web to help me with completing the impact aid 

7003 application.

Answered many questions. Sometimes a little dry as they just read the slides.

The webinar walk throughs are wonderful. The FAQ is a great reference.

Materials were great
372

It gave the changes that occurred and what needed to be done to complete the 

application.

[REDACTED] and the rest of the staff did an excellent job of answering questions.

It has been a while since I sat in on a webinar so I cant remember specifics, but I do 

remember it was beneficial at the time.

yes, helping determine what our district was eligible to apply for.

It provided a comprehensive overview of the process for submitting data and addressed 

the specific needs of our district.

well explained

Over the years, I have interacted with several DOE staffers at NCIS Conferences 

(when we had NCIS), in person trainings, some webinars, but mostly phone 

conversations. The staff are all amazing and very helpful. They were especially helpful 

when we implemented our online verification process. That was a game changer for 

us.

Webinar helped

FCC - 2021 - Q37.13. Please explain.

No review.

We did not have a review.

I don't know if we had a review. The person who did the application is no longer with 

us to ask.

Didn't have a review

NA

N/A

Was not contacted in the past year, however, was contacted and a review was 

processed in the year prior, which I did not receive timely communications regarding 

the outcome of the review. The school district had to initiate contact for information on 

several occasions.
373

NA

Some years, yes, but other years no. [REDACTED] has been pretty good, but the guy 

before her was generally non-responsive.

We had a desk audit in the past . . . several years ago.

Were not contacted about review

Haven't heard anything yet

No review

No review. Disregard requires answer.

Did not have a review

Don't believe we were contacted at all

Did not have a review.

There was no review and you asked for input even though I stated previous question 

there was no review so selected No since there was not a N/A response choice.

We did not have a review. Our last review was two years ago.

Not selected for a review

we did not have one this year.

We did not have a review.

We did not have a review. Your survey is requiring an answer it can't get.

We did not receive a review.

N/A

We assume it is still in progress

didnt have a review

No, review was conducted
374

Was not reviewed last year

FCC - 2021 - Q37.16. Please provide any additional specific suggestions for how 

the Impact Aid Program can improve customer service.

I have had great customer service if I had a question or if there was a field audit 

question.

n/a

No comment

na

I'm sure additional personnel would assist in allowing for quicker response time. We 

can only imagine how busy the department is.

I am very satisfied with all the Impact Aid program staff.

i have no recommendations for improvement at this time.

Provide additional training for new users

The change to rounding payment amounts, instead of utilizing exact numbers does not 

seem to make sense from an accounting point of view.

Responsive, timely responses to emails/messages needed. I've been waiting several 

weeks for a response/approval of our survey form for this fall's survey. Reaching a live 

person would be helpful. Letting us know as much in advance as possible if our 2021 

survey will be again affected by COVID because it's already changing our school 

attendance. Many are again withdrawing to home school due to the Delta/masking. It's 

8/3/21 and I'm in limbo on how our survey will look this fall - paper forms, online 

surveys, able to use previous student data counts. And we have a new Director. It's 

stressful!

Staff members work very hard to assist. They are ready to walk you through the 

process. Survey forms can be submitted to the analyst for review and comments to 

ensure that everything is in order. The analysts work diligently with the school district 

under their supervision.

I'm satisfied with the services.
375

I find the Impact Aid Program staff to be very knowledgeable and accomodating.

The application itself is extremely confusing with no directions or explanations of what 

info is being asked. Next year our payment will be so much less as we will be unable to 

count our low income housing due to limitations in definition.

Considering the grant itself is very intensive, the staff has been wonderful and 

consistent in offering needed support.

no comments. They need to still with the great service

Very Satisfied.

N/A

[REDACTED]

Always have good experiences

NA

I would like someone to contact me to instruct me on how to access the Impact Aid 

Program fund.

Customer service has always been great.

N/A

Better communication on status of application review. Here's an example: approval of 

our "b2" status was pending while I was working to get a letter from the Navy. One day, 

I received an email stating that our b2 status was denied and that the district would be 

receiving hold harmless payments. I frantically called an analyst who explained that the 

denial was made so that they could process a payment for the district, and that the b2 

denial will be reversed when the letter arrives. Would it be difficult for the analyst to 

send me an email to explain that? There seems to be no realization that an autogenerated email from the Impact Aid office saying that our b2 status has been denied is 

going to give me a heart attack. I thought that I had blown a deadline. I didn't know the 

decision was temporary and could be easily reversed. In the end, I appreciated the 

effort to get a timely payment out to the district, but it is crucial that the analysts think 

through how their actions are going to be interpreted by school districts. In my case, a 

two sentence email before I got the form letter would have helped tremendously.

NA

I was very satisfied with customer service.
376

No comment

I felt things were better this year and I received quick responses right in the website.

How about "techniques for maximizing your payment." We're getting $340 per student. 

It's not enough.

none.

[REDACTED] is wonderful to work with. Only issue is the time zone difference but we 

can accommodate this issue.

N/A

We had a field review 3 years ago and they were very helpful. The response has 

always been great.

n/a

FCC - 2021 - Q37.17. What additional communications would you like to receive 

regarding the status of your application, prior to receiving a payment?

No additional communication

n/a

Not sure

Nothing at this time.

None

the vouchers are not as easy as they were in the past to pull up and print off

None at this time.

Training on use of program and how to submit documentation

I've been able to follow that on your website in spite of how cumbersome it is to 

navigate. It's the preparation and submission that are challenging in making sure I'm 

following all the rules/regulations that just seem to get piled higher and deeper.
377

The email notification is fine.

None

I'm satisfied with the current system of notifications.

NA

no commments

Not necessary.

I love the new systems ability to see payments and past payments

Everything has been fine

None. Thank you for your support and service!

[REDACTED]

NA

none

No additional communications needed. Email notification is sufficient.

N/A

I can't think of anything. Very easy to work with in my experience.

NA

I would like an email stating that a payment is ready or has been sent and can be 

viewed.

I am not sure what would help, but the multi-year nature of the process is a bit 

confusing to me.

An email needs to be sent to the finance director with the amount of payment. The 

payment needs to be titled with the Grant name so the finance person will not have to 

search though the payments to determine which payment is for Impact Aid.

I would like to know what the expected total payments will be after I submit the 

application for budgeting purposes.
378

Would like payment document emailed in advance with a date of deposit notification.

N/A

none.

Estimated time of arrival (i.e. being processed and completed)

none that I can think of. The payments have become much more timely.

n/a
379

Promise Neighborhoods

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

At this time I do not have any specific improvements that I could list.

There seem to be multiple websites, and they have information that has been updated at 

different times. It would be helpful for clear statements on when the information was updated, 

and which is the website of record.

Easier navigation to documents

Improved navigation.

I don't regularly use the website.

Making more streamlined with easily accessible contact numbers for DOE representatives.

I was unaware of the OESE website

Q21. Please describe how the PROGRAM OFFICE could improve the quality and 

usefulness of our documents, including policy-related documents. In your response, 

please identify the name or type of document(s) your comments address (e.g., nonregulatory guidance, newsletter, blast emails).

At this time, I have no improvements that I could add.

More regular/frequent emails with more detail

N/A

Overall quality is good.

No specific comments at this time.

Have not received any documents in the last 12 months

Q33. How could we improve the grant reporting process?
380

Performance reporting training refresher on GPRAs will help in sustaining.

Would be helpful to have more detail on the process after the grantee submits the report. 

Currently, we don't receive detailed feedback until 8-10 months after the report has been 

submitted. Even basic feedback such as, "yes, this is the right kind of approach/report' would be 

helpful.

The same documents are required to be completed and submitted during the APR and Ad Hoc, 

however, the turnaround is shorter for the mid-year report. It would be great to have additional 

time to complete the mid-year report knowing the requirements are the same.

Receiving the guidance for the report more than four weeks prior to the due date.

Evaluation on the type of data being requested and challenges with collecting such data.

The guidance documents need updating and more time for turn around on APR.

The department staff and technical assistants have been very responsive to questions 

regarding written reports. The improvements over the years have been very noticeable in a 

positive way.

Keep the reporting deadlines consistent.

The required reporting for Promise Neighborhoods does not allow us to enter in data at a 

program level (students and families being served) therefore it is challenging to show our 

impact when population level data is all that is required. Report is very redundant for each of 

the GPRA's.

Q39. Describe how the technical assistance that Department staff provide could be 

improved to better support your program needs (consider content, structure, format, 

timing, etc.).

More resource sharing. More customized TA per PNs' needs

N/A

I have seen much improvement in the technical assistants over the years. For example, the 

technical assistants seem better coordinator so they are on the same page. The messaging 

has been clearer.

Continue to provide TA opportunities
381

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that 

provided technical services to you.

Urban Institute, Clear Impact, Anne E Casey Foundation

Urban Institute Center for the Study of Social Policy Clear Impact

Four Points

Urban Institute

The Urban Institute

Urban Institute Center for the Study of Social Policy

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role?

AVP - Programs & Data

partner management
382

Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans 

Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

N/A

Keep the site updates - several are a few years old so this is not helpful. Updating contacts and 

grant opportunities would be helpful

The website have a lot of important information and the design is friendly user.

I went to the OESE.ED.Gov website and its contents do not appear to pertain to ppoha.

Easier to navigate and better organized.

Create a direct link for information about each of the grants awarded

The website is informative and user friendly. I have no recommendations for improvement at 

this time.

Sometimes it takes me a long time to find what I need. I think that it is because some of the 

pages have too much information.

Everythings is nice and responsive in website ed.gov, but I would focus on the esthetics and 

design. There is a lot of black text in front of dark images, that would affect a person with color 

blindness. Also the text size is a bit small, it can be improve. The footer can be re-organize, is 

not attractive to the reader. The overall of the design can be upgraded to a more appealing 

design, used this days.

The website is excellent, I think will be helpful if we can have a training or demonstration 

overview of the website to improve our skill in use the website more efficiently.

Q33. How could we improve the grant reporting process?

t=The APRs are inscrutable. It's impossible to tell where to report what - how do I break down 

the budgets and activities and report on outcomes - I know it's supposed to be easier, but it 

really isn't. All grant objectives are different so there would be numbered blanks just to drop in 

my specific objectives and then report on those, rather than parsing by category or activity - it's 

just weird and hard to grapple with. The interim reports are easier to use and clearer.

Creating specific forms for each objective and provide for a like the budget.
383

I think it works fine as it is.

Some of the questions or information requested on the APR were confusing.

Perhaps have a panel of previous grant recipients and their experience with grant reporting 

process

We are pleased with the most recent updates to the reporting system and format. We have no 

recommendations for improvement at this time.

Everything is nice and responsive

The last time we have some concern related with when the access for the reporting technology 

platform will be available.

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role?

Director, Grants, Compliance, Sponsored Research

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

PPOHA - 2021 - Q17.2. Please tell us how the technical assistance you received 

from your program specialist this past year was affected by the pandemic, as 

well as any suggestions you have to improve the technical assistance you 

received should we be faced with future national emergencies.

Very immediate, professional and helpful. We knew that all of our Dept of Ed directors 

cared about our students and our projects. They did everything they could to help us 

get these students through some bad years.

The specialist help us a lot during this year. No suggestions.

Technical assistance has been done well.

My new project officer has been communicating frequently with me and we met virtually 

a few months ago to discuss progress on the project.

frequent communication was key

We attended informational webinars about updates to regulations due to the pandemic. 

We also received email communication. It was helpful during our grant implementation 

process. We have no suggestions for improvement at this time.
384

Our program specialist for the PPOHA project,[REDACTED], is easy to reach and to 

communicate with. I am very satisfied with the service that she provides to our PPOHA 

project.

our new contact is fantastic! She is incredibly responsive, and feels like a partner in this 

work.

Technical assistance was excellent, it was not affected by the pandemic, 

communication was effective at all times

Some suggestions can be in future national emergencies, send to us instructions and 

examples of norms and procedures to be implemented in the program and in the 

institution immediately considering the possible changes on schedules of some 

activities.

PPOHA - 2021 - Q17.5. What can the PPOHA do to improve communication with 

you?

Our new program director is awesome, as was [REDACTED]! Maybe if Dept of Ed 

could update the websites sooner, that would be helpful. We know that our Director is 

on top of things and cares about what we are doing.

Everything is going well as far as communication.

At this time, frequency of communication is appropriate.

We are pleased with our current officer and with our communication with her. She is 

very responsive and helpful. We have no suggestions for improvement at this time.

Communication is effective

The Quarterly PPOHA Forum is an excellent idea and we will have the first on June 6, 

2021. Continue with this initiative.

PPOHA - 2021 - Q17.6e. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly 

with your program specialist?

email
385

PPOHA - 2021 - Q17.7. How would you advise on improving the overall process 

and protocols associated with this grant competition?

I would say if you encourage people to use WWC standards that you fill WWC with 

papers written by Hispanic educators. It makes me very sad to work on Dept of Ed 

grants and NOT see leading researchers and educators quoted for Hispanic serving 

programs that are not Hispanic - like, none at all.

No improvements recommended.

We have no suggestions for improvement at this time.

The overall process and protocols is adequate, our need is more related in receive 

more webinars related with the implementation in terms of how to do a better formative 

and summative program evaluation , strategies for faculty development, Graduate 

Resources Center development strategies and sustainability plan.
386

REAP-Rural and Low Income School (RLIS) Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

The information is often out of date. When presentations or updates are provided through a 

webinar, it often takes over a week for the resources to be available on the site or they are only 

available in Max.gov which is not an easy site to navigate.

My state is has Hold Harmless districts. Resources and navigation within the website is 

excellent. I have had some challenges with finding information re: hold harmless. Otherwise, 

very easy to use website.

not user friendly, information is in several different locations. information is not updated in a 

timely fashion

MAX.gov includes all needed information.

More information would be nice.

No changes need to be made at this time.

Include guidance on LEA monitoring and application structure. Include additional examples of 

LEA use of funds in the different areas. It would be awesome to have toolkits like N&D and Title 

IV, Part A.

It is difficult to navigate and I often cant find web pages again once I have clicked to another.

Continue to update in a timely manner and provide best practices/resources for use of funds; 

spotlight success stories at the school/State level

Continue developing clear web links on pages. Website is much cleaner that past site in 

finding items.

So much of what we do is in MAX.gov, so I rarely go to the site. We can all ask questions and 

see all responses there, so it is more useful than the USED site.

Make newer materials and links show up first so we don't have to hunt around to find them.

Q21. Please describe how the PROGRAM OFFICE could improve the quality and 

usefulness of our documents, including policy-related documents. In your response, 

please identify the name or type of document(s) your comments address (e.g., nonregulatory guidance, newsletter, blast emails).
387

The changes this year with transferability for SRSA came as a surprise during the training. 

There was no information on how state's were now to provide this within their systems. When a 

question was posed and a request for a meeting was submitted to discuss the details in the 

change, there was no response for the request. When changes are made, the office needs to 

provide state's time to be able to adjust their own processes and systems for changes. Getting 

a heads-up and an opportunity to determine what the ramifications of changes to the states, 

would be helpful.

Theme--hold harmless information. Also, would like more examples about what is and isn't 

approvable for RLIS, a wider scope of possibilities than the document contains. Overall, a 

welcome piece of guidance from US ED (https://oese.ed.gov/files/2021/01/19-0043-REAPInformational-Document-final-OS-Approved-1.pdf).

not sure why the master eligibility spreadsheet is stored on max.gov. max.gov is NOT user 

friendly!

The webinars are very good and present things in a very logical order. It is, however, difficult to 

find the decks after the presentations.

They are fine

None at this time.

Increased communication (newsletters, publications and blast emails) that specifically 

addresses the needs of LEAs.

Often the guidance is unclear until technical assistance is provided.

All sources-non-regulatory guidance, newsletters, blast emails, individual support, Max.gov 

announcements-are very helpful. The more I know, the more I can share with the district(s).

As a state agency, we are developing programmatic resources for LEA. It would be helpful to 

have website page with these resources for SEAs and LEAs. Thank you.

Q33. How could we improve the grant reporting process?

I have never had any training on the report or received any correspondence on the report. I 

simply receive it in my email from the individual in our department with the directions to 

complete. If there is training or resources, it would be helpful if the state coordinators for the 

program would receive the information,

Nothing to add at this time.

CSPR instructions are a bit difficult to understand.
388

No changes at this time.

Provide guidance on completion prior to reporting window opening.

clear data metrics and format for reporting; timeline for districts and SEAs

It would be helpful when Department sends responses to indicate the LEAs in question verses 

the NCES #. Programmatic staff do not have these numbers.

Q39. Describe how the technical assistance that Department staff provide could be 

improved to better support your program needs (consider content, structure, format, 

timing, etc.).

Any of the items listed would be helpful. Currently, we receive a training on completing the 

SRSA grant, but that is the extent.

Provide a wider array of evidence-based practices that meet the authority of RLIS (other grant 

programs and parental engagement). The trainings this year were very good. I learned more 

about the program by attending.

It would be helpful to have more information about LEA use of dollars.

Provide more scenarios regarding the LEA allowability of RLIS funds as well as how 

supplement not supplant is applied not applied to allowability of RLIS activities.

Scheduling regular meetings just to check in would be helpful. It would be great to connect with 

other states to understand how they ask LEAs to apply and how they monitor LEAs. Topics 

Reporting and use of data REAP eligibility data and estimating award amounts Providing 

Technical Assistance to Grantees Use of grant funds

continue to fine tune content, format and provide annual time frame(s) for requirements (ie 

submitting data for districts, providing contact information, reviewing eligibility spreadsheet, 

notifications...)

Technical assistance has improved. It is great the the RLIS team asks questions of the field to 

improve practices. Thank you.

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that 

provided technical services to you.

[REDACTED]

Regional Laboratories. -- WEST Ed Cohort - Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada and California
389

REMS TA Center, National Center on Safe and Supportive Learning Environments.

Neglected or Delinquent Education Technical Assistance Center

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role?

State Support

ESSA Grants Team Supervisor

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

REAPRLIS - 2021 - Q52.1. How can the REAP program office improve the 

MAX.gov process, through which States provide the necessary data to the 

Department to determine annual LEA eligibility for the REAP RLIS and SRSA 

formula grant programs?

The timelines are tight for the state's to be able to get their identification completed and 

then get their allocations out to district. The list for SRSA dual eligible districts needs to 

be completed by the end of May so that state's can then finalize their allocations for 

RLIS districts to be able to get them to districts by mid-June for applications with a SAD 

of July 1. Often, we don't get a final list until the end of June or later. Also, to complete 

the identification sheet, the office requires all district contact information as well as 

ADMs, poverty updates, allocation amounts, etc. We need about a month to be able to 

get this information. The contact info for districts is difficult. We communicate through 

our system and sometimes phone numbers and emails are not updated by districts in 

our system so it takes a lot of time to gather that information and make sure it is

correct.

If there is a way to improve, I'm not sure what that would be. My biggest lift is going 

through the contacts list and making sure it is updated. Seems to me that with changes 

in personnel at the local level, that at the state level it is just a matter of slogging 

through the list for updating contacts. If there was a way to integrate data systems that 

would be ideal, but that is not easy. I'm wondering if any advances in the way health 

care systems integrate between care providers with their secure portals if this is in any 

way a model to investigate.

Having the allocation information sooner would provide the LEAs more time to plan.

Max.gov is difficult to use, there has to be a better way to submit the information
390

I thought it went rather smoothly this year and would not change the process however, 

maybe in the application process there should be some indication of using the AFUA 

and therefore eliminating that from the uploads to CSPR.

The process of working with the spreadsheet has greatly improved.

No suggestions at this time.

Provide a structure and guidelines on how the data should be captured.

Include local educational agency (LEA) County-District-School (CDS) codes on 

eligibility spreadsheets for improved accuracy of LEA information determining eligibility.

I would think that the data is available to the REAP office via EDFacts (data submitted 

by SEAs) and if so, then auto populate? Max.gov is transparent and easy to follow. 

Communication from the REAP team has consistently provided transparency and 

understanding.

Thank you for the email notifications and saving communications to SEA and US Dept. 

Of Ed.

In instructions for data collections refer to collection by school calendar year (e.g. 20-

21) instead of Fiscal year (e.g. FY20) The current instructions regarding how/when to 

count correspondence/home schools/online schools doesn't make sense and uses 

categories of attendance that none of our schools use.

Keep offering the webinars and maybe have a data dictionary for newbies

REAPRLIS - 2021 - Q52.2. How could we make the annual fall What SEAs Need to 

Know webinar more beneficial to your State educational agency?

Provide more time for discussion and questions.

I like how it is straight forward and gives us what we need to know. The hold harmless 

information is important to my state. Now that I've done this a few times, it is making 

sense!

don't just read the powerpoint.

The webinar this past year was comprehensive.

It is very helpful and informative now
391

More updates.

No suggestions at this time.

We were not able to attend the fall webinar in 2020.

Maybe follow up with an "Open Hours" week after the webinar-where SEAs could call in 

and share a problem of practice that is program specific or just hear repeat of how 

to/need to know related ah-ha moments

The webinar has improved. It is important to develop interactive sections with the 

content.

I think it's good except on slides with instructions for data collections refer to collection 

by school calendar year (e.g. 20-21) instead of Fiscal year (e.g. FY20)

Have a follow up question and answer webinar so after SEAs attend the webinar they 

can get their questions answered.

REAPRLIS - 2021 - Q52.3f. How do you hear about REAP program updates and 

events (e.g., webinars)?

Select all that apply.

Max.gov

REAPRLIS - 2021 - Q52.4l. Please check up to 3 topics for technical assistance 

that you will need in the future in order to improve the performance of your RLIS 

grant.

Please select a maximum of three topics below.

AFUA

REAPRLIS - 2021 - Q52.5. How could the REAP program office improve technical 

assistance directly to SEAs and LEAs?

More availability would be helpful.
392

The REAP officer for my region is responsive, knowledgeable, and pleasant to work 

with as a TA. I do not know what the TA looks like for LEAs re: RLIS and SRSA. I do 

know that when I tell a district they need to reach out to USED for an SRSA question, 

they seem to be satisfied with their inquiry as they do not come back around to me 

asking for more help.

No suggestions at this time.

My only suggestion is that REAP staff improve in responding to emails from SEAs. 

Some of your staff are great about that, but some are not. That can be frustrating when 

I need answers in order to assist LEAs.

Regular meetings on relevant topics like the ones listed on the previous page.

The REAP is very responsive and absolutely excellent in helping the SEA stay informed 

in order to better support LEAs.

Ensure SEAs and LEAs know who to connect with

Does the agency schedule joint webinar trainings??

Have a Tips and Tricks handout for SEAs to help them provide TA to LEAs
393

REAP-Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

I've been able to do what I need to do.

More help areas on the "how to" accomplish the task at hand. Many times, this is a once a year 

visit to put info in and help screens would be beneficial.

Preload previous application codes for identification into a grants you qualify for or past grants 

you received with the new fed code and url

na

No suggestions

It probably has everything I need. I just need to learn how to submit receipts going forward.

I have no complaints.

I haven't had any issues.

This program is very efficiently administered and I am very pleased with the updated application 

process. It is so much easier than before!!

Pleased with support and information.

Make it more user friendly. It feels like I have to search for a very long time to find the info I 

need, not very intuitive.

I do not have suggestions for improvement for the website.

Once a person gets used to the government web sites, they are OK to navigate-just a little 

tricky to figure out completing grants and completing draw-down of funds at first. Plus, usually 

only happens once per year, so sometimes forget how to do it between years. Main annoyance 

is having to update passwords so often on some of the sites.

I have not visited the site.

I'm very satisfied with the website.

More detailed information for new users along with a new user guide and process
394

I have no issues with the website.

I can't find anything in the website. I have to go back to an email that was sent to me in order to 

have a direct link to the areas I am supposed to be. Unfortunately that is only when applying.

Better information on how to speak to a real person if we need to.

A direct link for my district, so that I just need to verify information rather than input, and the 

grant form prepopulate.

Q21. Please describe how the PROGRAM OFFICE could improve the quality and 

usefulness of our documents, including policy-related documents. In your response, 

please identify the name or type of document(s) your comments address (e.g., nonregulatory guidance, newsletter, blast emails).

none

na

No suggestions

I haven't had any issues with the documents.

All communication very clear and thorough

N/A

Awesome that links are sent with the notices when programs open up for applications.

Don't know

I'm very satisfied with the documents you provide.

Too many emails about this survey...

Seems like most email is difficult to understand. for instance when we are told "Please read 

this email in its entirety and take any necessary action." it would be nice to know if I have an 

issue instead of reading the entire email and discovering I don't have any issue.

Nice and short please - thank you!

no comment
395

Q33. How could we improve the grant reporting process?

none

na

No suggestions

I haven't had any issues with the reporting process.

N/A

Don't know

I have no issues with the grant reporting process.

I have no idea that there is a report due. First year in receiving funds so I am not sure how to 

get the information to be told to have a report done. This is so Scary!!!

I do not know

Q39. Describe how the technical assistance that Department staff provide could be 

improved to better support your program needs (consider content, structure, format, 

timing, etc.).

na

I prefer correspondence by email. If there is updated or additional information needed, then 

maybe a virtual meeting would be appropriate.

No suggestions

I have no issues, they have always been very helpful.

N/A

Not sure

I haven't worked directly with Department staff.

I have no issues with the technical assistance provided by the Department of Education.
396

I am not sure this survey is covering the grant that I applied for. These questions don't relate to 

what has been communicated with me.

I don't know of any

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that 

provided technical services to you.

Very polite on the phone. They helped me figure out my problem and fix it.

Regional Labratories

Y4Y online professional development training

received help in getting access

I do not recall his name, but was extremely helpful

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role?

IT

Treasurer

School Treasurer

Assistant Principal for Curriculum and Instruction

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

REAPSRS - 2021 - Q53.2j. Please check up to 3 topics for technical assistance 

that you will need in the future in order to improve the performance of your SRSA 

grant.

Select up to 3 options.

none

Training provided is sufficient

N/A
397

REAPSRS - 2021 - Q53.4. Please provide any suggestions for how the REAP team 

can reduce the overall burden to your school district.

na

None at this time.

No suggestions

I have not submitted any receipts for funds yet. I am requesting help from my financial 

services in this process. I think the G5 system is the hardest part for me. I will look into 

video help tools or webinars in this area.

The new process is much more streamlined.

N/A

None at this time.

No suggestions.

The system still has not updated the new user information due to previous Treasurer 

resigning

I have no suggestions. The overall burden is about as low as it can get.

The website in itself I find to be a major road block. it is so hard to navigate. Also if 

there was a contact for our school it would be easier to reach out and talk to a person 

who knows our grant.

I don't have any suggestions at this time; this is the first year I have been involved in 

the program

none

Thank you for making the grant application process much more fluid and easier to 

submit

REAPSRS - 2021 - Q53.5. How could the REAP program office improve technical 

assistance directly to LEAs?
398

No complaints here. All is good.

na

Keep communicating by email.

No suggestions

IN my personal experience the technical assistance has been easily accessible, clear 

and adequately meets the needs of my district.

N/A

I am not sure

email guidance more often - tips and tricks

I already get what I need.

Have one person assigned to a district.

They are doing great

REAPSRS - 2021 - Q53.6. Please use the space below to share any additional 

thoughts you have about the SRSA program.

na

None to offer, thank you

I appreciate the quick response to email.

The program is excellent and affords organizations like ours the ability to offer 

programs otherwise not possible. Thank you!

N/A

Keep up the good work.

I appreciate the opportunity to receive funding. it has been a important part of the 

success of our students. Legislators, the US Department of Ed and the president will 
399

need to always keep the funding in the forefront so our student don't have inconsistent 

programs due to changes either up or down.

none

I love the new application process.

I appreciate the assistance and support provided when I have a question. As a rural 

district superintendent, I have many different responsibilities. It is nice to have a 

support system in place.
400

Rehabilitation Long-Term Training Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Use of visual aids.

I remember trying to find the most current Long Term Training Scholarship Information guide 

and could not ever find it. I emailed my project officer who said to use the past one, from 2004. I 

am not sure if it has ever been updated. I have also looked for how part-time employment is 

handled or counted for payback requirements for scholars. Do they need to work a certain 

number of hours each week for it to count? What are the guidelines for part-time work? I was 

also unable to find this information. Scholars have also asked what the interest rate would be if 

they needed to pay it back. Thankfully, we have not had this situation to know, but the scholar 

was unable to identify this information.

I have not used the website that much but anytime I have it has been easy to navigate.

The PIMS is an excellent tool overall. Improvement: in some cases the PIMS does not allow 

editing once submitted (file attachment), the scholar/graduate records are not viewable by the 

grantee, the guidance document is from 2016 and could be updated. I just want to add that the 

PIMS hotline has been extremely helpful and the staff are very responsive and knowledgable 

about the PIMS and Long Term Training grant rules.

If we are talking about G5, burn it down and start over. It is terrible. If we are talking PIMS, it is 

okay and fairly easy to use. If we are talking about ed.gov, I almost never use it.

I think the relationship between the project officer and the grantee/Director is very important. To 

be very candid, our current project officer ([REDACTED]) is really rude, and almost feels 

threatening at times. I have been running training grants for years; at never had I had a project 

officer as rude and non-supportive as this. In addition, she demands our responses in a very 

threatening way, but when we ask for information/response, we rarely get a response until we 

press and press. I would very much appreciate another project officer. [REDACTED] was great, 

supportive and understanding. Also, the requirement of having quarterly reports on top of an 

annual report on top of managing PIMS is over the top. Finally, the annual report is done in 

April, yet the year ends 9/30. Could RSA please consider having the annual report done in 

September when the actual FY year ends? it is odd to do an annual report six months prior to 

when the year ends. thank you!

N/A I have not viewed the site often enough to provide an impression

Perhaps by having resources available to separate groups: grantee resources and scholar 

resources

Create a site that is easier to navigate.The Help Desk folks are terrific but it is frustrating to 

need to call them all the time.
401

Never touch the "back" button on your browser or you have to start all over.

It just isn't user friendly or overly intuitive. I would consider the question, "How can we simplify 

this?" I think a redesign could help with the overall look/feel while also building a system that 

better serves the needs of grantees.

It is an excellent site

I dont have specific recommendations

Continue to update and make information relevant, concrete, and easy to understand. Example 

materials are helpful.

Not easy to find needed information particularly for RSA

Update the list of funded programs, so prospective scholars can easily find contact information, 

and programs with waiting lists can refer prospective scholars to other funded programs. The 

current list is outdated (2015) and not very easy to find.

Easier navigation, better organization of material.

The website appears to work fine.

I appreciate the FAQ documents included on the PIMS website. It would be useful if on the 

general RSA/LT Training grant website it is stated that more detailed information can be found 

through PIMS website.

Keep updated with relevant information

Improve search functions, more specific guidelines, directions on how to use the site, greater 

functionality based on these noted areas of weakness.

I do not use the website often. Most of my engagement is with G5

I honestly haven't explored it for a while but will. In the past, finding information was difficult so I 

stopped using it.

Include FAQ, updated information manual for students, calendar of deadlines for grant 

recipients. Instructions for submitting reports - all this information should be available in one 

place.

It is not terribly user friendly and can be hard to navigate. I default to contacting staff directly, 

rather than searching on the website, as it is more efficient.

There is often a feeling that the staff are not clear on what is needed and what has been 

submitted. This leads the grantee to have to duplicate information that has already been 
402

submitted. It would be useful to have examples of what needs to be submitted that could be 

followed.

N/A

Q21. Please describe how the PROGRAM OFFICE could improve the quality and 

usefulness of our documents, including policy-related documents. In your response, 

please identify the name or type of document(s) your comments address (e.g., nonregulatory guidance, newsletter, blast emails).

N/A

The main guidance document for scholars is from 2016 and could be updated. A set of 

examples of grantee forms would be helpful (e.g., exit forms, scholarship agreements).

There are too many various programs and so the documents are generic/written to cover most 

programs, but many are not relevent to my program. For example, documents specific to VR 

counselors themselves and reporting the 911 or OIB data do not relate to my program, so it is 

frustrating sifting through all these documents that have no pertainence to my specific grant.

They content provided is timely, and useful

Much of the information in RFPs is redundant (not only repetitive, but when revised, new 

information is added without removing the old). The instructions haven't been updated to clearly 

reflect the required online submissions.

Very well organized so I do not have to search to find relevant topics

I find the information helpful. At times I get behind in keeping up with things due to other 

obligations, or perhaps my slow reading ability. I appreciate the information sent.

Conciseness and minimize redundancy regarding instructional materials. Quality of information 

provided has been very good and informative.

Write in everyday English

Please update the Payback Manual, and include example Payback Agreement and Exit 

Certification forms that do not include collection of social security numbers.

The documents used appear to communicate the information appropriately.

It would be helpful to have access to example reports for first time grantees. There were some 

minor discrepancies between "Dear Colleague" letter regarding annual report that appeared in 

PIMS and what was sent by email, but in general these were pretty clear and I appreciated the 

level of detail provided.
403

n/a

Creating bullet formatted documents would be more helpful for the guidance documents. I don't 

recall seeing a newsletter or any email blasts that were of relevance.

I can't really think of how to improve it, rather than maybe consolidate wherever possible. With 

the volume of e-mails we all receive these notices can easily be overlooked.

I cannot recall receiving " Documents include non-regulatory guidance, frequently asked 

questions (FAQs), letters, newsletters, publications and blast emails." The emails I receive 

from the project officer are helpful - eg reminders of deadlines.

none

N/A

Q33. How could we improve the grant reporting process?

Online fillable forms for quarterly and annual reports are really helpful It would be better IMO if 

all data were submitted that way, rather than some fillable forms, some document uploads.

No comments

The two large reports due every year in April and October ask for a LOT of information. I 

appreciate the they give so much time to complete the reports because it always takes me at 

least a month to finish, working on it each week. However, I wonder if there is a simpler process 

that could be used. I have a research grant through ACL/NIDILRR that uses more of a "fill in the 

text box" option for specific questions related to the program or multiple choice options, and 

saves your information from prior reports so you just have to go in and update with the current 

year information. It is much less time consuming to complete these reports and still has 

significant information related to the goals/progress on the award, projects and activities, and 

performance outcomes. Just a consideration. Although they are so much work, I really 

appreciate the necessity of the reports as it requires me to closely exam our budget and 

planned activities to see if we are on track for the year, and if not, what we need to do to get 

there!

It would be great in the yearly reports if the objectives and goals could be rolled over from the 

last years reports to report on. This would be the report that is done in the G5 system.

It is unclear how and where to report additional program objectives we set within our 

application. Or if these are of no interest to report? Some are pre-entered, but not all of them.

The mid year and annual reports are highly labor intensive and could be streamlined. There is a 

considerable amount of redundancy in the required content areas (line items).
404

Get rid of G5 to start with. Change the objectives table so it is more easy to understand and 

use. Cannot input both percentage and raw numbers, but it is not always clear what is wanted.

See prior narrative. The project officer (Karen Holliday) we have makes our work stressful. We 

would like a different project officer.

Reporting is often cumbersome because there are many people and institution employees

involved to get report requirements all submitted. This is often the greatest challenge. The 

reporting requirements are clear but I think the reporting times are too often

Have annual reports due at the end of the grant year.

Ease of data collection is dependent on grantees promises rather than RSA website demands. 

RSA requirements are very clear and easy to generate.

Recognizing this may come across as whining on my part, I'm not sure you need quarterly 

updates. Our university operates on a semester based system and it does not align well with 

the federal fiscal year. As such, there are times when we are getting "dinged" for not spending 

money or looking like we have a large surplus, when in reality we are just waiting for the next 

registration cycle to hit. With quarterly reports, often there is not enough time from one report to 

the next to substantively see change or progression towards the grant's goals/objectives. In my 

opinion, a semi-annual approach to reporting would be more appropriate. Data could still be 

tracked, progression could still be monitored, but some redundancy could be eliminated.

The spend down and other budget items that come from my University do not always match 

what RSA has due to my University being understaffed and only do spend downs monthly or 

less. I find anything the University gets involved with is slower and less accurate than if I do it 

myself. I think most reporting is information we keep ourselves (e.g. number of scholars with a 

disability) the more information that comes from the program the easier and more accurate in 

my opinion.

I am not sure how to improve it but sometimes it seems confusing

Better ensure technical difficulties are minimized in G-5. Provide character limits in advance 

regarding progress reporting.

The G5 reporting system is very sensitive and often will crash in the middle of reporting data. 

Also, it is under the type of data RSA wants raw or percentages. Even my project officer was 

unclear with what RSA wanted.

G5 is not easy to navigate.

It can be a little confusing receiving multiple differing versions/templates of what is required for 

which of the quarterly reports. It would be helpful to know, well ahead of time, exactly what is 

required (and how it is to be submitted) for each quarter.

The performance reports are cumbersome, repetitive, and instructions are often 
405

confusing/inaccurate. Project officers do not seem to be well versed in what grantee's are 

navigating on G5 and will ask for information in word documents that was already provided in 

G5 fields (e.g. status charts). The amount of work that has to be done for the APR and Ad Hoc 

reports is excessive and redundant. Help desk support is often time consuming and frustrating.

The grant reporting process appears to be good.

Example of a grant report would be useful for people doing this report for the first time.

n/a

The online database system is cumbersome and non-intuitive to use. Features need to be 

more readily available to access data points, facilitate the initial loading of the documents 

(which was nearly impossible to determine). It was a frustrating experience that consumed 

more time that it should have for such a lengthy process to being with.

Ability to carryover metrics. Issues with needing to report on information prior to the end of the 

grant period makes for bad data

the process works but have had to have tech support services help me from time to time. 

They've always been great.

The G5 website is terrible. It takes hours to figure out the forms needed - which ones I need to 

download and which ones are embedded in the report - submitting a report (not writing it) takes 

at least a full day - often more. I get locked out of G5, navigating backwards kicks you out. 

This reporting system is worse than terrible.

None

N/A

Q39. Describe how the technical assistance that Department staff provide could be 

improved to better support your program needs (consider content, structure, format, 

timing, etc.).

Online fillable forms for things like scholarship agreements and exit certifications would be 

helpful.

No comments

I don't think I have used any of these resources yet, but sample documents might be helpful.

I did not know TA services was offered outside of my Project Officer. It would be nice to send 

grantees a TA needs checklist to determine what our needs are to improve our programs.
406

The grant project officer has been very responsive and helpful. The scholar guidance document 

could be updated. The PIMS hotline staff have been very helpful. Conference grant sessions 

may be helpful though I understand this has not been feasible in the recent terms. Sharing of 

forms and information among grantees may be helpful in problem solving grant relates issues.

Increase options for meeting grant needs when challenging situations are face in programs

n/a

Clearing house is great but underutilized

I thought the PIMS training was very good. I don't use a lot of peer to peer things through the 

website, at conferences (when they were held) I got a lot of great information from other 

grantees, hopefully we can continue to meet as a group at NCRE in the future.

Connecting project director and Co-PI, and project staff to peer institutions to facilitate support 

and ideas to improve project.

I have not experienced that technical assistance is directed toward these areas. Technical 

assistance has been helpful in meeting grant requirements. Something needs to be done to 

improve PIMS, the world's slowest website, and to include grant numbers on correspondence, 

which was promised, but not delivered.

Providing something like an FAQ document for further clarity about what is required, in which 

formats, for quarterly reporting would be helpful.

Webinars and in person trainings are helpful. More support on the difficult things grantees face 

rather than going over the same topics would be great. Perhaps a FAQ forum for reporting or 

common questions from RLTT grantees would be helpful. It often seems nobody has the 

answers and there is a lot of ambiguity.

The technical assistance provided appears to meet our needs.

n/a

If information was provided on the website, perhaps an instruction sheet to identify the methods 

for uploading information, calls to the help line would not have been needed. Positively, when I 

did call the help line, my calls were immediately answered. This was a pleasant surprise given 

past experiences in requesting assistance. So this portion of the help process has improved.

I haven't used, or been offered, any technical assistance, except whatever workshops are 

offered at the annual NCRE/RSA/CSAVR conference.

I have not received these services (from the previous question) from the project officer. My 

current project officer is fabulous in terms of response time and knowledge. This is a big relief 

after many years of an incompetent one. I get the impression that the current project officer is 

over-worked and needs to respond to unreasonable deadlines from above and then I need to 
407

respond to unreasonable deadlines eg next day information is not always possible from my end.

provide mentoring with peer to peer model on successful grant management

N/A

I just learned about peer-to-peer support through this survey. More information is needed.

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that 

provided technical services to you.

WINTAC; PEQA-TAC

NTACT-C WINTAC CIT-VR VRTAC-QM

targeted communities technical assistance

PIMS

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role?

University Faculty- PI

Grant PI/Project Director

Faculty and RSA Project Director

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

RLTT - 2021 - Q10.1g. What training would you like RSA to provide to assist you 

better in managing your RLTT grant?

Accessible online forms for every aspect

internship waiver request process

Project Officer Support that is supportive and kind
408

Payback requirements/Statutory and regulatory program requirements

I am not sure it is a training issue. Rather it is staff having a more realistic 

understanding of how university systems and language align with RSA's administrative 

requirements of the grant.

Exactly what is required for each quarterly report

No training concerns

How to increase monies

RLTT - 2021 - Q10.2. How can RLTT Project Officers assist you better with fiscal 

management, program reporting or other technical areas?

No comments

Not sure, my project officer has been very helpful. Sharing "good" examples of different 

types of reports required may help to see if I am on the right track, or providing too 

much or too little information.

Our project officer has been very responsive and helpful.

maybe make it more narrative and/or open ended. Being required to respond to many 

specific areas is frustrating and not always helpful

N/A

n/a

I think the big thing to consider is the overall purpose of the grants. More and more 

students are moving away from RSA funds as they do not like the payback 

requirements. They want more freedom in selecting where they pursue employment 

and so they are opting out of the grant to lessen their payback requirement.

The project officers have been great. Reporting areas are known far in advance, we 

have some troubles with our University grants office perhaps because our University 

does not have many grants, so perhaps understanding from project officers that we are 

dealing with the same problems as they are in trying to get information (which I think 

the project officers on this grant have done well).

Continue to provide reminders for report due dates, and be available to provide 

support/answer any questions as needed.
409

Consistency among staff is needed. I have had several project officers and all have told 

me different information regarding requirements. Also, now that we have two major 

reports a year the APR and the End of Year report if feels as if we are always writing a 

report and have little time to focus on the activities of the grant.

Train Project officers to have a better understanding of how university systems work, 

their similarities, and their contrasts with the federal government. In general, and this is 

not a matter of training, the reporting requirements are administratively heavy for 

smaller programs. The requests for explanations appear redundant and the timeframe 

for a response is immediate. The message conveyed is that I am on call.

Officers are vey helpful within the parameters of the RLTT program.

An updated Payback Manual, as well as updated example payback agreements and 

exit certification forms, would be very helpful.

use of a uniform budget template for quarterly reports there were multiple budget 

templates sent out by project officer and it was confusing as to which one to use and 

how to complete it

They could provide more clarity in the reporting instructions and check them for 

accuracy and relevance to the grantee's specific grant. They could provide specific 

examples. They could have clear responses to questions and provide more support 

with the G5 reports. They could also express their understanding of the academic year 

and when funds are expended in higher education institutions.

The Project Office does an excellent job.

Example reports would be useful. It is especially difficult with start date of grant 

occurring in October so Year 1 becomes difficult to recruit scholars specifically for the 

program since most will start the following August. More guidance on how to request 

carryover and what is allowable would be useful, but in general PO was helpful with 

this.

Just remain available to answer questions

It would be very helpful if the RLTT administrator would more readily respond to emails, 

calls and need for assistance. This is a very weak area.

Allowing roll over funds

Can't think of anything

I think the fiscal management is fine - I really like PIMS - it is very user friendly and the 

help staff is better. Using a different reporting system than G5 would be a blessing.
410

The calculation of the 10% cost share is now clear to me, but spelling in out in plain 

language from the start would be helpful to others.

the project officer has been very helpful and available for me. I know I can always count 

on him for the support.

RLTT - 2021 - Q10.5. Please provide an explanation to support your rating.

The main thing is more funding would be more helpful.

