U.S. Department of Education

Office of Acquisitions and Grants 

Administration

2022 Grantee Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

2022
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

This page intentionally left blank
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 1

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

Appendix C: Open-Ended Comments......................................................................... 318

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

Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE)................................................................. 50

Appendix B: Attribute Tables and Non-Scores Respondents........................................ 69

Contact Information ..................................................................................................... 787
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 2

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 2022 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 April 19 to June 16, 2022, 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 2,502 valid responses were 

collected for a response rate of 49%. Response rates by program are shown on the following pages and 

ranged from 23% to 84%.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 3

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 a 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

National Professional Development Program 93 48 52% 80

Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA) Program 57 27 47% 77

Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education State Directors 53 29 55% 76

Native American Career and Technical Education Program 39 27 69% 81

IDEA – State Directors of Special Education (Part B) Program 62 27 44% 76

IDEA – Part C Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities Program 60 27 45% 76

RSA Vocational Rehabilitation Program 78 28 36% 63

Rehabilitation Long-Term Training Program 84 30 36% 75

State Personnel Development Grants 40 25 63% 86

Strengthening Institutions Program 200 78 39% 71

Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions 200 79 40% 85

Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans Program 24 19 79% 90

Centers of Excellence for Veterans Student Success (CEVSS) 32 19 59% 75

Minority Science and Engineering Improvement Program 67 40 60% 92

Hispanic Serving Institutions - STEM and Articulation Program 160 67 42% 81

Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships (FLAS) 106 41 39% 80

TRIO Talent Search 200 126 63% 76

Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Program 97 35 36% 83

Educational Opportunity Centers (EOC) 165 69 42% 73

Student Support Services 200 105 53% 69

GEAR UP 130 64 49% 74

Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need (GAANN) 151 55 36% 76

National Resource Centers Program 100 35 35% 76

Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies Program 52 42 81% 77

Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants (Title II, Part A) 53 38 72% 72

Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 7003) 200 98 49% 84

21st Century Community Learning Centers 64 41 64% 77

Student Support and Academic Enrichment 52 41 79% 78

English Language Acquisition State Grants (Title III, Part A) 52 40 77% 59

Migrant Education Programs (Title I, Part C) 46 27 59% 80

Grants for State Assessments 52 32 62% 74

Teacher and School Leader Incentive Grants (ESEA II-B-1) 52 25 48% 73

Charter Schools Program (CSP) Grants to State Entities 31 23 74% 60

Comprehensive Literacy State Development 27 21 78% 72

Education Innovation and Research Programs 131 77 59% 79

Magnet Schools Assistance Program 38 22 58% 80
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 4

Program Invites Completes Response 

Rate ACSI

Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Education Agencies Program 200 51 26% 81

American Rescue Plan and Emergency Relief HCY 55 24 44% 79

REAP-Rural and Low Income School (RLIS) Program 49 39 80% 80

REAP-Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) Program 200 63 32% 85

Promise Neighborhoods 19 16 84% 76

Payments for Federal Property (Section 7002) 199 93 47% 81

Demonstration Grants for Indian Children/Special Projects for Indian Children 76 34 45% 85

Neglected and Delinquent State and Local Agency Programs 52 33 63% 45

School Climate Transformation Grants (LEAs) Program 71 44 62% 85

Native Hawaiian Education Act Program/Education of Native Hawaiian 52 39 75% 84

Alaska Native Education Program 49 29 59% 77

Innovative Approaches to Literacy Program 43 33 77% 85

High School Equivalency Program - Migrant Education 48 40 83% 88

College Assistance Migrant Program 55 44 80% 86

Full-Service Community Schools (ESEA IV-F-2, section 4625) 42 22 52% 54

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

Assistance for Arts Education Development and Dissemination Program 22 17 77% 82

Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund 52 26 50% 59

Overall 4,543 2,283 50%
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 5

Table 2: All other programs surveyed

Program Invites Completes Response 

Rate ACSI

Native American and Alaska Native Children in School Program 16 10 63% 81

Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Education Program 4 3 75% 85

IDEA National Centers Program 6 3 50% 91

Independent Living Services for Older Individuals Who Are Blind (IL-OIB) 56 13 23% 71

Alaskan Native and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions (ANNH)-Part A 28 10 36% 82

Native American Serving Non-Tribal Institutions Program 19 12 63% 71

Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander Institutions Program 32 13 41% 67

Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad (DDRA) 63 25 40% 64

Predominantly Black Institutions (PBI) Competitive 26 8 31% 83

Predominantly Black Institutions (PBI) Formula 11 4 36% 88

Master ́s Degree Programs at Historically Black Colleges and Universities 18 8 44% 85

Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Language 32 12 38% 80

American Rescue Plan to the Outlying Areas 8 5 63% 89

Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools 49 19 39% 57

Supporting Effective Educator Development Program 34 15 44% 71

Teacher Quality Partnership Program 59 24 41% 79

American Rescue Plan Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (ARP EANS) 52 14 27% 46

Governors Emergency Education Relief Fund 52 13 25% 69

Education Stabilization Fund-Rethink K-12 Discretionary Grant Program 11 8 73% 77

Overall 576 219 38%

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 2022 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.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 6

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 2022 Customer Satisfaction Index for the Department of Education grantees is 77, 1 point 

higher than the 2021 measurement and still at the top end of its historical average at the 

aggregate level.

Customer Satisfaction Index: 2006 – 2022
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 7

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 14 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 HRSA’s Bureau of Primary Health Care grantees 

among benchmark studies available. 

78

77

73

73

70

68

63

60

Health Resources and Services

Administration (HRSA) Bureau of Primary

Health Care (BPHC) Grantees (2019)

Department of Education - Grantee

Satisfaction Study (2022)

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation

Participants (2021)

Department of Energy - Weatherization

Assistance Program Grantees (2019)

Health and Human Services (HHS), Office of

Community Services, Low Income Home

Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) (2019)

Health and Human Services (HHS), Office of

Community Services, Community Economic

Development (CED) Grantees (2019)

Federal Government Average (2021)

Administration for Children and Families

(ACF), Office of Community Services,

Community Services Block Grant (CSBG)

Grantees (States) (2020)
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 8

Customer Satisfaction Index - Scores by Program

The chart below lists the 2022 ACSI score for all 72 participating programs. Satisfaction ranges from 45 to 

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 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 is unchanged from a year ago and 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. 

2022 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

2022 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 (83 to 88), the Customer Satisfaction Index would increase by the amount of its impact, 0.8 points, 

(from 77 to 77.8). 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. 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 11

Drivers of Customer Satisfaction

Technical Assistance

Impact 1.7

The Technical Assistance component of the grantee experience was rated an 80 this year, a 1-point 

improvement from last year’s measurement. Despite being a strong score, the high impact value of 1.7

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 83, a 2-point increase and a strong indication 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 improved 1 point to an overall rating of 80. Using evidence-based 

practices in implementing program activities (79) was unchanged and assistance with developing 

resource materials for program use (77) improved 1 point from its 2021 score. Creating opportunities to 

share best practices via learning groups also improved 1 point to a score of 79.

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

provider such as regional laboratories or comprehensive centers. The 18% 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 scores for Technical Assistance 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

2021

Scores

2022

Scores Difference Significant Difference

Technical Assistance 79 80 1

TA services provided in helping successfully implement grant 

programs/projects 81 83 2 ↑

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management 79 80 1

Using evidence-based practices in implementing program 

activities 79 79 0

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in the 

program

76 77 1

Creating opportunities to share best practices via learning 

groups

78 79 1

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project 85 85 0

Sample Size 2,300 2,120

Arrows indicate a statistically significant difference from 2022 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

2022 12

Technical Assistance scores range from 54 to 96. Full-Service Community Schools scored the lowest in 

2022 after a 9-point drop since 2021.Grantees of the Minority Science and Engineering Improvement 

Program gave the Technical Assistance they receive a nearly 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

Minority Science and Engineering Improvement Program 96

American Rescue Plan to the Outlying Areas 94

Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans Program 92

Predominantly Black Institutions (PBI) Formula 92

Native American Career and Technical Education Program 91

IDEA National Centers Program 90

State Personnel Development Grants 90

Master ́s Degree Programs at Historically Black Colleges and Universities 90

Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Education Program 89

Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions 89

Predominantly Black Institutions (PBI) Competitive 89

Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships (FLAS) 88

Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Program 88

REAP-Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) Program 88

School Climate Transformation Grants (LEAs) Program 88

Hispanic Serving Institutions - STEM and Articulation Program 87

Native Hawaiian Education Act Program/Education of Native Hawaiian 87

Innovative Approaches to Literacy Program 87

High School Equivalency Program - Migrant Education 87

College Assistance Migrant Program 87

IDEA – State Directors of Special Education (Part B) Program 86

Demonstration Grants for Indian Children/Special Projects for Indian Children 85

Education Innovation and Research Programs 84

IDEA – Part C Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities Program 83

National Resource Centers Program 83

Statewide Family Engagement Centers (SFEC) Program 83

Independent Living Services for Older Individuals Who Are Blind (IL-OIB) 82

TRIO Talent Search 82

21st Century Community Learning Centers 82

Magnet Schools Assistance Program 82

Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Education Agencies Program 82

Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need (GAANN) 81

Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies Program 81

Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants (Title II, Part A) 81

Migrant Education Programs (Title I, Part C) 81

Grants for State Assessments 81

American Rescue Plan and Emergency Relief HCY 81

REAP-Rural and Low Income School (RLIS) Program 81

Assistance for Arts Education Development and Dissemination Program 81

Student Support and Academic Enrichment 80

Teacher Quality Partnership Program 80

National Professional Development Program 79

Alaskan Native and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions (ANNH)-Part A 79
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 13

Program (Technical Assistance) Score

Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Language 79

Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education State Directors 78

Comprehensive Literacy State Development 78

Rehabilitation Long-Term Training Program 77

Educational Opportunity Centers (EOC) 77

Promise Neighborhoods 77

GEAR UP 76

Supporting Effective Educator Development Program 76

Native American and Alaska Native Children in School Program 75

Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA) Program 75

Strengthening Institutions Program 75

Centers of Excellence for Veterans Student Success (CEVSS) 75

Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad (DDRA) 75

Teacher and School Leader Incentive Grants (ESEA II-B-1) 73

Alaska Native Education Program 73

Student Support Services 72

Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander Institutions Program 71

RSA Vocational Rehabilitation Program 70

Native American Serving Non-Tribal Institutions Program 66

Charter Schools Program (CSP) Grants to State Entities 65

English Language Acquisition State Grants (Title III, Part A) 64

Neglected and Delinquent State and Local Agency Programs 62

Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools 60

American Rescue Plan Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (ARP EANS) 56

Full-Service Community Schools (ESEA IV-F-2, section 4625) 54

Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 7003) --

Payments for Federal Property (Section 7002) --

Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund --

Governors Emergency Education Relief Fund --

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

Scores are not listed for programs where the questions were not asked.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 14

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements

Impact 1.0

The Grant Performance Reporting Requirements component improved 2 points in 2022 to reach its 

highest level in its three years of being measured.

The highest rated attribute continues to be the ease of submitting reports electronically with an overall 

score of 82. The clarity of reporting requirements and the availability of assistance and usefulness of the 

data in helping improve grant projects are other strengths of the reporting process.

In looking for ways to bolster the Grant Performance Reporting Requirements component, educating 

grantees on how their submitted data is being used remains a priority. This attribute’s overall score of 70

is the lowest of any survey item and the sentiment is backed up by open-ended 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. It is important to 

note that at the aggregate level the rating for this item improved 3 points since last year and is heading in 

the right direction.

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

2021

Scores

2022

Scores Difference Significant Difference

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements 75 77 2 ↑

Clarity of reporting requirements 78 79 1

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report 74 75 1

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically 80 82 2 ↑

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) 78 81 3 ↑

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project 75 78 3 ↑

Your understanding of how ED uses your data 67 70 3 ↑

Sample Size 2,409 2,223

Arrows indicate a statistically significant difference from 2022 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

2022 15

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

program level is 47 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 93

College Assistance Migrant Program 92

Predominantly Black Institutions (PBI) Formula 90

American Rescue Plan to the Outlying Areas 90

Minority Science and Engineering Improvement Program 89

Magnet Schools Assistance Program 87

Assistance for Arts Education Development and Dissemination Program 87

REAP-Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) Program 86

Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Education Program 85

Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans Program 85

School Climate Transformation Grants (LEAs) Program 85

State Personnel Development Grants 84

Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions 84

Predominantly Black Institutions (PBI) Competitive 84

Teacher Quality Partnership Program 84

Native Hawaiian Education Act Program/Education of Native Hawaiian 84

TRIO Talent Search 83

Master ́s Degree Programs at Historically Black Colleges and Universities 83

Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Program 83

Innovative Approaches to Literacy Program 83

Education Stabilization Fund-Rethink K-12 Discretionary Grant Program 83

IDEA – State Directors of Special Education (Part B) Program 82

Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Education Agencies Program 82

Educational Opportunity Centers (EOC) 81

Demonstration Grants for Indian Children/Special Projects for Indian Children 81

Statewide Family Engagement Centers (SFEC) Program 81

IDEA – Part C Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities Program 80

Centers of Excellence for Veterans Student Success (CEVSS) 80

Hispanic Serving Institutions - STEM and Articulation Program 80

Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA) Program 79

Migrant Education Programs (Title I, Part C) 79

Grants for State Assessments 79

Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander Institutions Program 78

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

Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies Program 77

Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants (Title II, Part A) 77

Student Support and Academic Enrichment 77

Teacher and School Leader Incentive Grants (ESEA II-B-1) 77

American Rescue Plan and Emergency Relief HCY 77

National Professional Development Program 76

Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education State Directors 76

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

Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships (FLAS) 75

Student Support Services 75

Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Language 75

Education Innovation and Research Programs 75

Promise Neighborhoods 75
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 16

Program (Grant Performance Reporting Requirements) Score

Native American and Alaska Native Children in School Program 74

Strengthening Institutions Program 74

GEAR UP 74

Native American Serving Non-Tribal Institutions Program 73

Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need (GAANN) 73

Comprehensive Literacy State Development 73

Alaska Native Education Program 73

IDEA National Centers Program 72

21st Century Community Learning Centers 72

Rehabilitation Long-Term Training Program 71

Supporting Effective Educator Development Program 70

RSA Vocational Rehabilitation Program 69

Independent Living Services for Older Individuals Who Are Blind (IL-OIB) 68

English Language Acquisition State Grants (Title III, Part A) 68

Native American Career and Technical Education Program 67

Neglected and Delinquent State and Local Agency Programs 66

Governors Emergency Education Relief Fund 65

Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad (DDRA) 64

National Resource Centers Program 64

Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools 62

Charter Schools Program (CSP) Grants to State Entities 61

Full-Service Community Schools (ESEA IV-F-2, section 4625) 58

American Rescue Plan Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (ARP EANS) 55

Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund 46

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 17

ED Staff/Coordination

Impact 0.9

The ED Staff/Coordination driver score improved 2 points in 2022 and maintains its place as a key 

strength of the grantee experience with a rating of 88. ED Staff are lauded for their professionalism and 

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

attribute score increased 2 points to a very impressive 85. Responsiveness is a particularly important 

attribute as other staff scores are often influenced by how quickly and efficiently grantees are able to 

connect with knowledgeable staff. In 2022, the communication about changes that could affect programs 

increased to a rating of 87.

With strong attribute scores from top to bottom in this area, moving forward, the priority 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

2021

Scores

2022

Scores Difference Significant Difference

ED Staff/Coordination 86 88 2 ↑

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, and 

procedures 89 90 1 ↑

Responsiveness to your questions 83 85 2 ↑

Professionalism 93 93 0

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 85 86 1 ↑

Communication about changes that may affect your program 86 87 1 ↑

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 85 85 0

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in providing 

relevant services 84 85 1

Sample Size 2,615 2,502

Arrows indicate a statistically significant difference from 2022 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

2022 18

ED Staff/Coordination component scores range from 66 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. 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 who is able to provide them with assistance.

ED Staff/Coordination - Scores by Program

Program (ED Staff/Coordination) Score

IDEA National Centers Program 99

Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans Program 98

Minority Science and Engineering Improvement Program 98

Statewide Family Engagement Centers (SFEC) Program 98

Predominantly Black Institutions (PBI) Formula 95

College Assistance Migrant Program 95

State Personnel Development Grants 94

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

Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships (FLAS) 94

American Rescue Plan to the Outlying Areas 94

Promise Neighborhoods 94

Native Hawaiian Education Act Program/Education of Native Hawaiian 94

High School Equivalency Program - Migrant Education 94

Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions 93

Predominantly Black Institutions (PBI) Competitive 93

National Resource Centers Program 93

School Climate Transformation Grants (LEAs) Program 93

Innovative Approaches to Literacy Program 93

Assistance for Arts Education Development and Dissemination Program 93

Education Stabilization Fund-Rethink K-12 Discretionary Grant Program 93

Native American Career and Technical Education Program 92

Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Language 92

American Rescue Plan and Emergency Relief HCY 92

REAP-Rural and Low Income School (RLIS) Program 92

National Professional Development Program 91

Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education State Directors 91

Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Education Program 91

IDEA – Part C Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities Program 91

Hispanic Serving Institutions - STEM and Articulation Program 91

Master ́s Degree Programs at Historically Black Colleges and Universities 91

Magnet Schools Assistance Program 91

Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Education Agencies Program 91

Teacher Quality Partnership Program 91

Native American and Alaska Native Children in School Program 90

IDEA – State Directors of Special Education (Part B) Program 90

Centers of Excellence for Veterans Student Success (CEVSS) 90

Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies Program 90

Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 7003) 90

Grants for State Assessments 90

Education Innovation and Research Programs 90

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

Rehabilitation Long-Term Training Program 89

Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander Institutions Program 89

TRIO Talent Search 89

Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Program 89
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 19

Program (ED Staff/Coordination) Score

Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants (Title II, Part A) 89

Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need (GAANN) 88

Migrant Education Programs (Title I, Part C) 88

Demonstration Grants for Indian Children/Special Projects for Indian Children 88

21st Century Community Learning Centers 87

Payments for Federal Property (Section 7002) 87

Strengthening Institutions Program 86

Native American Serving Non-Tribal Institutions Program 86

Student Support and Academic Enrichment 86

Alaska Native Education Program 86

Supporting Effective Educator Development Program 85

Independent Living Services for Older Individuals Who Are Blind (IL-OIB) 84

Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad (DDRA) 84

GEAR UP 84

Neglected and Delinquent State and Local Agency Programs 84

Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA) Program 83

Teacher and School Leader Incentive Grants (ESEA II-B-1) 83

English Language Acquisition State Grants (Title III, Part A) 80

RSA Vocational Rehabilitation Program 79

Comprehensive Literacy State Development 79

Governors Emergency Education Relief Fund 79

Educational Opportunity Centers (EOC) 78

Student Support Services 77

Charter Schools Program (CSP) Grants to State Entities 73

Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund 70

Full-Service Community Schools (ESEA IV-F-2, section 4625) 67

American Rescue Plan Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (ARP EANS) 67

Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools 66

Scores are not listed for programs where the questions were not asked.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 20

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 83. The increase comes as the result of 1- or 2-point gains in each 

of the attributes that make up the Documents component. The organization of the information (84), 

relevance (83) and clarity (83) of the correspondence sent to grantees are the highest rated items of this 

section. The sufficiency of detail (82) and comprehensiveness of the documentation in addressing the 

scope of issues grantees face (81) follow closely behind. 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

2021

Scores

2022

Scores Difference Significant Difference

Documents 82 83 1

Clarity 82 83 1

Organization of information 83 84 1

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 81 82 1

Relevance to your areas of need 82 83 1

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 79 81 2 ↑

Sample Size 1,724 1,519 ↑

Arrows indicate a statistically significant difference from 2021 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. Of the 50 programs that 

rated Documents, 36 of them rated the component at an 80 or above.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 21

Documents - Scores by Program

Program (Documents) Score

IDEA National Centers Program 96

American Rescue Plan to the Outlying Areas 96

College Assistance Migrant Program 92

High School Equivalency Program - Migrant Education 91

Magnet Schools Assistance Program 90

Innovative Approaches to Literacy Program 90

Statewide Family Engagement Centers (SFEC) Program 89

Native American and Alaska Native Children in School Program 88

REAP-Rural and Low Income School (RLIS) Program 88

Native Hawaiian Education Act Program/Education of Native Hawaiian 88

Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Education Program 87

Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies Program 87

Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 7003) 87

Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Education Agencies Program 87

American Rescue Plan and Emergency Relief HCY 87

REAP-Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) Program 87

School Climate Transformation Grants (LEAs) Program 87

National Professional Development Program 86

Migrant Education Programs (Title I, Part C) 85

Demonstration Grants for Indian Children/Special Projects for Indian Children 85

Assistance for Arts Education Development and Dissemination Program 85

IDEA – State Directors of Special Education (Part B) Program 84

Grants for State Assessments 84

Payments for Federal Property (Section 7002) 84

Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education State Directors 83

Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants (Title II, Part A) 83

Education Innovation and Research Programs 83

Promise Neighborhoods 83

Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA) Program 82

Comprehensive Literacy State Development 82

Teacher Quality Partnership Program 82

Native American Career and Technical Education Program 81

Student Support and Academic Enrichment 81

Rehabilitation Long-Term Training Program 80

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

Alaska Native Education Program 80

IDEA – Part C Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities Program 79

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

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

21st Century Community Learning Centers 77

Supporting Effective Educator Development Program 77

RSA Vocational Rehabilitation Program 76

Governors Emergency Education Relief Fund 76

English Language Acquisition State Grants (Title III, Part A) 73

Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund 73

Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools 69

Neglected and Delinquent State and Local Agency Programs 66

Charter Schools Program (CSP) Grants to State Entities 65

American Rescue Plan Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (ARP EANS) 64

Full-Service Community Schools (ESEA IV-F-2, section 4625) 60

State Personnel Development Grants --

Strengthening Institutions Program --
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 22

Program (Documents) Score

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

Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions --

Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans Program --

Centers of Excellence for Veterans Student Success (CEVSS) --

Native American Serving Non-Tribal Institutions Program --

Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander Institutions Program --

Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad (DDRA) --

Minority Science and Engineering Improvement Program --

Hispanic Serving Institutions - STEM and Articulation Program --

Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships (FLAS) --

TRIO Talent Search --

Predominantly Black Institutions (PBI) Competitive --

Predominantly Black Institutions (PBI) Formula --

Master ́s Degree Programs at Historically Black Colleges and Universities --

Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Program --

Educational Opportunity Centers (EOC) --

Student Support Services --

GEAR UP --

Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need (GAANN) --

Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Language --

National Resource Centers Program --

Scores are not listed for programs where the questions were not asked.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report 

Grantee Satisfaction Survey 

2022 23

Online Resources 

Impact 0.6 

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 score fell 1 

point to a rating of 75. The quality of content on the site (76) remains among the highest rated attributes 

but declined 2 points from last year. Accuracy of search results (76) is unchanged from 2021 as is the 

ability to navigate the site (75). The remaining attributes: ability to find specific information, ability to 

accomplish goals of visiting the site and visual appearance are all rated a 74 in 2022. 

The Online Resources attributes have far less variation between them compared with most other drivers 

at the aggregate level. Similarly, there is little variation of Online Resources scores between Offices. The 

score among OSERS respondents is 68 while all other Offices recorded an Online Resources score 

between 74 and 76. 

 

Online Resources - Aggregate Scores 

2021 

Scores 

2022 

Scores Difference 

81

Significant 

Difference 

Online Resources 76 75 -1 

Ability to find specific information 75 74 -1 

Quality of content 78 76 -2 ↓

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 75 74 -1 

Accuracy of search results 76 76 0 

Ability to navigate within the site 75 75 0 

Look and feel/Visual appearance 75 74 -1 

Sample Size 2,324 2,333 

Arrows indicate a statistically significant difference from 2022 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

2022 24

Online Resources scores range from 52 to 94. 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

American Rescue Plan to the Outlying Areas 94

Minority Science and Engineering Improvement Program 90

Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Education Program 87

Innovative Approaches to Literacy Program 86

REAP-Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) Program 85

Predominantly Black Institutions (PBI) Competitive 84

School Climate Transformation Grants (LEAs) Program 84

Statewide Family Engagement Centers (SFEC) Program 84

High School Equivalency Program - Migrant Education 83

Predominantly Black Institutions (PBI) Formula 82

Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Education Agencies Program 82

Teacher Quality Partnership Program 82

Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 7003) 81

Magnet Schools Assistance Program 81

REAP-Rural and Low Income School (RLIS) Program 81

Demonstration Grants for Indian Children/Special Projects for Indian Children 81

Payments for Federal Property (Section 7002) 80

College Assistance Migrant Program 80

Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA) Program 79

Alaskan Native and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions (ANNH)-Part A 79

Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions 79

Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships (FLAS) 78

American Rescue Plan and Emergency Relief HCY 78

Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education State Directors 77

Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Language 77

Comprehensive Literacy State Development 77

Native American and Alaska Native Children in School Program 76

Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans Program 76

TRIO Talent Search 76

Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Program 76

Native Hawaiian Education Act Program/Education of Native Hawaiian 76

National Professional Development Program 74

Hispanic Serving Institutions - STEM and Articulation Program 74

Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need (GAANN) 74

Student Support and Academic Enrichment 74

Migrant Education Programs (Title I, Part C) 74

Education Innovation and Research Programs 74

Supporting Effective Educator Development Program 74

Assistance for Arts Education Development and Dissemination Program 74

IDEA – State Directors of Special Education (Part B) Program 73

Strengthening Institutions Program 73

Master ́s Degree Programs at Historically Black Colleges and Universities 73

National Resource Centers Program 73

21st Century Community Learning Centers 73

Education Stabilization Fund-Rethink K-12 Discretionary Grant Program 73

Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander Institutions Program 72
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 25

Program (Online Resources) Score

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

Alaska Native Education Program 72

Centers of Excellence for Veterans Student Success (CEVSS) 71

Native American Serving Non-Tribal Institutions Program 71

Educational Opportunity Centers (EOC) 71

Grants for State Assessments 71

Promise Neighborhoods 71

Native American Career and Technical Education Program 70

RSA Vocational Rehabilitation Program 70

GEAR UP 70

Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools 70

Rehabilitation Long-Term Training Program 69

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

Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies Program 69

Student Support Services 68

Governors Emergency Education Relief Fund 68

Teacher and School Leader Incentive Grants (ESEA II-B-1) 67

Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund 67

Neglected and Delinquent State and Local Agency Programs 66

American Rescue Plan Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (ARP EANS) 65

English Language Acquisition State Grants (Title III, Part A) 64

IDEA National Centers Program 63

Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad (DDRA) 60

IDEA – Part C Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities Program 58

Charter Schools Program (CSP) Grants to State Entities 58

Full-Service Community Schools (ESEA IV-F-2, section 4625) 52

State Personnel Development Grants --

Scores are not listed for programs where the questions were not asked.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 26

Information in Application Package

Grantees of OPE and OELA programs were asked about the ease of understanding the information in 

their respective application packages. The overall score of 87 is made up of the OPE rating of 87 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 Budget Information and Forms

(83) present the greatest opportunity for improvement. There has been very little change in scores yearover-year across all application package attributes.

Information in Application Package - Aggregate Scores

2021

Scores

2022

Scores Difference

81

Significant 

Difference

Information in Application Package 87 87 0

Program Purpose 88 89 1

Program Priorities 88 88 0

Selection Criteria 86 86 0

Review Process 83 83 0

Budget Information and Forms 82 83 1

Deadline for Submission 91 91 0

Dollar Limit on Awards 87 88 1

Page Limitation Instructions 86 87 1

Formatting Instructions 83 84 1

Program Contact 90 90 0

Sample Size 831 862

Arrows indicate a statistically significant difference from 2022 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

2022 27

At the program level, the ratings of the Information in the Application Packages ranged from 81 to 96. The 

Information in Application Package questions were answered by grantees from a total of 24 different 

programs.

Information in Application Package - Scores by Program

Program (Information in Application Package) Score

Predominantly Black Institutions (PBI) Competitive 96

Predominantly Black Institutions (PBI) Formula 95

Minority Science and Engineering Improvement Program 94

Hispanic Serving Institutions - STEM and Articulation Program 92

Native American and Alaska Native Children in School Program 91

National Professional Development Program 91

Strengthening Institutions Program 91

Alaskan Native and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions (ANNH)-Part A 91

Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions 91

Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans Program 91

Centers of Excellence for Veterans Student Success (CEVSS) 91

Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Program 88

Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need (GAANN) 88

Master ́s Degree Programs at Historically Black Colleges and Universities 87

Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships (FLAS) 86

TRIO Talent Search 86

Native American Serving Non-Tribal Institutions Program 85

Educational Opportunity Centers (EOC) 85

Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Language 85

National Resource Centers Program 83

Student Support Services 82

GEAR UP 82

Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander Institutions Program 81

Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad (DDRA) 81

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

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

Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Education Program --

Native American Career and Technical Education Program --

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

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

RSA Vocational Rehabilitation Program --

Rehabilitation Long-Term Training Program --

IDEA National Centers Program --

State Personnel Development Grants --

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

Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies Program --

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

Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 7003) --

21st Century Community Learning Centers --

Student Support and Academic Enrichment --

American Rescue Plan to the Outlying Areas --

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

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

Grants for State Assessments --

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

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

Comprehensive Literacy State Development --

Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools --
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 28

Program (Information in Application Package) Score

Education Innovation and Research Programs --

Magnet Schools Assistance Program --

Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Education Agencies Program --

American Rescue Plan and Emergency Relief HCY --

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

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

Promise Neighborhoods --

Supporting Effective Educator Development Program --

Payments for Federal Property (Section 7002) --

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

Neglected and Delinquent State and Local Agency Programs --

Teacher Quality Partnership Program --

School Climate Transformation Grants (LEAs) Program --

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

Alaska Native Education Program --

Innovative Approaches to Literacy Program --

High School Equivalency Program - Migrant Education --

College Assistance Migrant Program --

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

Statewide Family Engagement Centers (SFEC) Program --

Assistance for Arts Education Development and Dissemination Program --

American Rescue Plan Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (ARP EANS) --

Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund --

Governors Emergency Education Relief Fund --

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

Scores are not listed for programs where the questions were not asked.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 29

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 44% 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 7%.

“Overall, when I think of all of ED’s products and services, I am satisfied with their quality.”
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 30

Chapter III

Summary and Recommendations

The overall ACSI score of 77 marks the second highest level of grantee satisfaction recorded by the 

survey since its inception in 2007. With a 1-point increase 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.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 31

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 received strong ratings, indicating a high level of meeting the needs of grantees, 

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

for improvement at this time. 

Technical Assistance has the highest impact value of 1.7 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. This score has improved 3 points since last year, 

indicating practices put into place are being well received by grantees and provide a strong foundation on 

which to build moving forward.

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 32

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 rating in 2022 was 81, 

slightly down from the previous two years’ rating of 85. Similarly, Ed Staff/Coordination saw a 2-point drop 

from last year but remains at an excellent score of 90. The Information in Application Package score was 

the only driver to increase when compared to 2021 results and was rated at a score of 91, making it the 

highest scored driver in 2022. Also among the top-rated drivers is Documents, measuring the written 

communication provided to grantees, which remained steady at a strong score of 88. Online Resources, 

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements, and Technical Assistance all received ratings in the mid70s. While scores in the 70s are still quite strong, these areas present the greatest opportunity for 

improvement at this time. Online Resources (76) had the largest decrease in score, dropping 11 points 

from 2021. Open ended comments from this section indicate items referenced on the website may be out 

of date or contain “dead” links. Quality of content saw a significant drop in score (down 22 points from 

2021). Ability to find specific information and ability to accomplish what you want on the site also 

experienced a reduction, dropping more than 10 points compared to the 2021 scores. The Grant 

Performance Reporting Requirements (74) and Technical Assistance (75) continue to be the lowest rated 

components as they were in 2021. However, this year both scores received a lower rating, dropping by 

nearly 10 points from the previous year (both received a score of 84 in 2021). A general pain point in 

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements was the availability of assistance in completing your 

report(s), which dropped from a score of 90 to 73, and ease of submitting report(s) electronically which 

saw a similar decrease in score from 79 to 64 in 2022. The decreased score for Technical Assistance was 

primarily driven by a 15-point drop in score for TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects (from 89 to 74) and an 11-point drop in ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in 

learning to implement grant projects (from 89 to 78).

National Professional Development Program

National Professional Development program grantee satisfaction decreased slightly, returning to 2020’s 

score after a small increase last year, yet remains strong with an overall score of 80. Both ED

Staff/Coordination and Information in Application Package continue to be the highest rated drivers with an 

excellent score of 91. While both drivers showed no change in score compared to the previous year, the 

individual components of each driver showed general improvements. ED Staff/Coordination’s knowledge 

of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, and procedures (94), as well as the page limitation 

instructions (92) for Information in Applications Package had the largest score increase to their respective 

drivers. Both Documents (86), which measures the written communication provided to grantees, and 

Technical Assistance (79) ratings declined slightly in 2022 (-2 points). Despite the sufficiency of details to 

meet program needs and comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues faced both experiencing 

a slight dip (-3 from 2021) all component scores for Documents retain their excellent ratings in the mid-tohigh 80’s. While technical assistance services provided in helping successfully implement grant 

programs/projects remains the highest rated component of the Technical Assistance driver at an 

impressive score of 84, the assistance with developing resource materials for use in the program (75; -6 

from 2021) drove the overall score decline in Technical Assistance. Grant Performance Reporting 

Requirements (76) also received a slightly lower score compared to last year. Although grantees 

understanding of how ED uses their data (76) saw a 4-point improvement in 2022, the ease of submitting 

report(s) electronically (71) and availability of assistance in completing your report(s) (76) both 

experienced a 9-point drop in score leading to the overall decrease of the Grant Performance Reporting 

Requirement driver. Online Resources (74) had the largest change year-over-year, dropping 12 points 

from 2021, and presents the greatest opportunity for improvement. While usefulness of the OELA website 

(75) declined 6 points, usefulness of the OELA Facebook page (70) improved 3 points bringing the score

out of the 60’s. Trust in the office to meet grantees’ needs also remains exceptional at a score of 87,

despite a 5-point decline.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 33

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

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

Adult Education and Family Literacy program grantees rated their satisfaction a 77. This slight decrease 

in score follows an all-time program high satisfaction in 2021. Ed Staff/Coordination (83) continues to be 

the highest rated driver due to the staff’s outstanding professionalism (96) and knowledge of relevant 

information (90). Documents, which measures the written communication provided to grantees, follows 

closely with an excellent score of 82. The accuracy of search results (77) and the ability to navigate within 

the site (80) both saw 2-point improvements from last year and helped increase the overall Online 

Resources score to 79 (1-point increase from 2021). Grant Performance Reporting Requirements was 

also highly rated at a score of 79 and, while grantees understanding of how ED uses their data (78) 

increased, the ease of obtaining data they are required to report saw a slight decline landing at a score of 

69. Despite a 9-point decline, Technical Assistance provided to grantees still received a respectable

score of 75. Its highest rated attribute was the technical assistance ED-funded providers helpfulness in

grantees learning to implement their grant project (83) and the lowest rated attribute was the creation of

opportunities to share best practices via learning groups (70). Trust in the office to meet grantees’ needs

was also rated highly with a score of 84, despite a 9-point decline from last year. 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 scores, although slightly lower than last

year, still received excellent ratings. Attributes in this category such as relevance of information (87) and

usefulness of resources to the grantees’ program (84) were among the top-rated while being wellorganized (74) and timeliness (78) both saw a decline greater than 10 points from 2021, suggesting the

material is relevant and available, but ultimately obtaining that material still leaves room for improvement.

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

Technical Ed

Carl D. Perkins Career & Technical Education Program grantees rated their satisfaction a 76. This 9-point 

decline in satisfaction lands only 2 points below the OCTAE-wide average satisfaction and can be 

attributed to a decline in all five driver ratings from 2021 to 2022. Driver scores ranged from 76 in Grant 

Performance Reporting Requirements to 91 in Ed Staff/Coordination. Although driver scores declined, 

grantees’ ratings are still favorable with all but Technical Assistance landing above OCTAE-wide average 

scores for their respective drivers. Federal staff are rated nearly perfect for their professionalism (97) and 

responsiveness to your questions (95) drove the overall ED Staff/Coordination score to be the top-rated

driver in 2022. Grantees’ rating of Online Resources declined 7 points for an overall score of 77. Attribute 

scores in this section reveal a significant decline in three aspects including ability to find specific 

information (74), quality of content (80), and accuracy of search results (76) along with a slight 

improvement in look and feel/visual appearance (81). Grant Performance Reporting Requirements 

experienced a similar 7-point decrease for an overall score of 76. Attribute scores in this section ranged 

from 65 for your understanding of how ED uses your data (which declined a significant 15 points), up to 

an 88 for availability of assistance in completing your report(s). With this wide range of scores, a focused 

effort in your understanding of how ED uses your data (65) and ease of obtaining data you are required to 

report (66) would greatly improve the overall Grant Performance Reporting score as they exhibit the 

lowest relative attribute scores. Documents (83), which measures the written communication provided to 

grantees, declined slightly but was still rated favorably by grantees to land 1 point above the OCTAE-wide 

average. In the custom survey section, ratings followed a similar trend to the core survey with decreased 

scores ranging from 71 in the CAR’s user-friendliness to 90 for technical assistance received on project 

implementation and budget questions.

Native American Career and Technical Education Program

The Native American Career and Technical Education Programs satisfaction rating jumped 14 points from 

2021 to reach an all-time program high score of 81. This excellent score can be attributed to a significant 

26-point increase in Technical Assistance (91) provided to grantees and a 9-point increase in Ed

Staff/Coordination (92). The improvement in Technical Assistance was primarily driven by a dramatic

increase in creating opportunities to share best practices (94) and the assistance provided with
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 34

developing resource materials (88), which were both rated poorly by grantees in 2021 at scores in the low 

50’s. ED Staff/Coordination continues to be the highest rated driver as it was in 2021. All attributes of ED

Staff/Coordination scored in the high 80’s to mid-90’s and saw an increase from the previous year with 

Department staff’s responsiveness to grantees questions being the largest improvement (+18 points). 

Online Resources (70) was rated slightly better than last year and although grantees’ ability to accomplish 

what they want on the site (67) dropped 6 points, both the look and feel/visual appearance (73) and 

grantees’ ability to navigate within the site (72) saw great improvements. The driver with the greatest 

opportunity for improvement was Grant Performance Reporting Requirements which dropped 3 points to 

a score of 67, making it the lowest scoring driver in 2022. Despite the 17-point drop in score for ease of 

submitting report(s) electronically (60), grantees rated the availability of assistance in completing reports 

at a score of 82, a 13-point increase from the 2021 rating. Trust in the office to meet grantees’ needs 

remains strong at an excellent score of 87. In the custom question section of the survey, grantees 

indicated the effectiveness of DATE in helping implement programs (80) was substantially better, as was 

the usefulness and relevance of project director meetings in providing technical assistance (85), which 

both received a score increase of 15 points or more when compared to 2021 results. 

Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Education Program

Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Education Program grantees satisfaction increased to an all-time 

program high rating of 85. This year, the number of grantees who responded to the survey is three. The 

low sample size yields more variability in the results than other programs with more datapoints. The

improvement in satisfaction can be partly attributed to the 11-point score increase in ED Staff/

Coordination. With a score of 91, on a scale from 0 to 100, ED Staff/Coordination leads as the highest 

rated driver in 2022. All attributes related to ED Staff/Coordination received an excellent score of 89 or 

higher, with the largest increase being ED staff’s responsiveness to grantees’ questions which increased 

18 points from 2021 to an outstanding score of 96. Grant Performance Reporting Requirements also 

improved 7 points from last year to land at a score of 85, and although grantees’ understanding of how 

ED uses their data (56) continues to be the lowest rated attribute in this category, ease of submitting 

report(s) electronically received the largest year-over-year score increase of all attributes within the 

survey boosting 22 points from a 56 to a 78. Online Resources was the only driver to decrease compared 

to 2021 measures dropping 3 points to an 87. Despite a 10-point increase in ability to navigate within the 

site (93), grantees’ ability to find the specific information (85) and accuracy of search results (81) saw the 

largest declines among attributes in the Online Resources section of the survey. Documents, which

measures the written communication provided to grantees, continues to be rated highly with a score of 

87, along with Trust in the office to meet grantees’ needs which grantees rated at an 89. In the custom 

questions section of the survey, grantees indicated the technical assistance received on project 

implementation and budget questions (96) was greatly improved from last year, this is seen by a 13-point 

increase compared to the 2021 score of 83. However, both the PCRN’s usefulness and effectiveness of 

DATE in helping implement programs both dropped 5 points to a score of 89. 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 35

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS)

IDEA – State Directors of Special Education (Part B)

State Directors of Special Education grantees satisfaction rating increased 2 points in 2022 to a score of 

76. This follows a 3-point satisfaction increase in 2021, indicating that collaborative efforts continue to 

improve the overall grantee experience. ED Staff/Coordination increased 7 points and continues to be the 

most highly rated driver with an excellent score of 90. The enhancement in ED/Staff Coordination is 

bolstered by a 9-point score increase for three different attributes including responsiveness to grantees 

questions (91), sufficiency of legal guidance in responses (87), and collaboration with other ED programs 

or offices in providing relevant services (87). Technical Assistance provided to grantees was rated at an 

86, a 5-point improvement from last year with the most notable increases being in services provided in 

helping successfully implement grants (88) and assistance with developing resource materials (84), both 

of which saw an 8-point rise from 2021. Grantees rated Documents, which measures the written 

communication provided to grantees, 5 points higher compared to last year as well. The 

comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues that grantees face drove the Documents rating 

improvement with a 9-point increase along with sufficiency of detail which rose 5 points, bringing all 

attribute ratings in the Documents section into the 80’s. Online Resources was rated as the lowest 

scoring driver by grantees in 2022 and offers opportunity for improvement. Grantees identified their ability 

to navigate within the site (70) and accuracy of search results (71) as the attributes presenting the 

greatest opportunity for improvement as seen by their relatively low scores. In the custom survey section, 

74% of grantees indicated they received technical assistance monthly and 7% indicated they received 

assistance yearly, up from 0% in 2021. When asked what types of assistance were most effective in 

helping you meet federal requirements and/or improve program quality, one grantee provided the 

following comment, “Q&A Documents, webinars, and monthly TA calls with state lead.”

IDEA – Part C Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities Program

The satisfaction among Lead Agency Early Intervention Coordinators was rated a 76 for the second 

consecutive year. This satisfaction rating of 76 is 1 point higher than the OSERS-wide satisfaction score 

but 1-point lower than the overall national satisfaction score of all programs. Grantees rated the key 

components of their experience with mixed results, similar to 2021 ratings. The highest rated component 

of the grantees experience was ED Staff/Coordination which continues to be outstanding with a score of 

91. Staff professionalism, responsiveness, and knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures all retained their excellent ratings in the 90’s as they were in 2021. Online Resources (58)

saw the most notable change in score with a 6-point decline and presents the greatest opportunity for 

improvement. All attributes of this category were rated lower compared to 2021 results, with the most 

prominent being a 10-point decline in the look and feel/visual appearance (54) of the online resources. 

Documents (79), which measures the written communication provided to grantees, and Grant 

Performance Reporting Requirements (80) both experienced a 2-point improvement from last year. 

Despite 3-point declines in clarity of reporting requirements (82) and grantees understanding of how ED 

uses their data (74), the increase in ease of submitting report(s) electronically (80) and significant 

increase in usefulness of data to help grantees improve their programs/projects (84) showed the largest 

year-over-year increase of all program attributes and ultimately drove the overall increase in Grant 

Performance Reporting Requirements. The Technical Assistance provided to grantees also saw a 2-point 

improvement from its 2021 rating bringing it up to an 83. Grantees indicated their level of Trust in their 

office to meet grantee needs remains high with an excellent score of 88, a 4-point increase from last year.

In the custom questions section of the survey, grantees were asked about the clarity of information 

received in developing applications and reports (84) as well as the timeliness of responses (88) they 

received, both of which grantees rated higher compared to 2021. 

IDEA National Centers Program

Grantees of the IDEA National Centers Program rated their satisfaction a 91 in their third year of survey 

participation. This year, the number of grantees who responded to the survey is three. The low sample 

size yields more variability in the results than other programs with more datapoints. This increase in 

satisfaction can be attributed to an improved rating in four of the five drivers from 2021 to 2022. Driver 

scores ranged from 63 for Online Resources to a near perfect score of 99 for ED Staff/Coordination. With 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 36

multiple attributes showing significant year-over-year increases for a perfect score of 100 in all but one 

attribute, knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, and procedures (96), ED

Staff/Coordination leads as the highest scoring driver this year. Closely behind is Documents (96), which 

measures the written communication provided to grantees. Grantees also indicated significant 

improvements in multiple attributes of the Documents section with the most notable being a 15-point 

improvement in sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs for a perfect score of 100. Online 

Resources received the lowest driver score in 2022 with an overall score of 63 and offers the most 

opportunity for improvement. Grantees identified their ability to navigate within the site (52) as the largest 

pain point regarding Online Resources. Grant Performance Reporting Requirements was rated a 72. 

Despite a 4-point increase an overall score of 72 lands 4 points below the OSERS-wide average and 

offers additional opportunity for improvement – specifically in the attributes ease of submitting report(s) 

electronically (56) and clarity of reporting requirements (63), as indicated by their relatively low score. 

When asked which types of assistance were most effective in helping you meet federal requirements 

and/or improve program quality, one grantee provided the following comment, “guidance about reporting 

requirements, facilitating collaborations.”

RSA Vocational Rehabilitation Program

RSA Vocational Rehabilitation Program grantee satisfaction improved for the third consecutive year 

increasing 2 points to its current rating of 63. RSA’s continuing efforts to enhance the grantee experience 

are reflected in 2022 survey results, with ratings generally increasing across the board. All drivers 

experienced between 3- and 7-point improvements from their 2021 ratings with Documents, which 

measures the written communication provided to grantees, showing the greatest increase, rising 7 points 

to a score of 76. Increased ratings in clarity and sufficiency of detail as well as a significant increase of 12

points in comprehensiveness in addressing scope of issues drove RSA’s Documents rating higher. ED

Staff/Coordination was the highest rated driver at 79, with an outstanding rating in professionalism (90). 

Bolstering the sufficiency of legal guidance in ED staff responses would further improve ED

Staff/Coordination rating, it is the lowest rated attribute with a score of 68. Despite gaining 6 points from 

2021 and an increase in all related attribute ratings, Grant Performance Reporting Requirements remains 

the lowest rated driver at 69. When asked how Grant Performance Reporting Requirements could be 

improved, one grantee provided the following comment, “quarterly reporting of so many elements is very 

cumbersome and not helpful. We are already pulling the key data and looking at it monthly. Less frequent 

reports with fewer elements would be more helpful.” The Online Resources component improved to a 

score of 70, with quality of content being the highest rated attribute. This component score of 70 for 

Online Resources is 2 points better than the OSERS office average rating of 68. Trust in the office to 

meet grantee needs declined 5 points this year and presents the greatest opportunity for improvement

with a rating of 64. In the custom question section of the survey, grantees indicated a large improvement 

in provision of effective training and dissemination of relevant information, as well as supportiveness in 

helping grantees complete the Unified or Combined State Plan.

Rehabilitation Long-Term Training Program

Rehabilitation Long-Term Training Program grantees rated their satisfaction a 75, a 4-point improvement 

that follows a 3-point improvement last year in 2021. Several key components received an increased 

rating from last year, indicating the continued efforts from RSA are enhancing its grantees experience. 

The most notable increase is seen in Technical Assistance, which gained 5 points for a rating of 77. 

Multiple attributes within this section experienced a 10 points or greater increase. The largest increase 

was in opportunities created to share best practices via learning groups, which gained 16 points to score 

an 80. ED Staff/Coordination (89) was once again the highest rated component, with grantees rating all 

attributes in the mid-to-high 80’s and professionalism receiving an outstanding rating of 94. Online 

Resources (69), a measure of the program content available on the ED.gov website, despite dropping 4 

points and being the lowest rated component by grantees, still rated 1 point above the OSERS office 

average score in 2022 of 68. This component offers the greatest opportunity for improvements with 

grantees. In the Grant Performance Reporting Requirement section of the survey, grantees indicated 

improvements from last year with a 2-point rating increase to 71. Improvements to ease of submitting 

reports electronically and increasing grantee understanding of how the Department uses their data could 

further boost the Grant Performance Reporting Requirements rating as they were rated relatively low in 

this section. Trust in the office to meet grantee needs declined slightly this year but continues to be high 

with a rating of 77. In the custom question section of the survey, where this program’s grantees were 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 37

asked what training they would like RSA to provide to better assist with managing their grant. The top 

responses were Statutory and regulatory program requirements (37%) and Payback requirements (13%) 

as the top response option among grantees.

Independent Living Services for Older Individuals Who Are Blind

In its second year of participating in the survey, Independent Living Services for Older Individuals Who 

Are Blind grantees rated their satisfaction a 71, a 2-point improvement from its 2021 rating. This 

increased satisfaction with the grantee experience can be attributed to improvements within several key 

components, including ED Staff/Coordination, which not only was the top-rated component but also 

showed the greatest rating increase of all the components when compared to 2021 results. This boost in 

rating is supported by RSA’s outstanding professionalism (92) and a great increase in responsiveness to 

grantee questions, which saw an 8-point improvement. Grant Performance Reporting Requirements was 

the lowest rated component at a 68 and presents the greatest opportunity for improvement. Although this 

rating is 8 points below the OSERS office average rating, grantee responses indicate efforts are trending

in the right direction; this section was 6 points higher than in 2021. A significant increase of 17 points in 

availability of assistance in completing grantee report(s) drove the increase in this section. However,

greater clarity of reporting requirements and ease of obtaining data would further enhance the Grant 

Performance Reporting Requirements rating. Documents, which measures the written communication 

provided to grantees, also climbed 6 points to a rating of 77 with all attributes contained in this section 

rated in the mid-to-high 70’s. Despite no change, Online Resources (69), was rated 1 point above the 

OSERS office average rating in 2022, with quality of content being the highest rated attribute and 

accuracy of search results the lowest. When asked how Online Resources could be improved, one 

grantee provided the following suggestion, “I would like to see a "summary" of specific documents, rather 

than to have to read through and filter through what I am trying to find on the site.” In the custom 

questions section of the survey, where grantees were asked to rate different aspects of service/support 

provided to the Independent Living Services for OIB program by the RSA OIB program manager and 

other staff, grantees rated program performance 7 points lower than in 2021 for a score of 64.

State Personnel Development Grants

State Personnel Development Grant program grantee satisfaction continues to grow in its second year of 

survey participation. Grantee satisfaction gained 7 points to reach an excellent rating of 86, 11 points 

higher than the OSERS office average rating. Efforts to improve the grantee experience are reflected in 

this year’s survey results by an increased rating for all key components. ED Staff/Coordination continues 

to be the most highly rated component, rated at a 94, with professionalism (96) being the best scoring 

attribute. Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in providing relevant services was the lowest

after a 5-point decline to a 91. Grantees rated Grant Performance Reporting Requirements as the lowest 

of the components at a still impressive rating of 84, which is 16 points higher than the OSERS office 

average rating. Despite this section showing the most improvement from last year, it still contains the 

lowest rated attribute, ease of submitting report(s) electronically (73), and offers the greatest opportunity 

for improvement. When asked how Grant Performance Reporting Requirements could be improved, one 

grantee provided the following comment, “training for all new directors on G5 & Sig Network site.

Make sure what is in G5 aligns with titles in the directions.” Technical Assistance was rated at a 90, a 2-

point increase from its 2021 rating, due to improved TA serviced provided in helping successfully 

implement grant programs/projects as well as enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management. With a 4-point increase and an exceptional rating of 94, Trust in the office to meet grantees 

needs was rated 10 points higher than the aggregate Trust rating. In the custom questions section of the 

survey, grantees indicated an increased frequency of accessing professional associations and 

conferences where research is presented as resources to support their efforts to implement practices 

based on evidence.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 38

Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE)

Strengthening Institutions Program

Strengthening Institutions Program grantees rated their satisfaction a 71 in 2022, a 1 point improvement 

from last year. After the decline of multiple key components last year, scores rebounded slightly with 

general improvements across all categories in 2022. The most significant change was seen in the ED 

Staff/Coordination, which grantees rated 7 points higher this year for a score of 86. All attribute ratings 

within this section improved with the greatest increase being in responsiveness (80) and collaboration 

with other ED programs or offices in providing relevant services (85), both gaining 7 points compared to 

2021. Information in Application Package (91) also saw a significant increase and was rated 3 points 

above the OPE office average rating. This increase can be explained by significantly increased ratings for 

the ease of understanding program contact (95), program priorities (92), formatting instructions (91), and 

budget information and forms (88). Grantees indicated an improvement in technical assistance services 

provided this year with a rating of 75, a 7 point improvement compared to 2021. In the custom technical 

assistance questions section of the survey, grantees expand on this to show significant improvements in 

responsiveness to questions and ability to resolve issues. With all other drivers’ increased ratings in 2022, 

Online Resources, which experienced no score change this year, is now the lowest rated driver of 

satisfaction with a score of 73 and presents the greatest opportunity for improvement. Grantees find the 

most difficulty in this section with the accuracy of search results and ability to find specific information on 

the site. Grant Performance Reporting Requirements increased 4 points to a rating of 74 with attribute 

scores ranging from 62 to 87. While grantees rated ease of submitting data (87) and ease of obtaining 

data (75) as the highest rated and most improved attributes within this section, improving grantees’

understanding of how the Department uses their data (62) would further increase the Grant Performance 

Reporting Requirements rating. Trust in the office to meet grantee needs continues to be highly rated with 

a score of 81. In the custom questions section of the survey under Communication with Program 

Specialist, grantees further indicated notable improvements from last year with increased ratings for all 

three attributes including a significant increase of 8 points in clarity of communication (83). 

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

Grantees of the Alaskan Native and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions (ANNH)-Part A rated their 

satisfaction an 82. This 4-point improvement lands the Alaskan Native and Native Hawaiian Serving 

Institutions (ANNH)-Part A grantee satisfaction 5 points higher than the OPE office average of 77. This 

improvement can primarily be attributed to the impressive ratings grantees gave to the ED Staff/

Coordination component, which jumped 9 points to an excellent rating of 94. Driven by a significant 21-

point improvement in responsiveness and a 16-point increase in consistency of responses with ED staff 

from different program offices, all attributes in the ED Staff/Coordination section were rated in the 90’s. 