It provides adequate financial assistance for minority students and those who have 

financial challenges.

The RLTT has raised our applicant numbers; it has increased our diversity of applicants 

(associated with the higher applicant numbers); it has increased our communications 

and coordination with state VR agencies.

The biggest challenges to this grant are the project officer, the numerous reports (4 

quarterly reports), 1 annual report, and managing PIMS. In addition, the annual report 

is submitted 6 months before the FY year ends (April) versus September.

I receive glowing feedback about how well trained my students are when they are hired 

at State VR

I continually receive reports rom students for whom this program was a the most 

significant factor in leading to a professional career. And every VR office I visit has 

leadership that received RSA scholarship. A program that clearly links funding to 

improved client outcomes.

More and more we are getting applicants to our program who are already employed by 

State VR agencies, and now are pursuing the master's degree. The state agencies (in 

my opinion) are not doing a good job of describing how the payback system works, they 

are essentially just saying, "Oh your degree can be paid for" and for any student that is 

a good thing as it means less student loan. They don't describe the payback and some 

of the limitations well. This is where we spend a lot of our time as grant managers in 

sharing information with the students so they better understand the process. The 

money really does help students for sure, but the message being given to the students 

on obligations and responsibilities is not always the best. I think we are doing a pretty 

good job of training rehabilitation counselors for the profession, but the practice setting 

(State VR) needs to update and modernize - at times it feels they are living in the past. 

RSA and CSAVR could help modernize things and also do a better job of marketing 

what a rehabilitation counselor is and does.

The program has allowed many more individuals to receive training and learn about 

career opportunities they would never have known (e..g. many mental health 
411

counselors hear of rehabilitation counseling because of the grant and explore this as a 

career option). In our state it has helped many current counselors who had no 

education in the field learn how to be rehabilitation counselors and therefore now do 

their job different and do not refer out for every service. It has allowed many lower 

income, minority and people with disabilities to enter the field at our program due to the 

grant being able to pay all tuition. It is slowly changing the way rehabilitation is done in 

our state.

Use of Assessment Tool developed in collaboration between State VR agency and 

Rehabilitation Counseling program. Completing internship and completing significant 

number of clinical hours at State VR agency. Able to implement Rehabilitation 

Counseling course curriculum supported by Rehabilitation Counseling role and 

function, and knowledge validation research, that simultaneously prepares masters 

students to sit for the Certified Rehabilitation Counselor examination.

I believe the Long-Term Training program is very much needed and effective. The need 

to ensure that State VR has qualified counselors to growing the needs in the field is 

vital. RSA needs to train their staff about the changes with State programs and 

academic programs that are required to meet legislative requirements such as WIOA. 

What is written in a 5-year grant application needs to be flexible for the changing needs 

of that particular state.

The grant funds the tuition for students to attend vocational rehabilitation counseling 

programs. Unfortunately, the State agencies have moved away from vocational 

rehabilitation counseling to case management positions. Securing internship 

placements is very difficult, even in states that have 30% vacancy rates in their VR 

counselor positions. Interns are subject to the same processes as individuals the state 

hires to become a counselor. Shortages of qualified supervisors in the state agencies 

amplify the issue.

The program is very effective in preparing VR counselors for employment in state VR 

agencies. It would be helpful to work more with state VR agencies about their hiring 

practices such as reaching out to VR master's programs when they are recruiting or 

have openings and updating civil service requirements (there are no more CORE 

accredited programs), taking applications continuously rather than once of twice a year, 

and reviewing applications regularly, not twice per year. We have graduates who 

would like to work for state VR agencies but cannot penetrate the civil service hiring 

procedures while meanwhile the state VR agency says they do not have adequate 

numbers of candidates and are hiring bachelor's level people (and then wondering why 

they are not satisfied with their hires and have increased staff turnover).

This program makes possible the recruitment, training, and commitment to employment 

of qualified rehabilitation counselors who can make a tremendous difference in the lives 

of people with disabilities and the communities in which they live and work.

This is a very important source of funding for our students.
412

I believe RLTTs are valuable in recruiting qualified VRCs to the field and serve a huge 

need. I think they continue to be important and that with greater support institutions will 

continue to seek these awards to help fill a need in VR for well trained VRCs. It is a 

great program and should continue with some improvements on the side of the RSA in 

terms of supporting grantees.

This is an important program that allows us to train high quality VR counselors.

My university has held this grant for decades, training hundreds of rehab counselors in 

our region.

Helps support program enrollments and offset StateVR program training/staff 

development costs. Issues mostly with StateVR offices willingness/ability to have 

internships

I think this training grant project program is achieving exactly what it was designed to 

do - to ensure competent and qualified individuals are working with VR consumers.

So despite all the hurdles we produce a significant number of graduates who go and 

work in state vocational rehabilitation agencies and this makes a difference in the 

quality of life of persons with disabilities in the US. The grants are important to ensure 

that persons with disabilities have access to employment.

The Rehabilitation Long-Term Training Program is very effective in training voc rehab 

counselors for employment in state VR agencies; however, many of our graduates elect 

to work at community rehabilitation provider sites.

I think we do good job training. We need more support from the state vocational 

rehabilitation agency in assisting with the employment of graduates and providing 

incentives for hiring RSA scholars.

State VR agencies have been a great support for placing interns. We are still navigating 

ways to integrate mental health counseling in VR services.

RLTT - 2021 - Q10.6. Describe how your Rehabilitation Long-Term Training grant 

project is improving employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities.

We prepare highly qualified bilingual rehabilitation counselor professionals. Our 

graduate's employment rates are nearly 80%. Our graduates are available to diminish 

the scarcity of rehabilitation counseling professionals.

We are training future rehab counselors and VR counselors to work with people with 

disabilities on career and life goals, with a specific focus on certain populations.
413

Placing more qualified counselors out in the field to help support individuals with 

psychiatric disabilities in improving employment and their everyday lives.

As noted earlier, the RLTT has raised our applicant numbers over the past 3 years 

which allows us to train higher numbers of qualified VRCs who can fill State VR agency 

vacancies. This will ensure they are adequately staffed to provide quality VR services 

leading to successful employment outcomes for IWD. Additionally, the diversity of our 

applicant pool has increased over the past 3 years. Training qualified VRCs who are 

diverse with respect to culture and ability, can help ensure that State VR agencies can 

better meet the needs of diverse consumers.

Our scholars work with people with disabilities and support them in achieving their 

goals all the time.

Increased number of highly qualified VR counselors in the area has increased 

successful closures and vocational training/job placements.

Better serve persons with severe disabilities. better able to address employer issues 

and work with employers. Prepared to provide self-employment assistance. Ready to 

work for VR services immediately upon graduation.

I think we are seeing some really good placements in rural areas. Given our geographic 

region we cover, we have been able to get students in areas where master's programs 

do not exist and in turn, they are providing services to persons with disabilities in some 

geographically isolated areas. This has been a wonderful advancement for people with 

disabilities in our state and surrounding areas.

As mentioned on previous page, many counselors now understand the process and 

start discussing employment and different employment possibilities (e.g. selfemployment) on the first meeting with a consumer compared to the past where they 

would refer out for services and never knew how or engaged in discussion of 

employment. The influx of rehabilitation counselors, and now supervisors with a CRC, 

or education in rehabilitation has resulted in higher closure rates, higher income at 

closure and a shorter time in VR services for those who went through the program 

versus other rehabilitation counselors in the area. Scholars understand the VR 

program and are able to keep consumers moving toward employment goals..

Increasing the number of qualified individuals for employment

Preparing students to become qualified rehabilitation counselors trained in counseling, 

disability and rehabilitation, by attaining knowledge and skills needed to provided 

effective rehabilitation counseling (i.e., psychosocial adaptation, vocational and career 

counseling) services to enhance quality employment outcomes for people with 

disabilities.

Our program is a mix of students with disabilities who are familiar with the VR system, 

current employees of VR and students who have never heard of VR. I believe we are 

able to reach individuals who have no idea what VR is and prepare them to be effective
414

counselors and work with people with disabilities using a social model lens of service. 

The master's program is vital to ensuring that counselors have the knowledge, skills 

and abilities to provide equitable services using an unbiased and nonjudgemental 

approach.

It would improve outcomes by eliminating the state VR emphasis. Placing a trained 

rehabilitation counseling graduates in companies that are in the position to employ 

people with a disability would be more beneficial.

We provide a hiring pool for a number of state VR agencies as well as community 

provider agencies of well-qualified counselors. Also, we introduce into mental health 

counseling the concept that individuals with mental illness are interested not only in 

symptom management but also in having a life, such as getting and keeping 

employment.

Our program graduates are in high demand because of their reputation for facilitating 

quality employment outcomes for their clients who have disabilities. Even the scholars 

who are already working as vocational rehabilitation counselors within state agencies 

have commented about how much this training is making a difference in how they are 

able to help clients to overcome barriers and successfully achieve their vocational goals 

in a timely manner.

By providing high quality education and imparting best practices on scholars who go 

out into VR agencies and apply these skills. The better training these counselors get 

the better prepared they are to help individuals with disabilities. More than ever we

need highly trained VRCs as will see an increase in the demand for services post 

pandemic.

Overall, established research indicates that Masters Level rehabilitation counselor 

provide better VR service to individuals with severe disabilities. This should improve 

employment outcomes.

Students gain special training in evidence-based practices in vocational rehabilitation 

and strong training in counseling with diverse individuals with disabilities. As part of the 

program they do internships in state-federal VR and plan to pursue employment in this 

area. In addition to core curriculum, additional trainings are offered for students as well 

as VR counselors as part of this project. Mentorship is also an important aspect of the 

program to prepare students to be effective VR counselors and improve employment 

outcomes for individuals with disabilities.

By providing qualified rehab counselors who are knowledgeable about a multitude of 

disabling conditions; the grant supports students who might otherwise not be able to 

afford to attend graduate school.

Funding-->Increased graduates-->improved outcomes

100% of our graduates are working in the profession.
415

Our RSA scholars are in high demand with our state VR agency, which I would interpret 

that the supervisors and managers know they'll get a well trained person for their 

internship and employment. We also have had RSA scholars who went on to work for 

the state agency receive recognition for their efforts from the state agency. It definitely 

has made a difference. I believe it also has allowed people the opportunity to go into 

this field who would never have considered it because of the financial obligation.

We graduate students who go and work in the state vocational rehabilitation system -

they have the skills to facilitate employment for persons with a disability - they have a 

unique set of skills, and as they get promoted draw in best practices for facilitating the 

employment of persons with disabilities.

The scholars that graduate from our program are very qualified to provide specialized 

rehabilitation counseling services to persons with disabilities. I am very concerned at 

the change in "qualified rehabilitation counselor." I firmly believe that rehabilitation 

counselors should graduate from an accredited rehabilitation counseling training 

program and be a CRC.

We are increasing the number of qualified training rehabilitation counselors to work in 

rural VR environments. This has increase the numbers of rural consumers served and 

improve employment outcomes

We are training counselors with the most recent evidence to assist individuals with 

disabilities in finding employment and increasing quality of life.

We don't track this data. I will work with the state VR agencies where we place our 

interns and have interns report on their consumers' employment outcome.

RLTT - 2021 - Q10.7. In light of the challenges (e.g., need for policy guidance) that 

emerged this year because of the pandemic, how effective was the TA you 

received from your state contact or project office?

Very effective.

Effective. [REDACTED] is an excellent project officer.

Very effective.

My project officer was very responsive and helpful even with significant challenges this 

year due to COVID.

It was Very ineffective and non-supportive. [REDACTED] is rude and non-supportive.

Very effective. I was provided different options to help reach goals and also given 

opportunity to modify grant outcomes in light of the circumstances
416

Excellent (we had no CV 19 disruptions)

Our grant officer was great to work with. The impact to our program was minimal (as we 

were already distance based), but he worked with us very well and checked in on us 

frequently to see if there was anything he could do to help.

It all was excellent, we did not have significant issues with the project, some students 

were delayed due to trouble with internship sites not taking students during the 

pandemic, but that is something we were able to work through.

It was effective

Good

Very effective. Responsive and provided guidance as needed.

I have a new project officer who is very responsive and helpful to the challenges we 

have faced. The former project officers were very hands off and provided very little 

guidance so we were operating under only what we knew from written guidance. It has 

been frustrating that our new PO has pointed out several things that needed to be 

changed. While I appreciate the responsiveness the increased scrutiny has frustrating 

at times.

I think they did the best they could in light of the needs of 50 states. Our guidance 

came primarily from state regulations and our university.

We were able to continue offering our educational program through a combination of 

traditional asynchronous distance learning modes and synchronous (Zoom-based) 

online replacement of on-campus modes. We were able to continue fieldwork 

placements through telerehabilitation technologies, at a distance. Therefore, there was 

no need for additional policy guidance assistance due to the pandemic. However, 

there was one glitch in grants administration (transferring funds from one status to 

another within the university) for which we sought assistance from the Project Officer 

and others within RSA; they were able to helpfully clarify that the funds had indeed 

been released to the university. We were then able to figure out what needed to 

happen within the university system to properly register the appropriate status of that 

account. We are grateful for that assistance.

My project officer was understanding and supportive. We were thankful to be granted a 

carryover as well as to reallocate travel funds. There could have been more flexibility 

on the APR in April 2020 when many were home with children and navigating the 

pandemic- to have that massive report due with no extensions granted was really 

difficult and stressful.

Services were still excellent.
417

The project officer routinely checked in about any covid-related challenges we were 

experiencing.

n/a

Not very.

I don't recall receiving any

Fine - covid had a big impact on my program - I think the policies around this were a 

little harsh - but I understand that I had not spent the funds and I could have easily 

spent these funds twice over this year. TA was I presume, a reflection of the 

regulations.

N/A

Excellent. The quarterly Zoom meetings with timelines for the year helped in planning 

and reporting of project

Very effective

It was sufficient and met my expectations.

RLTT - 2021 - Q10.8. Please provide any suggestions you have to improve the 

technical assistance you received should we be faced with future national 

emergencies. 

No comments

The project officer was very flexible and accommodating, which was appreciated.

New project director

N/A

Flexibility was a key factor. No panic, it will work out..and it did.

I like that RSA allowed programs to design a solution to the problem that fit their 

individual need, rather than a blanket approach for all programs. I think this flexibility 

helps as not all programs or geographic/demographic regions are alike. Being able to 

adjust to what we needed was huge. Thanks for being flexible.
418

Have staff available and responsive, be prepared for the opportunities that will result 

(e.g. self-employment is now an opportunity for many persons with disability that 

scholars are trained differently on now than before).

Continue to provide same level of support and guidance, as well as sharing and/or 

making available project director input from peer institutions.

More training for POs, consistently among forms required such as pay back 

agreements, etc. A sharing session with project directors would have been helpful. We 

developed our own with no guidance from RSA. The 65% statutory requirement is great 

for students but leaves little funds to hire direct staff to implement the requirements of 

the grant.

No suggestions.

I think you handled everything well, and I appreciate that.

No recommendations at this time.

n/a

Access to the grant administrator would be more helpful. She is not easily accessed, 

does not quickly return calls or emails, and does not seem to read/review submitted 

documents.

i think there is plenty of communication - i'm not sure what other assistance I need to 

receive.

Continue with Zoom meetings and continue to require information on quarterly, midyear and end-of-year reports about how national emergencies affected the project.

N/A

having one-on-one meeting sessions to check in regularly.
419

Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

The website is sufficiently clear since I have been using it for a number of years and have it 

bookmarked. However, finding the original landing page is a little difficult, especially for newer 

grantees.

It is good.

No feedback on website.

I don't have any recommendations at this point.

I don't really use the website.

The portal where we submit our reports is very clunky. It could be modernized and streamlined.

The G5 system needs updating to enter the yearly APR Report The Goals should not have to 

be retyped each yearHave not visited

Q21. Please describe how the PROGRAM OFFICE could improve the quality and 

usefulness of our documents, including policy-related documents. In your response, 

please identify the name or type of document(s) your comments address (e.g., nonregulatory guidance, newsletter, blast emails).

In Dear Colleague letters for CSP APRs, it would help to elaborate upon how targets and 

performance should be calculated, for example with regard to calculations for federal costs per 

student.

We have not received any non-regulatory guidance or newsletter, and the only emails that we 

have received have been specific to our questions. The GAN is not very readable; it is not 

visually coherent and difficult to understand, and therefore apply to grant monitoring.

It would be helpful to consider unusual/unique circumstances/situations.

Again, I have no recommendations at this point.

Hi- We are in our last year- what are the expectations for the last year APR yearly narrative
420

Documents are scattered in different email threads with no central organized hub (that I know 

of)

Provide quarterly updates on changes, best-practice trainings

Q33. How could we improve the grant reporting process?

Reflecting back, I think it would be helpful for newer grantees to receive explicit training to learn 

about what the reporting requirements are, establishing performance metrics, and how to 

specifically report on them through the portal. I feel that my cohort had to figure it out on our 

own. Our metrics were very complicated and extremely detailed, but I realized they didn't really 

need to be. Reporting through the G5 portal is not naturally intuitive. It takes time to figure out 

how to create the reporting template, how to input all the text and data, and navigate through 

the portal. Additional training would probably help to alleviate the stress and frustration for 

newer grantees. It would also help if we had predictable reporting deadlines and templates. I 

would suggest a single "forms" or "resources" page with links to all forms that the grantee might 

require with a brief description for each. For example, a link to the No Cost Extension form, 

project amendment forms and processes, what the APR might look like, etc. Our program 

officer also issued last-minute meetings and reporting requests that were outside of the normal

reporting schedule.

The information filled out in the documents should suffice. We should not have to manually 

enter the same data multiple times. The process could be improved by our program officer (i.e., 

collaboration when submitting, accessibility when there are questions, general pleasure working 

together, clarity in feedback). The TA session was not as helpful; the information presented did 

not explicitly explain the grant reporting process.

Timeliness has been/is a concern. WestEd visited our schools late May2019 for mandatory 

compliance site visit; communicated Report from the said visit would be sent to us within a 

number of weeks and no later than September2019; Wested sent their draft Report -- dated 

"February 2020" -- to us two (2) years later -- late May2021. That is very unusual and very 

concerning.

The reporting process is confusing. The forms are unnecessarily complicated.

For COVID Years March 2019- June 2021- we should be allowed to change performance 

measures s to support the unusal circumstances of Remote only, attendance, enrollment and 

no testing

Communicating an annual reporting calendar consistently. Inputting performance measures in 

G5 is horrible. What is the point of the Replication and Expansion sheet and the separate 

WestEd spreadsheet? The budget reporting requests are erratic and poorly explained. This 

needs a full overhaul.

using g5 is a miserable experience
421

The G5 system seems very clunky and outdated. I wish there was a way that data was prepopulated (when relevant) from previous years, as opposed to re-entering data multiple times. 

The ability to re-arrange rows would also be nice. I also think the reporting process is made 

unnecessarily complicated when there are multiple timelines that the Department of Ed is 

operating on. I've often received documents that use a different timeline that the grant period 

that our grant is on, and it is such a headache to try to adapt it to be applicable to our grant's 

time period.

Provide detailed trainings for APRs and also provide exemplary examples of APR submissions.

Q39. Describe how the technical assistance that Department staff provide could be 

improved to better support your program needs (consider content, structure, format, 

timing, etc.).

Consistent training, especially frontloaded for newer grantees, would be extremely helpful. 

There is very little guidance with feedback for how well or poorly we are managing our grants. 

The project directors' convening can be helpful, but I feel the content should be more directly 

relevant to compliance and best practices for grants management. For more experienced 

grantees, content can shift towards more theoretical or best practices within charter 

management and perhaps it would help to present content outside of just grants management. 

For example, innovative practices for operations, facilities, academics, etc.

More time to collaborate with other programs/schools would be helpful (e.g. case studies, best 

practices, elevating grantees that have been successful, professional development for grant 

writers/ fundraisers, slack group or other social media groups with all grantees).

They are really good at webinars and online zoom opportunities.

Timing and scope. I wish staff would be more comprehensive in scope and proactive with timing 

in terms of providing well rounded TA for grantees. I feel like I understand the requirements 

months later and feel like they could be more up front with how to navigate performance 

management and reporting.

No comments.

I so appreciate the funds that we have obtained through CSP to help run our school, but I have 

not gained knowledge that improves our practices through this program.

We are in final year of the 5 year grant- what are the final expectations for the Final APR- Is 

this written out so I can share with our team and be sure we are capturing the written 

expectations, research surveys etc as we begin the final year

We have received no useful TA that I know of.

I think more should be done at the very beginning of the grant, for grantees that need it, to learn 

how things should be set up so that they are prepared for reporting, etc. I've found the content 
422

of the Project Director's meetings to be quite helpful but that came months after the start of the 

grant.

We have never received outreach from Department staff (Program Officers) regarding technical 

assistance, outside of requests for clarifications on our APRs.

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that 

provided technical services to you.

National Charter School Resource Center
423

Ronald E. McNair Post-Baccalaureate Achievement Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

The website is often outdated and required multiple redirection in order to get into our program's 

actual content. It is not very user friendly and the specific website for APR submission, GAN 

access, and others are scattered in multiple places.

Not sure. I would like to easily find appropriate staff names & contact information. Ease of 

finding regulations is pretty good.

For the [REDACTED] program we do not use this website for information.

I don't use very often so at this point not able to make recommendations.

program specific searchable perimeters

Specifically, in regard to the McNair Scholars program the Office of Elementary & Secondary 

Education does not clearly have clear link to the TRIO or McNair programs. After searching 

keywords throughout the OESE.ED website (search toolbar), there is mention, but not a clear 

direction and or link to our program. Including more information or having our programs and 

services of what McNair is and how we operate would be useful to include. However, the 

general Department of Education website has done a great job with explaining the information 

of not just our programs but the umbrella of TRIO programs.

It would be helpful to have a clearer sense of the contents of each page.

The website can be more user-friendly. It needs to be simplified.

no comment

I would help if there were better explanations up front regarding which of the various regulation 

documents one should use and the hierarchy of those documents for decision making.

I think the website is fine as is.

NA

Basic info such as McNair rules & regulations are not easily available on one click. In general 

DOE websites are somewhat confusing and they are not intuitive.

More up-to-date data The most current Facts and Figures at a Glance for [REDACTED] 

Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program are for 2002-05
424

Needs to be easier to search for specific questions/topics.

The biggest problem I have had is with responsiveness. I found out in January 2021 that I had a 

new program officer but despite numerous e-mails and a voice message, I did not get an e-mail 

back until June 2021! When I got the e-mail, it was at 5PM on a Friday stating that it was urgent 

to meet the following week at very specific time. As soon as I had found time when both our 

grants accountant and I could meet with the project officer during designated time, she let us 

know that that time would not work for her after all. Eventually were were able to meet an she 

was very friendly. She gave use some additional guidance on the FY2021 guidance, but it 

would have been more helpful to have received that guidance early in the year. Fortunately, she 

did approve of the way we had already spent much of the funds. I know she is overworked and 

is responsible for far too many McNair Programs, but I would have appreciated a brief response 

to my e-mails from March and April, something to the extent of "thank you for reaching out, I will 

respond in detail as soon as possible." No PI should be left in a lurch, not getting their budget 

approved until the end of the third quarter. I have to say that at least the new project officer did 

eventually get back to me. There were years when the prior project officer never officially 

approved my budget. I can't see what the situation on the ground looks like, but it seems to me 

that the Department of Ed is chronically understaffed!

Continue to provide FAQ's

Provide more information on best practices, current data on McNair Scholars and Alumni, and 

links to all currently funded programs.

I think it is quite user friendly right now

I have no suggestions at this moment.

increase the clarity of provided information by adopting and using a more "user friendly" 

language as opposed to the totally governmental vocabulary and glossary of terms used at the 

present time.

A better visual esthetic

McNair information is often imbedded in TRIO information which is not necessarily specific to 

McNair. Improving navigating ease would be helpful.

No suggestions.

I think the website is fine. It is very user-friendly and it is easy for me to access the information 

that I need. The only thing that I can think of is posting the latest Taxable Income Guidelines as 

soon as they are available.

The information regarding the general over all performance of the McNair Program is out dated 

and needs to be brought up to date for the up coming grant competition.

I use the McNair pages specifically to access information about the APR, list of programs etc 
425

and it is very manageable.

Aggregate findings from APRs.

Embed links to resources in text so user doesn't have to click through so many options to get to 

a page they want. Each page of info has a lot of text, which is fine, but live links to other 

relevant sources and to citations (for reference and further research) would be really helpful.

I am very grateful for the website resources and can find most of what I need in a timely 

fashion. Since you've asked, here's my recommendation: Update resources; for example, 

program profile resources, add prior-year income levels before 2020 (for proposal need 

sections and evaluation of older selection cohorts), add current income levels to the web on or 

immediately after their effective date (the last two years, they appeared weeks later)

Keep items updated and organization.

FAQ section to deal with major questions that often come up about TRIO grant programs in 

general and FAQs specifically for every program.

Please work on a better interface and easier navigation.

I don't have any suggestions.

I do not believe I have used that website before. I most often use the TRIO website: 

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/trio/index.html

site with update data and historical data on national state, cities and/or regions about program 

performance on key indicators/objectives. Add section with recently "high quality" peer review 

publications presenting evaluations and studies on McNair scholars students and programs

more user friendly

A short videos to topics that may sound a bit too technical to comprehend.

Update the look of the site with attention to function. Improve the sites navigation tools and 

search features. Make the site more intuitive and interactive.

n./a

A simpler or more stream line design at times it seems crowded.

Appreciate that the postings on the site have been updated more consistently the past few 

years.

Information updated in a more timely manner
426

No suggestions

I am able to navigate as it is

We do not use the OPE website, but rather the TRIO website. So I have no suggestions for 

improvement.

fix broken links

For improvements, I would have a dashboard as the homepage.

Up-to-date information would be a great improvement.

It would be nice if it were more user friendly when looking for resources and information and 

have it up to date vs. having things up on the website when we no longer need the information, 

so real time updates would be great! Thanks !

Updated information, more FAQs

I work only with the McNair Program. I think a dedicated McNair url sent to Directors would be 

helpful. Also, I would appreciate not having the GAN locked after a period of non-use. I don't 

need to consult it very often and am always disappointed to find I have to reopen things to 

access the GAN.

Try to get the TRIO Trainings information posted as soon as the funding decisions are 

completed so that the TRIO program managers can have that information asap to plan for the 

next budget year's training.

Make it easier to find resources and add a directory of personnel

Keep it up to date. Provide access to data from previous APRs.

I appreciate the links to the regulations, etc. I'm usually looking for this kind of information.

Overloaded with information, making it harder to search for information

Simplify. Create clear links based on McNair activities: "Legislation," "Regulations." "OMB 

circulars," "Budget information," "Deadlines," "Updates..."

In trainings they often outline the order of importance and rules to follow for the following; 

EDGAR, OMB, Program guidelines, etc. It would be great if there was a place on the website to 

go for this information for each program. Trying to dig and locate information is an issue that 

could be improved upon.

NA
427

For McNair, the website we use is https://www2.ed.gov/programs/triomcnair/index.html vs. 

https://oese.ed.gov/ since OESE is not post-secondary education. Dept/OFfice of 

Postsecondary Education could update the website with additional and relevant resources 

regularly.

I do not use this website so do not have any input.

more descriptive links, perhaps, and better search functions

Clearer direction. Find pertinent forms easier. Q&A section that is thorough

Our program officer is knowledgeable and personable, but communication is infrequent as she 

has a large caseload of programs.

Updated materials and information; more contemporary design and flow

It could be a little more up to date, but I understand the difficulties of the last 12 months---

pandemic, changing administrations, etc.

I actually do not use the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education website; however, in 

my role as McNair director, I do use the Federal TRIO site 

(https://www2.ed.gov/programs/triomcnair/applicant.html) which provides specific information 

pertinent to my work.

Provide clear and precise explanation of EDGAR and the other legislations related to the 

administration of the program. Contact information about other programs for possible 

collaborations and assistance when reaching out to other campuses. A listing of program best 

practices to assist with servicing students.

Currently (06.08.21), the News and Information section is out-of-date. Advance, final notice 

about APR and grant competition dates would be helpful, but perhaps not possible due to nonwebsite issues?

I have not personally used this website before, so I cannot provide feedback at this moment.

It could be improved by providing the most current and up-to-date information.

I don't use it; not relevant to me.

I could not find anything related to McNair program on OESE.ED.gov.

I really like it...I have not experienced issues or concerns with it!

Website could be more client friendly and more information - like an update on policies and 

procedures.
428

Improve navigation.

Keep documents and contacts up to date.

APR site can be confusing about where or how to answer certain questions. Page for accessing 

GAN document could be simplified.

Q33. How could we improve the grant reporting process?

The APR is a good tool to monitor the progress and achievement for McNair program; however 

is it incongruent with academic year, funding cycle, and service year. It can become very 

confusing to measure all of these different timelines to report on the APR.

Not sure; wording of some instructions is at times difficult to follow especially with fields that are 

linked.

The data collection is driven by the structure of the reporting format, rather than program or 

grant needs. The system is not-flexible and results in the data being collected in a way that is 

not always reflective of the program goals and grant / legislative requirements.

There are special circumstances that can not be captured in the report and it would be great if 

there was a space for us to be able to detail a studen's lack of progress due to unexpected 

circumstances.

Previously, the reporting instructions of information that the department requested were not the 

most clear set of instructions. However, a couple years prior I have notice the instructions have 

improved and are made clear as to what is being asked in each section and how this connects 

to the student data requests. In the future I would like to see a collective assessment not just of 

our specific programs overall data report, but a holistic picture of what the grant is 

accomplishing nationwide. I understand that our priority and focus is our individual programs 

but it would be great to connect and further building within the institutional and local community 

the importance and accomplishments of the McNair Scholars program as a whole.

My only issue was knowing when the APR submission site would open and when things were 

due. The opening date kept changing as it approached, and that was stressful. If we could have 

a set date or a consistent date, it would really help with planning.

McNair should receive credit for students who receive a Masters in doctoral track program. The 

Gap year should be considered in time to doctoral degree.

The reporting process is hampered by the failure of the Dept. of Ed to address the concerns of 

the Programs. For example, we've discussed issues with gap years, tracking for only ten years 

when students often take much longer. This really only hurts the dept of ed in the end...
429

Streamline the process so it is not so complicated.

We have more clarity with report than previous years however the aggregated data is never 

known. It would be helpful if the APR reports can be compiled to national data and statistical 

data on a year basis that can help the Project Directors and Principal Investigators to use data 

for programming and future grant writing.

NA

The APR codes and dates for certain milestones such as graduation dates, dates of entry into 

grad school, etc. always generate errors that are sometimes tedious to resolve before we are 

able to submit the APR. Improving this process would be greatly helpful.

This is pretty straightforward.

Improved contact person for questions.

While it is clear what the Department is asking for, the success of a program is not always 

reflected therein. For example, I have a lot of scholars who end up taking a gap year which is 

bad for my stats, but end up going on to complete a master's and some cases a doctorate. 

Another example is the successful completion of a doctorate degree. While PhDs and EdDs 

diversify the professoriate, we also need diversity in other sectors such as medicine and law, so 

I would like for that category to be broadened to include such students. The hardest part of the 

APR is making sure one has properly tracked McNair alumni. It's easy to lose track for them 

once they get their bachelor's. Not being able to use their SS# has made finding certain 

students--with common names or changed name--in the Clearing House much more difficult.

Meta data on how all McNair programs are doing, based upon their annual reports, would be a 

valuable tool for directors.

The McNair Program has been around for 35 years, and each year, all of the programs are 

required to submit an APR. Where are all the data? The McNair community should be able to 

access it to improve their programs.

I find the questions regarding persistence, first year status, and 2nd year status always 

confusing. No matter how I read it and think I understand what codes go where it seems when I 

upload it that I have coded things wrong and I have to recode.

Review and revise the process by which prior experience points are awarded thus removing 

what makes it difficult to earn the maximal points allowed

More regularly, perhaps quarterly tailored reports for each program

I find the procedures to be clear. However, I have been working with this program for over ten 

years and am familiar with requirements and reporting.

No suggestions.
430

Being able to report directly in the software rather than collecting the data and then submitting 

as an attached document would improve the process for me.

Update standardized objective on graduate school enrollment from "immediate" to "within 3 

years." This would allow McNair programs to better serve students in service to the McNair 

mission.

Like to produce national reports more frequently from the data we provide. This will give us a 

better understanding of how we are doing.

The questions towards the end about student enrollment in graduate programs gets confusing, 

because we are completing this so late that we might be reporting on students graduating the 

prior year and enrolling in graduate school, but not students that have just graduated and we 

know are also enrolled. The timing and wording together make it very confusing.

Functional dashboard allowing user to create pivot tables to acquires specific queries.

Would love to see aggregate data of APRs across the country.

It would be helpful to know more details about how the department uses our data.

Overall, the department provides helpful information and I have no complaints. Since you 

asked, I have two reflections: 1) having consistent annual start and end dates (with at least 45 

days to submit), would help program staff anticipate and plan their program year better. That 

said, there are few surprises in the APR (thank you), which means we should be ready to 

submit after we receive our fall grad admissions reports for alumni. 2) Although I have found the 

Department's instructions and supporting documents very clear, and my needs have always 

been met, I have heard of two times over the past 12 years when ED staff were unreachable for 

a week during the APR window. I suspect this was for professional development or to conduct 

other Department business. Again, I have not been impacted by this and I hesitate to mention it 

at all.

Better clarity of the data and what's being asked for. Modify some of the reporting metrics and 

grant requirements around immediate transition from undergraduate to graduate school.

The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) often does not have helpful data and information 

specific to McNair programs, undergraduate research, graduate school matriculation, success, 

and persistence rates among low-income and first generation students, and underrepresented 

students.

I do not have any suggestions for improvement.

For many options there are just 2 choices 1 or 2. There should be more options in general 

because there can be a myriad of circumstances that lead to answering that question.

Allow more flexibility. Include a GAP year for students before enrolling in graduate studies.
431

Let us complete it during a time where we are not as busy.

Providing scenarios as examples for some of the questions.A break down or reminder of how 

the time frame is set up and how it does vary a little from different types of questions.

The most challenging in the past was the instructions for how to apply lacked some 

consistency. The open comment period is very important and feedback should be taken 

seriously.

In the next authorization, really work with and listen to the community on how to measure 

outcomes and clearly define it give examples of terms like "scholarly activities "

No suggestions

It works very well for your program and are able to use the results to make changes

I currently do not have any suggestion at this time.

Give access to the aggregate data so we can do something with it

List the opening dates of future grant competition.

I can't think of any improvements.

We would appreciate a better understanding of how our data is used and for what purposes. 

Additionally, making the aggregate data available to the community would great.

Publish summary reports each year, inform us how ED is using data

Information can be more clear, especially when it comes to reporting years.

It would be helpful to know when the RFP will be available.

The Department of Ed could take over the longitudinal 10 year tracking component of the 

McNair Project reporting function and use Dept; of Ed. staff to track down that information from 

the the third party vendor, the National Student Clearinghouse.

provide better definitions of summer internship vs. research and allow a gap year after BA 

completion

a clearer idea of how the data is used and when the data as a whole will be available.

Provide performance reports for the state, regional, or national (best) levels.

Simplify reporting language. We understand it is very data driven and requires a level of logic 
432

but there are some areas that cause confusion each year (reporting on persistence of one class 

in graduate school in particular). Subheadings may work in this case (i.e. bracket the questions 

by audience or something)

The APR does not capture the difficulties faced by the target population--it only measures the 

activities required by the grant. Even though we are a "formative" program, many of the 

changes we put in place to meet our students' needs must be reduced to a ridiculous numeric 

value based on aggregate data. Ed will never hear about the students who graduated and went 

on to grad school despite having incarcerated or addicted parents, working two jobs, 

overcoming disabilities, or simply finding the courage, with our help, to work with a professor 

from a different world. We fight so hard for our students, and so little of it is captured in the 

APR. Certainly a qualitative assessment of some kind could be added!

For the good of us all, it would be great to see aggregate data for all our programs. It would be 

helpful to know how many McNair scholars receive their PhD, how many receive Master's and 

MOST IMPORTANTLY how many take a gap year/years. I just met with a student today who 

wants his PhD in education and many graduate schools won't even look at his application 

unless he has 3-5 years of teaching experience. We need to be approved for up to 3 years of 

gap before entering graduate school. Our departments and professors are repeatedly telling the 

students to take some time before going to graduate school to obtain work/industry experience. 

They feel that if students do this they will have a better idea of the niche area of where they 

would like to focus in graduate school.

N/A

NA

Automatic upload of data from National Student Clearinghouse to Dept of Education since the 

grant does not allocate funding for alumni tracking/services, it is difficult within the existing 

capacity to commit sufficient time to tracking down all alumni.

The system is very cumbersome, and the way that students are counted on the US Dept of Ed 

fiscal year and not on academic years creates a metric that is not useful for us.

Provide examples for some of the more confusing fields. Take into account varying academic 

schedules (e.g, quarters vs semesters, etc).

More fields connected to each other so that when you respond to one questions other questions 

gray out.

It helps that the process has not changed substantially in the last few years. Keeping the same 

basic process makes collecting reported data and completing the online forms easier.

The reporting website is not user friendly. Typically only receive notifications from Student 

Access that the report is available. If you don't purchase a database to manage the data, the 

report is nearly impossible to develop. It is unrealistic to report on number of PhDs completed 

in 10 years.
433

It is a stressful reporting process that I believe should only include information on 

numbers/percentages of students served who: 1) earn bachelor's degrees, 2) enter graduate 

school, 3) earn master's degrees, and 4) earn the doctorate.

In the report, allowing documentation to be included on students who delay graduate 

enrollment, but meet the 10 year completion requirement.

Sharing of data, in particular national benchmarking of like institutions, would make the process 

more useful for program comparison and improvement.

Beyond calculating and awarding Prior Experience (PE) points, I have no idea what or how the 

U.S. Dept. of Education uses our McNair APR data.

When submitting the report, the system doesn't allow me to review the results of the report prior 

to submission.

More staff is needed to answer and address our questions. It's inconceivable that one person is 

responsible for the west coast or states in the western U.S. It takes weeks for us to hear back 

and is nearly impossible to get personalized attention. Our rep is excellent, it is NOT that they 

are not doing their job efficiently. Rather, it is the massive burden of working with dozens of 

McNair Programs. I don't know how they do it. More support and funding is needed to help 

manage these programs.

nothing that I can think of

I have experienced any issues...it appears to just fine...as is...

more time given

Not quite sure.

1. Create clearer definitions for APR answer options 2. Provide national McNair report with APR 

data that will be distributed to existing program. 3. Provide programs with feedback on APRs.

Be more clear about how to indicate that a student is in graduate school now even if they didn't 

start graduate school immediately after graduating from college. Allow more options or open 

ended answers for some of these complex statuses.

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role?

Program Coordinator

Assistant Director
434

Program Director

Project Director

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

McN-PBAP - 2021 - Q28.2. Please tell us how the technical assistance you 

received from your program specialist this past year was affected by the 

pandemic, as well as any suggestions you have to improve the technical 

assistance you received should we be faced with future national emergencies.

My program specialist ([REDACTED]) rarely responds to my email and inquiries; in fact, 

I have to send several emails reminding her of my timely requests in order to honor 

deadlines that were set. I normally anticipate a response by the end of 1-1.5 months or 

none at all. I've found that it has been more helpful to ask for assistance from fellow 

project directors rather than wait for [REDACTED] to respond. I hate to report this 

subpar customer service, but this has been my experience over the last 4 years.

Biggest problem was very slow response to questions, but this was happening prior the 

pandemic. Actually, there has been much improvement in the last few months.

The assistance was helpful with the only issues being around timeliness. It could take 

weeks to get answers and sometimes required multiple emails.

The communicaion or lack there of but the program staff in a uncertain and stressful 

situation. There was no guidance from the Dept and we were left to develop alternate 

programs that we had no guidance from which to reference especially when working 

with our grant administrators. When the communication finally came it was quite late.

Understandable communication was very slow and almost non-existent given the work 

load of the specialists. Decisions we're slow coming, but the greatest problem was 

thinking we could operate as usual. Program staff had to adjust to a new reality, while 

the program objectives did not change or reflect that new reality.

The technical assistance received from my program specialist did an amazing job, and 

continues to do an amazing job with her responsiveness and attentiveness. While 

being short staffed and he time spread thin with having to handle not just our program 

needs, but also doing her best to create and continue clear communication on how to 

best assist and provide for our students while running this program through a 

pandemic. My program specialist, in my opinion has done a great job with providing us 

guidelines and answering any questions or concerns that we may have encountered 

and supported the strategies to best serve our scholars during the height of the 

pandemic and currently as we still navigate what return to work looks like and how we 

can safely delivery our program and meet the needs of our scholars.
435

I think the workload for the program specialists were overwhelming and they could have 

used more support. I've indicated that I wasn't always satisfied with the response time 

and the ability to solve issues - but that has much less to do with who my program 

specialist is and more to do with the amount of work they were expected to do for 

multiple programs at any given time. I believe hiring a couple more program specialists 

would lead to a higher degree of satisfaction for everyone, and it would give the 

existing specialists time to breathe.

COVID 19 was a stress barrier, and our program officers are humans; they needed 

some additional help. So I would say in times of crisis and during peak periods, hire 

some additional help for our program officers. Thanks.

Be able to give guidance to new McNair professional to ensure the history and intent is 

made clear at the beginning of employee with program. Considering hiring seasoned 

McNair professional (10 or more years-two grant cycles) to help program with start up 

consultation.

We no longer use our program specialist. We rely on COE and list serves for almost all 

of our decisions. I dont blame the program specialist because I think ED is 

underfunded. I have worked for years with program officers at NSF and USDA and I am 

shocked by how unhelpful the program specialists are at the ED. More suspicious, less 

trusting, simply less helpful, even obstructionist.

More timely communication, actual response to emails.

Program Specialist is excellent in guiding us and helping me when it came to our 

questions regarding COVID and the program needs at the time. She understood where 

our problems lied and understood that giving students funds for technology and support 

was important if they could not attend classes and scholarly activities online. I felt like I 

was supported as a program director and would like to continue working with our 

current program specialist. Where there can be improvement that more program 

specialist can be working on the McNair project. From my understanding only two 

program specialist where taking over ALL of the national R. E. McNair project and that 

delays questions and responses from our program specialist.

The Program Officers have a lot on their plate and while their responses to questions 

are helpful, they are often late.

They actually provided more remote seminars that were very helpful.

Staff needs more time to support their programs. I am often told there is no time to 

assist.

There was so much confusion, esp. during the early days of the pandemic. We were 

told by the COE not to bombard our program officers with questions since they too 

were waiting for guidance. Initially, we relied a lot on the COE, who was meeting 

regularly with the Department and CFR Â§ 200.404 Reasonable costs for guidance. As 
436

time went on and the Department released memos, we grateful for increased guidance 

though specifics were often missing.

Likely due to an increased number of emails, and inquiries, the delay time in getting 

responses was slower than normal. While there were some delays in getting 

information and approval of our changes in our programing, we are very appreciative of 

the flexibility allowed by the DOE to serve the needs of our participants.

Adequate.

My program specialist was overwhelmed with work, budget amendments and questions 

thus the timeliness of responses was drastically affected. The DOE kept asking for 

documents that we had submitted multiple times and the clearance to proceed with 

budget changes took a long time. Clearly we were ALL way over stressed and trying to 

do the best we could with in a minimal amount of time.

Though COVID-19 hampered the in-person activities of our program, yet virtual 

technical assistance from our program officer was not diminished.

Periodic communication and supportive directives were missing during the pandemic. 

The Department should develop a process to be more informative and supportive 

instead of just responding to direct inquiries and or requests for technical assistance 

submitted.

Email and webinar communication.

As everyone was impacted by the pandemic, I feel the program was as responsive and 

effectively served as it could be under the circumstances. Each situation is unique. No 

one could have predicted a national lockdown. We were able to creatively find ways to 

serve our students with the assistance of our program specialist and our university's 

commitment to our scholars.

No suggestions.

There was a long delay (weeks if not months) in response to questions around COVID 

flexibilities. We had to make and enact plans long before we actually knew what the 

flexibilities were.

The technical assistance that I received from my program specialist was delayed very 

little. She responded in a timely matter and provided clear guidance.

Response time was increased, due to the pandemic and not knowing how to respond. 

It was new territory for everyone, therefore, new policies had to be put into place and 

disseminated to grantees.

We still received timely guidance from our program specialist, including information on 

flexibilities due to the pandemic.
437

Encourage monthly virtual "Open Times" Program Officers can be available to meet w/ 

PI's to address questions, provide updates.

Our program specialist was very responsive during the pandemic and providing us 

support as we navigated the FAQ and guidance. Having the FAQs and guidance was 

key to the response.

Our program specialist was helpful and available for conversations about program 

needs. Delay in knowing what we could provide for students using grant funds was 

difficult, as is expectations regarding annual reporting expectations when recruitment 

and retention of students was at risk due to the pandemic. The department should have 

a basic plan for granting extensions/flexibility to programs when institutions are forced 

to close and/or when services are widely and consistently disrupted.

My Program Officer is OUTSTANDING!!! She is knowledgeable, helpful, studentcentric, and direct. She maintains high standards in line with the legs and regs and she 

makes sure project staff understand the reasons for the rules. I consider our project 

very lucky to have our program officer and I pray we are able to keep her for many 

years to come.

It took quite a while to receive budget approvals and guidance on spending and 

program flexibilities, which were critical for us working hands-on with students during 

the real-time execution of the grant and planning in the midst of the pandemic.

My program specialist was extremely informative and helpful.

During the pandemic I encountered an issue with the McNair training stipend. For my 

home institution, McNair training stipends are considered "estimated financial 

assistance" (EFA) due to in large part, language in the Federal Student Aid Handbook 

that lists the McNair Post-Baccalaureate Achievement Program as an "example" of 

EFA. Therefore, my financial officer, Office of Student Aid, and Bursar has mandated 

that any stipend and subsistence allowances will be applied towards "zero-ing" out 

student accounts if I have a McNair scholar in my program who has a positive balance 

on their account. In previous years, this was not an issue. However, the university 

partners listed above will not budge from their decision even though arguments have 

been made on my end that the McNair training stipend (and subsistence allowances) 

are not EFA. I have sent numerous emails regarding this issue to my program specialist 

who reported the issue has been presented to senior leadership. However, to date, 

nothing has been done to address the issue. There are many current McNair programs 

who face the issue I've described. There are some programs who do not encounter this 

issue. There must be consistency! The shame of it is during the onset of the COVID 

pandemic, I hoping to provide stipends and allowances to help my students address 

personal and family needs. BUT, because of this ridiculous language in the FSA 

Handbook, it curtailed my ability to support my scholars.

I was not the Director of the program during the pandemic.
438

Overall, I really like my program officer and I believe she does an excellent job. I 

received pretty clear guidance during the pandemic. It was very helpful to have some 

flexibility in using our funds. However, I believe my program officer oversees too many 

programs and it sometimes takes a long time to get a response to questions unless the 

question is urgent.

It has been difficult but satisfactory. Timely information will be helpful

The guidance lagged and was not comprehensive. There are still outstanding 

questions within the McNair communities regarding recruitment, APR, and use of funds.

We are unclear if any consideration will be given regarding the pandemic and how it 

has affected our ability to meet objectives or Annual Performance Report requirements, 

or preference priority points.

It feels like they are all over capacity and adding the pandemic added confusion as ED 

needed to take time to determine how TRIO played into the COVID policies then 

disseminate the info to us

Assistance continued during the pandemic so there was minimal impact on program 

services.

The program specialist that we had during the pandemic is no longer our program 

specialist. The responses was very slow to non-existence, which was a sign that the 

department was not sending down communications to the program specialist in a timely 

manner. Also, there is a shortage of program specialist, which is currently making it 

hard to to work the program specialist, so more program specialists should be hired to 

improve the technical assistance.

I was informed about the ways I could still offer services and use funds. If another 

pandemic occurs, I would advise more meetings over ms teams. It was helpful to hear 

about what the other McNair programs were planning.

Not much different, although implementing the CARES Act seemed to delay budget 

approvals. We didn't get a budget approved until late March I believe. I think the 

program specialists and the projects would be helped greatly if the FAQ were put out 

earlier. Although I think the program specialists did a great job and the OPSE's concern 

for the projects was evident. I appreciated that.

All is great in this area I love my program specialist, she is great and has a lot on her 

plate as far as programs. I think there should be two people doing the work she does I 

hope that you all hire one more specialist for our area so our Specialist can spend more 

time with each program, as sometimes that time is needed. Thanks!

Assistance and responsiveness was much too slow. Our programs were expected to 

maintain progress and momentum but guidance on flexibility was unclear or release 

much too slowly by the DOE to be useful. Many times unclear or contradictory guidance 

was released-- none of which was helpful. (At the same time I understand that DOE 
439

staff was also impacted by the pandemic and was working hard to interpret and 

respond to Congress' requests.)

Did not receive answers to emails, answers during general information sessions were 

too vague to be helpful

Our program specialist is a wonderful resource. However, we share them with many 

programs and that extends our wait periods, and in some cases, interferes with our 

progress. However, this is not due to the program officer themselves, but because they 

are extremely busy.

Simply more prompt responses. I think our program contact has too many programs to 

oversee. The contact does an excellent job but cannot respond as quickly as someone 

with fewer programs to support.

We appreciated the personal assistance our program specialist provided, and the 

opportunity to modify the approved budget to be able to be responsive to the realities of 

operation a program within the parameters required during the pandemic.

Timeliness of correspondence was longer than usual

With a grant fiscal year, we don't have time to wait months for a response as to whether 

certain purchases were allowable or not in the new Covid reality, especially when 

summer programs preparing to launch in 2020. If I truly had waited for official guidance 

after repeated indications from Dept of Ed were that it was coming soon, I would not 

have been able to execute my program or spend down my funds. That timeline was 

critical. We did not have official responses to some areas until after the budgets for 

2020-2021 were submitted.

[REDACTED] has always been a pleasure to work with and is very detailed orientated 

in her instructions and information. However, she has a lot of programs under her 

umbrella and could use support, which can probably be said for other program officers 

as well. Please find ways to hire more people to support the programs. We have had 

tons of questions regarding the impact the pandemic has had on McNair activities and 

services with little to no instructions on how to navigate this space nor have we been 

given the autonomy to be flexible in how we are spending funds, serving participants, 

etc.

The Program Specialist is wonderful ([REDACTED]). I would have appreciated the 

ability to raise stipend payments to a higher level in order to assist students during this 

period. This was clearly not the Program Specialist's decision. I have found 

[REDACTED] to be a wonderful, responsive, patient, friendly, and completely 

professional leader throughout my eleven years as McNair Director.

I have been with McNair for well over a decade. I have always been told, DO NOT 

CONTACT YOUR PROGRAM OFFICER UNLESS IT'S AN ABSOLUTE EMERGENCY. 

Instead, I was told to ask other program directors or ask how to find your answers in 

EDGAR, OMB, program requirements, etc. This model of thinking sets up an us against 
440

them which is something I have never agreed with in TRIO. To improve programs, I 

would suggest a more open friendlier environment where legs and regs and other rules 

are easy to learn, as opposed to hidden away and have to dig for them. In the case of 

another pandemic, I would like to see more relaxed spending rules and ideas from the 

powers that be on how to spend the extra money. I feel like we were 'threatened' with 

consequences if we did not spend the money, but did not get ANY guidance on ideas 

of how to spend the money.

N/A

NA

Seemed overwhelmed and insufficiently staffed pre-pandemic so exacerbated during 

COVID-19. Increase number of program officers and consistency across different staff.

She helped us repurpose funds that could not be spent on travel or in-person activities.

Overall, I am very satisfied with the technical assistance that I have received during the 

pandemic.

Information about how to proceed came very late. I assessed what my students needed 

and pivoted online, documenting my process because I was unsure of what the official 

guidance was or would become. More information sent in writing to all directors would 

have been helpful during this time.

More specific communication about needed forms.

The help in modification and expansion of allowable services was extremely helpful. 

Additional modifications to help expend grant funds would have been appreciated. 

Many of the allowed changes were focused on services provided by other TRIO 

programs and were not as useful for McNair programs.

The program officer ([REDACTED]) is unable to manage communication with 

programs. Email messages are lost and require significant follow-up or not responded

to in a timely manner (min 4 weeks for budget reviews). Continually provides 

conflicting guidance. Revisions are made and then new guidance is given which often 

contradicts original guidance. Guidance is often too vague to be useful.

Provide clearer guidance for national emergencies regarding how to utilize funds ( 

potential carryover) More opportunities to connect with other programs and brainstorm 

ideas for support of scholars and staff

I tried to be understanding and recognize that program officers are responsible for 

many projects across the country and that everyone was working remotely and may not 

have been available to respond to return calls and emails.
441

My program specialist was very cooperative and supportive through the pandemic. 

Often times providing support without knowing and was always available to answer 

questions when necessary.

Response delays were present before the pandemic and did not worsen over the past 

year.

My program specialist, [REDACTED], is very unresponsive. I have to email and call 

multiple times in order to get a response. Moreover, there doesn't seem to be 

consistency amongst McNair program officers. My program officer says something is 

unallowable but other programs hear that x activity/expense is allowable by their 

program officer. There needs to be more standardization amongst program officers' 

interpretation of the regulations. Additionally, my P.O. has changed positions on 

whether something is allowable from year to year, which creates unnecessary delays in

getting my budget approved. Finally, I am still waiting for approval on certain COVID 

flexibility spending and it is JULY.

Since I'm new to the program, I can't judge if it was much slower or quicker than in the 

past. I would appreciate having more resources -- people to talk with, communicate, 

and learn from. Video chats, online messaging (not email since that takes so long to 

hear back), or anything that is somewhat timely would be excellent. Again, hiring more 

people to do the massive amount of work that is required is a first step.

The person was not completely knowledgable of the revised regulations and spending 

flexibility.

Slow response times to questions and requests for issues such as budget clarifications 

made decision-making somewhat problematic. We provided the information asked of 

us, but had severe delays in ED responses to our submissions...so, we weren't sure 

"where we stood" with the extenuating circumstances and the policies and procedures 

that ensued.

There have been alot of changes that needed to take place because our program was 

greatly affected by the pandemic. Students were not able to complete school and fulfill 

our program objectives. Assistance in how to accurately report this change in our 

reports was very unclear.

Sometimes slow response to approval for budget amendments. Sometimes slow 

response to emails.

McN-PBAP - 2021 - Q28.5. What can Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate 

Achievement do to improve communication with you? 

It is imperative that the communication be clear and concise with specific deadlines and 

instructions. I recognize the hurdles that Covid-19 may have caused our program 

specialist, but I believe this revealed what was already fractured for many years. 
442

Communication lines are often broken and unresponsive; this has been widely 

circulated among program directors in this region.

Reply to emails in a timely manner; I understand program specialists have 30 days to 

reply and I'm fine with that. However, that does not always happen, and additional 

emails are then sent. However, there has been improvement in the last few months.

Increase communication & timeliness around grant award notification and confirmation 

of yearly budget approval.

Timely response to emails in particular budget approvals

Quarterly director meetings by institution size.

I think including and having more frequent updates with programs on a quarterly basis 

is sufficient. I believe that due to the pandemic we have been utilizing email, telephone 

and web- teleconferencing platforms more than ever. I do commend the department 

and specifically those who are assisting with the management and delivery of the grant, 

have increased communication especially with helping providing space for our 

programs to creatively deliver project services and how to continuously meet the needs 

of our students, as we have done pre pandemic.

One thing that helped was the program officer created a format to be used in the 

subject line of our emails. In addition, I think there needs to be a format for naming 

documents. I think this will help programs and program officers as we communicate 

with each other.

Advised that funding tenue of program and geographic considered, the cost of living, 

the tenue of program and staff impacted the funding needs, an across the board 

amount does not always equitably the actual needs of each program's agency 

personnel scale or the cost of doing business in that area. i.e, the cost of personnel in 

in NY, DC metro area or Cal is difference than in the mid west or West Virginia for 

example.

Answer in a timely fashion. Make budgeting reporting more transparent. Respond upon 

receipt of items submitted. Provide even minimal feedback please. Be reasonable, 

helpful, not suspicious regarding budgeting questions/issues. Recognize that we are 

dealing with humans going through very messy situations. Services they need can be 

very tricky to manage.

Be more timely with communication.

Hire more Program Specialist by regions.

The case load of the program officers is too high. They had many fewer cases when I 

first became director. They work very hard but there are only so many hours in the day. 
443

The DOE needs to hire more program officers or support staff in general. They do an 

excellent job but have too many programs that need attention.

Increase frequency of communication and improve timeliness.

The online seminars where participants can ask questions are very helpful to reach the 

larger community.

Again, have more time to dedicate to their programs.

Make sure you have enough staff who can respond to e-mail in a timely manner. 

Provide more specifics in Department of Education memos. For example, when we 

were told that we could increase scholar stipends, we were not told what the range 

would be, only to provide a justification. I was afraid to ask for too much. It was only in 

June 2021 when I finally got my budget approved, that I found out that I was welcome 

to increase the stipend from $2,800 to $5,000. When I asked where this was 

documented, I was told that it wasn't in writing. Also, I have learned that each program 

officer has different guidelines as to how they want the budget done and different 

interpretations of the McNair regulations. This can be very frustrating to a PI.

We would appreciate establishment of standardized schedules for technical assistance 

programs, deadlines for APR and other budgetary items, etc., so that we are given 

significant advanced notice to facilitate planning and engaging with University partners.

More staff to work with fewer grantees:)

No suggestions at this point.

Provide more Zoom/virtual opportunities for active interaction with grantees as part f the 

Department's effort to be of supportive assistance to grantees. Provide more training 

and webinars regarding the Department's role in oversight and clarity of expectations.

[REDACTED] does an amazing job at connecting with her programs.

The program needs more staff at the federal level. One person seems to be handling 

so many programs.

Our program specialist is a professional. Her sound leadership prior to the pandemic 

prepared us and carried over as we adjusted to working remotely.

No suggestion.

I have attended McNair events and received relevant communication delivered through 

different trainings and conferences. However, it would be helpful to have events posted 

for all staff regardless of whether attending a specific training or conference.
444

More timely response to questions.

If possible to provide the GAN prior to two weeks. I realize that this past year was very 

difficult in getting the GAN out due to COVID.

Reduce the response time between correspondences.

Overall communication with the McNair program is great.

more proactive communication highlighting timelines and "what to expect."

Our program specialist is FANTASTIC. Her workload is just so high that I know she is 

managing many projects. At times it has been difficult to receive 

approvals/communication, but I know she is trying so hard and managing the best she 

can. This last year was easier to obtain approvals.

Send out GANs by July for programs that start in August. We are a rural institution, and 

hiring/recruiting students and staff is difficult when we receive a GAN right before the 

academic year begins in August.

Regular monthly updates on key developments and issues we should be aware of as 

grantees. Responsiveness to emails within 3-4 business days

It would be a good idea to reinforce communication on the McNair webpage.

It would be helpful if communication between our program and our program officer 

could happen on a more timely basis. Specifically speaking of budget approval. Our 

20-21 budget is still not approved because we have been asked to go through 5 or 

more revisions and there are several weeks in between submissions and responses 

and each time we submit we receive a new response with new suggestions. This is 

confusing and frustrating. The grant year we are working to revise is almost over and 

we still don't have an approved revised budget. I don't understand why all the changes 

cannot come in one request, the budget requirements do not change that often.

As I mentioned before, I like my program officer and think she does a great job. 

However, I believe she may oversee too many programs and that sometimes means it 

takes longer to receive a response to questions unless there is an urgent matter. 

Otherwise she is very helpful. Another suggestion would be to have the camera on 

when doing online webinars so that we can see the speaker. It seems a bit impersonal 

to have a blank screen during webinars.

Possibility to schedule a meeting for Q&A if need it. Particularly now that the way we 

are working is changing.

Clarification should be provided early in the fiscal year
445

Communicate more frequently, with great clarity and flexibility for meeting the 

program's objectives.

n/a

Please ensure that program officers are returning emails and calls in a timely manner.

I recommend working with COE and McNair Association of Professionals to share 

information in a timely manner.

Staff members seem to work very hard, but may be overwhelmed with case loads -

reduce case loads if that is a possibility.

You need more program specialist so that the few you have, actually have time to 

respond to my communications.

Reducing the time of response to less than a month would be a good start.

Perhaps have a bi-monthly newsletter.

Communication is pretty good. There are sometimes considerable delays in responses, 

but I never feel that it is due to a lack of attention. I feel that some items that should be 

a notification to the Department of Education is treated as though it requires prior 

approval. However, in terms of the manner in which things are communicated, any 

improvements I could suggest would come down to style.

I often receive a request for information from my Program Specialist with little to now 

instruction about the very specific information she is seek. I always happily provide the 

information but am often asked again for the same information in a specific format as a 

follow-up. This is 100% time ineffective. We would all save time and effort if requests 

were sent with the instructions the first time.

Respond to emails in more timely manner; make it clearer if our budget has been 

approved (or if we can assume it is approved if we do not receive any further 

communication)

Scheduled memoranda/newsletter could help keep grantees updated with changes, 

flexibilities, common problems other grantees might be having, etc.

More points of contact.

Change the time period of inactivity in G5 from 3 months to 6 months before we receive 

an email stating we are going to be locked out if we do not log in within 15 days.

Specify which emails need a response and which are purely informational
446

Actually communicate with us with answers

I am struck by how little by program officer knows about the program she oversees. I 

have stopped contacting my program officer altogether unless they reach out to me 

first. I get better and more accurate information from other program directors.

The current communication is fine.

NA

Monthly or quarterly newsletter of the latest from Dept of Educ.

My program specialist is very helpful and tries to be as communicative and clear as she 

can be. The only trouble we've had is sometimes with the timeliness of new fiscal year 

budgets, but this has improved in recent years.

I have had excellent communication with my program officer and I have no suggestions 

for improving communication.

Overall, the communication is clear and well organized.

More program officers to increase regular communication with directors.

Separate activities that require action by the director.

The communication has improved over the last year and is helpful.

The work load is clearly too big for the staff. Additional program officers are necessary 

to provide timely feedback to grantees.

unsure at this time

The level of communication currently exhibited is fine.

Increase the number of Program Officers.

Quicker response times. I know the program officer/specialist is busy and has a large 

caseload but I should not have to wait over 1 month to get a response to an email. 

Also, templates and examples of how the budget, budget narrative, and other requests 

should be organized/formatted to expedite processing. In my first year as director, I 

have had a lot of documents returned back to me because they weren't formatted in the 

way my program specialist needed/wanted them to be formatted. Yet, a sample was 

never provided. I don't want to waste my time designing and redesigning something 

hoping it meets my program specialist's standards - instead, practice transparency and 

provide samples or templates. It will save us both lots of time.
447

Again, make structural changes by bringing on more people to do the work. One person 

cannot conceivably do all the work with programs that is needed. Yes, I do enjoy having 

independence w/o "feds" breathing down our necks, so to speak, but not having 

guidance is another issue as well. I'm relatively new to McNair (6 mos in) so it could be 

that I'm struggling but having a "hot line" of sorts -- or having an online call center or 

help line would be comforting to know that we could go there to post or ask questions.

It seems that the workload on our specialist is excessive and consequently the 

timeliness of her communications is not adequate.

Respond to inquiries in a more timely fashion.

communicate in a timely manner

Prompter response time after a voice or email message has been sent.

Provide more timely responses Provide consistent responses between programs.

Answer email questions more quickly. Approve budget and budget amendments by 

email more quickly.

McN-PBAP - 2021 - Q28.6e. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly 

with your program specialist?

face time with Teams or Zoom

All of the above.

Both Email and Webinar

McN-PBAP - 2021 - Q28.7. How would you advise on improving the overall 

process and protocols associated with this grant competition?

It would be nice to know the competitive preference priority (CPP) in advance. Often 

program directors are already compiled their data and narrative well in advance of the 

CPP requirement.

Timely notification of the anticipated timelines.

NA
448

Judge by institution size and history.

I am not sure as this was my first grant competition I have participated in.

I've never been through a competition before, so I'm not sure of all of the exact 

processes that are involved. I will say that the previous CFP was very clear and 

thorough, so if this new competition is modeled on that, it will be great. And I know this 

doesn't necessarily fall under the purview of the department of ed in its entirety - but I 

would appreciate a reconsideration of the objectives, especially in light of COVID. Many 

of our students just don't have the stamina to go straight into a graduate program after 

finishing their bachelor's degrees during a pandemic, and I don't want to set the 

program or our students up for failure by consistently falling short of the objective. I will, 

of course, adjust the objective in the coming grant, but the requirements for going 

"straight" to grad school don't fit the world we live in.

It would help if competitions were held within a timeframe so that people are not at 

odds with their job/career duties or looking for jobs/careers. I would suggest that the 

year before the cycle ends would be an ideal time for competitions. Consistency is how 

we build relationships, and waiting to the last minute for people to be awarded 

becomes stressful and affects the quality of the services. So, if programs wrote the 

year before their programs ended, then there will be more stability and focus on 

services. It could also mean that programs end early if they are not refunded, the 

number of turnovers during the last year of grants should be lowered, and less waste of 

the funds for programs that are not performing well (they could go ahead and wrap up).

Program officers need to make sure their advice and guidance is based on fact and 

regulations/law and and not by personal opinion or relationship with program staff in the 

program to maximized uniformity information .

Make the formatting more reasonable this time around. The single-space issue was a 

nightmare. If that was designed to keep less info in the figs/tables and more in the 

prose then devise some other mechanism that is more reasonable. Overall, the grant 

writing/submission process is no more or less arduous than any other federal grant I've 

submitted.

More timely with communication

Given COVID-19 restrictions and given that not all campus will be opening at full 

capacity this fall and coming spring 2022, we should be given more time to write the 

grant given that not all offices will be open and we need time to get data prepared. We 

should have at least a few opportunities to attend grant writing workshops prior to the 

competition.

Early release of instructions to allow more time to prepare proposals based on the 

actual instructions for that year's competition.

More time between the announcement of any updates/changes and the deadline to 

prepare the application.
449

Dedicate time to their programs.

Make sure that APR deadlines and grant competition deadlines are well spaced.

Sharing of grant information (data on number of applicants, success rates, cut-off for 

funding), and other meta information about successful programs to enable identification 

of best practices and new ideas of ways to support participants.

More time and day options for trainings

The actual direction packet is too wordy and in places contradictory. For example, page 

limits, font size, spacing which I am EXTREMELY thankful you have now adjusted to be 

"suggested" rather than mandatory simply given the number of grants that went unread 

under the "old" requirements. It seems that the CCP info could be clearer and just 

incorporated into the actual grant proposal itself.

No suggestions at this point.

Prior notification and clarification of any changes that will govern the upcoming 

competition before the release of the RFP.

Allow for flexibility in the number of years after graduation that a scholar needs to enroll 

in graduate school.

N/A

I am concerned that for the first time we have had students decide to take a gap year. 

Our requirement for students to immediately enroll in graduate education may be 

unrealistic due to the pandemic. I would like to see a waiver for 2020 and 2021 

graduates to enter within 18 months to 2 years upon completing their undergraduate 

degrees. I also believe some programs are promoting enrollment in non-STEM fields 

which is not in alignment with the original McNair goals, e.g., business, law school, 

social work, arts and humanities.

No suggestion.

Provide sample applications for new programs. Identify the number of programs that 

will be awarded. Will there be less programs awarded, same number, or more based on 

the 2017 award?

It would be helpful to know now (July) when the call for proposals will be released and 

when it will be due. Do not release call for proposals right before winter break. Release 

funding slate by June 2022.

I can't think of anything at this time.
450

No suggestions

Release the RFP for comment and listen to programs' responses carefully, especially 

after the pandemic year. Offer flexibility with how objectives are met, especially 

regarding types of graduate degrees earned, in any way possible (given that HEA won't 

be reauthorized before the competition). Accountability through measurements of 

objectives makes sense, but the pandemic has changed our ability to meet objectives 

or need to account for different timelines for degrees and/or different types of 

doctoral/terminal programs.

Earlier communication

Simple. Make it easier to complete the grant application, and be clear on formatting.

I do not have any suggestions for this area.

Overall TRIO RFPs are excessively long and repetitive which leads to confusion on the 

part of the reader. Sometimes one section contradicts the others which I believe may 

be a function of the repetition. Many TRIO RFPs are actually longer than the proposals 

themselves which seems inefficient and odd. Also, in consulting with colleagues that 

receive their funding from other agencies (NSF, etc), TRIO grant proposals are much 

longer than others (total page counts). Also, releasing RFPs after the first week of 

December is very difficult grant and somewhat disrespectful to grant writers. Grant 

proposals often depend on data that must be obtained from other departments on 

campus and many universities close for winter break and many staff take off extra time 

for annual leave during this period. When RFPs are released in this time period it feels 

like the Department of Ed is trying to make the process more difficult for grant 

applicants.

Scheduling a brief meeting (phone call) once a year.

Please announce awards earlier enough for staff to plan. We received pink slips from 

our institution during the last grant cycle and thought we were losing our jobs because 

the GAN did not arrive until the very last minute. This puts undue stress on staff.

Difficulty understanding timeline of when grant will be released and what is needed to 

apply. Challenging to plan our lives when the release of the grant could be within 

anytime within a 6 month period. Workshops are instrumental in helping us understand 

application process. Also notifying recipients as soon as possible as sometimes the 

fiscal year is ending and we are still waiting for a response of who was awarded.

I have no suggestions for improving the overall process and protocols associated with 

this grant competition as I was not involved with the submission previously.

Allow time for correspondence with/guidance from grant specialists.

No suggestions at this time.
451

Post the dates for future grant competition ahead of time.

Publishing the funded slate in June would be ideal.

Would be nice to have a list of top qualified grant writers across the nation in order to 

help us with that process.

Clear and published timelines with adequate information and instructions and 

notification of deadlines.

Getting to know the budget that we should be applying for that would be good.

Be clearer on the timing (when the RFP will be released, when the proposal will be due, 

when the awards will be announced) Make sure that the awards are announced early 

enough that we can implement a program in the fall Be clearer about budget paperwork 

for institutional commitment

Guidelines could be published months/years in advance (or permanently). They can 

always be updated, but it would allow us to start writing as early as possible. This would 

benefit 1st-time applicants.

No suggestions

If there will be CPPs in this competition, provide an example of an adequate response. 

If there will be specific logic models required provide the reference/link to where to 

obtain more information on the specific logic models If there will be specific data 

required on national level statistical information provide the link to obtain the data. If 

required to provide citations and to include proven best practices models provide 

specific URL links to the acceptable sources. .

Conduct a site visit rather than a grant competition to see for yourself whether a 

program should be re-funded

This will be my first time writing for McNair. (I have written for SSS for four cycles.)

Provide more assistance (via staffing) to the Grant managers to reduce their caseloads. 

The sheer amounts of programs they are supporting does not allow them to be as 

responsive to us as grant recipients. When we receive assistance it is always valuable!

Provide us with details on the competition earlier rather than later, if possible. If not the 

entire grant application, at least the competitive preference priorities.

Earlier notification before the RFP is released, longer period to prepare the application 

for submission, and a faster award notification process.
452

Continue to have grant writing workshops and have a clear webpage for each program 

with all the Legs/Regs, OMB, EDGAR, laid out clearly so anyone can follow it and know 

how to implement procedures for their programs.

More time needed above 90 days for grant submission.

NA

Improved response to the comments and public input when finalizing the call for 

applications.

I would like to see the new 2022 McNair competition opened up as soon as possible.

This will be my first experience, so I have no context to offer suggestions for 

improvement.

Overall, I am very satisfied. No improvements necessary.

More workshops

On the upcoming competition, information that gives the earliest indication of deadlines, 

and proposal requirements would be the most helpful. Making it easy to find that 

information online would be great.

Webinars are not useful. They tend to be difficult to access (both timing and 

technology used). Minimally they need to be recorded so grantees can view later.

Unsure at this time.

More technical support workshops and webinars. Make them available for viewing after 

presentations for clarification. Also, a live person for technical support to answer 

questions when they arise.

1. Advance knowledge of specific competition timing 2. Timely notification of awards 3. 

Aligning the McNair fiscal year with the standard academic calendar 4. Recent APR 

data for use in determining objectives

I have not participated in a grant competition before and cannot provide feedback at 

this time.

I think it will be most vital that the COVID-19 pandemic be considered in how we meet 

or fail to meet our objectives! So much of this was out of our control and a great many 

scholars suffered 1) financially (having to get jobs) 2) distance learning was emotionally 

tasking (not performing well with remote learning), 3) academically (leaving their 

baccalaureate programs), 4) delaying entry into graduate school (needing a gap year or 

two). Recruitment efforts have been thwarted due to the lack of personal contact with 
453

eligible scholars! These are very important and very real in our world and I hope that 

ED takes these issues into consideration...

more time and clearly communications

Regular town halls with Program Specialists. These would be great even after the 

competition.

McNair programs should NOT receive the automated email messages about our 

budgets not being spent fast enough in the first 2 quarters of the fiscal year, because 

the bulk of our expenses, as written in the propopsal and budget, are expended during 

the summer months, the last quarter of the year. We should be waived from those 

notifications. It is a waste of our time and our program officer's time for us to have to 

explain this every year, sometimes 2 times a year. The time could be better spent with 

other communications and technical assistance, and might free up the prograom 

officers to answer emails about budget ammendments much more quickly.
454

RSA Vocational Rehabilitation Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

direct link to RSA content

More intuitive search capabilities would be beneficial

Links often don't work. One day I can log in using Firefox, the next day I may have to switch to 

Chrome, and the day after I have to use Internet Explorer. A website should work in any 

browser, but at the very least it should be consistent. Formatting on reports i print is 

awful...what used to be one or two page reports now print out as 8 or more pages with big 

blanks between lines. Requests to reopen reports can no longer be made on the website but 

have to be emailed.

Make it more intuitive and less cumbersome. Also parse out information based on key words 

and summary topics instead of multiple responses with overt and unnecessary verbiage.

More help screens to assist in finding the answers to questions. Thanks.

It is hard to store the amount of information contained in a way that makes it easy to find.

The website might be improved by having a design that is more intuitive.

How it is organized is clunky and not user intuitive.

Organize the information better. It is difficult to figure out where to find things.

Too cluttered and you have to click a lot to get to various parts of web site. Not very user 

friendly. It seems like it was designed to "have everything" instead of keeping the end user and 

ease of use in mind..

Make it more intuitive.

Not all elements are updated (Fiscal section). I couldn't find a link to state combined plan. The 

updated website is much improved, easier to navigate and find things, and the technical 

assistance and data is more prominent.

Information is difficult to find and relies on the user to understand the organizational structure of 

the Department. Resources that were previously available (like resources for new directors) 

are no longer on the site.

More Q and A's and guidance related to what was learned/clarified at state monitoring visits
455

Clarity of topics. It is difficult to search with key words.

I was not able to easily find anything pertaining to RSA/VR on the website listed on the last 

question. It appears to focus just on schools/education.

Q21. Please describe how the PROGRAM OFFICE could improve the quality and 

usefulness of our documents, including policy-related documents. In your response, 

please identify the name or type of document(s) your comments address (e.g., nonregulatory guidance, newsletter, blast emails).

Guidance is not helpful. It is written in federal bureaucratic language apparently by lawyers with 

no intent on actually helping someone understand the regulations and implement effectively.

Some TAC's are pre WIOA, often a DSA will ask for more updated information that is relevant 

to various subject areas.

Use language the states can understand and use applicable scenarios, examples to solidify the 

policy, regulatory guidance, etc. There is a big disconnect in how the states actually implement 

the law and how RSA thinks it happens, which leaves states feeling RSA is out of touch with 

what the reality actually is in the states.

Give clear, easy to understand guidance or examples. We're all highly intelligent, but have to 

seek guidance from VR-TAC every time guidance comes out because we can't figure out what 

you mean.

If RSA provides a TAC Guidance it should be able to entertain follow up questions and 

concerns to help State Programs move forward with successful implementation. The guidance 

is often times ambiguous.

Additional clarity is needed to the extent possible. Repeating regulation language or Act 

language is not helpful.

It would be helpful if frequently asked questions information was a little more clear, more 

layman's terms with more complex issues.

non-regulatory guidance for FRRP was not very clear and raised additional questions some of 

which were never answered

Sometimes that guidance that comes out it has to be read several times to understand what 

RSA is trying to say. Sometimes plain English is better instead of using lengthy bureaucratic 

language that can be interpreted several different ways.

In an effort to be comprehensive, FAQs are often verbose, complex, and sometimes contain 

contradictory elements that makes it difficult to understand in the field. Sometimes the lack of 

clarity is helpful in developing unique procedures that meet local needs. I would prefer where 

local options are available, that the FAQ is clear.
456

The biggest deficit in these documents is the timeliness in which they are received. It often 

takes several months after an issue or question is identified to get the official response (e.g. 

FAQs or TAC).

When policy clarification is given it is given in "legalese" format and can be difficult to translate 

into "plain language" at times. Would be nice to have corollary documents that helped everyone 

understand the information. Example: the Pre-ETS flexibility guidance that came out in Feb. 

2020.

A comprehensive synopsis would be helpful.

Appreciate the good work and efforts in support of guidance. When the new report guidance 

began in July 2020; advance communication helped with preparation to navigate the new 

elements and reporting.

More timely guidance and FAQs would be helpful.

Q33. How could we improve the grant reporting process?

Data sent if consistently inacurrate. We have yet to receive the RSA Dashboard two 

consecutive quarters without the need for correction. Not sure how you can have a federal 

program with 78 VR agencies and everyone operates under different goals, services and data 

collection priorities.

It may not be an issue with the reporting process, rather technical glitches that require back and 

forth emails to be able to update reports.

VR is about EMPLOYMENT yet we no longer report on our successful closures as part of our 

performance measures. VR has been made to report on DOL measures that really do not 

result in employment for our customers. VR staff are now nothing more than data collectors 

and the actual "vocational guidance and counseling" we hang our hat on is lost with the 

administrative burdens of data collection and reporting.

RSA 17 was intended to simplify reporting (?) and replace two reports, but instead of semiannual reports on SF 425 and annual on RSA 2, we now have to submit quarterly on all data, 

so you've quadrupled the work from the RSA 2 and doubled the work on SF 425!

Go back to allowing programs to review past year reports to make immediate comparisons.

Improving clarity how each element impacts different report conclusion (how the interplay works 

between elements). Have how to tips easier to find and not buried hard to find at TAC pages.

N/A

The dashboards come out way too late to be very useful for informing management. There is 
457

some data documentation that is difficult to obtain. The staff turnover affects accuracy of data.

We have close to 300 data points to include in our 911 report....over 300! no trend data is ever 

given, no forecasting and not comparison to other states. Why collect all of this if the feds are 

not going to give trend data and best practices?

We get a lot of help with program data. The finance side is more difficult to understand and get 

the correct data submitted.

I know the r-911 is set for the next three years, and I appreciate the stability of no changes in 

order to help the field meet the current data entry obligations. The data entry is the most 

onerous change through WIOA implementation, and the performance measures don't seem to 

fit VR work, but more shoehorned from Department of Labor and made to fit. MSG data 

collection is onerous. Participation among the workforce system is onerous without funds to 

ensure a unified data system among partners. Data compiled at the federal partner level could 

take a burden off of state programs.

The volume of data reported can be cumbersome and lead to staff burnout. Additionally 

collecting data on individuals after exiting services provides an additional level of complexity. 

Many improvements have been experienced as a result of the data workgroup and the 

development of the other measures that matter.

Provide a range of what are acceptable numbers.

As the new reporting process began in July 2020, maybe by the 2022 we may have some new 

views on this focus. For now, so far so good.

Q39. Describe how the technical assistance that Department staff provide could be 

improved to better support your program needs (consider content, structure, format, 

timing, etc.).

Lots of money is being spent on TA centers whose primary way of providing services is to 

connect with those states in the delivery of the services and ask what are you doing then they 

share that with other states. Or the time is spent in interpreting what the federal guidance really 

is supposed to mean as no one consistently interprets it the same way.

The TA provided is very beneficial and much appreciated, only improvement could be the 

timeliness of how information when requested via TA is passed on to the DSU

What RSA called technical assistance in our monitoring visit, I call scolding. They didn't answer 

our questions in almost every case, and when they did, it was so full of "legalize" that we still 

had to seek outside technical assistance to decipher it. At best, they read us the regs, which 

we can clearly do on our own. Talk to us in plain English please! Help us to improve our 

already excellent programs and services instead of talking to us like we are criminals out to 

cheat the system.
458

Keeping it timely, identifying the date (especially on TAC lists), removing out of date guidance, 

linking to TAC guidance from RSA page, etc

Receive guidance more quickly when the program has substantial changes

The RSA staff are constrained answering in a timely manner as answers must be approved 

before sending out. While I understand this regulation, it leads to a delay in receiving needed 

information. In light of these governmental restrictions I don't really know how the answers 

could be provided in any other way. For those of us who have questions, we need to be aware 

of the RSA constraints and be patient in obtaining an answer to our query.

RSA's limited staff capacity does not provide for this level of interaction.

The time to get an answer in writing due to the approval needed on RSAs end has to be 

addressed. Getting an answer months after asking due to an internal approval process is not 

very helpful.

More timely and concise feedback on TA requests.

technical assistance is not just reading the code ver batim. Technical assistance should be how 

to solve issues. That is not done.

Response times for Finance have been very slow and many times there is no response at all. 

Response times for Randolph-Sheppard has improved, but is still very long. Response from the 

program officer and data side is very timely.

I appreciate the vast improvement in customer service from our RSA team in the past two 

years, starting under the leadership of . When we ask a question, our RSA team is responsive -

kudos to . One question: how can RSA technical assistance emphasize the "innovation and 

opportunity" that are the middle names of the WIOA? How can the federal partners become 

comfortable with local interpretations that meet local needs instead of immediately saying "no, 

that's not how it is done". How can RSA assist us in finding the possibilities of what can be 

done? By being open and taking the initiative to support difference, the conversations with the 

field will be richer.

Clearly communicating best practices that have been vetted.

Right now the experience with Technical Assistance division has been great. Covid 19 put a lot 

of programs in challenge mode. Thank you for this professional group.

Make training materials available that can be used by all states instead of each state creating 

their own, e.g. power point slides, cheat sheets, flow charts, etc. This would be especially 

helpful with new requirements, e.g., performance metrics.

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that 
459

provided technical services to you.

NTACT -C

Vocational Rehabilitation Technical Assistance Center for Quality Management (VRTAC-QM) 

from San Diego State University

TA for data management, transition services

VR- QM- They are phenomenal

VRTAC-QM

VR-TAC

WINTAC

VRTAC-QM

VRTAC-QM

VRTAC-QM

WINTAC NTACT Underserved

1. Website help for the Older Blind Program. A new website was put in place. 2. Regulatory 

information for the Older Blind Program.

WINTAC, Targeted Communities, QM and QE.

Comprehensive Centers

TAC-QM, TAC-QE, NTact; George Washington University staff; U of San Diego staff; U of 

Massachusetts staff

NTACT:C

NTACT

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role?

policy development
460

Senior Manager

OIB Program Manager

State VR administrative office staff

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

RSAVOC - 2021 - Q9.10. In light of the challenges (e.g., need for policy guidance) 

that emerged this year because of the pandemic, how effective was the TA you 

received from your state contact or project office?

good

Effective given State restrictions and impacts on residents willingness to engage in 

services, or employers being able to open and fill vacancies.

Very effective

TA was limited and mostly to slow in coming out and we had already made decisions 

based upon service priorities.

State Liason shared information when requested

Not aware I received TA related to the pandemic.

Not very effective

The state liaison was great. RSA as an agency was not always timely with information.

They were helpful. Many issues that could have been more helpful were items that 

required congressional action.

It was fantastic. [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] (in particular) were very accessible, 

communicated with us frequently on the status of the agency and assisted us with 

financial questions.

Excellent.

Very helpful. So grateful for [REDACTED] and her responsiveness.

It is very difficult to find things on this website. I often have to do a google search to find 

things on the site.
461

Our project officer responded timely with helpful information.

The RSA TA team is highly responsive and gets information back to us. They have 

taken the initiative on anticipated situations where TA might be helpful, and I am 

grateful to them for that. The data report download process has been glitchy for the 

past few quarters - technical assistance around those issues has been highly 

responsive and we have been able to submit timely reports as a result. This team 

compared to a previous state team is night and day improved and engaged.

The TA was fine, but the lack of available flexibility in response to the pandemic was 

frustrating.

None requested.

Excellent.

The FAQs were helpful

RSAVOC - 2021 - Q9.11. Please provide any suggestions you have to improve the 

technical assistance you received should we be faced with future national 

emergencies.

n/a

Where is the leadership to make decisions. Need a commissioner position instead of 

revolving political appointee that has no consistency and no continuity from 

administration to administration. Example of the federal government letting the politics 

take over from actual concern of service.

Information in a timely manner with regard to regulations would be beneficial. It would 

also be beneficial to have regulations and guidance drafted in the event of future 

emergencies so that it can be rolled out right away.

Would be nice if RSA actually listened to the issues the states did and are still facing 

related to the pandemic.

We need clear, concise guidance in a hurry.

Immediately revise MOE and Match expectations to allow programs to focus on public 

service for citizens we serve and not have to worry about qualifying expenditures and 

spending money to keep funding.

Proactively anticipate and hep us program impact. Connect quickly and often with 

states individually, to stay up to date on unfolding impact. Help states collectively 
462

understand the impact to the national program (e.g. are we in this alone or is this a 

shared challenge?). Help us mobilize to work together (which the TACs did do, but 

RSA's voice and clarity is needed as well). Communicate more clearly and more often 

what you are doing to help address the challenges we have identified..

Monthly calls/teams meetings

I have been very pleased with our OIB liaison. Thank you, [REDACTED].

The flexibilities that were given were very helpful.

More specific guidance.

There was good and appreciated check in on how our programs were being impacted 

by the pandemic. Many of the supports needed to get through this crisis has been in 

congressional rather than RSA hands. There should be clearer processes on 

forgiveness of MOE during a national emergency, before the MOE findings occur, so 

state programs can navigate and plan through the crisis with one less additional 

obstacle.

There were no pandemic response dollars made available to VR programs from 

DOE\RSA as they were from ACL. Other federal programs had waivers available to 

allow dollars to be used more in response to the pandemic. DOE\RSA moves so slowly 

in its responses that agencies were left to fend for themselves and make the best 

decisions they could. K-12 schools closed and VR agencies were not able to continue 

the same level of Pre ETS services, yet no consideration has been given to that. RSA 

employees hands were tied - we do not blame them (state liaisons).

Quick response to top questions and concerns

Maintain the competency and professionalism.

Better follow up, e.g., when a state requests an example of a successful project from 

another state such as appropriate use of TPCA, establishment, job retention services, 

order of selection, etc., RSA often does not follow up in providing an example or 

pointing us to a state they feel does the particular project well.
463

School Climate Transformation Grants (LEAs) Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

i dont have a response to this at this time.

I find the SCTG site to be informative, including ease of navigation.

G5 website for reports and documentation is extremely dense and difficult to navigate. The 

visual appearance is confusing and not user friendly. It is much easier to use the ED forms and 

email to dept of ed as we do during interim reporting.

No additional feedback at this time.

I have not used the website so I'm not familiar with the resources.

I have never been on the website to be honest.

Not sure at this time

Offer more opportunities for grantees to meet to share progress, concerns, and questions.

More clarity

Program link easier to find Touch button for the grant name

Maybe just more user-friendly to find information. But overall it is pretty good

More timely posting of recorded webinar sessions please

n/a

Our Consultant, [REDACTED], is always informative and timely. I have gotten stuck on several 

occasions with various components of the grant; she always gets back to me and clarifies.

Easier navigation and updated information

For the layperson, just clear to our specific grants with one click.

I don't have any recommendations at this time.

As far as I am concerned the website is doing the job its intended to communicate. Thank you.
464

I do not have an opinion because I do not utilize this website.