Grantees rated Technical Assistance a 79. Although this is only 1 point higher than the 2021 score of 78, 

looking further in the custom questions section of the survey, we see grantees also indicated technical 

assistance improvements in ability to resolve issues and knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, 

policies, and procedures by rating both attributes 7 points higher than their 2021 measures. The overall 

driver score of 79 for Online Resources reflects a 5-point decline from 2021, the largest decline of all 

program satisfaction drivers. Within attributes of this section, grantees rated accuracy of search results

(85) highest, and they attributed the lowest ratings to quality of content (78) and look and feel/visual 

appearance (76), indicating grantees are able to find what they are looking for but once located the 

quality of content is not sufficient for their needs. Grant Performance Reporting Requirements remains 

unchanged from its 2021 rating of 76, and with mixed attribute scores by ANNH grantees ranging 

between 56-86, presents additional opportunities to enhance the grantee experience and improve overall 

program satisfaction. Grantee ease of submitting report(s) electronically (86) remains the highest rated 

attribute in this section, closely followed by clarity of reporting requirements (84) which received a 5-point 

increase from 2021; however, grantees understanding of how Dept. of Ed uses their data declined 4

points to a score of 56. Despite a 3-point decline, grantees rated the Information in Application Package 

an excellent score of 91 with all attributes contained in this section receiving steady ratings in the high80’s to low-90’s. In the custom questions section of the survey grantees were asked about the Distribution 

of Funds, and availability of funds with adequate time for implementation received a rating of 71, down 11
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 39

points compared to 2021. In the custom questions section of the survey, grantees also indicated 

improvements of Communication with Program Specialist, which had scores increase by 4 to 6 points. 

Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions

Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions (DHSI) Program grantees rated their satisfaction an 85 in 2022, 

a significant 7-point improvement following no change in satisfaction rating from 2020 to 2021. This rise in 

satisfaction can be attributed to grantees rating all five drivers of satisfaction higher compared to 2021 

results. Federal staff continue to excel in their interactions with grantees as seen by the 2-point 

improvement in ED Staff/Coordination score to a 93. Effective communication about changes that may 

affect grantee programs (93) improved 5 points, furthering the already excellent score of ED Staff/

Coordination, and making it the highest rated driver in 2022. Technical Assistance showed the largest 

improvement in rating, gaining 8 points for a rating of 89, 8 points above the OPE office average rating. In 

the custom questions section of the survey when grantees were asked about Technical Assistance, they 

rated all three attributes (ability to resolve issues; responsiveness to questions; and knowledge of 

relevant legislation, regulation, policies and procedures) all in the 90’s. Grant Performance Reporting 

requirements also showed significant year over year improvements according to DHSI grantee ratings.

Four of six attributes contained in this section displayed significant increases with the largest being 

availability of assistance (88), which grantees rated 11 points higher than last year. Potential for 

improvements still exist within this area through increasing grantee understanding of how the Department

uses their data (74). Despite improving 3 points and being rated 5 points above the OPE office average, 

Online Resources remains the lowest rated driver of satisfaction among grantees and offers the greatest 

opportunity for improvement. Grantees’ ability to accomplish what they want on the site (78) replaces look 

and feel/visual appearance (79) as the lowest rated attribute within the Online Resources section in 2022. 

With an overall driver score of 91, Information in Application Package remains highly rated with all 

attributes scoring between 89 and 94. In the custom questions section of the survey, grantees were 

asked to rate the Communication with Program Specialist. In 2022, all three attributes of this section 

received an excellent rating of 90. 

Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans

Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans program grantees rated their 

satisfaction a 90, a 3-point decline from its 2021 rating. With outstanding ratings across the board and 

little room to improve upon 2021 scores, 2022 survey results show driver scores sliding back towards the 

slightly lower office-wide average ratings. Although no drivers improved in rating this year, all five drivers 

of satisfaction remain very highly rated relative to other programs. Federal staff interaction with grantees 

continues to be a highlight of the grantee experience and is reflected in the near perfect rating given by 

grantees to ED Staff/Coordination of 98. Two of the five drivers experienced a significant decline in 2022 

measures. Online Resources and Information in Application Package. Although Online Resources

experienced a significant 13-point decline to score 76, this score remains 2 points above the OPE office 

average rating for Online Resources. Grantees indicated that both their ability to accomplish what they 

want on the site and the overall look and feel/visual appearance, present opportunities for improvement

with a rating of 74. Information in Application Package also saw a significant 6-point drop in score yet

remains at an impressive rating of 91. The lowest rated attribute in this section was budget information 

and forms (88). Grant Performance Reporting Requirements was rated slightly lower than last year 

landing at a score of 85. Grantees indicated in this section that their ease of submitting report(s) 

electronically (93) is a smooth process; however, ease of obtaining data you are required to report (81)

shows room for improvement, declining 9 points. Increasing grantee understanding of how Dept. of Ed 

uses their data (73) would further drive the Grant Performance Reporting Requirements rating as well. 

Technical Assistance provided to grantees was rated at an excellent score of 92 this year. Looking at the 

custom question section of the survey, when asked about Technical Assistance received, grantees rated 

all three attributes of responsiveness, ability to solve issues, and knowledge of relevant legislation 

regulations, policies and procedures in the mid-to-high 90’s as they were in 2021. Trust in the office to 

meet grantee needs (98) received another near perfect rating from grantees in 2022 and was down only 1

point from last year. In the custom section of the survey, grantees were asked to rate aspects of the 

process by which they receive grant funding for their program. PPOHA grantees rated each aspect of this 

section highly in the 80’s and 90’s. However, availability of fund with adequate time for implementation 

declined 8 points, making it the lowest rated attribute at 88. 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 40

Centers of Excellence for Veterans Student Success (CEVSS)

Grantees from the Centers of Excellence for Veterans Student Success (CEVSS) were surveyed for the 

first time in 2022. Their satisfaction rating of 75 lands only 2 points below the OPE office average rating

for this year. The satisfaction survey asks grantees to rate different aspects of their experience as a 

grantee and rate those aspects on a 0-100 scale. Of these five aspects, the two highest rated 

components among grantees in 2022 was Information in Application Package and Ed Staff/Coordination,

which received outstanding scores of 91 and 90, respectively. Information in the Application Package 

measures the information provided to grantees in the application package, and ED Staff/Coordination 

measures the interactions between federal staff employees and grantees. Both of these categories were 

rated higher than the 2022 OPE office average ratings by CEVSS grantees. Federal staff displayed an 

excellent level of professionalism when interacting with grantees as reflected by an impressive rating of 

94. Grantees also indicated federal staffs’ knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, and 

procedures as a highlight of their experience by giving a score of 91. Online Resources was the lowest 

rated driver of satisfaction with a rating of 71 and suggests there are opportunities for improvements 

within this area. Grantees rated their ability to navigate (75) and accomplish what they want (72) within 

the site as the highest, and they rated quality of content (69) and look and feel/visual appearance (69) as 

the lowest attributes within the Online Resources section. This implies enhancing the sufficiency of 

available material may be one way to further boost the Online Resources score. Open ended comments 

from this section suggest improvements such as an “expanded list of FAQs” would be helpful as well. 

With an overall score of 80, Grant Performance Reporting Requirements was also highly rated among 

grantees. Attributes within this section ranged between high 76-89 with ease of submitting report(s) 

electronically as the highest (89) and grantees understanding of how Ed uses their data (76) as the 

lowest. In the core section of the survey, grantees rated Technical Assistance services provided in 

helping successfully implement grant programs/projects as 75. Although this rating lands 6 points below 

the OPE office average rating, in the custom questions section of the survey grantees were asked to 

specifically rate the technical assistance provided by their program specialist, and CEVSS grantees rated 

all three attributes an 80 or above. Trust in the office to meet grantee needs received an excellent rating 

of 87, 3 points above both the OPE office average and the 2022 survey average among all 73 programs. 

In the custom questions section of the survey, grantees were also asked about aspects of the distribution 

of funds and their communication with their program specialist, and these where all attributes received 

relatively good ratings in the mid-70’s to mid-80’s. 

Native American Serving Non-Tribal Institutions

In its third year of participation, Native American Serving Non-Tribal Institutions grantees rated their 

satisfaction a 71, a 3-point decline from its rating in 2021. Of the five drivers of satisfaction only one, Ed 

Staff/Coordination, which measures the interactions between federal staff and the grantees, received an 

improved rating compared to 2021 results. ED Staff/Coordination saw a 2-point increase this year for a 

score of 86. Federal staff were recognized for their outstanding professionalism when interacting with 

grantees this year with an outstanding score of 94, 1 point higher than the OPE office average rating. 

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different programs (83) and collaboration with other ed 

programs (81) received perfect or near perfect rating last year, but both saw over 10-point declines in 

scores to be the lowest rated attributes within the ED Staff/Coordination section of the survey. Online 

Resources was rated the lowest of the five drivers at 71 and offers the greatest opportunity for 

improvement. Grantees indicated the quality of content (67) and ability to find specific information (69) as 

the most troublesome attributes in this section. Open ended comments from this section suggest 

improvements such as “a dropdown menu for navigation” or “a keyword search feature for grant notices” 

would simplify the grantee experience and boost the Online Resources driver rating further. A full readout of the verbatim feedback collected can be found in Appendix C. The largest change in driver score 

was seen in Grant Performance Reporting Requirements which declined 5 points to 73. Despite an 

increased usefulness of the data to help grantees improve their grant program/project, clarity of reporting 

requirements (70) and ease of obtaining data continue to cause difficulty for grantees as seen by their 8-

point and 7-point decreased rating respectively. Information in Application Package, although landing 2

points below the OPE office average rating, received an excellent rating of 85. This 2-point decline can be 

attributed to a significant decline in the three attributes program purpose, page limitation instructions, and 

formatting instructions. In the custom questions section of the survey, grantees indicated the availability of 

funds with adequate time for implementation and transparency of how funds are distributed among 

grantees as areas for improvements as reflected by their sizable decrease in rating.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 41

Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander Institutions (AANAPISI)

Grantees of the Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander Institutions rated their satisfaction a 

67, a 12-point decline from its 2021 rating. Although two of five satisfaction drivers reflected increased 

ratings from last year, the drop in satisfaction can largely be attributed to a 14-point decrease in the rating 

for Technical Assistance serviced provided in helping successfully implement grant programs/projects for 

a score of 71. Despite the reduced rating given to Technical Assistance by grantees in the core of the 

survey, when asked to rate aspects of Technical Assistance provided by their program specialist in the 

custom questions section of the survey, all three attributes, including ability to resolve issues (92), 

responsiveness to grantee questions (94), and knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and 

procedures (89), received outstanding ratings that were improved from 2021 results. Grantees rated the 

ED Staff/ Coordination, which measures the interactions between federal staff and grantees, as a 

highlight of their experience with an excellent score of 89. This 3-point improvement makes it the highest 

rated driver among Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander Institutions grantees in 2022. 

Federal staff continue to show high levels of professionalism when interacting with grantees as seen by 

an impressive rating of 95, while indicating greater communication about changes that affect the 

AANAPISI program would further improve ED Staff/Coordination rating. With an overall score of 81, 

Information in Application Package was rated 5 points lower compared to 2021 and 6 points below the 

OPE office average rating. Attribute scores in this section received mixed ratings between 69 and 93.

Grantees indicated the program contact (93) as a highlight in this section, but opportunity for 

improvement exists in the review process (69) and formatting instructions (70) as these attributes 

received the lowest ratings. Grantees rated the Online Resources provided to them a 72, with accuracy of 

search results (77) the highest rated and look and feel/visual appearance (67) as the lowest rated 

attributes. Open ended comments from this section suggest the user interface to be too “text heavy” and 

possible improvements could include further examples given of spending categories, or creation of a “first 

time grantee guide”. A full read-out of the verbatim feedback collected can be found in Appendix C. In the 

custom section of the survey, grantees were asked about the distribution of funds, where both timeliness 

of grant award notification (75) and availability of funds with adequate time for implementation (72) 

received greatly improved scores, bringing all attributes of this section out of the 60’s score range. 

Fulbright-Hays Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad Fellowships (DDRA)

Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad Fellowships (DDRA) Program grantees rated their satisfaction a 

64. Despite being the lowest rated program satisfaction among participating OPE office programs, this is 

a 7-point improvement in satisfaction and is a result of increased ratings for all five drivers compared to 

2021 results. Interactions with federal staff, measured by the driver ED Staff/Coordination, saw the 

greatest year to year improvement, jumping 10 points and making it the highest rated driver among 

grantees with an 84. Both federal staff’s collaboration with other Department programs or offices in 

providing relevant services and responsiveness to grantee questions experienced a significant increase; 

however, responsiveness to grantee questions remains the lowest rated attribute in this section with a 76, 

9 points below the OPE office average rating. Online Resources (60) saw a 3-point improvement from last 

year yet remains the lowest rated driver among grantees and offers the greatest opportunity for 

improvement. Despite a slightly declined rating for look and feel/visual appearance and accuracy of 

search results, improvements to quality of content and grantees’ ability to find specific information drove 

the overall Online Resources rating higher compared to 2021. Several open-ended comments from this 

section suggest enhancements to the FAQs including more specific up-to-date information or possible 

categorization of FAQs for easier navigation could lead to a higher Online Resources rating. A full readout of the verbatim feedback collected can be found in Appendix C. Grantees rated Grant Performance 

Reporting Requirement a 64, a 6-point improvement from last year. In this section, grantees indicated 

ease of submitting report(s) electronically (74) as the top attribute and their understanding of how the

Department uses their data as the lowest with a rating of 48, 20 points below the OPE office average 

rating for this attribute. Slight improvements were seen in both Information in Application Package (81) 

and Technical Assistance (75) from last year, reflected by a 2-point and 3-point increased rating, 

respectively. In the custom questions section of the survey, grantees were asked additionally asked to 

rate aspects of communication with their program specialist. All three attributes including clarity of 

communication (76), frequency of communication (74), and sufficiency of information (79) received greatly 

improved ratings with a significant increase in both clarity and sufficiency. When asked what grantees 

preferred method of communication was, 88% of respondents chose individual email as their preferred 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 42

method (+20% compared to 2021) followed by blast/distribution list email at 8% (-16% compared to 2021) 

and telephone at 4% (no change).

Minority Science and Engineering Improvement Program

Grantees of the Minority Science and Engineering Program rated their satisfaction a 92, an 8-point 

improvement from its last survey participation in 2020. This excellent rating makes Minority Science and 

Engineering Program grantee satisfaction the highest rated among all OPE office programs surveyed in 

2022. When compared to 2020 results, all five drivers of satisfaction were given an improved rating by 

grantees. Interactions with federal employees continues to be a highlight of the grantee experience as 

indicated by a near perfect rating of 98 for ED Staff/Coordination, 10 points above the OPE office average 

rating. All attributes within this section received an impeccable score between 97-99. Much like ED Staff/

Coordination, Technical Assistance received an outstanding score of 96, a 3-point increase from 2020. 

Additionally, when grantees were asked to rate aspects of technical assistance with their program 

specialist in the custom questions section of the survey, grantees assigned similar ratings in the high 

90’s. Grant Performance Reporting Requirements experienced the greatest increase, jumping 10 points 

to land at 89; however, it remains the lowest rated of the five drivers and offers the most opportunity for 

improvement. Contained in this section, despite receiving the largest individual increase of any attribute

(18 points), grantees rated their understanding of how the Department uses their data (82) as the lowest 

score in 2022. Grantees rated Information in Application Package a 94. Attributes dollar limits on awards 

and program contact were the only two rating to decline when comparing survey results to 2020 

measures, but they still received strong scores in the mid-to-high 90’s. Trust in the office to meet grantees 

needs was rated a near perfect score of 99 out of 100, the highest among all OPE office programs. The 

custom questions section of the survey asked grantees about aspects of technical assistance provided by 

the program specialists, program specialist communications, and the distribution of funds, where grantees 

assigned ratings of 92 or greater for all aspects. In the open-ended comments for this survey grantees 

suggest more advance notice of reports/forms and “holding technical webinar much earlier before 

deadline” would be beneficial and further increase satisfaction. 

Hispanic-Serving Institutions - Science, Technology, Engineering, or Mathematics and 

Articulation

Hispanic-Serving Institutions - Science, Technology, Engineering, or Mathematics and Articulation 

Program grantees rated their satisfaction an 81, and although this rating lands 4 points above the OPE 

office average, it is a 1-point decline from the 2021 rating received. The five drivers of satisfaction for the 

grantee experience received mixed ratings when compared to 2021 results with scores ranging from 74 

up to 92. With an overall score of 92, Information in Application Package surpassed ED Staff/

Coordination as the highest rated driver in 2022. With a significant increase in review process, all 

attributes in the Information in Application Package section received scores of 90 or above. Despite a 1-

point decline, ED Staff/Coordination, which measures the interaction between federal staff and grantees, 

continues to be a highlight of the grantee experience, reflected by a strong score of 91. Online Resources 

remains the lowest rated driver in 2022, declining 3 points to a 74, and offers the greatest opportunity for 

improvement. Within this section, grantees indicated the look and feel/visual appearance, accuracy of 

search results, and ability to find specific information present the most difficulty in their experience by 

assigning these attributes the lowest ratings of any driver attributes. Open ended comments from this 

section suggest utilizing more visuals instead of text heavy formatting and expanding FAQs related to 

questions program directors may receive to further boost the Online Resources rating. A significant 

increase to grantees understanding how the Department uses their data (73) drove the Grant 

Performance Reporting Requirement (80) rating 2 points higher compared to last year in spite of a 6-point 

decline to ease of obtaining data grantees are required to report (72). In the custom section of the survey, 

grantees were asked to rate different aspects of the following: technical assistance provided by program 

specialist, communications with program specialist, and the distribution of funds. The highest ratings 

within the custom questions are seen in technical assistance provided by program specialist where two of 

three attributes – responsiveness and knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and 

procedures – received a rating of 91. Attributes of distribution of funds were rated relatively low and 

present additional opportunities for improvement in timeliness of the grant award notification (84) and 

availability of funds with adequate time for implementation (85).
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 43

Foreign Language and Area Studies

Grantees of the Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships Program rated their satisfaction an 80, 

and despite a 1-point decline from its 2021 rating, it remains greater than the OPE-wide average 

satisfaction score of 77 for the second consecutive year. Scores for the five drivers of satisfaction 

received mixed ratings this year ranging from from 75 to 94. Regardless of a 2-point drop, interactions 

with federal staff continue to be a highlight of grantees’ experiences, earning ED Staff/Coordination an 

outstanding rating of 94. Staff’s exceptional professionalism (96), responsiveness (95), and knowledge of 

relevant legislation, regulations, and policies and procedures (95) bolster this strong rating. Grant 

Performance Reporting Requirements was once again rated the lowest of the five drivers and offers the 

greatest opportunity for improvement with an overall score of 75, 3 points below the OPE-wide average 

rating. While these opportunities exist in all attributes of this section, ease of obtaining data (67) and 

grantees’ understanding of how Dept. of Ed uses their data (56) were indicated to be the most 

troublesome aspects for grantees as seen by their relatively low rating as well as the open-ended 

comments for this section. A full read-out of the verbatim feedback collected can be found in Appendix C. 

Information in Application Package was the second highest rated driver in 2022 with a score of 86. This 1-

point decline can be attributed to a combination of the relatively low rating assigned to budget information 

and forms (80) and a 5-point drop in rating for page limitation instructions (84). Online Resources was 

rated a 78, a 3-point improvement from its previous rating. All attributes contained in this section ranked 

above the OPE office average with quality of content being the highest (81) and look and feel/visual 

appearance (73) the lowest. In the custom questions section of the survey, grantees were asked to rate 

different aspects related to technical assistance provided by program specialist, communications with 

program specialist, and the distribution of funds. All attributes related to the Foreign Language and Area 

Studies Fellowships program specialist received superb ratings in the 90’s. Distribution of funds, however,

saw a significant drop in both timeliness of grant award notifications (-19 points; 60) and availability of 

funds with adequate time for implementation (-20 points; 56), which is also echoed in the following openended comment left by one grantee. “Earlier grant notification is key. We award fellowships in the early 

spring (March) for the following academic year in order to capture the most talented students. Our best 

students are savvy and wary of uncertainty. About half of our 2022-23 awardees have declined their 

awards by now because they did not like having an offer that was contingent on our center receiving 

funding. They made other plans for the fall. This leaves us with a roll-over situation in Year 1 of the grant.”

Talent Search

Grantees of the Talent Search Program rated their satisfaction a 76 for the second consecutive year. This 

rating lands 1 point below the OPE-wide average rating in 2022 of 77. The five drivers of satisfaction were 

all rated relatively strong compared to the OPE-wide average ratings with ED Staff/Coordination being the 

highest (89) and Online Resources (76) being the lowest. Federal staff continue to show exceptional 

professionalism (94) and knowledge of relevant legislature, regulations, and policies and procedures (91) 

during their interactions with grantees as seen by their excellent ratings. Information in Application 

Package follows closely as the second highest rated driver with a score of 86. This 2-point improvement 

is backed by a significant increase to both the attributes dollar limit on awards (89) and page limitation 

instructions (86). The largest change in year-to-year ratings was seen in the driver Grant Performance 

Reporting Requirements, which jumped 3 points to an 83. Grantees indicated a significant improvement 

to usefulness of data to help them improve their grant program/project (86) in this section but still wish to 

gain a better understanding of how Dept. of Ed uses their data (71). With an overall score of 76, Online 

Resources is the lowest rated driver among Talent Search Program grantees, with all but one attribute 

decreasing 1-2 points from their 2021 ratings. Multiple open-ended comments from this section suggest 

keeping the information as up to date as possible would further increase Online Resources rating as seen 

from the following comment: “information can be kept up to date - specifically, priority trainings, awards, 

and upcoming virtual trainings.” A full read-out of the verbatim feedback collected can be found in 

Appendix C. Technical Assistance, was rated an 82, 1 point above the OPE-wide average for the single 

rated question that asks grantees to measure the TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects. In the custom questions section of the survey, grantees were asked to rate 

various aspects of the process by which you receive grant funding for the Talent Search from the Office of 

Postsecondary Education. Despite a significant increase of 8 points, timeliness of grant award notification 

(68) remains the lowest rated attribute of the 2022 Talent Search Program Grantee Satisfaction Survey 

results and offers additional opportunities for improvement.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 44

Predominantly Black Institutions (PBI) Competitive

In its first year of participating in the survey, Predominantly Black Institutions (PBI) Competitive programs 

grantees rated their satisfaction an 83, landing 6 points above the average satisfaction for all participating 

OPE office programs. The five drivers of satisfaction were all rated favorably by grantees and range in 

score from 84 for Online Resources and Grant Performance Reporting Requirements up to 96 for 

Information in Application Package. Information in Application Package was the highest rated driver with 

several attributes receiving perfect scores of 100, including deadline for submission and program contact. 

ED Staff/Coordination, which measures the interactions between federal staff and grantees, was also 

rated strongly with a score of 93. Staff displayed an excellent knowledge of relevant legislation, 

regulations, policies, and procedures as seen by the rating of 96. With a score of 84, both Online 

Resources and Grant Performance Reporting Requirements were rated above the OPE-wide averages.

Grantees indicated the quality of content (88) on the site to be sufficient, but room to improve exists in the 

look and feel/visual appearance (79) of the site. Attributes contained in the Grant Performance Reporting 

Requirements section of the survey received mixed ratings with ease of submitting report(s) electronically 

(97) as the highest, and grantees understanding of how Dept. of Ed uses their data (72) the lowest. The 

following open-ended comment echoes this theme among grantees: “Maybe host a data summit or 

workshop on the data elements, the data source, and how the department uses the data.” A full read-out 

of the verbatim feedback collected can be found in Appendix C. Technical Assistance is a single rated 

question that asks grantees to measure the TA services provided in helping successfully implement grant 

programs/projects. Grantees of the Predominantly Black Institutions (PBI) Competitive Program rated this 

at an 89, 8 points above the OPE-wide office average rating. In the custom questions section of the 

survey grantees were asked to rate different aspects related to technical assistance provided by program 

specialist, communications with program specialist, and the process by which you receive grant funding 

for the Talent Search from the Office of Postsecondary Education. All attributes in the custom section 

were highly rated by grantees receiving rating in the high 80’s to mid-90’s except one, frequency of 

communication with program specialist, which received a good score of 81. The program specialists’ 

knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, and procedures received a near perfect score of 

99 out of 100. Grantees were also asked what their preferred method of communication is where 100% of 

respondents chose individual email. 

Predominantly Black Institutions (PBI) Formula

Grantees of the Predominantly Black Institutions (PBI) Formula Program rated their satisfaction an 88 in 

their first year of survey participation. This is a strong satisfaction score for grantees landing 11 points 

above the OPE office-wide average rating. Grantees were asked to rate their satisfaction, on a 0 to 100 

scale, five key components of the grantee experience. All five drivers of satisfaction were rated favorably 

by grantees with all five ratings landing above OPE office-wide averages for their respective sections. 

With an overall score of 95, both Online Resources and Information in Application Package were rated 

highest among grantees. Of the ten attributes contained in the Information in Application Package 

section, six received perfect ratings of 100 including program purpose, program priorities, deadline for 

submission, page limitation instructions, formatting instructions, and program contact. When grantees 

were asked about their interactions with federal staff, it was indicated that federal staff displayed flawless 

professionalism during their interactions with grantees by a perfect rating of 100 as well. Technical 

Assistance is a single rated question that asks grantees to measure the TA services provided in helping 

successfully implement grant programs/projects. Grantees rated this driver relatively high compared to 

the OPE-wide average with a 92, 12 points above the OPE office average rating. Despite receiving a 

good score of 82, Online Resources was rated the lowest among Predominantly Black Institutions (PBI) 

Formula Program grantees and offers the greatest opportunity for improvement. The highest rated 

attribute in this section was look and feel/visual appearance (86); however, opportunities to improve exist 

in grantees ability to find specific information, accuracy of search results, and quality of content as 

suggested by their relatively low rating of 81. Scoring 12 points above the OPE-wide average, Grant 

Performance Reporting Requirements received a strong rating of 90. When asked how Grant 

Performance Reporting Requirements could be improved, one grantee left the following comment:

“Provide a data summit/ workshop on each data element, the acceptable (required) data source, and how 

the department utilizes the data.” This is echoed in attribute scores with ease of obtaining data you are 

required to report (86) and grantee understanding of how Dept. of Ed uses their data (89) as the lowest 

rated in this section. In the custom questions section of the survey, grantees were asked to rate different 

aspects related to technical assistance provided by program specialist, communications with program 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 45

specialist, and the process by which they receive grant funding. All attributes received excellent ratings 

ranging from 86 for timeliness of the grant award notifications to 94 for a handful of attributes including 

program specialists’ ability to resolve issues and clarity of communication from program specialist. When 

asked what grantees preferred method of communication was, 100% of respondents chose individual 

email as their preferred method. 

Master’s Degree Programs at Historically Black Colleges and Universities

In its first year of participating in the survey, grantees of the Master’s Degree Programs at Historically 

Black Colleges and Universities rated their satisfaction favorably with an 85, 8 points above the OPE-wide 

average rating of 77 in 2022. Grantees were asked to rate five key components of the grantee experience 

on a 0-100 scale. ED Staff/Coordination was the highest rated driver with an excellent score of 91. 

Attribute ratings in this section highlight the high level of professionalism (97) federal staff display during 

interactions with grantees. Technical Assistance, which is a single rated question that asks grantees to 

measure the TA services provided in helping successfully implement grant programs/projects, received 

the next highest rating with a score of 90. With an overall score of 73, 1 point below the OPE-wide 

average, Online Resources was rated the lowest driver of satisfaction among grantees and presents the 

greatest opportunity for improvement. Grantees rated their ability to find specific information (69) as the 

lowest attribute in this section. The following open-ended comment from this section suggests one way to 

potentially increase the Online Resources rating: “More attractive graphics and interactive. Looks too 

plain aesthetically.” Grant Performance Reporting Requirements received a strong rating of 83, with 

attribute scores ranging from 72 for grantees’ understanding of how Dept. of Ed uses their data up to 90 

for ease of submitting report(s) electronically. Grantees rated Information in Application Package an 87. 

Apart from selection criteria and review process, which were both rated an 83, all ten aspects of 

Information in Application Package received a rating between 85 and 92. Trust in the office to meet 

grantee needs was also very highly rated by Master’s Degree Programs at Historically Black Colleges and 

Universities grantees with a score of 94, 10 points above the OPE-wide average for 2022. In the custom 

questions section of the survey, grantees were asked to rate different aspects related to technical 

assistance provided by program specialist, communications with program specialist, and the process by 

which they receive grant funding. In this section, the program specialists’ ability to resolve issues was a 

highlight of the grantee experience with an impressive 97 rating, but despite an also remarkable rating,

room to improve exists in timeliness of the grant award notification (86) and transparency of how funds 

are used (86) as indicated by their relatively low scores. When asked what grantees preferred method of 

communication was, 75% chose individual email followed by 13% choosing blast/distribution list email. 

Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) program

Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and Universities program grantees rated their satisfaction an 

83. This is a 1-point improvement compared to the satisfaction score in 2020, when Strengthening 

Historically Black Colleges and Universities program last participated in the survey, and 1 point above the 

OPE-wide satisfaction rating among all 22 OPE office programs. All five drivers of satisfaction received 

strong scores in 2022. ED Staff/Coordination (89) remains as the most highly rated driver of satisfaction 

as it was in 2020. Federal staff continue to display a high level of professionalism during their interactions 

with grantees indicated by an excellent rating of 92 by grantees. Although the drivers Technical 

Assistance, which is a single rated question that asks grantees to measure the TA services provided in 

helping successfully implement grant programs/projects, and Information in Application Package both 

received an excellent rating of 88, this score was a 3-point increase for Technical Assistance and a 2-

point decrease for Information in Application Package. Within the Information for Application Package 

section, grantees rated dollar limit on awards and page limitation instructions as the lowest attributes with 

a score of 84. Online Resources received the lowest driver rating of 76, 2 points below the OPE-wide 

average, and offers the greatest opportunity for improvement. Grantees identified the quality of content on 

the site as presenting the most difficulty during their experience with a relatively low score of 75. When 

asked how Online Resources could further improve, one grantee replied with the following: “Make sure 

that the information is current and accurate.” Grant Performance Reporting Requirements saw a 3-point 

increase for a rating of 83. This increase can be attributed to improvements in both grantees’ ease of 

obtaining data they are required to report (83) and their understanding of how Dept. of Ed uses their data 

(80). In the custom questions section of the survey, grantees were asked to rate different aspects related 

to technical assistance provided by program specialist, communications with program specialist, and the 

process by which they receive grant funding. All attributes associated with Strengthening Historically 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 46

Black Colleges and Universities program specialists received strong scores in the high 80’s to low 90’s. 

Additionally, regarding the distribution of funds, timeliness of the grant award notification (88) saw an 8-

point improvement compared to its 2020 rating. When asked what grantees’ preferred method of 

communication was, 71% chose individual email followed by 11% for both blast/distribution list email and 

telephone. 

Educational Opportunities Center

Grantees of the Educational Opportunities Center program rated their satisfaction a 73. Despite a 3-point 

improvement from when Educational Opportunities Center program last participated in the survey back in 

2015, this rating lands 4 points below the OPE-wide average satisfaction. In the core of the survey, 

grantees were asked to rate five key components of satisfaction for their grantee experience on a 0-100 

scale. Information in Application Package was rated the highest of the five drivers with a score of 85. Of 

the ten aspects measured in this section, grantees rated deadline for submission (89) as the top-rated 

attribute, and with a 5-point decline, formatting instructions (79) was the lowest rated. With an overall 

score of 71, Online Resources experienced the greatest change compared to 2015 ratings, declining 5

points. All attributes in this section received moderate scores between 68 and 72 and offer opportunity for 

improvement. The two aspects grantees identified as presenting the most difficulty in Online Resources 

was look and feel/visual appearance (68), and quality of content (70). Open ended comments from this 

section suggest keeping the available information and links more up to date would likely boost the Online 

Resources rating further. Grant Performance Reporting Requirements, which measures the performance 

reporting requirements for grantees was a new driver for Educational Opportunities Center program 

grantees in 2022 and received a strong rating of 81, landing it 3 points above the OPE-wide average 

rating for this year. In the ED Staff/Coordination (78) section of the survey, grantees indicated federal staff 

displayed a high level of professionalism (86) and knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures (83) during their interactions with grantees as seen by their relatively high scores. 

Technical Assistance, which is a single rated question that asks grantees to measure the TA services 

provided in helping successfully implement grant programs/projects, was rated a 77 by grantees, 4 points 

below the OPE-wide average. In the custom questions section of the survey, grantees were asked to rate 

different aspects related to technical assistance provided by program specialist, communications with 

program specialist, and the process by which they receive grant funding. Timeliness of the grant award 

notification received the lowest rating of all program attributes this year at 61 and provides additional 

opportunities for improvement. This is closely followed by ratings given to frequency of communication 

with program specialist (66) and program specialist responsiveness to grantee questions (69). When 

asked what grantees’ preferred method of communication was, 81% chose individual email followed by 

7% for blast/distribution list email, 4% telephone, and 1% webinar. 

Student Support Services

Grantees of the Student Support Services program rated their satisfaction a 69. This 4-point decline from 

when Student Support Services last participated in the survey in 2020 lands 8 points below the OPE-wide 

average satisfaction. Although only a slight drop for most, all five drivers of satisfaction experienced a 

reduced rating compared to their previous measures in 2020. Despite a 5-point decline, Information in 

Application Package (82) was rated the highest of the five drivers. This section also contained the largest 

attribute score change compared to 2020 results with both budget information and forms (76) and 

formatting instructions (78) proving more difficult to locate and understand than before, decreasing 8

points. ED Staff/Coordination (77) was the second highest rated driver among Student Support Services 

grantees. Shown through a strong score of 85, federal staff continue to display a high level of 

professionalism during their interactions with grantees. Additionally, grantees indicated an improvement 

to communications about changes that may affect grantee programs (78) with a 4-point improvement 

relative to its 2020 score. Grant Performance Reporting Requirements was rated a 75, lagging only 3

points behind the OPE-wide average rating. Online Resources, which measures grantees experience 

using resources provided on the ED.gov website, received the lowest driver rating this year with a 68 and 

presents the greatest opportunity for improvement. Both attributes quality of content (65) and look and 

feel/visual appearance (63) saw a 7-point decline and were indicated as top areas for improvement. This 

theme is echoed in open-ended comments from this section similar to the following, “The current website 

is outdated, many of the links kickback, and it is very difficult to navigate as a whole unless you know 

exactly what you are looking for.” Technical Assistance, which is a single rated question that asks 

grantees to measure the TA services provided in helping successfully implement grant programs/projects, 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 47

was rated a 72, 9 points below the OPE-wide average. In the custom questions section of the survey,

grantees were asked to rate different aspects related to technical assistance provided by program 

specialist, communications with program specialist, and the process by which they receive grant funding.

Despite a 13-point rating drop for program specialists’ knowledge of relevant legislature, regulations, 

policies, and procedures (67), timeliness of the award notification (64) from the distribution of funds 

section remains the lowest rated aspect of the grantee experience. 

GEAR-UP

Grantees of the GEAR-UP program rated their satisfaction a 74. Despite a 2-point improvement from 

when GEAR-UP last participated in the survey in 2019, this rating lands 3 points below the OPE-wide 

average satisfaction. Since 2019, many improvements have been made to the GEAR-UP grantee 

experience which is reflected in this year’s survey results. With an overall score of 84, ED Staff/

Coordination leads this year as the highest rated driver of satisfaction. Grantees indicated federal staff 

displayed a high level of professionalism (92) and a greatly improved consistency of responses with ED 

staff from different program offices (78; +16 points). While the driver rating for Information in Application 

Package remains steady at 82, attribute scores reveal grantee ease in locating and understanding of

page limitation instructions (83) saw the largest improvement and program contacts (84) saw the greatest 

decline, both ratings changing 5 points respectively. Online Resources was the lowest rated driver at 70, 

a 6-point improvement compared to its 2019 rating and offers the greatest opportunity for improvement. 

Attributes in this section all received ratings between 70-72 with the exception of look and feel/visual 

appearance (67). When asked how Online Resources could further be improved, one grantee wrote the 

following suggestion, “It would be helpful to have resources and links for Directors, data management 

coordinators, etc.” Technical Assistance, which is a single rated question that asks grantees to measure 

the TA services provided in helping successfully implement grant programs/projects, was rated a 76, 5

points below the OPE-wide average rating. New to GEAR-UP grantees in 2022 was the driver Grant 

Performance Reporting Requirements, which measures the performance reporting requirements for 

grantees and was rated a 74. In this section, grantees identified ease of submitting report(s) electronically 

(81) as the highest rated aspect and their understanding of how Dept. of Ed uses their data (61) as the 

lowest. In the custom questions section of the survey, grantees were asked to rate different aspects 

related to technical assistance provided by program specialist, communications with program specialist, 

and the process by which they receive grant funding. All attributes of these three sections were rated 

reasonably well by grantees with scores ranging from 74 for timeliness of the grant award notification up 

to 85 for program specialists’ use of clear and concise written and verbal communications. When asked 

what grantees preferred method of communication was, 86% chose individual email followed by 8% for 

blast/distribution list email, 3% webinar, and 2% telephone. 

Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need

Grantees of the Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need program rated their satisfaction a 76, a 

10-point decline compared to its rating in 2020 when Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need 

program last participated in the survey. This decrease in satisfaction can largely be attributed to the 

reduced ratings grantees gave to both Grant Performance Reporting Requirements (73) and Technical 

Assistance (81). Regardless of declines, all five drivers of satisfaction were rated relatively high when 

compared to OPE-wide average ratings. Both Ed Staff/Coordination and Information in Application 

Package received an excellent rating of 88. Federal staff continue to show a high level of professionalism 

(94) and knowledge of relevant legislature, regulations, policies, and procedures (91) during their 

interactions with grantees as seen by their relatively high rating. In the Information in Application Package 

section, attribute scores reveal grantee ease in locating and understanding of formatting instructions (91) 

improved, while that of review process (80) presented the most difficulty to grantees and decline 9 points. 

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements (73) received the lowest rating of the five drivers, declining 

10 points, and offering the greatest opportunity for improvement. Grantees identified ease of submitting 

report(s) electronically (88) as the highest rate attribute in this section, and their understanding of how 

Dept. of Ed uses their data (61) as the lowest. When asked how Grant Performance Reporting 

Requirements rating could further be improved, one grantee left the following comment “Maintaining an 

FAQ page on the web for some commonly asked questions.” Despite a 7-point decline, Online Resources 

rating landed equivalent with the OPE-wide average rating of 74. While grantees indicate the accuracy of 

search results (79) to be good, the quality of content (71) could present additional opportunities for 

improvement. Trust in the office to meet grantee needs declined from its near perfect score of 95 in 2020 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 48

to an 81, 3 points below the OPE-wide average rating. In the custom questions section of the survey,

grantees were asked to rate aspects of technical assistance provided by program specialist, 

communications with program specialist, and the process by which they receive grant funding, where all 

attribute ratings reduced between 9 and 14 points, down from their superb ratings in the 90’s for 2020.

Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Language

Grantees of the Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Languages program rated their 

satisfaction an 80. This 1-point improvement from last year puts Undergraduate International Studies and 

Foreign Languages grantee satisfaction 3 points above the OPE-wide office average. The five key drivers 

of satisfaction received mixed ratings relative to 2021 measures, ranging from a 6-point increase in Grant 

Performance Reporting Requirements (75) to a 7-point decline for Technical Assistance (79). Federal

staff continue to display a high level of professionalism (96) and knowledge of relevant legislature, 

regulations, policies, and procedures (95) during their interactions with grantees, earning ED Staff/

Coordination an excellent rating of 92 for the second year in a row and the top driver rating in 2022.

Despite being the lowest rated driver, Grant Performance Reporting Requirements saw a 6-point increase 

to a 75. Grantees identified this area to show the greatest year to year improvements with attributes 

clarity of reporting requirements (73) and understanding of how Dept. of Ed uses grantee data (73) both 

receiving increased ratings of more than 10 points. Regardless of a boosted rating, clarity of reporting 

requirements continues to be the lowest rated attribute, 7 points below the OPE-wide average, and offers 

the greatest opportunity for improvement. Technical Assistance, which is a single rated question that asks 

grantees to measure the TA services provided in helping successfully implement grant programs/projects, 

declined 7 points, landing below the OPE-wide office average and presenting additional opportunities for 

improvement. Information in Application Package decreased 4 points for an overall score of 85, where 

grantees pointed to budget information and forms (75) as the most troublesome aspect to locate and 

understand, reflected by its relatively low score. Improvements to both the look and feel/visual 

appearance (74) and accuracy of search results (90) lead a favorable rating from grantees in Online 

Resources (77). This 2-point improvement lands Online Resources 3 points above the OPE-wide office 

average rating for this driver. In the custom questions section, grantees of the Undergraduate 

International Studies and Foreign Language Program were asked how satisfied they were with the 

communications with their program specialist and technical assistance received from their program 

specialist during this pandemic. Although grantees indicated a decline in frequency of communication

(73), attributes of the technical assistance during pandemic still received excellent ratings ranging from 87 

for use of clear and concise written and verbal communication to 93 for ability to resolve issues. 

National Resource Centers

Grantees of the National Resource Centers program rated their satisfaction a 76. This is a 1-point decline 

from the rating received in 2019, when the National Resource Centers last participated in the survey. The 

five drivers of satisfaction received mixed ratings from grantees with scores ranging between 64 for Grant 

Performance Reporting requirements, a driver added to the survey in 2020, to 93 for ED Staff/

Coordination. Scoring 5 points higher than the OPE-wide average and bolstered by a near perfect rating 

for federal staff’s professionalism (97) during interactions with grantees, Ed Staff/Coordination leads as 

the highest rated driver of satisfaction in 2022. Grant Performance Reporting Requirements, which asks 

grantees to rate the performance reporting requirements for their program, was rated poorly by grantees 

with a score of 64 and offers the greatest opportunity for improvement. This rating puts the National 

Resource Centers Grant Performance Reporting score 14 points below the OPE-wide average and tied 

for lowest among all 22 OPE programs. Attribute scores from this section reveal grantees encountered 

difficulty obtaining data they are required to report (51) and have a low level of understanding of how 

Dept. of Ed uses their data (45) as seen by their relatively weak scores. Online Resources (73) saw the 

greatest change in rating from 2019 with an improvement of 8 points. While grantees gave quality of 

content (77) the highest attribute rating, look and feel/visual appearance (69) presents additional 

opportunity for improvement receiving the lowest rating. Information in Application Package declined 3

points to an 83. This reduced rating can be partly attributed to a 10-point drop in grantees’ ease of 

locating and understanding of formatting instructions (75), closely followed by and 8-point drop in page 

limitation instructions (79). Despite a 6-point decline, Trust in the office to meet grantee needs remains 

high at an 87, 3 points above the OPE-wide average. In the custom questions section of the survey,

grantees were asked to rate different aspects related to technical assistance provided by program 

specialist, communications with program specialist, and the process by which they receive grant funding. 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 49

Here, grantees rated all attributes related to their program specialist with exceptionally high ratings 

between 91 and 94, opposed to attributes about the distribution of funds, which were rated relatively 

poorly between 51 and 64. When asked what grantees preferred method of communication was, 80% 

chose individual email followed by 11% for blast/distribution list email, and 3% telephone. 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 50

Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE)

Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies - Title I 

For the fourth consecutive year, satisfaction among Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local 

Educational Agencies - Title I program grantees continues to trend upward, improving 3 points to an alltime program high of 77. This improvement can be attributed to an increase in all five driver ratings from 

2021 to 2022 with scores ranging from 69 for Online Resources to 90 for ED Staff/Coordination. Federal 

staff continue to display a high level of professionalism (95) and knowledge of relevant legislature, 

regulations, policies, and procedures (93) during their interactions with grantees, earning ED Staff/

Coordination (90) the top driver rating this year. Despite a 2-point improvement, Online Resources (69) 

remains the lowest rated driver of satisfaction and offers the greatest opportunity for improvement. 

Attributes from this section revealed that the quality of content (75) improved while grantees ability to find 

specific information (67) was found to be the most difficult, declining 2 points. When asked how the 

website could be improved, the following comment was provided: “Improve the search function and some 

links do not work. Make sure that all documents are up to date.” With an improvement of 10 points,

usefulness of data to help you improve your grant program/project (72) drove a 7-point increase to Grant 

Performance Reporting Requirements, making it the largest year over year increase of the five drivers. 

Grantees rated Technical Assistance (81) 6 points higher this year with a significant increase (+10) in 

creating opportunities to share best practices via learning groups. Documents, which measures written 

communication provided to grantees, received an excellent rating of 87. With a significant 6-point 

increase to both organization of information (89) and sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 

(86), this lands 4 points above the OESE-wide average of 83. Trust in the office to meet grantee needs 

also increased slightly to a strong score of 77. In the custom questions section of the survey, where 

grantees were asked to rate several aspects’ effectiveness to support their State in implementation of 

Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Education Agencies, where all four aspects received 

improved ratings relative to their 2021 scores, ranging from 84 for helps address implementation 

challenges to 87 for both provides support that is responsive to my State’s needs to implement and 

provides information about key changes to requirements. 

Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants 

Grantees of the Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants program rated their satisfaction a 72, 

improving for the third consecutive year. The improvement in satisfaction can be attributed to a 5-to-8-

point increase in all five driver ratings from 2021 to 2022. Federal staff’s high level of professionalism (94) 

displayed during their interactions with grantees, along with a significant improvement to both 

communication about changes that may affect your program (87) and collaboration with other ED 

programs or offices in providing relevant services (84), make Ed Staff/Coordination the highest rated 

driver this year at 89. Despite a 6-point improvement, Online Resources (72) remains the lowest rated 

driver, 4 points below the OESE-wide average, and offers the greatest opportunity for improvement. 

Attribute ratings in this section reflect year-to-year improvements with all except look and feel/visual 

appearance (71) experiencing an increased rating, including a significant score increase for accuracy of 

search results (75). When asked how to improve the website, one grantee had the following to say: “Long 

lists of links can make it hard to find things. Using expanding trees to list documents by category rather 

than having them all on the page could be helpful.” A full read-out of the verbatim feedback collected can 

be found in Appendix C. Documents, which measures the written communication provided to grantees, 

saw the largest year-to-year rating change with a significant 8-point increase for an 83. Grantees 

indicated both the clarity and organization of information in Documents to be the highlight, while 

comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues that you face (80) presents additional room for 

improvement implied by its relatively low score. Technical Assistance was also rated 6 points higher by 

grantees in 2022 with a rating of 81. Two attributes in this section were rated significantly better this year 

and showed the greatest improvements relative to 2021: enhancing staff skills needed for successful 

program management (+12; 85) and assistance with developing resource materials for use in the 

program (+15; 79). With an overall score of 77, Grant Performance Reporting requirements ties the 

OESE-wide average rating. Although grantees ease of submitting report(s) electronically declined slightly, 

ratings point to significantly improved clarity of reporting requirements (81) and ease of obtaining data you 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 51

are required to report (77). Rated questions in the custom survey section followed the trend of core 

survey rating and showed improved ratings for three of the four attributes, even if only a slight increase of 

1 point. 

Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 7003)

Grantees of the Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 7003) Program rated their 

satisfaction an 84 in 2022, a statistically significant improvement of 6 points from 2021. This improvement 

in satisfaction was driven by an increased rating for all three drivers, including a significant increase in 

Documents (87), which measures the written communication provided to grantees. With an overall score 

of 90, ED Staff/Coordination remains the highest rated driver, improving 1 point. This excellent rating is 

bolstered by the high level of professionalism (94) displayed by staff during their interactions with 

grantees and a significant 4-point improvement in communication about changes that may affect your 

program (91). Documents (87) saw the greatest year-over-year improvements, increasing a statistically 

significant 5 points to land 4 points above the OESE-wide average rating. All five attributes in this section 

experienced a statistically significant score increase compared to their 2021 measures with four of the 

five attributes including clarity, organization of information, and comprehensiveness in addressing the 

scope of issues that you face all receiving and excellent score of 87. Despite its excellent rating of 81, 

Online Resources was the lowest rated driver and offers the greatest opportunity for improvement. 

Attribute scores in this section reveal grantee’s ability to navigate within the site (80) significantly 

improved while their ability to find specific information (79) was indicated to present the most challenges, 

as seen by its relatively low score. In the custom questions section of the survey, where Payments for 

Federally Connected Children (Section 7003) grantees were asked to rate Impact Aid staff members,

where both ease of reaching a person who could address concerns (86) and ability to resolve your issue 

(87) were rated favorably. Grantees indicating they attended any Webinars or in person meetings where 

IAP staff provided you information on the Section 7003 program and the review process climbed to 72% 

in 2022, 14% more than indicated by grantees in 2021. When asked what additional communications 

would you like to receive regarding the status of your application prior to receiving a payment, a grantee 

provided the following suggestion: “Increased communication around expected timelines of payments.”

21st Century Community Learning Centers

Grantee of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program rated their satisfaction a 77, a 5-point 

decline after seven consecutive years of improved ratings. Despite this decline, 21st Century Community 

Learning Centers Program grantees satisfaction parallels the OESE-wide satisfaction rating of 77 for 

2022. Scores for the five drivers of satisfaction ranged from 72 for Grant Performance Reporting 

Requirements to 87 for ED Staff/Coordination. Rated favorably for their exceptionally high level of 

professionalism (95) and knowledge of relevant legislature, regulations, policies, and procedures (87) 

during their interactions with grantees, federal staff once again earned ED Staff/Coordination (87) the 

highest driver rating. Online Resources was rated a 73 for the second consecutive year, 3 points below 

the OESE-wide average rating. Four of six attributes that make up the Online Resources section received 

a 1-to-3-point improvement relative to their 2021 measures, including ability to accomplish what you want 

on the site (73), accuracy of search results (75), look and feel/visual appearance (75), and – the most 

notable – ability to navigate within the site (77). Grantees rated Technical Assistance slightly lower (-1) in 

2022 with a score of 82, 1 point above the OESE-wide average with the largest improvement in 

assistance with developing resource materials for use in the program (81), increasing 4 points. Grant 

Performance Reporting Requirements experienced the largest year over year rating change, declining a 

statistically significant 9 points, and making it the lowest rated driver this year at 72. Grantees signaled 

that ease of obtaining data you are required to report presented the most difficulty in their experience with 

a significant decrease and lowest attribute score of 62. While grantees also indicated a significant score 

decline in your understanding of how the Department uses your data, a score of 76 lands 5 points above 

the OESE-wide average for this attribute. This theme is echoed in open ended comments from this 

section such as the following: “The new GPRA seem very cumbersome to subgrantees as well as SEAs 

to collect and report. The amount of required data is large, and the amount of work SEAs must do to 

aggregate and report is unwieldy. The impetus for changing the GPRA and the reason for collecting on 

certain grades, etc. has been unclear.” A full read-out of the verbatim feedback collected can be found in 

Appendix C. The Documents rating also slightly decreased relative to its 2021 measure for a score of 77. 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 52

Attributes contained in this section experienced a 5-to-6-point decline to land in the 70’s. In the custom 

questions section of the survey, grantees continued to rate all attributes strongly with improvements in 

both provides assistance that enhances the capacity to implement (83) and likelihood to recommend Y4Y 

website (96).

Student Support and Academic Enrichment 

Student Support and Academic Enrichment Program grantees rated their satisfaction a 78, a 4-point 

improvement from its 2021 measure, landing it 1 point above the OESE-wide average. This increased 

satisfaction is due to an increase in four of the five drivers of satisfaction compared to last year’s results. 

Driver scores ranged from 74 for Online Resources to 86 for Ed Staff/Coordination. With an overall score 

of 86, ED Staff/Coordination leads as the highest rated driver this year. Federal staff drove this excellent 

rating with their high level of professionalism (91) and knowledge of relevant legislature, regulations, 

policies, and procedures (89) during their interactions with grantees. Grant Performance Reporting 

Requirements saw the largest year-to-year rating change improving 5 points to a 77. The six attributes 

that make up Grant Performance Reporting Requirements all saw improvements in scores between 70

and 80, with the most notable increase being your understanding of how Dept. of Ed uses your data (74), 

which increased 10 points. Online Resources (74) increased 4 points and saw an improvement in all six 

attribute ratings as well. This lands 2 points below the OESE-wide average and, with the lowest driver 

rating in 2022, offers the greatest opportunity for improvement. Grantees gave the highest attribute score 

in this section to look and feel/visual appearance (77) and the lowest to ability to find specific information 

(73) with the remaining four attributes receiving a score of 74. When asked how the website could be 

improved, the following suggestion was provided: “more about the allowable use of funds”. A full read-out 

of the verbatim feedback collected can be found in Appendix C. Documents (81), which measures the 

written communication provided to grantees, was the only driver to decrease from 2021 to 2022. Although 

comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues that you face (77) was identified as the lowest 

attribute in this section, a strong score of 85 for both clarity and organization of information support the 

favorable rating of Documents. In the custom questions section of the survey, grantees rated both 

usefulness of portal and usefulness of website an 86, which was a statistically significant 8-point 

improvement for usefulness of the website. The most helpful form of technical assistance remains written 

guidance (39%), down 15% from 2021 while the most useful TA content was federal grant regulations 

(51%), up 18% from 2021. 

American Rescue Plan to the Outlying Areas

In their first year of survey participation, American Rescue Plan to Outlying Areas Program grantees rated 

their satisfaction an 89. While this is an excellent rating, landing 12 points above the OESE-wide average 

satisfaction score for 2022, it should be noted the number of respondents this year was just five. All five 

drivers of satisfaction received exceptionally high ratings when compared to the OESE-wide averages. 

Scores of the five drivers ranged from 90 for Grant Performance Reporting Requirements to 96 for 

Documents. Both Document attributes of relevance to your areas of needs (96) and comprehensiveness 

in addressing the scope of issues that you face (96) drove grantees strong rating of Documents, which 

measures the written communication provided to grantees, earning it the highest driver rating in 

2022.Three of the drivers, ED Staff/Coordination, Online Resources, and Technical Assistance, tied for 

the next highest driver with impressive scores of 94. In the ED Staff/Coordination section of the survey, 

federal staff communication about changes that may affect your program received a perfect rating of 100, 

and federal staff’s high level of professionalism (98) displayed during interactions with grantees was 

shown to be a highlight of the grantee experience. With an overall score of 94, Online Resources lands 

18 points above the OESE-wide average rating. Attributes accuracy of search results, ability to navigate 

within the site and look and feel/visual appearance all received near perfect scores of 98, while grantees 

ability to accomplish what you want on the site (84) presents room for improvement with its relatively low 

score. Despite receiving the lowest rating among drivers of satisfaction and offering the greatest 

opportunity for improvement, Grant Performance Reporting Requirements (90) lands 13 points above the 

OESE-wide average. Attribute scores reveal grantees ease of obtaining data you are required to report

(82) as an area of focus, assigning it the lowest attribute rating in this section. When asked how Grant 

Performance Reporting Requirements could be improved, one grantee suggested the following, “Revisit 

reporting formats. More guidance on evaluating ARP (evaluation templates, etc.).” A full read-out of the 

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

grantees were asked to rate the helpfulness of technical assistance received from their ARP-OA SEA 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 53

program officer. Grantees rated all four attributes favorably with the most notable being use of clear and 

concise written and verbal communication with a near perfect rating of 98.