I have no complaints.

I do not have any recommendations at this time.

I would like to see more resources and connection points for ISF planning -- work across 

districts, and options to connect to similar programming across the nation.

No current suggestions.

Are you asking about eh REMS website? Please be specific in the question on the survey?

The PURPOSE, PROGRAM DESCRIPTION, and TYPES of PROJECTS are easily accessible.

Not sure

The website could have a better, more user friendly interface.

don't have any specific suggestions at this time.

it's not easy to 'find" without the link!

There is a significant amount of information, but at times, making a selection does not pull up 

the information needed. Often,I must select several selections before getting the information 

needed.

Continue to seek input

Q21. Please describe how the PROGRAM OFFICE could improve the quality and 

usefulness of our documents, including policy-related documents. In your response, 

please identify the name or type of document(s) your comments address (e.g., nonregulatory guidance, newsletter, blast emails).

n/a

I have no additional feedback related to the improved quality and usefulness of documents.

At this time, I have no additional feedback to improve.

I have found the quality and usefulness of all documents to be high quality. I have not 

suggestions for improvements.
465

We often receive plain text emails that include long paragraphs with pertinent information 

located within narrative text.

I think fewer email blasts about webinars would be good. I get a lot of those and sometimes I 

overlook important emails because I assume they are just webinar announcments.

The resources aren't always relevant to what we need -- but that's OK.

Documents are helpful, but no specific areas of improvement at this time.

No response at this time.

The powerpoint slides are clear the email information is great

I like the current format and the information/documents/reference materials and easy to follow. 

Quick tips on the many ways a grantee should turn key the information and materials to sites

I think the quality and usefulness was excellent

The instructions which coincide with ed524_b could be more clear and please allow submission 

of BOTH Interim Progress Reports and Annual Progress Reports via G5

n/a

I have no improvements to recommend to documents.

n/a

The newsletters have been great source of information dissemination. Blast emails are great 

ways to communicate upcoming webinars and deadlines. It's been especially useful during 

Covid-19.

I have no complaints. Things that are shared or sent are always helpful or useful.

Nothing at this time.

NA

The quality of the current documents is user-friendly and easily comprehended. [REDACTED] 

sends beneficial emails with lots of informative webinars that help support our grant initiatives.

Not sure

Maybe simplify by using steps or bullets to make a point or needed action.
466

n/a excellent job

Continue to seek input

Q33. How could we improve the grant reporting process?

n/a

Please consider increasing significantly the number of words used when reporting GPRA 

measures

The G5 system and entry fields are not as user friendly. It is a challenge to navigate and 

uploading documents is difficult, especially the first time around. Knowing what signatures are 

required at the start of the reporting process would be helpful, rather than getting to the end and 

seeing a red alert that the user is submitting on behalf of the identified G5 authorized signer.

Some of the GPRA measures are difficult to obtain in my state for the interim report, as our 

district does not have accurate/complete data until we submit to our state department of 

education in June/July annually. This is just a timing concern, because our data isn't verified in 

the spring when the interim is due. This is not a problem for the annual report due in fall, as we 

verified/accurate data by then.

N/A

I appreciate the Department's flexibility with what is reported for interim reports as not all data 

are always available.

Share how the data is used and provide more on-demand supports/resources for reporting 

beyond the single webinar for each IPR/APR.

I think the process is fine. All of the extra questions in Section C during COVID were 

burdensome, but I am not sure that ED had any control over those or not.

We serve multiple districts -- so collecting data isn't always easy.

I'm a bit curious the collective performance of how well the 69 systems are reaching their goals.

The G5 platform was a bit difficult to maneuver at first.

G-5 is very difficult to navigate

Session on the short cuts and how tos on the forms. Information on how to add attachments 

and how to expand the fields for additional necessary information.
467

I think it is good

More clarity in how often we should log onto G5 throughout the year prior to receiving "account 

lockout" messages. Please allow for BOTH IPR and APR submission via G5! This will greatly 

help larger school districts with the interim reporting process as obtaining our A.R.'s signature 

on the cover sheet in order to submit due to our complicated internal system has been an issue 

each year thus far.

G5 is cumbersome and not user friendly. A better system for submitting reports might be 

beneficial.

n/a

It would be helpful to mirror the APR submission process with the IPR. The APR requires so 

many parts and sections to upload and complete.

More time before providing Interim Reporting Deadline (both of the last 2 years has been only 

3-4 weeks notice).

n/a

The interim and annual reports are the same report, which is helpful; however submitting via 

email for one report and via G5 for the other report is confusing. The format for the report is 

difficult to use initially.

During the Covid-19 pandemic, the Department program managers have been very 

professional and helpful assisting us with our reports. They have been very understanding and 

work diligently to make sure we understand our responsibilities and ways we can meet 

deadlines.

G5 is not an easy system to navigate. Having to upload each component of the annual report 

separately is tedious.

Allowances for the APR similar to the IPR.... for example, allow email submissions. Another 

alternative would be to eliminate or greatly expand the narrative portions regarding APR 

submissions within G5

No complaints. Each submission of the grant paperwork has been easy.

Nothing at this time.

In our most recent reporting cycle, we did not receive any information or confirmation of 

receival. We are striving to fulfill the grant expectations, and would appreciate prompt feedback 

and a more transparent process of review

NA
468

The reporting process is seamless. I cannot speak to improving the current process.

A little more assistance with the G5.

The G5 APR reporting site does not easily allow for inputting/uploading data tables to assist 

with reporting......

A report that would give details of improvements or lack of improvements. Possibly a coaching 

session to help guide.

Continue to seek input

Q39. Describe how the technical assistance that Department staff provide could be 

improved to better support your program needs (consider content, structure, format, 

timing, etc.).

n/a

I'd like to engage in more peer-to-peer collaboration - e.g., quarterly.

We don't use technical assistance other than attend webinars, which are usually a firehose of 

dense information and less take-aways to implement. Much of the PBIS learnings are from a 

theoretical perspective and less operational perspective.

We created a network within our state and states nearby to collaborate and share ideas. I don't 

believe the Department has a structure for this.

I have not received TA from the ED staff directly.

It would be great to have quarterly check-ins to support progress and collaborate.

More peer to peer contact and information sharing.

No changes needed. It is good

n/a

It ahs been very good, although during my last APR submission, I received different information 

from two different representatives that required multiple calls for me to finally proceed.

I think the timing always needs to be revisited because within the school structure meeting time 

is very tight and always on different timetables.
469

The webinars were helpful and were focused on a variety of school climate topics which was 

helpful. Many of the webinars focused on COVID, which was helpful during the 20-21 school 

year; I am hopeful that next year there will be more of a focus on schoolwide systems for 

supporting students and staff on-campus.

There is nothing better than face-to-face meetings to showcase our programs and having that 

personal touch and passion to share-out. If we could have a regional or national conference to 

showcase our programs, the impact of the ability to learn from each other will be tremendous.

This is not anyone's fault, COVID made it impossible but we really need to get back to face-toface meetings. It's not only about meeting our program officers face-to-face, but most 

importantly, it's really about the networking with other projects that is so very powerful.

Our tiered approach does not just address PBIS. I would like to connect with other individuals 

who are implementing similar programming.

COVID threw all grant winners off and we had to find new ways to implement grant-related 

items in our districts. I think being able to share or have some type of information (newsletter, 

platform, etc) on how others are working through challenges to implementing grant-related 

goals would be helpful.

Nothing at this time.

We would appreciate more opportunities to meet with peer learning groups and learn from 

other's work within the SCTG model.

I am unaware of repeated efforts to bring grantee cohorts together, but that may be a weakness 

on my part due to being busy.

[REDACTED] is very responsive when I reach out to her. In fact, I do not think she sleeps very 

much because she responds immediately for the most part. Montgomery County Schools, NC 

would be lost without her and [REDACTED]'s expertise. They are the drivers behind our 

success and they work tediously with us when we have questions.

Not sure.

N/A

Focusing on one tier or GPRA and best practices and shareouts.

Continue to seek input

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that 

provided technical services to you.
470

EDSCLS

National PBIS Technical Assistance Center out of the University of Missouri

PBIS/OSEP NTAC - California Representatives AIR - Support for EDSCLS

[REDACTED]

University of Missouri PBIS technical service

Regional Lab

Center on PBIS

Midwest PBIS

Center for PBIS

Regional Labs MTHSS Equity

Regional/Midwest PBIS Center from Missouri University.

PBIS.org

[REDACTED]

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role?

Regional Director

District Administrator

Program Supervisor/Manager

Project Lead

Asst. Supt. of Development

[REDACTED], Project Director for Montgomery and Stanly County Schools in North Carolina.

Director of Student Programs
471

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

SCTG LEA - 2021 - Q60.3e. Which form of technical assistance do you find most 

helpful in the completion of your grant?

Phone and Zoom one-on-one support.

Webinars

SCTG LEA - 2021 - Q60.4j. What specific type of technical assistance content 

would be most useful to you in the successful completion of your grant(s)?

Please select up to 3 options from the list below:

Grant reporting

Grant Reports

Successes/Challenges from Other Projects - Peer Reporting

adopting evidenced based programs
472

State Personnel Development Grants

CORE QUESTIONS

Q33. How could we improve the grant reporting process?

If we could put all APR info into a word document and then submit that would make it easier. 

Financial discussions are difficult due to lag time in draw down at both the state and federal 

level. The EBPD document is often redundant and lengthy.

I find the grant reporting cumbersome. It would be more helpful to be able to include 

charts/formatting/images in the actual qualitative data box in the reporting system instead of in 

an attachment. Expected uploads isn't always clear.

More feedback on reports from Project Officers

G5 could be more user-friendly, but it is generally manageable.

Improve or replace G5.

I am going on my third decade. The H323A reporting requirements are absolutely what every 

SEA needs. The process does challenge & nudge us-just enough so we continuously 

learn...which has increased our capacity as a state education agency. In fact, we have used 

SPDG program tenants and evaluation to transform, inform & create our own state-specific 

system of evidence-based professional development.

In G5 allow direct entry and editing of project measure information. Our process has been to 

make templates and then cut and paste into G5.

The current grant reporting system through the G5 is cumbersome and changes annually. The 

directions are unclear and come in an emailed document with forms embedded in the document 

that prove to be difficult to use and upload. One of the forms requests you to upload an 

attachment but in reality, an attachment can't be uploaded! The titles of what needs to be 

uploaded don't match what is actually on the forms and the system especially doesn't work well 

now that most people are working remotely and must convert documents to pdf and have them 

signed digitally. The report for our state missed the deadline for initial upload and submission 

because I worked until midnight and STILL COULD NOT FIGURE OUT how to upload what 

needed to be uploaded. This is the first time I have ever missed the submission deadline.

Program measure 3 is not a very helpful measure after the first two years. It could be 

eliminated. Also, the timing of the grant year does not align well to the typical school year. I am 

not sure this can be changed, but it would be amazing if it could.

Clear due date- especially if it involves time and time zone Fix formatting issues when cutting 

and pasting into G5

We have been very happy with the quality and frequency of support we have received from our 
473

SPDG Project Officer.

The platform is not user friendly. There also seems to be redundancy.

Information, such as the APR due date, was not communicated in a timely manner this year. 

While filling out the report electronically, I ran into some issues and emailed the person listed on 

the G5 site. He didn't respond until the next day.

I have not recommendations or suggestions at this time.

New grantees should be walked through the process from beginning to end, provided ongoing 

feedback and staff with knowledge of the reporting requirements should be available on the 

help line when submission is due.

In the document that describes the grant reporting process, there are some inconsistencies 

around how to complete the first page. The first section of the document expresses one way to 

fill out some of the questions, and later in the document, there are different instructions that do 

not align with the first instructions. Also, the date ranges can be confusing. In some areas of the 

instructions, they give the date range as October 1 to September 30. Other sections define 

reporting dates as March through February. If they were the same, it would be easier to know 

what to report on for each year's report (data and financial information).

The reporting form is confusing to persons who do not use or complete it but do review it prior 

to sending to OSEP.

Updated/more thorough instructions regarding the APR process. Especially for grants in their 

first budget period. Written instruction in the form of the APR Package and webinars/trainings 

via video would also be helpful.

Making the G5 system more user-friendly

The G5 platform is not easy to navigate.

Q39. Describe how the technical assistance that Department staff provide could be 

improved to better support your program needs (consider content, structure, format, 

timing, etc.).

I can't always participate in the PLCs, Communities of Practice, etc. I'd LOVE to have some 

sort of printed/emailed listing of things shared. Resources aren't always easy to find on the 

website.

The support from Signetwork is fantastic, I can't think how to improve it.

Please go back to an in-person SPDG conference as soon as feasible.
474

The most useful, timely and unique TA from the SPDG program has to be the aspects of 

implementation science and evidence-based professional development. Any content specific 

TA is typically duplicative of what is being offered from the national centers and national 

associations.

Signetwork is highly informative (recordings/slides are always available if unable to attend at 

the actual time). Our SPDG program lead provides excellent technical assistance or tells us a 

resource/s to consult.

It would be good to have a fiscal grant management training for program staff. Examples of 

allowable expenditures, questionable expenditures, etc. would be helpful.

Consistent set meetings with program officer

Not sure at this time

I think the communities of practice are fabulous for sharing ideas and learning the latest 

information about EBPs. Where I think we could use more support is targeted consultation and 

coaching around the specific needs of our project and how to enhance our work not only for 

grant requirements but for improved outcomes.

As a project director, I need information that can assist me in learning how to manage a new 

grant and navigate all of the systems I will be required to use. It's great to hear about the work 

other states are involved in, but most of it isn't relevant to the projects for my grant. The type of 

content offered in most of the meetings I've attended would be better as a community of 

practice, where people could join that were interested in the topic being presented. Most of the 

Project Director's meetings have been a waste of time for me.

I have no recommendations or suggestions at this time. All of the Department staff that our 

team has worked with are outstanding, and the technical assistance is always on target and of 

high quality.

It would be helpful to new grantees to have an orientation. We are required to attend directors 

calls, yet no data was gathered on what might be useful for us.

It would be great if there were a training for new grantees - kind of a nuts and bolts description 

of all of the pieces you need to know and be able to do: overseeing the budget, data collection 

and reporting requirements, when to start preparing for the annual report, etc... This would 

include states that are receiving a grant and grant directors that are new somewhere in the 

middle of the state's grant timeline.

Some of the meetings mix grant recipients whose grants are not well connected. Interesting but 

does not improved knowledge or skills.

More specific information

N/A
475

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that 

provided technical services to you.

SISEP

CEEEDAR

NCII, NSCI

pbis, ncii, ties,

CEEDAR, SISEP, NCSI, NCII

NCSI - [REDACTED] NCII- [REDACTED]

SWIFT Center

The State Implementation and Scaling-up of Evidence-based Practices Center (SISEP)

SISEP

NCII, CEEDAR, PBIS

Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) Technical Assistance Center The State 

Implementation and Scaling-up of Evidence-based Practices Center

NCSI

The National Center on Systemic Improvement (NCSI)

PBIS and CEEDAR

CEEDAR, SISEP, NCSI, NCII, IRIS Center, University of Oregon with SIGNetwork

We have recently begun a collaboration with CEEDAR.

I received technical assistance from NCSI, but I also used resources from CEEDAR, TAESE, 

SISEP, and NCII.

NCSI

SISEP NCSI NCII
476

Region 12 Comprehensive Center

PBIS, SISEP, NCSI

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

SPDG - 2021 - Q12.1. Which types of assistance were most effective in helping 

you improve your project’s services?

National Meeting

The professional learning opportunities.

National Meeting (when in-person) is OSEP's most effective and engaging meeting. 

We always gain strategies and networking partners that are genuinely beneficial.

Directors' webinars, communities of practice, SIGnetwork website, discussion, SPDG 

National Meeting.

SPDG National Meetings, SIGnetwork website, Director webinars

Signetwork and the Directors' webinars

SIGnetwork newsletter; SIGnetwork website; SPDG national meeting.

Director's webinars and the National Meeting. Wish there was individualized ongoing 

coaching and support offered.

Contact with the Program Officer, collaborative opportunities with other state directors, 

and reviewing model materials on the Signetwork site.

Hearing from other states.

SIGnetwork newsletter, Directors' webinars, communities of practice, just-in-time 

discussions (e.g., evaluation during COVID, changes to Program Measures), and the 

SPDG National Meeting.

Director's Webinars, SIGnetwork website, and just-in-time discussions

webinars and website

I think it's all helpful. Our team benefitted most from the Directors' webinars, 

Communities of practice, SPDG National Meeting, and SIGnetwork newsletter.
477

The SPDG National Meeting

Directors Webinars SIG Network Website Just In Time Discussions

SPDG National Meeeting; SIGNetwork; Communities of Practice, Newsletters, 

Directors' Webinars

SIG Network website Some webinars

Monthly meetings and webinars were most helpful. Also, direct assistance from my 

OSEP contact were extremely helpful.

Director's webinars, SPDG National Meeting

They help to keep us up-to-date on issues.

I would love to have more training / webinars / resources to support the APR process, 

especially for new grantees.

SIGnetwork website, Directors' webinars, just-in-time discussions

All listed above.

SPDG - 2021 - Q12.2. Which types of assistance were least helpful?

All are of high quality but because of my demanding workload am not able to participate 

fully.

I don't think the other types of assistance listed were less useful, it's just that I didn't 

access them.

Have not found anything not helpful. Newsletters are probably the least helpful.

From an SEA perspective, at times some TA events were more geared towards varying 

levels of practice (which is to be expected). So the degree to which these were most 

helpful varied.

N/A

I can't think of anything.

Monthly Director's meetings Community of Practice
478

None - there is something to be learned and gained from each opportunity.

Some webinars...we are in the initial stages of the grant and would have preferred to 

attend webinars around getting started and being successful.

The SIG Network website contains some great recordings and resources, but it can be 

difficult to navigate and find what I am looking for. The site feels a little dated compared 

to some of the TA center websites that I often connect with for resources.

n/a

N/A

SPDG - 2021 - Q12.5. In light of the challenges (e.g., need for policy guidance) 

that emerged this year because of the pandemic, how effective was the TA you 

received from your state contact or project office?

TA was same as any year.

Extremely effective. How the SPDG program is designed and operated made us well 

prepared--Without significant disruption, we were able to pivot and use our established 

feedback loops and data to inform any new context posed by pandemic.

Our project office was very helpful and supportive, providing suggestions for how to 

work within the restrictions of COVID and still ensure successful implementation of our 

SPDG project.

It was helpful, but pandemic supports is such an individualized/contextualized need. I 

would say not related to the SPDG - OSEP could have provided more examples.

Effective

Not as effective as we would have liked

We were very pleased with the TA we received from our federal project officer. She 

answered questions timely, sought out information for us, and kept us up to date on the 

ever changing landscape and challenges faced through other projects which in turn 

helped us problem solve as well.

very effective

Relatively effective

Excellent
479

The technical assistance was effective because members of our project office were 

highly sensitive and responsive to the extreme operational shifts and the emerging 

concerns for students and families that we experienced in our state.

See previous comments...

The TA I received was very helpful.

Very little effect from pandemic except some data were not available or as reliable as in 

the past.

VERY EFFECTIVE. Our project officer has been very helpful and has made herself 

available for questions any time asked.

Extremely helpful

Great.

We had three different POs in first four months of our grant year. It has been chaotic, 

but our current PO, [REDACTED], is excellent.

SPDG - 2021 - Q12.6. Please provide any suggestions you have to improve the 

technical assistance you received should we be faced with future national 

emergencies. 

none at this time

How to effectively shift "in person" work to "remote work," e.g. coaching; classroom 

observations; data collection; training of participants.

Specific examples. The monthly calls with NCSI were extremely helpful. Easy to 

request waiver to pause grant and extend supports for one year would have been 

helpful.

TA targeted towards funding, budgeting, spend down, etc. through emergencies that 

shut down schools, states, etc. would be most helpful in the future.

n/a

Improved communication of expectations

Sometimes the best opportunities emerge from circumstances beyond our control. My 

experience with OSEP and technical assistance provided this year was very good, and 

I firmly believe they genuinely wanted to provide even more assistance. However, they 
480

were also nimble enough to be sensitive to the varied needs of states, districts, and 

schools so that they did not overwhelm those of us working with SPDG projects.

See previous comments

No suggestions

Webinars and trainings. It would be great to have a resource available when I have 

questions, instead of always having to ask our project officer

N/A
481

Statewide Family Engagement Centers (SFEC) Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

No suggested changes at this time.

The website could link to the SFEC grantee's current websites, have space to highlight 

accomplishments, and other ways of providing interested parties with more information about 

the current work of the grantees.

They could advertise the website and the resources on the website more frequently.

Ability to be more directed.

Q21. Please describe how the PROGRAM OFFICE could improve the quality and 

usefulness of our documents, including policy-related documents. In your response, 

please identify the name or type of document(s) your comments address (e.g., nonregulatory guidance, newsletter, blast emails).

No suggested changes at this time.

Not sure

Q33. How could we improve the grant reporting process?

1) make sure electronic form is auto-filled with past responses 2) Offer more room (i.e. fields) to 

explain responses.

To not use Survey Monkey for the interim or annual reports.

USDOE my project Officer was excellent in providing assistance and was responsive to my 

questions.

Q39. Describe how the technical assistance that Department staff provide could be 

improved to better support your program needs (consider content, structure, format, 

timing, etc.).

No suggestions at this time.
482

Our federal grant officer is a great help to us. Very responsive and supportive. She is available 

to us and works with us to solve questions. She also directs resources to us such as meetings 

and training that aligns to our work.

Would like to meet Directors in person, know full well the COVID factors this past year but in the 

future meeting to network and share should continue.

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that 

provided technical services to you.

Equity Assistance Center

Equity Assistance Center and Manhatten Strategy

Manhattan Strategy Group
483

Strengthening Institutions Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

It would be nice if they had a system like Thompson grants with specific Q&A, etc.

?

During the pandemic, guidance was often not specific to Title III and therefore unclear.

It's busy and wordy. Maybe more graphics would help so that it wouldn't feel so overwhelming. I 

also couldn't find a place to sign up for updates or announcements of grant funding.

Include dates and the option to sort grant award documents by chronological order

I didn't have any problems.

The previous question asked me about the OESE.ED.gov website, not post-secondary. 

However, I did not know there was an Office of Postsecondary Education website and I've been 

a grant director of 5 years. So, communication that there is a website should be a focus.

Have the ability to use Keywords to find things or be able to look through categories.

The website has been sufficient for me to use. However, I would not rate it a 10 in any regards. 

My views may also be influenced by the lack of communication or training about use of the 

website. I understand that COVID forced the cancellation of the training/conference in DC in 

April 2020, but there was no communication or discussion about hosting a virtual alternative. 

Without training, I cannot guarantee I am even utilizing all aspects of the website.

I have no additional feedback to provide at this time.

It is extremely word/text heavy. Overwhelmingly so. Not user welcoming or friendly -- feels 

very rigid.

The website is like most government websites. I suppose there is a protocol to keep it as vanilla 

as possible and provide lots of information and links. Those of us who are visual tend to be a 

little challenged by a lot of white space and small fonts on the page. However, once I 

acclimated to it I easily navigated the site.

The information is rarely up to date and therefore of limited use when trying to pursue a 

program or RFP.

I've never accessed the website.
484

I do not use the OSE ED website - my primary use is for postsecondary resources.

It would be useful to have one page with deadlines and relevant forms that one can easily scan 

or search.

It's okay, but doesn't provide a lot of guidance for current awardees. Some pages - such as the 

one for Past Performance - provide only outdated information. The most recent report shown is 

from 2004-2005.

My searches for the SIP or Title III rarely bring up resources that answer our questions. But this 

is year one in our grant so there may be room for us to grow in our utilization of the site 

resources.

The website is pretty useful already. More regular updates would be great, as would a more 

comprehensive and specific guide on regs applicable to each grant. Perhaps offer a chat 

function or a way to ask quick questions that may be specific to one institution or grant but 

wouldn't need to go into FAQs.

I didn't know about this website.

Don't have any suggestions.

Make it less confusing with a simpler design. Maintain current information and archive old 

information with link to archived content.

The website could be more user friendly by having more descriptive menu titles. I am unable to 

quickly locate information at times.

no suggestions

Reduce the amount of text per page. Consider drop downs or content expansion options.

It just a bunch of info, but can be hard to figure out what is relevant to me and my program. So I 

don't really ever use it because I can't figure out what I actually need to know or not. I just rely 

on my program officer.

It would help if they would put all recent updates in one location so that they are easily 

accessible.

They could provide more descriptive links. We were new to the grant and it was hard to figure 

some items out.

Use more accessible language and have clear answers regarding requirements to fulfill grant 

obligations.

no suggestions
485

I would love to see more consistency with website information and workshop information.

I have not used the DOE OPSE website.

I came in almost a year after the grant began. I did not know about the oese site until now. The 

biggest challenge I had this year was completing the annual report. Questions did not always 

align with the questions from the grant that was awarded. Different timelines were provided and 

inaccurate.

Provide more real life scenarios and project examples

Provide more training modules on various aspects of managing the budget and the process for 

modification requests.

Please keep it more up to date. It's also impossible to search for EDGARs in a meaningful way.

I have no feedback for this question

Need to hire a professional website group and conduct several focus groups with actual users, 

prioritize actual FAQ's, etc.

more pertinent search results

I find the website to be clear, uncluttered and easy to navigate.

No real suggestions.

On the G5 account I was using, there was a section that referenced an interim report but there 

was no link. I did hear from [REDACTED], our contact who provided the HEP IS link to 

complete that report so it all worked out, but I was confused about where the information was.

I don't really use it that often. When I do need relevant info, I look at the site first and then ask 

our grants office to confirm it.

If there could more more examples or information needed egarding the IPR and APR.

Search functions need improvement. Also, there are times when regulation updates are not 

clear if there are for all DOE grants or just specific ones (TRIO versus SIP, for example).

I used the OPE website initially to locate information about the Title III grant programs. I had a 

narrow focus for my search and was able to locate the relevant information. No complaints 

here.

No improvements to the website necessary.
486

1. Clearer hotlinked table of Contents 2. Clearer hotlinked FAQ 3. Clearer Glossary of terms 4. 

More use of info-rich inline headers

I have no specific recommendations. Thank you.

Q33. How could we improve the grant reporting process?

It will be helpful to receive feedback on submitted APRs to ensure that future submissions 

include information that is useful for the DOE.

It's challenging to develop a meaningful report form across SIP grants because individual 

programs are so different from one another and designed to meet the specific needs of the 

institution. Please note, the room to design the projwect to the institution is an important and 

attractive feature - it just makes it difficult to complete a universal annual report. By contrast, 

my experience in reporting for a TRIO SSS grant was much more straightforward - but these 

projects are much more prescribed & uniform.

I wish we knew the deadline several months in advance. I block off my entire spring just in 

case the date gets pushed back. I would be very interested in attending in-person training if 

offered. Curious as to how the data is used. This past year's report was much more 

straightforward than the previous year, so really appreciated that.

In addition to quantitative data reporting, it would be nice to report qualitative data also.

This year's report was markedly better than previous years! I previously struggled with 

requirements that I had to report data that was irrelevant to my grant project, but it was better 

this year. It is a little frustrating when the report requirements change without notice, so I've 

been collecting data under the assumption that it will be the same as last year, and then it turns 

out that something else is wanted.

It's not always clear what data is required and from which years.

have not been through an annual report yet...first year of our grant

I have been challenged to get any questions answered and responses to email. More 

responsive support would be appreciated.

We have not yet completed our first APR with this grant, so we do not have any 

recommendations at this point.

having a shorter reporting process. I understand you want to know how the money was spent, 

but it's very time consuming sorting it out into Dept of Ed priority categories and grant objective 

categories.

Remain consistent with reporting requirements such as reporting document structure and 
487

information requested.

Reporting was nothing unusual.

There are certain sections that do not open until other sections are completed. It would be 

helpful to be able to print out the full report so that I know exactly what data I need to collect. 

Often, I have been left scrambling to get data from campus partners. Sometimes the data does 

not seem to directly correlate to our grant objectives.

The reporting templates need work. The Section 4: LAA's, this section is very confusing and 

should be revised. Section 5: Institutionalization-this should only be required for grantees to 

complete in year 4. This section was also very confusing.

More explanation of what ED is expecting in response to narrative reporting responses (e.g., 

examples of topics that might be appropriate to include in the response, samples of appropriate 

responses, etc.).

There was no communication about the APR other than when it was due with an extended 

deadline. The Program Officer, who was new during this reporting period, did not reach out at 

all to offer assistance. I have heard nothing about the status of the review, whether it was 

approved, and certainly not how it will be used.

I have no additional feedback at this time.

Please allow us to input percentages that include at least one decimal place instead of requiring 

raw numbers. The online form is a little cumbersome, particularly Section 3B where we enter 

our performance measures. The need to expand and collapse each measure individually is 

awkward.

I had trouble understanding the endowment portion of our grant - it was not located in the 

HEPIS EFRS system and our Financial office had to contact the help desk and I had to contact 

our Program Officer. The reporting deadlines on the HEPIS page are confusing also - they 

show the deadline as passed, yet the report is still able to be opened. Last, I wish my 

dashboard kept a running list of all the reports I submitted. Right now, the Interim does not 

show on my dashboard, which was submitted last year.

This year is an anomaly, so it's difficult to provide generalizable feedback. ED staff seem 

overwhelmed by the addition of CARES Act funding responsibilities to their regular workload--

there aren't enough hours in the day for program officers to respond to questions. We were 

grateful that the deadline for the APR was extended, but only found this out when we saw the 

crossed out date with the new date on the HEPIS site.

It would be helpful to open up the reporting process earlier than it has opened in the past two 

years. The lengthy gap between the completion of a fiscal year and that year's report makes it 

difficult to remember what occurred during the reporting year vs. the time that elapsed after the 

fiscal year end.
488

We have only submitted the mid year report at this time so I am basing these responses on that 

experience. Obtaining the data is an institutional concern based on the areas we are trying to 

improve.

I realize this was unique to the pandemic, but it was hard to learn when last year's reports were 

going to be made available and due (once the decision to extend deadlines happened). I was

told to watch my email, but a more clear and consistent message about the report window and 

deadline would have been helpful.

Again after repairing a APR for a few years now, I like the latest change to the report for 

collecting the data. However, you ask about my understanding of how the Department uses 

your data and basically I have no idea what happens here.

A word document, rather than a PDF, would have helpful as we need to prepare and then 

copy/paste. A couple of years ago there was more help available about specific questions and 

this year the support wasn't as in depth and there wasn't a 'hot line'.

Form seems to change every year. Hard to anticipate the layout and requirements. Feels like 

having to write a Master's Thesis every year. Maybe do away with the extensive narration and 

get more to the specifics.

We had difficulty accessing the report template, but we had no response to several requests for 

help to both our program officer and the HelpDesk.

Provide an example of an exemplar APR.

The reporting process is very solid. However, an improvement I would like to see is that are 

provided a few more characters for reporting when submitting our APR. I found myself 

struggling to include all of the vital information required to fully explain how we have met grant 

objectives.

We have never received any specific feedback after submitting our annual reports. It would be 

helpful to have feedback - constructive and encouraging. A lot of work goes into these reports 

and it's not clear what happens with them once they've been submitted.

There isn't always enough information about what exactly it is looking for. For example, it asks 

about enrollment-is that just undergraduate since that is what our grant is for, or is it overall. 

Sometimes the ratio/percentage isn't the best thing either for reporting of data.

It would help to streamline the information requested and eliminate redundancy. Also, having 

training/resources, particularly for first year grantees would be very useful. Also, if the grant 

reporting was going to change, it would be helpful to get advanced notice on what items were 

changing and the rationale behind the change.

In fairness, the person who applied for the grant left midway through our grant process. As a 

new stakeholder we had a difficult time getting questions answered. We would think it more 

helpful if a meeting could be held with new people to reduce confusion.
489

Have the form accessible year-round so that reporting requirements are clearer. Have very 

clear definitions of exactly what should be reported (many questions are vague and open to 

interpretation). Have a better way to get questions answered as the program officer seemed to 

often not know what was being asked. Disclosed what the report will be used for and if there will 

be any response to the college after submission.

no suggestions

I think that you are doing a great job

I've always wished I was able to see the entire report before beginning it so I'd know exactly 

what numbers and narrative pieces I would need before going into it. I don't like that there are 

parts that only open after you've completed other sections.

More updates on status of report. I submitted it months ago and received a confirmation, but I 

haven't heard anything since then.

More clarification on if items need to be reported even if not in a year of measurement. 

Example. only measuring in year 2-5 should I report on it in year1?

I have only done the IPR for our first half-year in the program, so I can't speak to the APR. The 

IPR was not difficult. The online interface was easy to navigate. Adding accounts for 

collaborators and approver was a little difficult because they did not get notified when their 

account was ready. We have not yet heard if our IPR was approved.

N/A

Provide more ongoing training throughout the year on how best to prepare for the APR.

Please let us know how you're using our reports. I want to commend you all--the report for Title 

III SIP this year was really relevant and great!

I have only submitted an interim report thus far.

Give clear and detailed instructions for those who are completing the report for the first time. 

An example of a good report would be very useful.

The changes to the APR this year (2020-21) were much needed. The budget section is still very 

hard to work with. Also, the data components are kind of hard to input and can be confusing.

provide examples

In addition to the required elements, it would be helpful to expand the self-created 

questions/response opportunities in order to share the unique and noteworthy initiatives that 

may not fit into the standard categories.
490

No real suggestions.

Seems like the APR system is down a lot...delays reporting.

Have the report guidance available much sooner for planning purposes.

I replied N/A as we have not yet submitted an Annual Report, only the interim for our first year.

I don't know if feedback is ever provided on the annual or interim reports. I've only submitted an 

interim report. There's no feedback or information provided about whether that's given.

The character limits are too low on many questions and too much on others. It deleting 

characters from the end is not helpful (prefer it just stop inserting the new text). The changes 

every year make it difficult to plan.

As stated earlier, it would be helpful to have more concrete examples and information regarding 

the IPR and APR. Also, consistency in the report from one year to the next would be helpful. I 

have submitted 5 reports to date, and each is different. I do appreciate the budget table being 

consistent...this has been critical and most appreciated

Technical assistance was very limited. The PDFs did not match up with HEP IS system. Little to 

no explanation of technical terms, definitions, or purpose of the questions. Several questions 

were repetitive with no clear explanation of the difference between the questions.

We have not yet completed an annual report. However, we did complete a 6-month interim 

report. This was a good opportunity to review our performance measures and align them with 

the IPR format, as well as begin to understand how the department uses data. The online 

template provided plenty of opportunities for frustration in how information was to be entered as 

attempting to edit several sections at one time led to all data entered to be erased. We are 

unsure if this will be the format for the APR at the end of our first grant year.

I've been a project director for three years and have never received any training or professional 

development on our annual reporting. I have done the best I could with guides provided. Even 

the conference can be done virtually connecting with other Project Directors and learning best 

practices would be very helpful to our project.

There was very very little guidance on how to complete the forms on HEPIS. THere was only 

one virtual workshop. It was attended by over 80 people and it was impossible to get questions 

answered.There needs to be better flexibility in reporting units for goals - it was difficult to report 

percentages.

The interim report and the annual reprt formats did not match--this made the APR a very 

challenging experience. Please decode all the government jargon so that lay people can 

understad what you are requesting. Sample responses to questions might also be useful in 

providing context for new PDs. More helpful, responsive, knowledgeable stff would also be 

appreciated.
491

Some of the data required for the APR (e.g. dollars spent by LAA categories) is only developed 

for the purpose of the report and not otherwise useful to the project. However, we understand 

that this reporting enables the Department to aggregate outcomes from many disparate 

programs and are happy to assist.

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role?

Grant Program Manager

Full time College Senior Admin with Program Director Responsibilities

Assistant Project Manager

Primary Investigator

University administrator

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

SIP - 2021 - Q14.2. Please tell us how the technical assistance you received from 

your program specialist this past year was affected by the pandemic, as well as 

any suggestions you have to improve the technical assistance you received 

should we be faced with future national emergencies.

I had a program officer who was non-responsive. I reached out to others in the org and 

also received no response other than a referral back to the non-responsive officer. I 

received a new officer who resolved my issue after 6 months repeat emails/inquiries 

from me. I reached out to the Tech Help desk, and while it was not an issue they could 

resolve, seeing their closed ticket which validated what I needed from the Program 

Officer seemed to prompt the required action.

It was good

[REDACTED] was outstanding in every way, guiding us through a year of uncertainty.

Technical assistance due to the pandemic was not needed.

We were able to connect with our program specialist multiple times by video and phone 

conferencing. We would welcome an in-person visit in the future, but during the 

pandemic we were still able to get our project started and receive valuable advice from 

the program specialist.
492

I received approval of budget carryover. These interactions were relatively timely, within 

a month or 2. Other questions I had about my grant specifically and its objectives were 

not answered at all by 2 program officers. I appreciate the hands off approach in 

general, but when a specific question is asked, an answer of any kind would be 

appreciated. I probably wouldn't have had the question had there been some sort of 

grant orientation when the grant was received. I worked in TRIO before and the 

orientation for that is excellent. I would use that model for SIP or Title III.

This was not a problem

Verifying acceptable expenses.

Was not affected.

Our program specialist changed during the pandemic. I tried to get ahold of our new 

officer, but he was not in the office and did not have a number to call. Left several 

messages. When I finally talked to my new program officer, he was not up-to-date on 

our project or the Title III SIP grant questions I had. I was able to get a revised budget 

to him and got it approved in time for the project to continue.

My project officer [REDACTED] was very helpful and provided assistance to our 

program. She held meetings with grantee's individually and made sure that we received 

the help we needed. She responded immediately to questions and provided guidance. 

[REDACTED], recently took over and she has been very helpful as well. The technical 

assistance provided by these two staff has been awesome. I'm new to DOE and am 

grateful for having been assigned these two project officers.

My Program Officer provided no assistance during the pandemic. I never heard from 

him asking if the pandemic was affecting progress on our project. I might have 

requested guidance in allocating resources, shifting priorities within the grant, etc., but 

the Program Officer never introduced him to me even in an email. There was no sense 

that he welcomed communication, if he had never initiated any.

I did not notice that the assistance we received was impacted by the pandemic.

The only guidance relative to our SIP project was departmental and provided sufficient 

information to continue our Title III work. Our program officer forwarded relevant 

announcements and policy related information but was not involved in any other way.

The technical assistance provided was great. Program officers were responsive and 

helpful.

I think it was a confusing time for all of us. The questions our institution had were not 

really resolved, so we took a different approach. I don't blame that on my program 

officer, as I don't think the DOE had all the answers at that time either. I felt we were all 

scrambling. We wanted to divert some of our funds toward institutional needs out of the 

scope of the grant (because of COVID). I never got a yes or no answer, and so we took 
493

that as a no. This was right before CARES funding became available, so again I think 

we were all scrambling. In summary, I am still pleased with my program officer and his 

responsiveness to our needs.

Our program officer left mid-year. I received a notification from the new program officer 

but haven't had any direct responses or communication with the new PO. It would be 

terrific if SIP would host the technical assistance meeting that was originally planned for 

April 2020. We were looking forward to learning from other grantees and SIP staff 

during this event. Thank you for continuing to provide funding to higher education

institutions during this critical time.

My program officer was always extremely prompt in responding to any questions I had. 

During the pandemic, I have not asked many questions, but I did notice that responses 

were slower to arrive. For the most part, our project continued on the same trajectory 

that it had pre-pandemic so I did not have out-of-the-ordinary needs.

We had minimal needs in this area this year but the service provided was effective and 

the response was immediate.

It was sometimes really hard to reach the program specialist we were assigned, with 

phone calls especially going unanswered or taking a really long time for a response. 

Email seemed to be a better means of communication, but those also seemed to have 

a more delayed response than usual. More accessibility would have been appreciated, 

though I realize how incredibly busy our program specialist was.

The overall support especially during the pandemic was exceptional. Regardless of the 

situation the country was going through service with your department was not 

interrupted when needed.

Switched program specialist in the middle of the pandemic.

I get general announcements from our program officer but have never had a response 

to a specific question I've posed to them.

I recommend adoption of a web conference platform like Zoom to make it easier to 

share screens and discuss issues in a near face-to-face environment

Over the past year, there have been understandable gaps in communication with my 

program specialist as we all had to transition to working in a different modality. My 

program specialist has certainly done the best she can to remain in contact with her 

grantees.

Our new program officer [REDACTED] has been fantastic. He responded within 24 

hours to my request! Thank you for assigning our project to him. My scores are for the 

previous program officer. For [REDACTED], I would assign all 9s and 10s.
494

I really didn't need any support in this area. My program officer did communicate 

various updates, but in general, it didn't affect my program, and we didn't need any 

additional support.

I believe their should be more contact/outreach from grant staff about how the 

emergency affects the requirements of the grant and what modifications are going to be 

made during the time of the emergency situation.

As stated previously, the person who applied for the grant took on another role. As the 

new people administering the grant, it would be helpful to have an actual conversation 

with people in your office. We did not receive answers to some of our emails. This can 

be very frustrating.

It was difficult to understand how we were or were not expected to fulfill grant 

requirements given the closures and changes associated with the pandemic. I did not 

feel like we received clear guidance on this.

Pandemic caused delays everywhere. SIP program and Project Officer very helpful in 

helping us keep on track and moving forward despite disrupted timeline.

I received very prompt technical assistance.

We actually had a change in program officers from [REDACTED] to[REDACTED]. 

When emailing questions to [REDACTED], I almost never received timely responses, 

but [REDACTED] has been very prompt in responding to queries and very flexible in 

understanding how our budget needs changed with Covid.

I do not think I received any response to an email from 9/2020 to now.

We just started our SIP grant in October 2020, so we were well into the pandemic and 

don't have any pre-pandemic services to which we can compare what we received. We 

are satisfied with the information we received.

Program officer was responsive to our email requesting change in budget and activities 

due to the pandemic. This was key in our ability to implement remote learning and 

support our student persistency goals.

Very minimally. He was around and available when I needed help.

It was unclear how to submit program adjustments that necessary to "re-group" quickly. 

My Program Officer was instrumental in helping me to understand the process and get 

back on track.

Prior and during the pandemic, the lack of responsiveness from the Program Officer 

has been a problem. Getting responses would be a tremendous suport.

Nothing to report.
495

Most of the time we don't receive acknowledgement of our requests, much less any 

help. The time or two we received a response, the answer was vague or incomplete, 

and follow up was non-existent. We even emailed our officer's supervisor one time to 

ask if there was a change in supervisors. The supervisor assured us there was no 

change and that our officer would respond shortly. They did not. I could go on, but I 

won't. The point is that SIP colleges are un-tethered and unsupported right now. Please 

keep this in mind when matters of compliance or program reviews are raised with 

grantees.

working from home was a challenge, but we got through it

Our Program Officer, [REDACTED], is an invaluable resource to our project. He is 

knowledgeable, very responsive and is a tremendous resource for our college.

No real suggestions.

The assistance from our point of contact was not affected by the pandemic. We 

communicated by email, phone and zoom. We are in our first year of the SIP grant 

(October 2020 - present) and had several questions about our internal controls and 

being in compliance. All communication was handled promptly and professionally, and 

patiently while we got things in order on our side. The initial award letter with the 

PowerPoint was very helpful, the FAQs were helpful as well, but my gratitude goes to 

[REDACTED], Management & Program Analyst OPS/SIP.

I have worked with our Program Officer, [REDACTED] for five years now, and she is 

extremely responsive and professional. Whatever questions I have asked to her, she 

responds in a timely and professional manner. She is someone I can rely on

I understand that the pandemic affected the workload of the program specialists in 

administering a series of new grants. I had one successful communication exchange 

in response to a specific question about an upcoming webinar. However, my 

questions about our particular grant and have gone unanswered. I reached out via 

email or phone on six different occasions requesting responses to questions and have 

yet to receive a response. At this point my strategy is to send information about my 

questions and the choices ahead as due diligence but to proceed as needed to 

implement the grant.