English Language Acquisition State Grants (Title III State Formula Grants)

Grantees of the English Language Acquisition State Grants program rated their satisfaction a 59, a 

decline of 4 points. This decrease in satisfaction can be attributed to the decreased ratings of four out of 

five drivers of satisfaction. Despite a 2-point decline, ED Staff/Coordination continues to lead as the 

highest rated driver with a score of 80. Federal staff continue to display an excellent level of 

professionalism (92) during their interactions with grantees and showed an improvement in 

communication about changes that may affect your program (+4; 81) compared to last year. Online 

Resources experienced the largest year-to-year change in score, declining 8 points to a 64, tying 

Technical Assistance for the lowest rated driver in 2022 and presenting the greatest opportunity for 

improvement. Grantees identified the ability to find specific information, ability to accomplish what you 

want on the site, and ability to navigate within the site as the lowest rated attributes with a relatively low 

score of 62 and look and feel/visual appearance (68) as the highest. When asked how the website could 

improve, one grantee suggested the following, “It would be helpful to have more FAQ-type information 

that then directs you to the specific federal policy or regulations. I find myself having to re-read the same 

very long policies to find the specific information that I need.” Technical Assistance (64) contained the 

lowest rated attribute of any driver and presented additional opportunities for improvement in creating 

opportunities to share best practices via learning groups (58). In the custom questions section of the 

survey, scores improved for three of the four attributes related to support from department staff. In 

response to the open-ended question “How can the Department’s services be improved over the next 

year?”, the following open-end comment was provided: “opportunities for peer learning, collaboration 

calls, grantee meetings, communities of practice, etc.”

Migrant Education Programs (Title I, Part C)

Satisfaction of the Migrant Education Program (Title I, Part C) grantees improved to an 80 after two 

consecutive years at 78. This 2-point improvement lands 3 points above the OESE-wide average 

satisfaction rating. The five drivers of satisfaction received mixed ratings relative to their 2021 measures 

with three of the five drivers showing improvements. Driver scores were once again all rated favorably by 

grantees, ranging from 74 for Online Resources to 88 for ED Staff/Coordination. A statistically significant 

8-point score increase in federal staff’s responsiveness to your questions (83) paired with federal staff’s 

high level of professionalism (94) displayed during their interactions with grantees, earns ED Staff/

Coordination the highest driver rating for Migrant Education Program (Title I, Part C) grantees in 

2022.Online Resources (74) saw the largest year-over-year change of the five drivers, declining 4 points 

and offering the greatest opportunity for improvement. All six attribute scores in this section declined with 

the most notable being a 6-point decline in both ability to navigate within the site and look and feel/visual 

appearance. When asked how to improve the website, one grantee suggested the following: “Post most 

up-to-date information and links to participating state MEP programs for collaboration and content 

information.” Despite a 1-point decline, Documents, which measures the written communication provided 

to grantees, received an excellent score of 85 and lands 2 points above the OESE-wide average. The five 

attributes comprising the Documents section were all highly rated by grantees with scores between 84 for 

clarity and 86 for relevance to your areas of need. Grant Performance Reporting Requirements improved 

to a 79 in 2022, fueled by a notable 7-point increase in usefulness of the data to help you improve your 

grant program/project (79). Technical Assistance also received an increased rating from 2021 for a score 

of 81, a 1-point improvement, where grantees identified Ed-funded TA provider helpfulness in your 

learning to implement grant project (87) as being the highest rated attribute and using evidence-based 

practices in implementing program activities and assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program as the lowest with a relatively low score of 77. In response to the open-ended question, “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: “Provide additional 

training (in-person, virtual, recorded, technical assistance paper/dear colleague letter) on 

recommendations for calculating subgrant allocations to local educational agencies.” A full read-out of the 

verbatim feedback collected can be found in Appendix C.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 54

Grants for State Assessments

Grantees of the Grants for State Assessments program rated their satisfaction a 74 in 2022, a 3-point 

decline from last year. Despite this decline, four of the five drivers of satisfaction received improved 

ratings compared to their previous measures in 2021. ED Staff/Coordination continues to be the highest 

rated driver, increasing 2 points. This increase is fueled by a high level of professionalism (94) displayed 

by federal staff during interactions with grantees and a 4-point improvement in sufficiency of legal 

guidance in responses (84). As the lowest rated driver, Online Resources (71) saw the largest year-toyear score change and offers the greatest opportunity for improvement declining 5 points and landing 5

points below the OESE-wide average rating. All six attributes contained in this section declined with the 

most notable decrease being accuracy of search results (67), moving 9 points for the lowest attribute 

rating. When asked how to improve the website, one grantee provided the following suggestion, “Expand 

search keywords, ensure most recent/current guidance is prominent and easy to find.” Documents, which 

measures the written communication provided to grantees, was the second highest rated driver with an 

overall score of 84. Grantees identified the clarity (85) and relevance to your areas of need (85) as the top 

attributes in this section with an improvement in comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face (83) from last year. Although the Technical Assistance (81) score remains unchanged from 

2021, it contained the attribute seeing the greatest year-to-year improvement with ED-funded TA provider 

helpfulness in your learning to implement grant project jumping a statistically significant 26 points for a 

score of 87. Grant Performance Reporting Requirements also improved, increasing 3 points to land 2

points above the OESE-wide average. Attribute scores reveal that while grantees understanding of how 

Dept. of Ed uses their data (73) remains unchanged and the lowest scored attribute, a 5-point 

improvement was made in ease of submitting report(s) electronically. Attribute scores in the custom

questions section of the survey were also rated favorably by grantees with three of four receiving an 

improved rating to put all four ratings into the 80’s. 

Teacher and School Leader Incentive Grants

Teacher and School Leader Incentive Grants Program grantees rated their satisfaction a 73 in 2022, a 4-

point decline from last year. Driver scores range from 67 for Online Resources to 83 for ED Staff/

Coordination and were met with mixed results as only one of the five driver scores improved relative to 

2021 results. Federal staff continue to show high levels of professionalism (94) when interacting with 

grantees but lacked in communication about changes that may affect your program (76) indicated by an 

11-point decrease. Documents, which measures the written communication provided to grantees, was 

identified to show improvements from last year with a 4-point increase to an 80. All five attributes 

contained in this section were rated highly by grantees with the most notable being a 6-point improvement 

in organization of information (83), which also received the highest attribute rating in this section. With the 

largest year-over-year rating change, Online Resources declined 9 points to a 67 for the lowest of the five 

driver scores. Grantees indicated a statistically significant 14-point drop in their ability to accomplish what 

they want on the site (66) to match ability to find specific information (66) as the lowest rated attributes 

and areas presenting the greatest opportunity for improvement. When asked how the website could be 

improved, one grantee provided the following suggestion, “Information is not easy to locate and is often 

out of date. It would be helpful to post any notices for grants on the main page for the grant.” Technical 

Assistance was rated similarly by grantees, dropping 6 points for a score of 73, offering additional 

opportunities for improvement. Attribute scores in this section reveal that, while TA services provided in 

helping successfully implement grant programs/projects (74) was rated the highest attribute in this 

section, there was a significant decline in creating opportunities to share best practices via learning 

groups (72). Despite a 3-point decline, Grant Performance Reporting Requirements matches the OESEwide average rating of 77 with attributes ranging from 70 for your understanding of how Dept. of Ed uses 

your data to 89 for ease of submitting data. Attribute scores in the custom questions section of the survey 

received mixed ratings relative to their 2021 scores with three of nine receiving increased ratings:

understanding of all program requirements, including budgetary concerns (+7; 85); understanding of 

practices other grantees use to address challenging areas (+5; 80); and providing relevant information 

and ideas (+5; 79).

Expanding Opportunities Through Quality Charter Schools Program

Grantees of the Expanding Opportunities Through Quality Charter Schools Program rated their 

satisfaction a 60, declining for the second consecutive year to a program all-time low. Driver scores follow 

a similar path as they did in 2021 with three of five drivers showing slight declines and two remaining
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 55

unchanged. Ed Staff/Coordination was rated the highest among the five drivers with a score of 73. 

Federal staff drove this rating with their excellent knowledge of relevant legislature, regulations, policies, 

and procedures (83) aided by an improvement in sufficiency of legal guidance in responses (67), which 

improved 2 points. Although slightly declined, Technical Assistance was rated a 65 to tie Documents as 

the next highest rated driver. Grantees indicated a significant decline in TA services provided in helping 

successfully implement programs/projects (66) despite the excellent rating given to Ed-funded TA 

provided helpfulness in your learning to implement grant projects (83) in this section. The Documents (65) 

score remained unchanged from 2021; however, attribute scores in this section reveal a modest 

improvement of 6 points to sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs. Online Resources continues 

to be the lowest rated of the five attributes, rated poorly by grantees with a score of 58 and offering the 

greatest opportunity for improvement. Four of six attribute scores in this section declined with grantees 

identifying accuracy of search results (54) as the lowest attribute, closely followed by both ability to 

accomplish what you want on the site (56) and look and feel/visual appearance (56). When asked how 

the website could be improved, a grantee left the following suggestion: “I feel like the info is hit-or-miss, 

and I've found occasional dead links. Could use a full revision and update so all materials are most up to 

date.” Grant Performance Reporting Requirements (61) was rated the second lowest driver by grantees, 

landing 16 points below the OESE-wide average rating and offering additional opportunity for 

improvement. Grantees pointed to ease of submitting data you are required to report (66) and availability 

of assistance in completing your report(s) (66) as the top-rated attributes and your understanding of how 

Dept. of Ed uses your data (48) as the lowest. Attribute scores in the custom questions section of the 

survey follow a similar patter to the core survey questions with four of five attributes declining, the most 

notable being a statistically significant decrease of 14 points in dissemination of resources and 

opportunities the CSP provides (63) and a 1-point improvement in guidance CSP provides on Federal 

grant compliance (57).

Comprehensive Literacy State Development

Comprehensive Literacy State Development Program grantees rated their satisfaction a 72, a 1-point 

decline from last year to land 5 points below the OESE-wide average satisfaction. Scores for the five 

drivers of satisfactions ranged between 73 for Grant Performance Reporting Requirements to 82 for 

Documents. Documents, which measures the written communication provided to grantees, received the 

same score as it did in 2021, but grantees indicated an improvement in both clarity (83) and 

comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues that you face (82) to earn Documents the highest 

driver rating. Despite the lowest driver score of 73 and offering the greatest opportunity for improvement, 

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements saw the greatest year-to-year improvement, increasing 5

points from 2021. Regardless of a 9-point increase, grantees indicated ease of submitting report(s) 

electronically as a point of difficulty along with your understanding of how Dept. of Ed uses your data (60). 

When asked how to improve Grant Performance Reporting Requirements, one grantee provided the 

following comment, “Please do not use Word Document for large budget items. It is extremely timeconsuming. Most fiscal teams use excel for formatting and then we have to input those numbers back into 

a word document. KMS is also not user-friendly.” A full read-out of the verbatim feedback collected can 

be found in Appendix C. The Online Resources driver was rated a 77. Although this is a 4-point decline 

from 2021, it still lands 1-point above the OESE-wide average Online Resources score of 76. Attributes in 

this section reveal a decrease in five of six attributes with the most notable being a 6-point decrease in 

quality of content (76), ability to accomplish what you want on the site (75), and ability to navigate within 

the site (76). Ed Staff/Coordination saw a 1-point improvement for a score of 79 and the second highest 

driver rating. This strong score is fueled by federal staff’s excellent communication about changes that 

may affect your program (87) and knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, and procedures 

(82) during their interactions with grantees. Grantees rated Technical Assistance a 78 for the second 

consecutive year. While the overall Technical Assistance score remains steady, all six attributes in this 

section received increased ratings relative to 2021 with ED-funded TA provider helpfulness in your 

learning to implement grant project (93) as the highest and enhancing staff skills needed for successful 

program management (78) as the lowest. Scores in the custom questions section of the survey followed a 

similar path as the Technical Assistance driver, with all eight attributes showing year-over-year 

improvements. Grantees indicated a great improvement in my TA Liaison offers robust support in 

achieving our project goals (92) with a statistically significant 14-point increase.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 56

Charter Schools Program Grants for Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter 

Schools

Charter Schools Program Grants for Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools Program

grantees satisfaction remained steady at a 57, landing 20 points below the OESE average satisfaction for 

the second consecutive year. Despite an unchanged overall satisfaction, four out of five drivers of 

satisfaction were given improved ratings from 2021 which ranged between 60 for Technical Assistance, 

and 70 for Online Resources. Although grantees’ overall rating of Online Resources (70) remained 

unchanged, attribute scores reveal an improvement to both ability to find specific information (71) and 

accuracy of search results (78) on the website, earning Online Resources the top driver rating this year. 

Documents, which measures the written communication provided to grantees, followed closely as the 

second highest scoring driver with a 69, a 2-point improvement relative to 2021. Grantees rated relevance 

to your areas of need (73) as the top attribute in this section and indicated opportunity to improve exists in 

both sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs (67) and comprehensiveness in addressing the 

scope of the issues that you face (67), as shown by their relatively low ratings. Despite improving 8

points, Technical Assistance (60) was rated the lowest by grantees and offers the greatest opportunity for 

improvement. Apart from ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to implement grant project

(70), which could only decline from its perfect score of 100 in 2021, all driver attributes showed 

improvement from previous measures. Both enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management and creating opportunities to share best practices via learning groups were identified as the 

lowest rated attributes with a score of 56. The Grant Performance Reporting Requirements (62) rating 

increased by 9 points. This improvement was driven by the leading attribute score of 68 in both ease of 

obtaining data you are required to report and availability of assistance in completing your report(s),

combined with a more than 10-point increase to several other attribute scores. In the custom questions 

section of the survey, scores follow a similar trend as all scores improved compared to last year, with the 

highest rated survey component in the custom section being dissemination of resources and opportunities 

the CSP provides (71) and the lowest being technical assistance receive on project implementation and 

budget questions (56). 

Education Innovation and Research Programs

Education Innovation and Research Programs grantees rated their satisfaction a 79, a 4-point 

improvement landing 2 points above the OESE-wide average satisfaction rating. All but one of the five 

driver ratings showed improvements when compared to their 2021 measures. Driver scores ranged from 

74 for Online Resources to 90 for Ed Staff/Coordination. Fueled by federal staff’s exceptional 

professionalism (94) displayed during their interactions with grantees and communication about changes 

that may affect your program (92), Ed Staff/Coordination (90) was the highest rated driver this year

despite a 1-point decline. Documents, which measures the written communication provided to grantees, 

saw a statistically significant increase, improving 5 points to an 83 for the largest year-over-year score 

change. Grantees indicated a significant year-over-year improvement for three of the five attributes 

including clarity (84), relevance to your areas of need (82), and comprehensiveness in addressing the 

scope of issues that you face (82). The lowest rated driver this year was Online Resources (74), landing 2

points below the OESE-wide average and offering the greatest opportunity for improvement. Although all 

six attribute scores in this section increased, grantees identified ability to find specific information (73) as 

the lowest rated attribute, closely followed by ability to accomplish what you want on the site (74), ability 

to navigate within the site (84), and look and feel/visual appearance (74). When asked how the website 

could be improved, a grantee provided the following suggestion, “Make it more clear what information can 

be found under each category on the toolbar, perhaps through dropdown menus when hovering over 

Programs, Grantees and Applicants, Families, etc.” A full read-out of the verbatim feedback collected can 

be found in Appendix C. In the custom questions section of the survey, attributes for technical support 

and assistance you have received from the i3/EIR Evaluation Technical Assistance/Abt Associates were 

all rated favorably by grantees with scores ranging from 81 for assistance in improving project 

implementation and EIR requirements (AnLar) to 91 for both assistance in improving your evaluation 

planning and implementation and customized feedback tailored to my grant’s unique challenges and 

opportunities.

Magnet Schools Assistance Program

Magnet Schools Assistance Program grantees rated their satisfaction an 80, a 2-point improvement from 

2021 landing 3 points above the OESE average satisfaction for 2022. Improvements made in all areas of 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 57

the grantee experience were reflected in this year’s survey results by an increased rating for all five 

drivers of satisfaction, ranging between 81 for Online Resources to 91 for Ed Staff/Coordination. Fueled 

by federal staff’s exceptional display of professionalism (97) during their interactions with grantees and an 

8-point increase for collaboration with other ED programs or offices in providing relevant services (91), ED

Staff/Coordination earned the highest of the five driver ratings in 2022. Documents, which measures the 

written communication provided to grantees, saw the largest year-over-year change, increasing 5 points

to a score of 90. Grantees rated the highest attribute in this section to be organization of information (91) 

and comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues that you face (87) as the lowest. Despite 

improving 2 points and landing 5 points above the OESE-wide average, Online Resources (81) received 

the lowest driver rating among grantees and offers opportunity for improvement. Grantees identified both 

ability to find specific information (79) and accuracy of search results (79) as areas presenting the 

greatest opportunity with their relatively low scores. Grant Performance Reporting Requirements was 

rated an 87, a 4-point improvement from 2021. Attribute scores in this section reveal an improvement in 

all areas, including a statistically significant score increase in ease of submitting report(s) electronically 

(93) for the highest attribute rating in this section. In the custom questions section of the survey, two of 

three attribute scores showed significant improvements to receive excellent scores between 90 for 

content knowledge of your Program Officer in supporting your program’s success and 95 for MSAP 

Technical Assistance Center. In an open-ended question, when asked how the MSAP program’s services 

could be improved to better support your program needs, a grantee provided the following suggestion:

“Examples of successful strategies and programs.” A full read-out of the verbatim feedback collected can 

be found in Appendix C.

Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Education Agencies 

Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Education Agencies Program grantees satisfaction improved 

for the fourth consecutive year, increasing 1 point to an 81 and landing 4 points above OESE average. 

Scores for all five drivers of satisfaction improved relative to their 2021 measures and range from 82 for 

Online Resources, Grant Performance Reporting Requirements, and Technical Assistance up to 91 for 

ED Staff/Coordination. Federal staff continue to display a high level of professionalism (94) and

knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, and procedures (91) during their interactions with 

grantees, earning ED Staff/Coordination the highest driver rating. Documents, which measures the written

communication provided to grantees, saw the largest year-to-year improvement jumping a statistically 

significant 6 points for a score of 87. This excellent rating was fueled by a significant improvement to all 

three attributes: clarity (86), sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs (87), and relevance to your 

areas of need (88). The three lowest-rated drivers, Online Resources, Grant Performance Reporting 

Requirements, and Technical Assistance, all tied with a high score of 82. Online Resources experienced 

the second largest increase (after Documents), improving 4 points to an 82 and landing 6 points above 

the OESE average rating. Grantees rated all attributes in this section highly with great scores between 81 

for ability to navigate within the site and 83 for quality of content and accuracy of search results.

Technical Assistance improved 3 points relative to its 2021 measure. All attributes in this section saw a 1-

to 3-point improvement with the exception of ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project, which increased 15 points to a remarkable score of 96. Grant Performance 

Reporting Requirements followed a similar trend with all six attribute scores increasing, including a 

significant 5-point increase in ease of submitting report(s) electronically (88). Grantees chose the 

following as the top three topics for which they have the greatest need for technical assistance: Allowable 

uses of funds (54%), Expanding membership of parent committees (40%), and using the G5 system 

(24%). When asked “What can OIE do to better meet your technical assistance and program 

improvement needs?”, the following comment was provided: “I would love to have recorded sessions that 

would be broken into various topics, so we could watch the area that we need to know more about 

without having to go through the whole session.”

Education for Homeless Children and Youth – McKinney-Vento

Education for Homeless Children and Youth program grantees rated their satisfaction a 79, a 7-point 

decline from 2021. Despite this decline, Education for Homeless Children and Youth grantees satisfaction 

remains 2 points above the OESE-wide average. The five drivers of satisfaction all saw decreased ratings

relative to their 2021 measures and ranged from 77 for Grant Performance Reporting Requirements to 92 

for Ed Staff/Coordination. Federal staff continue to display a high level of professionalism (96) during their 

interactions with grantees, earning Ed Staff/Coordination (92) the highest driver rating. Grant 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 58

Performance Reporting Requirements saw the largest year-to-year score change of the five drivers,

declining 7 points to the lowest driver score of 77 and offering the greatest opportunity for improvement. 

With this driver, grantees identified your understanding of how ED uses your data (71) and ease of 

obtaining data you are required to report (74) as the areas presenting the greatest opportunity by their 

significantly decreased and relatively low scores. Documents, which measures the written communication 

provided to grantees, received the second highest driver rating at an impressive 87. Grantees rated all 

attributes of this section highly with scores in the mid-to-high 80’s. With an overall score of 81, Technical 

Assistance lands 1 point above the OESE-wide average despite a significant 12-point decrease in Using 

evidence-based practices in implementing program activities (76). In the custom survey section, grantees 

were asked to rate the technical assistance provided by National Center for Homeless Education (NCHE).

All eight attributes received excellent ratings with the lowest being assisting you to impact performance 

results - US Department of Education (84) and the highest being guidance provided in responses to 

questions - Tech Assistance Center (NCHE) (96), which showed indicated to show a significant 

improvement of 4 points.

Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP)

Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) Program

Rural Education Achievement Program – Rural and Low-Income School grantees rated their satisfaction 

an 80, a 2-point improvement from 2021 landing 3 points above the OESE-wide average satisfaction. The 

five drivers of satisfaction received mixed ratings relative to their previous measures but were still rated 

highly by grantees ranging from 78 for Grant Performance Reporting Requirements to 92 for Ed 

Staff/Coordination. With an overall score of 92, fueled by federal staff’s exceptionally high level of 

professionalism (95) displayed during their interactions with grantees, ED Staff/Coordination was rated 

the highest driver of satisfaction. Online Resources (81) saw the largest year-to-year score change, 

declining 5 points, but still lands 5 points above the OESE-wide average rating. Although all six attributes 

in this section declined from previous measures, with the most notable being a 7-point decrease in ability 

to accomplish what you want on the site (80), grantees gave favorable ratings spanning from 79 for 

accuracy of search results to 82 for both quality of content and look and feel/visual appearance. Grant 

Performance Reporting Requirements was rated a 78 for the second consecutive year and offers 

opportunity for improvement. Grantees identified your understanding of how Dept. of Ed uses your data 

(70) and usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant program/project (73) as the areas 

presenting the greatest opportunities for improvement. When asked how the Grant Performance 

Reporting Requirement could be improved, the following suggestion was provided, “Specific guidelines 

with examples. Workshops and webinars.” Driven by a 16-point increase in ED-Funded TA Provider 

helpfulness in your learning to implement grant project (85), Technical Assistance (81) improved from its 

2021 rating and lands 1 point above the OESE-wide average. In the custom survey section, where

grantees were asked how they heard about REAP program updates and events where 95% of 

respondents chose email announcements from REAP, followed by 26% U.S department of Education 

website, and 21% Newsletter. 

Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP)

Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) Program

Grantees of the REAP – Small, Rural School Achievement Program rated their satisfaction an 85 in 2022, 

a decrease of 1 point from 2021. Despite three of the five drivers of satisfaction being rated lower by 

grantees relative to their 2021 measures, all five drivers were rated favorably. With scores ranging from 

85 for Online Resources to 90 for ED Staff/Coordination, all five driver scores received above-average

ratings compared to their respective OESE-wide score. Even though a significant decrease was indicated 

by grantees for both federal staff’s sufficiency of legal guidance in responses and collaboration with other 

ED programs or offices in providing relevant services, both attributes received an excellent rating of 90 

and hold ED Staff/Coordination (90) as the top-rated driver this year. Technical Assistance follows closely 

behind with an excellent driver score of 88. While an impressive score of 90 for using evidence-based 

practices in implementing program activities fuels this driver’s high ratings, grantees identified ED-Funded 

TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to implement grant project (80) as the lowest scoring attribute 

among all five drivers, offering opportunity for improvement. Documents, which measures the written 

communication provided to grantees, saw the largest year-over-year driver score change, declining 3

points to an 87. Attribute scores in this section reveal that, despite a decline in each of the five attributes, 

excellent ratings were given for all five, ranging from 86 for relevance to your areas of need and 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 59

comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues that you face to 88 for clarity and organization. 

Grantees rated Online Resources the lowest driver in 2022, which improved 2 points for an overall score 

of 85. Favorable ratings were given to all six attributes in this section with four of the attributes seeing a 3-

point improvement from last year, including ability to find specific information (83), accuracy of search 

results (86), ability to navigate within the site (86), and look and feel/visual appearance (85). The Grant 

Performance Reporting Requirements (86) driver followed a similar trend as Online Resources with all 

attributes showing improvements from 2021 apart from availability of assistance in completing your 

report(s), which remained unchanged at an 87. When asked about technical assistance that grantees will 

need in the future, 51% indicated that they will need Grant application process assistance, followed by

49% for both Use of funds and Use of G5, 30% Reporting and use of data, and 27% Opportunities to 

learn from other LEAs implementing SRSA. 

Promise Neighborhoods

Promise Neighborhoods grantee satisfaction declined 7 points from 2021 to 2022 to an all-time program 

low of 76 and landed 1 point below the OESE-wide average. Driver scores ranged from a high of 94 in ED

Staff/Coordination to a low of 71 for Online Resources. Reflected by an exceptionally high score of 97, 

federal staff’s high level of professionalism and knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures drives ED Staff/Coordination to the highest driver rating this year. Technical Assistance 

saw the largest year-to-year driver score change, declining 8 points to a 77. Attribute scores in this 

section reveal a significant 15-point decrease in TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects (74) while assistance with developing resource materials for use in the program

(72) was rated the lowest attribute by grantees. Online Resources (71) received the lowest driver rating, 

declining 5 points, and offers the greatest opportunity for improvement. All six attribute scores contained 

in the Online Resources survey section received decreased ratings relative to their 2021 measures with 

the most notable being in look and feel/visual appearance (69). When asked how the website could 

improve, the following suggestion was provided, “It's often hard to find things and when you do a search, 

many things come up and then you are still searching for what it is you actually are looking for.” 

Documents, which measures the written communication provided to grantees, was rated an 83, matching 

the OESE-wide average among all 34 OESE programs surveyed this year. Grantees indicated 

organization of information (84) and sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs (84) as the highest 

rated attributes and relevance to your areas of need (81) and comprehensiveness in addressing the 

scope of issues that you face (81) as the lowest. In the custom question section of the survey, where

grantees were asked “Did you ask your ED Program Contact, “PROGRAM OFFICER”, for assistance in 

areas not related to fiscal or grant administration issues?”, where 44% of grantees indicated that they did 

reach out to their ED Program Contact. The 44% of grantees who did reach out to their ED Program 

Contact for assistance rated ED Program Contacts quality of assistance an excellent 94, increasing 5

points from 2021. Promise Neighborhood grantees also indicated a 17-point decline in Urban Institute’s 

other services in the custom question section. 

Supporting Effective Educator Development Program

Grantees of the Supporting Effective Educator Development Program rated their satisfaction a 71 in 

2022, a 6-point increase from last year to land 6 points below the OESE wide average satisfaction of 77. 

This improvement was driven by an increased rating given by grantees to four out of the five drivers of 

satisfaction. Driver scores range from a low of 70 for Grant Performance Reporting Requirements to a 

high of 85 for Ed Staff/Coordination. Federal staff’s excellent display of professionalism (90) along with a 

significant 14-point improvement in knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, and 

procedures (87), earn Ed Staff/Coordination the highest driver rating in 2022. Grantees indicated the 

driver Online Resources showed the greatest year-to-year improvements, increasing 12 points to a strong 

score of 74. Four of six attributes contained in the Online Resources section of the survey received 

significantly improved ratings compared to their 2021 measures with the most notable being ability to find 

specific information (74) and accuracy of search results (78), which both jumped more than 15 points, 

making all attribute ratings in this section in the 70’s. Grant Performance Reporting Requirements was 

rated a 70 for the second consecutive year, landing 7 points below the OESE-wide average. Although 

grantees indicated an improvement for clarity of reporting requirements (76), ease of obtaining data you 

are required to report (59) and your understanding of how ED uses your data (64) were identified as 

areas presenting the greatest opportunity for improvement with their relatively poor scores. Documents, 

which measures the written communication provided to grantees, was rated 9 points higher by grantees 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 60

in 2022 compared to 2021 with an improvement in all five attributes contained in this section. Attributes 

were rated favorably with scores ranging between 76 for clarity and comprehensiveness in addressing the 

scope of issues that you face and 79 for organization of information and relevance to your areas of need. 

With an overall score of 76, Technical Assistance received mixed ratings from grantees in 2022 despite a 

4-point improvement. The most notable changes in this section were a 9-point decrease in assistance 

with developing resource materials for use in the program and a 7-point increase in TA services provided 

in helping successfully implement grant programs/projects. In the custom questions section of the survey, 

SEED grantees rating of understanding of all program requirements, including budgetary concerns (78) 

was rated more favorably than 2021 along with providing quality content on the Grads360 platform (64), 

while the remaining attributes received decreased ratings. In 2022, 80% of grantees indicated quarterly 

as their ideal frequency of communication with SEED officer/division staff. 67% of grantees indicated they 

have the right amount of interaction with SEED officer/division staff in 2022 and, when asked about the 

quality of their interactions with SEED Division Staff, 53% indicated the quality to be excellent followed by 

20% very good. 

Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 7002)

Satisfaction among grantees of the Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 7002) Program

climbed 6 points in 2022 for an 84. This statistically significant score increase lands 7 points above the 

OESE-wide average satisfaction rating of 77 in 2022. Efforts to improve the grantee experience were 

reflected in this year’s survey results by a 1-to-5-point increased score for all three divers of satisfaction. 

ED Staff/Coordination continues to lead as the top-rated driver with a very strong score of 90. This 

excellent rating is fueled by a high level of professionalism (94) and knowledge of relevant legislation, 

regulations, policies, and procedures (90) displayed during their interactions with grantees. Documents 

(87), which measures the written communication provided to grantees, was the second highest scoring 

driver and was indicated to show the largest year-to-year improvement of the three drivers, increasing a 

statistically significant 5 points. All five attributes in this section received significantly higher ratings 

compared to their 2021 measures, and they were all scored an 87 by grantees, except relevance to your 

areas of need (86). Despite a 1-point improvement and landing 5 points above the OESE-wide average, 

Online Resources received the lowest driver rating with a score 81. Attribute scores in this section reveal 

that although a significant improvement was made in ability to navigate within the site (80), grantees 

ability to find specific information (79) presents the greatest opportunity for improvement, indicated by its 

relatively low score. In 2022, 49% of Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 7002) grantees 

indicated that they contacted the Impact Aid Program for technical assistance. In response to the 

question “What additional communications would you like to receive regarding the status of your 

application, prior to receiving a payment,” the following comment was provided: “Let me know ahead of 

time if documents are needed or any information pertaining to how and when payments will be received.”

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

Demonstration Grants for Indian Children/Special Projects Demonstration Grants

Grantees of the Demonstration Grants for Indian Children/Special Projects Demonstration Grants rated 

their satisfaction an 85 in 2022. This statistically significant improvement of 7 points lands the 

Demonstration Grants for Indian Children/Special Projects Demonstration Grants grantees satisfaction 8

points above the OESE-wide average score of 77. All five drivers of satisfaction were rated favorably with 

a higher score compared to their 2021 measures, including a significant increase in Online Resources, 

Documents, and Grant Performance Reporting Requirements. Federal Staff’s high level of 

professionalism (91), along with their strong knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, and 

procedures (90) displayed during interactions with grantees, drives the excellent score to make ED

Staff/Coordination (88) the highest rated driver of satisfaction in 2022. Documents, which measures the 

written communication provided to grantees, improved significantly to an overall score of 85, matching 

Technical Assistance (85) for the second highest driver ratings. Four of the five attributes in the 

Documents section showed significant score improvements from 2021 with the most notable being an 8-

point increase in sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs (86). Similarly, the Technical 

Assistance attribute ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to implement grant project saw 

a significant score increase for an impressive 95, 11 points above the OESE-wide average. The Grant 

Performance Reporting Requirements experienced the largest year-to-year score change, climbing a 

significant 10 points to an 81. All six attributes in this section received statistically significant score 

increases with an improvement of 10 points or more in all but ease of submitting report(s) electronically
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 61

(75), which increased 9 points but was given the lowest attribute score in the core survey. Despite 

significant improvements in both drivers, Grant Performance Reporting Requirements and Online 

Resources were rated the lowest scoring driver in 2022 with an 81 and offer the greatest opportunity for 

improvement. In the Online Resources section of the survey, grantees gave favorable ratings but 

identified look and feel/visual appearance (79) as the lowest scoring attribute and presenting the most 

opportunity. In the custom survey section, scores followed a similar trend to the core survey scores with 

improved ratings including a significant 6-point improvement in usefulness and relevance of technical 

assistance resources on the OIE web site (85).

Neglected and Delinquent State and Local Agency Programs

Satisfaction among grantees of the Neglected and Delinquent State and Local Agency Programs was 

rated a 45. This 11-point decline lands Neglected and Delinquent State and Local Agency Programs

grantee satisfaction as the lowest among all 73 programs that participated in the 2022 survey. Three of 

five drivers of satisfaction declined slightly, while two showed year-over-year improvements including ED

Staff/Coordination (84) and Online Resources (66). ED Staff/Coordination drives grantee satisfaction with 

federal staff’s high level of professionalism (91) and strong knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, 

policies, and procedures (87) while improvements to communication about changes that may affect your 

program (77) could further boost the ED Staff/Coordination rating. Grant Performance Reporting 

Requirements declined 5 points to match the driver scores of Online Resources and Documents for the 

second highest rated drivers with a score of 66. Grantees identified attributes with the greatest 

opportunity for improvement in this section as usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project (62) and your understanding of how ED uses your data (61). In the Online Resources 

Section, five of the six attributes received 1-to 3-point improved ratings with the most notable increase 

being accuracy of search results (66) and ability to find specific information (65), both increasing 3 points, 

and the only decrease being look and feel/visual appearance (61). When asked how the website could be 

improved, grantees provided the following response, “Non-regulatory guidance, etc. needs to be updated. 

It is very dated.” A full read-out of the verbatim feedback collected can be found in Appendix C. With an 

overall score of 66, Documents lands 17 points below the OESE-wide average and offers additional 

opportunity for improvement. Grantees rated attributes in this section from 63 for comprehensiveness in 

addressing the scope of issues that you face to 68 for organization of information. The custom survey 

section experienced declines in all attribute scores including a 19-point decline in NDTAC Technical 

Assistance Center Support quality for collecting/submitting data. 

Teacher Quality Partnership Program

In 2022, Teacher Quality Partnership Program grantees rated their satisfaction a 79 for the second 

consecutive year to land 2 points above the OESE-wide average. The five drivers of satisfaction were 

given mixed ratings compared to 2021 measures with two driver scores increasing, two decreasing, and

one remaining the same. ED Staff/Coordination was rated the highest driver of satisfaction by grantees 

this year with an overall score of 91. This excellent rating is fueled by federal staff’s exceptional 

professionalism (95) and responsiveness to your questions (91) displayed during their interactions with 

grantees. Technical Assistance (80) saw the largest year-over-year change, declining 5 points for the 

lowest driver score in 2022. Despite this decline, grantees indicated a significant improvement to EDFunded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to implement grant project with a perfect score of 100. 

Grantees identified enhancing staff skills needed for successful program management and assistance 

with developing resource materials for use in the program as the lowest rated attributes in the Technical 

Assistance section and provide the greatest opportunity for improvement. Driven by an impressive score 

for ease of submitting report(s) electronically (94), Grant Performance Reporting Requirements was rated 

an 84 and lands 7 points above the OESE-wide average score of 77. Online Resources was rated an 82 

by grantees for the second consecutive year. Although the overall driver score of Online Resources 

remains unchanged, attribute scores in this section reveal improved ratings in five of six attributes with 

the most notable being accuracy of search results, which increased 3 points to an 84. Documents, which 

measures the written communication provided to grantees, declined 2 points in 2022 and offers additional 

opportunity for improvements. Grantees indicated clarity, organization of information, and 

comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues that you face as the lowest scoring attributes in 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 62

this section with a relatively low score of 81. In the custom survey section, grantees scored attributes 

favorably when rating the helpfulness of the TQP program’s support and technical assistance in 

enhancing the capacity of your team with strong scores between 86-87. However, TQP grantees gave the 

attributes decreased ratings when asked to rate the technical support and assistance you have received 

from the EED TA Center/AEM. In 2022, 83% of TQP grantees indicated that they receive the right amount 

of interaction with their TQP program officer and/or the TQP Division staff, and when asked about the 

quality of the customer service provided, 67% selected that the quality was Excellent.

School Climate Transformation Grants

Local Education Agency

In 2022, SCTG Local Education Agency respondents rated their satisfaction an 85 for the second 

consecutive year. All five drivers of satisfaction were rated favorably by grantees, ranging from 84 for 

Online Resources to 93 for Ed Staff/Coordination, and landed above the OESE-wide average scores for 

each driver respectively. Federal staff’s exceptional level of professionalism (98) and sufficiency of legal 

guidance (94) fueled the excellent rating of Ed Staff/Coordination (93) and earned it the highest driver 

score for 2022. Technical Assistance follows closely with a strong score of 88, where grantees rated the 

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to implement grant project a near perfect 98. Despite 

declining 4 points, Documents, which measures the written communication provided to grantees, was 

rated the next highest of the drivers with an excellent score of 87. All five attribute ratings in this section 

declined, with relevance to your areas of need (86) as the lowest scoring attribute. With an overall score 

of 84, Online Resources was scored the lowest of the five drivers and offers the greatest opportunity for 

improvement. Attribute scores in this section reveal a significant 6-point drop in quality of content (84) and 

grantees’ ability to find specific information (83); therefore, these attributes present the most opportunity 

for improvement. Improving by 1 point from 2021, Grant Performance Reporting Requirements was rated 

an 85 and lands 8 points above the OESE-wide average. Attributes of this section all received strong 

scores in the upper 80’s except for ease of submitting report(s) electronically (76). In the custom survey 

section, when asked to rate the helpfulness of Technical Assistance, grantees indicated a slight 

improvement from 2021 with a superb score of 87. When asked what the most helpful form of tech 

assistance would be, 34% of respondents chose Email communication followed by 30% in-person training 

or site-specific support. When asked the specific TA content that would be most helpful, 82% chose 

leveraging alignment, integration, and sustainability, followed by 64% choosing using data for effective 

student outcomes, and 39% leveraging public/private partnerships for sustainability.

Native Hawaiian Education Act Program

Grantees of the Native Hawaiian Education Act Program rated their satisfaction an 84 in 2022, a 2-point 

improvement from 2021. An improved rating was given to four of the five drivers of satisfaction compared 

to last year and ranged from 76 in Online Resources to 94 in Ed Staff/Coordination. Driven by a near 

perfect rating of federal staff’s professionalism (98) during their interactions with grantees, ED

Staff/Coordination was rated the highest of the five drivers with all but one attribute, Responsiveness to 

your questions (89), scoring 91 or above. Documents, which measures the written communication 

provided to grantees, followed closely with a strong score of 88 where all five attributes were rated 

favorably between 86 and 89. The largest year-to-year driver score change was seen in both Online 

Resources (76) and Grant Performance Reporting Requirements (84), which both saw a significant 8-

point change; however, Grant Performance Reporting Requirements increased while Online Resources 

declined. Online Resources received the lowest driver rating with a score of 76 and offers the greatest 

opportunity for improvement. Grantees indicated a significant decline in both the ability to find specific

information (76) and quality of content (76) on the website in 2022. When asked how the website could 

improve, a grantee provided the following comment: ”The website is not intuitive nor user friendly. I find it 

cumbersome and difficult to use - especially the G5.” A full read-out of the verbatim feedback collected 

can be found in Appendix C. The 8-point improvement in Grant performance reporting requirements was 

fueled by a significant double-digit improvement in both ease of obtaining data you are required to report

(82) and usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant program/project (89). In the custom survey 

section, 85% of Native Hawaiian Education Act Program grantees indicated that NHE staff initiated 

technical assistance with them during the past 3-6 months. When asked to rate the helpfulness of NHE 

staff technical assistance, grantees gave an excellent rating of 90. In response to the question “What 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 63

technical assistant topics can the NHE program provide to support the effective implementation of your 

grant projects?”, the following comment was provided: “I would like to learn big picture, and also to 

collaborate with other grantees. Is there opportunity to learn from other grant projects?.” 

Alaskan Native Education Program

Grantees of the Alaskan Native Education Program rated their satisfaction a 77 in 2022, a 4-point decline 

from 2021. This decline in satisfaction is reflected by a decreased rating for all five drivers relative to their 

2021 measures with scores, ranging from 72 in Online Resources, to 86 in ED Staff/Coordination. Fueled 

by federal staff’s high level of professionalism (91) and knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, 

policies, and procedures (87), ED Staff/Coordination earned the highest driver rating in 2022. Documents, 

which measures the written communication provided to grantees, follows closely with a score of 80.

Grantees indicated a 3-point improvement in comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues that 

you face (82) for the top scoring attribute in this section and indicated organization of information (79) and 

sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs (79) as the lowest. The largest year-to-year driver score 

change was seen in Online Resources, which declined 4 points to a 72 and lands 4 points below the 

OESE-wide average to offer the greatest opportunity for improvement. Grantees identified the attribute 

look and feel/visual appearance as the aspect presenting the greatest opportunity for improvement with 

its relatively low score of 70. With an overall score of 73, the drivers Grant Performance Reporting 

Requirements and Technical Assistance drivers both landed below the OESE-wide average score for 

their respective drivers and present additional opportunity for improvement. Although grantees indicated 

an improvement in ease of submitting report(s) electronically (71), a statistically significant decreased 

rating was given to availability of assistance in completing your report(s) (71). Technical Assistance (73) 

received mixed attribute ratings, ranging from 67 in creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups to an 89 in ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to implement grant 

project. In the custom survey section, when asked “Has your program officer initiated technical assistance 

with you or anyone on the ANE staff during the past 3-6 months”, 52% indicated that their program officer 

initiated technical assistance. Grantees assigned a strong score of 80 for the helpfulness of technical 

assistance from ANE staff. When asked “What technical assistant topics can the ANE program provide at 

Project Directors’ meetings?” one grantee provided the following suggestion: “We need some detailed 

and sustained training about data for reporting: what is required, what will be ours to respond to, how to 

legitimately assess and report our progress.”

Innovative Approaches to Literacy

Satisfaction among grantees of the Innovative Approaches to Literacy Program was rated an 85, 

declining 4 points and returning to its original score from 2017 when the Innovative Approaches to 

Literacy Program first participated in the survey. The five drivers of satisfaction received mixed ratings 

compared to their 2021 measures with three drivers showing improvement and the other two declining 

slightly. With an excellent overall score of 93 and driven by a near perfect rating of federal staff’s 

professionalism (98) during their interactions with grantees, ED Staff/Coordination earned the highest 

driver score in 2022. Documents, which measures the written communication provided to grantees, 

followed closely with a strong score of 90. Grantees gave all five attributes contained in this section a 90, 

except for organization of information (91). The largest year-to-year driver score change was seen in 

Online Resources which, despite declining 5 points, lands 10 points above the OESE-wide average rating 

of 76. Grantees identified accuracy of search results (88) and ability to navigate within the site (88) as the 

top attributes in this section and ability to accomplish what you want on the site (86) as the lowest. Grant 

Performance Reporting Requirements received the lowest driver rating in 2022 with a score of 83 and 

offers the greatest opportunity for improvement. Attribute scores in this section reveal ease of submitting 

report(s) electronically (80) and your understanding of how ED uses your data (81) to present the greatest 

opportunity for improvement with their relatively low scores. Despite a statistically significant decline of 8

points, Trust in the office to meet grantees needs remains strong at an 86. In the custom survey section,

when asked to rate technical support and assistance they have received from the U.S. Department of 

Education staff and the technical assistance provider 2M Research, grantees provided favorable ratings 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 64

of 91 for all attributes apart from helpfulness of performance reporting (83), which declined a significant 9

points. 

High School Equivalency Program (HEP) – Migrant Education

High School Equivalency Program - Migrant Education grantees rated their satisfaction an 88 in 2022 for 

a third consecutive year. This excellent rating lands HEP – Migrant Education program satisfaction as the 

second highest among all participating OESE programs. While only three of five drivers of satisfaction 

experienced a score increase from 2021 to 2022, all five drivers landed well above their respective 

OESE-wide average driver score. ED Staff/Coordination continues to lead as the highest rated driver in 

2022, bolstered by a near perfect rating for federal staff’s professionalism (98) displayed during 

interactions with grantees and a significant 9-point increase in responsiveness to grantee questions (94). 

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements follows closely behind with an excellent score of 93. Attribute 

scores in this section ranged from 89 for your understanding of how ED uses your data to 96 for ease of 

submitting report(s) electronically. Online Resources (83) saw the largest driver decline, dropping 2 points 

and offering opportunity for improvement. Grantees identified quality of content (81) as the lowest rated 

attribute, presenting the greatest opportunity for improvement after a significant 6-point decline. 

Documents (91), which measures the written communication provided to grantees, received a favorable 

rating from HEP – Migrant Education grantees with all attribute scores landing at 90 or above. With an 

overall score of 87, Technical Assistance lands 7 points above the OESE-wide average score of 80 with 

attribute sores ranging from 84 for using evidence-based practices in implementing program activities and 

assistance with developing resource materials for use in the program to 93 for ED-Funded TA Provider 

helpfulness in your learning to implement grant project. In the custom section of the survey, all attribute 

scores related to aspects of HEP improved from 2021 with the most notable being a significant 8-point 

increase in accessibility and responsiveness of program staff (93). When asked what could the HEP team 

could do to improve the content of technical assistance one grantee provided the following suggestion:

“Provide a quarterly update with any new or relevant information.”

College Assistance Migrant Program

In 2022, College Assistance Migrant Program grantees rated their satisfaction an 86. Despite declining 3

points, the overall satisfaction score of 86 makes the College Assistance Migrant Program the third 

highest scoring OESE program in terms of satisfaction. Although driver scores were given mixed ratings 

relative to their 2021 measures, all five driver scores remain strong with three of them scoring above 90. 

With an excellent overall score of 95, ED Staff/Coordination was rated the highest driver score this year, 

fueled by a near perfect rating for federal staff’s professionalism (98) and knowledge of relevant 

legislation, regulations, policies, and procedures (97) displayed during interactions with grantees. Grant 

Performance Reporting Requirements also improved 1 point for a score of 92 with attribute scores 

ranging from 88 your understanding of how ED uses your data to 96 for ease of submitting report(s) 

electronically. Documents, which measures the written communication provided to grantees, was similarly 

rated a 92 with all five attributes contained in this section scoring 90 or above. Online Resources saw the 

largest year-over-year score change of the five drivers, declining 3 points and offering opportunity for 

improvement as the lowest scoring driver. Attribute scores in this section reveal a 2-to-5-point decline in 

all areas with the most notable being a 5-point decline in accuracy of search results (79) to match ability 

to accomplish what you want on the site (79) as the lowest scoring attribute and presenting the greatest 

opportunity for improvement. Despite a 1-point decline, Technical Assistance was still rated strongly by 

grantees, landing 7 points above the OESE-wide average with a score of 87. In the custom survey 

section, grantees provided excellent ratings of program staff for accessibility and responsiveness of 

program staff (94) and indicated a significant improvement in timely resolution of questions by program 

staff (93). When asked what the CAMP team could do to improve the structure or format of technical 

assistance, the following comment was provided: ” Provide pre readings and have folks sign up for 

smaller sessions to allow for More classroom type Interactions.”
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 65

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 a 54 in 2022, a 12-point decline from its 2021 measure, landing it as the third lowest 

satisfaction score among all participating OESE programs. All five driver scores decreased from 2021, 

including a statistically significant decrease in both Online Resources (52) and Grant Performance 

Reporting Requirements (58), indicating there is ample room for improvement in all areas of the grantees 

experience. ED Staff/Coordination was rated the highest of the five drivers of satisfaction with an overall 

score of 67. Although grantees indicated federal staff’s knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, 

policies, and procedures (83) to be good, grantees struggle with federal staff’s responsiveness to your 

questions (57) as indicated by its relatively low score. Online Resources saw the largest year-over-year 

score change, declining a significant 16 points for a weak score of 52. Attribute scores in this section 

reveal a significant score decrease in five of six aspects measured with the most notable being a 21-point 

drop in quality of content (49), which presents the greatest opportunity for improvement. Grant 

Performance Reporting Requirements also experienced a significant double-digit score decline to a 58 

where grantees identified additional opportunities for improvement in most notably the availability of 

assistance in completing your report(s) (53) and your understanding of how ED uses your data (44). 

Technical Assistance experienced a similar trend, decreasing 9 points to an overall score of 54. Grantees 

indicated TA services provided in helping successfully implement grant programs/projects (60) as the toprated attribute in this section and assistance with developing resource materials for use in the program

(47). 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 27% of grantees who did ask for assistance rated the ED Program Contacts 

quality of assistance a 70, a 24-point decline from 2021.

Statewide Family Engagement Centers

Statewide Family Engagement Centers Program grantees rated their satisfaction an 82 in 2022, a 4-point 

decline from 2021, which lands 5 points above the OESE-wide average rating. This decline can be 

attributed to a decreased rating in all five drivers of satisfaction. Despite the decreased scores, all five 

drivers were still rated favorably by Statewide Family Engagement Centers Program grantees with scores 

ranging from 81 in Grant Performance Reporting Requirements to 98 for Ed Staff/Coordination. With a 

near perfect rating again and fueled by federal staffs’ exceptional professionalism (100) and knowledge of 

relevant legislation, regulations, policies, and procedures (100), ED Staff/Coordination leads as the toprated driver in 2022. The driver to experience the largest year-over-year change in score was Technical 

Assistance, which decreased 6 points for score of 83 and lands 3 points above the OESE-wide average. 

Attribute scores in this section reveal that, although ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning 

to implement grant project (96) improved 33 points, the remaining five attributes decreased with the 

lowest scoring attribute being assistance with developing resource materials for use in the program (75). 

With an overall score of 81, Grant Performance Reporting Requirements was the lowest rated driver and 

offers the greatest opportunity for improvement. Grantees identified availability of assistance in 

completing your report(s) as the top-rated attribute in this section and your understanding of how ED uses 

your data (70) as the lowest. In the custom survey section, when asked to rate the technical assistance 

from the School Choice and Improvement Division, grantees provided favorable ratings ranging from 84 in 

satisfaction with the Program Director’s Meeting to 90 in overall satisfaction with service provided by the 

program officer. 

Assistance for Arts Education Development and Dissemination

In 2022, Assistance for Arts Education Development and Dissemination Program grantees’ satisfaction 

rating climbed 9 points for a program all-time high of 82. This increased satisfaction can be attributed to 

grantees’ improved ratings for all five drivers, which ranged in score from 74 in Online Resources to 93 in 

ED Staff/Coordination. Fueled by a near perfect rating of federal staff’s professionalism (99) displayed 

during their interactions with grantees along with a significant increase in both knowledge of relevant 

legislation, regulations, policies, and procedures (96) and responsiveness to your questions (94), ED

Staff/Coordination remains the highest rated driver for the second consecutive year. The driver to 

experience the greatest year-over-year change was Technical Assistance, which increased 9 points for a 

score of 91. Attribute scores in this section reveal a perfect score for ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 66

in your learning to implement grant project (100) and improved ratings for all five other attributes. With an 

overall score of 74, Online Resources received the lowest driver rating, landing 2 points below the OESEwide average and offering opportunity for improvement. Despite a 4-point improvement, grantees 

identified accuracy of search results (72) and look and feel/visual appearance (72), which declined 2

points, as the lowest rated attributes in this section and presenting the greatest opportunity for 

improvement. Grantees rated Grant Performance Reporting Requirements an 87, a 7-point increase 

relative to its 2021 score, landing it 10 points above the OESE-wide average. This overall score increase 

was driven by a significant improvement in ease of obtaining data you are required to report (86) and an 

excellent score of 92 for ease of submitting report(s) electronically. In the custom questions section of the 

survey, where AAEDD grantees were asked to rate ED staff and the technical assistance provider 2M 

Research, grantees gave favorable ratings of 77 for satisfaction with virtual/face-to-face AIE Annual 

Program Director’s Convening and 88 for helpfulness of information and guidance on project 

implementation and evaluation. When asked, “What could the Arts team do to improve the content of 

technical assistance?”, one grantee provided the following suggestion: “More opportunities for grantees to 

regularly network and share.”

American Rescue Plan Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (ARP EANS)

Grantees of the American Rescue Plan Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (ARP EANS) rated 

their satisfaction a 46 in the initial year of measurement, the second lowest scoring program of all 73

grant programs measured in 2022. The satisfaction score of 46 trails the OESE-wide satisfaction score by 

31 points. The five drivers of satisfaction ranged in score from 55 for grantees rating of Grant 

Performance Reporting Requirements to 67 for ED Staff/Coordination. With all five driver scores landing 

below their respective OESE-wide scores, ample room for improvement exists in multiple aspects. 

Technical Assistance was one of two drivers containing the lowest rated attributes in the core section of 

the survey with a score of 44 for grantees rating of ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project. Grant Performance Reporting Requirements (55) was the lowest rated driver and 

presents the greatest opportunity for improvement, specifically in usefulness of the data to help you 

improve your grant program/project (44). In the custom survey section, grantees were asked to rate the 

technical assistance received from their ARP EANS program office, and scores ranged from 66 in ability 

to resolve issues to 72 for the program officers’ ability to listen to, accept and act upon your feedback. 

Additionally, a score of 59 was provided for program officers helpfulness connecting you to resources and 

relationships to implement grant. Grantees were asked what their preferred way to receive information 

from the Office of State and Grantees Relations was, and 86% chose individual email as their top rank. 