We were awarded the grant in October, 2020. I tried for 2 months to contact the 

program officer and finally was able to do so in December. However the program officer 

was changing positions and couldn't help me with more than just answering general 

questions. It was Feb before I was able to contact and get some questions answered 

by the new program officer, but it took multiple phone conversations to be able to get 

clarity on some issues. All I was given in way of support was a powerpoint presentation 

that wasn't really helpful in managing the grant in context. There was a virtual training 

about the 6 months report in April but the attendance was over 100 and there was 

again no way to get questions answered clearly. The only way that I knew that there 

was a 6 mos report due in the first place was by emailing the program officer. I realize 

the pandemic caused a disruption in services and that receiving the grant off cycle was 
496

probably part of the issue as well but I have tried to manage and document the 

implementation of the grant with literally no training. Thank goodness that the current 

program office [REDACTED] is now realitively easy to reach and generally responds 

promptly. This may not be an issue for other grantees but this is the first federal grant in 

sometime for our institution and my first time managing this type of grant. We just want 

to do it correctly. Training of any sort at the start would have saved of hours of time.

There were times when noone returned my emails or calls.

The SIP Directors Conference, scheduled for April 2020, had to be postponed due to 

COVID-19. Perhaps a virtual conference can be scheduled at some point? I understand 

that the department is currently very busy administering CARES Act and other 

emergency funding.

SIP - 2021 - Q14.5. What can the Strengthening Institutions Program do to 

improve communication with you?

Respond to email inquiries.

Workshops online or in-person conference.

Communication at a regular interval (such as a monthly or quarterly newsletter).

Establish an orientation program for new programs and explain expectations for the 

five-year grant cycle.

Communication are sometime vague or not applicable. It would be great if there were 

an education program for awardees to be successful. The requirement can be a bit 

convoluted and I personally have not had great responses, if I receive a response, to 

my questions

I appreciate the notices for when things are due, but when the APR is anticipated to be 

due in December but pushed back (much appreciated due to covid), it would be nice to 

know BEFORE December. That communication in particular was late. I think we found 

out in January. I was on pins and needles that I missed a communication or worse was 

late in reporting. A heads up as to what the Department is thinking would be nice. Sort 

of like a "save the date" for a wedding.

Remain as is.

More periodic reminder emails and awareness emails.
497

I didn't know most of the resources until this survey, such as a list serve. This was 

never communicated to me. I have been the project director for the life of this grant, 

which ends Sept. 30, 2021.

It would be helpful to know when the APR is coming and what is expected of our endof-grant APR. It would also be helpful to have a Title III SIP conference, since I have 

been a grant director for almost 3 years and have not attended one. If an in-person is 

not feasible, and online one would be greatly appreciated.

I was hired in February of 2020 as the Grant Program Manager for a Title III Grant. I've 

been very fortunate to have had two Project Officers,[REDACTED] and now 

[REDACTED]. These two project officers have been very helpful and responsive in 

communicating with me regarding with our grant. Please know that even questions that 

may be redundant to them, they were very helpful at all times. Maintain communication 

with the grantees is important, email and zoom, google, etc. works well for our program.

My assumption is that you mean the Title III SIP grant itself and not the additional 

CARES funding tied to the SIP grant. If that is correct, then I must reiterate the lack of 

communication. When a new Program Officer assumes the role, I would have 

expected a phone call to discuss the project or ask when I needed, or some 

introduction. I received an email from .gov telling me to look on the portal for a letter 

which informed me of the change. I never received a personal email from the Program 

Officer at all. Any communication was probably a blanket email to all Project Directors. 

I realize these comments appear harsh, but they are truthful.

We are very satisfied with the communications we receive from the program.

We have received adequate information to continue our work successfully.

I wish there were a list-serv, social media group, private virtual community or something 

similar where grantees could easily communicate with each other. The program officer 

is great, but we feel somewhat isolated from other SIP institutions.

I did not know there is a ListServ and would appreciate learning about that and joining. 

I really do not receive much communication from my officer, but I take that as there is 

nothing to communicate with me. But as a new program director, I am green. I realize 

COVID caused disruption and of course cancelled the program directors' meetings, but 

I would have benefited greatly if the resources would have been sent online or posted 

to a web page, or a Zoom conference could have been held. In addition, what are the 

DOE's plans going forward - will there be a program directors' conference next year?

Double check accuracy of communication--it seems that we do get a fair number of 

secondary emails with corrections or attachments that were originally missing.

I often feel like I am working in a vacuum. Opportunities to network with project 

directors from other institutions would probably provide valuable insight that would 

make our project even more robust. I have not had any negative experiences with the 

Department of Education or with my program director, but would benefit from an annual 
498

conference or something of that nature put on by program directors where awardees 

could share ideas and methods they are using to accomplish their goals.

The limited interactions have been very concise. There is no call for improvement - our 

questions are always answered in the responses. I am unaware if there is additional 

communication that should be coming in or out other than the reports.

More regular and timely communication would be welcome. Maybe add in some Zoom 

meetings with groups of grantees if it's impossible to communicate 1:1 with everyone 

regularly. I craved more guidance and communication, and I also would have 

welcomed more collaboration and networking with peers.

This reflects to the prior section regarding training (webinars, Director meetings, 

conference workshops}.. Unfortunately the only conference scheduled was cancelled 

due to Covid-19, but webinars providing program information would have been nice 

throughout the years.

Proactive communication would be helpful. I only hear when I send in a budget 

modification.

N/A

I have not received any responses from my program officer.

Offer virtual open office hours via webconference

Communication is infrequent and often initiated by us. I would appreciate more 

proactive outreach and check-ins.

As I fill out this survey, I just realize that I don't use many of the resources so I don't 

know if I should be having more communication. Sometimes my program manager 

doesn't get back too timely, but she also is okay with an email reminder. I think losing 

the project director's meeting last year was tough, since we didn't get one in year 1 of 

our grant and now we are in year 3, and maybe will finally be able to attend one in year 

4. So, maybe just more info on what I should know?

I think periodic email communications on the most relevant grant program issues and/or 

changes would be helpful.

Quarterly meetings would be very helpful.

A regular newsletter would be awesome and helpful. Clear messaging regarding the 

reporting requirements and what they will be used for. A way to get specific answers 

regarding reporting questions such as what data to report.

no suggestions
499

Communication is fine.

Clarify timeframes for submitting budget revision requests and the expected turnaround 

time for approval/disapproval.

Communication was clear and timely.

Provide more ongoing updates and resources for best practices.

Send out more regular communication, especially in regards to training.

Host a Project Directors' Conference, even if it is virtual, to foster networking 

opportunities and disseminate best practices among grantees.

The Program Officer is largely unresponsive. We've also asked technical questions 

about gaining login access to the APR in the wake of personnel changes but haven't 

had resolution or response.

I don't feel that I can ask questions. The last time I asked a question about the SIP, it 

took over a month to get a response and the response was worded in a way that made 

me feel like it was a stupid question to ask. I thought I would have more support from 

the Department of Education in managing this multi-million dollar grant but instead I feel 

I am trying to find my way on my own.

Nothing at this point in time.

Hire new program officers who are able to focus on their work and are accountable to 

the SIP program. Evaluate current and new officers on the quality and accuracy of their 

support to SIP grantees.

maybe a newsletter...

While the Project Director's meeting 2020 was cancelled due to COVID, that was a 

great way to resurrect the opportunity for PDs across the country to share projects, 

efforts and strategies and to connect with SIP staff. I am hopeful that the national 

meeting will be resurrected for 2022

No real suggestions.

More frequent communication events and strategies.

I marked a few items less than "excellent" because we were notified of the award two 

days before the start of the grant year. This was probably unavoidable as our initial 

proposal was not funded in 2019, but because we scored high, we were told that if 

there were funds available at the end of the award cycle, we may be awarded. We, of 
500

course were ecstatic to get the letter on 09/28/2020 that our award was funded as of 

10/01/2020.

Regular email reminders about upcoming deadlines and milestones. At least two 

month notice on the APR and IPRs.

The notification of the grant award based on when the grant is to begin is very 

frustrating. It is impossible to start the grant on time with such a short window of notice.

We often receive responses to our questions that do not answer the question at all or 

that only answer one of several questions posed. There is little coaching provided for 

completing the Annual Performance Report.

Respond to my email requests.

I would appreciate having the opportunity for training even now 9 m os into the first year 

of the grant to make sure that we are implementing everything and documenting 

everything that we need to.

1. Ensure that the proper response is NOT "I don't know" but rather let me find out for 

you.

No recommendations.

SIP - 2021 - Q14.6e. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with 

your program specialist?

zoom meetings for both group and individual

Mixture of individual and distribution emails and webinars

Individual email and call from time to time depending on the nature of info seeking.

SIP - 2021 - Q14.7. How would you advise on improving the overall process and 

protocols associated with this grant competition?

More frequent e-mail communication

Adjust the schedule so that awardees are notified of receiving a grant (or not) at least 

30 days in advance of the grant beginning.
501

More communication and earlier notice for awardees. Notification of the grant award 

came about five days, including a weekend, before the award started. This made it 

quite challenging to ramp up, and I still feel like I am catching up. Even a 30 day notice 

would have made a huge difference.

The opportunity to submit an abstract or portion of a narrative for staff review early in 

the application process would be a great benefit for applicants.

I came on board after this stage so I have no specific recommendations.

Give more time for completion.

Periodic and recurring awareness emails.

Streamline them as best you can.

It would just be nice to have someone to be able to call and talk to without having to 

leave several messages first. I understand that people are busy, but I don't call unless 

it is a time-sensitive question.

I am new to the grant and was not part of the grant process when submitting this 

application. Unable to suggest comments at this time.

More clarity around definitions and expectations related to completing annual report--

similar to information provided in the application instructions.

I have no advice as to the grant competition itself.

We have no additional feedback at this time.

We were notified late on Friday, September 25th, 2020, 5 days before the start of our 

first fiscal year. Decisions and announcements need to be made MUCH earlier in order 

for schools to truly be able to get up and running with staffing in a timely fashion, 

particularly in the first year.

The regulations and format of the Title application have not changed much over the 

past decade. A reconsideration of the program and its priorities could be very 

beneficial.

No suggestions

The waiver process for eligibility to apply coincides so closely with the SIP due date 

that it almost prevented our institution from even applying. We went ahead and started 

prep on our SIP grant, not knowing if our waiver would be approved. It was nerve 

racking.
502

Ensure that staff have the resources and bandwidth to provide the support grantees 

need.

It has been several years since I wrote our funded proposal, so I do not know if things 

are the same at this time. I would have appreciated the following: 1) The anticipated 

questions being published long before the competition opened. Writing these grants is 

very intense, and having to be at-the-ready for many months and unable to plan and 

prioritize other things not knowing when the competition will open is frustrating. If the 

Dept of Ed. is unable to set a date ahead of time, providing questions to which 

responses will be required prior to the competition would eliminate chaos. 2) When I 

wrote our proposal, the application packet seemed like it had been amended several 

times over the years and that the document did not have a consistent voice. Formatting 

expectations were not provided in a single page / section, but rather were sprinkled 

throughout the document, and some seemed to contradict each other. Given that 

formatting errors resulted in instant disqualification, bringing those instructions (e.g. font 

size, double spacing, use of infographics and tables, etc.) together on a single page for 

easy reference would be an improvement.

I have no recommendations for this area at this time.

I don't have many recommendations here except earlier notification of competitions 

would be helpful (in years when it's uncertain if there will be a competition, that is).

I like the changes made so far, so not sure at this time.

N/A

no additional advice

The grant processes and protocols are reasonable.

I am not sure, I didn't go through the competition process, it occurred before I started.

I think it would be helpful to be notified of the outcome of the grant review and funding 

earlier so there is time to prepare prior to the grant implementation date.

No comments

no suggestions

Too new to advise....

N/A

N/A
503

Can't think of anything specific.

There should be no additional grant competitions until the current grants are properly 

supported.

utilize [REDACTED] (2018) model of "Becoming Hispanic-Serving Institutions."

0

No real suggestions.

We worked with our grant writer and administration to put together our proposal and 

found the instructions to be clear. We appreciated the initial response with the scoring 

of the sections and descriptions of the strengths and weaknesses of our proposal to be 

very helpful and are addressing those areas in the first year.

I think the process is well planned, other than the late notification of the award

I'm not sure what you mean by competition. Instead I will say that grant directors NEED 

a conference to learn from the DOE, our Program Officer and to network with each 

other. I have given this feedback several times. The one in April 2020 was cancelled 

due to the pandemic, but I was very disappointed to see that no virtual conference was 

planned in its place. We feel pretty alone.

The timing of grant notification and funding is challenging, given that we had two days 

lead time between receipt of the GAN and the grant start date. So a longer time 

between award and grant start would be helpful. It seems that the program officers 

must be absolutely overwhelmed to have provided such consistent patterns of nonresponding. I am grateful that we have outside grant consultants to guide our 

implementation and reporting, as I cannot rely on the program officers to provide 

guidance.

Training before, and during.

1. Annual workshops: to my knowledge there were none. 2. Regularly initiated 

communication by the program officer. 3. A weeklly live office hour in which grantees 

can come together with the program officer to ask questions and learn from and with 

one another.

It's always helpful to have more time to prepare a grant proposal and especially to 

respond to CPPs, which aren't known until the RFP is released.
504

Student Support and Academic Enrichment

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

I have not had a reason to utilize this particular website much in the last year.

It is difficult to navigate the whole ED site. It doesn't seem to follow any sort of logical or intuitive 

organization. And the SSAE program has very few resources. FAQ is unavailable still? 

https://oese.ed.gov/offices/office-of-formula-grants/safe-supportive-schools/student-supportand-academic-enrichment-program/faq-2/

Would like to see additional resources/guidance and FAQs

I feel like it may just be that I am fairly new and may not use the right search terms, but several 

times I have been unable to find pertinent info and then discovered from my liaison tht there 

really wasn't any.

NOTE: Prior responses are for the ED.GOV website overall, not specifically the 

OESE.ED.GOV portion. Have a standard FAQ document for Title IV-A questions answered by 

OGC.

N/A

In searching the internet, I wasn't always directed to the most up to date resources, there are 

older pages that should be migrated/merged with the up to date pages on the same topics.

The webinars are outdated. it is unclear who the audience is and what should appear on this 

website vs. the T4P4 portal.

I feel the site is quite informative, remains up to date and provides comprehensive support from 

the staff and allows state coordinators to collaborate via text threads.

NA

The landing page does not have Title IV, Part A on it. One has to search to see TIV, Part A 

program information.

Can't think of any needed improvements at this time

The visual look of the website is very bland and the organizational structure doesn't have an 

intuitive flow.

It might be a good idea to have some State Coordinators help organize the materials so they 

are divided into better categories.
505

No recommendations.

Links on the right side bar of the Title IV web page is confusing. All relative information should 

be in line from the left side.

The T4PA center is great. I have not used website much

The website is not specific to Title IV, Part A.

Remove older documents. Post recorded webinars on guidance document.

Many resources out of date or do not go into sufficient depth to be of any practical use.

There is very limited information regarding Title IV-A on the website.

Make sure that the documents are up to date. Also, remove or mark 'historic' if a document has 

been updated.

I like the new website format. I find it much easier to navigate and find the materials needed.

NA

It is clunky to navigate and hard to tell which guidance is the most recent.

Update guidance documents, even if nothing has changed, it would be useful to have a new 

year on it, so we're sure it is the latest iteration. Short, one pager summaries of rules and 

regulations. Clarification on rules that can be interpreted in a variety of ways. "Translate" the 

law, so that not only is the actual law language on the site, but along with it, a translation of 

what it means operationally. While we may understand what the law implies, it would be a 

useful tool to point to when trying to explain that to the public, or those in the field we serve.

n/a

Q21. Please describe how the PROGRAM OFFICE could improve the quality and 

usefulness of our documents, including policy-related documents. In your response, 

please identify the name or type of document(s) your comments address (e.g., nonregulatory guidance, newsletter, blast emails).

Updated guidance documents and FAQ's would be greatly appreciated.

There are no documents. The non-regulatory guidance is ancient and doesn't include any 

recent responses. That has to be clicked through at length on the t4pa center site.
506

I think all the written communications have been excellent

Release an FAQ of Title IV-A related questions answered by OGC. More non-regulatory 

guidance on topics like equitable services, time and effort, stakeholder consultation (including in 

the time of COVID), state reporting requirements, etc. that include real-world examples. Timely 

responses (e.g. via Dear Colleague letters, etc.) to questions regarding Tydings waivers, 

program income allowability within Title IV-A specifically, that are sent to all grantees, not just 

the grantee that asks the question.

N/A

More FAQ's or non-regulatory guidance documents consolidated in one place for Title IV-A. 

There are lots of items on the portal that have been shared with State Coordinators, but it would 

be helpful to have these in guidance documents that could easily be shared with LEAs or found 

by LEAs if they were wanting to learn more about model program examples and allowable 

uses.

an updated non-regulatory guidance document would be helpful. specific examples of how 

district are using funds.

I feel the program already provides a multitude of resources and provides SEA's policy and 

guidance as it is made available via USED. The non-regulatory guidance documents are the 

most helpful as they ask questions that could be posed by the LEA's we serve. the newsletters 

also provide a wealth of information to keep abreast of changes and policies as they are 

happening.

NA

Would like to have more TIVA guidance or FAQs regarding private school equitable services. In 

addition, would like to have a quicker turn-around to SEA questions to more quickly assist 

LEAs. Would like for the newsletter to include more SEA or LEA examples and/or promising 

practices of TIVA use of funds for programs and/or activities.

We typically receive predominantly email blasts with updates and information. The information 

is always clear and concise, but I would appreciate receiving a newsletter specific for my grant 

as well as visuals/infographics to accompany guidance to clarify the process and reach the 

variety of learners I work with.

I can't think of any improvements at this time.

The FAQ structure of the non-regulatory guidance documents often narrows the information too 

much. Consider using a format that would allow the information on a particular topic to be more 

developed and go into more detail.

Be more specific. Sometimes guidance is broad and left for interpretation. The SEAs will 

discuss what they do but we never get firm answers back from ED. It would be nice for 

somethings to be clear cut answers.
507

More frequent correspondence, such as monthly updates, could be helpful.

More updated guidance on a regular basis. Use the same documents but make updates 

periodically. When our office goes to research, dates on documents are a few years old. 

Having a new date or the document reviewed will make our team realize the information is the 

most up-to-date.

No suggestions

The guidance provided around the CSPR was helpful and detailed. I am still awaiting 

publication of the NRG's.

We haven't received specific non-regulatory guidance. It would be nice if we could have that 

resource updated. The general e-mails for webinar invites or other information were specific.

Not applicable. All funds are transferred.

The non-regulatory guidance needs to be updated and provide more information on how the 

funds can be used, possibly even a list of specific examples.

No suggestions.

NA

N/A

I covered this in previous comment. Update the dates so they are continuously current, 

whether there are changes or not. Perhaps even update it to clarify language and intent in 

places where you observe there are a lot of questions or issues. As you deal with issues you 

can make sure those are clarified and addressed in the guidance documents.

n/a

Q33. How could we improve the grant reporting process?

Particularly in regard to CSPR Reporting: 1) What does USED do with this data? 2) How are 

the minimum and maximum thresholds calculated? Can our Federal Officers be more 

responsive in this area? I submitted an inquiry back in March 2020, have reached out again, 

and have not received a response or acknowledgement as of June 2021 .

there has been greater effort to explain the CSPR indicators, but no real understanding of what 

these indicators actually tell us about performance. Wild guesses about students/teachers 

engaged (like in Title I) rather than expenditures might even be preferable.
508

Would like more clarification on how the Department uses the data and guidance on how states 

could better use the data to guide program decisions

THe ID# for the districts on the original data collection request was not something we have in 

our system. Since several districts have the same name, that was difficult but when I reached 

out to WestEd they very quickly provided the ID# we use for the districts. They were very 

responsive but maybe finding out from the beginning what info the state uses for identification 

so that was on the initial list would be helpful.

CSPR data is not very helpful at the SEA level, but our own data analysis is more useful by 

looking deeper into the specific activities within the 3 main content areas (e.g. SROs, mental 

health supports, SEL curriculum, STEM programming, etc.) that we publish on our website (per 

statute). If ED or the T4PA Center could collect the web addresses of where each state reports 

this data, that would be helpful for us at the SEA level. (However, we are not recommending 

each SEA report this data directly to ED, just the location where each SEA has made it publicly 

available.) We have no understanding of how ED uses the CSPR data other than reporting it 

to Congress. It would be helpful to know more about how the CSPR data is used.

N/A

CSPR data on expenditures can be difficult to get after the fact and even more complicated to 

build into grant management systems. We are able to get the data, but the nature by which we 

have to get the data can sometimes be burdensome to the school districts.

I feel the process is already quite simple in its current form for the Title IV A reporting portion. I 

don't think anything could be done to it to make it any simpler or easier to complete.

In my opinion, the timing of the data collection for the CSPR is not relevant other than to report 

the transfer of funds. Collecting the data early in the period of performance does not render 

significantly usable data that represents how funds are funneled to content areas. Obtaining 

the required data set for the CSPR is also difficult to obtain. Data for the Annual State 

Performance Report seems to be a more relevant and logical representation of how funds were 

used and provides significant information to inform decisions.

Not really sure how the Dept uses the data. Also, it seems the TIVA CSPR indicators were 

released late for 2019-2020 school year. Need indicators at least 18 months in advance so we 

can add to our electronic collection system for LEAs. Otherwise, a late release of CSPR 

indicators for TIVA does not provide enough time for SEA to request the data through electronic 

database which is built 1.5-2 years in advance of the reporting cycle.

The reporting process is easy and obtaining the needed information is also easy. However to 

truly gauge the effectiveness of funding usage collecting more data may be beneficial.

I can't think of any improvements at this time.

Provide some evidence of how the Department uses this information. What value comes from 

the effort of reporting?
509

Much information was not clear when taking over as grant manager. Even with orientations, 

there was a lot not explained. Then, when it came to complete reports I didn't have all the data 

needed. Secondly, it was unclear how to submit some items. In some circumstances the 

instructions mention a link but there was not the ability to provide a link so that data had to be 

converted for submission.

The directions on what goes in each piece of the reporting is not very clearly explained.

No recommendations.

This is not just a Title IV, Part A suggestion, but perhaps an idea that can be implement across 

all ESSA programs as it relates to reporting. Provide a coordinated list of reporting time periods 

across all programs, in addition to the reopening window dates. This is helpful to those states 

who have consolidated Federal Grant Program offices and are dealing with ALL Federal 

Grants. It helps with coordination.

Ideas for how to collect this information from LEAs.

The reporting requirements should have been communicated out more clearly earlier on before 

reporting was required, but now that I've been through a few cycles it's not a huge burden.

Not applicable. All funds are transferred.

Provide opportunities for state coordinators to review and discuss results of CSPR reporting.

It would be very helpful if the threshold amounts were sent to all states because if you report 

outside of the threshold then comments are required but the comment box isn't a required item, 

it is currently a "catch 22".

The SEA need additional training as to how to effectively collect the data from LEAs.

N/A

I'm not involved directly in preparing the reports, just pulling the data for them. So I can't think 

of any improvements. But clarity of language and expectations might be useful.

n/a

Q39. Describe how the technical assistance that Department staff provide could be 

improved to better support your program needs (consider content, structure, format, 

timing, etc.).

It would be appreciated if the specific PD and TA that is identified for our LEA are offered. I 

have found that we (SEAs) spend more time assisting each other than getting assistance from 
510

Department Staff.

as a formula grant program that covers virtually all activities, it seems like there is an excessive 

amount of the federal allocation set aside for the T4PA Center. It is great for convening, but 

there are other centers and sources to gain access to resources that support implementation of 

programmatic activities at the building/district level.

I think it is excellent already

Provide FAQ documents and resources on evidence-based program implementation (e.g. how 

to select evidence-based program activities to spend funds on), how to evaluate LEA program 

effectiveness (e.g. on whether program activities are sufficiently addressing LEA needs, etc.).

N/A

Our TA staff from the Department does an excellent job.

I feel the team already does an excellent job of providing technical assistance and assists 

SEA's in putting each other in contact with one another to help us share best practices from 

state to state. I would like to see, once we exit the pandemic, for us to return to in person 

conferences. The team has been quite accommodating and flexible in scheduling meetings that 

fit all of our schedules as best as possible.

NA

The only time there is somewhat quality of TA from TIVA Program Staff is during the once/year 

SEA Coordinator meeting. Even though, it seems to be led by the T4PA Center. Even 

submitting questions in advance does not help to have answers by meeting times. Have 

requested OGC attend more than once/yr meeting so SEA staff can ask questions directly (or 

even submit in advance) but seems to not occur. SEAs must wait months for answers more 

frequently than not. Frustrating when the FPO cannot answer the program questions and 

everything must go through OGC which takes so long to get a response. Some questions have 

waited 6 months or longer - just seems unacceptable. Would like for FPOs to be more involved 

and providing TA vs leaving it to T4PA to send questions to them. Would like FPOs to be on 

T4PA webinars/calls to respond to SEA questions. My FPO is rarely on the calls/webinars 

which is disappointing.

The TA team for Title IV is amazing. They make themselves available and create wonderful 

opportunities for growth and learning. My only recommendation would be presenting 

information in more of variety of forms for various learners such as visuals for visual learners. 

Most learning is webinar, meeting, etc and lean predominantly on auditory learning styles.

USDE webinars need to be revamped to be more interesting.

There are times when the questions have to do with statute so the TA can't answer. Other times 

when the answer has to be researched and the answer is not shared broadly.
511

No recommendations.

Technical assistance timing could be improved. Seems like it takes a long time to get an 

answer.

Again, T4PA is very helpful

Providing timely assistance when staff needs to refer to other departments or programs.

a more timely response to questions would help us better meet our needs.

No suggestions but a compliment; my boss once said "turnover is a good thing" which at the 

time I thought was an odd statement, but in this case it is completely true. Once my old FPO 

left the responsiveness of the office increased ten-fold and I really appreciate that.

Funds were previously transferred. Just beginning to stand up the porgram.

The Department staff have not provided TA to my state specifically. I have sent in three 

questions and never received a response. I don't feel that my FPO has the time available to 

spend helping provide the TA needed for a new state level coordinator.

NA

N/A

The Department has been very good about getting back to me and answering questions. I 

have not had a lot of interactions, but those I have have been very effective and quick. 

[REDACTED] is my program officer and she is awesome at what she does and her 

understanding of the program. The T4PA Center, which I understand is not USED staff, is a 

little less effective in my opinion. They seem to struggle in how to provide technical assistance.

n/a

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that 

provided technical services to you.

T4PA Center

T4PA Center

T4PA Center. ask them to help locate guidance from ED because it is not easy to find.

T4PA Center
512

AIR

T4PA

0

T4PA Center

T4PA Center

T4PA

REMS TA Center, National Center on Safe and Supportive Learning Environments.

Regional Laboratories and Comprehensive Centers.

T4PA TA Center and AIR Staff

T4PA Center.

Title IV, Part A (T4PA) Center

AIR

AIR

T4PA Center and Youth for Youth

T4PA Center

T4PA

T4PA

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role?

State Coordinator

Federal Program Administrator

IVA State Program Manager
513

Education Specialist

Program Officer

Attorney

Program Manager, but functioned as a pass through only

state coordinator

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

SSAE - 2021 - Q39.3. How can we improve our T4PA Center WEBSITE, including 

links, to help you identify program resources and meet your technical assistance 

needs?

Information, while appreciated, is not relevant to our specific needs. My favorite aspect 

of the website apart from the interactive portal are the resources sections where 

specific topics are broken down. EX: Developing Stakeholder Relationships to Support 

School Programming

Finding exact answers to exact questions would be nice but, I know it isn't possible for 

most part.

provide materials on grant implementation as opposed to programmatic resources -

those are found on other sites that specialize. the search mechanism is not particularly 

helpful. the ED resources are difficult to navigate.

I really don't have any ideas.

The website can provide a more up-to-date document regarding allowable use of funds.

Offering the responses from the portal in more than one way. Perhaps a PDF of 

responses from Dept of Ed that could be shared with LEAs more easily like nonregulatory guidance.

I feel the site is quite comprehensive in it's current format. It is extremely user friendly 

and allows for collaboration between SEA's and the T4PA Team.

I truly appreciate the commitment and engagement the T4PA Center exhibits. They are 

active thought partners and are deeply vested in my success as a manager and the 

state's ability to serve our families and students.

I can't think of any improvements at this time.
514

N/A

It is getting much better but still a few navigation issues for finding resources needed.

No recommendations.

It is great.

The number of emails is a bit overwhelming, but a great resource.

Make it easier to upload things to the portal. It would also be better to be able to reply 

to e-mails to post to the message boards.

At times, it is difficult to find resources.

Searching for information doesn't always function. Many times I have to search through 

the actual posting in the discussion board to find the answers. Also, it would be very 

helpful to have a New State Coordinator Tool Kit or possibly introduction to the T4PA 

site to help learning about the navigation.

NA

N/A

Organize it according to the various regulations, so help can easily be found. The 

discussion board needs to be organized so it is easy to locate discussions, versus 

posting information, etc. Allow for a longer time to remain logged in before you get 

tossed.

n/a

SSAE - 2021 - Q39.6. How can we improve our T4PA Center PORTAL to help you 

identify program resources and meet your technical assistance needs? 

Consolidate and easily share statutory responses in an easily sharable fashion.

downloadable, searchable guidance

The things I've had questions about haven't been on their and actually y liaison has had 

to ask her legal department about them. So m maybe just updating with more 

information.
515

The portal is helpful until questions are shut down because they are passed on to ED 

due to being statute-related.

N/A

I'm not a huge fan of Twitter, so I wish more announcements were shared out via email. 

Maybe a weekly update or bi-weekly newsletter to T4PA SC and SC Alternates with 

upcoming events or activities, or program highlights. If I'm not on the site regularly I 

miss things.

better organization or visuals. it can be challenging to sift through the information.

I feel the portal is extremely useful and user friendly in it's current format. It allows 

SEA's to collaborate without always having to reach out to the T4PA team.

NA

I can't think of any improvements at this time.

N/A

Perhaps a menu? Sometimes it takes a little bit to find a specific resource/topic needed.

No recommendations.

Many questions get asked but most of the time no answers are given.

Excellent

Make it easier to upload things and post to threads (reply to e-mail would generate a 

response to the post).

It is hard to search to find what has been approved as allowable vs unallowable uses.

NA

N/A

Same as before. Organization of the information and postings is not clear. Navigation 

is difficult. Hard to locate information.

n/a
516

SSAE - 2021 - Q39.7e. Which form of technical assistance do you find most 

helpful in the completion of your grant?

in person annual conferences

All above

Small group meetings supporting specific ideas/needs

SEA/TP4A Center virtual calls (office hours, training, small group cohorts)
517

Supporting Effective Educator Development Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

It is better now, but for a while it needed updating

Better differentiation between resources for various stages of grant activity. More guidance on 

what resources to use for what purpose. More examples

We think that the website accomplishes its purpose. We do not have any recommendations for 

improvement at this time.

Information about grantees including grantees' documents can be updated more promptly.

I don't use the website.

No immediate concerns or needs to note.

I did not find it played a role in my grant management.

We've had a few different program officers since we received the grant, so it was hard to rate 

the staff overall. Our current program officer, [REDACTED] is very responsive and provides 

good feedback.

I don't remember using it, which is why I marked I don't know.

We do not use the website very much as a grantee. We use it to gather information about 

awarded projects and to forecast and eventually apply for new grants.

Keeping the site up to date, especially posting new grant applicants, would be helpful. The site 

also did not include information for +2 grantees.

The site really does not have any useful information for grantees probably because the rules 

keep changing all the time. Also, the requirements for reporting have continuously changed and 

therefore not present in the site.

I have a difficult time finding the information I am looking for. Sending out information about the 

website and logging in at several intervals would be helpful to participants.

N/A

Q21. Please describe how the PROGRAM OFFICE could improve the quality and 
518

usefulness of our documents, including policy-related documents. In your response, 

please identify the name or type of document(s) your comments address (e.g., nonregulatory guidance, newsletter, blast emails).

I think being able to work with other grants who were unable to spend down, or create more 

connections between grantees would be helpful. Also, making connections to other grants to 

support and build out the program would help.

The SEED Program provides minimal resources and almost non-existent news, updates, etc. 

The grant officer tries to fill the gap in communication and information sources, but does not 

always have access to information from levels above her in a timely manner. Again, she tries to 

get answers and provide needed information, but is limited by the lack of timely information 

provided to her.

The communication around the GPRA measures has been inconsistent. We think that it has 

improved and the SEED team is working toward much more consistent guidance. As a longtime 

grantee, we were caught off guard.

As a grantee we do not receive many documents, newsletters or emails. Last year I sent two 

emails asking about guidance for a Final Progress Report or when we would receive the Dear 

Colleagues letter/guidance. I never heard back. Eventually that guidance came pretty late (i.e. 

4 weeks out from when the report was initially going to be due - they did extend the deadline). 

No-cost extension information and guidance came out very late and was not reviewed or 

approved until the final possible weeks/date, which, in a pandemic year, seemed like 

unnecessary rigidity (a small flexibility that could have been afforded to folks in the education 

sector during a challenging time).

There was a lot of confusion regarding the +2 grant application process and we did not find out 

if awarded until late in the process. Policy changes (e.g., not allowing carry-over funds) also 

caused greater stress in managing the project.

Things have been getting better recently. Initially, the communications were very contradictory 

and hard to follow.

The emails that I receive from my program officer and from SEED is useful and of quality.

Q33. How could we improve the grant reporting process?

Process is fine, parts are a little unclear but the guidance from the department helps.

The GPRA measures are the baseline for what we report. The area of challenge is the 

educator effectiveness rating data due to variations in how states and districts establish 

effectiveness ratings. That said, the most meaningful part of the reporting process is the ability 

to report on specific project measures. The reporting system provides much flexibility for 

reporting project measures, but we are always uncertain about what attention the Department 

officials pay to those measures.
519

The two years beyond the PD requirement for Highly Effective educators is burdensome for 

those of us who work with multiple districts and do not have line authority. We understand that 

this is written into the legislation, so we appreciated the SEED teams work to clarify guidance.

The required reporting after the first 6-months of the program is too early to yield meaningful 

information. Further, the GPRA measures that are required do not align to our program model 

and useful information is not actually available until after year 3. However, the support from our 

program officer was phenomenal.

Consistent, earlier communication about due dates. For example, we received an email 

implying that we had an APR due at an unexpected time, which was then reversed to 

something else in a group email, and neither matched our no-cost extension agreement. It 

resulted in much confusion. We often found that expectations about reporting and Data 

Verification Sheets changed and we were not notified, or the dates that appeared in updated 

GANs did not match what dates we agreed upon through the no-cost extension request 

process. We found ourselves late on several requirements that were not communicated to us, 

and then expected to be turned around on extremely short notice. We also learned very late in 

our grant that some of the ways we were reporting metrics did not match DOE expectations--we 

understand DOE has needs to make their data comparable across grants, but the fact that the 

request to change how we measure success came very late in our grant period and left us 

wondering why it wasn't addressed with us in earlier reports.

We were given insufficient time to complete the mid-year report and had to rush through the 

process this year. We were not provided with correct information on what would need to be 

reported and more was required once the forms were released.

Since David English took over our SEED grant, we have had much better support and 

communications regarding the reporting requirements. I am used to the US DEpt of Ed IES 

grants where the funding is continued and no-cost extensions are granted if the grantee is 

making good progress on the goals. In the SEED grant, we have made significant and excellent 

progress in spite of the pandemic. We are still uncertain about the continued funding. This 

causes us quite a few problems with our school partners. I hope we get to continue our 

excellent work!

We are still a little vague on how to calculate and the usefulness of the cost per participant 

metric.

Consistent reporting documents for each cycle would be helpful. Most cycles we had different 

documents to complete. This made preparing ahead difficult. Documents should be provided at 

least one month prior to the deadline. Having the APR in the mid-year does not make good 

sense. It would be much easier to report on grant progress at the end of the grant year, 

particularly expenditures. Other federal grants we received have required only one yearly 

report.

The process is appropriate as is.
520

Q39. Describe how the technical assistance that Department staff provide could be 

improved to better support your program needs (consider content, structure, format, 

timing, etc.).

I did not really experience any of this from the office

The Technical Assistance providers are a group of talented and highly skilled/experienced 

people. They provide much in the way of relevant support in the early years of a new grant. A 

return to on-site summits will enhance their ability to engage and help project teams connect 

and create a collaborative learning environment.

We would like to see additional opportunities for peer-to-peer collaboration around challenges.

We have not received TA from EED staff - only via the external TA group that organized the 

annual convening in October 2020.

Our program officer convened other grantees to learn from one another and this was helpful 

and informative.

I am not certain but there is another group called EA that emails us about technical assistance. 

That group appears to be quite scattered. We get numerous wrong emails and reply all to the 

group that clog up all our email servers. The assistance provided by the group is more to ask 

grantees to help each other. I do not think that service is useful at all.

We have had a lot of inconsistency with program officers. Through our three years in the 

program we have had four different officers. This has led to gaps in our knowledge and 

inconsistency in services. Our current program officer (since last fall) has been far superior and 

more helpful than previous officers. We are actually having quarterly check in meetings and our 

APR was reviewed. This did not occur with all officers we were assigned.

I am very satisfied with the technical assistance that I receive from my program officer, 

[REDACTED], who has been extremely helpful.

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that 

provided technical services to you.

We were a member of the midwest equity center and received resources from them.

The TQP Technical Assistance group through Mathematica

AEM Corp/TQP TA

Regional Labs Equity Assistance Centers
521

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role?

University faculty

Academic

non-profit CEO

Higher Education Faculty member

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

SEED - 2021 - Q55.8. What recommendations would you like to make to the SEED 

program staff to assist you in administering your grant more effectively? 

We only meet with our program officer maybe once per year. It would be helpful to 

meet more.

The grant officer makes strong efforts to support grantees. She is often thwarted in this 

by her inability to get clear and timely information from those above her to pass on to 

grantees. It is often difficult for her to get clear answers to our questions. It feels that 

she is not allowed much discretion in how she supports grantees and is often required 

to act on directives from above that may not be in the best interest of grantees fulfilling 

the promise of the SEED projects. It would help grantees immensely if the grant officer 

were allowed greater discretion under better developed and communicated guidelines. 

Many grantees are experienced and willing to provide constructive feedback to 

enhance the SEED program, but our input is not sought by anyone beyond our grant 

officer. Also, we see little evidence that feedback we provide to her is seriously 

considered by anyone above her.

More opportunities for grantee - to - grantee problem solving, as stated above.

Post pandemic, I would like to have opportunities to attend in-person SEED convenings 

where we meet, learn and collaborate with other grantees.

Consistent quarterly check-ins. Clear guidance on when any amendments or changes 

need to be reported.

Consistency with grant requirements and providing grantees ample time to do reports. 

We are often rushed to complete and submit reports and requirements for renewal or 

compliance and then have long waiting periods before we are provided information that 

we need to manage the work.
522

As stated earlier, since [REDACTED] has taken over our SEED grant, we have had 

outstanding support and he is responsive to all our questions and knowledgeable. The 

decision making chain of command is not very transparent. So I know that 

[REDACTED] understands the success we have had and I hope his supervisors 

recognize that as well.

The SEED project I oversee is in it's final year through a No Cost Extension. Initially 

when funded in 2017, the level of support provided by the DOE was amazing and 

extremely helpful. There was some reorganization in 2019 (?) and things changed...the 

support was not there and many of the programs that helped were removed/canceled. I 

hope some of the supports make their way back so others can experience how helpful 

they were.

They respond to emails and phone calls when we have questions.

As described in another part of the survey, inconsistency in program officers (four 

officers over three years) and the quality of support provided by the officers has made 

our experience variable over the course of the grant.

My program officer has been extremely helpful. I cannot think of any recommendations 

to make.
523

Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants (Title II, Part A)

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

The website could contain archive info just in case its needed at a later date.

NA

Many thanks for your support over the years

Title II, Part A program information hasn't changed in years. It may be worth reviewing current 

program information to see what areas can be reinforced to support Lost Instructional Time 

beyond the ESSER funds. LEAS and SEA's are trying to address the larger picture of 

sustainability.

I cannot think of anything specific at this time.

Format is not necessarily user friendly.

Just searching for Title II leads you down rabbit hole, can't easily locate information under 

different "tag" words. Search function needs to be sharpened. Key ESSA resources but not 

search for Title IIA Resources. Need the grant title to locate the page.

No improvements noted at this time.

Sometimes, it is difficult to find the most recent guidance.

I think it is working just fine for me at this time.

The website is just a list of resources and it is not intuitive to navigate the website. The site 

could benefit by dividing resources into sections, using tabs and visuals to help direct users to 

the correct resources.

We recommend improvements in the search area. Sometimes you write something you are 

looking for and the search brings you things that are not related to the topic. Also, it would be 

good to have a communication from the program officer notifying that important information has 

been released or published in the webpage.

Unless I'm looking in the wrong places, resources are out of date or not very in-depth.

Make it use-friendly. Make it up-to-date. Provide useful resources.

update guidance
524

Newest information first so it is easier to find.

Drop down tab for most current updates Drop down tab for archived information

add templates and/or checklists for procedures: application, monitoring, etc.

The website is user friendly and it provides high quality information and resources.

Updated information

I'm not really sure how to find or navigate for what I need, so it ends up taking more time than 

it's worth to look for things. Easier to reach out to federal contacts.

More contemporary format/layout. Difficult at times to find items.

Right now, i am not able to find the laws, it seems that information about programs are 

scattered; everything pertaining to Title II does not have a portal that will link to everything. The 

videos and presentations are not easy to find within the site. I can find resources with a Google 

search, but not always within the site. Consolidating the site and having a landing page for each 

Title program area that is truly a portal to all of the related documents would be helpful.

Links to specific Titles and sections of the Title. Better Keyword searching ability.

Need more up-to-date resources

Updated guidance, Q&A section, guidance geared more toward SL uses, guidance geared 

toward SL administrators (vs. current NRG which seems heavily LEA-focused).

Better clarity on what is ESSA or NCLB or what still pertains.

Q21. Please describe how the PROGRAM OFFICE could improve the quality and 

usefulness of our documents, including policy-related documents. In your response, 

please identify the name or type of document(s) your comments address (e.g., nonregulatory guidance, newsletter, blast emails).

All communications are great.

NA

There are few to little documents provided.

the emails, the guidance, and dear colleague letters
525

Title II, Part A program information hasn't changed in years. It may be worth reviewing current 

program information to see what areas can be reinforced to support Lost Instructional Time 

beyond the ESSER funds. LEAS and SEA's are trying to address the larger picture of 

sustainability.

I cannot think of anything at this time.

Could use updated II-A guidance, especially regarding specific uses of funds examples within 

categories.

We are not aware of any guidance beyond the 2016 Title II non-regulatory guidance. We would 

welcome office hours, blast emails, newsletter, or frequently asked questions by states.

No improvements noted at this time.

N/A

I think you are meeting my needs at this time.

Non-regulatory guidances are super helpful. Within them, it would be good to have more 

examples and to have definite responses.

Provide NRG documents that address Title II Program specifics. Similar to what was created in 

the past.

I'm not aware of anything relatively recent that has been released, which is not necessarily a 

negative.

There is nothing that comes to mind in terms of needed improvements in this area. Thank you.

N/A

I haven't used a lot of documents, but the ones I receive are usually easy enough to read - just 

LONG. If there was a way to break up the content into smaller chunks that would be helpful.

I have found everything to be helpful. Of course, it is impossible to address every scenario that 

is faced, that is why I gave a "9". But, overall, the documentation is very helpful and usually 

easy to follow.

There is little to no communication from USDOE regarding Title IIA unless we ask a specific 

question. It would be nice to have some form of regular communication.

Q33. How could we improve the grant reporting process?
526

More lead time to get the CSPR data completed.

Consistency in reporting methods would be helpful, keep things the same for multiple years

Add additional data collections after notification of a year to allow gathering of data.

it is very well aligned already

Nothing comes to mind at this time.

Easier to use this year than last year. Thank you.