When asked where grantees have the greatest need for technical assistance, 64% responded 

subrecipient monitoring, followed by 50% reporting requirements, and 21% understanding different 

program requirements. When asked how the Office of State and Grantees Relations can further empower 

you to make decisions about the implementation of your ARP EANS grants, a grantee provided the 

following suggestion: “Provide more guidance and best practices. Provide more direct services to 

struggling states. This program was not established with state procurement laws in mind and caused a lot 

of headaches for states to administer.”

Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund Program

Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund Program grantees rated their satisfaction a 59

in 2022, 18 points below the OESE-wide satisfaction for this year. Driver scores ranged from 46 in Grant 

Performance Reporting Requirements to 73 in Documents, which measures the written communication 

provided to grantees. With an overall score of 73, Documents was the highest scoring driver in 2022.

Grantees indicated relevance to your areas of need (76) as the highest rated attribute in this section and 

comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues that you face (65) as the lowest. Federal staff’s 

excellent display of professionalism (86) during their interactions with grantees, along with a strong 

knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, and procedures (73) earned ED Staff/Coordination 

(70) the second highest driver rating behind Documents. Grant Performance Reporting Requirements 

(46) was rated the lowest scoring driver and offers opportunity for improvement. Grantees identified ease 

of obtaining data you are required to report (33) as the attribute presenting the greatest opportunity for 

improvement closely followed by grantees understanding of how Ed uses their data (37). When asked 

how to improve the Grant Performance Reporting Requirements, one grantee provided the following 

suggestion, “We have struggled with the continued updates and timeliness of getting the reporting 

requirements. This greatly impacts our ability to assist our LEAs in responding.” A full read-out of the 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 67

verbatim feedback collected can be found in Appendix C. Grantees rated Online Resources with a score 

of 67, presenting an additional opportunity for improvement. Attribute scores in the Online Resources 

section range from a low of 65 for ability to accomplish what you want on the site, to a 70 for look and 

feel/visual appearance. In the custom questions section, where ESSER grantees were asked to rate their 

experience receiving technical assistance from their ESSER program officer, scores range between 68 

for ability to resolve issues to 72 for both ability to listen to, accept, and act upon your feedback and 

helpfulness connecting you to resources and relationships to implement grant.

Governors Emergency Education Relief Fund Program

Governors Emergency Education Relief Fund (GEER) Program rated their satisfaction a 69 in 2022, 

landing 8 points below the OESE-wide satisfaction score this year. Driver scores ranged from 65 in Grant 

Performance Reporting Requirements to 79 in ED Staff/Coordination. Federal staffs’ excellent display of 

professionalism (87) during their interactions with grantees, paired with a strong knowledge of relevant 

legislation, regulations, policies, and procedures (76) earned the ED Staff/Coordination (79) the highest 

driver rating in 2022. Grant Performance Reporting Requirements received the lowest driver score of 65 

and offers opportunity for improvement. Attribute scores reveal grantees’ understanding of how ED uses 

their data (53) as the lowest rated aspect and clarity of reporting requirements (72) as the highest rated 

aspect of Grant Performance Reporting Requirements. The Online Resources driver received a score of 

68 and offers additional opportunity for improvement. Grantees assigned ratings between 66 and 69 to all 

six attributes contained in this section with the lowest score seen in ability to find specific information (66). 

When asked how the Online Resources could be improved, one grantee provided the following comment 

“The department could add more direct informative content to the webpage with hyperlinked material as 

opposed to just listing the linked documents. This could especially help if some of the most common 

issues and questions are highlighted on the webpage itself.” 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 rated these five 

attributes favorably with improved scores for each aspect to land in the low 80’s. When asked for the 

topics for which grantees have the greatest need for technical assistance, 62% of grantees responded 

Subrecipient monitoring, followed by 54% Reporting Requirements. When 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, one grantee provided the following suggestion, “Timely information 

about upcoming deadlines and requirements.”

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

Program

In the Education Stabilization Fund-Rethink K-12 Education Models Discretionary Grant Program’s 

second year of survey participation, their satisfaction was rated a 77. Despite being a 6-point decline from 

its 2021 score, this rating of satisfaction matches the OESE-wide average satisfaction for all 38 OESE 

programs. Drivers of satisfaction were given mixed ratings compared to 2021 scores with both doubledigit increases and declines in scores ranging from 73 for Online Resources to 93 for ED

Staff/Coordination. Fueled by a near perfect ratings for federal staff’s professionalism (99) and 

responsiveness to your questions (99) displayed during their interactions with grantees, ED

Staff/Coordination earned the highest driver score in 2022. Following closely was Grant Performance 

Reporting Requirements, which saw a statistically significant score increase of 22 points for an overall 

score of 83. Attributes in this section reveal a significant improvement in three attributes including ease of 

obtaining data you are required to report (86), availability of assistance in completing your report(s) (85), 

and usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant program/project (83). Online Resources (73) 

received the lowest driver score in 2022, landing 3 points below the OESE-wide average and offering

opportunity for improvement. All six attribute scores in this section declined for scores ranging from 70 in 

ability to find specific information to 74 for both their ability to accomplish what you want on the site and 

look and feel/Visual appearance. Documents followed a similar trend and offers an additional opportunity 

for improvement after declining 10 points for an overall score of 78. Grantees indicated a significant 

decline in sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs (76) in this section from 2021 to 2022. When 

asked how Documents could be improved, one grantee provided the following comment, “It would be 

helpful to have more FAQs, policies, and guide that are readily available and more detailed in supporting 

grantees in reporting and budget. Many of the documents we receive are very general.”
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 68

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

SWEDEN - Stockholm

ITALY - Milan

CHINA - Shanghai
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 69

Appendix B:

Attribute Tables and Non-Scored

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 70

Dept of Ed OGA – Aggregate (2021 v 2022)

Score Table

2021 2022

Difference Significant 

Difference

Aggregate 

Scores Scores Impact

Sample Size 2,695 2,502

ED Staff/Coordination 86 88 2 ↑ 0.9

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, and 

procedures 89 90 1 ↑ --

Responsiveness to your questions 83 85 2 ↑ --

Professionalism 93 93 0 --

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 85 86 1 ↑ --

Communication about changes that may affect your program 86 87 1 ↑ --

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different program 

offices 85 85 0 --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in providing 

relevant services 84 85 1 --

Online Resources 76 75 -1 0.6

Ability to find specific information 75 74 -1 --

Quality of content 78 76 -2 ↓ --

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 75 74 -1 --

Accuracy of search results 76 76 0 --

Ability to navigate within the site 75 75 0 --

Look and feel/Visual appearance 75 74 -1 --

Documents 82 83 1 0.8

Clarity 82 83 1 --

Organization of information 83 84 1 --

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 81 82 1 --

Relevance to your areas of need 82 83 1 --

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues that 

you face 79 81 2 ↑ --

Information in Application Package 87 87 0 N/A

Program Purpose 88 89 1 --

Program Priorities 88 88 0 --

Selection Criteria 86 86 0 --

Review Process 83 83 0 --

Budget Information and Forms 82 83 1 --

Deadline for Submission 91 91 0 --

Dollar Limit on Awards 87 88 1 --

Page Limitation Instructions 86 87 1 --

Formatting Instructions 83 84 1 --

Program Contact 90 90 0 --

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements 75 77 2 ↑ 1.0

Clarity of reporting requirements 78 79 1 --

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report 74 75 1 --

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically 80 82 2 ↑ --

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) 78 81 3 ↑ --

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project 75 78 3 ↑ --

Your understanding of how ED uses your data 67 70 3 ↑ --
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 71

2021 2022

Difference Significant 

Difference

Aggregate 

Scores Scores Impact

Sample Size 2,695 2,502

Technical Assistance 79 80 1 1.7

TA services provided in helping successfully implement grant 

programs/projects 81 83 2 ↑ --

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management 79 80 1 --

Using evidence-based practices in implementing program 

activities 79 79 0 --

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in the 

program

76 77 1 --

Creating opportunities to share best practices via learning 

groups

78 79 1 --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project 85 85 0 --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects 91 90 -1 --

ACSI 76 77 1 ↑ N/A

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 82 82 0 --

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 73 75 2 ↑ --

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 72 73 1 --

Trust 84 84 0 4.2

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs 84 84 0 --

Native American and Alaska Native Children in School 

Program

Technical assistance from OELA office 85 76 -9 --

Technical assistance from program officer 87 80 -7 --

Usefulness of OELA website 84 67 -17 --

Usefulness of NCELA website 75 75 0 --

Usefulness of OELA Facebook 44 61 17 --

National Professional Development Program

Technical assistance from OELA office 87 83 -4 --

Technical assistance from program officer 85 84 -1 --

Usefulness of OELA website 81 75 -6 --

Usefulness of NCELA website 84 81 -3 --

Usefulness of OELA Facebook 67 70 3 --
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 72

2021 2022

Difference Significant 

Difference

Aggregate 

Scores Scores Impact

Sample Size 2,695 2,502

Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA) 

Program

Ease of reporting using the NRS web-based system 85 81 -4 --

Usefulness of the training offered by OCTAE through its 

contract to support NRS 85 80 -5 --

Being well-organized 88 74 -14 --

Providing pre-planning adequate guidance 85 80 -5 --

Setting expectations for the visit 88 80 -8 ↓ --

Timeliness 94 78 -16 ↓ --

Relevance of information 92 87 -5 --

Usefulness to your program 91 84 -7 ↓ --

Usefulness of products helping your state meet AEFLA 

program priorities 87 75 -12 ↓ --

How well TA addresses your program priorities and needs 83 74 -9 ↓ --

Website - Ability to find specific information 82 81 -1 --

Website - Quality of content 87 83 -4 --

Website - Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 82 79 -3 --

Website - Accuracy of search results 82 75 -7 --

Website - Ability to navigate within the site 83 81 -2 --

Website - Look and feel/Visual appearance 86 84 -2 --

Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education State 

Directors

CAR`s user-friendliness 80 71 -9 --

PCRN’s usefulness to your program 84 82 -2 --

Effectiveness of DATE in helping you implement grant 

programs

87 81 -6 --

TA received on project implementation and budget questions 91 90 -1 --

Usefulness and relevance of project director meetings in 

providing TA 86 80 -6 --

Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Education Program

PCRN’s usefulness to your program 94 89 -5 --

Effectiveness of DATE in helping you implement grant 

programs

94 89 -5 --

TA received on project implementation and budget questions 83 96 13 --

Usefulness and relevance of project director meeting in 

providing TA 100 96 -4 --

Native American Career and Technical Education 

Program

PCRN’s usefulness to your program 67 75 8 --

Effectiveness of DATE in helping you implement grant 

programs

62 80 18 --

TA received on project implementation and budget questions 81 87 6 --

Usefulness and relevance of project director meeting in 

providing TA 70 85 15 ↑ --
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 73

2021 2022

Difference Significant 

Difference

Aggregate 

Scores Scores Impact

Sample Size 2,695 2,502

IDEA – State Directors of Special Education (Part B) 

Program

Clarity of information received in developing applications and 

reports 80 84 4 --

Timeliness of responses 84 83 -1 --

OSEP-funded TA provider 89 88 -1 --

Education Department-funded TA provider 73 77 4 --

Professional associations 80 78 -2 --

Conferences where research is presented 69 70 1 --

Books 53 54 1 --

Journal articles 62 59 -3 --

Personal interaction with peers 81 86 5 --

IDEAS that work website 75 69 -6 --

The Department`s new IDEA website 76 70 -6 --

osep.grads360.org 68 59 -9 --

IDEA – Part C Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities 

Program

Clarity of information received in developing applications and 

reports 80 84 4 --

Timeliness of responses 83 88 5 --

OSEP-funded TA provider 85 81 -4 --

Education Department-funded TA provider 45 46 1 --

Professional associations 83 70 -13 ↓ --

Conferences where research is presented 65 63 -2 --

Books 44 44 0 --

Journal articles 59 50 -9 --

Personal interaction with peers 75 72 -3 --

IDEAS that work website 67 60 -7 --

The Department`s new IDEA website 64 49 -15 ↓ --

osep.grads360.org 62 50 -12 --

RSA Vocational Rehabilitation Program

Responsiveness to questions and requests for technical 

assistance 76 77 1 --

Supportiveness in helping complete Unified or Combined 

State Plan 72 78 6 --

Dissemination of subregulatory guidance 76 79 3 --

Provision of effective training and dissemination of relevant 

information 62 72 10 --

Data Collection and Reporting 72 70 -2 --

Fiscal/Grant Management 68 66 -2 --

Programmatic 72 66 -6 --

Technical Assistance 69 65 -4 --

Utility of website for entering required data, retrieving and 

revising reports 59 60 1 --

Ease of navigating website 56 65 9 --

Usefulness of information available on the website 65 71 6 --

Website technical support 59 67 8 --
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report 

Grantee Satisfaction Survey 

2022 74

2021 2022 

Difference Significant 

Difference 

Aggregate 

Scores Scores Impact 

Sample Size 2,695 2,502 

Rehabilitation Long-Term Training Program 

Usefulness of messages that are disseminated via RSA 

listserv 74 79 5 --

Timeliness of messages that are disseminated via RSA 

listserv 78 79 1 --

Effectiveness in training vocational rehabilitation counselors 

for employment 90 89 -1 --

State Personnel Development Grants 

OSEP-funded TA provider 69 76 7 --

Education Department-funded TA provider 49 52 3 --

Professional associations 64 80 16 ↑ --

Conferences where research is presented 62 74 12 --

Books 60 64 4 --

Journal articles 65 70 5 --

Personal interaction with peers 75 74 -1 --

IDEAS that work website 53 58 5 --

The Department`s new IDEA website 51 50 -1 --

Helpfulness of ED Staff in supporting growth of grant/improve 

project 87 89 2 --

Independent Living Services for Older Individuals Who 

Are Blind (IL-OIB) 

Data Collection and Reporting 75 72 -3 --

Fiscal/Grant Management 72 69 -3 --

Program Performance 71 64 -7 --

Technical Assistance 79 79 0 --

Training efforts/Dissemination of info - TAC at MSU 94 94 0 --

Utility of website for entering required data, retrieving and 

revising reports 69 78 9 --

Ease of navigating website 63 73 10 --

Usefulness of information available on the website 65 68 3 --

Website technical support 67 67 0 --

Strengthening Institutions Program 

Responsiveness to questions 73 81 8 ↑ --

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, and 

procedures 82 88 6 --

Ability to resolve issues 79 86 7 ↑ --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication 78 84 6 --

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial 

issues 75 81 6 --

Timeliness of the grant award notification 79 81 2 --

Availability of funds with adequate time for implementation 80 83 3 --

Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees 86 86 0 --

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed 74 80 6 --

Frequency of communication 69 76 7 --

Clarity of communication 75 83 8 ↑ --
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report 

Grantee Satisfaction Survey 

2022 75

2021 2022 

Difference Significant 

Difference 

Aggregate 

Scores Scores Impact 

Sample Size 2,695 2,502 

Alaskan Native and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions 

(ANNH)-Part A 

Responsiveness to your questions 76 80 4 --

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and 

procedures 81 88 7 --

Ability to resolve issues 84 91 7 --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication 87 82 -5 --

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial 

issues 80 78 -2 --

Timeliness of the grant award notification 84 84 0 --

Availability of funds with adequate time for implementation 82 71 -11 --

Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees 82 80 -2 --

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed 81 87 6 --

Frequency of communication 78 82 4 --

Clarity of communication 82 86 4 --

Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions 

Responsiveness to questions 88 91 3 --

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and 

procedures 89 90 1 --

Ability to resolve issues 89 92 3 --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication 89 91 2 --

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial 

issues 89 91 2 --

Timeliness of the grant award notification 82 85 3 --

Availability of funds with adequate time for implementation 84 86 2 --

Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees 89 91 2 --

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed 84 90 6 ↑ --

Frequency of communication 81 90 9 ↑ --

Clarity of communication 87 90 3 --

Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic 

Americans Program 

Responsiveness to your questions 98 97 -1 --

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and 

procedures 97 94 -3 --

Ability to resolve issues 99 98 -1 --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication 97 98 1 --

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial 

issues 97 98 1 --

Timeliness of the grant award notification 95 90 -5 --

Availability of funds with adequate time for implementation 96 88 -8 --

Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees 99 95 -4 ↓ --

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed 97 96 -1 --

Frequency of communication 99 98 -1 --

Clarity of communication 98 98 0 --
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 76

2021 2022

Difference Significant 

Difference

Aggregate 

Scores Scores Impact

Sample Size 2,695 2,502

Centers of Excellence for Veterans Student Success 

(CEVSS)

Responsiveness to your questions -- 80 -- --

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and 

procedures -- 81 -- --

Ability to resolve issues -- 82 -- --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication -- 80 -- --

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial 

issues -- 81 -- --

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- 75 -- --

Availability of funds with adequate time for implementation -- 85 -- --

Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees -- 83 -- --

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- 81 -- --

Frequency of communication -- 75 -- --

Clarity of communication -- 81 -- --

Native American Serving Non-Tribal Institutions Program

Responsiveness to your questions 78 81 3 --

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and 

procedures 89 79 -10 --

Ability to resolve issues 89 81 -8 --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication 81 81 0 --

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial 

issues 77 83 6 --

Timeliness of the grant award notification 81 69 -12 --

Availability of funds with adequate time for implementation 85 80 -5 --

Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees 91 74 -17 ↓ --

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed 84 80 -4 --

Frequency of communication 79 75 -4 --

Clarity of communication 84 79 -5 --

Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander 

Institutions Program

Responsiveness to your questions 91 94 3 --

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and 

procedures 89 89 0 --

Ability to resolve issues 90 92 2 --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication 88 85 -3 --

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial 

issues 91 94 3 --

Timeliness of the grant award notification 64 75 11 --

Availability of funds with adequate time for implementation 64 72 8 --

Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees 76 78 2 --

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed 85 86 1 --

Frequency of communication 86 88 2 --

Clarity of communication 85 86 1 --
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 77

2021 2022

Difference Significant 

Difference

Aggregate 

Scores Scores Impact

Sample Size 2,695 2,502

Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad (DDRA)

Responsiveness to your questions 68 78 10 --

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and 

procedures 75 82 7 --

Ability to resolve issues 74 79 5 --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication 71 76 5 --

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial 

issues 73 76 3 --

Timeliness of the grant award notification 65 65 0 --

Availability of funds with adequate time for implementation 68 72 4 --

Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees 78 81 3 --

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed 61 79 18 ↑ --

Frequency of communication 60 74 14 --

Clarity of communication 60 76 16 ↑ --

Supports instruction in fields needed to provide full 

understanding 86 90 4 --

Supports work in language aspects of professional and other 

fields of study 87 92 5 --

Supports research and training in international studies 91 95 4 --

Teaching of any modern foreign language 76 79 3 --

Instruction in fields needed to provide full understanding 79 87 8 --

Research and training in international studies 88 90 2 --

Language aspects of professional and other fields of study 82 90 8 --

Instruction and research on issues in world affairs 82 85 3 --

Minority Science and Engineering Improvement Program

Responsiveness to your questions -- 97 -- --

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and 

procedures -- 97 -- --

Ability to resolve issues -- 98 -- --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication -- 99 -- --

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial 

issues -- 99 -- --

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- 92 -- --

Availability of funds with adequate time for implementation -- 96 -- --

Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees -- 97 -- --

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- 97 -- --

Frequency of communication -- 98 -- --

Clarity of communication -- 99 -- --

Education Innovation and Research Programs

Assistance in improving your evaluation planning and 

implementation 89 91 2 --

Customized feedback tailored to my grant’s unique challenges 

and opportunities 87 91 4 --

Connecting with other experts or practitioners working on 

similar evaluations 82 84 2 --

Assistance in improving project implementation and EIR 

requirements (AnLar) -- 81 -- --

Connecting with other experts or practitioners working on 

similar projects -- 83 -- --
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 78

2021 2022

Difference Significant 

Difference

Aggregate 

Scores Scores Impact

Sample Size 2,695 2,502

Magnet Schools Assistance Program

Program Officer’s knowledge of project and ability to meet 

your specific needs 84 93 9 ↑ --

Content knowledge of your Program Officer in supporting your 

program’s success 84 90 6 --

MSAP Technical Assistance Center 83 95 12 ↑ --

Innovative Approaches to Literacy Program

Ability to work with you to resolve issues 89 91 2 --

Quality of information or feedback received from IAL program 

staff 91 91 0 --

Overall satisfaction with service provided by the 

representative 91 91 0 --

Helpfulness of performance reporting 92 83 -9 ↓ --

Hispanic Serving Institutions - STEM and Articulation 

Program

Responsiveness to your questions 88 91 3 --

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and 

procedures 89 91 2 --

Ability to resolve issues 88 89 1 --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication 87 89 2 --

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial 

issues 88 91 3 --

Timeliness of the grant award notification 79 84 5 --

Availability of funds with adequate time for implementation 82 85 3 --

Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees 85 89 4 --

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed 84 90 6 --

Frequency of communication 78 89 11 ↑ --

Clarity of communication 85 90 5 --

Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships (FLAS)

Responsiveness to your questions 98 95 -3 --

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and 

procedures 96 94 -2

--

Ability to resolve issues 98 94 -4 ↓ --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication 97 94 -3 --

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial 

issues 96 93 -3

--

Timeliness of the grant award notification 79 60 -19 ↓ --

Availability of funds with adequate time for implementation 76 56 -20 ↓ --

Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees 83 79 -4 --

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed 95 91 -4 --

Frequency of communication 94 89 -5 --

Clarity of communication 96 92 -4 --

Supports instruction in fields needed to provide full 

understanding 93 91 -2

--

Supports work in language aspects of professional and other 

fields of study 94 93 -1

--

Supports research and training in international studies 93 91 -2 --

Teaching of any modern foreign language 92 93 1 --

Instruction in fields needed to provide full understanding 93 93 0 --

Research and training in international studies 93 93 0 --

Language aspects of professional and other fields of study 92 94 2 --

Instruction and research on issues in world affairs 94 94 0 --
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 79

2021 2022

Difference Significant 

Difference

Aggregate 

Scores Scores Impact

Sample Size 2,695 2,502

TRIO Talent Search

Responsiveness to your questions 80 79 -1 --

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and 

procedures 82 81 -1 --

Ability to resolve issues 79 78 -1 --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication 80 80 0 --

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial 

issues 79 77 -2 --

Timeliness of the grant award notification 60 68 8 ↑ --

Availability of funds with adequate time for implementation 70 76 6 ↑ --

Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees 80 83 3 --

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed 81 85 4 ↑ --

Frequency of communication 77 83 6 ↑ --

Clarity of communication 81 85 4 ↑ --

Predominantly Black Institutions - Historical

Responsiveness to your questions -- 91 -- --

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and 

procedures -- 96 -- --

Ability to resolve issues -- 94 -- --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication -- 93 -- --

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial 

issues -- 92 -- --

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- 90 -- --

Availability of funds with adequate time for implementation -- 93 -- --

Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees -- 88 -- --

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- 89 -- --

Frequency of communication -- 84 -- --

Clarity of communication -- 91 -- --

Predominantly Black Institutions (PBI) Competitive

Responsiveness to your questions -- 90 -- --

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and 

procedures -- 99 -- --

Ability to resolve issues -- 94 -- --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication -- 92 -- --

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial 

issues -- 90 -- --

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- 92 -- --

Availability of funds with adequate time for implementation -- 94 -- --

Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees -- 88 -- --

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- 86 -- --

Frequency of communication -- 81 -- --

Clarity of communication -- 89 -- --
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 80

2021 2022

Difference Significant 

Difference

Aggregate 

Scores Scores Impact

Sample Size 2,695 2,502

Predominantly Black Institutions (PBI) Formula

Responsiveness to your questions -- 92 -- --

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and 

procedures -- 92 -- --

Ability to resolve issues -- 94 -- --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication -- 94 -- --

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial 

issues -- 94 -- --

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- 86 -- --

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 -- 94 -- --

Frequency of communication -- 92 -- --

Clarity of communication -- 94 -- --

Master's Degree Programs at Historically Black Colleges 

and Universities

Responsiveness to your questions -- 96 -- --

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and 

procedures -- 95 -- --

Ability to resolve issues -- 97 -- --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication -- 96 -- --

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial 

issues -- 94 -- --

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- 86 -- --

Availability of funds with adequate time for implementation -- 93 -- --

Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees -- 86 -- --

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- 92 -- --

Frequency of communication -- 93 -- --

Clarity of communication -- 92 -- --

Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and 

Universities (HBCU) program

Responsiveness to your questions -- 86 -- --

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and 

procedures -- 91 -- --

Ability to resolve issues -- 91 -- --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication -- 90 -- --

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial 

issues -- 86 -- --

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- 88 -- --

Availability of funds with adequate time for implementation -- 86 -- --

Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees -- 88 -- --

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- 90 -- --

Frequency of communication -- 85 -- --

Clarity of communication -- 87 -- --
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 81

2021 2022

Difference Significant 

Difference

Aggregate 

Scores Scores Impact

Sample Size 2,695 2,502

Educational Opportunity Centers (EOC)

Responsiveness to your questions -- 69 -- --

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and 

procedures -- 78 -- --

Ability to resolve issues -- 74 -- --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication -- 74 -- --

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial 

issues -- 74 -- --

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- 61 -- --

Availability of funds with adequate time for implementation -- 71 -- --

Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees -- 82 -- --

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- 71 -- --

Frequency of communication -- 66 -- --

Clarity of communication -- 71 -- --

Student Support Services

Responsiveness to your questions -- 66 -- --

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and 

procedures -- 67 -- --

Ability to resolve issues -- 70 -- --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication -- 70 -- --

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial 

issues -- 66 -- --

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- 64 -- --

Availability of funds with adequate time for implementation -- 69 -- --

Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees -- 77 -- --

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- 70 -- --

Frequency of communication -- 67 -- --

Clarity of communication -- 70 -- --

GEAR UP

Responsiveness to your questions -- 84 -- --

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and 

procedures -- 80 -- --

Ability to resolve issues -- 80 -- --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication -- 85 -- --

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial 

issues -- 82 -- --

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- 74 -- --

Availability of funds with adequate time for implementation -- 77 -- --

Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees -- 73 -- --

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- 80 -- --

Frequency of communication -- 77 -- --

Clarity of communication -- 79 -- --
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 82

2021 2022

Difference Significant 

Difference

Aggregate 

Scores Scores Impact

Sample Size 2,695 2,502

Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need (GAANN)

Responsiveness to your questions -- 82 -- --

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and 

procedures -- 85 -- --

Ability to resolve issues -- 84 -- --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication -- 86 -- --

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial 

issues -- 83 -- --

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- 76 -- --

Availability of funds with adequate time for implementation -- 60 -- --

Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees -- 82 -- --

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- 81 -- --

Frequency of communication -- 79 -- --

Clarity of communication -- 82 -- --

Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign 

Language

Responsiveness to your questions 92 93 1 --

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and 

procedures 93 92 -1 --

Ability to resolve issues 93 94 1 --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication 90 87 -3 --

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial 

issues 89 92 3 --

Timeliness of the grant award notification 84 81 -3 --

Availability of funds with adequate time for implementation 76 78 2 --

Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees 93 89 -4 --

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed 84 81 -3 --

Frequency of communication 81 73 -8 --

Clarity of communication 87 81 -6 --

Supports instruction in fields needed to provide full 

understanding 96 96 0 --

Supports work in language aspects of professional and other 

fields of study 96 93 -3 --

Supports research and training in international studies 96 94 -2 --

Teaching of any modern foreign language 95 93 -2 --

Instruction in fields needed to provide full understanding 95 96 1 --

Research and training in international studies 96 93 -3 --

Language aspects of professional and other fields of study 96 92 -4 --

Instruction and research on issues in world affairs 93 92 -1 --
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 83

2021 2022

Difference Significant 

Difference

Aggregate 

Scores Scores Impact

Sample Size 2,695 2,502

National Resource Centers Program

Responsiveness to your questions -- 92 -- --

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and 

procedures -- 94 -- --

Ability to resolve issues -- 94 -- --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication -- 93 -- --

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial 

issues -- 93 --

--

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- 51 -- --

Availability of funds with adequate time for implementation -- 51 -- --

Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees -- 64 -- --

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- 86 -- --

Frequency of communication -- 86 -- --

Clarity of communication -- 89 -- --

Supports instruction in fields needed to provide full 

understanding -- 92 --

--

Supports work in language aspects of professional and other 

fields of study -- 93 --

--

Supports research and training in international studies -- 93 -- --

Teaching of any modern foreign language -- 91 -- --

Instruction in fields needed to provide full understanding -- 92 -- --

Research and training in international studies -- 91 -- --

Language aspects of professional and other fields of study -- 91 -- --

Instruction and research on issues in world affairs -- 92 -- --

Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local 

Educational Agencies Program

Provides assistance that enhances capacity to implement 82 86 4 --

Provides support that is responsive to my State’s needs to 

implement 83 87 4 --

Helps address implementation challenges 81 84 3 --

Provides information about key changes to requirements 83 87 4 --

Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants (Title II, Part 

A)

Provides assistance that enhances capacity to implement 74 75 1 --

Provides support that is responsive to my State’s needs to 

implement 74 74 0 --

Helps address implementation challenges 70 71 1 --

Provides information about key changes to requirements 74 75 1 --

Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 

7003)

Ease of reaching person who could address concern 84 86 2 --

Ability to resolve your issue 87 87 0 --

21st Century Community Learning Centers

Provides assistance that enhances the capacity to implement 82 83 1 --

Provides support that is timely and responsive to my State’s 

needs to implement 84 81 -3

--

Helps my State address grant implementation challenges 85 83 -2 --

Provides information about key changes to requirements 85 83 -2 --

Helpfulness of information provided 85 85 0 --

Likelihood to recommend Y4Y website 95 96 1 --
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 84

2021 2022

Difference Significant 

Difference

Aggregate 

Scores Scores Impact

Sample Size 2,695 2,502

Student Support and Academic Enrichment

Usefulness of the Website 78 86 8 ↑ --

Usefulness of the Portal 81 86 5 --

American Rescue Plan to the Outlying Areas

Ability to resolve issues -- 89 -- --

Ability to listen to, accept and act upon your feedback -- 96 -- --

Ability to assist you in defining your needs and requests -- 96 -- --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication -- 98 -- --

Insular Areas and Palau TA Meeting sharing info to help 

implement grant -- 87 -- --

English Language Acquisition State Grants (Title III, Part 

A)

Provides assistance that enhances capacity to implement 65 69 4 --

Provides support that is responsive to my State’s needs to 

implement 64 67 3 --

Helps address implementation challenges 64 68 4 --

Provides information about key changes to requirements 75 68 -7 --

Grants for State Assessments

Provides assistance that enhances capacity to implement 77 80 3 --

Provides support that is responsive to my State’s needs to 

implement 79 82 3 --

Helps address implementation challenges 79 82 3 --

Provides information about key changes to requirements 82 82 0 --

Teacher and school leader incentive grants (ESEA II-B-1)

Understanding of all program requirements, including 

budgetary concerns 78 85 7 --

Understanding of practices other grantees use to address 

challenging areas 75 80 5 --

Assistance in improving program planning and implementation 74 74 0 --

Providing relevant information and ideas 74 79 5 --

Connecting you with other experts or practitioners 78 77 -1 --

Providing quality content during EED Summits 86 78 -8 --

Providing direct technical assistance to individual grantees 80 71 -9 --

Providing quality content on the Grads360 platform 77 71 -6 --

Providing quality of content and connections of the 

Communities of Practice 78 74 -4 --

Charter Schools Program (CSP) Grants to State Entities

Dissemination of resources and opportunities the CSP 

provides 76 63 -13 ↓ --

Comms and info accessible and provided in timely manner 61 54 -7 --

Technical assistance receive on project implementation and 

budget questions 68 64 -4 --

Assistance gives opportunity to give staff an understanding of 

your project 63 62 -1 --

Guidance CSP provides on Federal grant compliance 56 57 1 --
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 85

2021 2022

Difference Significant 

Difference

Aggregate 

Scores Scores Impact

Sample Size 2,695 2,502

Comprehensive Literacy State Development

CLSD provides effective-timely TA/outreach useful for grant 

activities -- 75 --

--

My ED program officer is responsive when I reach out with 

questions or concerns

58 67 9

--

My ED program officer communicates in a clear and concise 

manner

62 73 11 --

My ED program officer cares about me, my program, and my 

success

64 72 8

--

CLSD beneficial in improving literacy needs and would 

recommend 91 93 2

--

I find the Knowledge Management System (KMS) easy to use 73 82 9 --

I find the reporting requirements for CLSD to be appropriate 76 81 5 --

The KMS is useful to me beyond submitting required ED 

reports 68 72 4

--

My TA Liaison offers robust support in achieving our project 

goals 78 92 14 ↑

--

Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter 

Schools

Dissemination of resources and opportunities the CSP 

provides 67 71 4 --

Comms and info accessible and provided in timely manner 60 67 7 --

Technical assistance receive on project implementation and 

budget questions 52 56 4 --

Assistance gives opportunity to give staff an understanding of 

your project 57 64 7 --

Guidance CSP provides on Federal grant compliance 49 60 11 --

Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Education 

Agencies Program

Timeliness of staff 87 90 3 --

Quality of support 86 88 2 --

Comprehensiveness of documents 83 88 5 --

Ease of using EASIE system 81 86 5 --

Quality of training via webinars 80 85 5 --

Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program

Responsiveness in answering questions - Tech Assistance 

Center (NCHE) 94 95 1 --

Guidance provided in responses to questions - Tech 

Assistance Center (NCHE) 92 96 4 ↑ --

Meeting program compliance requirements - US Department 

of Education 90 85 -5 --

Assisting you to impact performance results - US Department 

of Education 88 84 -4 --

Support quality for collecting/submitting data - U.S. 

Department of Education 91 85 -6 --

Meeting program compliance requirements - Tech Assistance 

Center (NCHE) 93 93 0 --

Assisting you to impact performance results - Tech Assistance 

Center (NCHE) 92 93 1 --

Support quality for collecting/submitting data - Tech 

Assistance Center (NCHE) 93 93 0 --
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 86

2021 2022

Difference Significant 

Difference

Aggregate 

Scores Scores Impact

Sample Size 2,695 2,502

REAP-Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) Program

Email announcements from REAP 94 91 -3 --

Newsletter 50 52 2 --

U.S. Department of Education website 48 44 -4 --

State educational agencies 58 70 12 ↑ --

Community organizations 28 32 4 --

Social Media 29 27 -2 --

Clarity of instructions for accessing and completing the 

application 89 90 1 --

Ease of accessing the application using the unique link in the 

invitation email 88 90 2 --

Navigating the application on the MAX.gov survey tool 87 88 1 --

Preparing and completing the information requested on the 

application 89 89 0 --

Ease of submitting the application 91 90 -1 --

Utilizing the confirmation email 89 90 1 --

Promise Neighborhoods

ED Program Contacts quality of assistance 89 94 5 --

Urban Institute`s Needs Assessment Quality 84 78 -6 --

Urban Institute`s other services 87 70 -17 --

SCORECARD system 74 67 -7 --

Supporting Effective Educator Development Program

Understanding of GPRA measures and associated measure 

definitions 79 78 -1 --

Ability to collect and report accurate GPRA data 77 75 -2 --

Understanding of all program requirements, including 

budgetary concerns 72 78 6 --

Understanding of practices other grantees use to address 

challenging areas 69 68 -1 --

Assistance in improving program planning and implementation 65 59 -6 --

Providing relevant information and ideas 67 60 -7 --

Connecting you with other experts or practitioners 68 69 1 --

Providing quality content during EED Summits 73 70 -3 --

Providing direct technical assistance to individual grantees 63 67 4 --

Providing quality content on the Grads360 platform 58 64 6 --

Providing quality of content and connections of the 

Communities of Practice 60 59 -1 --

Demonstration Grants for Indian Children/Special 

Projects for Indian Children

Usefulness and relevance of webinar-based technical 

assistance 83 88 5 --

Usefulness and relevance of project director meeting technical 

assistance 84 87 3 --

Usefulness and relevance of technical assistance resources 

on the OIE web site 79 85 6 ↑ --
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 87

2021 2022

Difference Significant 

Difference

Aggregate 

Scores Scores Impact

Sample Size 2,695 2,502

Neglected and Delinquent State and Local Agency 

Programs

Responsiveness in answering questions - Tech Assistance 

Center (NDTAC) 65 61 -4 --

Sufficiency of the guidance provided in responses to 

questions 66 60 -6 --

Meeting program compliance requirements - US Department 

of Education 76 72 -4 --

Assisting you to impact performance results - US Department 

of Education 74 68 -6 --

Support quality for collecting/submitting data - US Department 

of Education 76 67 -9 --

Meeting program compliance requirements - Tech Assistance 

Center (NDTAC) 60 42 -18 ↓ --

Assisting to impact performance results - Tech Assistance 

Center (NDTAC) 58 41 -17 ↓ --

Support quality for collecting/submitting data - Tech 

Assistance Center (NDTAC) 58 39 -19 ↓ --

Teacher Quality Partnership Program

Understanding of GPRA measures and associated measure 

definitions 87 87 0 --

Ability to collect and report accurate GPRA data 84 86 2 --

Understanding of all program requirements, including 

budgetary concerns 83 86 3 --

Understanding of practices other grantees use to address 

challenging areas 83 87 4 --

Assistance in improving program planning and implementation 82 74 -8 --

Providing relevant information and ideas 83 78 -5 --

Connecting you with other experts or practitioners 84 77 -7 --

Providing quality content during EED Summits 84 75 -9 --

Providing direct technical assistance to individual grantees 79 66 -13 --

Providing quality content on the Grads360 platform 79 65 -14 --

Providing quality of content and connections of the 

Communities of Practice 85 73 -12 --

School Climate Transformation Grants (LEAs) Program

Helpfulness of technical assistance 84 87 3 --

Native Hawaiian Education Act Program/Education of 

Native Hawaiian

Helpfulness of NHE staff technical assistance -- 90 -- --

Program Purpose -- 90 -- --

Program Priorities -- 92 -- --

Selection Criteria -- 89 -- --

Application Review Information -- 86 -- --

Budget Information and Forms -- 88 -- --

Deadline for Submission -- 92 -- --

Range of Awards -- 92 -- --

Recommended Page Limit Instructions -- 92 -- --

Formatting Instructions -- 88 -- --

Program Contact -- 95 -- --

Helpfulness of NHE website info -- 79 -- --
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 88

2021 2022

Difference Significant 

Difference

Aggregate 

Scores Scores Impact

Sample Size 2,695 2,502

Alaska Native Education Program

Helpfulness of technical assistance from ANE staff -- 80 -- --

Program purpose 88 85 -3 --

Program priorities 87 83 -4 --

Selection criteria 88 81 -7 --

Application review information -- 81 -- --

Budget information and forms 88 81 -7 --

Deadline for submission 92 89 -3 --

Range of awards -- 87 -- --

Page limitation instructions 89 86 -3 --

Formatting instructions 88 82 -6 --

Program contact 90 83 -7 --

Helpfulness of ANE website information 76 78 2 --

High School Equivalency Program - Migrant Education

Accessibility and responsiveness of program staff 85 93 8 ↑ --

Timely resolution of questions by program staff 84 90 6 --

Clarity of information provided by program staff 89 92 3 --

Usefulness and relevance of technical assistance strategies 87 92 5 --

Usefulness of updated technical assistance resources pages 

on HEP.ed.gov 87 91 4 --

College Assistance Migrant Program

Accessibility and responsiveness of program staff 90 94 4 --

Timely resolution of questions by program staff 86 93 7 ↑ --

Clarity of information provided by program staff 94 91 -3 --

Usefulness and relevance of the strategies for technical 

assistance 91 92 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 94 70 -24 --

Statewide Family Engagement Centers (SFEC) program

Ability to resolve issues 90 87 -3 --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication 92 87 -5 --

Frequency of communication 90 86 -4 --

Overall satisfaction with service provided by the program 

officer 92 90 -2 --

Satisfaction with the Program Director’s Meeting 85 84 -1 --

Assistance for Arts Education Development and 

Dissemination Program

Satisfaction with virtual/face-to-face AIE Annual Program 

Director’s Convening 79 77 -2 --

Helpfulness of information and guidance on project 

implementation and evaluation -- 88 -- --

American Rescue Plan Emergency Assistance to NonPublic Schools (ARP EANS)

Ability to resolve issues -- 66 -- --

Ability to listen to, accept and act upon your feedback -- 72 -- --

Ability to assist you in defining your needs and requests -- 68 -- --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication -- 68 -- --

Helpfulness connecting you to resources and relationships to 

implement grant -- 59 -- --
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 89

2021 2022

Difference Significant 

Difference

Aggregate 

Scores Scores Impact

Sample Size 2,695 2,502

Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief 

Fund

Ability to resolve issues 72 68 -4 --

Ability to listen to, accept and act upon your feedback 78 72 -6 --

Ability to assist you in defining your needs and requests 74 70 -4 --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication 78 71 -7 --

Helpfulness connecting you to resources and relationships to 

implement grant 76 72 -4 --

Governors Emergency Education Relief Fund

Ability to resolve issues 74 81 7 --

Ability to listen to, accept and act upon your feedback 80 82 2 --

Ability to assist you in defining your needs and requests 79 82 3 --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication 82 83 1 --

Helpfulness connecting you to resources and relationships to 

implement grant 74 80 6 --
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 90

Dept of Ed OGA – Aggregate (2021 v 2022)

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Program

Native American and Alaska Native Children in School Program 1% 14 0% 10

National Professional Development Program 3% 73 2% 48

Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA) Program 2% 43 1% 27

Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education State Directors 1% 27 1% 29

Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Education Program 0% 3 0% 3

Native American Career and Technical Education Program 1% 19 1% 27

IDEA – State Directors of Special Education (Part B) Program 1% 31 1% 27

IDEA – Part C Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities Program 1% 28 1% 27

RSA Vocational Rehabilitation Program 1% 35 1% 28

Rehabilitation Long-Term Training Program 2% 40 1% 30

IDEA National Centers Program 1% 17 0% 3

State Personnel Development Grants 1% 28 1% 25

Independent Living Services for Older Individuals Who Are Blind (ILOIB) 1% 31 1% 13

Strengthening Institutions Program 4% 105 3% 78

Alaskan Native and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions (ANNH)-

Part A 1% 16 0% 10

Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions 5% 108 3% 79

Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans 

Program 1% 17 1% 19

Centers of Excellence for Veterans Student Success (CEVSS) 0% 0 1% 19

Native American Serving Non-Tribal Institutions Program 1% 14 0% 12

Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander Institutions 

Program 1% 19 1% 13

Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad (DDRA) 1% 25 1% 25

Minority Science and Engineering Improvement Program 0% 0 2% 40

Hispanic Serving Institutions - STEM and Articulation Program 2% 51 3% 67

Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships (FLAS) 2% 47 2% 41

TRIO Talent Search 7% 156 5% 126

Predominantly Black Institutions (PBI) Competitive 0% 0 0% 8

Predominantly Black Institutions (PBI) Formula 0% 0 0% 4

Master ́s Degree Programs at Historically Black Colleges and 

Universities 0% 0 0% 8

Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) 

Program 0% 0 1% 35

Educational Opportunity Centers (EOC) 0% 0 3% 69

Student Support Services 0% 0 4% 105

GEAR UP 0% 0 3% 64

Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need (GAANN) 0% 0 2% 55

Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Language 1% 24 0% 12

National Resource Centers Program 0% 0 1% 35

Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies 

Program 2% 38 2% 42

Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants (Title II, Part A) 2% 39 2% 38

Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 7003) 5% 120 4% 98

21st Century Community Learning Centers 2% 44 2% 41

Student Support and Academic Enrichment 2% 39 2% 41

American Rescue Plan to the Outlying Areas 0% 0 0% 5

English Language Acquisition State Grants (Title III, Part A) 2% 38 2% 40

Migrant Education Programs (Title I, Part C) 2% 37 1% 27

Grants for State Assessments 1% 32 1% 32

Teacher and School Leader Incentive Grants (ESEA II-B-1) 1% 18 1% 25

Charter Schools Program (CSP) Grants to State Entities 1% 20 1% 23

Comprehensive Literacy State Development 1% 28 1% 21

Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools 1% 24 1% 19
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 91

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Education Innovation and Research Programs 4% 85 3% 77

Magnet Schools Assistance Program 2% 37 1% 22

Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Education Agencies 

Program 4% 86 2% 51

American Rescue Plan and Emergency Relief HCY 2% 37 1% 24

REAP-Rural and Low Income School (RLIS) Program 1% 28 2% 39

REAP-Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) Program 2% 46 3% 63

Promise Neighborhoods 0% 11 1% 16

Supporting Effective Educator Development Program 1% 23 1% 15

Payments for Federal Property (Section 7002) 4% 97 4% 93

Demonstration Grants for Indian Children/Special Projects for Indian 

Children 3% 70 1% 34

Neglected and Delinquent State and Local Agency Programs 1% 32 1% 33

Teacher Quality Partnership Program 1% 26 1% 24

School Climate Transformation Grants (LEAs) Program 2% 51 2% 44

Native Hawaiian Education Act Program/Education of Native 

Hawaiian 1% 30 2% 39

Alaska Native Education Program 1% 31 1% 29

Innovative Approaches to Literacy Program 1% 33 1% 33

High School Equivalency Program - Migrant Education 2% 41 2% 40

College Assistance Migrant Program 2% 44 2% 44

Full-Service Community Schools (ESEA IV-F-2, section 4625) 1% 26 1% 22

Statewide Family Engagement Centers (SFEC) Program 0% 9 0% 9

Assistance for Arts Education Development and Dissemination 

Program 1% 17 1% 17

American Rescue Plan Emergency Assistance to Non-Public 

Schools (ARP EANS) 0% 0 1% 14

Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund 1% 22 1% 26

Governors Emergency Education Relief Fund 1% 19 1% 13

Education Stabilization Fund-Rethink K-12 Discretionary Grant 

Program 0% 6 0% 8

Number of Respondents 2,355 2,502

Formula vs Discretionary

Formula 35% 936 37% 919

Discretionary 65% 1,759 63% 1,583

Number of Respondents 2,695 2,502

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 45% 1,209 44% 1,113

Agree 46% 1,233 47% 1,172

Disagree 6% 166 6% 142

Strongly disagree 2% 55 1% 37

Does not apply 1% 32 2% 38

Number of Respondents 2,695 2,502

Job role

Project/State Director 67% 1,814 71% 1,770

School Officer 2% 67 2% 40

Grant Coordinator 14% 365 13% 324

Superintendent 4% 113 4% 105

Business Manager 3% 89 3% 87

Other 9% 247 7% 176

Number of Respondents 2,695 2,502
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 92

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Length of time in role

Less than one year 11% 287 16% 392

Between 1 - 3 years 33% 899 32% 798

Between 4 - 10 years 34% 905 31% 782

More than 10 years 22% 604 21% 530

Number of Respondents 2,695 2,502
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 93

21st Century Community Learning Centers

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 36 41 37 42 49 44 41

ED Staff/Coordination 71 82 78 85 87 87 87

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 74 83 83 84 91 90 87

Responsiveness to your questions 65 78 77 83 83 84 86

Professionalism -- -- -- -- 95 93 95

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 67 81 76 83 80 83 85

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- 81 86 84

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 72 84 78 86 -- -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 73 84 82 84 87 85 85

Online Resources 60 70 74 69 71 73 73

Ability to find specific information 60 71 69 69 72 74 72

Quality of content -- -- -- -- 71 74 71

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 61 69 70 67 70 71 73

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- 74 74 75

Ability to navigate within the site 65 70 76 70 73 74 77

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- 74 73 75

Documents 68 70 73 79 79 82 77

Clarity 69 71 74 80 80 84 78

Organization of information 73 73 76 82 83 84 79

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 67 67 72 77 77 81 76

Relevance to your areas of need 71 72 76 83 80 83 78

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 63 68 69 74 77 80 74

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- 81 81 72

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- 84 81 74

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- 77 76 62

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- 84 82 77

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- 87 85 78

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- 74 76 68

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- 81 86 76

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- 85 83 82

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- 89 85 82

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- 85 82 82

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- 83 82 81

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- 81 77 81

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- 85 88 85

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- 88 90 91

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI 59 67 68 74 80 82 77

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 65 73 74 80 86 86 82

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 56 63 64 74 77 79 74

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 56 64 66 68 75 79 74
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 94

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Trust -- -- -- 80 91 90 86

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- 80 91 90 86

21st Century Community Learning Centers

Provides assistance that enhances the capacity to 

implement -- -- -- 80 85 82 83

Provides support that is timely and responsive to my 

State’s needs to implement -- -- -- 77 86 84 81

Helps my State address grant implementation challenges -- -- -- -- 85 85 83

Provides information about key changes to requirements -- -- -- -- 85 85 83

Helpfulness of information provided 77 84 88 85 89 85 85

Likelihood to recommend Y4Y website 89 89 92 91 96 95 96
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 95

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and services

Strongly agree 57% 25 34% 14

Agree 41% 18 59% 24

Disagree 2% 1 7% 3

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 44 41

Job role

Project/State Director 91% 40 93% 38

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 2% 1

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 9% 4 5% 2

Number of Respondents 44 41

Length of time in role

Less than one year 2% 1 7% 3

Between 1 - 3 years 27% 12 20% 8

Between 4 - 10 years 48% 21 51% 21

More than 10 years 23% 10 22% 9

Number of Respondents 44 41

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 64% 28 63% 26

Did not receive 36% 16 37% 15

Number of Respondents 44 41
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 96

Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA) Program

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 32 31 42 34 41 43 27

ED Staff/Coordination 83 84 89 85 91 91 83

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 85 86 91 89 93 92 90

Responsiveness to your questions 84 85 91 89 93 93 82

Professionalism -- -- -- -- 97 98 96

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 76 81 86 84 87 87 80

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- 91 90 79

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 85 83 87 83 90 89 84

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 83 81 87 81 88 87 75

Online Resources 73 74 75 68 72 78 79

Ability to find specific information 68 69 69 67 69 75 77

Quality of content -- -- -- -- 78 84 80

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 73 72 75 67 71 77 77

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- 73 75 77

Ability to navigate within the site 69 72 73 67 71 78 80

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- 69 79 80

Documents 77 80 83 83 86 87 82

Clarity 78 80 84 84 86 87 84

Organization of information 81 84 84 85 89 89 85

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 73 75 81 81 83 86 79

Relevance to your areas of need 83 86 87 85 88 88 85

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 70 76 78 81 82 83 77

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- 82 80 79

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- 85 81 79

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- 69 72 69

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- 89 88 84

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- 90 86 82

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- 80 80 79

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- 78 75 78

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- 83 84 75

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- 89 88 82

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- 82 84 72

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- 81 84 77

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- 79 80 72

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- 80 83 70

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- 85 83 83

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI 72 72 75 76 81 83 77

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 78 79 81 83 86 89 85

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 73 69 74 74 79 79 73

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 66 68 71 72 76 80 70
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 97

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Trust -- -- -- 93 88 93 84

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- 93 88 93 84

Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA) 

Program

Ease of reporting using the NRS web-based system 82 80 80 76 82 85 81

Usefulness of the training offered by OCTAE through its 

contract to support NRS 79 78 80 79 81 85 80

Being well-organized 87 82 -- 84 88 88 74

Providing pre-planning adequate guidance 90 83 -- 90 88 85 80

Setting expectations for the visit 90 85 -- 84 89 88 80

Timeliness 86 87 90 88 90 94 78

Relevance of information 89 89 88 87 87 92 87

Usefulness to your program 86 87 88 87 87 91 84

Usefulness of products helping your state meet AEFLA 

program priorities 79 80 83 83 83 87 75

How well TA addresses your program priorities and 

needs 78 76 78 -- 82 82 74

Website - Ability to find specific information -- -- -- -- -- 82 81

Website - Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- 87 83

Website - Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- -- -- 82 79

Website - Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- 82 75

Website - Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- -- -- 83 81

Website - Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- 86 84
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 98

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and services

Strongly agree 65% 28 44% 12

Agree 30% 13 52% 14

Disagree 2% 1 4% 1

Strongly disagree 2% 1 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 43 27

Job role

Project/State Director 98% 42 96% 26

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 4% 1

Number of Respondents 43 27

Length of time in role

Less than one year 16% 7 15% 4

Between 1 - 3 years 40% 17 41% 11

Between 4 - 10 years 33% 14 37% 10

More than 10 years 12% 5 7% 2

Number of Respondents 43 27

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 19% 8 15% 4

Did not receive 81% 35 85% 23

Number of Respondents 43 27
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 99

Alaska Native Education Program

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 0 25 28 0 32 31 29

ED Staff/Coordination -- 74 79 -- 84 89 86

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- 78 85 -- 91 92 87

Responsiveness to your questions -- 67 72 -- 74 81 81

Professionalism -- -- -- -- 92 93 91

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- 80 82 -- 86 88 86

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- 81 89 85

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- 62 82 -- -- -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- 73 79 -- 77 88 82

Online Resources -- 67 69 -- 72 76 72

Ability to find specific information -- 69 69 -- 76 75 71

Quality of content -- -- -- -- 74 77 75

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- 69 70 -- 72 75 72

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- 76 81 73

Ability to navigate within the site -- 67 69 -- 69 75 72

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- 71 72 70

Documents -- 69 81 -- 75 81 80

Clarity -- 69 80 -- 74 81 81

Organization of information -- 71 81 -- 76 82 79

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs -- 68 81 -- 75 82 79

Relevance to your areas of need -- 72 82 -- 75 78 81

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face -- 65 79 -- 74 79 82

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- 73 76 73

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- 75 78 77

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- 77 78 75

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- 69 70 71

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- 76 82 71

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- 73 77 76

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- 66 68 66

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- 77 75 73

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- 84 79 75

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- 80 75 75

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- 79 77 77

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- 80 74 72

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- 76 69 67

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- 100 96 89

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI -- 64 75 -- 72 81 77

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- 68 79 -- 78 87 81

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- 60 74 -- 71 78 77

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- 63 71 -- 66 75 71
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 100

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Trust -- -- -- -- 82 91 88

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- 82 91 88

Alaska Native Education Program

Helpfulness of technical assistance from ANE staff -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

Program purpose -- 82 89 -- 84 88 85

Program priorities -- 80 88 -- 85 87 83

Selection criteria -- 80 89 -- 85 88 81

Application review information -- -- -- -- -- -- 81

Budget information and forms -- 83 88 -- 86 88 81

Deadline for submission -- 85 89 -- 88 92 89

Range of awards -- -- -- -- -- -- 87

Page limitation instructions -- 82 90 -- 88 89 86

Formatting instructions -- 80 90 -- 88 88 82

Program contact -- 84 90 -- 87 90 83

Helpfulness of ANE website information -- 66 71 -- 67 76 78
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 101

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and services

Strongly agree 48% 15 52% 15

Agree 52% 16 48% 14

Disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 31 29

Job role

Project/State Director 68% 21 62% 18

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 16% 5 24% 7

Superintendent 3% 1 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 13% 4 14% 4

Number of Respondents 31 29

Length of time in role

Less than one year 10% 3 34% 10

Between 1 - 3 years 48% 15 38% 11

Between 4 - 10 years 32% 10 21% 6

More than 10 years 10% 3 7% 2

Number of Respondents 31 29

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 10% 3 14% 4

Did not receive 90% 28 86% 25

Number of Respondents 31 29

Staff initiated tech assistance during past 6 months - ANE

Initiated 48% 15 52% 15

Did not initiate 52% 16 48% 14

Number of Respondents 31 29

How technical assistance occurred - ANE~

ANE Webinar 0% 0 60% 9

ANE Website 0% 0 33% 5

Conference call with ANE staff 0% 0 87% 13

Email communication with ANE staff 0% 0 73% 11

Number of Respondents 0 15

TA most helpful - ANE~

Written guidance 0% 0 41% 12

Email communication 0% 0 66% 19

Annual meetings/conferences 0% 0 52% 15

Webinars 0% 0 69% 20

Videoconferences 0% 0 52% 15

Other 0% 0 7% 2

Number of Respondents 0 29
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 102

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

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 23 16 10

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- 81 85 94

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- 89 93 96

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- 65 72 93

Professionalism -- -- -- -- 89 90 94

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- 84 86 91

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- 81 87 94

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- 79 80 96

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- 80 79 94

Online Resources -- -- -- -- 76 84 79

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- -- 72 80 80

Quality of content -- -- -- -- 77 88 78

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- -- 75 85 79

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- 77 86 85

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- -- 78 84 83

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- 76 81 76

Information in Application Package -- -- -- -- 90 94 91

Program Purpose -- -- -- -- 91 91 90

Program Priorities -- -- -- -- 93 94 90

Selection Criteria -- -- -- -- 87 92 89

Review Process -- -- -- -- 87 83 88

Budget Information and Forms -- -- -- -- 88 92 91

Deadline for Submission -- -- -- -- 91 97 94

Dollar Limit on Awards -- -- -- -- 92 96 91

Page Limitation Instructions -- -- -- -- 92 96 92

Formatting Instructions -- -- -- -- 87 93 91

Program Contact -- -- -- -- 91 99 92

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- 75 76 76

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- 79 79 84

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- 74 76 73

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- 81 87 86

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- 75 79 78

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- 77 79 75

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- 61 59 56

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- 73 78 79

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- 73 78 79

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 103

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

ACSI -- -- -- -- 77 78 82

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- 83 84 90

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- 75 76 81

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- 71 74 73

Trust -- -- -- -- 85 89 86

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- 85 89 86

Alaskan Native and Native Hawaiian Serving 

Institutions (ANNH)-Part A

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- 69 76 80

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies 

and procedures -- -- -- -- 84 81 88

Ability to resolve issues -- -- -- -- 80 84 91

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication -- -- -- -- 83 87 82

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or 

financial issues -- -- -- -- 72 80 78

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- -- -- -- 81 84 84

Availability of funds with adequate time for 

implementation -- -- -- -- 84 82 71

Transparency of how funds are distributed among 

grantees -- -- -- -- 81 82 80

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- -- -- -- 78 81 87

Frequency of communication -- -- -- -- 71 78 82

Clarity of communication -- -- -- -- 82 82 86
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 104

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 69% 11 70% 7

Agree 25% 4 20% 2

Disagree 6% 1 10% 1

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 16 10

Job role

Project/State Director 38% 6 80% 8

School Officer 6% 1 10% 1

Grant Coordinator 38% 6 10% 1

Superintendent 6% 1 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 13% 2 0% 0

Number of Respondents 16 10

Length of time in role

Less than one year 6% 1 0% 0

Between 1 - 3 years 38% 6 20% 2

Between 4 - 10 years 38% 6 30% 3

More than 10 years 19% 3 50% 5

Number of Respondents 16 10

Preferred method of communication - ANNH - Part A

Individual Email 75% 12 100% 10

Blast/Distribution list email 19% 3 0% 0

Telephone 6% 1 0% 0

Number of Respondents 16 10
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 105

American Rescue Plan and Emergency Relief HCY

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 35 36 32 29 29 37 24

ED Staff/Coordination 86 93 88 87 93 94 92

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 91 97 90 90 94 95 91

Responsiveness to your questions 84 93 87 84 93 92 89

Professionalism -- -- -- -- 96 96 96

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 81 87 86 88 92 91 90

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- 93 94 91

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 91 95 88 88 -- -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 91 93 85 84 92 94 91

Online Resources 68 76 83 69 80 81 78

Ability to find specific information 65 79 85 72 80 77 76

Quality of content -- -- -- -- 80 84 82

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 66 83 83 69 79 79 77

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- 81 81 76

Ability to navigate within the site 66 74 80 65 81 82 78

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- 82 81 78

Documents 81 89 83 88 86 89 87

Clarity 80 91 83 89 91 90 89

Organization of information 84 93 83 90 91 91 89

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 77 86 81 87 89 87 86

Relevance to your areas of need 84 93 87 89 86 89 87

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 80 86 81 83 88 87 84

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- 82 84 77

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- 85 86 82

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- 81 85 74

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- 84 90 87

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- 87 86 85

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- 87 84 77

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- 80 81 71

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- 84 87 81

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- 89 90 83

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- 87 87 79

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- 83 88 76

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- 85 86 78

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- 81 88 84

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- 92 90 91

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI 73 83 80 79 85 86 79

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 76 88 85 84 89 89 83

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 71 82 76 76 83 83 77

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 71 79 77 76 82 84 76
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 106

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Trust -- -- -- 80 92 94 89

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- 80 92 94 89
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 107

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and services

Strongly agree 62% 23 42% 10

Agree 35% 13 50% 12

Disagree 0% 0 8% 2

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 3% 1 0% 0

Number of Respondents 37 24

Job role

Project/State Director 73% 27 58% 14

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 14% 5 13% 3

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 14% 5 29% 7

Number of Respondents 37 24

Length of time in role

Less than one year 8% 3 21% 5

Between 1 - 3 years 38% 14 50% 12

Between 4 - 10 years 32% 12 21% 5

More than 10 years 22% 8 8% 2

Number of Respondents 37 24

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 51% 19 46% 11

Did not receive 49% 18 54% 13

Number of Respondents 37 24
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 108

American Rescue Plan Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools

(ARP EANS)

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 0 0 14

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- -- -- 67

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- -- 67

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- -- 65

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- -- -- 58

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- -- 62

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- -- -- 68

Online Resources -- -- -- -- -- -- 65

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- -- -- -- 67

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- -- 67

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- -- -- -- 63

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- -- 67

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- -- -- -- 67

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- -- 64

Documents -- -- -- -- -- -- 64

Clarity -- -- -- -- -- -- 65

Organization of information -- -- -- -- -- -- 71

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs -- -- -- -- -- -- 59

Relevance to your areas of need -- -- -- -- -- -- 71

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face -- -- -- -- -- -- 56

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 55

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 56

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- -- 52

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- -- 65

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- -- 60

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- -- 44

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- -- 46

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- -- 56

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- -- 63

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- -- 58

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- -- 54

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- -- 50

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- -- 53

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- -- 44

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 109

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

ACSI -- -- -- -- -- -- 46

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- -- -- 49

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- -- -- 48

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- -- -- 39

Trust -- -- -- -- -- -- 57

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- -- 57

American Rescue Plan Emergency Assistance to 

Non-Public Schools (ARP EANS)

Ability to resolve issues -- -- -- -- -- -- 66

Ability to listen to, accept and act upon your feedback -- -- -- -- -- -- 72

Ability to assist you in defining your needs and requests -- -- -- -- -- -- 68

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 68

Helpfulness connecting you to resources and 

relationships to implement grant -- -- -- -- -- -- 59
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 110

Demographic Table

2021 2022

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 50% 7

Disagree 0% 0 43% 6

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 7% 1

Number of Respondents 0 14

Job role

Project/State Director 0% 0 86% 12

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 14% 2

Number of Respondents 0 14

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 0% 0

Between 1 - 3 years 0% 0 43% 6

Between 4 - 10 years 0% 0 29% 4

More than 10 years 0% 0 29% 4

Number of Respondents 0 14

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 0% 0 7% 1

Did not receive 0% 0 93% 13

Number of Respondents 0 14

Preferred method rank - Individual Email - ARP EANS~

1st 0% 0 86% 12

2nd 0% 0 7% 1

3rd 0% 0 7% 1

Number of Respondents 0 14

Preferred method rank - Telephone Call - ARP EANS~

2nd 0% 0 29% 2

3rd 0% 0 71% 5

Number of Respondents 0 7

Preferred method rank - Video Call - ARP EANS~

1st 0% 0 22% 2

2nd 0% 0 56% 5

3rd 0% 0 22% 2

Number of Respondents 0 9

Preferred method rank - G5 Bulk Email - ARP EANS~

2nd 0% 0 40% 2

3rd 0% 0 60% 3

Number of Respondents 0 5

Preferred method rank - Website - ARP EANS~

2nd 0% 0 57% 4

3rd 0% 0 43% 3

Number of Respondents 0 7
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 111

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Greatest need for technical assistance - ARP EANS~

Allowable uses of funds 0% 0 14% 2

Reporting requirements 0% 0 50% 7

Subrecipient monitoring 0% 0 64% 9

Timelines for grant requirements 0% 0 14% 2

Understanding different program requirements 0% 0 21% 3

Promising practices 0% 0 14% 2

Other 0% 0 21% 3

Number of Respondents 0 14
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 112

American Rescue Plan to the Outlying Areas

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 0 0 5

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- -- -- 94

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- -- 91

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- -- 98

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- -- -- 96

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- -- 100

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- -- -- 94

Online Resources -- -- -- -- -- -- 94

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- -- -- -- 93

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- -- 93

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- -- -- -- 84

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- -- 98

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- -- -- -- 98

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- -- 98

Documents -- -- -- -- -- -- 96

Clarity -- -- -- -- -- -- 94

Organization of information -- -- -- -- -- -- 94

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs -- -- -- -- -- -- 93

Relevance to your areas of need -- -- -- -- -- -- 96

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face -- -- -- -- -- -- 96

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 90

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 93

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- -- 82

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- -- 96

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- -- 93

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- -- 84

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- -- 94

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- -- 91

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- -- 98

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- -- 96

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- -- 93

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- -- 93

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- -- 92

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- -- -- 91

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- -- -- 87
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 113

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Trust -- -- -- -- -- -- 98

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- -- 98

American Rescue Plan to the Outlying Areas

Ability to resolve issues -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Ability to listen to, accept and act upon your feedback -- -- -- -- -- -- 96

Ability to assist you in defining your needs and requests -- -- -- -- -- -- 96

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 98

Insular Areas and Palau TA Meeting sharing info to help 

implement grant -- -- -- -- -- -- 87
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 114

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and services

Strongly agree 0% 0 80% 4

Agree 0% 0 20% 1

Disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 0 5

Job role

Project/State Director 0% 0 60% 3

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 20% 1

Superintendent 0% 0 20% 1

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 0 5

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 0% 0

Between 1 - 3 years 0% 0 80% 4

Between 4 - 10 years 0% 0 0% 0

More than 10 years 0% 0 20% 1

Number of Respondents 0 5

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 0% 0 80% 4

Did not receive 0% 0 20% 1

Number of Respondents 0 5
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 115

Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander Institutions Program

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 23 19 13

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- 91 86 89

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- 95 89 91

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- 94 85 94

Professionalism -- -- -- -- 97 95 95

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- 90 90 86

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- 88 93 83

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- 92 93 84

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- 92 94 87

Online Resources -- -- -- -- 65 73 72

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- -- 65 73 73

Quality of content -- -- -- -- 69 78 70

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- -- 66 70 75

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- 68 74 77

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- -- 67 77 73

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- 56 67 67

Information in Application Package -- -- -- -- 81 86 81

Program Purpose -- -- -- -- 85 88 84

Program Priorities -- -- -- -- 84 88 85

Selection Criteria -- -- -- -- 79 84 76

Review Process -- -- -- -- 77 83 69

Budget Information and Forms -- -- -- -- 74 84 76

Deadline for Submission -- -- -- -- 77 91 90

Dollar Limit on Awards -- -- -- -- 80 91 85

Page Limitation Instructions -- -- -- -- 81 77 77

Formatting Instructions -- -- -- -- 80 80 70

Program Contact -- -- -- -- 90 92 93

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- 73 75 78

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- 73 76 71

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

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- 84 82 94

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- 72 80 89

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- 74 74 87

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- 63 63 62

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- 87 85 71

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- 87 85 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 -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 116

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

ACSI -- -- -- -- 73 79 67

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- 82 85 74

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- 70 75 63

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- 66 75 63

Trust -- -- -- -- 86 87 83

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- 86 87 83

Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander 

Institutions Program

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- 94 91 94

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies 

and procedures -- -- -- -- 94 89 89

Ability to resolve issues -- -- -- -- 91 90 92

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication -- -- -- -- 90 88 85

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or 

financial issues -- -- -- -- 93 91 94

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- -- -- -- 46 64 75

Availability of funds with adequate time for 

implementation -- -- -- -- 63 64 72

Transparency of how funds are distributed among 

grantees -- -- -- -- 73 76 78

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- -- -- -- 81 85 86

Frequency of communication -- -- -- -- 80 86 88

Clarity of communication -- -- -- -- 81 85 86
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 117

Demographics Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 47% 9 38% 5

Agree 53% 10 46% 6

Disagree 0% 0 15% 2

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 19 13

Job role

Project/State Director 100% 19 77% 10

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 15% 2

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 8% 1

Number of Respondents 19 13

Length of time in role

Less than one year 5% 1 46% 6

Between 1 - 3 years 21% 4 23% 3

Between 4 - 10 years 68% 13 31% 4

More than 10 years 5% 1 0% 0

Number of Respondents 19 13

Preferred method of communication - AANAPISI

Individual Email 68% 13 69% 9

Blast/Distribution list email 16% 3 15% 2

Telephone 11% 2 0% 0

Webinar 0% 0 8% 1

Other 5% 1 8% 1

Number of Respondents 19 13
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 118

Assistance for Arts Education Development and Dissemination Program

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 13 17 17

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- 89 86 93

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- 90 87 96

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- 87 80 94

Professionalism -- -- -- -- 100 95 99

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- 89 84 91

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- 83 87 92

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- 78 80 85

Online Resources -- -- -- -- 80 72 74

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- -- 79 72 75

Quality of content -- -- -- -- 78 71 76

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- -- 76 75 75

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- 82 68 72

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- -- 81 73 74

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- 82 74 72

Documents -- -- -- -- 82 84 85

Clarity -- -- -- -- 85 84 85

Organization of information -- -- -- -- 87 84 86

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs -- -- -- -- 83 84 85

Relevance to your areas of need -- -- -- -- 79 85 84

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face -- -- -- -- 77 82 84

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- 81 80 87

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- 77 82 89

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- 78 75 86

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- 94 88 92

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- 89 85 87

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- 80 80 90

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- 76 66 74

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- 81 72 81

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- 81 77 87

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- 80 71 80

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- 81 72 82

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- 74 69 77

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- 84 70 78

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- -- 100

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI -- -- -- -- 72 73 82

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- 80 79 88

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- 70 70 80

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- 65 69 76
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 119

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Trust -- -- -- -- 90 84 93

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- 90 84 93

Assistance for Arts Education Development and 

Dissemination Program

Satisfaction with virtual/face-to-face AIE Annual Program 

Director’s Convening -- -- -- -- 92 79 77

Helpfulness of information and guidance on project 

implementation and evaluation -- -- -- -- -- -- 88
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 120

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and services

Strongly agree 41% 7 53% 9

Agree 53% 9 47% 8

Disagree 6% 1 0% 0

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 17 17

Job role

Project/State Director 76% 13 88% 15

School Officer 6% 1 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 12% 2 0% 0

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 6% 1 12% 2

Number of Respondents 17 17

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 6% 1

Between 1 - 3 years 35% 6 12% 2

Between 4 - 10 years 41% 7 59% 10

More than 10 years 24% 4 24% 4

Number of Respondents 17 17

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 6% 1 18% 3

Did not receive 94% 16 82% 14

Number of Respondents 17 17
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 121

Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education State Directors

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 24 24 30 26 25 27 29

ED Staff/Coordination 86 85 93 89 93 94 91

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 88 89 94 90 94 98 93

Responsiveness to your questions 85 90 93 93 96 96 95

Professionalism -- -- -- -- 98 98 97

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 80 74 91 85 88 89 88

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- 94 93 87

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 85 82 93 89 90 92 88

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 85 85 92 86 90 90 88

Online Resources 76 75 83 80 77 84 77

Ability to find specific information 74 75 80 81 76 84 74

Quality of content -- -- -- -- 81 89 80

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 74 75 85 81 76 84 75

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- 78 85 76

Ability to navigate within the site 77 75 83 76 75 83 79

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- 75 80 81

Documents 77 80 83 79 82 86 83

Clarity 75 79 83 83 84 87 83

Organization of information 81 82 84 81 84 87 85

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 75 81 83 76 80 85 83

Relevance to your areas of need 79 83 84 84 84 89 82

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 75 77 83 72 79 82 81

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- 83 83 76

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- 87 84 81

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- 74 72 66

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- 88 85 76

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- 91 93 88

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- 81 85 77

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- 74 80 65

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- 83 86 78

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- 92 92 85

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- 81 86 79

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- 78 82 76

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- 73 78 71

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- 85 85 70

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- 89 89 93

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI 72 77 79 78 80 85 76

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 80 83 83 84 87 88 82

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 68 75 78 75 77 84 75

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 67 72 74 73 76 81 71
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 122

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Trust -- -- -- 92 93 95 85

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- 92 93 95 85

Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education State 

Directors

CAR`s user-friendliness 69 73 78 72 82 80 71

PCRN’s usefulness to your program 82 81 86 84 83 84 82

Effectiveness of DATE in helping you implement grant 

programs

-- -- -- -- 86 87 81

TA received on project implementation and budget 

questions -- -- -- -- 88 91 90

Usefulness and relevance of project director meetings in 

providing TA -- -- -- -- 87 86 80
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 123

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and services

Strongly agree 59% 16 41% 12

Agree 41% 11 52% 15

Disagree 0% 0 7% 2

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 27 29

Job role

Project/State Director 96% 26 90% 26

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 4% 1 7% 2

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 3% 1

Number of Respondents 27 29

Length of time in role

Less than one year 22% 6 17% 5

Between 1 - 3 years 30% 8 28% 8

Between 4 - 10 years 44% 12 45% 13

More than 10 years 4% 1 10% 3

Number of Respondents 27 29

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 30% 8 10% 3

Did not receive 70% 19 90% 26

Number of Respondents 27 29
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 124

Centers of Excellence for Veterans Student Success (CEVSS)

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 0 0 19

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- -- -- 90

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- -- 91

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- -- 88

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- -- 94

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- -- -- 87

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- -- 88

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- -- -- 90

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- -- -- 88

Online Resources -- -- -- -- -- -- 71

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- -- -- -- 71

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- -- 69

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- -- -- -- 72

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- -- 70

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- -- -- -- 75

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- -- 69

Information in Application Package -- -- -- -- -- -- 91

Program Purpose -- -- -- -- -- -- 93

Program Priorities -- -- -- -- -- -- 92

Selection Criteria -- -- -- -- -- -- 88

Review Process -- -- -- -- -- -- 85

Budget Information and Forms -- -- -- -- -- -- 85

Deadline for Submission -- -- -- -- -- -- 94

Dollar Limit on Awards -- -- -- -- -- -- 94

Page Limitation Instructions -- -- -- -- -- -- 92

Formatting Instructions -- -- -- -- -- -- 91

Program Contact -- -- -- -- -- -- 93

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 79

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- -- 79

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- -- 86

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- -- 85

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- -- 76

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 -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 125

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

ACSI -- -- -- -- -- -- 75

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- -- -- 72

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- -- -- 74

Trust -- -- -- -- -- -- 87

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- -- 87

Centers of Excellence for Veterans Student Success 

(CEVSS)

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- -- 81

Ability to resolve issues -- -- -- -- -- -- 82

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or 

financial issues -- -- -- -- -- -- 81

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- -- -- -- -- -- 75

Availability of funds with adequate time for 

implementation -- -- -- -- -- -- 85

Transparency of how funds are distributed among 

grantees -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- -- -- -- -- -- 81

Frequency of communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 75

Clarity of communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 81
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 126

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 0% 0 37% 7

Agree 0% 0 58% 11

Disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Strongly disagree 0% 0 5% 1

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 0 19

Job role

Project/State Director 0% 0 37% 7

School Officer 0% 0 16% 3

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 42% 8

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 5% 1

Number of Respondents 0 19

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 32% 6

Between 1 - 3 years 0% 0 37% 7

Between 4 - 10 years 0% 0 16% 3

More than 10 years 0% 0 16% 3

Number of Respondents 0 19

Preferred method of communication - CEVSS

Individual Email 0% 0 68% 13

Blast/Distribution list email 0% 0 21% 4

Webinar 0% 0 5% 1

Other 0% 0 5% 1

Number of Respondents 0 19
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 127

Charter Schools Program (CSP) Grants to State Entities

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 0 0 0 26 17 20 23

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- 72 87 76 73

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- 72 92 81 83

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- 67 81 66 56

Professionalism -- -- -- -- 94 89 82

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- 74 84 65 67

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- 85 77 71

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 66

Online Resources -- -- -- 57 73 62 58

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- 58 76 60 61

Quality of content -- -- -- -- 78 63 58

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- 55 71 63 56

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- 71 62 54

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- 52 69 60 60

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- 70 64 56

Documents -- -- -- 70 74 65 65

Clarity -- -- -- 68 77 64 65

Organization of information -- -- -- 71 82 71 67

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs -- -- -- 71 69 58 64

Relevance to your areas of need -- -- -- 71 72 71 68

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face -- -- -- 66 67 60 60

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- 74 61 61

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- 78 64 63

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- 74 66 66

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- 78 57 61

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- 82 64 66

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- 71 62 63

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- 58 48 48

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- 78 70 65

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- 82 78 66

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- 77 65 65

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- 79 66 62

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- 75 58 59

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- 80 74 63

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- 85 83 83

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI -- -- -- 62 71 62 60

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- 68 80 72 65

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- 61 64 58 56

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- 57 67 56 57
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 128

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Trust -- -- -- 69 79 73 68

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- 69 79 73 68

Charter Schools Program (CSP) Grants to State 

Entities

Dissemination of resources and opportunities the CSP 

provides -- -- -- 60 78 76 63

Comms and info accessible and provided in timely 

manner

-- -- -- 62 76 61 54

Technical assistance receive on project implementation 

and budget questions -- -- -- 65 84 68 64

Assistance gives opportunity to give staff an 

understanding of your project -- -- -- 65 78 63 62

Guidance CSP provides on Federal grant compliance -- -- -- 57 64 56 57
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 129

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and services

Strongly agree 20% 4 13% 3

Agree 60% 12 57% 13

Disagree 20% 4 26% 6

Strongly disagree 0% 0 4% 1

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 20 23

Job role

Project/State Director 90% 18 91% 21

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 5% 1 9% 2

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 5% 1 0% 0

Number of Respondents 20 23

Length of time in role

Less than one year 15% 3 22% 5

Between 1 - 3 years 45% 9 43% 10

Between 4 - 10 years 30% 6 30% 7

More than 10 years 10% 2 4% 1

Number of Respondents 20 23

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 55% 11 52% 12

Did not receive 45% 9 48% 11

Number of Respondents 20 23
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 130

College Assistance Migrant Program

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 0 38 41 0 42 44 44

ED Staff/Coordination -- 89 91 -- 93 94 95

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- 91 93 -- 93 96 97

Responsiveness to your questions -- 85 92 -- 91 89 93

Professionalism -- -- -- -- 97 99 98

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- 91 91 -- 92 96 95

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- 93 94 96

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 91

Online Resources -- 77 84 -- 83 83 80

Ability to find specific information -- 75 81 -- 81 83 81

Quality of content -- -- -- -- 84 83 80

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- 78 84 -- 82 82 79

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- 86 84 79

Ability to navigate within the site -- 75 83 -- 82 83 80

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- 84 83 80

Documents -- 85 83 -- 91 92 92

Clarity -- 85 82 -- 90 92 93

Organization of information -- 86 82 -- 91 94 93

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs -- 85 83 -- 91 92 90

Relevance to your areas of need -- 86 85 -- 92 92 93

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face -- 85 83 -- 89 89 90

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- 92 91 92

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- 91 93 93

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- 89 91 91

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- 96 94 96

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- 93 93 93

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- 93 90 89

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- 88 87 88

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- 90 88 87

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- 94 92 92

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- 91 89 89

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- 85 86 84

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- 86 84 86

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- 91 90 87

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- 100 -- 92

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI -- 79 85 -- 87 89 86

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- 85 90 -- 92 93 89

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- 76 84 -- 84 86 84

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- 75 81 -- 85 86 84
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 131

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Trust -- -- -- -- 94 94 93

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- 94 94 93

College Assistance Migrant Program

Accessibility and responsiveness of program staff -- 91 90 -- 90 90 94

Timely resolution of questions by program staff -- 86 89 -- 87 86 93

Clarity of information provided by program staff -- 87 89 -- 91 94 91

Usefulness and relevance of the strategies for technical 

assistance -- 87 90 -- 92 91 92

Usefulness of updated technical assistance resources 

pages on CAMP.ed.gov -- -- 85 -- 88 88 88
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 132

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and services

Strongly agree 61% 27 64% 28

Agree 36% 16 30% 13

Disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Strongly disagree 2% 1 5% 2

Does not apply 0% 0 2% 1

Number of Respondents 44 44

Job role

Project/State Director 91% 40 80% 35

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 5% 2 14% 6

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 5% 2 7% 3

Number of Respondents 44 44

Length of time in role

Less than one year 16% 7 14% 6

Between 1 - 3 years 20% 9 25% 11

Between 4 - 10 years 39% 17 30% 13

More than 10 years 25% 11 32% 14

Number of Respondents 44 44

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 0% 0 16% 7

Did not receive 100% 44 84% 37

Number of Respondents 44 44
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 133

Comprehensive Literacy State Development

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 5 0 11 10 14 28 21

ED Staff/Coordination 75 -- 90 92 90 78 79

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 80 -- 89 92 92 81 82

Responsiveness to your questions 84 -- 91 91 82 65 68

Professionalism -- -- -- -- 95 85 80

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 76 -- 85 91 90 73 74

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- 91 83 87

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 61 -- 89 92 -- -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 59 -- 88 86 91 -- --

Online Resources 66 -- 86 83 80 81 77

Ability to find specific information 63 -- 84 82 80 75 75

Quality of content -- -- -- -- 79 82 76

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 63 -- 84 82 79 81 75

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- 80 80 78

Ability to navigate within the site 64 -- 91 82 79 82 76

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- 87 85 82

Documents 75 -- 88 89 91 82 82

Clarity 78 -- 87 88 90 82 83

Organization of information 75 -- 87 90 92 82 82

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 75 -- 87 89 92 83 83

Relevance to your areas of need 72 -- 90 89 92 81 81

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 75 -- 89 89 92 81 82

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- 82 68 73

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- 85 69 77

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- 81 62 71

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- 87 80 86

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- 88 77 75

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- 79 66 72

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- 68 57 60

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- 90 78 78

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- 91 78 79

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- 83 74 78

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- 90 76 79

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- 88 76 80

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- 94 83 85

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- 83 89 93

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI 66 -- 82 86 79 73 72

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 71 -- 85 91 85 77 78

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 64 -- 82 82 75 70 70

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 62 -- 79 83 75 70 67
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 134

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Trust -- -- -- 91 87 79 79

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- 91 87 79 79

Comprehensive Literacy State Development

CLSD provides effective-timely TA/outreach useful for 

grant activities -- -- -- -- -- -- 75

My ED program officer is responsive when I reach out 

with questions or concerns -- -- -- -- -- 58 67

My ED program officer communicates in a clear and 

concise manner -- -- -- -- -- 62 73

My ED program officer cares about me, my program, and 

my success

-- -- -- -- -- 64 72

CLSD beneficial in improving literacy needs and would 

recommend -- -- -- -- -- 91 93

I find the Knowledge Management System (KMS) easy 

to use -- -- -- -- -- 73 82

I find the reporting requirements for CLSD to be 

appropriate -- -- -- -- -- 76 81

The KMS is useful to me beyond submitting required ED 

reports -- -- -- -- -- 68 72

My TA Liaison offers robust support in achieving our 

project goals -- -- -- -- -- 78 92
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 135

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and services

Strongly agree 32% 9 52% 11

Agree 54% 15 33% 7

Disagree 7% 2 14% 3

Strongly disagree 4% 1 0% 0

Does not apply 4% 1 0% 0

Number of Respondents 28 21

Job role

Project/State Director 79% 22 76% 16

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 14% 4 19% 4

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 7% 2 5% 1

Number of Respondents 28 21

Length of time in role

Less than one year 29% 8 14% 3

Between 1 - 3 years 54% 15 67% 14

Between 4 - 10 years 14% 4 5% 1

More than 10 years 4% 1 14% 3

Number of Respondents 28 21

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 54% 15 62% 13

Did not receive 46% 13 38% 8

Number of Respondents 28 21
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 136

Demonstration Grants for Indian Children – Special Projects for Indian Children

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 0 30 32 39 52 70 34

ED Staff/Coordination -- 75 77 68 85 86 88

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- 81 84 71 89 86 90

Responsiveness to your questions -- 72 78 67 78 81 87

Professionalism -- -- -- -- 90 92 91

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- 77 80 75 85 84 86

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- 80 85 88

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 85

Online Resources -- 68 62 59 70 73 81

Ability to find specific information -- 70 63 58 70 77 80

Quality of content -- -- -- -- 71 78 83

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- 70 62 58 66 72 83

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- 69 72 81

Ability to navigate within the site -- 66 58 59 70 70 80

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- 72 71 79

Documents -- 69 68 68 78 79 85

Clarity -- 70 68 69 78 81 87

Organization of information -- 69 71 69 80 80 87

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs -- 68 71 68 78 78 86

Relevance to your areas of need -- 69 69 70 79 78 85

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face -- 70 62 66 76 77 82

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- 70 71 81

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- 73 73 83

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- 72 70 80

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- 66 66 75

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- 72 75 86

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- 75 75 85

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- 62 65 76

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- 75 82 85

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- 79 86 88

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- 72 81 84

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- 71 81 85

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- 70 80 84

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- 82 84 86

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- 76 86 95

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI -- 68 70 61 77 78 85

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- 71 76 67 83 82 88

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- 68 68 57 75 77 83

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- 64 65 57 71 74 83
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 137

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Trust -- -- -- 68 84 82 89

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- 68 84 82 89

Demonstration Grants for Indian Children/Special 

Projects for Indian Children

Usefulness and relevance of webinar-based technical 

assistance -- 74 67 75 80 83 88

Usefulness and relevance of project director meeting 

technical assistance -- 73 78 74 84 84 87

Usefulness and relevance of technical assistance 

resources on the OIE web site -- 68 67 67 72 79 85
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 138

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and services

Strongly agree 41% 29 62% 21

Agree 51% 36 32% 11

Disagree 6% 4 0% 0

Strongly disagree 1% 1 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 6% 2

Number of Respondents 70 34

Job role

Project/State Director 60% 42 76% 26

School Officer 1% 1 3% 1

Grant Coordinator 23% 16 9% 3

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 16% 11 12% 4

Number of Respondents 70 34

Length of time in role

Less than one year 13% 9 9% 3

Between 1 - 3 years 43% 30 44% 15

Between 4 - 10 years 29% 20 29% 10

More than 10 years 16% 11 18% 6

Number of Respondents 70 34

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 30% 21 26% 9

Did not receive 70% 49 74% 25

Number of Respondents 70 34

TA Priority Ranking-Data Collection - DGIC

1st 13% 9 12% 4

2nd 14% 10 35% 12

3rd 21% 15 15% 5

4th 10% 7 9% 3

5th 9% 6 12% 4

6th 6% 4 3% 1

7th 24% 17 6% 2

8th 3% 2 9% 3

Number of Respondents 70 34

TA Priority Ranking-Performance Reporting - DGIC

1st 16% 11 24% 8

2nd 17% 12 15% 5

3rd 14% 10 24% 8

4th 11% 8 3% 1

5th 7% 5 3% 1

6th 14% 10 15% 5

7th 6% 4 15% 5

8th 14% 10 3% 1

Number of Respondents 70 34
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 139

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

TA Priority Ranking-Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act - DGIC

1st 13% 9 12% 4

2nd 9% 6 3% 1

3rd 9% 6 9% 3

4th 6% 4 9% 3

5th 9% 6 3% 1

6th 6% 4 12% 4

7th 11% 8 6% 2

8th 39% 27 47% 16

Number of Respondents 70 34

TA Priority Ranking-Capacity Building - DGIC

1st 14% 10 0% 0

2nd 4% 3 3% 1

3rd 9% 6 12% 4

4th 17% 12 18% 6

5th 17% 12 26% 9

6th 11% 8 15% 5

7th 19% 13 9% 3

8th 9% 6 18% 6

Number of Respondents 70 34

TA Priority Ranking-Parent Engagement - DGIC

1st 10% 7 6% 2

2nd 11% 8 15% 5

3rd 11% 8 3% 1

4th 16% 11 15% 5

5th 17% 12 18% 6

6th 20% 14 9% 3

7th 10% 7 26% 9

8th 4% 3 9% 3

Number of Respondents 70 34

TA Priority Ranking-Partnerships - DGIC

1st 0% 0 6% 2

2nd 17% 12 6% 2

3rd 11% 8 21% 7

4th 19% 13 21% 7

5th 20% 14 12% 4

6th 17% 12 21% 7

7th 9% 6 9% 3

8th 7% 5 6% 2

Number of Respondents 70 34

TA Priority Ranking-Cultural Relevance - DGIC

1st 10% 7 21% 7

2nd 7% 5 3% 1

3rd 14% 10 9% 3

4th 13% 9 18% 6

5th 11% 8 12% 4

6th 20% 14 15% 5

7th 13% 9 24% 8

8th 11% 8 0% 0

Number of Respondents 70 34
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 140

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

TA Priority Ranking-Allowable Costs and Budgeting Flexibilities -

DGIC

1st 24% 17 21% 7

2nd 20% 14 21% 7

3rd 10% 7 9% 3

4th 9% 6 9% 3

5th 10% 7 15% 5

6th 6% 4 12% 4

7th 9% 6 6% 2

8th 13% 9 9% 3

Number of Respondents 70 34
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 141

Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 111 102 109 116 110 108 79

ED Staff/Coordination 85 91 87 84 88 91 93

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 90 92 91 85 92 93 94

Responsiveness to your questions 81 89 85 82 84 91 92

Professionalism -- -- -- -- 92 95 96

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 84 93 91 84 87 92 91

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- 88 88 93

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 83 90 87 83 89 92 93

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 81 90 92 82 87 90 90

Online Resources 75 79 70 71 76 76 79

Ability to find specific information 72 77 71 69 75 77 80

Quality of content -- -- -- -- 77 79 82

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 75 79 72 71 76 76 78

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- 78 76 80

Ability to navigate within the site 72 76 71 71 76 75 79

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- 72 74 79

Information in Application Package 87 89 81 88 90 89 91

Program Purpose 88 90 80 88 88 90 92

Program Priorities 87 88 80 89 90 90 92

Selection Criteria 84 88 80 85 89 88 91

Review Process 82 86 77 85 85 86 89

Budget Information and Forms 85 87 77 83 86 86 89

Deadline for Submission 91 91 85 91 93 92 93

Dollar Limit on Awards 89 90 84 91 91 90 91

Page Limitation Instructions 89 91 84 90 89 91 90

Formatting Instructions 86 88 82 88 88 88 89

Program Contact 88 92 85 89 94 93 94

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- 76 77 84

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- 78 77 85

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- 73 76 80

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- 86 86 93

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- 76 77 88

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- 79 81 83

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- 63 65 74

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- 84 81 89

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- 84 81 89

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 142

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

ACSI 73 78 72 79 78 78 85

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 79 84 78 84 85 84 90

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 71 76 70 77 76 74 83

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 69 74 66 75 73 74 81

Trust -- -- -- 86 88 88 93

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- 86 88 88 93

Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions

Responsiveness to questions 80 88 82 84 82 88 91

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies 

and procedures 87 92 88 85 90 89 90

Ability to resolve issues 87 91 87 85 86 89 92

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication 87 90 85 85 85 89 91

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or 

financial issues 83 90 85 84 85 89 91

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- -- -- -- 79 82 85

Availability of funds with adequate time for 

implementation -- -- -- -- 83 84 86

Transparency of how funds are distributed among 

grantees -- -- -- -- 88 89 91

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- -- -- -- 83 84 90

Frequency of communication -- -- -- -- 78 81 90

Clarity of communication -- -- -- -- 83 87 90
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 143

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 47% 51 54% 43

Agree 47% 51 44% 35

Disagree 3% 3 0% 0

Strongly disagree 2% 2 0% 0

Does not apply 1% 1 1% 1

Number of Respondents 108 79

Job role

Project/State Director 82% 89 81% 64

School Officer 6% 6 1% 1

Grant Coordinator 8% 9 16% 13

Superintendent 1% 1 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 3% 3 1% 1

Number of Respondents 108 79

Length of time in role

Less than one year 24% 26 10% 8

Between 1 - 3 years 36% 39 41% 32

Between 4 - 10 years 28% 30 32% 25

More than 10 years 12% 13 18% 14

Number of Respondents 108 79

Preferred method of communication - DHSI

Individual Email 86% 93 81% 64

Blast/Distribution list email 7% 8 13% 10

Telephone 4% 4 3% 2

Webinar 1% 1 3% 2

Other 2% 2 1% 1

Number of Respondents 108 79
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 144

Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad (DDRA)

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 15 25 25

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- 85 74 84

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- 97 82 91

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- 67 60 76

Professionalism -- -- -- -- 90 84 92

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- 79 66 78

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- 85 79 87

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- 80 75 83

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- 87 64 84

Online Resources -- -- -- -- 67 57 60

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- -- 70 57 62

Quality of content -- -- -- -- 64 59 61

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- -- 69 60 60

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- 70 62 58

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- -- 74 63 63

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- 60 55 51

Information in Application Package -- -- -- -- 87 79 81

Program Purpose -- -- -- -- 93 81 84

Program Priorities -- -- -- -- 93 81 85

Selection Criteria -- -- -- -- 90 80 83

Review Process -- -- -- -- 84 74 79

Budget Information and Forms -- -- -- -- 82 67 75

Deadline for Submission -- -- -- -- 92 77 86

Dollar Limit on Awards -- -- -- -- 79 80 76

Page Limitation Instructions -- -- -- -- 83 80 77

Formatting Instructions -- -- -- -- 81 73 74

Program Contact -- -- -- -- 93 86 85

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- 66 58 64

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- 70 58 66

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- 69 58 67

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- 75 65 74

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- 60 60 68

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- 56 55 53

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- 59 48 48

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- 75 72 75

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- 75 72 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 -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 145

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

ACSI -- -- -- -- 71 57 64

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- 80 64 70

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- 67 55 62

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- 65 50 58

Trust -- -- -- -- 79 65 80

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- 79 65 80

Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad (DDRA)

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- 72 68 78

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies 

and procedures -- -- -- -- 91 75 82

Ability to resolve issues -- -- -- -- 83 74 79

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication -- -- -- -- 76 71 76

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or 

financial issues -- -- -- -- 73 73 76

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- -- -- -- 57 65 65

Availability of funds with adequate time for 

implementation -- -- -- -- 61 68 72

Transparency of how funds are distributed among 

grantees -- -- -- -- 73 78 81

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- -- -- -- 78 61 79

Frequency of communication -- -- -- -- 73 60 74

Clarity of communication -- -- -- -- 77 60 76

Supports instruction in fields needed to provide full 

understanding -- -- -- -- 98 86 90

Supports work in language aspects of professional and 

other fields of study -- -- -- -- 96 87 92

Supports research and training in international studies -- -- -- -- 99 91 95

Teaching of any modern foreign language -- -- -- -- 92 76 79

Instruction in fields needed to provide full understanding -- -- -- -- 99 79 87

Research and training in international studies -- -- -- -- 97 88 90

Language aspects of professional and other fields of 

study -- -- -- -- 91 82 90

Instruction and research on issues in world affairs -- -- -- -- 94 82 85
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 146

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 20% 5 28% 7

Agree 44% 11 56% 14

Disagree 24% 6 8% 2

Strongly disagree 12% 3 4% 1

Does not apply 0% 0 4% 1

Number of Respondents 25 25

Job role

Project/State Director 60% 15 68% 17

School Officer 12% 3 8% 2

Grant Coordinator 20% 5 8% 2

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 4% 1 4% 1

Other 4% 1 12% 3

Number of Respondents 25 25

Length of time in role

Less than one year 8% 2 20% 5

Between 1 - 3 years 36% 9 20% 5

Between 4 - 10 years 40% 10 40% 10

More than 10 years 16% 4 20% 5

Number of Respondents 25 25

Preferred method of communication - DDRAF

Individual Email 68% 17 88% 22

Blast/Distribution list email 24% 6 8% 2

Telephone 4% 1 4% 1

Other 4% 1 0% 0

Number of Respondents 25 25
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 147

Education Innovation and Research Programs

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 0 0 0 40 44 85 77

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- 84 84 91 90

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- 84 82 89 89

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- 83 82 90 90

Professionalism -- -- -- -- 93 95 94

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- 82 83 90 89

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- 87 91 92

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 87

Online Resources -- -- -- 69 71 70 74

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- 69 70 72 73

Quality of content -- -- -- -- 71 73 75

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- 68 71 71 74

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- 73 71 77

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- 69 71 68 74

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- 71 70 74

Documents -- -- -- 74 72 78 83

Clarity -- -- -- 76 74 79 84

Organization of information -- -- -- 75 75 80 84

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs -- -- -- 77 71 81 84

Relevance to your areas of need -- -- -- 72 70 75 82

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face -- -- -- 69 70 76 82

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- 74 73 75

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- 74 75 77

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- 73 76 77

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- 77 68 69

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- 80 76 82

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- 75 73 76

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- 63 65 68

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- 75 79 84

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- 82 82 85

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- 73 76 82

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- 78 79 83

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- 71 74 81

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- 69 77 86

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- 85 92 92

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI -- -- -- 75 74 75 79

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- 80 81 82 86

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- 74 70 71 76

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- 70 69 69 73
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 148

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Trust -- -- -- 81 84 83 87

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- 81 84 83 87

Education Innovation and Research Programs

Assistance in improving your evaluation planning and 

implementation -- -- -- -- 86 89 91

Customized feedback tailored to my grant’s unique 

challenges and opportunities -- -- -- -- -- 87 91

Connecting with other experts or practitioners working on 

similar evaluations -- -- -- -- 74 82 84

Assistance in improving project implementation and EIR 

requirements (AnLar) -- -- -- -- -- -- 81

Connecting with other experts or practitioners working on 

similar projects -- -- -- -- -- -- 83
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 149

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and services

Strongly agree 45% 38 52% 40

Agree 51% 43 38% 29

Disagree 5% 4 6% 5

Strongly disagree 0% 0 3% 2

Does not apply 0% 0 1% 1

Number of Respondents 85 77

Job role

Project/State Director 69% 59 90% 69

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 13% 11 8% 6

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 18% 15 3% 2

Number of Respondents 85 77

Length of time in role

Less than one year 15% 13 16% 12

Between 1 - 3 years 36% 31 44% 34

Between 4 - 10 years 27% 23 26% 20

More than 10 years 21% 18 14% 11

Number of Respondents 85 77

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 24% 20 36% 28

Did not receive 76% 65 64% 49

Number of Respondents 85 77
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 150

Education Stabilization Fund – Rethink K-12 Discretionary Grant Program

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 0 6 8

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- -- 95 93

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- 96 90

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- 93 99

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- 98 99

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- -- 94 90

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- 96 87

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- -- 91 96

Online Resources -- -- -- -- -- 85 73

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- -- -- 84 70

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- 82 72

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- -- -- 82 74

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- 87 73

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- -- -- 87 72

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- 87 74

Documents -- -- -- -- -- 88 78

Clarity -- -- -- -- -- 89 78

Organization of information -- -- -- -- -- 87 81

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs -- -- -- -- -- 91 76

Relevance to your areas of need -- -- -- -- -- 87 81

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face -- -- -- -- -- 89 76

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- 61 83

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- 70 82

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- 78 86

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- 83 82

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- 70 85

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- 70 83

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- 56 78

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 77

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- -- 89 81

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- -- 80 76

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- -- 78 74
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 151

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Trust -- -- -- -- -- 93 89

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- 93 89
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 152

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 33% 2 25% 2

Agree 67% 4 63% 5

Disagree 0% 0 13% 1

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 6 8

Job role

Project/State Director 67% 4 50% 4

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 33% 2 38% 3

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 13% 1

Number of Respondents 6 8

Length of time in role

Less than one year 83% 5 25% 2

Between 1 - 3 years 0% 0 75% 6

Between 4 - 10 years 17% 1 0% 0

More than 10 years 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 6 8
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 153

Educational Opportunity Centers (EOC)

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 0 0 69

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- -- 73

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- -- 86

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- -- -- 77

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- -- 80

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- -- -- 73

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- -- -- 75

Online Resources -- -- -- -- -- -- 71

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- -- -- -- 72

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- -- 70

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- -- -- -- 71

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- -- 72

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- -- -- -- 71

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- -- 68

Information in Application Package -- -- -- -- -- -- 85

Program Purpose -- -- -- -- -- -- 88

Program Priorities -- -- -- -- -- -- 86

Selection Criteria -- -- -- -- -- -- 86

Review Process -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

Budget Information and Forms -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

Deadline for Submission -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Dollar Limit on Awards -- -- -- -- -- -- 85

Page Limitation Instructions -- -- -- -- -- -- 82

Formatting Instructions -- -- -- -- -- -- 79

Program Contact -- -- -- -- -- -- 86

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 81

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- -- 79

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 -- -- -- -- -- -- 81

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- -- 72

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- -- 77

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- -- 77

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 154

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

ACSI -- -- -- -- -- -- 73

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- -- -- 79

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- -- -- 70

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- -- -- 68

Trust -- -- -- -- -- -- 79

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- -- 79

Educational Opportunity Centers (EOC)

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- -- 69

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

Ability to resolve issues -- -- -- -- -- -- 74

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 74

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or 

financial issues -- -- -- -- -- -- 74

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- -- -- -- -- -- 61

Availability of funds with adequate time for 

implementation -- -- -- -- -- -- 71

Transparency of how funds are distributed among 

grantees -- -- -- -- -- -- 82

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- -- -- -- -- -- 71

Frequency of communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 66

Clarity of communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 71
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 155

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 0% 0 38% 26

Agree 0% 0 51% 35

Disagree 0% 0 7% 5

Strongly disagree 0% 0 3% 2

Does not apply 0% 0 1% 1

Number of Respondents 0 69

Job role

Project/State Director 0% 0 90% 62

School Officer 0% 0 3% 2

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 4% 3

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 1% 1

Other 0% 0 1% 1

Number of Respondents 0 69

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 17% 12

Between 1 - 3 years 0% 0 28% 19

Between 4 - 10 years 0% 0 29% 20

More than 10 years 0% 0 26% 18

Number of Respondents 0 69

Preferred method of communication - EOC

Individual Email 0% 0 81% 56

Blast/Distribution list email 0% 0 7% 5

Telephone 0% 0 4% 3

Webinar 0% 0 1% 1

Other 0% 0 6% 4

Number of Respondents 0 69
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 156

Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 0 22 26

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- -- 69 70

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- 69 73

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- 64 65

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- 88 86

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- -- 61 62

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- 67 65

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- -- 63 68

Online Resources -- -- -- -- -- 72 67

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- -- -- 74 68

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- 76 69

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- -- -- 70 65

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- 68 67

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- -- -- 70 66

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- 71 70

Documents -- -- -- -- -- 73 73

Clarity -- -- -- -- -- 73 75

Organization of information -- -- -- -- -- 78 74

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs -- -- -- -- -- 70 73

Relevance to your areas of need -- -- -- -- -- 78 76

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face -- -- -- -- -- 64 65

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- 39 46

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- 40 51

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- 32 33

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- 43 55

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- 44 53

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- 40 46

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- 35 37

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 59

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- -- 61 62

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- -- 55 59

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- -- 53 56
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 157

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Trust -- -- -- -- -- 71 67

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- 71 67

Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief 

Fund

Ability to resolve issues -- -- -- -- -- 72 68

Ability to listen to, accept and act upon your feedback -- -- -- -- -- 78 72

Ability to assist you in defining your needs and requests -- -- -- -- -- 74 70

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication -- -- -- -- -- 78 71

Helpfulness connecting you to resources and 

relationships to implement grant -- -- -- -- -- 76 72
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 158

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and services

Strongly agree 14% 3 0% 0

Agree 59% 13 69% 18

Disagree 18% 4 15% 4

Strongly disagree 9% 2 12% 3

Does not apply 0% 0 4% 1

Number of Respondents 22 26

Job role

Project/State Director 73% 16 81% 21

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 18% 4 12% 3

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 5% 1 0% 0

Other 5% 1 8% 2

Number of Respondents 22 26

Length of time in role

Less than one year 18% 4 23% 6

Between 1 - 3 years 45% 10 38% 10

Between 4 - 10 years 23% 5 15% 4

More than 10 years 14% 3 23% 6

Number of Respondents 22 26

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 41% 9 0% 0

Did not receive 59% 13 0% 0

Number of Respondents 22 0

Preferred method rank - Individual Email - ESSER

1st 76% 16 75% 18

2nd 14% 3 8% 2

3rd 10% 2 17% 4

Number of Respondents 21 24

Preferred method rank - Telephone Call - ESSER

1st 20% 1 22% 2

2nd 60% 3 11% 1

3rd 20% 1 67% 6

Number of Respondents 5 9

Preferred method rank - Video Call - ESSER

1st 8% 1 11% 2

2nd 50% 6 68% 13

3rd 42% 5 21% 4

Number of Respondents 12 19

Preferred method rank - G5 Bulk Email - ESSER

1st 0% 0 23% 3

2nd 50% 2 23% 3

3rd 50% 2 54% 7

Number of Respondents 4 13

Preferred method rank - ESSERGEER Newsblast listserv - ESSER

1st 19% 3 0% 0

2nd 25% 4 0% 0

3rd 56% 9 0% 0

Number of Respondents 16 0
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 159

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Preferred method rank - Website - ESSER

1st 13% 1 8% 1

2nd 50% 4 50% 6

3rd 38% 3 42% 5

Number of Respondents 8 12

Greatest need for technical assistance - ESSER~

Allowable uses of funds 23% 5 15% 4

Reporting requirements 86% 19 69% 18

Subrecipient monitoring 59% 13 58% 15

Timelines for grant requirements 14% 3 15% 4

Understanding difference requirements between programs 9% 2 8% 2

Promising practices 0% 0 31% 8

Other 0% 0 4% 1

Number of Respondents 22 26
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 160

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

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 30 20 24 21 26 38 40

ED Staff/Coordination 71 76 84 74 79 82 80

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 72 85 85 73 82 86 83

Responsiveness to your questions 70 70 83 73 71 76 76

Professionalism -- -- -- -- 92 96 92

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 70 79 86 75 75 78 76

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- 75 77 81

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 71 71 82 71 -- -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 65 74 85 68 73 77 68

Online Resources 63 60 68 61 70 72 64

Ability to find specific information 64 59 67 62 69 71 62

Quality of content -- -- -- -- 73 73 66

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 62 59 66 59 71 69 62

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- 68 66 64

Ability to navigate within the site 59 60 66 60 68 71 62

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- 69 75 68

Documents 72 62 69 72 76 77 73

Clarity 74 63 69 75 78 77 75

Organization of information 75 68 71 75 79 80 76

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 69 55 68 71 72 73 69

Relevance to your areas of need 74 65 72 75 79 77 76

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 67 57 66 64 68 70 67

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- 65 66 68

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- 65 71 67

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- 65 67 65

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- 78 81 77

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- 69 73 73

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- 65 62 63

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- 56 55 64

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- 66 69 64

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- 74 76 67

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- 66 72 64

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- 64 67 64

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- 56 63 62

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- 57 58 58

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- 83 83 81

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI 55 57 68 61 63 63 59

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 61 61 73 67 69 69 64

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 50 54 66 61 59 61 58

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 52 54 63 53 60 57 54
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 161

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Trust -- -- -- 63 69 69 71

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- 63 69 69 71

English Language Acquisition State Grants (Title III, 

Part A)

Provides assistance that enhances capacity to 

implement -- 74 76 62 65 65 69

Provides support that is responsive to my State’s needs 

to implement -- 65 70 64 62 64 67

Helps address implementation challenges 59 66 73 63 63 64 68

Provides information about key changes to requirements -- 72 77 73 75 75 68
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 162

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and services

Strongly agree 16% 6 5% 2

Agree 66% 25 73% 29

Disagree 13% 5 20% 8

Strongly disagree 3% 1 3% 1

Does not apply 3% 1 0% 0

Number of Respondents 38 40

Job role

Project/State Director 79% 30 75% 30

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 16% 6 10% 4

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 5% 2 15% 6

Number of Respondents 38 40

Length of time in role

Less than one year 16% 6 15% 6

Between 1 - 3 years 37% 14 25% 10

Between 4 - 10 years 26% 10 45% 18

More than 10 years 21% 8 15% 6

Number of Respondents 38 40

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 32% 12 40% 16

Did not receive 68% 26 60% 24

Number of Respondents 38 40
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 163

Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships (FLAS)