Due to the fact that we do not complete the reporting, we do not feel confident in suggesting 

any changes.

No improvements noted at this time.

N/A

I think it works just fine at this time.

We don't have issues with reporting, but one recommendation could be to provide us trainings 

on this topic.

There is nothing that comes to mind in terms of needed improvements in this area. Thank you.

Allow more time to complete reporting process.

This year was much better than last. The new platform for submitting reports was MUCH 

better.

Q39. Describe how the technical assistance that Department staff provide could be 

improved to better support your program needs (consider content, structure, format, 

timing, etc.).

n/a

NA

The Department's participation in the Title IIA Collaborative has allowed them to provide 

technical assistance in a peer-to-peer environment.

meeting regularly with the SEAs
527

We have not had interaction with Department IIA staff.

Would like a technical assistance center for II-A to assist with fielding questions and/or 

providing guidance for state II-A coordinators & staff.

We cannot address the technical assistance portion as higher management made all contacts 

this past year (as far as we know). However, we would welcome information regarding content, 

evidence based practices and more outreach from the Department about Title II to us.

No improvements noted at this time.

Any of the following would be helpful: - training (webinars, Director meetings, conference 

workshops) - peer-to-peer information sharing among grantees - consultative services 

(teleconferences, on-site meeting, video conferences) - toolkits or other resources

N/A

I think it is working just fine for my current needs.

We would appreciate more communication from the program officer and other staff. Plus, we 

could really benefit from reminders of deadlines and easy steps when requesting waivers and 

flexibilities.

I have no suggestions for improvement, but [REDACTED] has been a breath of fresh air in 

terms of service and responsiveness compared to her predecessors.

It would be nice to have a Community of Practice for Title II, Part A and meet at least quarterly.

There is nothing that comes to mind in terms of needed improvements in this area. Thank you.

N/A

There is little to no TA offered to us regarding Title IIA. It is night and day compared to the other 

ESEA grant program I direct.

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that 

provided technical services to you.

Comprehensive Centers

Regional Laboratories Neglected or Delinquent Education Technical Assistance Center

REL and CC.
528

REL Northeast concerning assessment of professional learning- attended excellent conference, 

and received Toolkit. Both were well done. This is the only assistance we received.

CCSSO

REL Central

NDTAC

Neglected or Delinquent Education Technical Assistance Center

R15 CC - WestEd

Regional Laboratories Comprehensive centers

REL

WestEd Region 15 Comp Center

WestEd

Comprehensive Centers Neglected or Delinquent Education Technical Assistance Center

None specific to Title II REL at Marzano

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role?

Title II Administrator
529

Teacher and School Leader Incentive Grants (ESEA II-B-1)

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Did not use the website. Unable to provide feedback.

N/A

Not sure what it seeks to accomplish beyond stating program goals and awardees. The TA 

Center website is where most of the grantee support is housed.

There needs to be some larger visual indicators of where to find information.

Creating better navigation windows. There need to be advanced search features that allow for 

filtering. Grantees and Applicants does not take you to Office of Discretionary Grants and 

Support Services. Teacher and School Leader Awards page does not reflect which 2017 

grantees were renewed for years 4 and 5, including access to reviewer comments and 

applications.

More video clips of either interviews with educators (teacher in particular) or students showing 

impact of grant activities. Video clips could also be of leaders in the field talking about their 

work.

When a grant competition has been announced, it would be helpful to be able to access the 

requirements information on the page for that grant.

I don't have any suggestions at this time.

Website is fine.

Q21. Please describe how the PROGRAM OFFICE could improve the quality and 

usefulness of our documents, including policy-related documents. In your response, 

please identify the name or type of document(s) your comments address (e.g., nonregulatory guidance, newsletter, blast emails).

N/A

N/A

The email blasts are full of info but they are hard to read. They aren't visually easy to use or 

discern what info is there.
530

We have not received any communication of this type. The only communication we receive is 

pertaining to APR reports and quarterly project officer calls. We have received information from 

the EED TA Center.

Add guiding questions that reader can use to know what the resource will help to "answer"

I don't have any specific feedback on the documents.

Continue to listen for suggestions. The Department does a very good job of adjusting and 

making changes when there needs to be additional clarity. It is a good working relationship 

when parties can talk about changes and work together to make things work seamlessly.

Q33. How could we improve the grant reporting process?

N/A

The workplan submission system has had some bugs that Ive had to work through as Ive 

submitted updates (e.g. random notes visible, no clear indication if changes were recorded). 

These issues may now be resolved,. Also, I felt as if the expectations on updating that workplan 

over time were not communicated clearly from the beginning.

The reporting, especially the data, is very hard because it is uniform requirements that may not 

scale to the grantee's size. Additionally, it's hard to know what the DOE looks for in that data.

Covid has impacted what data is available to collect. State assessments were cancelled in 2020 

and most families opted out for 2021. Teacher evaluation was waived by the state for 2020 and 

guidance from Office of Elementary and Secondary Education was extremely delayed. This 

affected reporting and our ability to do a waiver to implement performance-based compensation 

within a reasonable timeframe.

NA

Clearer timelines on what to expect after submission would be helpful. For example, when we 

can expect feedback or follow up? When we can expect decisions and communication around 

what we've reported?

The new reporting process is much clearer and helpful in sharing progress.

I think the grant reporting process works well.

Q39. Describe how the technical assistance that Department staff provide could be 

improved to better support your program needs (consider content, structure, format, 

timing, etc.).
531

N/A

The AEM team does a great job of trying to connect grantees in collaboration.

We are unaware of receiving any technical assistance from TSL staff. We are confused about 

the role of the AEM/ EED. We do receive updates through Grads 360 communities.

I have no specific improvement recommendations at this time.

More opportunities for cross-grant collaboration.

The APR "office hours" structure was very interesting because of the ability to hear from other 

TSL grantees about challenges they're facing. TSL specific collaboration opportunities and just 

the ability to hear about the work they're doing and what they're learning would be really useful.

Again, I believe the Department has been very responsive to the needs of the grantees and 

there has not been a gap in receiving assistance when needed.

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that 

provided technical services to you.

EED

EED

REL Midwest

Effective Educator Development (EED) TA Center

AEM mostly, but also a grantee orientation that some of ED staff participated in

Comprehensive Centers

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role?

Chief Operations Officer

Senior Director

Educational Specialist
532

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

TSL - 2021 - Q44.6. What recommendations would you like to make to the TSL 

program staff to assist you in administering your grant more effectively? 

N/A

For new grant recipients: provide sessions about networking with other seasoned 

grantees and ways to address common implementation challenges (PBCS, match 

funding, developing sustainable partnerships). Assign a mentor to new grantees to 

support creation of initiatives.

No current recommendations

More proactive guidance.

We would love to hear more about other grantees and how they are navigating 

challenges. In addition, many of the items we bring to our contact require input from 

others, could our program officer be empowered to answer more questions or could 

there possibly be other folks representing some of the other decision making folks in 

the organization on quarterly calls?

We are pleased with the service and guidance we receive and appreciate our program 

officer.

n/a
533

Teacher Quality Partnership Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

The website currently provides the level of assistance required. Adding additional links to 

webinar recordings might be helpful for first time grantees.

I've only used the website a few times to look up specific grant information and don't have any 

suggestions.

Posting grantee highlights with short videos could be useful.

I don't really use the website for a grant from 2018. Most information comes from personal 

contacts, not a website.

Greater clarity. Consider a summary of current news and activities such as upcoming grant 

opportunities.

The reason I have not used this website is because I have been unaware of this resource.

Easier search tools. More explanations. For example, during Webinars-- there have been 

helpful examples provided for things like the 2% rule or completing the annual reports. Having 

these videos accessible there would be very helpful.

It is pretty efficient as it is.

Have up to date materials particularly for currently funded programs. This is essential when the 

grant guidance changes for new grantees, yet longer funded grantees are operating under 

different parameters (e.g., allowable indirect cost rates). The inability to find this information 

creates confusion and a lot of work for the grantee to prove to the program officer that they are 

following the guidance they were funded under.

n/a

N/A

Q21. Please describe how the PROGRAM OFFICE could improve the quality and 

usefulness of our documents, including policy-related documents. In your response, 

please identify the name or type of document(s) your comments address (e.g., nonregulatory guidance, newsletter, blast emails).

Currently, the documents disseminated to perspective and ongoing grant recipients include all 
534

information needed. I have found this to be true for non-regulatory guidance, emails, and other 

documents.

We need time stamps on PP slides as well as other official documents.

no changes needed

Advanced guidance on program reporting requirement to ensure sufficient time for completion.

Guidance Documents for reporting (APR and DVS) have historically been poor and 

expectations were inconsistent from year to year. Guidance documents have improved in the 

last 18 months but there are still inconsistencies and lack of detail. This is pronounced for 

programs that have been funded for longer and that are operating under different funding 

expectations. Guidance is often presented as a blanket, one-size fits all, yet it only applies to 

recently funded grantees and it requires multiple conversations with the program officer to get 

the correct guidance.

I don't receive any documents from the TQP program

Consistency of documentation from year to year. Sometimes the changes are not articulated 

clearly. However, we are able to get clarification as needed.

The emails that I receive are useful and clear.

Q33. How could we improve the grant reporting process?

The grant reporting process has worked well for seasoned grantees. The webinars are 

provided and useful for first time grantees who require additional support.

We've never received feedback on our report and it's not clear how the narrative or data is 

used. I would love to see data from other grantees to understand how we compare to them.

Sample reports and actionable results would be useful.

It is not so much the reporting process as the new project director sending information and then 

changing what he needs completed. Many times after seeking guidance from him the forms 

were then extremely confusing, based on his explanations.

I like the webinars and supporting documents and examples used for reporting.

Further streamline reporting requirement.

Some of the appendices required could be more clearly identified. There are instances when 

there is a "box" but little guidance on the information required.
535

The reporting requirements are onerous. As an experience Project director with prior US Ed 

funded projects in other offices, TQP requires too much reporting. The APR and DVS are major 

reports (most recent APR was 35 pages) and then quarterly written reports to the program 

officer (at least 12 pages and it is always sent back for more detail adding at least 3 pages). 

This is very time intensive taking time away from operations and overall not very helpful to the 

implementation of the grant. Where TQP could do more is in recovering funds from those who 

don't complete the program by adopting a model similar to OSEP for tracking service obligation 

for their training grants. This requires grantees to input info on scholars into a data base that 

scholars then update with their work history for meeting service obligation. Those who don't 

complete have their funding converted to a loan that is paid back to the federal govt. This takes 

grantees out of the loop of trying to collect funds which at the end of the grant cycle complicates 

spending down the remaining funds which shift as money is recovered.

Reduce paperwork burden. It can be excessive.

N/A

Q39. Describe how the technical assistance that Department staff provide could be 

improved to better support your program needs (consider content, structure, format, 

timing, etc.).

My Program Officer is always available to respond to questions my team may have in reference 

to technical assistance for our program.

Orientation at the outset

The only concern or suggestion would be to make sure people understood that they do not 

have to reply all when receiving information. The initial information provides a great resource, 

when others begin to reply all and the numerous emails become a nuisance.

I appreciate that our PO sets up conference community calls so we can learn from other 

grantees.

Our Program Officer (Louis Edwards) organizes and facilitates calls for grantees to talk to one 

another on topics of interest. These have been very helpful.

The interactions that I have had with the department and the TQP Program have been terrific. 

[REDACTED] is fantastic - quick to follow up and available to answer any and every question!

The program officer is really helpful.

N/A

The technical assistance I receive from my program officer is right on target.
536

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that 

provided technical services to you.

EED TA Center

EED TA Center

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role?

college administrator

Project Manager

Faculty

Project Director

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

TQP - 2021 - Q59.8. What recommendations would you like to make to the TQP 

program staff to assist you in administering your grant more effectively?

Provide more support to first time grantees and allow more advanced programs the 

opportunity to mentor them.

It feels like our program officers don't really understand our project. I know they have 

large case loads and have empathy for what they are trying to do! Compared to my 

experience with private foundations, TQP program staff seem less deeply engaged with 

our work.

No recommendations at this time

Keep up the great work. : )

The first Program director was wonderful, provided clear directives, suggestions and 

monitoring calls were very helpful and productive. When the TQP Program Director 

changed and the new person was assigned questions were not answered clearly, 

monitoring calls were stressful because there were more questions and confusion after 

the call session(s).
537

More personalized assistance - so that our individual university (or agency) contexts 

can be considered when working through challenges.

Change the indirect rate to accommodate nonprofits. 2% is not enough to manage the 

administrative side of these projects.

My program officer (C.M.) is outstanding.
538

Training Program for Federal TRIO Programs

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

First, the item in the survey could say PSE.ed.gov instead of OESE.ed.gov. Second, are we 

supposed to judge the OESE site even though we are focused on PSE work? Finally, it would 

be helpful for who ever developed the questionnaire to provide more detail so we could 

appropriately reply. Thanks
539

Transition-Postsecondary Programs for Students with Intellectual 

Disabilities

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

More user friendly. Often you have to dig down a few levels to find information.

The previous set of questions asked for me to rate my experience using the TPSID program 

online resources on the OESE.ED.gov website. There is no information about the Transition 

Programs for Students with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities program on the 

OESE.ED.gov site. This question is asking for information how the Office of Postsecondary 

Education Program could improve it's website. The OPE website that we used as a primary 

source for information regarding out TPSID application. It is a good website with relevant and 

helpful information. The website could be vastly improved through more frequent updates.

No comment at this time.

Keep information updated.

I appreciate the layout, but the functionality of the search bar could be improved.

Make it easier to find information about TPSID/Postsecondary programs for people with 

disabilities from the OSED.ED.GOV home page. I spent 10 minutes trying to locate anything 

about it and found nothing.

I put NA on the last question because it referred to the https://oese.ed.gov/ The website that I 

use most frequently is the OPE TPSID website: https://www2.ed.gov/programs/tpsid/index.html 

This website is fine. it has all the RFP information and the contact information for [REDACTED], 

who is very helpful. Often the website funding status is not updated with new awards - but given 

that there has been a pandemic and a hiring freeze and retirements at USDOE-it's been 

sufficient.

I don't use the website

Information is not updated in a timely manner (webinars, etc.), and updated use of webinars, 

etc. (had to call in and watch a webinar - with horrible audio, etc.)

Respond to my emailed questions and requests for assistance

Had trouble even finding it

Q33. How could we improve the grant reporting process?
540

It is very cumbersome to have to fill out a different "page" for each objective.

We have not yet engaged in progress reporting for our TPSID grant because we are in the 

middle of our first year of funding. I will have more information about this after we have gone 

through at least on year of reporting.

Our first APR was delayed, so I have nothing to report, as I have not yet completed this 

process.

The requirements are not clear. We never heard feedback or how the data was used.

This is the first year of a 5 year grant. I have not had to complete an APR yet.

There was only one email sent about the DOE reporting procedures from our program officer 

and we have not received any other updates since then.

Using grants.gov instead if possible for reporting APRs vs. the G5 system - which is old and 

clunky - would be an improvement:)

NA

We are in Year 1 of our grant. We have not yet been given information on the first reporting, so 

not able to answer these questions yet.

Archaic process, not sure of the point. Does anyone even read it?

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role?

Principal Investigator

Principal Investigator

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

TPSID - 2021 - Q31.2. Please tell us how the technical assistance you received 

from your program specialist this past year was affected by the pandemic, as 

well as any suggestions you have to improve the technical assistance you 

received should we be faced with future national emergencies.

I do not think it was affected. The program specialist was responsive.

I did not see an impact from covid on any interactions with program specialists.
541

Technical assistance was sufficient for us in the last year.

Shedita continued to be responsive.

It was helpful to receive suggestions about how to move to remote delivery for the local 

services. Additional paperwork was required to report how our program was 

responding the restrictions due to the pandemic. The staff were helpful, but sometimes 

the timing was tough, as we were trying to make all the changes and adjustments at 

our end. It would have been helpful to have more time between when we were all 

trying to adapt and when the paperwork was due to the program officer.

Our grant was funded in October 2020. We are in the first year so have only had limited 

contact with DOE staff during this time. The interactions I have had have been good. 

It's still very early in our grant to provide thorough feedback.

The technical assistance we received from [REDACTED] when we had questions was 

superb. She was available and answered emails in a very timely manner - even when 

the USDoE was physically closed. I hope that the ability for remote work for USDoE 

employees remains

We just started and so not much impact.

We were awarded the TPSID funding mid-pandemic. Any questions we had, were 

answered right away.

TPSID - 2021 - Q31.5. What can TPSID do to improve communication with you? 

be more timely

More frequent and professional communication. For example, using BCC instead of 

CCC to prevent long reply all email threads, ensuring all intended recipients receive 

communication and are not left out, starting emails with a uniform structure and 

overview of the purpose, using descriptive subject lines, using a different email thread 

when different/guidelines/important information is being shared (rather than just 

replying to a previous message focused on a different topic), etc.

An APR update would be helpful for planning.

The emails are long and often repetitive. I'd rather have an attachment that could be 

printed easily. Sometimes when asking a question, the response is a copy of what was 

already sent rather than an explanation of what was sent.

Not sure what "TPSID" means in this case. Is this the program office, Department of 

PostSecondary Education or the TPSID center. Also in the previous question it was not 

clear who the TPSID specialist is. So in this case some specific definitions would be 
542

helpful. The communication with the program officer was very good. Communication 

with the TPSID Center was sometimes difficult, sometimes too much and not specific 

enough to know what exactly the sites program directors needed to do.

The DOE rarely communicates with me. I have significant interaction with the 

Coordinating Center who provides excellent communication and technical assistance.

I think monthly email updates would be helpful to make sure we are staying on track 

with the changing data reporting requirements. We only receive emails every 4-5 

months and they are very long and confusing. I recommend making the emails more 

frequent but shorter.

At times during the grant cycle and the APR reporting seemed misaligned (need to 

report in April vs. December of the year for the APR). I believe this only happened 2x 

during the course of the 10 years of funding - and I'm not sure there was anything that 

USDoE could have done about it - given the congressional continuing resolutions and 

appropriations.

Nothing. Satsified.

When hosting webinars hosted by Department of Education - please use a more 

updated system (Zoom, etc.) - as it is challenging when having to call in and log in with 

limited or horrible audio. It would allow everyone to focus more on the content.

TPSID - 2021 - Q31.6e. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with 

your program specialist?

email -- both indivudal and lists, depending on need.

Not sure what is meant by "program specialist" in this question.

TPSID - 2021 - Q31.7. How would you advise on improving the overall process 

and protocols associated with this grant competition?

All of the requirements of the program should be listed in the RFP and the application 

package.

Providing more time to plan for and prepare for the competition and making the 

information more readily available. The notice was released on May 11th and the 

proposal was due less than 8 weeks later on July 10th. The pre-application webinar 

was not held until June 17th and our program officer was out of the office from June 

19th-June 29th. This made it extremely difficult to have critical questions answered that 

were raised during the pre-application webinar. The pre-application webinar was 
543

scheduled for 90 minutes, and included 111 slides. It was poorly paced and did not 

include opportunities for discussion/clarity. Overall, the pre-application webinar made 

some aspects of the proposal process more confusing. Additional The 82 page "TPSID 

Instructions" document was difficult to locate and it would have been helpful if they 

were included in the same location as the award notice (I believe I ultimately found 

them on the G5 system, but don't fully recall).

Generally, the process and protocols have been very good. I would say that burden of 

reporting data to the national TPSID center were burdensome. It was also not always 

clear how these data were going to be used.

It would be good to have received notification of award a month before the start date of 

the grant. Notification of award came too close to the start date.

The webinar for the grant competition was confusing and there were a lot of 

unanswered questions. I recommend having people submit questions in advance so 

the presenters would be more knowledgeable of these questions.

The TPSID RFP needs to be revised given that at the end of the current funding cycle it 

will be 15 years. Updating some of the measures and requirements to be more 

compatible with the TPSID National Coordinating Center would be helpful.

No suggestions.

Updated webinars and updated website with critical info in a more timely manner.

Provide support for the sustainability of the programs.
544

Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities (TCCU)-Part A program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Not sure

Clearer guidance would be helpful, but I don't know if this can be done by the department or if it 

has to come from higher ups?

These questions do not apply to Title III 84.031T since it is on the Postsecondary ed site and 

the previous questions ask about the OESE site 

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/hep.html

Make it more easier to find information. Post new information regarding any information that 

needs to be communicated to users.

No specific suggestions - I am satisfied with its content and format.

We sometimes had difficulty moving between the budget, coursework requirements and student 

payback obligations.

I find it very helpful to my needs as I am technology challenged and my eye sight is challenged. 

If I encounter a problem the helpdesk information is available. I am able to browse easily 

through the website for my use of our Title III Part A. Thank you

more timely updates

This site works very well.

It is currently user freindly. Search options could be better.

Q33. How could we improve the grant reporting process?

Not sure

There was an interim report that was very confusing.

ok

The new reporting tool is better than in the past, however, it seems to keep changing which is 

problematic. IPEDS data could be automatically linked.
545

Simplify more and remove duplication.

when requesting information, given definitions of main question items.

The reporting process would be a bit more valuable to us, as a grantee, if the response 

requirements were a bit less prescribed and more open-ended.

An video guide that helps explain the process would be helpful. The Department sometimes 

uses this to do their presentations and being able to access this presentation throughout the 

year would be helpful.

This year the grant reporting format/process was revised for FY20-21. I found it user friendly 

and concise for the amount of information required. It took a bit more time to receive the data 

for the Student Profile Form and financial information from within our university. Once I 

gathered our information and data I was able to move through the format and reporting process 

in a timely manner to meet the submission deadline.

Please give us advance knowledge of what is going to be requested in the APR.

Grant reporting is to cookie cutter and one size fits all. For smaller Colleges, quantitative data 

is not as relevant as qualitative.

Last year it seemed the software platform worked very well except in a couple of instances. 

Under soem reporting requirments the option of N/A was not available and measurements are 

sometimes difficult to explain if at all applicable.

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role?

VPof Business / PI

Program Director VP of Campus Services

tribal college director

Dir of Operations

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

TCCU - 2021 - Q18.2. Please tell us how the technical assistance you received 

from your program specialist this past year was affected by the pandemic, as 
546

well as any suggestions you have to improve the technical assistance you 

received should we be faced with future national emergencies.

Our Program Officer works from home so it was not affected at all.

The TA was as helpful as could be from our grants manager, I think the grants manager 

could have used better guidance from others so he could have given us clearer 

direction. He gave us what he could.

Some times not available immediately.

I think that the response to COVID-19 was needed and timely, however, at times it was 

somewhat confusing or fluid. It seemed as things kept changing and narrowing its 

approach.

Overall response was good except for last ARP 425K funds delay.

When questions were asked, I was told to go to the website. Never given a website 

address nor answered my questions that aroused at the time.

I did not notice any significant changes to program services as a result of the 

pandemic. In the past, our primary form of communication was electronic, and this 

continued without interruption during the pandemic. We did miss the opportunity for 

face-to-face interaction at the proposed project director meeting in spring 2020 and 

hope that can happen again soon.

Our program was in the Induction phase and our students, all whom were employed, 

were more impacted than the program.

I received prompt reply and attention to my concerns and questions from [REDACTED]. 

In addition he reminded me of upcoming reports, APR and Interim reports and grant 

submissions. He was easily available to contact and helped to calm and reassure me 

business was as usual. He thoroughly answered questions for me as I am sure he had 

a large workload. Through use of email and phone contact he is very efficient and most 

helpful.

no suggestions

With some minor adjustment I was able to work from home and complete grant work. I 

believe that we all are much more prepared if we have another national emergency in 

the future.

I feel the assistance we recieved was exceptional. When we had issues or concerns we 

can contact our project director who has been excellent to work with. He provides 

anwers and solutions in a very timely manner. Due to COVID this has became a 

common problem with phone, video and email coorespondence. The only thing that 

should be improved on is open communication of guidlelines. There was some 
547

confusion which I beleive has been resolved. At the same time we are all in the 

pandemic and all facing difficult projects. Determining allowable to non allowable can 

be kind of confusing.

TCCU - 2021 - Q18.5. What can the TCCU do to improve communication with 

you?

Nothing -

na

Our TCCU program officer is great.

bi-monthly communication either by a webinar or a newsletter

resume project director meetings when it is safe to do so

We were actually very fortunate in that we were coming to the end of our grant and had 

limited need of TCCU communication. Looking back over the grant period we are very 

pleased with the staff although there still are rough edges the staff are not responsible 

for rule making, but have to work with us and interpret the rules as best they can.

Continue good communication through use of email and phone contacts.

More emails and a newsletter to keep us informed.

Continue with the emails and traings can help when provided. A simple power point 

presented by your staff helps considerably. We need more of those on various grant 

topics. Maye using data from FAQ questions being asked?

TCCU - 2021 - Q18.6e. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with 

your program specialist?

Phone and Email

TCCU - 2021 - Q18.7. How would you advise on improving the overall process 

and protocols associated with this grant competition?

Nothing
548

Reporting should be closer tied to grant objectives.

na

Not require full grant proposal for continuation grants

The competition process is excellent as is. The timing of final award notification (and 

exact budget amount) could be faster, but we recognize that the complex formula used 

for making final awards slow this process down considerably.

We have been very fortunate to have received a number of grants and have, over the 

years, graduated over fifty teachers. Even those who dropped out of our program have 

gone on to work in the field of education, many of these have completed their 

requirements and have passed their licensure requirements on their own after 

participating in our program. We also continue to follow-up and encourage those who 

may have dropped out to reconsider and finish their education. Thank you... Now we 

need more money and more programs funded. There is a great need for American 

Indian teachers in our classrooms.

The current revisions have been made more user friendly for me I found it easier to 

browse through the questions, gather the information and respond. The process was 

explained well on paper and verbally addressed by my Program Contact. He would ask 

if I had any questions about the process.

na

This is not a competition for the TCCU's.

I think the current protocols that are in place are sufficient. Possibly a better explanation 

to the PI and finance individuals manageing the grants. This may help in determening 

what we may have to do to be more competetive in the grant process.
549

TRIO Talent Search

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

It's complicated finding information about the different grants. You have to be creative in your 

thinking. It is easy to find the list of grants that is up for refunding, but for existing grants it is a 

lot harder. But all in all much better than a lot of government sites I have been on.

Website could provide regular updates on status of grant competitions.

There is a lot of text on the Federal TRIO Programs page. Perhaps creating icons for News 

and Information, Reference Documents, Maps, etc., that the user can click on to read more 

about the topic would make the page less busy.

The lingo is very specific and as a new director, it is not easy to navigate due to not being 

familiar with the lingo of things.

Correct broken links.

Continue to make the website user-friendly.

Make it more user friendly to find information. It seems like it is not organize.

Updated information, with list of Program Officers when they change responsibilities. List of 

allowable/unallowable costs. Procedures for things such as carry-over and prior approval.

The Department/Office of Postsecondary Education provides a lot of useful information on the 

website. However, Google searches for information tied to the website could be improved. I 

appreciate being able to Google the Federal income levels, or legs and regs. Perhaps, more 

information can be found via Google searches.

no suggestions

I've never used the OESE.ED.gov for TRIO-related information (didn't know information was 

being housed there), but have often used 

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/trio/index.html

I don't have anything to add.

Fastest update of information when it pertains to changes in dates, figures, and low income 

levels.

N/A
550

If it was a bit more user friendly and easier to read, navigate & search, that would be helpful. If I 

am trying to quickly find an answer, it takes longer than it should.

Update functionality based on accessibility tools (i.e. screen reader, etc).

Provide clear and accurate information.

It takes awhile to navigate to the information I'm looking for. For example, I frequently do use 

the map of existing TRIO programs when sharing with community partners "what is TRIO." But 

it always takes me awhile clicking through to find it. I also wish that the full grant application 

package that is posted in grants.gov could also be included and published on the DOE site. 

Finally, sometimes the training grant information is not as readily up to date, and by the time I 

check out the training I want to attend they can be full.

I am not a web designer but in general I think there is an over emphasis on security. Perhaps 

an easier way to assure security (Duo?). Well Designed and Functional. Your site reflects your 

company, your products, your services and ultimately your brand. I'm not sure the site is 

Optimized for Mobile computing.

I have no suggestions. I cannot even begin to imagine keeping such a "monster" up.

Find it sufficient for my needs, sometimes requires some searching before I can complete task, 

but have always found information.

No comment

Make it more interactive. Easy tabs to navigate and find the information. The layout needs to be 

more visual, and easy to navigate. It just needs a little "facelift" because the information is 

there but not very appealing to the eye.

N/A

Not user friendly. The language used as is with all TRIO grants is never clear and always has 

grey area for interpretation.

I'm not sure if this is really what you are looking for in response to this question, but the What 

Works Clearinghouse could benefit from increased volume of resources and more current 

materials.

The website is user friendly in all respects.

I understand that there are limitations to the amount that can be changed, however it would be 

helpful if there were some photos that correlated to the topic (i.e Talent Search/UB/UBMS could 

have stock photos of students having fun). Additionally, the waivers & flexibility webpage 

(https://www.ed.gov/coronavirus/waivers-and-flexibilityhttps://www.ed.gov/coronavirus/waiversand-flexibility) could be set up like a news post or blog, I imagine bold headlines, a small photo, 

& short articles to entice visitors to read the articles. When I first found the page it was 
551

underwhelming & could use a bit of upgrade to encourage visitors to read all the addendums & 

information. I have only read the one article I was looking for & haven't looked through the other 

articles because it feels too technical & it doesn't look like an interesting or fun read.

Make content more accurate and more visually easy to read and find content. Sometimes I find 

myself spending a lot of time looking for things.

Mostly, things like training grant schedules and locations are out of date and could be updated 

quicker.

I didn't know this website existed, (OESE.ED.gov)

I have not actually used this website but moving forward will review and use.

Overall, I find the site useful. Sometimes drilling down to find specific regulatory and legislative 

information is a bit cumbersome, so a better interface to locate such information would be great. 

For example, TRIO Programs project directors looking for guidance regarding Grant Aid have 

only a single memorandum from the early 2000's to inform their practices. This information 

should be updated. Moreover, a friendlier, more appealing navigation menu for the various 

TRIO Programs would be great for those of us who manage more than one project and thereby 

consult the regulations frequently.

Additional information on Grantees and Applicants section.

Possibly moving updates and important info to the top of the page would be helpful

There seems to be some out of date things. One time i was looking for something and there 

was a 404 error page.

NA

N/A

make it easier to find specific information

My questions are usually answered by [REDACTED], but it would be nice to have more simple 

ways of finding information. Sometimes the language is confusing. Maybe have a pop up menu 

of questions asked most by Talent Search personnel.

The prior questions pertained to the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. The DPE 

website is useful when the information is updated.

No suggestions at this time.

Keep it updated.
552

Indicate a more specific directive of information with regards to specific areas of need.

It's likely I missed communication about it but I had no idea it existed.

No issues at this time.

I don't think it is an improvement, more of a suggestion the ability to call and talk to a person 

more.

I find the website very well organized, and it is easy to find the information I am looking for.

A little more user friendly

?

more user-friendly by having easy to find buttons and clear directions on the first page. Thank 

you

No Comment

It works fine, I think its a content issue - updating more regularly, but the functionality is good. I 

am not sure if I will get another change to mention how outstanding our new program officer is: 

[REDACTED]

Continue to grow it as being evolving with user friendliness.

Ensure accuracy and updated information is available.

The website is easy to use and find information. No suggestions at this time.

It could be easier to and contain more information.

Please consider the user experience when designing the site. Share resources more easily. 

Limit the pages to fewer links and external sites.

It works well in my opinion.

N/A

I was completely unaware of this valuable resource available to me. I will review and determine 

if and how to use this with my program and staff.

I have no issues or suggestions on improving website.
553

There are a lot of things and links on the site. I believe creating subsequent pages for each 

area of would be helpful in the presentation and ease of use.

I don't have any suggestions at this time

Improvement in the directory and accurate information for program speicalist

Not friendly and easy to research and not updated sometimes quickly or as often as it could be.

Use more infographics where possible. Give each program page more of a distinct link, if only a 

tab with a different color, that would help. As is, everything looks the same.

Those of us who have to wait for results of competitions would greatly appreciate updates on 

this page. The last update is saying that the competition would reopen to states affected by the 

freeze and that was months ago and not pertinent information. I've found there there is no 

really good way to find out the most updated information about this. When my job, the jobs of 

my staff, and services to hundreds of students are on the line, any information is helpful as we 

wait. Thank you for asking.

I have only been on G5 to access grant award notifications and related tasks. It's always clunky 

and difficult to find the year you need or the most updated version of your GAN. As for the 

website, I have not used it and didn't know about it. I use the ed.gov site more often. It would 

be really helpful if the US. Dept. of Ed. would send out emails several times a year pointing 

grant recipients to legitimate resources that they should use for reference.

On a few occasions, it has been hard to find information. I am not sure if this is what you would 

call it but more key identifier words to help lookup information.

More buttons to links.

Update information in a timely manner.

No comments

More timely updates to information such as funded programs and training opportunitites.

Make it easier to find information specific to the TRIO grants, make it significantly less text 

dense, provide resources for programs such as timelines of appropriate documentation 

provision, etc.

It needs to look more modern.

At times there are some outdated information and/or Error messages to some links.

Information needs to be kept up-to-date (TRIO Training links, etc.).
554

Make the website more user friendly.

Too text heavy. More visuals/graphics. Easier search engine.

The biggest improvement would be having items up to date. Another suggestion is to curate 

content by type of program (i.e., specifically for TS).

I honestly could not find any information about Talent Search, even using the search option

Overall the site links are very good. Updated information on grant application status. Would 

like to know when we would hear of funding.

More infographics and images.

I have never seen or used this website until completing this survey. I do not find any information 

specific to Educational Talent Search after looking at it.

Although there's a lot of content, I have generally been able to find information. If not, I can 

inquire from Program Officer for direction/assistance

May want to consider hiring additional staff to assist with workloads.

I have been doing this job, managing three TRIO programs for the past 6 years. I had support, 

but finding things on my own was sometimes difficult. Guidelines and regulations can be found 

multiple places and sometimes you have to dig to find what you are looking for. Not always 

easy to find things.

It seems intimidating and does not seem to offer more than the general grant program 

descriptions. Maybe a better display of the content that makes it easier to find relevant content.

Q33. How could we improve the grant reporting process?

There needs to be come clarity as to what you are meaning by some information. For example 

on the college degrees, if you have someone who has an associate, bachelors, and masters. 

Or if someone gets into a special program and never finishes a bachelors but goes straight into 

a doctorate and finishes it. There is no acknowledgement of doctor's degrees. You did clear 

up what is needed on the duel credit question. Thank you!

Give more time prior to grant reporting submission.

Provide more information on how the USDOE uses the data that we report.

Maybe having a set date each year that reporting will be due.
555

No suggestions at this time.

Be consistent with the formatting (i.e., double space, single space) instructions. When asked 

program officers during a webinar, no one would admit there was a mistake in the instruction 

manual, take ownership for the mistake, NOR give a reasonable answer for applicants on what 

was required/acceptable.

I think simple is always best. This is not a simple process. I think that it could be simplified.

Provide more examples and scenarios to help understand questions.

The requirements for reporting postsecondary enrollment could be clarified a little more. I think 

there is an opportunity to revise the definition of enrollment types and timelines, which can be 

limiting. For instance, you may have some students enroll in the summer, immediately following 

high school, but may not return in the fall. Therefore, they do not meet the definition of college 

enrollment. Also, since the pandemic, the 2020 college enrollment data was not as viable. 

Perhaps, considerations to these issues are being discussed. I will look forward to receiving an 

update.

no suggestions

It has been increasingly difficult to get help through the APR help desk. During the last APR 

season, I called and emailed a question that was never answered. Thankfully, I figured out a 

solution on my own but I was unsure if I was taking the right steps.

Nothing to add

No suggestions.

N/A

Submitting our APR's is always easy. Some of the data can be challenging to collect. I 

appreciate having webinars to go over the process & explain the sections, but some of the 

terminology could be defined more clearly.

During the pandemic, participants numbers were adjusted due to school closing. The Agency 

met its participants enrollment goal by 90%. We lost points at the end of the report. This was 

very disappointing considering the work the Agency risked doing during the pandemic.

I have no technical or data access issues with reporting annually.

I found the interface to be very sensitive and after submitting data received many error 

messages. Perhaps this was because it was my first time working with the system.

no suggestions
556

APR reporting goes well, review of the process and further clarification in some fields could be 

helpful. There has been times that a colleague and I have read the same statement and 

interpreted it differently.

The application came out and was due in 4 weeks.

I think the grant reporting process it's easy to report if the grantee has a database to be able to 

pull all the information required to report, which we do.

Set annual schedules and keep to them. The flipping schedules of when reports are due is 

confusing. Also, recognize that the tools used for completing reports (i.e., National Student 

Clearinghouse) are often not as accurate as needed for the earlier deadlines. Push deadlines 

later to allow grantees to get the most accurate information available in relation to college 

enrollments/completions. There should be an electronic signature option - rather than 

printing/signing/tracking down signatures - the department should allow for an electronic 

signature process that is easy to use. If taxes, FAFSA, and other documents can be 

electronically signed, there is no reason these can't be.

The reporting process is clear and assistance is available for clarification purposes.

As a new project director I have not looked at the grant reporting process yet & will be unable to 

give feedback regarding the process until I have gone through the process.

I'm not really sure how this could be done. I think the reporting process is very straight forward.

While it is difficult to access some of the information required for reporting, that is NOT the fault 

of the Department. The challenge lies in local data access and in the fact that given the 

mobility of our students, their information is not always precise in data aggregators, including 

the National Student Clearinghouse. The data requested is data we want to have, as well. So 

the challenge is real, but one that I think is appropriate to expect of grantees.

Mostly, it is about tracking services for students who participate in other federal projects. Not 

sure you really get anything useful, but it takes a lot of time and effort.

When asking for information with the annual report such as number of ELL students, number of 

dual enrollment students (as a few examples), creates a lot more work in reporting extra data

we aren't held to, or isn't in the purpose of our grant. If we could just be held to reporting data 

that we are responsible for would be appreciated.

Financial Aid (FAFSA) Confirmation data - this can be challenging to retrieve from students, 

even when we assist them with completing and submitting the FAFSA. To complete this 

question on the APR, we ensure that we have "evidence" of FAFSA Confirmation. So unless we 

get it from the student or have them forward their confirmation email to us, it is extremely hard 

to get the "evidence" for documentation purposes for this APR question.

The reporting process is fairly straightforward. As a seasoned professional, I don't find the 

process as cumbersome as my newer colleagues. Generally, clarity in vernacular is critical to 

me, and sometimes Department of Education guidance/directions are contradictory and 
557

confusing. Therefore, evaluating your communications to ensure the information is concise and 

reader-friendly would be great.

Training for APR preparation could be improved as part of a Priority training.

I know it's difficult but the earlier we can know about updates, reporting, etc. the better.

Requiring us to estimate and report on 6 year (college) graduation rates of former participants 

should be eliminated. Once they graduate high school we do not have guaranteed access to 

them or their accomplishments.

I am not sure because I am new to the role and have not went through the process yet

I like the reporting process. The only thing that could be improved is the final page where the 

President of the institution and Director sign. Everything else can be uploaded but that form 

needs to be faxed....why cant it just be apart of the submission?

There wasn't a clear explanation of what goes where and we weren't sure where to attach 

certain items, it needs to stay attach budge here and only the budget goes there. This is an 

easy programming fix.

NA

Please improve the coding in the submission website to recognize the Ã± symbol in people's 

names. When I tried to input my name with a Ã±, it would not accept my information, even 

though my name has a Ã± in the department's records.

eliminate some unnecessary data if any.

Talent Search grant reporting has become easier as we trust online submission.

It would be helpful if a recording could be made available until the submission deadline.

The reporting process works well, I have no suggestions for improving the process.

It seemed like there were parts of the grant that contradicted each other. I would just make sure 

that all parts of the application process are consistent.

I think the process is good.

n/a

I'm not sure there is a way to improve, we have to rely on the National Student Clearinghouse 

for our data for a few of the questions and we find a fair amount of errors from the report we 

receive which is more on their end then yours.
558

None at this time.

N/A

I believe everything is fine as it stands. I am able to easily find what I need, directions are very 

clear, and data on accountability is made readily available.

?

Brand new director-I don't know yet

The reporting time period (90 days after the project year ends- which will be the month of 

November for most Talent Search Projects), does not allow program post secondary students 

who will graduate in December of that same year, to be counted positive graduates.

For information to not be contradicting. Some places it said one thing and in other places it said 

another. This was very confusing.

None

I have been doing it for more than 15 years and it's been pretty much the same so I am ok with 

the reporting process

The APR is fairly easy to complete, it is however time consuming to gather all the necessary 

information to be prepared to complete the report. I don't have suggestions to improve the 

process. The information required for completion is needed, so we work within that given 

framework to complete the information as accurately as possible to ensure program objectives 

are being met.

There was no guidance from the Department relating to meeting the needs of the objectives 

throughout COVID. Why should we all wonder if the Department is going to allow for unmet 

objectives during this national/international crisis? I don't understand why a message of 

support about the objectives could not have come to us from the Department at any point 

during the last APR or the past year. This was a complete failure of leadership.

Not have the deadlines for multiple grants so close together.

No current issues on the grant reporting process.

Annual reporting trainings and information seminars

I don't have suggestions at this time

Consistency of timing
559

I feel it would be have been nice for us to not have to be dealing with covid, working remotely, 

and trying to get students to respond(which many have not at all), and doing the report, and 

trying to work on grant writing all at the same time for Talent Search

Consider allowing participants who complete an Associates degree program while in high 

school to count towards our attainment objective.

Some of the reporting requirements are difficult to interpret. For instance, the wording around 

who pays for rigorous coursework is cryptic. The way that we report who graduates having 

completed a rigorous program is also difficult to match to our grants and outdated. The APR 

submission process, though, is pretty smooth. I also feel like my prior experience points are 

clear too.

The grant package has two different formatting guidelines.

N/A

Deadlines always coincide with holiday breaks. Consider different deadlines

RFP commonly includes conflicting information.

Electronic submission was not easy to understand. I called help desk several times

A better re-examination of the data and the project's ability to collect and use the data in the 

next reauthorization.

Open the form sooner, and provide clearer instruction and webinars on how to complete it.

eliminate the pse achievement tracking

n/a

I like it how it is. :)

APR reporting process is easy.

Some of the definitions are unclear (e.g., what entity offers the rigorous program).

It would be helpful to know how aggregate data informs program operations overall, and it 

would be helpful to get information about Talent Search performance across the US

Easier to understand instructions

N/A
560

The grant reporting process seems to go well as long as data has been entered in our database 

system. The directions are clear and helpful.

Do not ask about dual enrolled participants

The process has improved over the years

There are times when I wish the Department would data mine the data we've already provided 

so we don't have to provide the same data again and again.

This does not have to do with the reporting process. It addresses the application submission 

process, there was no dialog box for explanation. My campus has three awards - Talent 

Search, Upward Bound and Student Support Services. Because of the formatting backlash from 

the UB grant writing, I feel that some directives/instructions went out the window. At one point 

does reading and following the directions play a part? We are in a space where people are 

making their own rules, then choosing which ones to follow.

Link references to regulations, rather than just referencing the regulation.

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role?

Agency Director

TS Program Director

TRIO Talent Search Director

Project Interim Director

Assistant director

Interim Director

Program Manager

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

TRIO TS - 2021 - Q25.2. Please tell us how the technical assistance you received 

from your program specialist this past year was affected by the pandemic, as 

well as any suggestions you have to improve the technical assistance you 

received should we be faced with future national emergencies.
561

My program specialist put out helpful information. I know their hands were tied with 

answering some of our questions. I wish they could have been more up front and 

responsive to our questions early on. We had to wait a long time (sometimes too late)

to be given direction. Specifically, the difficulty of meeting our numbers - not knowing if 

they were going to relax the requirements.

I fill it was unreasonable to ask us to put together 4 or 5 budgets through out the year. 

Especially as we were asked to put one together that was due the same day as our 

new grant application. School resources were stretched thin this year and getting 

information from our accounting offices and human resource offices to put these 

budgets together was a challenge.