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 81 0 0 0 92 47 41

ED Staff/Coordination 85 -- -- -- 96 96 94

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 86 -- -- -- 98 96 95

Responsiveness to your questions 85 -- -- -- 97 97 95

Professionalism -- -- -- -- 98 98 96

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 82 -- -- -- 96 96 92

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- 94 95 94

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 82 -- -- -- 93 92 90

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 89 -- -- -- 94 94 91

Online Resources 66 -- -- -- 72 75 78

Ability to find specific information 65 -- -- -- 74 79 79

Quality of content -- -- -- -- 75 79 81

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 66 -- -- -- 73 74 80

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- 74 77 80

Ability to navigate within the site 66 -- -- -- 71 74 75

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- 66 72 73

Information in Application Package 86 -- -- -- 86 87 86

Program Purpose 87 -- -- -- 86 88 85

Program Priorities 86 -- -- -- 86 88 90

Selection Criteria 84 -- -- -- 85 84 85

Review Process 81 -- -- -- 78 83 79

Budget Information and Forms 84 -- -- -- 80 83 80

Deadline for Submission 87 -- -- -- 91 91 89

Dollar Limit on Awards 85 -- -- -- 87 87 84

Page Limitation Instructions 87 -- -- -- 87 89 84

Formatting Instructions 87 -- -- -- 83 86 83

Program Contact 89 -- -- -- 92 93 94

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- 71 73 75

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- 80 83 85

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- 63 65 67

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- 80 79 83

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- 78 81 83

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- 68 67 73

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- 58 59 56

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- 92 93 88

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- 92 93 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 -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 164

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

ACSI 71 -- -- -- 83 81 80

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 78 -- -- -- 89 88 89

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 68 -- -- -- 80 78 73

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 64 -- -- -- 78 74 76

Trust -- -- -- -- 91 91 89

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- 91 91 89

Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships 

(FLAS)

Responsiveness to your questions 84 -- -- -- 95 98 95

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies 

and procedures 85 -- -- -- 95 96 94

Ability to resolve issues -- -- -- -- 95 98 94

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication -- -- -- -- 95 97 94

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or 

financial issues -- -- -- -- 95 96 93

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- -- -- -- 72 79 60

Availability of funds with adequate time for 

implementation -- -- -- -- 73 76 56

Transparency of how funds are distributed among 

grantees -- -- -- -- 84 83 79

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- -- -- -- 92 95 91

Frequency of communication -- -- -- -- 89 94 89

Clarity of communication -- -- -- -- 92 96 92

Supports instruction in fields needed to provide full 

understanding -- -- -- -- 94 93 91

Supports work in language aspects of professional and 

other fields of study -- -- -- -- 94 94 93

Supports research and training in international studies -- -- -- -- 95 93 91

Teaching of any modern foreign language -- -- -- -- 95 92 93

Instruction in fields needed to provide full understanding -- -- -- -- 94 93 93

Research and training in international studies -- -- -- -- 93 93 93

Language aspects of professional and other fields of 

study -- -- -- -- 93 92 94

Instruction and research on issues in world affairs -- -- -- -- 93 94 94
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 165

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 64% 30 68% 28

Agree 36% 17 27% 11

Disagree 0% 0 5% 2

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 47 41

Job role

Project/State Director 55% 26 68% 28

School Officer 2% 1 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 28% 13 22% 9

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 2% 1 2% 1

Other 13% 6 7% 3

Number of Respondents 47 41

Length of time in role

Less than one year 6% 3 12% 5

Between 1 - 3 years 26% 12 29% 12

Between 4 - 10 years 36% 17 39% 16

More than 10 years 32% 15 20% 8

Number of Respondents 47 41

Preferred method of communication - FLAS

Individual Email 96% 45 88% 36

Blast/Distribution list email 0% 0 7% 3

Telephone 0% 0 2% 1

Webinar 2% 1 2% 1

Other 2% 1 0% 0

Number of Respondents 47 41
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 166

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

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 0 26 22

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- -- 78 67

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- 83 83

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- 72 57

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- 86 73

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- -- 76 66

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- 72 62

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- -- 70 62

Online Resources -- -- -- -- -- 68 52

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- -- -- 61 50

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- 70 49

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- -- -- 70 51

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- 70 50

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- -- -- 71 55

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- 72 54

Documents -- -- -- -- -- 66 60

Clarity -- -- -- -- -- 66 65

Organization of information -- -- -- -- -- 69 61

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs -- -- -- -- -- 65 58

Relevance to your areas of need -- -- -- -- -- 70 63

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face -- -- -- -- -- 63 55

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- 68 58

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- 64 61

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- 65 58

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- 78 64

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- 72 53

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- 71 66

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- 58 44

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- 63 54

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- 71 60

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- 69 52

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- 69 56

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- 58 47

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- 56 55

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- 67 50

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI -- -- -- -- -- 66 54

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- -- 73 59

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- -- 63 52

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- -- 59 52
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 167

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Trust -- -- -- -- -- 77 62

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- 77 62

Full-Service Community Schools (ESEA IV-F-2, 

section 4625)

ED Program Contacts quality of assistance -- -- -- -- -- 94 70
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 168

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and services

Strongly agree 35% 9 18% 4

Agree 38% 10 45% 10

Disagree 23% 6 27% 6

Strongly disagree 0% 0 5% 1

Does not apply 4% 1 5% 1

Number of Respondents 26 22

Job role

Project/State Director 81% 21 77% 17

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 12% 3 14% 3

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 8% 2 9% 2

Number of Respondents 26 22

Length of time in role

Less than one year 35% 9 14% 3

Between 1 - 3 years 31% 8 64% 14

Between 4 - 10 years 27% 7 18% 4

More than 10 years 8% 2 5% 1

Number of Respondents 26 22

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 months

Received tech assistance 8% 2 9% 2

Did not receive 92% 24 91% 20

Number of Respondents 26 22

Asked for assistance not related to fiscal or grant administration issues -

FSCS

Asked for assistance 15% 4 27% 6

Did not ask 85% 22 73% 16

Number of Respondents 26 22
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 169

GEAR UP

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 0 0 64

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- -- -- 84

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- -- 85

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- -- 84

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- -- 92

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- -- 84

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- -- -- 79

Online Resources -- -- -- -- -- -- 70

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- -- -- -- 71

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- -- 71

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- -- -- -- 70

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- -- 71

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- -- -- -- 72

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- -- 67

Information in Application Package -- -- -- -- -- -- 82

Program Purpose -- -- -- -- -- -- 85

Program Priorities -- -- -- -- -- -- 84

Selection Criteria -- -- -- -- -- -- 82

Review Process -- -- -- -- -- -- 73

Budget Information and Forms -- -- -- -- -- -- 79

Deadline for Submission -- -- -- -- -- -- 87

Dollar Limit on Awards -- -- -- -- -- -- 82

Page Limitation Instructions -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

Formatting Instructions -- -- -- -- -- -- 81

Program Contact -- -- -- -- -- -- 84

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 74

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- -- 73

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

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- -- 75

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- -- 74

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- -- 61

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- -- 76

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- -- 76

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 170

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

ACSI -- -- -- -- -- -- 74

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- -- -- 72

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- -- -- 70

Trust -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

GEAR UP

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- -- 84

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

Ability to resolve issues -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 85

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or 

financial issues -- -- -- -- -- -- 82

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- -- -- -- -- -- 74

Availability of funds with adequate time for 

implementation -- -- -- -- -- -- 77

Transparency of how funds are distributed among 

grantees -- -- -- -- -- -- 73

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

Frequency of communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 77

Clarity of communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 79
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 171

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 0% 0 28% 18

Agree 0% 0 61% 39

Disagree 0% 0 8% 5

Strongly disagree 0% 0 2% 1

Does not apply 0% 0 2% 1

Number of Respondents 0 64

Job role

Project/State Director 0% 0 94% 60

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 3% 2

Superintendent 0% 0 2% 1

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 2% 1

Number of Respondents 0 64

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 17% 11

Between 1 - 3 years 0% 0 23% 15

Between 4 - 10 years 0% 0 41% 26

More than 10 years 0% 0 19% 12

Number of Respondents 0 64

Preferred method of communication - GEAR UP

Individual Email 0% 0 86% 55

Blast/Distribution list email 0% 0 8% 5

Telephone 0% 0 2% 1

Webinar 0% 0 3% 2

Other 0% 0 2% 1

Number of Respondents 0 64
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 172

Governors Emergency Education Relief

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 0 19 13

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- -- 74 79

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- 70 76

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- 70 75

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- 89 87

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- -- 68 74

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- 80 81

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- -- 64 76

Online Resources -- -- -- -- -- 69 68

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- -- -- 68 66

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- 70 69

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- -- -- 69 67

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- 63 68

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- -- -- 69 69

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- 70 68

Documents -- -- -- -- -- 72 76

Clarity -- -- -- -- -- 71 77

Organization of information -- -- -- -- -- 78 77

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs -- -- -- -- -- 70 74

Relevance to your areas of need -- -- -- -- -- 75 78

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face -- -- -- -- -- 67 74

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- 55 65

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- 62 72

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- 56 68

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- 60 71

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- 53 68

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- 47 59

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- 47 53

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 69

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- -- 70 72

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- -- 64 68

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- -- 63 67
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 173

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Trust -- -- -- -- -- 77 74

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- 77 74

Governors Emergency Education Relief Fund

Ability to resolve issues -- -- -- -- -- 74 81

Ability to listen to, accept and act upon your feedback -- -- -- -- -- 80 82

Ability to assist you in defining your needs and requests -- -- -- -- -- 79 82

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication -- -- -- -- -- 82 83

Helpfulness connecting you to resources and 

relationships to implement grant -- -- -- -- -- 74 80
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 174

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and services

Strongly agree 11% 2 8% 1

Agree 84% 16 92% 12

Disagree 5% 1 0% 0

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 19 13

Job role

Project/State Director 63% 12 77% 10

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 26% 5 15% 2

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 5% 1 0% 0

Other 5% 1 8% 1

Number of Respondents 19 13

Length of time in role

Less than one year 21% 4 8% 1

Between 1 - 3 years 47% 9 69% 9

Between 4 - 10 years 16% 3 23% 3

More than 10 years 16% 3 0% 0

Number of Respondents 19 13

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 5% 1 0% 0

Did not receive 95% 18 0% 0

Number of Respondents 19 0

Preferred method rank - Individual Email - GEER

1st 84% 16 85% 11

2nd 5% 1 15% 2

3rd 11% 2 0% 0

Number of Respondents 19 13

Preferred method rank - Telephone Call - GEER

2nd 67% 2 40% 2

3rd 33% 1 60% 3

Number of Respondents 3 5

Preferred method rank - Video Call - GEER

1st 17% 1 13% 1

2nd 67% 4 38% 3

3rd 17% 1 50% 4

Number of Respondents 6 8

Preferred method rank - G5 Bulk Email - GEER

1st 0% 0 14% 1

2nd 0% 0 57% 4

3rd 100% 5 29% 2

Number of Respondents 5 7

Preferred method rank - ESSERGEER Newsblast listserv - GEER

1st 15% 2 0% 0

2nd 54% 7 0% 0

3rd 31% 4 0% 0

Number of Respondents 13 0
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 175

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Preferred method rank - Website - GEER

2nd 45% 5 40% 2

3rd 55% 6 60% 3

Number of Respondents 11 5

Preferred method rank - Other - GEER

3rd 0% 0 100% 1

Number of Respondents 0 1

Greatest need for technical assistance - GEER~

Allowable uses of funds 37% 7 8% 1

Reporting requirements 79% 15 54% 7

Subrecipient monitoring 58% 11 62% 8

Timelines for grant requirements 16% 3 38% 5

Understanding difference requirements between programs 11% 2 15% 2

Promising practices 0% 0 23% 3

Number of Respondents 19 13
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 176

Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need (GAANN)

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 0 0 55

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- -- -- 88

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- -- 91

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- -- 94

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- -- -- 87

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- -- 90

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- -- -- 88

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- -- -- 88

Online Resources -- -- -- -- -- -- 74

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- -- -- -- 72

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- -- 71

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- -- -- -- 73

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- -- 79

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- -- -- -- 76

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- -- 74

Information in Application Package -- -- -- -- -- -- 88

Program Purpose -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Program Priorities -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Selection Criteria -- -- -- -- -- -- 85

Review Process -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

Budget Information and Forms -- -- -- -- -- -- 81

Deadline for Submission -- -- -- -- -- -- 91

Dollar Limit on Awards -- -- -- -- -- -- 92

Page Limitation Instructions -- -- -- -- -- -- 91

Formatting Instructions -- -- -- -- -- -- 91

Program Contact -- -- -- -- -- -- 94

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 73

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 75

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- -- 69

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- -- 88

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- -- 73

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- -- 74

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- -- 61

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 177

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

ACSI -- -- -- -- -- -- 76

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- -- -- 81

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- -- -- 74

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- -- -- 72

Trust -- -- -- -- -- -- 81

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- -- 81

Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need 

(GAANN)

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- -- 82

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- -- 85

Ability to resolve issues -- -- -- -- -- -- 84

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 86

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or 

financial issues -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- -- -- -- -- -- 76

Availability of funds with adequate time for 

implementation -- -- -- -- -- -- 60

Transparency of how funds are distributed among 

grantees -- -- -- -- -- -- 82

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- -- -- -- -- -- 81

Frequency of communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 79

Clarity of communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 82
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 178

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 0% 0 51% 28

Agree 0% 0 38% 21

Disagree 0% 0 7% 4

Strongly disagree 0% 0 4% 2

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 0 55

Job role

Project/State Director 0% 0 87% 48

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 5% 3

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 7% 4

Number of Respondents 0 55

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 27% 15

Between 1 - 3 years 0% 0 29% 16

Between 4 - 10 years 0% 0 24% 13

More than 10 years 0% 0 20% 11

Number of Respondents 0 55

Preferred method of communication - GAANN

Individual Email 0% 0 84% 46

Blast/Distribution list email 0% 0 7% 4

Telephone 0% 0 2% 1

Webinar 0% 0 2% 1

Other 0% 0 5% 3

Number of Respondents 0 55
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 179

Grants for State Assessments

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 0 17 32 32 29 32 32

ED Staff/Coordination -- 73 82 84 92 88 90

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- 75 84 87 94 91 93

Responsiveness to your questions -- 70 86 82 94 90 89

Professionalism -- -- -- -- 96 94 94

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- 71 82 83 90 83 87

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- 88 85 84

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 85

Online Resources -- 64 70 74 76 76 71

Ability to find specific information -- 61 63 74 76 76 68

Quality of content -- -- -- -- 80 77 72

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- 64 67 73 75 75 72

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- 74 76 67

Ability to navigate within the site -- 63 66 70 71 76 70

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- 74 76 72

Documents -- 69 76 80 84 82 84

Clarity -- 71 76 79 84 81 85

Organization of information -- 69 79 81 85 84 84

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs -- 66 73 80 83 81 84

Relevance to your areas of need -- 71 77 82 86 87 85

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face -- 66 71 80 81 78 83

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- 81 76 79

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- 83 78 81

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- 80 76 77

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- 85 79 84

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- 86 81 82

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- 79 74 76

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- 73 73 73

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- 83 81 81

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- 87 88 89

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- 84 80 81

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- 85 79 76

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- 81 80 73

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- 81 78 72

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- 83 61 87

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI -- 63 66 75 76 77 74

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- 68 74 80 83 83 81

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- 61 62 72 73 75 72

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- 58 60 70 70 71 69
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 180

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Trust -- -- -- 78 86 81 83

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- 78 86 81 83

Grants for State Assessments

Provides assistance that enhances capacity to 

implement -- 68 69 77 79 77 80

Provides support that is responsive to my State’s needs 

to implement -- 67 69 80 84 79 82

Helps address implementation challenges -- 60 66 75 83 79 82

Provides information about key changes to requirements -- 71 72 82 83 82 82
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 181

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and services

Strongly agree 41% 13 41% 13

Agree 56% 18 50% 16

Disagree 0% 0 6% 2

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 3% 1 3% 1

Number of Respondents 32 32

Job role

Project/State Director 88% 28 97% 31

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 0% 0

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 13% 4 3% 1

Number of Respondents 32 32

Length of time in role

Less than one year 3% 1 9% 3

Between 1 - 3 years 31% 10 22% 7

Between 4 - 10 years 50% 16 47% 15

More than 10 years 16% 5 22% 7

Number of Respondents 32 32

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 22% 7 25% 8

Did not receive 78% 25 75% 24

Number of Respondents 32 32
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 182

High School Equivalency Program – Migrant Education

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 25 34 37 0 39 41 40

ED Staff/Coordination 91 89 92 -- 93 91 94

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 90 90 92 -- 94 94 95

Responsiveness to your questions 89 89 93 -- 87 85 94

Professionalism -- -- -- -- 97 97 98

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 90 89 93 -- 92 88 92

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- 93 92 95

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 94 87 91 -- -- -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 93 92 89 -- 91 89 89

Online Resources 83 80 77 -- 83 85 83

Ability to find specific information 80 79 71 -- 84 84 83

Quality of content -- -- -- -- 85 87 81

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 84 81 74 -- 83 83 82

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- 83 89 85

Ability to navigate within the site 83 79 77 -- 80 83 84

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- 83 85 83

Documents 85 84 84 -- 90 90 91

Clarity 86 84 83 -- 91 91 91

Organization of information 85 86 82 -- 91 92 91

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 86 84 85 -- 89 90 91

Relevance to your areas of need 85 86 85 -- 92 91 92

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 85 83 84 -- 87 88 91

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- 91 92 93

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- 91 93 94

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- 90 92 91

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- 92 96 96

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- 94 91 95

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- 88 91 91

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- 91 90 89

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- 86 88 87

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- 91 90 91

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- 86 88 87

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- 82 85 84

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- 83 85 84

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- 89 90 88

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- 94 96 93

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI 85 82 80 -- 88 88 88

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 88 86 84 -- 92 91 93

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 83 79 76 -- 86 86 86

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 84 79 77 -- 85 86 85
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 183

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Trust -- -- -- -- 92 91 94

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- 92 91 94

High School Equivalency Program - Migrant 

Education

Accessibility and responsiveness of program staff 93 86 90 -- 91 85 93

Timely resolution of questions by program staff 88 83 87 -- 88 84 90

Clarity of information provided by program staff 88 86 88 -- 89 89 92

Usefulness and relevance of technical assistance 

strategies 89 85 88 -- 91 87 92

Usefulness of updated technical assistance resources 

pages on HEP.ed.gov -- -- 86 -- 85 87 91
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 184

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and services

Strongly agree 68% 28 63% 25

Agree 32% 13 35% 14

Disagree 0% 0 3% 1

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 41 40

Job role

Project/State Director 88% 36 90% 36

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 10% 4 5% 2

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 2% 1 5% 2

Number of Respondents 41 40

Length of time in role

Less than one year 7% 3 8% 3

Between 1 - 3 years 32% 13 28% 11

Between 4 - 10 years 34% 14 35% 14

More than 10 years 27% 11 30% 12

Number of Respondents 41 40

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 7% 3 20% 8

Did not receive 93% 38 80% 32

Number of Respondents 41 40
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 185

Hispanic Serving Institutions – STEM and Articulation Program

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 0 51 67

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- -- 92 91

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- 92 90

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- 90 92

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- 95 95

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- -- 90 91

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- 92 92

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- -- 91 89

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- -- 91 85

Online Resources -- -- -- -- -- 77 74

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- -- -- 75 73

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- 78 74

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- -- -- 78 74

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- 76 73

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- -- -- 74 74

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- 77 72

Information in Application Package -- -- -- -- -- 89 92

Program Purpose -- -- -- -- -- 89 92

Program Priorities -- -- -- -- -- 91 92

Selection Criteria -- -- -- -- -- 88 92

Review Process -- -- -- -- -- 85 91

Budget Information and Forms -- -- -- -- -- 87 90

Deadline for Submission -- -- -- -- -- 93 95

Dollar Limit on Awards -- -- -- -- -- 87 92

Page Limitation Instructions -- -- -- -- -- 89 91

Formatting Instructions -- -- -- -- -- 86 91

Program Contact -- -- -- -- -- 93 95

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- 78 80

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- 83 79

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- 78 72

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- 87 88

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- 79 83

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- 80 82

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- 63 73

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- 84 87

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- 84 87

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 186

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

ACSI -- -- -- -- -- 82 81

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- -- 88 87

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- -- 77 77

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- -- 79 78

Trust -- -- -- -- -- 90 88

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- 90 88

Hispanic Serving Institutions - STEM and Articulation 

Program

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- 88 91

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- 89 91

Ability to resolve issues -- -- -- -- -- 88 89

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication -- -- -- -- -- 87 89

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or 

financial issues -- -- -- -- -- 88 91

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- -- -- -- -- 79 84

Availability of funds with adequate time for 

implementation -- -- -- -- -- 82 85

Transparency of how funds are distributed among 

grantees -- -- -- -- -- 85 89

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- -- -- -- -- 84 90

Frequency of communication -- -- -- -- -- 78 89

Clarity of communication -- -- -- -- -- 85 90
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 187

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 67% 34 58% 39

Agree 33% 17 40% 27

Disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 1% 1

Number of Respondents 51 67

Job role

Project/State Director 86% 44 82% 55

School Officer 2% 1 3% 2

Grant Coordinator 8% 4 9% 6

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 4% 2 6% 4

Number of Respondents 51 67

Length of time in role

Less than one year 4% 2 46% 31

Between 1 - 3 years 25% 13 19% 13

Between 4 - 10 years 61% 31 31% 21

More than 10 years 10% 5 3% 2

Number of Respondents 51 67

Preferred method of communication - HSI STEM

Individual Email 82% 42 81% 54

Blast/Distribution list email 10% 5 9% 6

Telephone 4% 2 0% 0

Webinar 2% 1 6% 4

Other 2% 1 4% 3

Number of Respondents 51 67
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 188

IDEA – Part C Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities Program

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 34 36 31 36 22 28 27

ED Staff/Coordination 88 85 88 82 83 90 91

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 90 87 89 82 84 90 90

Responsiveness to your questions 87 83 88 82 79 90 92

Professionalism -- -- -- -- 91 97 98

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 87 82 86 81 78 86 89

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- 83 88 89

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- 89 79 85 90 87

Online Resources 68 68 69 66 66 64 58

Ability to find specific information 63 62 68 65 63 61 55

Quality of content -- -- -- -- 76 75 68

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 69 65 69 64 67 63 58

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- 63 65 58

Ability to navigate within the site 63 64 64 65 62 60 55

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- 62 64 54

Documents 71 76 75 78 73 77 79

Clarity 74 77 76 79 74 76 78

Organization of information 74 77 76 80 77 81 81

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 72 73 77 77 70 75 77

Relevance to your areas of need 70 79 76 78 77 80 81

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 66 75 72 74 65 74 76

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- 73 78 80

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- 72 85 82

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- 72 75 74

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- 73 72 80

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- 74 80 85

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- 72 75 84

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- 73 77 74

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- 80 81 83

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- 80 85 85

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- 78 79 82

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- 76 77 80

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- 76 79 78

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- 81 81 79

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- 89 92 92

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI 71 69 72 69 74 76 76

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 78 76 80 77 79 83 80

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 69 66 70 64 72 72 73

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 65 62 65 64 69 73 74
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 189

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Trust -- -- -- 77 79 84 88

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- 77 79 84 88

IDEA – Part C Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities 

Program

Clarity of information received in developing applications 

and reports -- 82 81 74 84 80 84

Timeliness of responses -- 89 86 79 86 83 88

OSEP-funded TA provider -- 88 90 88 87 85 81

Education Department-funded TA provider -- 57 44 46 51 45 46

Professional associations -- 79 80 81 80 83 70

Conferences where research is presented -- 71 70 70 74 65 63

Books -- 59 48 55 49 44 44

Journal articles -- 63 59 60 60 59 50

Personal interaction with peers -- 82 79 80 87 75 72

IDEAS that work website -- -- 59 60 58 67 60

The Department`s new IDEA website -- -- 59 56 59 64 49

osep.grads360.org -- -- 76 70 62 62 50
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 190

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and services

Strongly agree 43% 12 44% 12

Agree 54% 15 52% 14

Disagree 4% 1 0% 0

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 4% 1

Number of Respondents 28 27

Job role

Project/State Director 64% 18 70% 19

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 29% 8 26% 7

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 7% 2 4% 1

Number of Respondents 28 27

Length of time in role

Less than one year 14% 4 30% 8

Between 1 - 3 years 21% 6 22% 6

Between 4 - 10 years 43% 12 26% 7

More than 10 years 21% 6 22% 6

Number of Respondents 28 27

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 months

Received tech assistance 79% 22 74% 20

Did not receive 21% 6 26% 7

Number of Respondents 28 27

Frequency of technical assistance and support from State lead - IDEA-Part C

At least weekly 11% 3 0% 0

Monthly 68% 19 89% 24

Quarterly 14% 4 11% 3

Yearly 7% 2 0% 0

State Lead does not contact me 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 28 27

Helpfulness if automated grant submission and approval process - IDEAPart C

Rated 0 - Not Helpful 4% 1 0% 0

Rated 1 4% 1 0% 0

Rated 2 4% 1 7% 2

Rated 3 11% 3 4% 1

Rated 4 11% 3 19% 5

Rated 5 - Very Helpful 68% 19 70% 19

Don ́t know/Not applicable 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 28 27
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 191

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

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 38 32 32 30 23 31 27

ED Staff/Coordination 84 87 90 84 77 83 90

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 89 88 94 84 75 82 89

Responsiveness to your questions 83 85 89 85 80 82 91

Professionalism -- -- -- -- 87 95 97

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 79 84 89 83 73 78 87

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- 76 83 89

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- 90 81 69 78 87

Online Resources 65 66 73 64 64 72 73

Ability to find specific information 59 63 71 63 63 72 73

Quality of content -- -- -- -- 71 80 78

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 63 65 72 63 65 73 72

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- 64 70 71

Ability to navigate within the site 60 62 72 63 61 69 70

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- 64 69 74

Documents 75 75 78 76 74 79 84

Clarity 73 74 76 77 75 81 85

Organization of information 77 77 79 77 77 82 88

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 74 73 76 73 71 77 82

Relevance to your areas of need 80 79 82 79 79 82 86

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 71 70 77 74 70 72 81

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- 74 78 82

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- 77 78 84

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- 71 74 82

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- 76 79 80

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- 79 83 87

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- 74 79 80

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- 69 76 76

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- 75 81 86

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- 77 80 88

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- 74 80 79

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- 72 79 85

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- 71 76 84

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- 72 78 84

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- 93 94 94

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI 66 69 75 71 71 74 76

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 72 77 81 76 75 82 84

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 63 65 72 70 70 70 72

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 62 64 70 67 66 69 72
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 192

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Trust -- -- -- 81 75 81 81

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- 81 75 81 81

IDEA – State Directors of Special Education (Part B) 

Program

Clarity of information received in developing applications 

and reports -- 77 82 75 74 80 84

Timeliness of responses -- 81 86 79 79 84 83

OSEP-funded TA provider -- 82 88 85 89 89 88

Education Department-funded TA provider -- 57 57 62 68 73 77

Professional associations -- 81 83 81 80 80 78

Conferences where research is presented -- 75 75 74 68 69 70

Books -- 54 54 52 52 53 54

Journal articles -- 66 61 60 64 62 59

Personal interaction with peers -- 87 82 80 83 81 86

IDEAS that work website -- -- 73 61 68 75 69

The Department`s new IDEA website -- -- 74 60 65 76 70

osep.grads360.org -- -- 85 71 68 68 59
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 193

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and services

Strongly agree 35% 11 37% 10

Agree 58% 18 52% 14

Disagree 6% 2 7% 2

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 4% 1

Number of Respondents 31 27

Job role

Project/State Director 90% 28 78% 21

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 3% 1 4% 1

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 7% 2

Other 6% 2 11% 3

Number of Respondents 31 27

Length of time in role

Less than one year 10% 3 15% 4

Between 1 - 3 years 29% 9 15% 4

Between 4 - 10 years 45% 14 41% 11

More than 10 years 16% 5 30% 8

Number of Respondents 31 27

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 months

Received tech assistance 84% 26 85% 23

Did not receive 16% 5 15% 4

Number of Respondents 31 27

Frequency of technical assistance and support from State lead - IDEAPart B

At least weekly 16% 5 11% 3

Monthly 71% 22 74% 20

Quarterly 13% 4 7% 2

Yearly 0% 0 7% 2

State Lead does not contact me 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 31 27

Frequency of policy discussion with OSEP staff - - IDEA-Part B

At least weekly 10% 3 0% 0

Monthly 42% 13 48% 13

Quarterly 29% 9 30% 8

Yearly 6% 2 15% 4

Never 13% 4 7% 2

Number of Respondents 31 27
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 194

IDEA National Centers Program

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 11 17 3

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- 92 94 99

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- 99 96 96

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- 92 95 100

Professionalism -- -- -- -- 96 97 100

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- 96 93 100

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- 92 92 100

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- 92 93 100

Online Resources -- -- -- -- 75 68 63

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- -- 75 65 63

Quality of content -- -- -- -- 80 72 63

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- -- 80 67 56

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- 74 68 83

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- -- 74 69 52

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- 73 70 85

Documents -- -- -- -- 81 82 96

Clarity -- -- -- -- 79 84 100

Organization of information -- -- -- -- 83 81 96

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs -- -- -- -- 79 85 100

Relevance to your areas of need -- -- -- -- 85 80 96

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face -- -- -- -- 78 81 89

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- 79 68 72

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- 87 79 63

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- 81 71 85

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- 70 55 56

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- 89 73 70

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- 78 69 74

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- 62 54 89

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- 83 82 90

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- 90 86 96

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- 88 81 89

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- 81 83 89

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- 78 79 89

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- 83 83 81

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 91

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- 84 86 100

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- 78 69 85

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- 71 73 85
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 195

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Trust -- -- -- -- 87 78 100

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- 87 78 100
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 196

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and services

Strongly agree 53% 9 67% 2

Agree 41% 7 33% 1

Disagree 6% 1 0% 0

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 17 3

Job role

Project/State Director 88% 15 100% 3

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 6% 1 0% 0

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 6% 1 0% 0

Number of Respondents 17 3

Length of time in role

Less than one year 6% 1 0% 0

Between 1 - 3 years 6% 1 0% 0

Between 4 - 10 years 65% 11 67% 2

More than 10 years 24% 4 33% 1

Number of Respondents 17 3

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 18% 3 0% 0

Did not receive 82% 14 100% 3

Number of Respondents 17 3
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 197

Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies Program

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 39 20 23 24 21 38 42

ED Staff/Coordination 70 77 75 75 79 87 90

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 69 78 74 78 81 90 93

Responsiveness to your questions 66 69 71 67 66 82 86

Professionalism -- -- -- -- 89 93 95

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 71 81 73 73 74 84 88

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- 81 85 90

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 72 81 74 75 -- -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 70 81 74 72 79 84 85

Online Resources 65 68 54 55 61 67 69

Ability to find specific information 59 65 48 51 63 69 67

Quality of content -- -- -- -- 68 70 75

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 64 67 50 55 59 67 68

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- 58 66 66

Ability to navigate within the site 63 66 53 54 59 66 66

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- 60 66 70

Documents 69 78 64 69 79 82 87

Clarity 70 78 66 68 78 82 87

Organization of information 72 79 67 69 79 83 89

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 68 76 59 66 79 80 86

Relevance to your areas of need 70 79 65 75 81 84 89

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 65 78 61 65 77 80 85

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- 63 70 77

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- 67 74 81

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- 61 71 74

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- 73 77 83

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- 64 76 83

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- 60 62 72

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- 54 62 70

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- 69 75 81

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- 74 83 88

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- 68 78 82

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- 64 73 77

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- 64 72 80

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- 63 66 76

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- 87 79 77

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI 58 66 57 59 64 74 77

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 65 72 61 65 70 79 81

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 55 65 57 54 60 70 75

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 54 61 54 57 60 71 75
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 198

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Trust -- -- -- 63 71 84 85

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- 63 71 84 85

Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local 

Educational Agencies Program

Provides assistance that enhances capacity to 

implement -- 63 71 69 68 82 86

Provides support that is responsive to my State’s needs 

to implement -- 61 64 67 65 83 87

Helps address implementation challenges 54 67 60 65 66 81 84

Provides information about key changes to requirements -- 69 67 68 69 83 87
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 199

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and services

Strongly agree 34% 13 29% 12

Agree 61% 23 69% 29

Disagree 5% 2 0% 0

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 2% 1

Number of Respondents 38 42

Job role

Project/State Director 79% 30 76% 32

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 5% 2 14% 6

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 16% 6 10% 4

Number of Respondents 38 42

Length of time in role

Less than one year 11% 4 10% 4

Between 1 - 3 years 34% 13 36% 15

Between 4 - 10 years 37% 14 33% 14

More than 10 years 18% 7 21% 9

Number of Respondents 38 42

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 55% 21 48% 20

Did not receive 45% 17 52% 22

Number of Respondents 38 42
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 200

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

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 0 31 13

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- -- 77 84

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- 82 84

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- 72 80

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- 89 92

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- -- 75 81

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- 72 79

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- -- 83 79

Online Resources -- -- -- -- -- 69 69

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- -- -- 66 65

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- 72 73

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- -- -- 73 72

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- 72 64

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- -- -- 66 70

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- 71 67

Documents -- -- -- -- -- 71 77

Clarity -- -- -- -- -- 70 78

Organization of information -- -- -- -- -- 73 75

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs -- -- -- -- -- 70 79

Relevance to your areas of need -- -- -- -- -- 72 78

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face -- -- -- -- -- 70 74

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- 62 68

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- 63 63

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- 60 62

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- 75 80

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- 62 79

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- 57 62

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- 58 63

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- 77 82

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- 74 85

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- 79 79

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- 79 79

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- 79 79

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- 82 86

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 -- -- -- -- -- 69 71

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- -- 76 79

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- -- 66 70

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- -- 63 62
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 201

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Trust -- -- -- -- -- 72 75

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- 72 75

Independent Living Services for Older Individuals 

Who Are Blind (IL-OIB)

Data Collection and Reporting -- -- -- -- -- 75 72

Fiscal/Grant Management -- -- -- -- -- 72 69

Program Performance -- -- -- -- -- 71 64

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- 79 79

Training efforts/Dissemination of info - TAC at MSU -- -- -- -- -- 94 94

Utility of website for entering required data, retrieving and 

revising reports -- -- -- -- -- 69 78

Ease of navigating website -- -- -- -- -- 63 73

Usefulness of information available on the website -- -- -- -- -- 65 68

Website technical support -- -- -- -- -- 67 67
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 202

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and services

Strongly agree 23% 7 38% 5

Agree 71% 22 54% 7

Disagree 3% 1 8% 1

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 3% 1 0% 0

Number of Respondents 31 13

Job role

Project/State Director 52% 16 54% 7

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 10% 3 8% 1

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 39% 12 38% 5

Number of Respondents 31 13

Length of time in role

Less than one year 6% 2 8% 1

Between 1 - 3 years 26% 8 38% 5

Between 4 - 10 years 39% 12 23% 3

More than 10 years 29% 9 31% 4

Number of Respondents 31 13

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 42% 13 38% 5

Did not receive 58% 18 62% 8

Number of Respondents 31 13
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 203

Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Education Agencies Program

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 91 73 56 49 72 86 51

ED Staff/Coordination 87 87 85 86 86 88 91

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 87 87 85 87 88 87 91

Responsiveness to your questions 88 89 87 88 86 87 89

Professionalism -- -- -- -- 92 91 94

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 86 85 83 83 85 86 89

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- 84 87 89

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 87 84 85 81 -- -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 85 85 83 80 83 87 90

Online Resources 82 83 79 71 79 78 82

Ability to find specific information 77 82 74 68 78 77 82

Quality of content -- -- -- -- 82 81 83

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 83 84 80 71 81 78 82

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- 78 78 83

Ability to navigate within the site 82 83 82 70 80 77 81

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- 79 76 82

Documents 83 81 78 78 81 81 87

Clarity 82 81 78 79 82 81 86

Organization of information 84 81 81 78 84 83 86

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 83 82 77 79 81 80 87

Relevance to your areas of need 84 82 79 78 81 81 88

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 83 82 76 78 79 81 86

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- 77 79 82

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- 78 80 83

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- 74 77 80

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- 84 83 88

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- 81 81 85

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- 75 78 81

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- 68 73 75

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- 75 79 82

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- 83 86 87

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- 75 80 82

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- 75 79 81

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- 71 77 80

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- 71 75 77

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- 85 81 96

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI 80 80 74 75 77 80 81

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 84 84 81 81 81 84 83

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 78 78 70 72 75 78 80

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 79 77 71 69 74 78 79
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 204

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Trust -- -- -- 79 83 87 88

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- 79 83 87 88

Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Education 

Agencies Program

Timeliness of staff 89 90 87 85 90 87 90

Quality of support 88 91 85 84 85 86 88

Comprehensiveness of documents 87 89 83 82 86 83 88

Ease of using EASIE system 89 89 82 84 84 81 86

Quality of training via webinars 86 87 80 81 81 80 85
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 205

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and services

Strongly agree 44% 38 49% 25

Agree 47% 40 49% 25

Disagree 6% 5 2% 1

Strongly disagree 2% 2 0% 0

Does not apply 1% 1 0% 0

Number of Respondents 86 51

Job role

Project/State Director 21% 18 29% 15

School Officer 13% 11 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 34% 29 49% 25

Superintendent 17% 15 8% 4

Business Manager 1% 1 0% 0

Other 14% 12 14% 7

Number of Respondents 86 51

Length of time in role

Less than one year 10% 9 2% 1

Between 1 - 3 years 31% 27 31% 16

Between 4 - 10 years 38% 33 41% 21

More than 10 years 20% 17 25% 13

Number of Respondents 86 51

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 12% 10 20% 10

Did not receive 88% 76 80% 41

Number of Respondents 86 51

Greatest need for technical assistance - OIE FORM~

Establishing parent committees 16% 14 22% 11

Expanding membership of parent committees 30% 26 40% 20

Verifying student information 10% 9 12% 6

Using the EASIE system 26% 22 16% 8

Allowable uses of funds 38% 33 54% 27

General grant program requirements, deadlines and milestones 35% 30 20% 10

Using the G5 system 29% 25 24% 12

Number of Respondents 86 50
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 206

Innovative Approaches to Literacy Program

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 0 20 19 0 31 33 33

ED Staff/Coordination -- 97 97 -- 90 91 93

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- 97 95 -- 91 91 91

Responsiveness to your questions -- 97 98 -- 86 90 92

Professionalism -- -- -- -- 95 95 98

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- 99 97 -- 91 91 92

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- 89 91 93

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 89

Online Resources -- 86 89 -- 84 91 86

Ability to find specific information -- 87 86 -- 82 88 86

Quality of content -- -- -- -- 87 92 87

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- 88 91 -- 83 91 85

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- 84 90 88

Ability to navigate within the site -- 83 89 -- 83 92 88

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- 83 91 87

Documents -- 86 91 -- 89 86 90

Clarity -- 86 90 -- 88 88 90

Organization of information -- 84 90 -- 88 89 91

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs -- 87 91 -- 90 85 90

Relevance to your areas of need -- 87 91 -- 88 85 90

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face -- 86 92 -- 88 85 90

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- 83 87 83

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- 84 89 82

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- 84 87 85

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- 80 84 80

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- 84 88 86

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- 87 90 87

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- 78 86 81

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- 88 86 87

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- 90 86 88

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- 89 86 88

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- 89 86 87

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- 91 84 86

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- 82 79 83

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- 100 96 95

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI -- 85 87 -- 88 89 85

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- 93 92 -- 91 92 89

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- 81 87 -- 86 87 82

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- 81 82 -- 85 87 83
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 207

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Trust -- -- -- -- 94 94 86

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- 94 94 86

Innovative Approaches to Literacy Program

Ability to work with you to resolve issues -- 97 97 -- 86 89 91

Quality of information or feedback received from IAL 

program staff -- 96 95 -- 88 91 91

Overall satisfaction with service provided by the 

representative -- 98 97 -- 89 91 91

Helpfulness of performance reporting -- -- -- -- 85 92 83
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 208

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and services

Strongly agree 85% 28 55% 18

Agree 12% 4 39% 13

Disagree 3% 1 3% 1

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 3% 1

Number of Respondents 33 33

Job role

Project/State Director 30% 10 48% 16

School Officer 3% 1 3% 1

Grant Coordinator 36% 12 42% 14

Superintendent 6% 2 3% 1

Business Manager 9% 3 0% 0

Other 15% 5 3% 1

Number of Respondents 33 33

Length of time in role

Less than one year 3% 1 48% 16

Between 1 - 3 years 55% 18 21% 7

Between 4 - 10 years 27% 9 12% 4

More than 10 years 15% 5 18% 6

Number of Respondents 33 33

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 9% 3 21% 7

Did not receive 91% 30 79% 26

Number of Respondents 33 33
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 209

Magnet Schools Assistance Program

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 0 0 0 29 33 37 22

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- 84 87 88 91

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- 84 87 86 90

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- 80 79 82 87

Professionalism -- -- -- -- 96 96 97

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- 87 86 89 90

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- 88 88 93

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 91

Online Resources -- -- -- 75 83 79 81

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- 75 82 78 79

Quality of content -- -- -- -- 83 79 81

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- 77 83 77 81

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- 83 81 79

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- 75 81 78 81

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- 87 78 81

Documents -- -- -- 81 85 85 90

Clarity -- -- -- 79 87 86 90

Organization of information -- -- -- 82 89 87 91

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs -- -- -- 81 84 85 89

Relevance to your areas of need -- -- -- 85 85 86 89

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face -- -- -- 82 80 82 87

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- 84 83 87

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- 87 84 89

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- 77 77 80

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- 89 87 93

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- 89 89 91

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- 81 83 86

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- 80 77 82

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- 82 78 82

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- 85 82 84

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- 81 77 80

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- 81 76 80

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- 79 78 78

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- 80 73 80

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- 76 89 79

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI -- -- -- 79 79 78 80

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- 83 82 83 84

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- 78 77 75 78

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- 77 76 74 76
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 210

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Trust -- -- -- 83 86 87 88

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- 83 86 87 88

Magnet Schools Assistance Program

Program Officer’s knowledge of project and ability to 

meet your specific needs -- -- -- -- -- 84 93

Content knowledge of your Program Officer in supporting 

your program’s success -- -- -- -- -- 84 90

MSAP Technical Assistance Center -- -- -- 85 86 83 95
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 211

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and services

Strongly agree 49% 18 59% 13

Agree 46% 17 32% 7

Disagree 5% 2 9% 2

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 37 22

Job role

Project/State Director 76% 28 86% 19

School Officer 5% 2 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 14% 5 9% 2

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 5% 2 5% 1

Number of Respondents 37 22

Length of time in role

Less than one year 3% 1 14% 3

Between 1 - 3 years 32% 12 27% 6

Between 4 - 10 years 54% 20 45% 10

More than 10 years 11% 4 14% 3

Number of Respondents 37 22

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 8% 3 41% 9

Did not receive 92% 34 59% 13

Number of Respondents 37 22
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 212

Master’s Degree Programs at Historically Black Colleges and Universities

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 0 0 8

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- -- -- 91

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- -- 94

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- -- 96

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- -- 97

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- -- 86

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

Online Resources -- -- -- -- -- -- 73

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- -- -- -- 69

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- -- 72

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- -- -- -- 72

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- -- 81

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- -- -- -- 74

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- -- 74

Information in Application Package -- -- -- -- -- -- 87

Program Purpose -- -- -- -- -- -- 86

Program Priorities -- -- -- -- -- -- 86

Selection Criteria -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

Review Process -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

Budget Information and Forms -- -- -- -- -- -- 88

Deadline for Submission -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Dollar Limit on Awards -- -- -- -- -- -- 90

Page Limitation Instructions -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Formatting Instructions -- -- -- -- -- -- 85

Program Contact -- -- -- -- -- -- 92

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 88

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- -- 81

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- -- 90

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

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- -- 86

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- -- 72

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- -- 90

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- -- 90

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 213

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

ACSI -- -- -- -- -- -- 85

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- -- -- 90

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- -- -- 81

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- -- -- 82

Trust -- -- -- -- -- -- 94

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- -- 94

Master's Degree Programs at Historically Black 

Colleges and Universities

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- -- 96

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- -- 95

Ability to resolve issues -- -- -- -- -- -- 97

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 96

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or 

financial issues -- -- -- -- -- -- 94

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- -- -- -- -- -- 86

Availability of funds with adequate time for 

implementation -- -- -- -- -- -- 93

Transparency of how funds are distributed among 

grantees -- -- -- -- -- -- 86

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- -- -- -- -- -- 92

Frequency of communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 93

Clarity of communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 92
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 214

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 0% 0 25% 2

Agree 0% 0 63% 5

Disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 13% 1

Number of Respondents 0 8

Job role

Project/State Director 0% 0 75% 6

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 13% 1

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 13% 1

Number of Respondents 0 8

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 0% 0

Between 1 - 3 years 0% 0 25% 2

Between 4 - 10 years 0% 0 63% 5

More than 10 years 0% 0 13% 1

Number of Respondents 0 8
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 215

Migrant Education Programs (Title I, Part C)

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 33 37 32 35 34 37 27

ED Staff/Coordination 82 87 92 86 85 87 88

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 86 91 93 88 92 91 90

Responsiveness to your questions 81 85 90 83 73 75 83

Professionalism -- -- -- -- 93 93 94

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 77 87 93 88 78 83 87

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- 87 91 88

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 86 90 91 89 -- -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 81 84 92 86 84 86 84

Online Resources 61 75 82 80 74 78 74

Ability to find specific information 58 77 83 81 75 76 72

Quality of content -- -- -- -- 76 81 77

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 62 78 80 79 73 77 74

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- 74 77 72

Ability to navigate within the site 61 76 81 79 72 79 73

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- 73 79 73

Documents 78 81 88 86 87 86 85

Clarity 79 83 87 86 87 86 84

Organization of information 79 85 89 87 89 88 85

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 80 77 89 85 87 86 85

Relevance to your areas of need 79 82 87 88 88 88 86

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 75 78 86 86 84 83 85

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- 76 76 79

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- 76 79 82

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- 72 73 74

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- 81 78 80

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- 78 80 81

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- 74 72 79

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- 72 74 74

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- 79 80 81

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- 80 86 85

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- 81 80 81

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- 78 80 77

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- 77 78 77

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- 80 81 84

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- 70 87 87

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI 72 75 79 79 78 78 80

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 79 80 85 85 81 84 84

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 70 72 77 77 78 74 76

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 66 71 75 76 75 74 79
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 216

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Trust -- -- -- 78 85 86 91

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- 78 85 86 91
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 217

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and services

Strongly agree 46% 17 44% 12

Agree 46% 17 52% 14

Disagree 3% 1 0% 0

Strongly disagree 5% 2 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 4% 1

Number of Respondents 37 27

Job role

Project/State Director 97% 36 100% 27

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 3% 1 0% 0

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 37 27

Length of time in role

Less than one year 8% 3 11% 3

Between 1 - 3 years 41% 15 30% 8

Between 4 - 10 years 35% 13 37% 10

More than 10 years 16% 6 22% 6

Number of Respondents 37 27

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 14% 5 19% 5

Did not receive 86% 32 81% 22

Number of Respondents 37 27

Technical assistance topics needed - MEP~

Child Eligibility 4% 1 7% 2

Comprehensive Needs Assessment 26% 6 4% 1

Continuation of Services 35% 8 4% 1

Fiscal Requirements 0% 0 26% 7

Interstate Coordination 0% 0 30% 8

Parental/Family Engagement 0% 0 11% 3

Priority for Services 0% 0 4% 1

Program Evaluation 0% 0 11% 3

Identification and Recruitment Quality Control 0% 0 7% 2

Records Exchange including MSIX 0% 0 7% 2

Identification and Recruitment Methods and Strategies 0% 0 15% 4

Re-interviewing 0% 0 4% 1

Service Delivery Models 0% 0 22% 6

Service Delivery Plan including MPOs 0% 0 15% 4

Subgranting 0% 0 11% 3

Service Delivery Strategies 35% 8 30% 8

Subrecipient Monitoring 0% 0 30% 8

Data Management and Reporting 0% 0 37% 10

Other 13% 3 7% 2

Number of Respondents 23 27
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 218

Minority Science and Engineering Improvement Program

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 0 0 40

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- -- -- 98

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- -- 99

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- -- 97

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- -- 99

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- -- -- 98

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- -- 98

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- -- -- 99

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- -- -- 98

Online Resources -- -- -- -- -- -- 90

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- -- -- -- 91

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- -- 90

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- -- -- -- 90

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- -- 91

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- -- -- -- 90

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- -- 88

Information in Application Package -- -- -- -- -- -- 94

Program Purpose -- -- -- -- -- -- 94

Program Priorities -- -- -- -- -- -- 94

Selection Criteria -- -- -- -- -- -- 91

Review Process -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Budget Information and Forms -- -- -- -- -- -- 90

Deadline for Submission -- -- -- -- -- -- 97

Dollar Limit on Awards -- -- -- -- -- -- 95

Page Limitation Instructions -- -- -- -- -- -- 97

Formatting Instructions -- -- -- -- -- -- 95

Program Contact -- -- -- -- -- -- 98

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- -- 85

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- -- 96

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- -- 92

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- -- 91

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- -- 82

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- -- 96

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- -- 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 -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 219

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

ACSI -- -- -- -- -- -- 92

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- -- -- 95

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- -- -- 91

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- -- -- 91

Trust -- -- -- -- -- -- 99

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- -- 99

Minority Science and Engineering Improvement 

Program

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- -- 97

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- -- 97

Ability to resolve issues -- -- -- -- -- -- 98

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 99

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or 

financial issues -- -- -- -- -- -- 99

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- -- -- -- -- -- 92

Availability of funds with adequate time for 

implementation -- -- -- -- -- -- 96

Transparency of how funds are distributed among 

grantees -- -- -- -- -- -- 97

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- -- -- -- -- -- 97

Frequency of communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 97

Clarity of communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 99
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 220

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 0% 0 88% 35

Agree 0% 0 13% 5

Disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 0 40

Job role

Project/State Director 0% 0 90% 36

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 3% 1

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 8% 3

Number of Respondents 0 40

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 10% 4

Between 1 - 3 years 0% 0 48% 19

Between 4 - 10 years 0% 0 23% 9

More than 10 years 0% 0 20% 8

Number of Respondents 0 40

Preferred method of communication - MSEIP

Individual Email 0% 0 80% 32

Blast/Distribution list email 0% 0 5% 2

Telephone 0% 0 3% 1

Webinar 0% 0 5% 2

Other 0% 0 8% 3

Number of Respondents 0 40
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 221

National Professional Development Program

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 64 29 46 45 51 73 48

ED Staff/Coordination 84 91 95 86 92 91 91

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 87 93 94 88 96 91 94

Responsiveness to your questions 83 86 95 83 88 89 87

Professionalism -- -- -- -- 94 95 96

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 84 94 98 91 91 87 88

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- 92 93 92

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 88 95 97 86 93 91 93

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 90 97 95 91 91 91 91

Online Resources 76 66 77 73 80 86 74

Ability to find specific information 78 66 79 73 80 86 74

Quality of content -- -- -- -- 83 87 74

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 76 68 78 73 80 87 75

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- 79 86 76

Ability to navigate within the site 77 64 75 70 79 84 73

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- 78 85 73

Documents 80 80 81 83 90 88 86

Clarity 79 82 80 84 90 89 88

Organization of information 81 83 81 84 90 89 89

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 80 77 79 80 89 88 85

Relevance to your areas of need 80 81 83 86 92 89 87

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 79 79 81 81 88 87 84

Information in Application Package -- -- -- -- -- 91 91

Program Purpose -- -- -- -- -- 94 93

Program Priorities -- -- -- -- -- 94 90

Selection Criteria -- -- -- -- -- 91 91

Review Process -- -- -- -- -- 86 87

Budget Information and Forms -- -- -- -- -- 86 87

Deadline for Submission -- -- -- -- -- 94 95

Dollar Limit on Awards -- -- -- -- -- 91 90

Page Limitation Instructions -- -- -- -- -- 88 92

Formatting Instructions -- -- -- -- -- 87 87

Program Contact -- -- -- -- -- 95 93

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- 77 81 76

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- 80 82 75

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- 79 84 80

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- 72 80 71

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- 82 85 76

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- 82 84 83

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- 65 72 76
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 222

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- 85 81 79

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- 87 86 84

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- 85 83 83

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- 88 84 81

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- 84 81 75

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- 84 77 75

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- 93 84 83

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI 78 71 77 81 80 83 80

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 83 80 82 86 85 89 85

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 75 66 76 78 79 80 78

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 74 66 71 77 76 80 76

Trust -- -- -- 93 92 92 87

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- 93 92 92 87

National Professional Development Program

Technical assistance from OELA office -- -- -- 80 86 87 83

Technical assistance from program officer 72 74 84 82 82 85 84

Usefulness of OELA website 76 70 79 78 79 81 75

Usefulness of NCELA website 78 77 86 82 86 84 81

Usefulness of OELA Facebook 62 78 85 69 64 67 70
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 223

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and services

Strongly agree 64% 47 54% 26

Agree 29% 21 40% 19

Disagree 4% 3 2% 1

Strongly disagree 1% 1 2% 1

Does not apply 1% 1 2% 1

Number of Respondents 73 48

Job role

Project/State Director 75% 55 88% 42

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 19% 14 13% 6

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 5% 4 0% 0

Number of Respondents 73 48

Length of time in role

Less than one year 4% 3 21% 10

Between 1 - 3 years 5% 4 10% 5

Between 4 - 10 years 67% 49 52% 25

More than 10 years 23% 17 17% 8

Number of Respondents 73 48

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 7% 5 15% 7

Did not receive 93% 68 85% 41

Number of Respondents 73 48

Frequency of tech assistance from OELA office - NPD

At least weekly 3% 2 2% 1

Monthly 18% 13 25% 12

Quarterly 52% 38 52% 25

Yearly 27% 20 21% 10

Number of Respondents 73 48

Frequency of monitoring tech support - NPD

At least weekly 3% 2 0% 0

Monthly 14% 10 27% 13

Quarterly 64% 47 56% 27

Yearly 19% 14 17% 8

Number of Respondents 73 48

Frequency of visiting OELA website - NPD

Weekly 1% 1 8% 4

Monthly 32% 23 35% 17

Every few months 62% 45 48% 23

Never 5% 4 8% 4

Number of Respondents 73 48

Frequency of visiting NCELA website - NPD

Weekly 5% 4 13% 6

Monthly 37% 27 33% 16

Every few months 53% 39 48% 23

Never 4% 3 6% 3

Number of Respondents 73 48
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 224

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Frequency of visiting OELA Facebook - NPD