Program Specialist wasvery effective in disseminating during COVID 19 pandemic.

My program specialist conveyed information that we needed for our project adequately.

[REDACTED] is my program specialist. He has always been very responsive, clear, 

and concise in his responses.

Instructions were not always clear on what was requested.

Program officers had conflicting information. Needs to be consistent.

I think the program specialist responded to my emails in a timely fashion, and also took 

the time to talk with me when I would call with a question.

no suggestions

Guidance from the department came late last summer (after most programming was in 

progress or completed). Projects have been vastly affected in recruitment efforts by the 

virtual environment and COVID, and no guidance was issued on how it would affect PE 

points or substantial progress until MONTHS after the end of the fiscal year - leaving 

project staff stressed and worried about the potential outcomes. We still have not yet 

been issued clear guidance on substantial progress this year. Flexibility on carry over, 

stipends, and feeding students while remote, however, have been very helpful.

Communication through email was always answered. It is always best to have a good 

line of communication from person to person.

Clear communication regarding support and new guidelines.

Providing clear language on programmatic regulations during pandemic, there were 

unanswered questions and unclear answers.

I knew I had to be patient because no one wanted to answer questions until they 

received direction & information from people at higher levels. It took quite a while to 

trickle down to us, but we continued to provide services to our students through mail, 
562

email, zoom, etc. Now, that we have been through this once, if it ever happens again 

(and we hope not), I believe things will move a little quicker & be a little more clear & 

consistent. I didn't allow myself to get frustrated, stressed or angered because no one 

had been through this before & no one really knew the correct way to conduct business 

(and no way to make everyone happy). We remained flexible & kept in contact with our 

students through it all.

Timeliness and responsiveness of responses were definitely impacted. I have two 

requests to the TS program specialist that have gone completely unnoticed and/or 

unresponded to in the last year.

During grant writing, I sought technical assistance from GRAnts. Gov and Talent 

Search. I followed all directions given and through technical support, my grant was

uploaded. Months later, I was informed that my grant was uploaded to the wrong 

portal. After running a successful Talent Search program for more than 20 years, I am 

informed that the help I received led me to the incorrect t grant portal. I am facing the 

ultimate loss of serving youth in poverty, cut jobs, and not have a Talent Search grant. 

I am so angry at the Talent Search administration who were of no help.

[REDACTED] has always been professional, timely and follows to the letter the 

instructions we are given from DOE. He responds quickly to questions and gives written 

approval for annual budgets. When I sent our program's multiple proposals for changes 

in scope and spending due to the pandemic, [REDACTED] responded with clear 

approvals and instructions of how to follow-through. I will also add that he often 

responded within 24 hours, which meant that we could act quickly to our immediate 

program and student needs.

I believe the pandemic brought out the BEST in people I needed to deal with in terms of 

technical assistance. They were helpful, responsive, and friendly. they did a great job 

during this pandemic -- I appreciate their flexibility.

I think the program specialist did very well during the pandemic. All of us were in the 

dark and we got through it.

My program officer responded promptly and provided me with resolutions whenever 

possible. My program officer was great, however I do feel the response to the 

pandemic was very much delayed at times and the program officers were only able to 

provide answers to the questions that the Department had addressed.

I requested assistance for the use large funds available in the budget due to the 

pandemic and limited opportunities to spend funds. The Program Officers were helpful 

even if it was not the response I was hoping for.

I am new to TRIO and Talent Search. I got hired January 2020 and the program 

specialist resign ( from my understanding) [REDACTED] was my contact 

person/program specialist. At the time I was not too aware of who [REDACTED]was so 

when I contacted him about questions I had about running a Virtual STEM Summer 

Program with a component on Social Emotional Learning he was really supported to 
563

my ideas and gave me more detail information as he figured out I had only been in the 

job for a couple of months before the pandemic hit. I called him a couple of times and 

he was really supported and answered my questions right away. Later on I was 

assigned to [REDACTED], he has also been supported and when I have a question he 

responds as soon as he cans, I know sometimes he is working on datelines so I try not 

to contact him during those times but overall he has been very responsive. When I 

needed to make a budget revision he was also very responsive. The area were I would 

suggest to be improve is when we are trying to make decisions on how to better serve 

our students and we get red tape because we are not allowed to make certain 

purchases on a certain items even though we know the students will benefit 

tremendously from them. We waited a long time to hear about stipends, when we know 

other programs like UB have been giving stipend to their students for year. We are very 

grateful that we were able to purchase laptops and hot spots to lend to students. This 

made a HUGE difference in having contact with our students. The lack of technology in 

the homes was evident right away. Students and parents were grateful we were able to 

provide a laptop and/or hot spots. It was beautiful to see their faces lit up when they 

received the laptop, I saw hope in their eyes and a big sense of relief. Decisions need 

to be made a little quicker. But again, no one was prepared for a worldwide pandemic I 

think the DOE did a great job despite the circumstances.

I received very general information about the pandemic and its relation to the running of 

the project. There was not enough guidance on how we could adapt and very little 

wiggle room was actually provided on meeting project requirements given the 

challenges of the pandemic. Deadlines for requesting changes were unclear and often 

buried in drawn out documents written in legal style rather than towards the general 

audience that was consuming the letters. Even when consulting colleagues across the 

state/region there was not clarity.

Fairly prompt considering the circumstances. I think we all just did not know what to do 

and were going day by day.

Our program officer took the time to answer questions via email and phone 

conversations and made the time to clearly articulate changed policies and provide 

examples of ways we could operate under the new guidance. The support we received 

was exceptional.

The technical assistance was adequate considering the situation presented by the 

pandemic. Information was shared in a timely manner, as we all navigated through the 

pandemic's unknown terrain. My program specialist provided assistance in the 

preparation of our budget to include special need items for our participants due to the 

pandemic. As a rural program, I was grateful for her guidance in ensuring that our 

participants had their needs met.

I entered into this role in January 2021 and the information I had access to was slow 

initially, because it took a while to get role clarity through my university & through to the 

Dept of Ed. However, once that was clarified if I had questions my program specialists 

were quick to answer them & provide information.
564

Emails with questions or concerns to my program specialist are not returned in a timely 

fashion and often require a follow up email on my part as a reminder that I asked a 

question or need quidence.

There is a challenge in that the nature of education was different across multiple states 

and territories and the program did not have a process by which to respond to that 

variability. How the program operates in a community in which schools were open 

versus 100% virtual, was very different. But there was no accommodation available for 

those working in the more challenging virtual environment.

We were able to communicate to acquire approval for offering small meals in 

conjunction with targeted online service programs.

My program was between program officers, and so I reached out to [REDACTED] who 

was very responsive and provided answers quickly. There was however, some 

confusion on who to ask approval from regarding technology purchases at the time and 

how to go about doing this correctly.

Overall, I know at times the PS couldn't really answer questions as quickly as probably 

the TRIO community would have liked but that was not their fault but rather the 

changes in laws, policies, etc at a higher level, etc. Overall, the PS ([REDACTED] took 

on the role of PS for most of the pandemic bc of short staff) did an amazing job and 

[REDACTED] empathy and caring attitude was extremely appreciated it during this 

challenging time (he has always been supportive pre-covid and he is very much 

appreciated). [REDACTED] does an excellent job and I (we, when talking to my TS 

colleagues) feel confident and supported with [REDACTED] overseeing TS. In 

addition, we have a new PS who started in his role during the pandemic, and we have 

been extremely impressed with his skills, communication, quick responses, 

professionalism, etc. Thank you - your support, assistance, and overall energy has 

been appreciated always but more so since March 2020!!

My program specialist,[REDACTED], is fantastic. He is quite attentive to my requests 

and correspondence. He always replies promptly and is supportive of me and the 

projects I manage. [REDACTED] is the best program specialist with whom I have had 

the pleasure to work. I respect him and value his guidance and support.

My Program Specialist is very professional and answers all my questions when 

submitted. He will even direct me to a specific regulation for additional clarification. He 

is thorough and knowledgeable with Talent Search. Kudos to him for making my job as 

a Director easy!

While my program didn't require assistance directly, we did wait a very long time for 

technical assistance/directives after everything began shutting down in March. I believe 

the first major updates we received were in early June, which was late for administering 

summer programming. I completely understand this was unprecedented but I know 

many programs struggled with needing guidance.
565

I think the Department did the best it could with the information it was given and the 

ability to stay within regulations.

He did not communicate well in written form. He never answered my questions clearly, 

he just circled around them and never gave me a clear answer. Most of the time I just 

need a yes or no and he never really answered. He always wanted my budget revised, 

we don't have to do that, we can revise our budgets as needed just so we don't take out 

of participant expense, so it was very frustrating to have to continually redo my budget. 

We don't have a lot of time and it was all budget, budget, budget and never answer 

questions.

NA IT was very engaging and helpful even during the pandemic. Great Job!

Instructions sent out were sporadic and unclear. However, the support I received when 

I asked questions was prompt and helpful for the Talent Search program.

The program specialist was transparent and reliable with sharing new information and 

updates. It would be helpful to have an app activated for any future national 

emergencies for a live chat weekly with program specialists and other directors to share 

information, updates and ask questions.

I was well pleased with the responses that I received from the Program officer, also, I 

was pleased with the some decisions regarding stipends distribution. However, more 

clarity needed on the adjustments that must be made with the regs.

I was fortunate to have an amazing TS program officer, [REDACTED] and before him it 

was [REDACTED]. Hence, I was given clear instructions and examples of how to use 

my budget and think of ways to make Talent Search work with online activities. After a 

successful Summer STEM experience, with the assistance of the program officer, I 

prepared a calendar of events, scheduled workshops, communicated with students, 

parents, staff, school personnel and discover STEM activities using virtual technology. I 

have learned that thinking "outside the box" is the new normal.

I was able to email the program specialist and received prompt responses.

At the beginning of the pandemic, my program specialist contacted me and provided 

answers to questions in a timely manner.

We served out students to the best of our ability through our schools. But would 

appreciate the DOE allowing us to carryover funds so we are not spending 

thoughtlessly because it's the end of our grant cycle. Allow us to carry over so we can 

put our funds to better use when students are back in school please.

The response time was longer than usual. I think part of it was the pandemic and the 

turnover of staff in the DOE.

Both of us felt the affect by the pandemic because it eventually place both in a shut 

mode whereas work could barely be completed or done.
566

Should we have another national emergency I would suggest less time between 

communications, granted the pandemic made everything feel like it was slowing down 

but I do remember wondering about the departments expectations of programs for a 

long time. I would also add that many regions, if not all face local and state 

emergencies that bring things to a halt much like the pandemic did. Please be more 

cognizant of the impact those emergencies have on programs too and offer guidance in 

those situations. We will have another hurricane, tornado, fire, flood etc. that will disrupt 

entire service areas in the short and long term and how the department responds to 

those is something you can prepare for now.

No issues.

N/A

My program specialist provided accurate and up-to-date guidance and advice with any 

questions I posed. All questions or communications were addressed quickly and with 

professionalism.

The assistance was provided as expected in a virtual manner.

The virtual training was very dry - just rattling off the regs. Structure it a bit more like the 

training offered by the COE

Our Program Specialist, [REDACTED] was very helpful in providing our Talent Search 

program with technical assistance in this program. He offered ideas on preparing our 

virtual lesson/sessions plan as well as assistance and ideas for spending any carryover funds from last program year. We are now in the process of conducting our "8 

Weeks ETS Summer Enrichment Camp" for our ETS Middle School students, and 

things are really going well. One of the most beneficial things the department agreed 

on, was to allow us to give 50 Trio students a $180.00 stipend this summer for 

attending the camp. Being low-income and first-generation students, they can really 

use these dollars to help buy school supplies. THANK YOU!

I think [REDACTED] did a great job keeping in touch and helping us through a tough 

time.

Whenever I had questions they were answered and if I had more questions they were 

answered.

Faster decisions to disseminate more timely to projects. It was too long before we 

received correspondence with guidance.

My program officer has been extreme helpful and has been very receptive to my 

questions and emails

This situation was different than any situation any of us have ever had to face. While I 

feel the department gave us information in as timely a manner as possible, there were 

times when there were unknowns and are still times when there are unknown factors, 
567

such as in the situation whether or not we will have an extension on expenditure of 

current grant funds or notification of funding of our new grant proposals. In situations 

such as this pandemic, I think there is always room for growth and improvement for 

preparedness in the next emergency.

When the global pandemic was declared, the US Dept of Ed was, because of the size 

of the department and being a governmental department, were not able to offer 

immediate guidance, so there was a period of time when there were a lot of unknowns. 

This was understandable because we were in uncharted territory. The assistance and 

communications were distributed as quickly as possible in the circumstances.

My program specialist was excellent and timely. She did not always know the answers 

to my questions. If she didn't know, she would find out.

Program officer was quick to answer any questions related to covid 19 and how it 

impacts the talent search program.

There was no leadership from the top of the Department to explain how our objectives 

could be mitigated during the pandemic. Program Officers could only repeat written 

statements from the leadership and they were silent on supporting TRIO during the 

pandemic. This was a failure in leadership from the top. I do not blame the Program 

Officers for not knowing and not wanting to be more supportive since there was no 

directive from the leaders in charge.

The Program Specialist was easily accessible during the pandemic.

The technical assistance we received was timely and good. The pandemic caught 

everyone by surprise. I would say the best course is to continue the way it has been 

done, and be available early on with guidance.

N/A

The technical assistance I received from my program specialist this past year has 

always been useful, clearly written, and quick! I greatly appreciate his help!

Not many issues, just a delay on getting approval to provide stipends to TS students 

attending summer activities.

Didn't have much issue with the technical side

Immediate direction, guidance and information

At all times I received information about health safety measures and the opportunity to 

work from home and workshops

Overall, we received very little help and guidance at all and definitely not much in the 

way of breaks to help us navigate make due or meet objectives. As far as a program 
568

specialist goes the one I had at first when this all started never responded to anything 

at all or timely if they did. I got responses when I indicated that I had asked multiple 

times and also CC'ed [REDACTED]. My new program specialist in the fall is new to the 

program but seems to be responsive. Program products were mentioned before and 

we do not even know what those are and where to find them.

Communication was completely missing. Even if there is no information to report, I 

would appreciate more communication from the Dept. Additionally, the Talent Search 

contact changes frequently, compared to the UB and SSS programs. It is hard to 

develop a relationship with Program Officers/Contact Personnel with this frequency.

[REDACTED] has been, hands down, the most helpful, responsive and professional 

program specialist I have ever worked with (except for [REDACTED]). It would be nice 

if, after all of these years, we could all trust that we could contact our program 

specialists for real advice and guidance without fearing an audit for asking a question. 

That dysfunctional relationship between grantees and the dept. has been in place for 2 

decades at least and will take a true commitment to change for the better.

Assistance with the budgets and stipends.

I believe they need to be more frequent. I understand it takes time to develop new 

procedures or come up with appropriate responses, but keeping us informed earlier or 

updated would be beneficial.

Program Officers changed during the pandemic. It was a tough time for everyone.

My Program Officer, [REDACTED] was very proactive and responsive in ensuring our 

institution has all relevant information, support and recommendations to achieve 

program goals, expectations, and guidance throughout the pandemic. His regular 

email updates, meetings with me, responses to my communication, and 

recommendations were very helpful and appreciated.

Did not receive a lot of feedback on what was expected due to the pandemic

We have only had interaction with the staff via e-mail messages sent out to grantees 

globally.

The previous administration did a poor job from the top to help provide guidance 

throughout the system and low income communities suffered. There have been 

increased levels since this spring of engagement and communications.

Very responsive to my program's needs.

n/a

Program officer has been very helpful, knowledgable, and informative. Always replies 

in a timely manner.
569

N/A

It has been frustrating with no clear decision about meeting numbers of students served 

for reporting for 20-21. This has been the most difficult year of my 35 years in TRIO and 

my staff have been trying very hard to recruit and engage students. I realize it takes 

alot of people and departments to make a decision, and I appreciate the work. We just 

need to know. Thanks.

I had to reach out to my program specialist more than usual with questions and 

requests. They were very responsive and helpful during this time.

The assistance was fantastic. It's my understanding my assigned specialist is leaving or 

has left. I hope the new one is as supportive and responsive.

Overall communication was great. I actually had more communication than usual during 

the pandemic. Our new program officer reached out and also responded quickly to 

questions. It would have been helpful to get more timely guidance about how the 

Department would deal with challenges such as not being able to meet program 

numbers despite our efforts. I still do not have guidance about that. Some questions 

were answered quickly but the big ones, regarding meeting/not meeting program 

objectives due to the pandemic, were harder to get answers to.

I wish there would be more communication from the PS. Maybe a monthly or quarterly 

update on important items we should be aware of.

Written communication from the Program Specialist was timely and he was available 

for additional questions I had.

My program specialist passed along information; I felt like decisions were slow to be 

made but I understand we were in unusual circumstances and my program specialist 

does not have the authority to make all of the decisions we asked about.

Basic guidance on specific questions; very responsive

I don't believe it was my program specialist's problem. It seemed to come from higher 

up with a lack of clear, timely information.

I think the program specialist did the best that she could, with the information she had. 

Seems as though everyone was waiting on someone above them to give clear 

guidance no what the next steps were to be. I understand that process, but I would like

to have had ongoing discussions.

TRIO TS - 2021 - Q25.5. What can the Talent Search do to improve 

communication with you? 
570

[REDACTED] is the only Program Specialist I have ever had that would do phone calls 

to answer questions, answer emails, and hold a zoom meeting with you as needed. I'm 

upset that he got moved to a different department. I don't know of any other program 

specialist that responds as well as he does. All my fellow grant directors in other 

programs never get this response and until I had him I never did either. You would 

send an email and never get a response. So you just sent emails and if there was no 

response than it was assumed that it was approved.

Talent Search provides adequate communication with our project.

It was an atypical year, so there were many changes and modifications. We all are in a 

continuous learning process.

Be: Timely Clear/Precise instructions/requests Notify Awardees sooner

Nothing, I think they do a great job in communicating.

Respond in a timely manner. Have clear and consistent information that I can share 

with my supervisors.

The communication is good considering there are a lot of Talent Search programs. 

Perhaps, a monthly newsletter would be nice.

no suggestions

Approval of the TS stipend request required at least 4 separate responses to questions 

and submission of information. Each time I submitted, a different request for additional 

information was made. It would have been much simpler had all clarifications or 

supplemental information been requested the first time.

I have nothing to add to the communications that I have had with my program officer.

No suggestions.

N/A

I am finishing up my 29th school year working in TS. I spent 10 yrs as a counselor & 19 

as a director. I have had numerous program officers - some better than others. 

Communication has improved quite a bit with [REDACTED] and [REDACTED]. I have 

been happier & more satisfied, and I feel more supported than I ever have. The 

communication in emails and the presentations (either live or on zoom) have improved 

tremendously in comparison to what we have had over the past three decades. Thank 

you!

Please provide a simple receipt message and status/queue update when a request is 

made of the program specialist.
571

Have trained staff to ensure that correct directions are provided

There is a lot of legalese in TS communication from the DOE. It has only increased 

throughout the pandemic. I am an expert in youth programming, teaching and college 

access - not in legislation. I have been to trainings, and I have worked in TRIO for 

nearly 10 years. Yet, a lot of it is still over my head. This alone continues to be a barrier 

for underrepresented individuals and those who are highly skilled in youth programming 

taking on Director positions. DOE does provide help in figuring out this language, as 

does COE for those who are members, but it is still a barrier. Our grants need leaders 

who are experts in working with kids first and we need even more support in navigating 

the barriers of the legislative logistics. Our host institutions (nor do our grants) allow for 

enough to pay for individuals who get both.

I think communication was very effective --

no suggestions

Our first communication regarding the pandemic responses was not received until 

summer 2020. At this point, we had concluded our school year and didn't have the 

ability to address some situations with program participants. Again when it came to 

reporting on our APR there was very little lead time to address any 

adjustments/changes to program objectives/services. I know there are many moving 

parts, but sometimes the lead time and answers are not provided in a timely manner 

allowing a program director to properly plan and implement change.

No recommendations for improvement. Program officer for the VSU Talent Search 

program is fair and helpful

I think for the most part communication is sent on a timely manner with the exception of 

award notifications and budget approvals. I am waiting to hear for the next grant cycle 

since this is the last year and our FY ends August 31, 2021. Today is July 15 and I still 

don't know anything about the award. This makes the staff a little nervous. I am very 

atomistic we will be awarded the next grant but still nerve racking not knowing only a 

month an a half away from the end of our current FY.

Have clear communication goals. I'm not even sure when/how the program specialist 

should be in touch with me. Also there needs to be more consistency in program 

officers. I have had 3 program officers in 2-years. All of whom only sent generic 

notifications. GANs need to come out before the summer months. Trying to manage 

summer programs with students while also responding to budget requests, while also 

explaining how we are going to spend down funds which were already explained in the 

budget for the year, is a waste of time. Communication should be more consistent and 

requests should come in at time of the year which are not heavy with program activities.

Give us our GANs much soon so we can do real programming and budgeting changes 

are not last minute.
572

My communication with my program officer is good. She is available for questions or 

clarification of issues that may arise. Her manner of communication is one of 

collaborative assistance.

If the program had a specific blog or webpage dedicated to providing information that 

may be helpful in assisting all programs regarding information (if there isn't one already 

- if there is I have not been made aware of it). For example it could provide updates 

regarding the status of application reviewing or new information or news regarding 

changes (if any) to the Talent Search programs.

A monthly email with updates, or a newsletter detailing information in written form 

instead of getting information from other Directors who may not have things correct.

I think that our program specialists in Talent Search have been superb actually. I have 

been around long enough to hear other types of stories and I often think to myself how 

lucky we have been to have folks like [REDACTED] and now [REDACTED], who has 

already shown herself to be approachable and engaged. She is the first to offer to 

attend one of my project staff meetings - and actually did so last week. We were very 

excited about that.

A monthly newsletter with updates regarding when awards will be announced, or 

highlighting best practices, or giving updates on other things such as incentives for 

students or technology purchases, or other updates we may not need to know but 

which may be helpful. Highlighting the website oese.ed.gov

Communication is great. Thanks for trusting us to manage our programs and budgets. 

Thanks for being there when we need assistance or have questions. Thanks for giving 

us the autonomy to succeed and thrive and supporting us when we need it.

Our program officer is wonderful at providing updates and responding to questions.

We need to know about the slate sooner. This whole business of telling your 

congressional member and waiting to hear from their office instead of just hearing from 

ED if we are funded is ridiculous. The last time we had a competition we didn't hear if 

we were funded until September 7. Unacceptable! We need to know at least 60 days 

prior to the start of the next grant cycle. Students need to know if their counselors are 

going to be there for them at the start of the next school year. we need time to promote 

the program or let our students and schools know if we are going to serve their schools 

the next school year. When i have called the congressional offices to see if we have 

been funded, their staff often have no clue what TRIO is or why we are calling. I would 

like to hear from my program officer either if we are funded or not. i would appreciate 

time to get my things in order if we are not.

I never understood what he meant in his emails.

NA
573

Continue answering my emails/calls within a reasonable timeframe.

Continue to communicate in a timely manner.

Again, I have been fortunate to have excellent communication with [REDACTED] and 

[REDACTED].

Continue with the informative emails.

The program specialist has communicated as needed.

can notify us sooner than 1 month prior to grant expiration (law says we should be 

notified sooner, but that never happens).

We have good communication. I can't think of anything that needs to change.

No issues.

N/A

I am very pleased with the communication.

Have program officers answer email within 24 hours

n/a

Stay current and be clear about deadlines

Reach out to new directors. I have had no communication thus far.

Announce the notification of grant award for the next program year earlier.

Award grants sooner in the year.

Try to make information more concise and not as long.

My specialist is great. He answers me promptly, using the legs and regs for clarity. He 

always makes himself available for me when I need him.

No specific suggestions. Communication with DOE/Program Officer is timely and clear.

Some of the communications seemed to get to us very late. One example was the use 

of stipends for Talent Search students. Another was the eventual approval of gift cards 

for meals. There were many times when information was not communicated in a timely 
574

manner. I am still wondering if my number of participants will be reduced due to inability 

to recruit during the global pandemic.

I think it would be helpful to not have too many changes with program officers so we 

can maintain a better relationship.

Release grant information as soon as it becomes available directly to the Program 

Officers, Program Directors, and Institutional members. Why is it that grant award 

notifications are sent to grantees less than a month prior to implementation of services 

is to begin? Clarify the discrepancies within the communication strategies on Grant 

Proposals/Rules/Award Notification.

I am satisfied with current methods of communication.

N/A

I am currently satisfied and appreciate the way that Talent Search communicates with 

me.

I typically don't have much interaction with my project officer in a normal year.

It would be helpful to have quarterly meetings with the DOE personnel

Regular communication was excellent. Only when it pertained to COVID-19 guidance 

was it lacking

It is ok. He responded according to the rules.

I rated the communication mediocre because the specialist I had before did not 

respond to me at all or later if I emailed multiple times and that was when I CC'ed 

[REDACTED]. My new specialist seems ok.

Maintain consistency with program contact. A newsletter with updates or simply a 

period check-in to keep the line of communication open would be nice.

I think that in addition to the official communications, how about just helpful resources, 

official communication around FAQs without fear of retribution for asking? We need 

clarity and frequent guidance on what is and is not allowable above and beyond the 

legs and regs.

My program specialist was very helpful.

Not sure at this time.

[REDACTED] response time is phenomena--typically within hours.
575

I don't have any recommendations. Continued support as provided this past year. It 

was superb.

Expectations should be clearly stated

open the lines of communication so that program directors are not so incredibly hesitant 

to communicate with them.

I worked very well with my program specialist.

n/a

Keep us in the loop in the processing of the grant competition. No information just 

causes so many rumors to swirl around the community.

Notification about grant funding sooner would assist in program planning, hiring, etc. 

While reviewing the applications is no doubt a massive undertaking, perhaps adding 

reviewers would allow more timely notifications.

While I hope we are not in this situation again, it would have been helpful to get 

answers to questions related to the pandemic answered more quickly. What if we can't 

meet our target number of participants? What do we do when we cannot provide 

services to some students enrolled in the program? That kind of thing. In general 

communication has been positive over the past year.

Keep us updated and informed of Federal issues that may affect our programs.

Communicate more often.

Notify us of funding for a new grant cycle much earlier. Staff don't know if they'll have a 

job the following month.

Monthly newsletter on updates regarding the programs and pertinent information.

Provide updates to grantees regarding the award process. Be a little more timely with 

award information to allow for more effective program planning efforts related to the 

upcoming school year.

Communication is sufficient at this time

More regular check-ins. Really liked the Teams conversation. In the past, it has 

conveyed to me that it was a us vs. them. I took a different approach and embraced my 

program specialist and reached out when I needed assistance or clarification. Would 

like to see stronger relationships.
576

Provide quicker notification of grant funding. Last year our GAN came on August 31, 

2020 for the grant year that began Sept. 1, 2020.

More frequent information and information that targets the full spectrum of issues that 

are affecting us on the ground.

TRIO TS - 2021 - Q25.6e. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly 

with your program specialist?

Individual & distribution list emails

I appreciate multiple approaches.

via zoom when first meeting them if they are a new program officer for us, then email

Depends on information and needs

Email

Email, telephone or Teams meeting

TRIO TS - 2021 - Q25.7. How would you advise on improving the overall process 

and protocols associated with this grant competition?

I feel that I had adequate information and time to prepare. The webinars could have 

been a little more detailed - there were a lot of questions they did not answer or 

answered with very generic information. I felt the training/webinars offered by COE 

were more helpful than the Department's.

The online training was good, but I prefer the face to face. It didn't cover anything on 

formatting. It would also be good if you gave an estimated date when the awards will 

be announced. We are all assuming first two weeks of August.

Regular updates on status of competition.

Ensure that existing projects are notified of award status well in advance of the last day 

of the current grant cycle so that students, parents, and project employees are informed 

in advance whether the project will continue.

Make sure the RFP does not contain conflicting information
577

Have more information sessions by Department and break sessions down into each 

required section/element of the grant to reduce brain fatigue and time taken away from 

work responsibilities. Own mistakes made in RFP. Be transparent with respect to what 

the open comments were and actually use the information to improve the process-right 

now the perception is that the comments are not taken seriously and used to imrpove 

the process

Make things simple.

?

Perhaps, providing more time between the published date of the RFP and the deadline.

Let us know sooner if our grant is funded so we can plan for the next year

nothing

No suggestions.

Clarity on competitive preference priority formatting.

Unfortunately, we found many errors & inconsistencies in the application, so a better 

proofing of the entire application & all of the documents would be helpful, in order for it 

to be consistent throughout. It's such a stressful experience & time, that the confusion 

& uncertainty doesn't help with feeling confident that I was doing everything right. My 

fear was that I would make a mistake & my proposal would be thrown out. With 

consistent info & directions, I would feel more confident through the entire process. 

Also, I greatly appreciated the extension due to the winter storm & power outtages. 

Although I did not need to use the extended time, it was a very helpful offer.

Timeliness of awards - please do not wait until right before the grant is supposed to 

start to announce the grant winners.

New directors have very little help as they get connected to the grant and learn about 

how to communicate with grant specialists.

Have qualified technical staff available to give correct directions.

I thought the process was clear, including the instructions on formatting, though I know 

there was a lot of feedback on those instructions in trainings. It was my first time 

navigating grants.gov, and I had assistance from our college in figuring out what to put 

in each form - but the budget and lobbying forms, even with instructions were still a 

barrier. It would have been nice to have cut all of the old information about CPPs.

I am happy with the current process
578

I would like to suggest that Educational Talent Search funded to serve numbers are 

reduced. Instead of serving five hundred (500) or more, let's consider serving four 

hundred (400) or less.

The process and the protocols were clear to me.

Timing and clarification of grant formatting issues. The grant application actually had 

several spots that had conflicting information.

No recommendations at this time

More timely release of the notice inviting applicants and more timely notice of awards 

following the competition.

Give us more than 30 days to review the grant requirements before we turn it in. This 

time around the application opened during our winter break, which was good and it was 

due at the end of February which was amazing time to work on the grant. Also give us 

enough time to plan for the next FY and approve the budgets in early September if 

possible. It would be helpful for at least this year for the DOE to let us carry some of our 

leftover money to the new grant since we were not able to do a lot of the activities that 

we normally do with our students do to COVID-19 restrictions. My institution and state 

still has a lot of restrictions for travel and that's were we would use our funds if allowed 

to carryover.

Decisions on awards need to be made much sooner. We are currently in mid-July and 

in the midst of summer programming with our TS students. However, everyone is also 

wondering if they will need to find a new job or not before the end of the summer. I 

have no information to tell them and this makes the team stressed and anxious. We 

should know if we are being funded AT LEAST 60 days before the new grant year. It is 

ridiculous to submit an application in February and not hear back by the start of the 

summer. Also notification of continued funding should be sent directly to the applicant. 

The current process takes way to long for those actually working the project to be 

notified if they are funded. It delays hiring, it delays planning, and it delays preparing 

continuing staff for the new year. It prevents us from making plans with our school 

partners. Let us know sooner!

We need to go back to required formatting structures. It was not fair that rest of us who 

did follow the format requirements in the 17-22 grant for UB and then it trickled down to 

the rest of the TRIO programs. Having required formatting means that everyone is the 

same and for those who did not follow it, they are out of the competition for not 

following instructions. If they can't follow basic formatting requirement and instructions 

then how can they follow all the leg and regs that come with running TRIO programs. 

Will they run their program correctly? Is it not a competition for a reason? Or will they 

always be looking for loopholes and grey areas because its suggested? Plus, they give 

clear directions instead of "suggestions". People were confused on what to really 

follow and do when writing these. Lets go back to required formatting instead of 

suggested. Rules are rule for a reason.
579

The directions as to where some attachments should be included was unclear. We 

weren't sure whether to include them as parts of particular grant sections or under 

"other" attachments.

My only recommendation would be "timely notification" to plan the continuation of 

services and inform our school divisions.

It would be helpful to have updates on the expected date of grant competition review 

completion.

Release grant awards earlier in order for institutions to start planning hiring of staff and 

implementation before the start of the grant year.

Better instructions on page limit and spacing.

Mostly, it is about the whole formatting thing. I appreciate that some common sense 

standards with respect to page limits, font size, and spacing are necessary to avoid 

serious problems with readability and such. However, double spacing in tables actually 

runs counter to any readability argument and needs to be eliminated.

I don't understand why the grant competition isn't done a year prior to when it is actually 

being done currently. If we don't get funded, we have no time to notify staff and for 

them to prepare. This puts a heavy burden and added stress onto programs. Having 

more of a notice time-wise on whether we get funded or not would be much more 

helpful.

I understand the challenges with RFP, NIA, due dates but in the ideal world -- it would 

be great not to get the RFP released during holiday break (between or right before 

Xmas/New Year) - this has happened last 2 grant cycles and it does cause some undo 

stress. Give all grants 60 days from release of RFP and due date. Continue to allow 

for single space tables and headings. Continue to allow for 65 pages (no less for TS -

TS is a big grant with lots of students, services, etc so we need those pages - keep it 

65 no less). The technical reviews are very helpful.

Clarity and consistency in formatting guidelines would be most appreciated. The initial 

Talent Search RFP contradicted itself--particularly regarding formatting (one place 

noted the document should be double spaced throughout whereas another area noted 

headings and charts could have single spacing). Even worse, the Application 

Checklist (page 113) was confusing because the required Assurances and 

Certifications did not match the upload slots in Grants.gov Specifically, the RFP 

required the "Assurances - Non-Construction Programs (SF 424B) form, but that form 

was not included in the Grants.gov application upload interface. Therefore, the include 

that document as directed in the RFP, an applicant had to find the form on Grants.gov, 

print out the form, sign it, and then upload it to "Other Attachments." I found this 

incredibly frustrating and needlessly burdensome. In the future, please make sure what 

is listed in the RFP is actually reflected in the Grants.gov upload interface.
580

Grant Award notification needs to happen by the end of July so that we can prepare for 

start-up on September 1st.

Overall, the communication was very good but there were a couple of items that could 

have been a little more clear on the actual application.

I understand the process, what i would like to see more of is the readers comments 

with actual comments and not just all of them saying the same thing as to why 

someone lost points. It seems that they have a pre existing drop down list to determine 

what or why someone lost points in certain sections and not what the readers would 

actually have an opinion on.

Just answer the questions asked and don't go on and on. Have a Myths and Facts 

page that we can all look at and know what the laws actually mean, i.e. can we or can't 

we buy stuff with our advertising money to hand out with our emails and phone 

numbers. Do we or don't we keep paper records. A Frequently Asked Questions page 

would be wonderful. That we can show to our grant's managers that says we can do 

stuff, like provide lunch for a staff during a lunch meeting for professional development 

even if it is less than 6 hours. These are just a few of the questions I never got a simple 

answer to.

My program officer was new. I only interacted via email two or three times. He was 

considering I have had about four program officers and have never really talked to 

them, he was very responsive. I would like to have more interaction with my program 

officer.

Some individuals are not as savvy as others when it comes to technical process. It 

should not be complicated. (other things still work)

Extend the number of days to complete the proposal. Provide regular feedback on the 

status of the slate.

No suggestions

make sure the application is thorough and doesn't contradict itself.

I think the process was fine. It would be nice to hear about the funding a little earlier.

Look more closely at the target areas in which these grants are coming from because 

all target areas or regions are not alike and readers sometimes get these areas of 

protocol associated with each other. All regions are primarily different and different 

approaches are always required because of location or region. Same results can be 

met but differently because of location.

This is my first one so I don't have anything to prepare it to. The RFP had a few 

contradictions within the document but overall it was easy to follow. If was writing from 

scratch it would be nice to see an example template.
581

None at this time.

Email

I found the grant competition process to be very smooth which is very impressive 

considering we were in the midst of the pandemic.

?

I think the process needs to start earlier and notification of awardees should happen in 

June. It is difficult to maintain staff, and momentum when program is wary of "what will 

happen".

Have enough people working on staff that they can get back with you within a day or 

two

Early grant awards notification

For instructions to all be identical and not as long of a of instructions. I feel each 

section of the grant should have its own set of instructions that should be no more than 

3 pages each.

Better and more timely communication, award notifications, and overall guidance, 

especially during times of crisis.

Give grantees sufficient notification of funding of grant projects, so we will have time to 

plan for the upcoming grant cycle and/or school year.

When submitting the grant the instructions are clear on when, how, and what to submit. 

It is less clear on when the grants will be awarded and the announcements made. 

Knowing this information would be beneficial for planning.

COVID slowed everything down. It would have been nice to have more time and better 

communications about expectations as things started to reopen.

There were several contradictions in the written grant instructions that could or would 

not be answered by DE leaders during TRIO Talent Search webinars. Please be more 

precise in wording the process rules so that there are no longer discrepancies.

More timely announcements of awards would be helpful so that our program year 

planning could be completed before the start of the school term.

It was fine.

Spread out the deadline for the grants.
582

While I have worked in TS for 5+ years, I am still learning things about the processes 

and protocols. I greatly appreciate the knowledge and patience of my Program 

Specialist.

It would be great to receive award notices earlier than mid-July. Since the program 

year ends Aug. 31, knowing if your program has been refunded gives you more time to 

manage the budget better and allow for staff to look for new positions should a program 

not get re-funded.

More personal communication

I don't have suggestions at this time

My recommendation, in the face of an emergency like COVID the alternative would be 

to postpone the competition. The priorities of providing service to students was a 

priority.

Do not schedule people working on the grant application and completion at the same 

time we have to do an APR and also have to serve our students , possibly even 

remotely.

RESULTS NEED TO BE DISTRIBUTED EARLIER. Today is July 27 and we still don't 

know if we're going to have a job in five weeks, nor do we know what to tell our 

administrators and students. I find this to be unacceptable.

All of the docs are difficult to find. It would be nice if everything that you need to access 

could be kept in one place.

Just coincident information bet DOE and COE.

Stick to a timeline and share it with more time so we can adjust our calendars and 

activities accordingly.

Earlier notification on change of staff. Earlier notification on GAN

The technical assistance workshops were painful. It felt like the staff weren't sure of 

answers not provided in the script. Understanding that this is a part of a bureaucratic 

process that requires clearance of higher-ups, it is difficult when we ask what seems 

like a simple question but those present aren't authorized to answer it.

Awards need to be made in a timely fashion so that we can plan programming and 

staffing. Knowing only 60 days out (or often substantially less) does not allow us to 

keep staff.

Notification of funding earlier than July

n/a
583

Ensuring applicants are informed of updates of when funding slate will be released.

This year went well with regards to writing. The delays in notifications are concerning 

per previous comment.

Making sure all forms are accessible. One of the forms had to be searched for versus 

the rest were preloaded. Notification of grants awards sooner than August so programs 

can plan, especially if they are a continuation grant.

Adding reviewers so funding decisions and related communications are more 

expedient.

It would be helpful to have the actual RFP available earlier, with clear guidance. We 

have to write the grant proposal based on some assumptions and then modify it once 

the RFP is posted to address anything new. There is not enough time to write a 

competitive grant proposal between the time the RFP is posted and the proposal is 

due.

A clear date when we will receive funding notification. Originally we were told we would 

know by August 15 and we would be expected to start the new cycle on September 1!! 

We need at least 30 days to prepare and plan.

Timely notification of the award (notification before the end of June, so appropriate 

personnel planning may be handled)

I think the process of PE points ultimately limits who is served in TRiO grants because 

earning PE points is so important in being refunded. I think the PE points need to be 

revised to allow for more flexibility in what is defined as a student "success." I also think 

we need to be notified of funding earlier in the year as later notification makes planning 

for the program more difficult.

Earlier notification of a new grant award.

Avoid contradicting or unclear info in the RFP. More timely notice of award.

The process appears to be sufficient at this time

Provide funding notification no later than July 15, 2021.

The last couple competitions, old RFP's were posted during the review period. Not sure 

that is helpful and makes me wonder if they comments are really being considered or if 

the process is set up to check a box? In addition, some of the conversations during the 

grant writing is vague. I understand this, but it would be nice to have a direct response.

In the Grants.gov submission space, if a form is required it should be specifically 

indicated instead of including it in the "Other Forms". I almost missed submitting the 
584

Profile document as it was included as one of the "Other Forms". Early summer 

notifications of Grant Funding.
585

Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Language

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Promote it more widely. This was my first time visiting the site. We have obtained much of our 

information through this program specific site: 

https://www2.ed.gov/programs/iegpsugisf/applicant.html

The UISFL program doesn't fall under the OESE.

I think it should be easier to load documents and that the password should not have to be 

changed so often.

Honestly, I wasn't even aware of that site--so emphasizing its availability to grantees would be 

beneficial.

I am not proficient in website design, but I would recommend devising a way to make the 

nested sites within the site more intuitive to locate.

It look a long time to get my password reset. This affected my ability to submit a timely report.

The IRIS website for reporting on the UISFL grant requested a great deal of information that 

had already been shared with the Dept of Ed in the original grant application narrative. In fact, 

there is a huge amount of duplication/redundancy. This does not give the Dept of Ed any new 

information and requires a great deal of digging and cutting and pasting on the part of the PI -

all to no apparent purpose given that most of that information had already been shared. 

Eliminating redundancies would make life better and this program more efficient.

Very straightforward and easy to navigate.

I have not used the website since applying. If there are sources there I should be consulting, 

email prompts would be helpful.

There is a lot of text that one has to slog through to find what one wants. Perhaps some main 

bullet points on the homepage leading to other pages with specific information. Visually, it could 

be more inviting - it has a very formal/official look to it.

update the information

up to date list of grantees

Avoid use of jargon.
586

Q33. How could we improve the grant reporting process?

Clearly state the required components of the report. There was a narrative report referenced in 

the UISFL webinar powerpoint that was not referenced in IRIS. We submitted this report via email as a separate document. The reporting requirements in IRIS did not align with the more 

extensive reporting requirements noted in the powerpoint, so we were unsure of what was 

expected of us.

We are told that some of what we will submit is identical to what we submitted in the grant -- as 

far as goals/activities/etc. But the language doesn't match exactly. A glossary of terms could be 

helpful in resolving some confusion.

Being able to load documents easier directly. Give clear examples for the interim (PMF report)

The Iris system is clunky and unclear. When I go in there, I feel like I don't necessarily know 

what I do and do not have to complete. Also, with multiple grants, needing to use two different 

iterations makes it more challenging to access.

Greater clarity on who uses the reports and how would be helpful in knowing how to draft them.

IRIS, perhaps for the next UISFL funding cycle, needs to be able to accept and transfer from 

one project year to the next the remaining balance like it used to do. Offer an Evaluation Report 

Upload option within IRIS. We are asked to do evaluation, so there should be a way in the next 

UISFL cycle that grantees can show what they've done by uploading reports on their evaluation 

work.

I didn't know that the Project Objectives had to be pre-approved - since they were part of the 

approved grant, having them need to be re-approved for reporting purposes didn't make sense 

to me. That's all.

Please remove redundancies in reporting requests. Much of what is requested has already 

been reported/given in the grant narrative.

It is already well organized.

It would have been helpful to have a virtual meeting to discuss this process a month or two 

before this was due.

use an easier interface and/or provide guidance; I was told to figure it out on my own

The IRIS system is very difficult to navigate. Apparently, all grants use it which means that there 

are reporting sections that may or may not be relevant to any particular grant. It is a confusing 

reporting system.

The process is very opaque for a first time grantee. Don't assume grantee's have any prior 

knowledge.
587

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role?

Lead faculty

Director International Education

Principal Investigator

University administrator

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

UIS - 2021 - Q34.2. Please tell us how the technical assistance you received from 

your program specialist this past year was affected by the pandemic, as well as 

any suggestions you have to improve the technical assistance you received 

should we be faced with future national emergencies.

We greatly appreciated our program specialist's responsiveness and flexibility while 

adjusting our program due to the pandemic.

[REDACTED] was very understanding of the need to get an extension for my grant, 

given that all study abroad program were cancelled. I am afraid I am going to need one 

more year extension since they cancelled them, again, for next winter and I hope the 

DOE is understanding, again.

NA

Covid made this year very challenging. More frequent contact about expectations would 

have been very helpful - particularly since this grant program involved international 

travel which was severely impacted.

It was simply a matter of timely response -- which, naturally, was impeded by the 

circumstances surrounding the pandemic.

I was able to communicate with our program specialist via email. I would say that the 

communication was slowed in some ways because at times I wished I could pick up the 

phone and have a conversation instead of just relying on email communication, but that 

is a preference not essential. Difficult to know what the future national emergencies will 

bring, however, if zoom-like communication became an option between grantees and 

the program specialist this would be good with or without a national emergency 

situation.

I think that their accommodations were very timely and we appreciated the flexibilty of 

the program
588

We needed a program extension due to Covid, which we received.

I am extremely grateful to the staff of the US Department of Education who have made 

these grants available.

It would be helpful to have meetings and/or updates about COVID-related changes to 

regulations but also expenditure delays due to delays/changes in our programs.

she did not communicate with us about it hardly at all; I had to reach out to the program 

director and ask questions and offer solutions

The program specialist was extremely responsive to all our questions. She assured us 

that she would work with us to navigate the COVID environment to allow us to complete 

the goals of our grant. She is an excellent program specialist.

excellent communication from our program officer, very sympathetic and willing to 

assist

Assistance was always timely, patient, and on target.

UIS - 2021 - Q34.6e. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with 

your program specialist?

Telephone and Email
589

Upward Bound Math and Science

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Provide workshops that give staff a chance to learn about the features. Include info on which 

schools have which TRIO programs Include free/reduced lunch into on each school

I do not use the website often.

N/A

By keeping the information more up to date and if links aren't working then take them off of the 

page.

There could be a search box that would allow us to look up regulations much easier.

There is always a little intimidation when navigating a government website, therefore its less 

intimidating when it's more user friendly.

It would be great for the Department to consider the timing of certain annual proceedures (ex. 

asking about large remaining balances for a program that has a summer program... better to 

ask after the summer, timing of annual report is much better in spring). Also, I almost never get 

timely answers to my questions from my project director, if I get answers at all.

More user friendly navigation.

Keep the site updated.

Interactive Site

When possible, include pop-up alerts/badges with important information such as deadlines or 

upcoming competitions.

Information on the website is rarely if ever updated. The information listed on the site itself is 

older than one grant cycle sometimes and it is inconsistent from program to program. One 

program may have an update once every year while another program has an update in 

information every three months. There should be a dedicated person gathering this updated 

information and updating the site overall. Outdated information makes the Department look like 

nothing is happening, but there is always something going on. Even a simple update on next 

steps or what to do in order to contact the Department is an update that can be maintained 

weekly.

It could be more interactive and less wordy.
590

When we go on the Website, we have found the information. We still review EDGAR to make 

sure we are on target. What gives us a difficult time and the reporting on the APR. At times, it 

becomes tedious to stay focus. Suggestion is to have topics asked from previous years and the 

responses made easier.

n/a

Honestly, I have not interacted with the OESE.ED.gov website. When I need to find 

information, I go directly to the UMBS page.

None

N/A

No improvement needed

Make more user-friendly. Staff to be more knowledgeable and willing to assist from beginning to 

end ensuring issue(s) are resolved.

The web site looks serviceable enough, but the layout is bland and not always user-friendly. To 

improve, the links could be better presented with larger buttons/tabs that more clearly reflect 

content.

Website is not updated in a timely manner.

N/A

Maybe include highlights or pictures Also, there used to be an archive for the previous year 

low-income limits, now it only shows the current year. It would be helpful to have previous as 

reference links.

None at this time

Website should be easier to navigate. Recent developments (i.e. clear COVID policies) should 

be made immediately available.

It's very simple and easy to find the information. The most of the time is updated.

Keep updated with timely information. Provide other resources to aid the program i.e. 

sometimes I Am looking for some information but it is not on the Dept PSE website that is 

important to program operation or implementation so I am not sure where to go or have to 

search for it.

Keep up to date. Main issue is that it takes to long to answer questions in a timely manner.

Unsure. I don't usually use this website for resources or assistance.
591

Pages devoted to each separate TRIO program with regulations that pertain to each program.

update often

NA

Direct Upward Bound Math Science site? I usually find the site through my G-5 account site 

(information)?

Content can be more user friendly and also not having so many broken links.

I'm not familiar with the OESE website.

N/A

Outdated training information. Better search for OMB & Edgar.

More resources available for STEM staff & participants, and opportunities to network and share 

experiences.

make it more user friendly.

More user-friendly and easier to navigate the site.

Provide updates on a regular basis. Some of the information on the website is outdated.

Make the site more user friendly and provide a direct link to obtain additional information, which 

can sometimes be too vague.

It can be difficult to navigate. I have links to the stuff I need regularly, but the website 

organization is not easy to click through.

Uncertain at this time.

The look is very outdated and not always kept up to date.

Broken links appear on Dept of Ed Webpage (on this site; see details below): 

https://www2.ed.gov/programs/triomathsci/legislation.html 1. TRIO Regulations: 

https://www2.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/finrule/2010-4/102610a.html 2. OMB: 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants/grants_circulars.html

The site is a blessing.

Keep information more up to date.
592

Q33. How could we improve the grant reporting process?

Department does not provide enough time to get the data and upload. If accuracy is the priority 

programs should be given 60 days to submit the APR. Each year, the number of days provided 

to complete the APR has decreased and does not seem to be with the priority of accuracy and 

supporting program staff. Provide clear regulations we can give to colleges that requires them 

to share school enrollment or first semester data. Colleges do not see it as their obligation to 

provide data on students that were in UBMS and now attend their school. Although it is clearly 

not, they claim that it violates FERPA to provide the information, even when a waiver is 

provided. Reporting on Schools (target v. target high schools) on the initial pages and then 

within the APR is redundant and seemingly unnecessary. Reporting on students who haven't 

been serviced in several months/years is laborious, skews the data, and is unreasonably time 

consuming, particularly when students move out of the school district. APR objectives should 

be accomplished based on the students that were served during the reporting year. Remove 

any Competitive Preference Priority's that are designed to be for better "essay contests" as 

opposed to promising practices that improve college going and attainment rates.

Make information clear and simple to understand.

N/A

Help Desk Assistance

Have a table of contents that will direct grantees where pertinent information can be found.

The deadline is at the worst time for ease of collection. Colleges often report enrollment 

information to the clearing house late, so it would be better to complete the report in the Spring, 

or February, after the holiday break for campuses. For some states, the requirements difficult 

(Ex. Passing assessment test for high school is a loaded question....the test? alternative 

requirements? there are many ways to graduate without passing the test). Also the racial data 

is very difficult to complete these days. Students are confused (Ex. how would a classify a white 

Egyptian, a central or south american student with native american roots (not north american 

native american).)

Establish a more consistent window for due date to aid in planning. There are multiple entities 

involved in APR generation and submission, and it is difficult for all playes to avail themselves 

within randomness of due dates.

Allow space opportunity for explanations

N/A

Grant reporting was made a lot easier than it was twenty years ago. I appreciate that there are 

dropdown menus and options we can select in order to answer relevant questions on the APR. 

However, I still think there is much clarity and guidance needed in order to accurately select 
593

which option fits a student we are reporting on the APR. Every student has a certain set of 

circumstances that are not so easily defined by one category when reporting it annually, so 

further guidance on how best to answer certain questions would be appreciated. We have 

called our program officer and the help desk several times to get clarification on what to 

answer, but we seem to get contradicting information whenever we call one or the other.

Better clarification of instructions to complete APR.

Have more prepopulated line items.

n/a

None

Make the instructions more clear. Allow us to report on college enrollment and completion for 

students who do not attend college the first year after high school. Allow us to report on 

students who graduate HS early. Keep reporting years up-to-date by removing cohort years 

beyond six-years post-high school graduation.

N/A

Don't have multiple grants (different grants) due so close together-due dates.

Make things more transparent. Purpose of and obtaining of data.

The helpdesk is difficult to reach -- making it more accessible would be great.

No comment at this time.

n/a

Don't ask for so much! A lot of the data required for APR doesn't speak to the effectiveness of 

the programs or how the it helps participants. And it isn't clear why data that isn't tied to 

program objectives is asked for or used after submitting. The APR is too big and asks for too 

much irrelevant data. If it's to truly measure program effectiveness, it needs to be solely tied to 

the program objectives and that's it! If the other data is important, the department needs to be 

clear why and frankly it should be on something else, not the APR.

Clarification needed on how to report students who start at 2 year and graduate with an AS and 

then transfer and graduate with a Bachelors. Can we report both degrees as students earn 

them?

Set a regular deadline that provides enough time for third party reporting agencies (i.e., 

National Student Clearing House) to update their information. Provide access to the website 

earlier so information can be uploaded as its obtained/updated within the project database. 

Provide improved guidance during COVID on how pandemic may affect reporting.
594

For me the everything is fine. Thanks for the hard work and dedication.

Clarity and explanation of APR reporting will be helpful i.e. definition of what is asked (have to 

often look through archived or old files to know, or faq sheet to help with best practices or tools 

to use to obtain and complete reports.

Some options for questions are not relevant or are difficult to answer with the choices given.

It would be fantastic if the Dept of Ed had a live database all year for all grantees to continually 

update, rather than depending on third party databases and migrating the information later.

More feedback from data given relative to usefulness to program goals and mission

NA

APR training is expensive and i use studentaccess and most new information on APR only 

meshes when I combine the the two and most always have to update all APR information. New 

information gets out before APR start? Less expensive APR training?

The system can be a bit more user friendly and not with so many glitches when uploading data 

or inputing data

Its been a long time, I don't recall the improvements needed. I do remember that the helpdesk 

responded effectively and efficiently.

Participant data that is incorrect can never be corrected. Select sudents who are in cohorts 

older than 6 years still populate.

Provide as much time to prepare grant and details on prior year points for new grants compared 

to older grants.

Provide workshops for help us understand the grant reporting process.

The AFR site is improving every year and I am actually pleased with the upgrades annually. It 

is my preference to use the Department's tool. I believe however, that there should be the 

ability to make corrections because as human beings we make make errors and may need to 

correct incorrect data. Additionally, there should be accommodations for participants who 

graduate early which there is currently no way to include this information. What I also noticed 

with the last APR is that some students totally disappeared from the list and there was no way 

to put them back in as a continuing participant and had to incorrectly list them as a new 

participant.

It is asinine that certain information cannot be changed. If a student's name is misspelled, a 

birthdate is reported incorrectly, or worst of all that the cohort cannot be changed - sometimes 

alumni are hard to find and data only turns up later there is no fix. Having a specific time of 

year/date when APRs are due would be incredibly helpful. It is so hard to design (and run) a 

program when the heavy lifting of completing an APR can't be counted on at a specific time.
595

It has gotten better over the last couple of years by deleting records of participanst that are no 

longer need to be tracked. I would like to be able to count postsecondary completion for 

participants who graduate within 6 years of HS graduation regardless if they start by the fall. 

Some participants take a semester break. They should still count.

There is always a report that is requested of Upward Bound around June 1 that says we haven't 

utilized enough of our grant funds. Although we all understand the intention of the report, it 

comes at a terrible time. Of course we haven't spent most of the money--our summer program 

hasn't happened yet. The summer program is just about to start--and there's always a quick 

turnaround time requested. If the report could be requested April 1, it would be much easier on 

grantees.

None

As with anything, it is humans entering and submitting this information. In the case that a 

record is accidentally left out, there should be a window or grace period to make corrections 

and provide proof for any changes being made or proposed.

1. Review old and outdated collection of data or further share how information is used. 

Examples: a. Field (22) other academic need could have more relevant choices given the 

pandemic and changes to student's educational needs b. fields (47) workstudy, (48) 

employment and (50) community service also seem like information that is collected but never 

used; not part of mandatory services. 2. There is currently not an "easy" way to remove old 

prior year students from the report; especially if they never graduated high school (they are on 

the report for 10 years!) they do not easily fit into any of the categories and the APR system 

treats them as if they are still enrolled in high school, but really they just never completed (so it 

is not accurate to report as "9" - completed high school but did not enroll in college). This 

needs to be fixed. It should recognize that we coded them as a "dropped out of high school" in 

field (46) and allow us to remove them the following year or give more accurate choices in PSE 

fields of APR.

Adjust data reporting requirements to reflect changes due to COVID-19.

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role?

project staff

Program Manager

UBMS Program Director

Project Manager

TRIO Programs Director (3) 2 UB; 1 UBMS
596

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

UB-MS - 2021 - Q26.2. Please tell us how the technical assistance you received 

from your program specialist this past year was affected by the pandemic, as 

well as any suggestions you have to improve the technical assistance you 

received should we be faced with future national emergencies.

There was no communication, and when it was provided, it was difficult to understand 

and navigate.

N/A

Help Desk Assistance

Decisions and answers weren't given quick enough to handle our very rural areas to 

get them internet access to help them get through the time of shut down, but schools 

still had to operate. We were only told definitely that we could provide 'hot spots', 

computers, etc to students and staff the past few months, instead of last spring and 

summer when things were so crucial to continue to operate but with limited internet 

resources. Even though we figured out how to continue to serve our students and 

meet our grants requirements, there were times it was very difficult. I do appreciate 

how all of my staff were willing to help our students continue to be productive and learn 

during the trying times. We are grateful that we can still continue to help our students 

and staff with any internet troubles. Even though the entire country was shut down and 

confined to their homes, educators still had to continue on to work with the students 

and make sure that they had what they needed to continue with their studies, as we did 

to continue serving our students throughout the entire pandemic. There were a lot of 

us that lost family and friends to Covid, but we still had to work on in order to provide for 

our families and continue for our students. And I don't think everyone realizes that 

about educators.

It appeared we all were just trying to figure it out when the pandemic hit, however the 

effort was their on the part of the Dept. of Ed. at a time of anxiousness. Moving 

forward, we all need to cognizant as best we can of potential future outbreaks and 

strive to be more prepared.

She is great on the phone. However, trying to get responses to question via email has 

been difficult.

While there was generalized info and guidance provided, there was little in terms of 

program specific. This was particularly true in terms of responsiveness on approval of 

DOE requested budgeting proposals, which were often requested with little turnaround, 

but never officially replied to.

Program Specialist did the best they could with the knowledge they had during the 

Pandemic. No one could definitively speak to the best course of action during the 

Pandemic. During future emergencies, technical assistance could be provided earlier, 
597

if alt all possible. Honestly, I feel that they responded as well as an agency could, 

especially an agency that was also affected by the emergency.

There was no specific guidance outside of the overall general communication sent by 

[REDACTED]. Our program officer did not communicate with us throughout this entire 

pandemic except to notify us that we were not spending enough money or that there 

was another grant opportunity. This lack of communication both ways does not sit well 

with either myself or our institution's administration.

I was not satisfied. However, I understand that we all were dealing with this global crisis 

in different ways.

Last summer, our program went online due to COVID-19. My program is in a major city 

and I would have liked to have lunch gift cards to distribute lunch. Instead, our program 

used a drive-by for supplies and lunch for students. The decision to use gift cards 

should have been sooner.

n/a

None

My program specialist helped with budget questions and stipend increases. She 

listened to special circumstances and provided guidance. She answers all emails in a 

timely manner. I am incredibly thankful she is our program specialist.

N/A

My program specialist is great and have been consistent with providing all technical 

assistance needed. Responses to questions in a timely matter.

The response time was huge because things were evolving quickly but the the program 

staff had to wait on instructions to give us which were no t very timely. More 

interaction with the Directors on a regular basis would be great to reach out and heck 

on them for question-- if not twice a month at least once a month or every other month 

would be great.

I really like my program specialist. She is kind and understanding, and she is 

responsive to my questions. Where I am dissatisfied pertains more to the Department 

of Education's overall response or lack of timely response--particularly as it relates to 

the pandemic. So far during the 2020-2021 academic year, the Department of 

Education has yet to address the financial challenges projects face in having excess 

funds they are required to spend even when programs are often in a position where 

they can't spend their funds due to COVID restrictions.

No one at the Department of Education provided timely assistance. We don't know if 

this is because of the pandemic, because of the change in administration, or because 

of the lack of sufficient staffing in the Department of Education. It is difficult to 

effectively answer this question.
598

Program Specialist was available and responsive to any issues needed.

Program specialists in my experience are very slow to respond and frankly aren't as up 

to par in knowing regulations. I don't think that's as much to say about the specialists 

themselves but the role the department has for them and the often convoluted and 

unclear guidelines of the department. Frankly the department needs to loosen reins on 

programs to spend funds more freely to ensure program and student success. I think 

they did some of this during the pandemic, and guess what? The sky didn't fall.

I rated the previous a 5 however, I recognize that the program could only respond 

based on information and directives given from DOE Secretary and administrative staff 

and legislators. They could not do anything more. I believe they responded as they 

could.

Program office answered my questions concerning covid-19. If she didn't know she 

responded in a timely fashion.

I feel guidance was not clear. A lot of information provided was generic and broad and 

did not consider the specific challenges UB programs faced in relation to summer 

programs and other activities. There was limited guidance on how to make plans for the 

summer when the pandemic forced us all to switch trajectory unexpectedly.

My program officer ALWAYS respond to my emails and also give me very good 

suggestions and guidance in order to help our students. She's very professional and 

well dedicated to assist when is needed.

none that can be noted at this time.

Timeliness in answering questions was a BIG issue.

I don't think the communication was affected by the pandemic. The communication was 

pretty consistently delayed (most of the time by more than 30 days) on the part of the 

specialist both before and after the pandemic.

Very timely responses to approving adjustment made in the the way services were 

delivered. Also, excellent material were provided to aid in service delivery.

NA

I received good tech assistance.

The information coming from the department tend to be different depending on the 

program officer that was reached out. Approval and information on how to better serve 

students was also slow to reevaluate the use of funds.

[REDACTED] was extraordinary, she responded to my questions swiftly. We met via 

zoom at one point and she answered all my questions and also provided guidance.
599

[REDACTED] was very helpful and responsive. She is a supportive and has helped me 

increase accessibility during the pandemic. I'm grateful.

Technical assistance like much of our country was delayed due to COVID-19, once 

communication was established support was provided. We all just had to be patience 

and be innovative with services.

N/A

It took some time to get information from program specialist about how to proceed with 

our programs due to pandemic restrictions. But once they responded they were able to 

offer flexibility with some of the program services we offer.

My program specialist was extremely helpful and I am fortunate to have his expertise 

over the years.

I continue to be shocked that the Department of Education did not create a set of 

standards for UB and UBMS programs to use during the previous year (e.g., that meal 

cards were not allowed to be provided until early in summer - far too late for many of us 

to utilize them or that there was no guidance on increased stipends, other than the 

information WE should provide) The needs of our students increased dramatically and 

our ability to meet those needs was sharply curtailed (by moving all services virtual). 

Having the ability to increase stipends could have created an stronger incentive for our 

students to stay with us rather than working to make ends meet (as many of the adults

in their lives lost jobs). Not only were the students risking illness, but they lost our 

program as a support.

My program specialist was not able to answer questions as they were not in the loop of 

the decision makers. Since it was an emergency, it was not their fault. Most people had 

no clue as to what was happening, or what was going to happen.

For the six months following the initial outbreak, we didn't receive any returned calls or 

emails.

It was very supportive and useful.

I was thankful that the information came out, I just wish it was in a more timely fashion. 

I understand in large part their need to be careful about not publishing information too 

promptly since everything was constantly changing. I do hope that the flexibility is 

extended for programs not being able to reach their recruitment goals do to school 

closures as a result of the pandemic.

The communication was good during this period. It would have been more of a relief 

for Directors if we had specific indication of how our prior experience points would be 

affected, but overall good communication. There were several letters that went out 

clarifying policies and funding allocations.
600

I am a 20 year retired Air Force Vet. My program specialist, [REDACTED], has been 

exceptional throughout the entire time.

Technical assistance during the pandemic was excellent--- especially given the difficult 

circumstances. I was very satisfied with the interactions. Well done.

Possibly putting guidance up on the website, and issuing guidance sooner. The delay 

in responses from the DOE in general really put some programs in a bind, not knowing 

how to proceed given the pandemic.

UB-MS - 2021 - Q26.5. What can Upward Bound Math and Science do to improve 

communication with you? 

Information from the Massachusetts specialist should be rooted in legislation, 

particularly when that information is requested. Information seems to be based on 

opinion and not policy. Communication is also too often (no need for multiple emails a 

week on superfluous items) and often happen before and during the summer program 

for so officer can have the last word, not really to support and is not rooted in policy. 

Communication could be improved by reducing the number of unnecessary and 

unrequired requests, reducing requests that are made between April and August to that 

which is absolutely necessary, and providing information that is based on policy and 

legislation. (For example, giving permission for a stipend increase of $100 a month and 

then saying that that does not equal $300 for 3 months)

Respond to my email questions, and provide more clarity with FAQs.

N/A

Chat option with U.S. Department of Education

There were just times, during the Pandemic, we felt like we were working on our own 

and just heard crickets when it came to guidance on some issues. And I understand 

that everyone was scared and it was a learning experience for everyone.

My program specialist can respond quicker to our requests. It once took months to get 

a response that we needed about a service we wanted to provide.

Answer emails

Never truly an issue till pandemic when adjusted budgets were requested, but 

approvals/denials were not received.

Have more STEM/ Math and Science workshops.
601

Responsiveness

A response in a timely manner would be helpful. It often takes me three or four times 

emailing or calling to get a hold of my program officer. It is not uncommon that I send 

an email and will not hear back from him for more than three months. It is also not 

uncommon that I make a request for prior approval in order to address the "large 

balance" available in our grant funding and not hear back from my program officer for 

up to six months. I cannot continue planning for future programming for the UBMS 

students if I do not hear about approvals regarding activities for the students.

Communicate more frequently.

UBMS program officer usually communicates when there are drastic circumstances, 

such as COVID-19. I would recommend a monthly update on what is working for one 

program, ideas share type of email. Let's not wait for COE, but make suggestions on 

best practices or ideas during difficult times. Let's not reinvent the wheel but share 

information that works.

n/a

none

We were awarded after the start of the grant cycle. Timely awarding is helpful.

N/A

No communication needed.

More transparency. More often. More understandable and reasoning behind it all.

Advance notice is always appreciated. Recently I received a large available balance 

letter with a response due the NEXT DAY. That kind of short turn around is 

unprofessional and not reasonable. I understand urgency of response, but the 

Department of Education has to consider in such cases some personnel might not be 

available to respond within 24 hours (illness, on vacation, traveling with students).

Communication w/ program specialist is good as she responds in a timely manner on 

issues addressed.

Treat us as equals. Be more transparent. Hold specialists accountable for not being up 

to par because the department holds us accountable if we aren't.

Thank you, [REDACTED] for being so responsive, professional, and helpful.

No issues.
602

N/A

Email or posting of continuous updates.

Answer questions more quickly

I'm part of UBMS. The program specialist could improve communication by more 

prompt responses to our requests.

NA

communication is good.

communication about program updates or Department of Education changes and not 

just follow up when items are requested in a short period of time or while doing heavy 

time of year workload.

Keep sending updates on a weekly basis.

COVID-19 delayed update of grant by a few weeks from last year. Once received 

information was detailed and easy to follow.

N/A

Send more communication more often.

The GANS is often not timely and really causes issues in implementing the program 

services. However in saying this, I know the issues that must be overcome that causes 

delays. I know that everyone is working hard to ensure a more timely delivery of 

information. It is often difficult to wait until the start of the fiscal year to receive GANS 

and many institutions will release staff from their contracts due to a lack of funding, 

even though we know that is is forthcoming. It would help to write Presidents of 

institutions to inform and assure them of the continuation of funds for programs who are 

continuing when there are extreme delays; and not leave individual programs to fend 

for themselves.

Having regular updates would be useful. Having all program specialists convey the 

same information would be useful.

Return emails and answer questions.

Quarterly bulletins.

Can't think of anything at this time.
603

[REDACTED] is well-informed and timely in communication. I have had excellent 

feedback and clarification on items such as allowable expenses, Director percentage, 

student stipends and carrry forward budgets.

My program officer does a good job of keeping me informed of policies and guidance 

that are pertinent to my grant. I appreciate her confidence in my ability to manage my 

program.

UB-MS - 2021 - Q26.6e. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with 

your program specialist?

Email and Telephone

Both individual email and cellphone

UB-MS - 2021 - Q26.7. How would you advise on improving the overall process 

and protocols associated with this grant competition?

Eliminate Competitive Priorities. They are often not rooted in data that supports college 

going rates and merely benefit programs that hire expensive grant-writers. Increase 

the value of prior experience points since that prioritizes programs that have 

accomplished objectives approved by ED and show proof of getting students to and 

through college. Increase the amount of time to submit.

More clarity on the review process.

N/A

Grant competition dates for submission and award notices

To better inform us about the Grant awards, not wait until a week or less to let the 

grantees know if they were awarded or not. Because programs have to continue on 

working and planning as if they for sure have been awarded the Grant for the next so 

many years, but then could be declined the award at the last minute and leaves many 

staff and students in a bind of what to do next. Maybe give more than a month or so to 

have the specific rules and guidelines to write the grant and work on notifying the 

programs quicker so that they can be better prepared if they were to not get awarded 

again. Like there are programs waiting right now to hear about their new grant award 

notifications and were starting new academic school years, so planning has to continue 

on or be halted pending those notifications.

Having a clear and concise start date and more would be great.
604

Give high regard to successful existing programs and speed up the process.

Virtual meetings with several program directors and program specialist to address 

questions and concerns with reporting etc.

No true recommendations, given that i am confident my concerns were covid related, 

so no advantage in dwelling on them.

Provide more detail during training opportunities..

Providing the FINAL grant documents (RFP and announcement) well in advance of the 

due date and any technical writing workshops. It seems that grant competitions and 

information about them keep going out later and later with each passing year.

Provide as much clear information as possible.

Usually deadlines fall near the winter holidays, I would recommend announcing after 

the holidays for competition and it makes collecting the data easier and speaking to 

school administrators who are not off on holiday time.

I would not change the process.

Treat grant competition like federal contractors

Reduce the proposal size and eliminate repetition in writing. Hold technical assistance 

webinars early in the competition.

N/A

Don't have competitions so close together.

Provide information/communicate more often/as often as needed to ensure all are 

aware of process and protocols associated with the competition.

Clarity in formatting, preferably with a provision to single space charts and graphs and 

double space the narrative content of proposals. Formatting rules have fluctuated too 

much over the last few cycles, so I urge the Department to give grant applicants some 

leeway when it comes to formatting.

Communication to awardees on updated timeline and actions taken during the process.

Be clear with what you're looking for. Be clear about how the selection process works. 

Be direct.

Record webinars and have an archive for reference
605

Process is fair and precise. No suggestions.

Set deadline early in the process (give more notice about deadline and preference 

priorities). Inform applicants of decisions at least 60 days prior to start of grant to hiring 

process can begin if relevant. Projects should know they are being funded before day 1 

so grantees can roll out program on day 1 rather than start the job postings at the start 

of the grant cycle.

My only suggestion is not to open the competition during the holidays.

Clearer instructions and deadlines

That blast emails to all include the same directions and approvals for all programs. It is 

very frustrating to hear how some program officers approved increased stipend 

amounts that weren't approved for all programs!

Clear timeline months in advance as far as release of the RFP and deadline for 

submission. It would be ideal to have the grant competition more than a year in 

advance of the end of the current cycle so if someone isn't funded they can wrap up 

activities the last year and not be shocked right as they are waiting for funding to arrive.

Decisions are made and kept. Clear and concise verbiage when delivering these 

decisions.

Increase the frequency of contacts with grantee by program staff.

NA

I am learning about the grant competition.

Provide updates on the status of competitions, funding and upcoming competitions.

I dont know.

Clear and concise directions -- especially if including competitive priorities, better timing 

of award success or failure.

Provide training for grant competition and as much time as possible to prepare.

Provide workshops and send more communication via email.

The issues are the lack of specific information during trainings. Often, policies are not 

set in place and the trainers cannot give a definitive answer to specific questions, 

leaving TRIO professionals to interpret the available information. Additionally 

conflicting information should always be clarified with one straight answer. We need 
606

consistency and we need our recommendations to continue to be taken into 

consideration.

Let the program directors write the grants during work time. The amount of time we are 

given off is largely paltry and difficult to take due to the demands of running the 

program and I need to be able to write the grant as I am the one responsible for it!

Not to make it due over holidays and when the APR is due.

The need data requested for math and science doesn't correlate directly with each 

objective. If that could be improved, it would make grant competitions easier.

Uncertain

In terms of prior experience points for the fourth year APR, I would suggest that 

shortcomings of the last APR and this upcoming APR be given a certain amount of 

flexibility towards the PE Points and how they are calculated. There are many program 

who will have a difficult time meeting their objectives as a result of the Pandemic. That 

should definitely be given a great deal of consideration.

More clarity on prior experience points and how this will affect continuing programs 

going into the competition. The Department did a good job last cycle (for TS) of 

explaining and communicating information regarding the Competitive Preference 

Priorities. That would be helpful for this competition to include for UB/UBMS CPPs 

specific examples and citations.

I have no suggestions for improving the grant competition
607

Veterans Upward Bound

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

The landing page appears cluttered. Only buttons for general information and each program 

offering might be more appealing.

NA

It's an easy to navigate site with a tremendous amount of information. I think it is organized 

clearly and well.

So far I don't have too many issues with it. It's not perfect, but there's not much I feel I need to 

add

There is a mismatch of the websites. VUB is not found on the Elementary and Secondary 

Education website.

Outdated information. No response or information from ED during the height of the pandemic. 

No guidance regarding objectives due to the pandemic.

Have buttons on the introductory screens of "Grants...." that specify the grant names so the 

search is simpler.

Consider adding a tutorial with someone explaining the site and how to navigate it.

Contain more information on the veteran population educational levels nationally, by state and 

by counties/parishes.

Work with a end-user group and make sure it's user interface works with the end user's needs.

I can't think of anything at the moment.

N/A

Make the website more searchable and the content more easily indexed

The previous question asked about the Office of Secondary Education - I don't use that one. No 

issues with the PSE site though.

It would be nice if the site could be updated in a timely manner.

Timely updates. Navigation links (further information on topics presented).
608

Currently the website is user friendly. I have not encountered any concerns or issues with the 

website. Very Satisfied.

no suggestion

Q33. How could we improve the grant reporting process?

Ensure that the Program officers are responsive to questions in a timely manner. This was 

incredibly frustrating during the last year when changes needed to be made and the program 

officer was non-responsive.

When preparing the original grant submission for the competitive process, it would have been 

nice to know what specific performance parameters were required to be tracked for the annual 

performance report.

There is a need to clarify the objectives. It would help if a higher level representative could meet 

with directors in the NAVUB weekly meeting at least once a month.

The most recent APR had no draft version to review and no real notice that the APR was going 

live. Our program was ready, but there were many that had not been allowed back on campus 

and had limited access to participant files.

Nothing to report for now

1) Establish consistent, clear, timelines and adhere to the timelines. 2) Extend 30 days to 45 

days.

During the pandemic, the ED could have made concessions to grantees regarding objectives 

on the APR.

Having designated support staff to assist via geographic locations and time zones

Provide an earlier window for proposal submission so as to allow programs to get the results 

earlier. Our last 2 renewal dates happened at the very end of those grant cycles, which would 

not have allowed us any time to do any kind of grant closeout should we not have been 

awarded a renewal grant. In 2012 we actually found out on August 31, 2012, which was the 

very last day of that grant. In 2017 we were placed in the funding band and did know hear about 

our renewal until a month after the grant had ended. The Department should respond a few 

months prior to the end of a grant cycle, so as to avoid these problems.

Increase the tracking period to 7 or 8 years for veterans to enter and or complete 

postsecondary education.

Including an option for providing an explanation in case of an objective not being met
609

As a brand new Director, maybe going through the process even using a fake scenario would 

be helpful.

Make it easier to recall the report if there are any mistakes.

Provide a narrative summary section and allow for more understanding about what data is used 

for.

The grant reporting process is somewhat convoluted and at times ambiguous. There are unique 

situations that arise every year where its questionable what is the correct answer to report. We 

simply report and document our reason, but it would be nice if there was a consistent, more 

clear answer in annual performance reporting.

N/A

APR reporting requirements is WAY TOO complicated. DoE needs to reassess the APR 

process when one considers the significant manpower cost and man hours required to 

complete the 50 fields of the APR.

I really appreciated the ability to see objective progress prior to submitting. I have concerns 

about the objective regarding standardized testing and find that to be extremely outdated and 

not helpful in assessing grant performance.

None

none

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

UB-V - 2021 - Q27.2. Please tell us how the technical assistance you received 

from your program specialist this past year was affected by the pandemic, as 

well as any suggestions you have to improve the technical assistance you 

received should we be faced with future national emergencies.

Our program officer did not respond to a single email or voicemail the entire year. 

Without prior approval, our program struggled to make the required changes needed to 

remain successful. It was VERY frustrating.

[REDACTED] went above and beyond to assess any problems that I might have in 

delivery of services to the student veterans. She was attentive in listening to my 

concerns and gave valuable input. I was very pleased with how she performed during 

the pandemic.

I became the director in January of 2021. I wrote the program officer several times 

asking for an introduction because I had many questions. I left at least 3/4 voice mails. I 

wrote the program officer asking for a modification. I spoke to a representative of the 
610

national office that works with the program officer about needing to contact her. To this 

date 6/11/2021, I have not heard from the program officer. Fortunately, i made contact 

with her supervisor and my issue of a modification was resolved in less than 24 hours. 

I've been the director for approximately 6 months, and the program officer has never 

responded nor had any interaction with me.

Issues with communication were not the fault of my program specialist. She was very 

responsive and quick to support our project. She just didn't have answers to some 

questions. What was difficult was the lack of decision-making on the part of the Dept. 

of Education regarding any type of accommodation allowed in numbers served or 

targets unmet due to the pandemic. Our VUB is a statewide, largely face-to-face 

program and our shift to distance delivery of instruction, services and support was very 

quick and comprehensive, but we struggled to keep students engaged and enroll new 

participants. We worked exhaustively throughout the summer and still didn't meet our 

numbers for the first time in 30 years. Not knowing how that will impact our PE as we 

prepare for the next grant competition is unsettling. It would be helpful it decisions of 

this sort were made by the Dept. of Education quickly, so programs would plan 

accordingly.

Weekly meetings were very informative. I am still nervous though

1) Frequent responses of "we are waiting for answers from higher up." 2) We have had 

multiple program specialists in a short period of time.

The program specialist was great, but I don't feel he was given enough information 

from the ED to make any time statements regarding meeting objectives during 

pandemic.

My program officer is very poor at communicating. I no longer send him emails or call 

him because he NEVER responds. This past year has been a challenge for the 

program and veterans and any request I made to him, I never got a response. Several 

other programs were able to increase stipends and check out technology to participants 

to get them through the challenging times. I was not able to do this because I never got 

a response from my program officer and the DOE and COE say to never do anything 

without written consent from the program officer. The past three years have given me a 

sour taste towards the department of education. It is also frustrating when my program 

officer gives me very short notice (one time an hours notices) to respond to his 

requests, but I can't get a simple response to my emails or phone calls. I hope the DOE 

takes this feedback seriously. I understand that we are all busy, but there should be 

some common courtesy between the programs and program officers.

More timely feed back on email requests from Project Specialist at US Dept of ED

Technical assistance received from program specialist was conducted in a very 

professional and timely manner.

We did not receive direct technical assistance from our assigned program specialist this 

past year, though we did receive some general guidance from ED and were very 
611

grateful for the flexibilities allowed. In any future national emergencies, more frequent 

communications and updates would be appreciated.

Budget information was requested in September, it was turned in by the deadline of the 

request. We were told we would receive budget approval by end of September. I was 

scheduled a meeting the middle of November to discuss our budget. It was apparent at 

the meeting, my PO had not reviewed it prior to the meeting, even though she had it for 

two months at that time. During meeting, verbal approval was given but I told her that I 

also needed written for my business office. I took a few weeks of re-requesting vie 

email to receive the written permission before I ever received it. Response time during 

the COVID time has been awful. We are expected to respond by their deadlines, 

without exceptions, and we are not given the curtesy of receiving what we need by the 

deadlines they had set. It made it difficult for our program to make purchases for nearly 

3 months, a quarter of our grant year.

I recently started and so don't have a lot of knowledge when it comes to this topic.

N/A

Respond to questions, concerns and requests in a timely manner and with accurate 

information. Or at least, respond saying when you will get back to me. Most 

communications went unanswered entirely. The pandemic made it almost impossible 

to get target number served, yet there still hasn't been a resolution/communication 

about how this will effect PE points leading to potential loss of funding in next grant 

cycle. This was unprecedented, it is unfair to penalize those programs that were 

unable to comply.

I don't really receive much technical assistance from my program officer. I navigate 

things through the help of my professional organizations (COE, NAVUB, EOA), peers 

and experienced TRIO staff. I feel as though technical assistance is often too 

inconsistent between various VUB programs and their program officers. One program 

will be told one thing and another one will be told something else totally different. While 

I understand mistakes in communication can be made, it does damage the credibility or 

the trust you put into the Department of Ed or program officers. Also, I have had a very 

kind, considerate, and empathetic program officer who has been an advocate for our 

program. However, communication is inconsistent. During the pandemic I had two 

conference calls scheduled, both of which my program officer did not show up. I 

provided a report via email for them to review, but received no follow up or 

confirmation. It should be noted though, that my program officer HAS responded to 

some critical things when we have needed. Sometimes it took some reminder emails to 

the program officer, before receiving a response. The FAQ sheets that took months for 

the Department of Ed to create in the first half of 2020 were a joke. They answered 

almost no questions and left programs even more confused. I feel for new directors and 

people who were struggling to answer to their institution. We did not struggle like some 

programs, thankfully. Overall, I know program officers work incredibly hard and they 

were stretched thin during COVID with extra responsibilities. Our program did okay 

during COVID and I thank the Department of Ed for being responsive with some things, 

while others, like the FAQ sheet were a slap in the face for some programs. Also, it 

also should be noted that it was no secret that the administration in March 2020 was 
612

NOT supportive of accessibility of education like the administration that came aboard in 

January 2021. It seems like we can't quite measure both sides with the same ruler 

either.

Timely alerts and/or notices

None

I don't know that it was affected other than that she didn't reply to an email at one point, 

but I also know she was incredibly busy and understood that.

All assistance was received without any disruption.

Communication timeliness

UB-V - 2021 - Q27.5. What can Veterans Upward Bound do to improve 

communication with you? 

Our VUB program communicates closely with leaders in the institution.

I do not have a problem with the methods and frequency with which the VUB program 

communicates with me. I can't think of any ideas for improvement. I have always gotten 

a timely response with any questions, concerns or challenges that I have faced 

managing VUB.

There should be an introduction to the grant and the expectations conducted by the 

program specialist when there is a new director or a new grant being implemented. The 

program specialist should respond to emails and phone calls.

Nothing that I can think of.

What they've done so far is great. I need to do better myself

The ED should be more transparent and relay information to the PO's. They disburse 

information as they receive it.

My program officer can, at the very minimum, respond to my emails. I respond to his in 

a timely manner, so he can do the same. I also feel as though VUB is the last program 

to get any updates. We have been waiting patiently to hear about the APR for 19-20 

and the effects of COVID on VUB projects, but we have not received any clear 

answers. It is now 2021 and several projects are scared about prior experience points, 

grant notifications, reaching numbers... COVID has really impacted VUB and it feels 

like we are not getting support from the DOE.
613

Have quarterly meetings to discuss updates, not just when there are challenges.

Opportunities for Q&A sessions

Nothing at this time.

It would be helpful to hear back more quickly from our program officer when we reach 

out with a question. We experienced instances in which we never received a response 

to a repeated inquiry over the course of weeks or even months.

To actually receive things when they are promised to us.

What does successful communication even look like?

Respond to my communications even if you can't answer my concern

Regular check ins would be helpful. It feels so isolating sometimes when you don't talk 

to your program officer regularly.

N/A

One way conversations me to PM - Only communicated with PM when I need a 

question answered.

None

Currently information received has been excellent.

none

UB-V - 2021 - Q27.6e. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with 

your program specialist?

Telephone and email

UB-V - 2021 - Q27.7. How would you advise on improving the overall process and 

protocols associated with this grant competition?

For potential grant applicants, I think a stronger focus needs to be placed on eligibility 

for the program services. Many institutions do not understand the true definition of a 
614

veteran. As such, they may not actually have a sufficient pool to draw from in order to 

recruit 125 eligible veterans.

First and foremost, make sure that the program specialists have true buy-in into the 

program. Hire the right person to do the job. Totally ignoring a grantees emails and 

voice messages shows a total disregard for the VUB program in general.

Still uncertain on that front

If CPP's are included then 45 days to write from the time of the RFP. Some flexibility in 

calculating PEP for the 2 years deeply impacted by the COVID pandemic.

Take into consideration the obstacles the pandemic caused on recruitment efforts. 

Entire communities were shutdown and programs were not allowed to serve face to 

face. Programs had to completely reorganize the way services were delivered. We are 

still facing restrictions. The grant competition's prior experience points should be 

reflective of the hard work and dedication of the TRIO world in serving students. We 

should not be penalized! Count only the two best years of the three.

Open up the VUB APR and send out award letters sooner.

Provide recorded webinar trainings

1. Provide grant award results much earlier. 2. Allow programs to reduce their number 

of participants, along with a "cost per participant" reduction. I asked several times about 

this, prior to the 2017 grant submission process during the comment period of the 

directions for that upcoming competition and received no responses. The DOE made all 

VUB programs serve the same number of participants in this current grant cycle as we 

served in our previous (2012-2017) grant cycle. We had to go with the number we were 

funded to serve in year 5 (2016-2017). The DOE should allow programs to adjust (in 

my case reduce) their number of required participants.

Nothing at this time.

An earlier submission date would allow for more timely notification. In 2017 it was 

September before we were notified of funding because the submission wasn't until 

June.

Not sure at the moment.

don't know yet

Advertise the dates ahead of time and stick to them. Keep grant competitions away 

from major holidays. Its hard to plan your year when you have to reserve an entire 

season for grant writing.
615

Introductory webinars to introduce process and protocols, with an FAQ page.

It seems fair as it is.

no suggestion
604

Appendix D: 

Explanation of Significant 

Difference Scores
605

Explanation of Significant Difference Scores

There are tables depicted throughout this report that compare 2021 to 2020 scores and note significant 

differences. The following provides some background on how CFI calculates and reports significant 

differences.

Whether a significant difference exists between two scores (mean scores reported on a 0 to 100 scale) 

depends on the sample size, the standard deviation and the level of significance selected. CFI employed 

a 90 percent level of confidence to check for significant difference on all questions. This is the standard 

level used in most of our studies. However, standard deviation and sample size vary from question to 

question. Therefore, some questions may show a small difference in scores as being significant, while 

others show a much larger difference not being significantly different. 

In CFI’s studies standard deviation, which is a measure of how dispersed scores are around the mean, 

typically ranges from 15 to 30 points for any given question as reported on a 0 to 100 scale. A higher 

standard deviation results in a larger confidence interval around a score (less precision), so a larger 

difference in scores would be required to be significant. 

To further illustrate how the dispersion of scores affects significance testing between two sets of scores, 

two examples are provided. In the first example, for a given question, 350 responses were collected in 

both year one and year two. Ratings for the question were very similar among respondents in both years 

so the standard deviation was 15 points in both years, e.g. there was little dispersion around the mean. In 

this case if we used a 90 percent level of confidence to test for significance, a difference in scores 

between years one and two of less than 2 points would be required to be significant. 

Now in the second example, the same number of responses (350) is collected each year but for this 

question the ratings are not very similar among respondents. In fact, the standard deviation is 30 points 

instead of 15 in both years, so scores are more dispersed around the mean. Now using the same 90% 

level of confidence to test for significance would require nearly a four-point (3.7) difference in scores 

between years one and two to be significant.

With respect to sample size, larger sample sizes result in smaller confidence intervals. Thus, larger 

sample sizes require smaller differences in score to be significant.