Daily 0% 0 2% 1

Weekly 4% 3 13% 6

Monthly 8% 6 6% 3

Every few months 11% 8 17% 8

Never 77% 56 63% 30

Number of Respondents 73 48
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 225

National Resource Centers Program

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 0 0 35

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- -- -- 93

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- -- 95

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- -- 95

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- -- 97

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- -- -- 94

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- -- 90

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- -- -- 88

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- -- -- 90

Online Resources -- -- -- -- -- -- 73

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- -- -- -- 72

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- -- 77

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- -- -- -- 74

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- -- 75

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- -- -- -- 72

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- -- 69

Information in Application Package -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

Program Purpose -- -- -- -- -- -- 85

Program Priorities -- -- -- -- -- -- 87

Selection Criteria -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

Review Process -- -- -- -- -- -- 76

Budget Information and Forms -- -- -- -- -- -- 77

Deadline for Submission -- -- -- -- -- -- 91

Dollar Limit on Awards -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

Page Limitation Instructions -- -- -- -- -- -- 79

Formatting Instructions -- -- -- -- -- -- 75

Program Contact -- -- -- -- -- -- 92

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 64

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 70

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- -- 51

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

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- -- 73

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- -- 59

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- -- 45

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 226

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

ACSI -- -- -- -- -- -- 76

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- -- -- 84

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- -- -- 70

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- -- -- 71

Trust -- -- -- -- -- -- 87

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- -- 87

National Resource Centers Program

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- -- 92

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- -- 94

Ability to resolve issues -- -- -- -- -- -- 94

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 93

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or 

financial issues -- -- -- -- -- -- 93

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- -- -- -- -- -- 51

Availability of funds with adequate time for 

implementation -- -- -- -- -- -- 51

Transparency of how funds are distributed among 

grantees -- -- -- -- -- -- 64

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- -- -- -- -- -- 86

Frequency of communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 86

Clarity of communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Supports instruction in fields needed to provide full 

understanding -- -- -- -- -- -- 92

Supports work in language aspects of professional and 

other fields of study -- -- -- -- -- -- 93

Supports research and training in international studies -- -- -- -- -- -- 93

Teaching of any modern foreign language -- -- -- -- -- -- 91

Instruction in fields needed to provide full understanding -- -- -- -- -- -- 92

Research and training in international studies -- -- -- -- -- -- 91

Language aspects of professional and other fields of 

study -- -- -- -- -- -- 91

Instruction and research on issues in world affairs -- -- -- -- -- -- 92
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 227

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 0% 0 49% 17

Agree 0% 0 46% 16

Disagree 0% 0 6% 2

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 0 35

Job role

Project/State Director 0% 0 74% 26

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 23% 8

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 3% 1

Number of Respondents 0 35

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 17% 6

Between 1 - 3 years 0% 0 26% 9

Between 4 - 10 years 0% 0 34% 12

More than 10 years 0% 0 23% 8

Number of Respondents 0 35

Preferred method of communication - NRC

Individual Email 0% 0 80% 28

Blast/Distribution list email 0% 0 11% 4

Telephone 0% 0 3% 1

Other 0% 0 6% 2

Number of Respondents 0 35
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 228

Native American and Alaska Native Children in School Program

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 13 12 9 16 15 14 10

ED Staff/Coordination 82 83 95 84 91 92 90

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 85 76 92 83 91 90 91

Responsiveness to your questions 81 89 99 83 91 91 92

Professionalism -- -- -- -- 96 94 94

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 81 79 94 81 92 92 88

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- 91 93 94

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 80 84 94 83 87 90 84

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 78 81 97 84 87 92 82

Online Resources 67 60 84 67 78 87 76

Ability to find specific information 70 74 81 69 79 86 73

Quality of content -- -- -- -- 78 90 68

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 68 58 79 67 79 87 76

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- 77 86 78

Ability to navigate within the site 67 58 83 66 77 87 84

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- 74 88 83

Documents 78 74 84 77 88 88 88

Clarity 76 73 81 78 89 87 89

Organization of information 76 75 84 78 90 90 90

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 79 77 85 79 88 87 89

Relevance to your areas of need 79 75 84 77 87 87 83

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 78 69 84 76 84 87 87

Information in Application Package -- -- -- -- -- 89 91

Program Purpose -- -- -- -- -- 90 93

Program Priorities -- -- -- -- -- 90 93

Selection Criteria -- -- -- -- -- 90 91

Review Process -- -- -- -- -- 93 87

Budget Information and Forms -- -- -- -- -- 88 89

Deadline for Submission -- -- -- -- -- 90 90

Dollar Limit on Awards -- -- -- -- -- 88 93

Page Limitation Instructions -- -- -- -- -- 91 90

Formatting Instructions -- -- -- -- -- 88 88

Program Contact -- -- -- -- -- 92 91

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- 79 84 74

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- 83 86 77

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- 76 76 74

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- 79 79 64

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- 82 90 73

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- 76 87 82

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- 73 84 71
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 229

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- 84 84 75

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- 90 89 74

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- 83 85 78

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- 83 85 81

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- 81 84 78

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- 83 80 74

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- 92 89 78

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI 75 66 89 76 85 85 81

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 81 70 95 81 91 91 82

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 74 65 86 74 87 80 79

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 69 63 85 70 76 83 81

Trust -- -- -- 82 89 89 84

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- 82 89 89 84

Native American and Alaska Native Children in 

School Program

Technical assistance from OELA office -- -- -- 78 87 85 76

Technical assistance from program officer 68 79 91 78 90 87 80

Usefulness of OELA website 66 72 85 76 76 84 67

Usefulness of NCELA website 76 80 88 77 76 75 75

Usefulness of OELA Facebook 22 -- 100 53 58 44 61
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 230

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and services

Strongly agree 57% 8 50% 5

Agree 43% 6 50% 5

Disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 14 10

Job role

Project/State Director 71% 10 50% 5

School Officer 0% 0 10% 1

Grant Coordinator 21% 3 40% 4

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 7% 1 0% 0

Other 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 14 10

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 30% 3

Between 1 - 3 years 36% 5 20% 2

Between 4 - 10 years 43% 6 30% 3

More than 10 years 21% 3 20% 2

Number of Respondents 14 10

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 29% 4 20% 2

Did not receive 71% 10 80% 8

Number of Respondents 14 10

Frequency of tech assistance from OELA office - NAM

At least weekly 0% 0 0% 0

Monthly 7% 1 0% 0

Quarterly 79% 11 70% 7

Yearly 14% 2 30% 3

Number of Respondents 14 10

Frequency of monitoring tech support - NAM

At least weekly 0% 0 0% 0

Monthly 21% 3 40% 4

Quarterly 79% 11 50% 5

Yearly 0% 0 10% 1

Number of Respondents 14 10

Frequency of visiting OELA website - NAM

Daily 0% 0 0% 0

Weekly 0% 0 10% 1

Monthly 21% 3 40% 4

Every few months 79% 11 50% 5

Never 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 14 10

Frequency of visiting NCELA website - NAM

Weekly 0% 0 0% 0

Monthly 21% 3 20% 2

Every few months 71% 10 40% 4

Never 7% 1 40% 4

Number of Respondents 14 10
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 231

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Frequency of visiting OELA Facebook - NAM

Weekly 0% 0 0% 0

Monthly 0% 0 0% 0

Every few months 14% 2 10% 1

Never 86% 12 90% 9

Number of Respondents 14 10
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 232

Native American Career and Technical Education Program

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 20 19 27

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- 82 83 92

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- 84 83 92

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- 70 75 93

Professionalism -- -- -- -- 92 90 96

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- 80 81 92

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- 83 87 94

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- 83 85 89

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- 92 78 88

Online Resources -- -- -- -- 69 69 70

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- -- 67 69 69

Quality of content -- -- -- -- 74 74 73

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- -- 69 73 67

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- 65 67 71

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- -- 65 67 72

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- 69 66 73

Documents -- -- -- -- 75 81 81

Clarity -- -- -- -- 72 80 81

Organization of information -- -- -- -- 76 80 81

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs -- -- -- -- 75 84 81

Relevance to your areas of need -- -- -- -- 80 83 80

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face -- -- -- -- 78 84 82

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- 68 70 67

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- 71 70 65

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- 73 73 68

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- 74 77 60

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- 70 69 82

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- 68 72 69

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- 52 57 60

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- 70 65 91

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- 80 77 91

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- 73 64 91

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- 65 71 88

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- 63 53 88

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- 51 51 94

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- 44 100 93

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI -- -- -- -- 76 67 81

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- 83 73 84

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- 70 65 81

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- 73 61 78
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 233

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Trust -- -- -- -- 91 83 87

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- 91 83 87

Native American Career and Technical Education 

Program

PCRN’s usefulness to your program -- -- -- -- 76 67 75

Effectiveness of DATE in helping you implement grant 

programs

-- -- -- -- 68 62 80

TA received on project implementation and budget 

questions -- -- -- -- 76 81 87

Usefulness and relevance of project director meeting in 

providing TA -- -- -- -- 79 70 85
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 234

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and services

Strongly agree 47% 9 56% 15

Agree 26% 5 41% 11

Disagree 11% 2 4% 1

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 16% 3 0% 0

Number of Respondents 19 27

Job role

Project/State Director 74% 14 74% 20

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 16% 3 19% 5

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 11% 2 7% 2

Number of Respondents 19 27

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 41% 11

Between 1 - 3 years 26% 5 19% 5

Between 4 - 10 years 53% 10 30% 8

More than 10 years 21% 4 11% 3

Number of Respondents 19 27

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 11% 2 22% 6

Did not receive 89% 17 78% 21

Number of Respondents 19 27
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 235

Native American Serving Non-Tribal Institutions Program

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 12 14 12

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- 85 84 86

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- 86 87 83

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- 86 74 79

Professionalism -- -- -- -- 89 89 94

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- 87 84 87

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- 87 85 88

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- 78 100 83

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- 70 92 81

Online Resources -- -- -- -- 66 74 71

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- -- 69 69 69

Quality of content -- -- -- -- 70 78 67

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- -- 66 72 74

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- 67 73 73

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- -- 60 70 74

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- 61 77 72

Information in Application Package -- -- -- -- 87 87 85

Program Purpose -- -- -- -- 87 95 85

Program Priorities -- -- -- -- 86 90 85

Selection Criteria -- -- -- -- 84 92 86

Review Process -- -- -- -- 86 90 84

Budget Information and Forms -- -- -- -- 85 89 83

Deadline for Submission -- -- -- -- 89 81 87

Dollar Limit on Awards -- -- -- -- 86 89 87

Page Limitation Instructions -- -- -- -- 86 94 82

Formatting Instructions -- -- -- -- 84 94 80

Program Contact -- -- -- -- 90 97 88

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- 75 78 73

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- 74 78 70

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- 79 77 70

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- 81 91 84

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- 79 80 74

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- 80 77 82

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- 61 67 63

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- 74 70 66

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- 74 70 66

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 236

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

ACSI -- -- -- -- 83 74 71

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- 92 80 78

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- 78 71 69

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- 77 70 67

Trust -- -- -- -- 91 88 84

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- 91 88 84

Native American Serving Non-Tribal Institutions 

Program

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- 82 78 81

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies 

and procedures -- -- -- -- 89 89 79

Ability to resolve issues -- -- -- -- 83 89 81

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication -- -- -- -- 83 81 81

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or 

financial issues -- -- -- -- 80 77 83

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- -- -- -- 72 81 69

Availability of funds with adequate time for 

implementation -- -- -- -- 71 85 80

Transparency of how funds are distributed among 

grantees -- -- -- -- 78 91 74

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- -- -- -- 78 84 80

Frequency of communication -- -- -- -- 67 79 75

Clarity of communication -- -- -- -- 79 84 79
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 237

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 43% 6 33% 4

Agree 57% 8 67% 8

Disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 14 12

Job role

Project/State Director 93% 13 83% 10

School Officer 0% 0 8% 1

Grant Coordinator 7% 1 8% 1

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 14 12

Length of time in role

Less than one year 21% 3 8% 1

Between 1 - 3 years 21% 3 17% 2

Between 4 - 10 years 57% 8 50% 6

More than 10 years 0% 0 25% 3

Number of Respondents 14 12

Preferred method of communication - NASNTI

Individual Email 79% 11 75% 9

Blast/Distribution list email 14% 2 0% 0

Telephone 7% 1 8% 1

Other 0% 0 17% 2

Number of Respondents 14 12
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 238

Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Education Program

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 2 3 3

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- 85 80 91

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- 83 74 89

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- 78 78 96

Professionalism -- -- -- -- 100 96 96

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- 83 78 89

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- 83 74 89

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- 100 94 89

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- 78 72 89

Online Resources -- -- -- -- 94 90 87

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- -- 94 94 85

Quality of content -- -- -- -- 94 94 89

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- -- 94 94 89

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- 94 89 81

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- -- 94 83 93

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- 94 83 83

Documents -- -- -- -- 91 84 87

Clarity -- -- -- -- 89 85 85

Organization of information -- -- -- -- 89 81 85

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs -- -- -- -- 94 85 85

Relevance to your areas of need -- -- -- -- 89 85 93

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face -- -- -- -- 94 85 85

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- 81 78 85

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- 89 100 93

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- 83 81 85

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- 89 56 78

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- 83 83 93

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- 83 89 89

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- 56 59 56

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- 72 89 89

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- 78 100 93

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- 78 89 89

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- 67 94 85

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- 72 89 85

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- 67 83 96

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 85

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- 89 78 89

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- 78 70 85

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- 67 63 81
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 239

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Trust -- -- -- -- 100 85 89

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- 100 85 89

Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Education 

Program

PCRN’s usefulness to your program -- -- -- -- 83 94 89

Effectiveness of DATE in helping you implement grant 

programs

-- -- -- -- 78 94 89

TA received on project implementation and budget 

questions -- -- -- -- 83 83 96

Usefulness and relevance of project director meeting in 

providing TA -- -- -- -- 94 100 96
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 240

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and services

Strongly agree 33% 1 67% 2

Agree 33% 1 33% 1

Disagree 33% 1 0% 0

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 3 3

Job role

Project/State Director 67% 2 33% 1

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 33% 1 0% 0

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 67% 2

Number of Respondents 3 3

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 0% 0

Between 1 - 3 years 33% 1 33% 1

Between 4 - 10 years 0% 0 33% 1

More than 10 years 67% 2 33% 1

Number of Respondents 3 3

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 0% 0 0% 0

Did not receive 100% 3 100% 3

Number of Respondents 3 3
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 241

Native Hawaiian Education Act Program/Education of Native Hawaiian

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 24 30 39

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- 93 91 94

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- 92 93 93

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- 89 87 89

Professionalism -- -- -- -- 98 95 98

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- 92 91 95

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- 94 91 95

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- 93 84 91

Online Resources -- -- -- -- 79 84 76

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- -- 79 85 76

Quality of content -- -- -- -- 82 86 76

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- -- 79 84 77

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- 80 84 78

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- -- 78 83 75

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- 74 81 74

Documents -- -- -- -- 86 85 88

Clarity -- -- -- -- 86 84 89

Organization of information -- -- -- -- 87 84 89

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs -- -- -- -- 87 87 87

Relevance to your areas of need -- -- -- -- 87 86 87

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face -- -- -- -- 84 85 86

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- 77 76 84

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- 82 81 85

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- 76 72 82

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- 73 74 83

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- 79 83 89

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- 82 78 89

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- 74 68 77

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- 81 81 87

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- 89 85 92

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- 83 79 86

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- 79 79 87

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- 83 79 86

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- 81 74 79

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- 89 78 94

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI -- -- -- -- 82 82 84

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- 88 87 88

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- 81 79 82

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- 77 79 80
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 242

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Trust -- -- -- -- 90 92 95

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- 90 92 95

Native Hawaiian Education Act Program/Education of 

Native Hawaiian

Helpfulness of NHE staff technical assistance -- -- -- -- -- -- 90

Program Purpose -- -- -- -- -- -- 90

Program Priorities -- -- -- -- -- -- 92

Selection Criteria -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Application Review Information -- -- -- -- -- -- 86

Budget Information and Forms -- -- -- -- -- -- 88

Deadline for Submission -- -- -- -- -- -- 92

Range of Awards -- -- -- -- -- -- 92

Recommended Page Limit Instructions -- -- -- -- -- -- 92

Formatting Instructions -- -- -- -- -- -- 88

Program Contact -- -- -- -- -- -- 95

Helpfulness of NHE website info -- -- -- -- -- -- 79
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 243

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and services

Strongly agree 67% 20 54% 21

Agree 27% 8 38% 15

Disagree 3% 1 3% 1

Strongly disagree 3% 1 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 5% 2

Number of Respondents 30 39

Job role

Project/State Director 67% 20 72% 28

School Officer 0% 0 3% 1

Grant Coordinator 7% 2 13% 5

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 7% 2 0% 0

Other 20% 6 13% 5

Number of Respondents 30 39

Length of time in role

Less than one year 7% 2 18% 7

Between 1 - 3 years 33% 10 21% 8

Between 4 - 10 years 23% 7 23% 9

More than 10 years 37% 11 38% 15

Number of Respondents 30 39

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 7% 2 21% 8

Did not receive 93% 28 79% 31

Number of Respondents 30 39

Staff initiated tech assistance during past 3-6 months - NHE

Initiated tech assistance 70% 21 85% 33

Did not initiate 30% 9 15% 6

Number of Respondents 30 39

How technical assistance occurred - NHE~

NHE Webinar 0% 0 82% 27

NHE Website 0% 0 18% 6

Conference call with NHE staff 0% 0 64% 21

Email communication with NHE staff 0% 0 73% 24

Number of Respondents 0 33

TA most helpful - NHE~

Written guidance 0% 0 54% 21

Email communication 0% 0 82% 32

Annual meetings/conferences 0% 0 44% 17

Webinars 0% 0 67% 26

Videoconferences 0% 0 59% 23

Other 0% 0 3% 1

Number of Respondents 0 39
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 244

Neglected and Delinquent State and Local Agency Programs

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 32 32 36 25 24 32 33

ED Staff/Coordination 79 75 81 68 83 83 84

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 79 80 81 66 85 86 87

Responsiveness to your questions 73 70 80 65 78 80 85

Professionalism -- -- -- -- 89 90 91

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 79 73 76 69 82 80 87

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- 81 82 77

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 83 80 83 74 -- -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 82 81 83 75 81 78 81

Online Resources 73 68 70 58 72 65 66

Ability to find specific information 72 69 70 58 70 62 65

Quality of content -- -- -- -- 71 65 67

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 72 66 70 57 72 63 64

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- 69 63 66

Ability to navigate within the site 73 70 71 61 75 64 66

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- 74 73 68

Documents 72 66 72 67 76 67 66

Clarity 72 66 75 70 78 69 67

Organization of information 75 67 75 70 81 71 68

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 70 67 70 63 75 65 65

Relevance to your areas of need 72 67 71 70 77 66 66

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 71 63 69 60 71 61 63

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- 78 71 66

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- 82 76 71

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- 72 63 56

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- 81 76 74

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- 79 74 71

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- 76 66 62

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- 74 70 61

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- 82 65 62

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- 78 69 79

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- 81 72 68

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- 76 68 61

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- 77 64 60

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- 78 64 62

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- 94 55 39

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI 62 60 65 55 77 56 45

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 66 67 73 62 81 61 49

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 59 56 60 52 74 52 42

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 61 56 62 51 75 52 43
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 245

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Trust -- -- -- 70 84 69 57

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- 70 84 69 57

Neglected and Delinquent State and Local Agency 

Programs

Responsiveness in answering questions - Tech 

Assistance Center (NDTAC) 80 79 81 87 84 65 61

Sufficiency of the guidance provided in responses to 

questions -- -- -- -- 86 66 60

Meeting program compliance requirements - US 

Department of Education 81 70 76 60 72 76 72

Assisting you to impact performance results - US 

Department of Education 79 64 70 57 74 74 68

Support quality for collecting/submitting data - US 

Department of Education -- -- -- -- 77 76 67

Meeting program compliance requirements - Tech 

Assistance Center (NDTAC) 85 80 83 80 87 60 42

Assisting to impact performance results - Tech 

Assistance Center (NDTAC) 84 83 82 78 85 58 41

Support quality for collecting/submitting data - Tech 

Assistance Center (NDTAC) -- -- -- -- 85 58 39
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 246

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and services

Strongly agree 9% 3 12% 4

Agree 50% 16 36% 12

Disagree 16% 5 33% 11

Strongly disagree 13% 4 15% 5

Does not apply 13% 4 3% 1

Number of Respondents 32 33

Job role

Project/State Director 72% 23 61% 20

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 25% 8 33% 11

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 3% 1 6% 2

Number of Respondents 32 33

Length of time in role

Less than one year 19% 6 27% 9

Between 1 - 3 years 25% 8 27% 9

Between 4 - 10 years 47% 15 36% 12

More than 10 years 9% 3 9% 3

Number of Respondents 32 33

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 69% 22 79% 26

Did not receive 31% 10 21% 7

Number of Respondents 32 33
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 247

Payments for Federal Property (Section 7002)

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 0 77 48 47 96 97 93

ED Staff/Coordination -- 84 90 90 91 89 87

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- 85 90 88 91 89 89

Responsiveness to your questions -- 79 90 91 91 88 86

Professionalism -- -- -- -- 95 92 93

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- 83 90 91 91 88 87

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- 89 86 87

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- 84 -- -- -- -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- 83 -- -- -- -- --

Online Resources -- 78 81 81 83 78 80

Ability to find specific information -- 71 79 78 82 77 80

Quality of content -- -- -- -- 85 82 83

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- 80 83 83 84 79 80

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- 84 80 84

Ability to navigate within the site -- 78 77 78 82 75 80

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- 84 77 81

Documents -- 78 82 85 87 83 84

Clarity -- 76 82 84 87 83 84

Organization of information -- 79 84 85 88 84 84

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs -- 79 81 86 87 83 84

Relevance to your areas of need -- 80 83 86 87 83 83

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face -- 77 82 86 87 83 83

ACSI -- 76 77 83 84 82 81

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- 79 82 89 89 87 86

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- 75 75 78 80 78 78

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- 73 75 81 82 79 79

Trust -- -- -- 86 88 85 85

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- 86 88 85 85
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 248

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and services

Strongly agree 48% 47 42% 39

Agree 46% 45 53% 49

Disagree 5% 5 2% 2

Strongly disagree 0% 0 2% 2

Does not apply 0% 0 1% 1

Number of Respondents 97 93

Job role

Project/State Director 0% 0 1% 1

School Officer 9% 9 6% 6

Grant Coordinator 10% 10 9% 8

Superintendent 37% 36 38% 35

Business Manager 33% 32 34% 32

Other 10% 10 12% 11

Number of Respondents 97 93

Length of time in role

Less than one year 2% 2 5% 5

Between 1 - 3 years 32% 31 23% 21

Between 4 - 10 years 26% 25 26% 24

More than 10 years 40% 39 46% 43

Number of Respondents 97 93

Contacted Impact Aid Program for technical assistance - PFP

Contacted 51% 49 49% 46

Did not contact 49% 48 51% 47

Number of Respondents 97 93

Used written instruction and guidance documents for application -

PFP

Used 91% 88 91% 85

Did not use 9% 9 9% 8

Number of Respondents 97 93

Participated in meetings where Sec 7002 prog info provided - PFP

Participated 51% 49 58% 54

Did not participate 49% 48 42% 39

Number of Respondents 97 93

Presentation or materials helped understand responsibilities - PFP

Helped understand 98% 48 94% 51

Did not help understand 2% 1 6% 3

Number of Respondents 49 54
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 249

Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 7003)

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 81 77 49 50 100 120 98

ED Staff/Coordination 79 85 85 88 88 89 90

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 78 85 87 89 89 89 90

Responsiveness to your questions 80 84 82 88 87 87 86

Professionalism -- -- -- -- 92 92 94

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 77 81 86 87 87 88 89

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- 84 87 91

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 75 82 -- -- -- -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 78 85 -- -- -- -- --

Online Resources 77 78 75 75 79 77 81

Ability to find specific information 72 73 73 73 79 76 79

Quality of content -- -- -- -- 81 81 81

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 79 79 75 76 80 77 81

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- 77 77 82

Ability to navigate within the site 74 78 74 74 76 75 80

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- 79 78 80

Documents 75 78 79 83 82 82 87

Clarity 76 78 78 83 82 82 87

Organization of information 77 80 80 84 83 83 87

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 75 78 79 82 82 81 87

Relevance to your areas of need 76 80 79 83 81 81 86

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 76 77 77 82 80 80 87

ACSI 71 74 75 79 78 78 84

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 76 79 80 82 82 84 88

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 67 72 73 78 76 75 82

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 69 71 71 78 76 75 82

Trust -- -- -- 85 82 87 88

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- 85 82 87 88

Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 

7003)

Ease of reaching person who could address concern 72 81 75 83 87 84 86

Ability to resolve your issue 73 82 78 85 87 87 87
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 250

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and services

Strongly agree 41% 49 54% 53

Agree 52% 62 43% 42

Disagree 3% 4 1% 1

Strongly disagree 3% 3 1% 1

Does not apply 2% 2 1% 1

Number of Respondents 120 98

Job role

Project/State Director 2% 2 2% 2

School Officer 9% 11 3% 3

Grant Coordinator 18% 21 16% 16

Superintendent 24% 29 24% 24

Business Manager 27% 32 31% 30

Other 21% 25 23% 23

Number of Respondents 120 98

Length of time in role

Less than one year 5% 6 8% 8

Between 1 - 3 years 27% 32 22% 22

Between 4 - 10 years 35% 42 40% 39

More than 10 years 33% 40 30% 29

Number of Respondents 120 98

Contacted the Impact Aid Program for technical assistance - FCC

Contacted 64% 77 56% 55

Did not contact 36% 43 44% 43

Number of Respondents 120 98

Used written instruction and guidance documents for Impact Aid application -

FCC

Used 93% 111 88% 86

Did not use 8% 9 12% 12

Number of Respondents 120 98

Attended meeting where Sec 7003 prog info or review process provided - FCC

Participated 57% 69 72% 71

Did not participate 43% 51 28% 27

Number of Respondents 120 98

Presentation or materials helped understand responsibilities - FCC

Helped understand 94% 65 100% 71

Did not help understand 6% 4 0% 0

Number of Respondents 69 71

School district contacted by Impact Aid Program in past year - FCC

Contacted 34% 41 43% 42

Was not contacted 66% 79 57% 56

Number of Respondents 120 98

Letter provided sufficient explanation to prepare documents for review - FCC

Provided sufficient explanation 95% 39 93% 39

Did not provide sufficient explanation 5% 2 7% 3

Number of Respondents 41 42

Receive timely communications regarding outcome of review - FCC

Received 70% 84 67% 66

Did not receive 30% 36 33% 32

Number of Respondents 120 98
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 251

Predominantly Black Institutions (PBI) Competitive

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 0 0 8

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- -- -- 93

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- -- 96

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- -- 88

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- -- 94

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- -- -- 92

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- -- 96

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- -- -- 96

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Online Resources -- -- -- -- -- -- 84

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- -- -- -- 86

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- -- 88

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- -- -- -- 85

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- -- 82

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- -- -- -- 85

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- -- 79

Information in Application Package -- -- -- -- -- -- 96

Program Purpose -- -- -- -- -- -- 94

Program Priorities -- -- -- -- -- -- 94

Selection Criteria -- -- -- -- -- -- 94

Review Process -- -- -- -- -- -- 93

Budget Information and Forms -- -- -- -- -- -- 91

Deadline for Submission -- -- -- -- -- -- 100

Dollar Limit on Awards -- -- -- -- -- -- 98

Page Limitation Instructions -- -- -- -- -- -- 98

Formatting Instructions -- -- -- -- -- -- 93

Program Contact -- -- -- -- -- -- 100

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 84

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- -- 97

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- -- 81

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- -- 72

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 252

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

ACSI -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- -- -- 90

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- -- -- 81

Trust -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Predominantly Black Institutions - Historical

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- -- 90

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- -- 99

Ability to resolve issues -- -- -- -- -- -- 94

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 92

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or 

financial issues -- -- -- -- -- -- 90

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- -- -- -- -- -- 92

Availability of funds with adequate time for 

implementation -- -- -- -- -- -- 94

Transparency of how funds are distributed among 

grantees -- -- -- -- -- -- 88

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- -- -- -- -- -- 86

Frequency of communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 81

Clarity of communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Predominantly Black Institutions (PBI) Competitive

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- -- 90

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- -- 99

Ability to resolve issues -- -- -- -- -- -- 94

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 92

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or 

financial issues -- -- -- -- -- -- 90

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- -- -- -- -- -- 92

Availability of funds with adequate time for 

implementation -- -- -- -- -- -- 94

Transparency of how funds are distributed among 

grantees -- -- -- -- -- -- 88

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- -- -- -- -- -- 86

Frequency of communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 81

Clarity of communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 89
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 253

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 0% 0 50% 4

Agree 0% 0 50% 4

Disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 0 8

Job role

Project/State Director 0% 0 50% 4

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 25% 2

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 13% 1

Other 0% 0 13% 1

Number of Respondents 0 8

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 13% 1

Between 1 - 3 years 0% 0 13% 1

Between 4 - 10 years 0% 0 50% 4

More than 10 years 0% 0 25% 2

Number of Respondents 0 8

Preferred method of communication - PBI

Individual Email 0% 0 100% 8

Number of Respondents 0 8

Preferred method of communication - PBI-C

Individual Email 0% 0 100% 8

Number of Respondents 0 8
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 254

Predominantly Black Institutions (PBI) Formula

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- -- -- 95

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- -- 94

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- -- 93

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- -- 100

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- -- -- 96

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- -- 94

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- -- -- 93

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Online Resources -- -- -- -- -- -- 82

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- -- -- -- 81

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- -- 81

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- -- 81

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- -- 86

Information in Application Package -- -- -- -- -- -- 95

Program Purpose -- -- -- -- -- -- 100

Program Priorities -- -- -- -- -- -- 100

Selection Criteria -- -- -- -- -- -- 92

Review Process -- -- -- -- -- -- 92

Budget Information and Forms -- -- -- -- -- -- 92

Deadline for Submission -- -- -- -- -- -- 100

Dollar Limit on Awards -- -- -- -- -- -- 92

Page Limitation Instructions -- -- -- -- -- -- 100

Formatting Instructions -- -- -- -- -- -- 100

Program Contact -- -- -- -- -- -- 100

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 90

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 92

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- -- 86

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- -- 100

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- -- 92

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- -- 92

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- -- 92

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- -- 92

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 255

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

ACSI -- -- -- -- -- -- 88

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- -- -- 92

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- -- -- 86

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- -- -- 86

Trust -- -- -- -- -- -- 94

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- -- 94

Predominantly Black Institutions - Historical

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- -- 92

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- -- 92

Ability to resolve issues -- -- -- -- -- -- 94

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 94

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or 

financial issues -- -- -- -- -- -- 94

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- -- -- -- -- -- 86

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 -- -- -- -- -- -- 94

Frequency of communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 92

Clarity of communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 94

Predominantly Black Institutions (PBI) Formula

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- -- 92

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- -- 92

Ability to resolve issues -- -- -- -- -- -- 94

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 94

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or 

financial issues -- -- -- -- -- -- 94

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- -- -- -- -- -- 86

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 -- -- -- -- -- -- 94

Frequency of communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 92

Clarity of communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 94
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 256

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 0% 0 75% 3

Agree 0% 0 25% 1

Disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 0 4

Job role

Project/State Director 0% 0 75% 3

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 25% 1

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 0 4

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 25% 1

Between 1 - 3 years 0% 0 0% 0

Between 4 - 10 years 0% 0 50% 2

More than 10 years 0% 0 25% 1

Number of Respondents 0 4

Preferred method of communication - PBI

Individual Email 0% 0 100% 4

Number of Respondents 0 4

Preferred method of communication - PBI-F

Individual Email 0% 0 100% 4

Number of Respondents 0 4
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 257

Promise Neighborhoods

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 0 0 0 11 12 11 16

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- 81 93 92 94

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- 82 93 93 94

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- 81 94 94 97

Professionalism -- -- -- -- 96 95 97

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- 82 89 90 94

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- 90 90 93

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 91

Online Resources -- -- -- 63 78 76 71

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- 62 81 75 68

Quality of content -- -- -- -- 77 75 67

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- 66 80 76 70

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- 76 75 71

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- 61 78 75 71

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- 78 78 69

Documents -- -- -- 72 84 87 83

Clarity -- -- -- 70 87 87 83

Organization of information -- -- -- 73 84 88 84

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs -- -- -- 72 86 87 84

Relevance to your areas of need -- -- -- 74 81 88 81

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face -- -- -- 70 79 86 81

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- 74 77 75

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- 81 79 79

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- 61 67 62

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- 76 77 78

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- 84 87 87

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- 76 78 74

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- 64 74 70

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- 80 85 77

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- 82 89 74

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- 72 85 78

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- 81 87 76

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- 78 77 72

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- 90 90 85

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- 90 78 84

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI -- -- -- 78 79 83 76

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- 81 83 88 81

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- 79 77 79 74

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- 75 77 80 74
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 258

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Trust -- -- -- 74 87 93 86

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- 74 87 93 86

Promise Neighborhoods

ED Program Contacts quality of assistance -- -- -- 87 86 89 94

Urban Institute`s Needs Assessment Quality -- -- -- 79 75 84 78

Urban Institute`s other services -- -- -- 76 74 87 70

SCORECARD system -- -- -- 77 65 74 67
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 259

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and services

Strongly agree 55% 6 50% 8

Agree 45% 5 44% 7

Disagree 0% 0 6% 1

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 11 16

Job role

Project/State Director 73% 8 88% 14

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 9% 1 6% 1

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 18% 2 6% 1

Number of Respondents 11 16

Length of time in role

Less than one year 9% 1 31% 5

Between 1 - 3 years 36% 4 0% 0

Between 4 - 10 years 45% 5 63% 10

More than 10 years 9% 1 6% 1

Number of Respondents 11 16

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 months

Received tech assistance 55% 6 63% 10

Did not receive 45% 5 38% 6

Number of Respondents 11 16

Asked for assistance in areas unrelated to fiscal or grant admin issues -

PN

Asked 45% 5 44% 7

Did not ask 55% 6 56% 9

Number of Respondents 11 16
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 260

Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans Program

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 0 17 0 0 15 17 19

ED Staff/Coordination -- 82 -- -- 85 99 98

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- 91 -- -- 90 100 100

Responsiveness to your questions -- 75 -- -- 74 99 100

Professionalism -- -- -- -- 86 100 100

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- 88 -- -- 82 100 96

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- 86 98 95

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- 79 -- -- 93 99 98

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- 79 -- -- 93 97 94

Online Resources -- 77 -- -- 82 89 76

Ability to find specific information -- 76 -- -- 83 88 78

Quality of content -- -- -- -- 85 92 78

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- 77 -- -- 82 90 74

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- 86 90 76

Ability to navigate within the site -- 75 -- -- 83 88 78

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- 80 87 74

Information in Application Package -- 88 -- -- 90 97 91

Program Purpose -- 85 -- -- 89 97 89

Program Priorities -- 89 -- -- 90 96 90

Selection Criteria -- 87 -- -- 87 94 88

Review Process -- 85 -- -- 89 94 89

Budget Information and Forms -- 81 -- -- 85 96 88

Deadline for Submission -- 94 -- -- 92 98 94

Dollar Limit on Awards -- 93 -- -- 92 98 93

Page Limitation Instructions -- 87 -- -- 93 98 93

Formatting Instructions -- 87 -- -- 88 94 92

Program Contact -- 97 -- -- 93 99 92

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- 82 91 85

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- 79 90 89

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- 88 90 81

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- 85 95 93

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- 81 93 87

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- 83 92 85

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- 73 86 73

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- 77 96 92

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- 77 96 92

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 261

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

ACSI -- 76 -- -- 86 93 90

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- 82 -- -- 88 97 91

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- 74 -- -- 84 91 89

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- 72 -- -- 84 91 89

Trust -- -- -- -- 87 99 98

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- 87 99 98

Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for 

Hispanic Americans Program

Responsiveness to your questions -- 84 -- -- 75 98 97

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies 

and procedures -- 84 -- -- 77 97 94

Ability to resolve issues -- 83 -- -- 75 99 98

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication -- 83 -- -- 74 97 98

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or 

financial issues -- 79 -- -- 76 97 98

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- -- -- -- 90 95 90

Availability of funds with adequate time for 

implementation -- -- -- -- 90 96 88

Transparency of how funds are distributed among 

grantees -- -- -- -- 84 99 95

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- -- -- -- 84 97 96

Frequency of communication -- -- -- -- 76 99 98

Clarity of communication -- -- -- -- 79 98 98
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 262

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 94% 16 89% 17

Agree 6% 1 11% 2

Disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 17 19

Job role

Project/State Director 88% 15 84% 16

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 6% 1 11% 2

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 6% 1 5% 1

Number of Respondents 17 19

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 16% 3

Between 1 - 3 years 65% 11 63% 12

Between 4 - 10 years 18% 3 5% 1

More than 10 years 18% 3 16% 3

Number of Respondents 17 19

Preferred method of communication - PPOHA

Individual Email 88% 15 63% 12

Blast/Distribution list email 6% 1 32% 6

Other 6% 1 5% 1

Number of Respondents 17 19
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 263

REAP – Rural and Low Income School (RLIS) Program

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 11 6 25 31 33 28 39

ED Staff/Coordination 87 85 78 84 90 90 92

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 86 85 85 82 90 90 91

Responsiveness to your questions 87 78 70 79 87 86 92

Professionalism -- -- -- -- 96 95 95

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 84 94 77 84 89 91 90

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- 88 90 92

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 89 78 79 84 -- -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 83 83 75 80 85 88 87

Online Resources 79 71 67 70 78 86 81

Ability to find specific information 78 74 68 73 77 86 81

Quality of content -- -- -- -- 79 88 82

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 81 69 68 68 77 87 80

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- 77 85 79

Ability to navigate within the site 78 70 67 71 78 85 81

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- 80 83 82

Documents 73 65 74 79 85 89 88

Clarity 72 65 74 79 87 90 88

Organization of information 75 69 76 80 87 89 89

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 72 67 73 78 85 87 86

Relevance to your areas of need 74 69 78 81 85 92 89

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 68 57 70 79 81 88 86

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- 76 78 78

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- 84 79 83

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- 78 80 78

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- 82 85 86

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- 87 81 83

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- 72 75 73

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- 68 70 70

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- 77 80 81

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- 84 86 87

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- 80 83 82

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- 78 74 75

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- 71 81 77

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- 74 77 83

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- 83 69 85

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI 64 64 67 72 77 78 80

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 69 69 72 76 81 83 84

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 63 61 64 70 76 77 78

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 61 63 63 71 74 73 75
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 264

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Trust -- -- -- 81 88 89 89

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- 81 88 89 89
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 265

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and services

Strongly agree 36% 10 54% 21

Agree 54% 15 38% 15

Disagree 7% 2 8% 3

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 4% 1 0% 0

Number of Respondents 28 39

Job role

Project/State Director 75% 21 56% 22

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 11% 3 31% 12

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 4% 1 3% 1

Other 11% 3 10% 4

Number of Respondents 28 39

Length of time in role

Less than one year 11% 3 13% 5

Between 1 - 3 years 21% 6 41% 16

Between 4 - 10 years 43% 12 31% 12

More than 10 years 25% 7 15% 6

Number of Respondents 28 39

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 14% 4 23% 9

Did not receive 86% 24 77% 30

Number of Respondents 28 39

How heard about REAP program updates and events - REAPRLIS~

Email announcements from REAP 100% 28 95% 37

Newsletter 21% 6 21% 8

U.S. Department of Education website 39% 11 26% 10

Other 4% 1 5% 2

Number of Respondents 28 39

Future technical assistance needed for grant - REAPRLIS~

Use of grant funds 43% 12 33% 13

Use of G5 14% 4 18% 7

Use of Max.gov 25% 7 15% 6

Providing Technical Assistance to Grantees 25% 7 21% 8

REAP eligibility data and estimating award amounts 32% 9 31% 12

Consolidated grant application process 11% 3 15% 6

Grant eligibility data review and submission 14% 4 28% 11

Fiscal accounting procedures 11% 3 18% 7

Monitoring RLIS grantees 64% 18 51% 20

Use of grant funds for administrative costs 11% 3 8% 3

Reporting and use of data 39% 11 31% 12

Other 4% 1 3% 1

Number of Respondents 28 39
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 266

REAP – Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) Program

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 46 45 79 83 53 46 63

ED Staff/Coordination 84 83 83 83 90 91 90

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 84 83 85 84 90 93 90

Responsiveness to your questions 84 80 82 83 91 90 89

Professionalism -- -- -- -- 93 95 92

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 82 81 87 86 93 94 90

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- 89 90 89

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 85 81 84 85 -- -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 86 82 85 86 84 95 90

Online Resources 73 64 73 70 78 83 85

Ability to find specific information 69 60 72 68 76 80 83

Quality of content -- -- -- -- 80 84 85

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 73 66 76 75 80 85 87

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- 78 83 86

Ability to navigate within the site 70 61 70 68 76 83 86

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- 78 82 85

Documents 74 72 77 77 81 90 87

Clarity 73 70 75 75 81 90 88

Organization of information 74 72 77 75 82 89 88

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 73 71 77 76 83 90 87

Relevance to your areas of need 75 74 77 80 81 90 86

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 73 70 77 79 81 89 86

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- 80 84 86

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- 82 85 86

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- 80 84 86

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- 85 87 89

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- 82 87 87

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- 81 86 88

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- 72 82 84

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- 80 89 88

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- 82 91 88

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- 79 89 89

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- 81 91 90

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- 80 89 87

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- 80 85 87

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- 100 87 80

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI 69 72 73 76 83 86 85

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 72 75 77 80 88 89 89

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 68 71 71 73 79 84 83

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 67 70 72 73 80 85 84
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 267

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Trust -- -- -- 82 87 93 90

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- 82 87 93 90

REAP-Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) 

Program

Email announcements from REAP -- -- -- -- -- 94 91

Newsletter -- -- -- -- -- 50 52

U.S. Department of Education website -- -- -- -- -- 48 44

State educational agencies -- -- -- -- -- 58 70

Community organizations -- -- -- -- -- 28 32

Social Media -- -- -- -- -- 29 27

Clarity of instructions for accessing and completing the 

application -- -- -- -- 86 89 90

Ease of accessing the application using the unique link in 

the invitation email -- -- -- -- 88 88 90

Navigating the application on the MAX.gov survey tool -- -- -- -- 84 87 88

Preparing and completing the information requested on 

the application -- -- -- -- 88 89 89

Ease of submitting the application -- -- -- -- 90 91 90

Utilizing the confirmation email -- -- -- -- 89 89 90
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 268

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and services

Strongly agree 63% 29 60% 38

Agree 35% 16 38% 24

Disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Strongly disagree 2% 1 2% 1

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 46 63

Job role

Project/State Director 2% 1 0% 0

School Officer 9% 4 8% 5

Grant Coordinator 7% 3 6% 4

Superintendent 50% 23 57% 36

Business Manager 22% 10 25% 16

Other 11% 5 3% 2

Number of Respondents 46 63

Length of time in role

Less than one year 2% 1 6% 4

Between 1 - 3 years 35% 16 22% 14

Between 4 - 10 years 28% 13 33% 21

More than 10 years 35% 16 38% 24

Number of Respondents 46 63

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 11% 5 10% 6

Did not receive 89% 41 90% 57

Number of Respondents 46 63

Future technical assistance needed for grant - REAPSRS~

Use of funds 0% 0 49% 31

Use of G5 72% 21 49% 31

Grant application process 0% 0 51% 32

EDGAR 0% 0 0% 0

REAP flexibility 0% 0 0% 0

Reporting and use of data 0% 0 30% 19

REAP eligibility data and estimating award amounts 0% 0 0% 0

More communication of resources 0% 0 17% 11

Master Eligibility Spreadsheet access and data 0% 0 13% 8

Legal requirements, including a focus on the statute and regulations 0% 0 21% 13

Alternative Fund Use Authority 0% 0 10% 6

Opportunities to learn from other LEAs implementing SRSA 31% 9 27% 17

Other 10% 3 3% 2

Number of Respondents 29 63
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 269

Rehabilitation Long-Term Training Program

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 12 40 30

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- 85 86 89

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- 77 85 89

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- 84 84 89

Professionalism -- -- -- -- 96 91 94

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- 79 84 86

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- 86 86 88

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- 85 86 84

Online Resources -- -- -- -- 66 73 69

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- -- 63 74 70

Quality of content -- -- -- -- 69 74 71

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- -- 62 72 68

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- 66 71 73

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- -- 67 72 69

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- 68 71 69

Documents -- -- -- -- 76 78 80

Clarity -- -- -- -- 70 76 79

Organization of information -- -- -- -- 78 77 82

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs -- -- -- -- 76 78 81

Relevance to your areas of need -- -- -- -- 80 81 79

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face -- -- -- -- 76 77 77

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- 65 69 71

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- 65 70 72

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- 72 71 76

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- 63 70 67

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- 66 72 78

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- 65 69 67

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- 56 60 63

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- 61 72 77

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- 74 83 82

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- 62 72 78

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- 56 64 76

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- 60 65 75

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- 56 64 80

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- 100 74

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI -- -- -- -- 68 71 75

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- 80 76 80

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- 61 70 72

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- 61 65 71
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 270

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Trust -- -- -- -- 73 79 77

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- 73 79 77

Rehabilitation Long-Term Training Program

Usefulness of messages that are disseminated via RSA 

listserv -- -- -- -- 75 74 79

Timeliness of messages that are disseminated via RSA 

listserv -- -- -- -- 75 78 79

Effectiveness in training vocational rehabilitation 

counselors for employment -- -- -- -- 94 90 89
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 271

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and services

Strongly agree 33% 13 50% 15

Agree 53% 21 33% 10

Disagree 10% 4 13% 4

Strongly disagree 3% 1 3% 1

Does not apply 3% 1 0% 0

Number of Respondents 40 30

Job role

Project/State Director 68% 27 73% 22

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 25% 10 20% 6

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 8% 3 7% 2

Number of Respondents 40 30

Length of time in role

Less than one year 10% 4 7% 2

Between 1 - 3 years 23% 9 23% 7

Between 4 - 10 years 20% 8 20% 6

More than 10 years 48% 19 50% 15

Number of Respondents 40 30

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 10% 4 27% 8

Did not receive 90% 36 73% 22

Number of Respondents 40 30

Training would like provided - RLTT

Statutory and regulatory program requirements 14% 5 37% 11

Payback requirements 33% 12 13% 4

Uniform Guidance 19% 7 7% 2

Calculating the required 10 percent match 8% 3 7% 2

Calculating the required 65 percent scholar support 0% 0 10% 3

Calculating competitive preference match at 50 percent and 100 percent 0% 0 3% 1

Other 25% 9 23% 7

Number of Respondents 36 30
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 272

Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 0 0 0 12 18 24 19

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- 65 56 65 66

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- 81 62 68 72

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- 64 55 62 65

Professionalism -- -- -- -- 67 76 76

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- 77 50 56 61

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- 48 65 71

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 65

Online Resources -- -- -- 55 56 70 70

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- 54 56 70 71

Quality of content -- -- -- -- 53 70 67

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- 52 56 70 68

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- 51 75 78

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- 61 56 80 72

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- 61 73 73

Documents -- -- -- 65 50 67 69

Clarity -- -- -- 59 51 70 68

Organization of information -- -- -- 64 52 74 70

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs -- -- -- 67 48 66 67

Relevance to your areas of need -- -- -- 72 53 65 73

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face -- -- -- 66 47 60 67

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- 40 53 62

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- 40 55 66

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- 49 63 68

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- 41 50 53

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- 39 56 68

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- 36 51 64

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- 31 34 49

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- 40 52 60

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- 47 61 63

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- 32 48 56

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- 34 50 62

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- 30 45 68

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- 41 47 56

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- 50 100 70

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI -- -- -- 59 48 57 57

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- 61 54 62 60

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- 56 46 55 56

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- 58 42 52 53
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 273

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Trust -- -- -- 60 56 57 69

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- 60 56 57 69

Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter 

Schools

Dissemination of resources and opportunities the CSP 

provides -- -- -- 59 55 67 71

Comms and info accessible and provided in timely 

manner

-- -- -- 50 54 60 67

Technical assistance receive on project implementation 

and budget questions -- -- -- 63 53 52 56

Assistance gives opportunity to give staff an 

understanding of your project -- -- -- 54 52 57 64

Guidance CSP provides on Federal grant compliance -- -- -- 50 46 49 60
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 274

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and services

Strongly agree 8% 2 26% 5

Agree 63% 15 32% 6

Disagree 21% 5 32% 6

Strongly disagree 8% 2 11% 2

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 24 19

Job role

Project/State Director 71% 17 53% 10

School Officer 4% 1 11% 2

Grant Coordinator 17% 4 21% 4

Superintendent 0% 0 5% 1

Business Manager 4% 1 5% 1

Other 4% 1 5% 1

Number of Respondents 24 19

Length of time in role

Less than one year 8% 2 26% 5

Between 1 - 3 years 38% 9 37% 7

Between 4 - 10 years 42% 10 26% 5

More than 10 years 13% 3 11% 2

Number of Respondents 24 19

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 4% 1 16% 3

Did not receive 96% 23 84% 16

Number of Respondents 24 19
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 275

RSA Vocational Rehabilitation Program

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 0 0 0 38 31 35 28

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- 64 75 74 79

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- 70 76 81 87

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- 59 72 65 76

Professionalism -- -- -- -- 90 90 90

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- 63 66 67 68

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- 72 72 76

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- 56 66 66 71

Online Resources -- -- -- 53 61 66 70

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- 52 57 63 68

Quality of content -- -- -- -- 63 70 73

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- 55 59 64 67

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- 62 66 72

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- 52 60 64 69

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- 63 65 70

Documents -- -- -- 60 71 69 76

Clarity -- -- -- 59 68 66 75

Organization of information -- -- -- 65 76 74 77

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs -- -- -- 54 67 68 75

Relevance to your areas of need -- -- -- 70 77 77 79

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face -- -- -- 53 66 61 73

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- 65 63 69

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- 68 67 73

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- 55 55 65

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- 70 68 72

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- 69 64 71

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- 64 64 68

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- 65 59 68

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- 64 67 70

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- 70 73 74

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- 61 66 68

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- 59 63 69

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- 60 60 67

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- 62 61 69

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- 91 92 91

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI -- -- -- 49 60 61 63

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- 57 68 66 69

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- 46 56 59 61

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- 42 55 57 57
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 276

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Trust -- -- -- 56 66 69 64

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- 56 66 69 64

RSA Vocational Rehabilitation Program

Responsiveness to questions and requests for technical 

assistance -- -- -- 61 71 76 77

Supportiveness in helping complete Unified or Combined 

State Plan -- -- -- 64 70 72 78

Dissemination of subregulatory guidance -- -- -- 61 74 76 79

Provision of effective training and dissemination of 

relevant information -- -- -- 58 65 62 72

Data Collection and Reporting -- -- -- 56 74 72 70

Fiscal/Grant Management -- -- -- 67 73 68 66

Programmatic -- -- -- 59 72 72 66

Technical Assistance -- -- -- 59 71 69 65

Utility of website for entering required data, retrieving and 

revising reports -- -- -- 62 66 59 60

Ease of navigating website -- -- -- 57 64 56 65

Usefulness of information available on the website -- -- -- 57 68 65 71

Website technical support -- -- -- 67 66 59 67
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 277

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and services

Strongly agree 20% 7 25% 7

Agree 43% 15 50% 14

Disagree 29% 10 14% 4

Strongly disagree 9% 3 11% 3

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 35 28

Job role

Project/State Director 83% 29 89% 25

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 3% 1 0% 0

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 3% 1 4% 1

Other 11% 4 7% 2

Number of Respondents 35 28

Length of time in role

Less than one year 3% 1 21% 6

Between 1 - 3 years 40% 14 32% 9

Between 4 - 10 years 31% 11 36% 10

More than 10 years 26% 9 11% 3

Number of Respondents 35 28

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 49% 17 64% 18

Did not receive 51% 18 36% 10

Number of Respondents 35 28
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 278

School Climate Transformation Grants (LEAs) Program

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 57 55 59 40 53 51 44

ED Staff/Coordination 94 96 96 75 93 95 93

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 92 95 96 79 95 97 93

Responsiveness to your questions 95 97 96 76 88 90 87

Professionalism -- -- -- -- 97 97 98

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 94 93 97 74 91 94 94

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- 93 95 90

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 94 95 97 76 -- -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 93 95 94 72 91 93 91

Online Resources 83 86 90 67 83 87 84

Ability to find specific information 87 86 89 71 82 87 83

Quality of content -- -- -- -- 85 90 84

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 85 89 89 65 81 87 85

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- 83 87 85

Ability to navigate within the site 83 87 88 69 82 83 84

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- 84 85 87

Documents 88 88 91 74 87 91 87

Clarity 87 88 91 75 87 92 88

Organization of information 88 88 91 78 87 91 87

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 87 89 92 75 88 91 87

Relevance to your areas of need 88 89 93 77 87 90 86

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 87 88 92 72 86 90 88

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- 82 84 85

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- 83 89 89

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- 82 85 85

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- 77 81 76

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- 83 87 89

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- 86 85 88

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- 80 75 82

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- 84 87 88

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- 84 88 90

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- 84 85 88

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- 87 92 89

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- 83 86 88

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- 82 83 82

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- 92 98 98

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI 84 87 90 77 82 85 85

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 88 91 95 80 86 90 89

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 83 84 87 76 80 80 84

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 81 84 88 74 79 83 83
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 279

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Trust -- -- -- 76 92 92 91

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- 76 92 92 91

School Climate Transformation Grants (LEAs) 

Program

Helpfulness of technical assistance -- -- -- -- -- 84 87
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 280

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and services

Strongly agree 67% 34 66% 29

Agree 33% 17 34% 15

Disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 51 44

Job role

Project/State Director 45% 23 64% 28

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 31% 16 25% 11

Superintendent 10% 5 5% 2

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 14% 7 7% 3

Number of Respondents 51 44

Length of time in role

Less than one year 4% 2 9% 4

Between 1 - 3 years 75% 38 73% 32

Between 4 - 10 years 10% 5 9% 4

More than 10 years 12% 6 9% 4

Number of Respondents 51 44

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 25% 13 39% 17

Did not receive 75% 38 61% 27

Number of Respondents 51 44

Frequency of tech assistance from OSSS office - SCTG LEA

At least weekly 10% 5 7% 3

Monthly 65% 33 39% 17

Quarterly 22% 11 45% 20

Yearly 4% 2 9% 4

Number of Respondents 51 44

Frequency of tech assistance from PBIS TA Center - SCTG LEA

At least weekly 0% 0 14% 6

Monthly 0% 0 43% 19

Quarterly 0% 0 34% 15

Yearly 0% 0 9% 4

Number of Respondents 0 44

Most helpful form of tech assistance - SCTG LEA

Written guidance 10% 5 5% 2

Email communication 33% 17 34% 15

Annual meetings/conferences 33% 17 23% 10

In-person training or site-specific support 20% 10 30% 13

Other 4% 2 9% 4

Number of Respondents 51 44
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 281

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

TA content most useful - SCTG LEA~

Using data for effective student outcomes 71% 36 64% 28

Leveraging alignment, integration and sustainability 67% 34 82% 36

Effectiveness and efficiency of communications 22% 11 27% 12

Leveraging public/private partnerships for sustainability 35% 18 39% 17

Federal project management 27% 14 25% 11

Federal grant fiscal management 20% 10 14% 6

Federal grant contracting do’s and don’ts 20% 10 14% 6

Federal grant regulations 10% 5 9% 4

Federal grant administration 4% 2 5% 2

Other 8% 4 0% 0

Number of Respondents 51 44
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 282

State Personnel Development Grants

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 0 28 25

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- -- 92 94

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- 93 95

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- 92 95

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- 95 96

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- -- 89 94

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- 91 94

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- -- 96 91

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- 79 84

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- 83 84

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- 81 83

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- 69 73

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- 81 91

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- 87 90

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- 76 83

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- 88 90

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- 85 90

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- 84 88

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- 90 90

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups

-- -- -- -- -- 92 94

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- 91 90

ACSI -- -- -- -- -- 79 86

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- -- 85 91

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- -- 75 84

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- -- 76 82

Trust -- -- -- -- -- 90 94

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- 90 94

State Personnel Development Grants

OSEP-funded TA provider -- -- -- -- -- 69 76

Education Department-funded TA provider -- -- -- -- -- 49 52

Professional associations -- -- -- -- -- 64 80

Conferences where research is presented -- -- -- -- -- 62 74

Books -- -- -- -- -- 60 64

Journal articles -- -- -- -- -- 65 70

Personal interaction with peers -- -- -- -- -- 75 74

IDEAS that work website -- -- -- -- -- 53 58

The Department`s new IDEA website -- -- -- -- -- 51 50

Helpfulness of ED Staff in supporting growth of 

grant/improve project -- -- -- -- -- 87 89
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 283

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and services

Strongly agree 57% 16 72% 18

Agree 36% 10 28% 7

Disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Strongly disagree 7% 2 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 28 25

Job role

Project/State Director 93% 26 80% 20

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 7% 2 20% 5

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 28 25

Length of time in role

Less than one year 21% 6 16% 4

Between 1 - 3 years 36% 10 52% 13

Between 4 - 10 years 25% 7 20% 5

More than 10 years 18% 5 12% 3

Number of Respondents 28 25

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 75% 21 84% 21

Did not receive 25% 7 16% 4

Number of Respondents 28 25
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 284

Statewide Family Engagement Centers (SFEC) Program

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 8 9 9

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- 97 99 98

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- 96 100 100

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- 100 100 98

Professionalism -- -- -- -- 100 100 100

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- 99 98 99

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- 93 98 95

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- 97 99 93

Online Resources -- -- -- -- 74 86 84

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- -- 74 89 85

Quality of content -- -- -- -- 76 86 87

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- -- 69 89 85

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- 81 95 87

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- -- 78 82 80

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- 69 82 85

Documents -- -- -- -- 85 93 89

Clarity -- -- -- -- 81 96 91

Organization of information -- -- -- -- 85 96 89

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs -- -- -- -- 89 93 91

Relevance to your areas of need -- -- -- -- 89 93 88

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face -- -- -- -- 81 89 85

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- 84 84 81

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- 86 79 80

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- 88 80 84

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- 97 88 77

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- 93 94 86

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- 74 81 84

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- 65 79 70

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- 84 89 83

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- 96 94 85

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- 76 90 77

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- 76 91 85

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- 76 78 75

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- 84 89 86

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- 72 63 96

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI -- -- -- -- 83 86 82

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- 88 91 86

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- 79 83 79

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- 81 83 79
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 285

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Trust -- -- -- -- 96 94 89

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- 96 94 89

Statewide Family Engagement Centers (SFEC) 

program

Ability to resolve issues -- -- -- -- 100 90 87

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication -- -- -- -- 100 92 87

Frequency of communication -- -- -- -- 98 90 86

Overall satisfaction with service provided by the program 

officer -- -- -- -- 100 92 90

Satisfaction with the Program Director’s Meeting -- -- -- -- 90 85 84
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 286

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and services

Strongly agree 78% 7 89% 8

Agree 11% 1 0% 0

Disagree 11% 1 11% 1

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 9 9

Job role

Project/State Director 100% 9 100% 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 9 9

Length of time in role

Less than one year 11% 1 0% 0

Between 1 - 3 years 67% 6 44% 4

Between 4 - 10 years 11% 1 56% 5

More than 10 years 11% 1 0% 0

Number of Respondents 9 9

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 33% 3 67% 6

Did not receive 67% 6 33% 3

Number of Respondents 9 9
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 287

Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Program

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 0 0 35

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- -- 92

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- -- 88

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- -- 92

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- -- -- 87

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- -- 90

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- -- -- 82

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- -- -- 87

Online Resources -- -- -- -- -- -- 76

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- -- -- -- 76

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- -- 75

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- -- -- -- 76

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- -- 77

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- -- -- -- 77

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- -- 76

Information in Application Package -- -- -- -- -- -- 88

Program Purpose -- -- -- -- -- -- 91

Program Priorities -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Selection Criteria -- -- -- -- -- -- 90

Review Process -- -- -- -- -- -- 87

Budget Information and Forms -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Deadline for Submission -- -- -- -- -- -- 90

Dollar Limit on Awards -- -- -- -- -- -- 84

Page Limitation Instructions -- -- -- -- -- -- 84

Formatting Instructions -- -- -- -- -- -- 86

Program Contact -- -- -- -- -- -- 93

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- -- 90

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- -- 81

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 288

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

ACSI -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

Trust -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and 

Universities (HBCU) program

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- -- 86

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- -- 91

Ability to resolve issues -- -- -- -- -- -- 91

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 90

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or 

financial issues -- -- -- -- -- -- 86

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- -- -- -- -- -- 88

Availability of funds with adequate time for 

implementation -- -- -- -- -- -- 86

Transparency of how funds are distributed among 

grantees -- -- -- -- -- -- 88

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- -- -- -- -- -- 90

Frequency of communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 85

Clarity of communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 87
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 289

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 0% 0 54% 19

Agree 0% 0 43% 15

Disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 3% 1

Number of Respondents 0 35

Job role

Project/State Director 0% 0 60% 21

School Officer 0% 0 3% 1

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 26% 9

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 11% 4

Number of Respondents 0 35

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 14% 5

Between 1 - 3 years 0% 0 29% 10

Between 4 - 10 years 0% 0 29% 10

More than 10 years 0% 0 29% 10

Number of Respondents 0 35

Preferred method of communication - HBCU

Individual Email 0% 0 71% 25

Blast/Distribution list email 0% 0 11% 4

Telephone 0% 0 11% 4

Other 0% 0 6% 2

Number of Respondents 0 35
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 290

Strengthening Institutions Program

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 0 0 120 144 107 105 78

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- 82 84 88 79 86

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- 86 84 91 87 92

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- 79 81 81 73 80

Professionalism -- -- -- -- 93 86 90

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- 84 86 86 80 84

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- 85 84 88

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- 83 85 86 84 90

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- 87 86 88 78 85

Online Resources -- -- 63 69 74 73 73

Ability to find specific information -- -- 64 69 73 71 72

Quality of content -- -- -- -- 75 73 73

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- 62 69 74 72 73

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- 74 74 71

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- 66 70 74 76 73

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- 71 73 73

Information in Application Package -- -- 84 87 86 87 91

Program Purpose -- -- 86 88 85 88 91

Program Priorities -- -- 84 88 85 86 92

Selection Criteria -- -- 84 85 84 85 89

Review Process -- -- 83 82 81 84 88

Budget Information and Forms -- -- 80 83 83 83 88

Deadline for Submission -- -- 86 90 90 91 95

Dollar Limit on Awards -- -- 87 88 88 89 92

Page Limitation Instructions -- -- 85 87 87 88 91

Formatting Instructions -- -- 81 85 84 85 91

Program Contact -- -- 86 90 88 88 95

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- 70 70 74

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- 70 71 75

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- 71 68 75

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- 81 83 87

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- 68 64 70

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- 72 74 78

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- 61 58 62

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- 76 68 75

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- 76 68 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 -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 291

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

ACSI -- -- 64 77 75 70 71

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- 73 84 82 76 78

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- 61 74 72 66 70

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- 58 71 70 64 65

Trust -- -- -- 85 82 78 81

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- 85 82 78 81

Strengthening Institutions Program

Responsiveness to questions -- -- 76 82 77 73 81

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- 81 86 86 82 88

Ability to resolve issues -- -- 80 87 82 79 86

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication -- -- 78 85 80 78 84

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or 

financial issues -- -- 74 83 78 75 81

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- -- -- -- 78 79 81

Availability of funds with adequate time for 

implementation -- -- -- -- 80 80 83

Transparency of how funds are distributed among 

grantees -- -- -- -- 87 86 86

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- -- -- -- 78 74 80

Frequency of communication -- -- -- -- 72 69 76

Clarity of communication -- -- -- -- 77 75 83
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 292

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 42% 44 44% 34

Agree 40% 42 42% 33

Disagree 13% 14 6% 5

Strongly disagree 3% 3 1% 1

Does not apply 2% 2 6% 5

Number of Respondents 105 78

Job role

Project/State Director 63% 66 73% 57

School Officer 7% 7 6% 5

Grant Coordinator 25% 26 18% 14

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 1% 1 0% 0

Other 5% 5 3% 2

Number of Respondents 105 78

Length of time in role

Less than one year 17% 18 21% 16

Between 1 - 3 years 53% 56 51% 40

Between 4 - 10 years 22% 23 22% 17

More than 10 years 8% 8 6% 5

Number of Respondents 105 78

Preferred method of communication - SIP

Individual Email 83% 87 87% 68

Blast/Distribution list email 5% 5 6% 5

Telephone 3% 3 1% 1

Webinar 7% 7 4% 3

Other 3% 3 1% 1

Number of Respondents 105 78
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 293

Student Support and Academic Enrichment

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 0 0 31 22 36 39 41

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- 69 62 82 84 86

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- 77 68 84 85 89

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- 70 54 77 77 78

Professionalism -- -- -- -- 92 89 91

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- 76 69 79 80 85

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- 78 87 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 85

Online Resources -- -- 64 60 71 70 74

Ability to find specific information -- -- 61 60 70 69 73

Quality of content -- -- -- -- 70 71 74

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- 62 60 68 69 74

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- 68 69 74

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- 64 61 70 72 74

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- 72 75 77

Documents -- -- 64 69 80 83 81

Clarity -- -- 66 74 80 84 85

Organization of information -- -- 69 73 83 85 85

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs -- -- 61 66 78 82 78

Relevance to your areas of need -- -- 65 73 81 84 80

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face -- -- 60 57 76 77 77

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- 64 72 77

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- 70 76 82

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- 59 67 71

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- 76 83 85

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- 76 82 84

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- 55 65 74

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- 54 62 72

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- 80 79 80

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- 83 82 85

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- 77 77 77

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- 77 78 77

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- 76 75 74

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- 86 83 81

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- 85 81 86

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI -- -- 56 51 75 74 78

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- 61 56 81 80 83

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- 52 47 71 71 75

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- 54 51 70 70 74
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 294

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Trust -- -- -- 61 87 82 85

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- 61 87 82 85

Student Support and Academic Enrichment

Usefulness of the Website -- -- -- -- 73 78 86

Usefulness of the Portal -- -- -- -- 84 81 86
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 295

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and services

Strongly agree 41% 16 39% 16

Agree 46% 18 54% 22

Disagree 13% 5 2% 1

Strongly disagree 0% 0 2% 1

Does not apply 0% 0 2% 1

Number of Respondents 39 41

Job role

Project/State Director 59% 23 66% 27

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 21% 8 20% 8

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 21% 8 15% 6

Number of Respondents 39 41

Length of time in role

Less than one year 8% 3 17% 7

Between 1 - 3 years 62% 24 41% 17

Between 4 - 10 years 28% 11 39% 16

More than 10 years 3% 1 2% 1

Number of Respondents 39 41

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 54% 21 61% 25

Did not receive 46% 18 39% 16

Number of Respondents 39 41

Frequency of visiting the Website - SSAE

Daily 3% 1 2% 1

Weekly 36% 14 41% 17

Monthly 36% 14 44% 18

Every few months 21% 8 10% 4

Never 5% 2 2% 1

Number of Respondents 39 41

Frequency of visiting the Portal - SSAE

Daily 3% 1 2% 1

Weekly 41% 16 34% 14

Monthly 38% 15 51% 21

Every few months 13% 5 7% 3

Never 5% 2 5% 2

Number of Respondents 39 41

Most helpful form of tech assistance - SSAE

Written guidance 54% 21 39% 16

Email communication 8% 3 15% 6

Annual meetings/conferences 23% 9 20% 8

In-person training or site-specific support 5% 2 15% 6

Other 10% 4 12% 5

Number of Respondents 39 41
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 296

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

TA content most useful - SSAE~

Using data for effective student outcomes 51% 20 49% 20

Leveraging alignment, integration and sustainability 44% 17 37% 15

Effectiveness and efficiency of communications 15% 6 15% 6

Leveraging public/private partnerships for sustainability 15% 6 17% 7

Federal project management 36% 14 46% 19

Federal grant fiscal management 38% 15 27% 11

Federal grant contracting do’s and don’ts 21% 8 15% 6

Federal grant regulations 33% 13 51% 21

Federal grant administration 33% 13 37% 15

Number of Respondents 39 41
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 297

Student Support Services

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 0 0 105

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- -- -- 77

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- -- 68

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- -- 85

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- -- -- 72

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- -- 78

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- -- -- 69

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- -- -- 74

Online Resources -- -- -- -- -- -- 68

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- -- -- -- 69

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- -- 65

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- -- -- -- 69

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- -- 70

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- -- -- -- 69

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- -- 63

Information in Application Package -- -- -- -- -- -- 82

Program Purpose -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

Program Priorities -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

Selection Criteria -- -- -- -- -- -- 82

Review Process -- -- -- -- -- -- 77

Budget Information and Forms -- -- -- -- -- -- 76

Deadline for Submission -- -- -- -- -- -- 87

Dollar Limit on Awards -- -- -- -- -- -- 84

Page Limitation Instructions -- -- -- -- -- -- 84

Formatting Instructions -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

Program Contact -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 75

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 76

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- -- 75

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

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- -- 75

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- -- 76

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- -- 66

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- -- 72

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- -- 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 -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 298

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

ACSI -- -- -- -- -- -- 69

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- -- -- 74

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- -- -- 67

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- -- -- 64

Trust -- -- -- -- -- -- 72

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- -- 72

Student Support Services

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- -- 66

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- -- 67

Ability to resolve issues -- -- -- -- -- -- 70

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 70

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or 

financial issues -- -- -- -- -- -- 66

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- -- -- -- -- -- 64

Availability of funds with adequate time for 

implementation -- -- -- -- -- -- 69

Transparency of how funds are distributed among 

grantees -- -- -- -- -- -- 77

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- -- -- -- -- -- 70

Frequency of communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 67

Clarity of communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 70
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 299

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 0% 0 21% 22

Agree 0% 0 69% 72

Disagree 0% 0 9% 9

Strongly disagree 0% 0 1% 1

Does not apply 0% 0 1% 1

Number of Respondents 0 105

Job role

Project/State Director 0% 0 95% 100

School Officer 0% 0 1% 1

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 2% 2

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 2% 2

Number of Respondents 0 105

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 11% 12

Between 1 - 3 years 0% 0 34% 36

Between 4 - 10 years 0% 0 28% 29

More than 10 years 0% 0 27% 28

Number of Respondents 0 105

Preferred method of communication - SSS

Individual Email 0% 0 82% 86

Blast/Distribution list email 0% 0 9% 9

Telephone 0% 0 3% 3

Webinar 0% 0 5% 5

Other 0% 0 2% 2

Number of Respondents 0 105
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 300

Supporting Effective Educator Development Program

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 0 0 0 14 18 23 15

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- 80 68 77 85

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- 85 71 73 87

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- 72 70 80 88

Professionalism -- -- -- -- 82 85 90

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- 92 65 74 86

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- 56 78 80

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 76

Online Resources -- -- -- 67 65 62 74

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- 68 67 54 74

Quality of content -- -- -- -- 67 62 73

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- 67 66 57 72

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- 62 61 78

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- 70 64 62 74

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- 64 64 75

Documents -- -- -- 79 59 68 77

Clarity -- -- -- 76 63 70 76

Organization of information -- -- -- 78 62 70 79

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs -- -- -- 79 59 67 77

Relevance to your areas of need -- -- -- 81 58 68 79

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face -- -- -- 79 50 66 76

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- 52 70 70

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- 49 66 76

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- 57 66 59

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- 58 82 83

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- 55 74 76

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- 56 67 66

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- 33 62 64

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- 61 72 76

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- 65 72 79

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- 58 80 72

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- 61 83 76

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- 56 79 70

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- 50 74 75

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- 93 78 85

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI -- -- -- 68 57 65 71

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- 75 62 71 79

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- 65 54 63 70

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- 63 54 61 63
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 301

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Trust -- -- -- 74 60 77 82

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- 74 60 77 82

Supporting Effective Educator Development Program

Understanding of GPRA measures and associated 

measure definitions -- -- -- -- -- 79 78

Ability to collect and report accurate GPRA data -- -- -- -- -- 77 75

Understanding of all program requirements, including 

budgetary concerns -- -- -- -- -- 72 78

Understanding of practices other grantees use to 

address challenging areas -- -- -- -- -- 69 68

Assistance in improving program planning and 

implementation -- -- -- 71 64 65 59

Providing relevant information and ideas -- -- -- 74 64 67 60

Connecting you with other experts or practitioners -- -- -- 74 72 68 69

Providing quality content during EED Summits -- -- -- -- -- 73 70

Providing direct technical assistance to individual 

grantees -- -- -- -- -- 63 67

Providing quality content on the Grads360 platform -- -- -- -- -- 58 64

Providing quality of content and connections of the 

Communities of Practice -- -- -- -- -- 60 59
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 302

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and services

Strongly agree 22% 5 20% 3

Agree 52% 12 73% 11

Disagree 13% 3 0% 0

Strongly disagree 13% 3 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 7% 1

Number of Respondents 23 15

Job role

Project/State Director 48% 11 73% 11

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 35% 8 13% 2

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 17% 4 13% 2

Number of Respondents 23 15

Length of time in role

Less than one year 13% 3 0% 0

Between 1 - 3 years 39% 9 47% 7

Between 4 - 10 years 22% 5 33% 5

More than 10 years 26% 6 20% 3

Number of Respondents 23 15

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 17% 4 20% 3

Did not receive 83% 19 80% 12

Number of Respondents 23 15

Have right amount of interaction with SEED officerdivision staff -

SEED

Have right amount of interaction 78% 18 67% 10

Don’t have right amount 22% 5 33% 5

Number of Respondents 23 15

Ideal frequency of communication - SEED

Monthly 26% 6 20% 3

Quarterly 74% 17 80% 12

Number of Respondents 23 15

Quality of customer service provided - SEED

Excellent 48% 11 53% 8

Very Good 35% 8 20% 3

Average 4% 1 27% 4

Fair 9% 2 0% 0

Poor 4% 1 0% 0

Number of Respondents 23 15
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 303

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

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 31 24 28 17 26 39 38

ED Staff/Coordination 74 74 78 72 83 84 89

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 73 81 79 75 86 89 93

Responsiveness to your questions 70 69 78 64 81 84 90

Professionalism -- -- -- -- 91 94 94

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 71 72 74 79 81 82 88

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- 80 76 88

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 80 80 75 79 -- -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 79 78 80 72 74 73 84

Online Resources 63 70 64 47 51 66 72

Ability to find specific information 59 65 65 48 53 63 71

Quality of content -- -- -- -- 58 70 75

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 62 71 66 48 50 63 71

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- 51 65 75

Ability to navigate within the site 58 66 61 45 45 66 71

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- 52 72 71

Documents 70 78 70 68 66 75 83

Clarity 69 78 73 70 67 77 85

Organization of information 73 83 74 71 69 78 85

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 66 76 67 64 64 75 83

Relevance to your areas of need 73 80 70 72 68 75 84

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 67 74 67 64 59 73 80

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- 61 72 77

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- 65 71 81

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- 62 69 77

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- 71 79 78

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- 65 77 82

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- 55 65 73

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- 51 67 74

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- 68 75 81

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- 69 81 86

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- 64 73 85

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- 61 71 80

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- 52 64 79

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- 61 66 76

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- 85 84 81

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI 61 64 58 52 58 66 72

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 65 68 67 58 65 73 78

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 59 61 51 49 54 63 70

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 57 61 54 48 55 59 67
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 304

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Trust -- -- -- 57 80 82 81

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- 57 80 82 81

Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants (Title II, 

Part A)

Provides assistance that enhances capacity to 

implement -- 66 68 59 63 74 75

Provides support that is responsive to my State’s needs 

to implement -- 65 67 59 67 74 74

Helps address implementation challenges 66 67 65 63 63 70 71

Provides information about key changes to requirements -- 74 73 66 67 74 75
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 305

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and services

Strongly agree 18% 7 21% 8

Agree 62% 24 68% 26

Disagree 8% 3 5% 2

Strongly disagree 5% 2 0% 0

Does not apply 8% 3 5% 2

Number of Respondents 39 38

Job role

Project/State Director 69% 27 68% 26

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 28% 11 24% 9

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 3% 1 8% 3

Number of Respondents 39 38

Length of time in role

Less than one year 23% 9 11% 4

Between 1 - 3 years 36% 14 34% 13

Between 4 - 10 years 28% 11 37% 14

More than 10 years 13% 5 18% 7

Number of Respondents 39 38

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 38% 15 32% 12

Did not receive 62% 24 68% 26

Number of Respondents 39 38
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 306

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

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 0 0 0 19 14 18 25

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- 81 81 84 83

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- 82 84 83 84

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- 82 81 82 77

Professionalism -- -- -- -- 87 94 94

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- 78 79 81 82

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- 74 87 76

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 80

Online Resources -- -- -- 70 88 76 67

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- 71 88 74 66

Quality of content -- -- -- -- 91 73 69

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- 70 87 80 66

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- 92 79 70

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- 70 89 78 67

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- 94 76 67

Documents -- -- -- 79 83 76 80

Clarity -- -- -- 76 84 79 82

Organization of information -- -- -- 80 86 77 83

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs -- -- -- 78 83 78 78

Relevance to your areas of need -- -- -- 80 84 75 80

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face -- -- -- 78 81 72 77

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- 81 80 77

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- 78 79 72

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- 89 80 75

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- 93 90 89

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- 77 82 82

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- 83 79 75

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- 66 68 70

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- 81 79 73

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- 82 78 74

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- 85 76 69

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- 82 77 72

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- 81 78 68

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- 88 88 72

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- 93 76 71

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI -- -- -- 79 75 77 73

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- 84 81 81 80

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- 76 71 74 70

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- 75 71 75 68
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 307

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Trust -- -- -- 85 73 81 79

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- 85 73 81 79

Teacher and school leader incentive grants (ESEA IIB-1)

Understanding of all program requirements, including 

budgetary concerns -- -- -- -- -- 78 85

Understanding of practices other grantees use to 

address challenging areas -- -- -- -- -- 75 80

Assistance in improving program planning and 

implementation -- -- -- 72 87 74 74

Providing relevant information and ideas -- -- -- 72 90 74 79

Connecting you with other experts or practitioners -- -- -- 78 88 78 77

Providing quality content during EED Summits -- -- -- -- -- 86 78

Providing direct technical assistance to individual 

grantees -- -- -- -- -- 80 71

Providing quality content on the Grads360 platform -- -- -- -- -- 77 71

Providing quality of content and connections of the 

Communities of Practice -- -- -- -- -- 78 74
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 308

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and services

Strongly agree 50% 9 44% 11

Agree 44% 8 48% 12

Disagree 6% 1 0% 0

Strongly disagree 0% 0 4% 1

Does not apply 0% 0 4% 1

Number of Respondents 18 25

Job role

Project/State Director 44% 8 88% 22

School Officer 6% 1 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 33% 6 8% 2

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 17% 3 4% 1

Number of Respondents 18 25

Length of time in role

Less than one year 11% 2 32% 8

Between 1 - 3 years 33% 6 40% 10

Between 4 - 10 years 39% 7 12% 3

More than 10 years 17% 3 16% 4

Number of Respondents 18 25

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 33% 6 28% 7

Did not receive 67% 12 72% 18

Number of Respondents 18 25

Have right amount of interaction with TSL officerdivision staff - TSL

Have right amount of interaction 94% 17 80% 20

Don’t have right amount 6% 1 20% 5

Number of Respondents 18 25

Ideal frequency of communication - TSL

Weekly 0% 0 4% 1

Monthly 22% 4 48% 12

Quarterly 78% 14 48% 12

Number of Respondents 18 25

Quality of customer service provided - TSL

Excellent 44% 8 60% 15

Very Good 28% 5 24% 6

Average 28% 5 16% 4

Number of Respondents 18 25
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 309

Teacher Quality Partnership Program

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 21 26 24

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- 92 89 91

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- 90 87 90

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- 91 91 91

Professionalism -- -- -- -- 96 95 95

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- 88 87 90

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- 92 86 90

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- 94 86 89

Online Resources -- -- -- -- 83 82 82

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- -- 83 81 83

Quality of content -- -- -- -- 84 81 83

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- -- 84 81 83

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- 84 81 84

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- -- 82 79 81

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- 83 81 80

Documents -- -- -- -- 86 84 82

Clarity -- -- -- -- 86 85 81

Organization of information -- -- -- -- 86 87 81

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs -- -- -- -- 84 83 84

Relevance to your areas of need -- -- -- -- 90 84 84

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face -- -- -- -- 84 82 81

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- 84 83 84

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- 86 79 80

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- 80 84 86

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- 88 92 94

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- 89 85 88

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- 87 80 82

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- 72 76 74

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- 83 85 80

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- 84 86 82

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- 86 81 76

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- 87 83 83

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- 68 81 76

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- 78 88 87

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- 70 72 100

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in successfully 

implementing your projects -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI -- -- -- -- 82 79 79

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- 89 85 84

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- 79 76 75

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- 76 74 77
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 310

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Trust -- -- -- -- 92 85 88

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- 92 85 88

Teacher Quality Partnership Program

Understanding of GPRA measures and associated 

measure definitions -- -- -- -- -- 87 87

Ability to collect and report accurate GPRA data -- -- -- -- -- 84 86

Understanding of all program requirements, including 

budgetary concerns -- -- -- -- -- 83 86

Understanding of practices other grantees use to 

address challenging areas -- -- -- -- -- 83 87

Assistance in improving program planning and 

implementation -- -- -- -- -- 82 74

Providing relevant information and ideas -- -- -- -- -- 83 78

Connecting you with other experts or practitioners -- -- -- -- -- 84 77

Providing quality content during EED Summits -- -- -- -- -- 84 75

Providing direct technical assistance to individual 

grantees -- -- -- -- -- 79 66

Providing quality content on the Grads360 platform -- -- -- -- -- 79 65

Providing quality of content and connections of the 

Communities of Practice -- -- -- -- -- 85 73
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 311

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and services

Strongly agree 50% 13 50% 12

Agree 35% 9 46% 11

Disagree 15% 4 4% 1

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 26 24

Job role

Project/State Director 73% 19 79% 19

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 12% 3 17% 4

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 15% 4 4% 1

Number of Respondents 26 24

Length of time in role

Less than one year 8% 2 4% 1

Between 1 - 3 years 50% 13 54% 13

Between 4 - 10 years 23% 6 25% 6

More than 10 years 19% 5 17% 4

Number of Respondents 26 24

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 8% 2 8% 2

Did not receive 92% 24 92% 22

Number of Respondents 26 24

Have right amount of interaction with TQP officerdivision staff - TQP

Have right amount of interaction 96% 25 83% 20

Don’t have right amount 4% 1 17% 4

Number of Respondents 26 24

Ideal frequency of communication - TQP

Weekly 0% 0 4% 1

Monthly 35% 9 29% 7

Quarterly 65% 17 67% 16

Number of Respondents 26 24

Quality of customer service provided - TQP

Excellent 65% 17 67% 16

Very Good 19% 5 21% 5

Average 12% 3 13% 3

Fair 4% 1 0% 0

Number of Respondents 26 24
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 312

TRIO Talent Search

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 0 156 126

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- -- 88 89

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- 89 91

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- 85 87

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- 93 94

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- -- 88 88

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- 88 88

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- -- 83 84

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- -- 84 85

Online Resources -- -- -- -- -- 77 76

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- -- -- 77 77

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- 79 78

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- -- -- 78 76

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- 79 77

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- -- -- 78 77

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- 75 73

Information in Application Package -- -- -- -- -- 84 86

Program Purpose -- -- -- -- -- 87 89

Program Priorities -- -- -- -- -- 85 86

Selection Criteria -- -- -- -- -- 86 87

Review Process -- -- -- -- -- 83 83

Budget Information and Forms -- -- -- -- -- 79 82

Deadline for Submission -- -- -- -- -- 90 91

Dollar Limit on Awards -- -- -- -- -- 84 89

Page Limitation Instructions -- -- -- -- -- 81 86

Formatting Instructions -- -- -- -- -- 76 79

Program Contact -- -- -- -- -- 88 89

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- 80 83

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- 85 87

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- 77 80

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- 87 88

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- 81 84

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- 79 86

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- 73 71

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- 80 82

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- 80 82

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 313

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

ACSI -- -- -- -- -- 76 76

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- -- 82 81

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- -- 73 75

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- -- 71 72

Trust -- -- -- -- -- 81 80

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- 81 80

TRIO Talent Search

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- 80 79

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- 82 81

Ability to resolve issues -- -- -- -- -- 79 78

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication -- -- -- -- -- 80 80

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or 

financial issues -- -- -- -- -- 79 77

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- -- -- -- -- 60 68

Availability of funds with adequate time for 

implementation -- -- -- -- -- 70 76

Transparency of how funds are distributed among 

grantees -- -- -- -- -- 80 83

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- -- -- -- -- 81 85

Frequency of communication -- -- -- -- -- 77 83

Clarity of communication -- -- -- -- -- 81 85
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 314

Demographic Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 35% 55 33% 42

Agree 58% 91 60% 75

Disagree 3% 5 6% 8

Strongly disagree 2% 3 0% 0

Does not apply 1% 2 1% 1

Number of Respondents 156 126

Job role

Project/State Director 93% 145 97% 122

School Officer 0% 0 1% 1

Grant Coordinator 3% 4 1% 1

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 4% 7 2% 2

Number of Respondents 156 126

Length of time in role

Less than one year 8% 13 11% 14

Between 1 - 3 years 26% 40 17% 21

Between 4 - 10 years 29% 46 33% 41

More than 10 years 37% 57 40% 50

Number of Respondents 156 126

Preferred method of communication - TRIO TS

Individual Email 83% 129 86% 108

Blast/Distribution list email 7% 11 8% 10

Telephone 6% 9 2% 2

Webinar 1% 1 2% 2

Other 4% 6 3% 4

Number of Respondents 156 126
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 315

Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Language

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Sample Size 0 0 0 0 0 24 12

ED Staff/Coordination -- -- -- -- -- 92 92

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- 98 95

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- 88 91

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- 96 96

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses -- -- -- -- -- 89 91

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- 83 90

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- -- -- -- -- 95 88

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services -- -- -- -- -- 90 87

Online Resources -- -- -- -- -- 75 77

Ability to find specific information -- -- -- -- -- 77 77

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- 78 77

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site -- -- -- -- -- 76 79

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- 86 90

Ability to navigate within the site -- -- -- -- -- 75 78

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- 65 74

Information in Application Package -- -- -- -- -- 89 85

Program Purpose -- -- -- -- -- 90 86

Program Priorities -- -- -- -- -- 89 85

Selection Criteria -- -- -- -- -- 84 82

Review Process -- -- -- -- -- 82 81

Budget Information and Forms -- -- -- -- -- 82 75

Deadline for Submission -- -- -- -- -- 98 93

Dollar Limit on Awards -- -- -- -- -- 92 87

Page Limitation Instructions -- -- -- -- -- 91 88

Formatting Instructions -- -- -- -- -- 88 87

Program Contact -- -- -- -- -- 94 89

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- 69 75

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- 62 73

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- 75 75

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- 73 80

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- 73 81

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- 67 70

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- 61 73

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- 86 79

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- 86 79

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 316

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

ACSI -- -- -- -- -- 79 80

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services -- -- -- -- -- 87 88

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations -- -- -- -- -- 73 76

How well ED compares with ideal products and services -- -- -- -- -- 75 74

Trust -- -- -- -- -- 90 90

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- 90 90

Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign 

Language

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- -- -- 92 93

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies 

and procedures -- -- -- -- -- 93 92

Ability to resolve issues -- -- -- -- -- 93 94

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication -- -- -- -- -- 90 87

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or 

financial issues -- -- -- -- -- 89 92

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- -- -- -- -- 84 81

Availability of funds with adequate time for 

implementation -- -- -- -- -- 76 78

Transparency of how funds are distributed among 

grantees -- -- -- -- -- 93 89

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- -- -- -- -- 84 81

Frequency of communication -- -- -- -- -- 81 73

Clarity of communication -- -- -- -- -- 87 81

Supports instruction in fields needed to provide full 

understanding -- -- -- -- -- 96 96

Supports work in language aspects of professional and 

other fields of study -- -- -- -- -- 96 93

Supports research and training in international studies -- -- -- -- -- 96 94

Teaching of any modern foreign language -- -- -- -- -- 95 93

Instruction in fields needed to provide full understanding -- -- -- -- -- 95 96

Research and training in international studies -- -- -- -- -- 96 93

Language aspects of professional and other fields of 

study -- -- -- -- -- 96 92

Instruction and research on issues in world affairs -- -- -- -- -- 93 92
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 317

Demographics Table

2021 2022

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 71% 17 58% 7

Agree 25% 6 42% 5

Disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Strongly disagree 4% 1 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 24 12

Job role

Project/State Director 63% 15 75% 9

School Officer 8% 2 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 13% 3 17% 2

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 17% 4 8% 1

Number of Respondents 24 12

Length of time in role

Less than one year 21% 5 8% 1

Between 1 - 3 years 33% 8 58% 7

Between 4 - 10 years 21% 5 17% 2

More than 10 years 25% 6 17% 2

Number of Respondents 24 12

Preferred method of communication - UIS

Individual Email 75% 18 75% 9

Blast/Distribution list email 13% 3 8% 1

Telephone 4% 1 0% 0

Webinar 4% 1 8% 1

Other 4% 1 8% 1

Number of Respondents 24 12
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 318

Appendix C:

Open-ended Comments
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 319

21st Century Community Learning Centers

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Add an A to Z search field.

Be sure all links are working, provide additional information and resources, and have important dates 

(TA, report due dates, etc.) for the different programs on the program page.

Provide more in the way of success stories/resources for states

I would like to see a connection to all of the topics that the states are required to implement, specifically 

the 21APR data. The Y4Y website is another resource that should be connected by topic area for 

projects to be able to navigate with more ease. Also, easier access to the statute for new SEA staff would 

be idea for orientation.

More useful information and resources

I believe that we can improve our target words a little more to facilitate search results from all folders 

including archived material.

Once you click "Grants" from the USED home page, it would be helpful to have a link to grants such as 

the 21st CCLC programs.

There are too many levels to click on to get to what you are looking for.

I will be immensely appreciative when non-regs are finally published for the 21st CCLC program area. 

Currently, the non-regs date waaaaay back in NCLB times.

Sharing successes of SEA level work to highlight program effectiveness and opportunities.

An index and a local search feature would be helpful

The website could be more visually appealing and accessible. The contact information for ED program 

staff is not easy to find and is often outdated. It takes too many clicks to get to regulations.

When the department makes changes to guidance, notifying SEA's of the changes. It appears to be a 

pattern of updating or changing guidance and the SEA's are unaware of the changes then may be out of 

compliance. Could the website be updated in a timely manner when changes are made that affect 

program and policies?

Have more resources on the site that include relevant guidance and technical assistance papers on how 

to implement the law/program.

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 320

The website is clean and easy to use. However, some of it is outdated. The FAQ page has only 1 item 

listed and it is obsolete. The Performance page now includes the new GPRA measures but does not 

include any of the implementation guides or slides from recent webinars. The Resources page has some 

resources that are outdated (including the Program Income slides which have guidance that we have 

since been told is inaccurate).

Modernize it and make it easier to use and find information.

A what's new section would be beneficial. Also, there seems to be information that could be archived.

The website could be easier to navigate and the most pertinent information could be positioned first on 

the site.

It has sufficient information without confusing stakeholders.

Information is in too many different places--for a lot of the information, one has to dig through their inbox 

to find it in a poorly formatted email. Additionally, the "sender" varies so much that even digging through 

email is challenging to located the right one.

Make a password-protected area for state coordinators with important docs and helpful weblinks, etc.

Provide an A to Z topic search.

The entire website needs to be updated and built out more. Some information is at least a year old, and 

there are too many external links without providing much information.

Not sure, but it seems like 21CCLC is in two places and it makes it hard to find things sometimes when 

not using bookmarks

I am unable to located a list of staff and their contact information.

need more access to guidance for SEA coordinators. Perhaps a log in where SEA Coordinators could 

find resources specific to 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., non-regulatory guidance, newsletter, blast 

emails).

NA

The 21APR Technical Assistance calendar/timeline became very challenging to track when the shift to 

newsletters happened. _x000D_ I would LOVE the option to view a calendar of deadlines, a way to add 

to our personal calendars instead of tables in presentations and emails. _x000D_ _x000D_ We haven't 

missed any of the registration emails, but we plan a 16-month calendar in advance so can be tricky when 

we don't know the meetings ahead of time. We share both a living chronological document and a google 

calendar with our projects and it really helped to visualize the overlapping timelines for funding, biannual 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 321

calls, the winter and summer meetings as well as monitoring, data collection and reporting and the 

annual statewide evaluation.

Uniformed guidance content should include verbiage that is easy to understand and include information 

that smaller areas can relate to.

No recommendations at this time.

The non-regulatory guidance is from [DATE_TIME].

We currently get excellent *individual* help, but having published non-regs for Title IV-B under ESSA is 

far overdue.

Updated non-regulatory guidance is critical and I find it interesting that the newsletter for the overall 

department often features information about other areas (Indian Education for example) but rarely talks 

about the important role expanded learning plays in support student learning.

There is no updated non-regulatory guidance, which creates confusion and misinformation or conflicting 

interpretations. It is not uncommon to receive conflicting messages, interpretations of statute, and 

definitions depending on who you ask.

The 2003 Guidance needs to be updated

Include communication products (a 21stCCLC newsletter) in future TA RFPs (ex. Y4Y email blasts) if ED 

isn't able to directly produce them. The email listserv information can be cumbersome.

The 21st CCLC Non-Regulatory guidance is from [DATE_TIME]. The Department solicitated feedback 

from SEA's to update the guidance. We have been waiting for years for the updated guidance to be 

released. The guidance is hardly relevant since the passing of ESSA, yet we are still held to the 

[DATE_TIME] document.

We have been waiting on the non-regulatory guidance for the implementation of the program under 

ESSA for six years. The non-regulatory guidance we have is from [DATE_TIME] and is obsolete in 

statute and also in practice based on the verbal guidance we have received regarding the implementation 

of the new law. We need it desperately.

All communications have been excellent

In general the ones we have are fine, but there just aren't that many. The broader blast emails from the 

Department (e.g. OESE Newsflash, the Daily Digest Bulletin, STEM newsletter) do not usually address 

21st CCLC specifically. The 21st CCLC program emails mostly focus on registering for webinars, etc. to 

get information but are not informational themselves. It would be helpful to have information from related 

webinars (e.g. those on 21APR) pulled into a common document that we could access. It would also be 

helpful to have a repository of webinar slides and/or recordings. But the most important issue is the 

overarching program non-regulatory guidance. It is not really acceptable that we still only have NRGs 

from [DATE_TIME], addressing NCLB not ESSA.

N/A

I would like for the non-regulatory guidance to be updated more frequently.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 322

Documents could be easier to understand and easier to put into context for program level users.

Simple things like links to registration for the Summer Symposium. Sometimes things are included in an 

email but not readily available on the website.

We get too much peripheral information from other departments and very little that is 21st CCLC specific

New GPRA and 21APR info was needed months earlier. Finally got final useful info but not in time to do 

really good TA with local programs. Will implement as best as we can.

NA

The non-regulatory guidance is very outdated and nearly as old as the program itself ([DATE_TIME]). 

There have been few updates to the guidance and resources since then, particularly in regards to ESSA 

and COVID-19.

the weekly update in chart form is difficult to read to see what exactly is being offered taht might be new. 

It rarely has complete info on upcoming events or anything new that has been developed. It would be 

better if it was more like a short newsletter with sections like new updates at the top and reminders 

below.

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.

NA

It's never been all that clear how [NAME] uses 21st CCLC program data collected from each state. 

Especially now that we have shifted to some different GPRA measures, it would be helpful to know how 

state level data gets aggregated and reported to Congress.

rolling out new GPRA measures before all decisions had been made was reckless. for some of us, the 

changes were happening after the school year had already begun and been planned for. Also, there was 

a pandemic that disrupted every aspect of life in addition to the collection tool not being ready in order to 

projects and develop new collection tools on the state level. This was incredibly surprising and stressful, 

increasing workload exponentially with no options for supplemental funding to help support our already 

understaffed office. Additional changes on the activities, measures and process after the information had 

already been released and states were underway with their new GPRA planning was enfuriating. we are 

expected to be organized and planful so that our projects can succeed and we can meet our 

requirements. this was a huge monkey wrench for all involved, especially with the lack of data for the 

requirements around growth for the old measures - the fact that no requirements were waived due to the 

inability to collect and report data due to the disruption to our schools seemed like an unnecessary 

burden to still attempt to report. it led to us looking unprofessional and was very hard to explain why the 

roll out was happening in the way that it was. we actually told the projects as little as possible as we were 

learning what it would take on our end, but we still had to roll out a piecemeal approach which made it 

very confusing for everyone.

I can you a little more assistance in understanding the grant Reporting process. Especially in the 

Evaluation/Performance Form.

The guidance on 21APR reported data could be more clearer and succinct.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 323

As soon as new GPRA measures were approved by Congress, states and territories should have been 

informed exactly how those data would be reported. Information on many data elements has been 

lacking during the time SEAs needed to develop their own subgrantee reporting guidance and data 

collection systems needed to be built and tested. Because this information has been so late to be 

delivered to us, an extreme burden has been placed on SEAs and the subgrantees they oversee, as well 

as the data system developers.

The 21APR process, as it relates to the new GPRA measures, has been challenging. Delays in guidance 

have created deadlines for states that are unrealistic and cannot possibly be met. Of course as a state 

agency, we understand the approvals and policy issues, but navigating this transition during a pandemic 

it would seem the agency would look for more flexibilities to support states.

Not sure

The new GPRA requirements created some challenges in collecting the data for the upcoming APR. It 

would have been helpful if the various iterations of the implementation guide would have been available 

within a few weeks of changes being made instead of several months.

Find out why it takes so long to get approval for updates (software, guidance, etc.) Staff are responsive; 

the bureaucracy isn't.

21APR has gotten better and the department has spent lots of time training SEA's on reporting 

requirements. Although still so much gray area for states to figure out with their small 'p' policies. I hope 

the department has grace and understanding for states implementing grant reporting requirements when 

a lot of the time the requirements are vague.

As this is an implementation year, the reporting process is uncertain. More feedback will be able to be 

given at the end of the first year.

All grant reporting technical assistance has been outstanding.

This has improved recently, but it should be noted that it was almost 9 months into the reporting year 

before we received the final implementation guide. That should have happened well before the reporting 

year started, so that states, their data system vendors, and subgrantees would have time to prepare. The 

system itself appears to be improved from last year (e.g. table-style data entry) but still appears to have 

things that make it more difficult to enter data than necessary (e.g. needless boxes that need to be 

checked before entering non-0 data), and the system still, presumably, has a problem with kicking users 

out unexpectedly. We still do not have a Data Dictionary or other tools that are typical of a reporting 

system. Also, the API process seems overly complicated for a report of this nature, which is why our 

state has yet to switch to that.

As a local control state, we need to continue communication so all grantees understand the 

requirements.

N/A

Tactile/DOE have made several good changes in the past few years, such as:_x000D_ Thoughtful 

changes to the GPRA_x000D_ Extensive needed changes to what data 21apr collects and how it collects 

it_x000D_ _x000D_ However, 21apr and Tactile consistently under perform. 21apr has let the same 

issues go unaddressed for years, including repeatedly losing reporting data and not providing sufficient 

data accuracy checks for SEAs. _x000D_ _x000D_ Information has been dribbled out at snail's pace 

and one has to attend excessive Tactile webinars to get a crumb of new information scattered amongst 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 324

the same information that has been repeated for 10 months. _x000D_ _x000D_ Tactile is currently 

claiming they still can't give us a data guide because OMB has yet to approve it--frankly, it seems hard to 

believe that OMB oversees a guide on how to log on and enter data into an online tool.

see previous comment

NA

The new GPRA seem very cumbersome to subgrantees as well as SEAs to collect and report. The 

amount of required data is large, and the amount of work SEAs must do to aggregate and report is 

unwieldy. The impetus for changing the GPRA and the reason for collecting on certain grades, etc. has 

been unclear.

Not clear on usefulness of some data like the GPA data which is not easily accessible

Its not the reporting that is teh problem its the fact that there are so many variables from state to state the 

use of the data is not very relevant for showing the efficacy of the 21st CCLC program.

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 am new and have not participated in any TA as of yet.

project management training would be ideal, especially around managing timelines. i can see how this 

would be difficult since every state system is so different, but our state-level doe does not offer any

professional development, orientation, or training for the grant management positions. the HR/OTM 

(office of talent management) job descriptions do not even come close to describing what is required for 

this program. it is a huge disservice to every staff person at the school level who is tasked with this grant 

as an addition to their ongoing, full-time work. some of the job descriptions and codes are so inequitable 

that a state level 21CCLC staff person will make half the salary as a school-level project director.

Some of the training material covered resources from larger states that is not helpful to smaller states 

utilizing limited resources.

No recommendations at this time.

The announcement of some of the technical assistance opportunities is sent with little notice.

This is well done. _x000D_ Y4Y is an excellent resource. _x000D_ However, TA from Tactile Group for 

21APR has been repetitive with lots of meetings with no new information. The information SEAs need to 

understand how to collect good data and report it is still not complete. Not sure where the breakdown 

occurred, but the process of developing a new system for APR data collection and reporting feels broken.

The 21C team are all very helpful and provide quick replies, go out of their way to assist, and are 

knowledgable about the work. The lower score in this area is really related to the lack of non-regulatory 

guidance. The expanded learning field has gone through significant change since [DATE_TIME] and the 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 325

lack of guidance for this program indicates a lack of attention by the agency to ensure a whole school, 

whole community, whole child approach to the education of our students. Non-regulatory guidance is 

needed.

Not sure

In-person meeting and conferences need to come back. The interactions between ED staff and other 

SEA 21st CCLC outside of formal meetings is invaluable and I miss this a great deal. Please consider inperson events soon!

Continued opportunities for SEA staff to network with peers is needed. Hopefully these meetings can 

occur in person next year.

I have good communication with my project officer and they respond in a timely manner. Although, 

department staff rarely answer your questions without having to consult their internal attorneys office. 

Final responses sometimes take months which impedes the work on the part of the SEA's. _x000D_ Our 

states department of education has a policy to respond in a timely manner, within a few days.

Their current structures in place for technical assistance have been excellent.

The last few years this has been a strength of the program, particularly structured opportunities for peerto-peer networking and sharing.

N/A

They are the best. I could not ask for a better group of individuals to partner with.

n/a

This was an amazing process and the most useful tool USDE has provided our SEA in it's program 

development. The process is organic yet organized and structured to provide much needed targeted 

assistance in underdeveloped areas.

The content for subgrantees is good, such as Y4Y. _x000D_ _x000D_ The Summer Symposium is 

appreciated._x000D_ _x000D_ The online SEA Meetings are good and helpful (fewer per year might be 

preferable)._x000D_ _x000D_ I wish DOE 21st CCLC would make at least one in-person meeting per 

year mandatory, otherwise I cannot attend.

New GPRA measures seem to have been made without any consultation with state coordinators in the 

field. The TA "experts" created GPRA measures (such a GPA) that were not used anywhere as they 

intended, so a whole conversion chart had to be made. Highly recommend revising GPRA measures to 

be things we really have info on that would inform progress from the 21st CCLC program and not just 

coincidental progress that cannot be attributed specifically to 21st CCLC. Please use a subcommittee of 

state coordinators to advise on what would be useful to Congress and to states.

NA

Overall, the TA has improved in the last 1-2 years.

More in person networking ops
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 326

the TA has been limited to LONG virtual meetings with not much peer to peer time. Even when Peer to 

peer time is planned in it is often scripted and not very useful for seasoned SEA staff.

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that provided 

technical services to you.

Tactile Group

Y4Y

Y4Y

Tactile Group

Y4Y - just searching around on my own time

Tactile Group

The Tactile Group

You for Youth

21st CCLC

You for Youth

You 4 Youth

Y4Y

Y4Y

You for Youth

Tactile

National Comprehensive Center at Westat

You for Youth

Comprehensive Center

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 327

You for youth

Tactile Group provided RFP Development and Critical Element Development sessions to align the SEA 

and USDE compliance with targeted support in underdeveloped areas.

Tactile

Tactile Group

Tactile Group

Comprehensive Centers; You 4 Youth

tactile group

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role? (Other, please specify)

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 328

Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA) Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

I never have luck with the website. Some link are outdated or not working. Search terms don't always 

yield good results. I find it faster to just email my area coordinator rather than deal with the website.

need how navigate website for more efficient result.

A "dashboard" with deadlines (negotiations, state plan, performance reports, etc)

Update links on the website and on DAEL electronic publications. Many links are outdated.

None. It's pretty easy to navigate.

Need a directory

When searching WIOA and Adult Education resources on the U.S. Department of Education website 

(e.g. memos, technical assistance documents, regulations), I frequently do not find what I am seeking. 

The pages have improved but still seem to not include a lot of information about the regulations or 

technical assistance (or I am not finding the answers I am seeking).

NA

I have no issues with the website.

NA

Continue to make it intuitive and group information by topic and date.

No suggestions for improvement

Please make the OCTAE Monitoring Tool/Modules more easily accessible.

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).

NA

everything is clear.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 329

I know it's difficult to be specific, but sometimes the broadness of the answer makes it difficult to know 

exactly the parameters of the rules (statute, etc).

Release in a timely manner. Often waiting.

Non-regulatory. As a new director, the challenge is always interpreting guidance. I think more Q/A would 

be helpful for more granular details when trying to implement policy at the state level. Q/A or FAQ's helps 

to better understand intent. Due to state flexibility for implementation in several areas, having some 

parameters to ensure proper interpretation of guidance would be useful.

There is a need for a State Directors meeting at least annually and that has not happened this year.

NA

Continue to review ways to improve and enhance the explanation and examples used for documents and 

policies.

No suggestions for improvement

Blast Emails and high-level correspondence still occasionally prove frustrating. For example, as the 

Program Specialist for AEFLA, I did not learn about the Engagement Session with OCTAE's Senior 

Leadership until very late--and only because I broached a similar topic with my federal coordinator during 

the Performance Negotiations. Admittedly, I feel sympathetic to OCTAE's efforts to notify relevant staff in 

all positions. [NAME]'s redundant emails sometimes prove quite important and well-received!

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.

a unify data reporting form.

Some of the data validations added in the NRS system changed our understanding of denominators 

without any communication regarding those changes. This created inconsistency in our reporting, 

specifically follow-up outcomes. So, communication regarding specific data validations would be helpful.

States should have access to the information from the Statistical Adjustment Model BEFORE State plans 

have to be submitted. This would help a great deal in the performance negotiations process.

It'd be easier if it were possible to upload directly from a CSV, excel file, etc

Access to the portal in a timely fashion.

1. One issue with the MSG tables in that the gain does not necessarily reflect what POP the gain was 

attained. Table 4: Columns B â€“ J use data from the first period of participation (POP) but it's possible 

that a participant may not get a gain in the first POP but did get a gain either in a subsequent POP or 

between POPs (this is most common with the secondary school diploma or equivalent gain). As a result, 

the gains must be moved to the first POP. This manipulation must be done so column E in Table 4 and 

column B in Table 4A will match. Column B in Table 4A shows the total number of participants who 

received an EFL gain at any time during the reporting period (not just the first POP) but the two columns 

must match so gains must be moved to pass edit checks._x000D_ _x000D_ 2. We suppor removing 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 330

records without SSNs from the exit-based measures denominators. Since Texas calculates employment 

outcomes by matching against UI wage records, if a participant is missing the SSN it is not possible for 

that participant to be included in the numerators._x000D_ _x000D_ 3. We rarely use the NRS tables for 

program monitoring. Texas relies on internal monthly performance and management reports to monitor 

and improve program and provider performance. We also produce ad-hoc analysis to better pinpoint and 

address areas of concern._x000D_ _x000D_ 4. We would like a copy of the SAM methodology and the 

coefficients for each factor used in the analysis rather than the overall result of the model. What and how 

specific economic/demographics fields were used in order for states to replicate the model. For example, 

UI rate (the specific time period(s) used), which (if any) industry sectors, the specific demographic fields 

etc. We would also like to have the ability to download the model/tool with all the variable fields' 

coefficients

The reporting portal is very much improved. More communication on how data is used would be helpful.

NA

Continue to enhance ways to make reporting easier and more intuitive. Begin to offer targeted training 

designed for each of the reporting sections early on before the reporting deadline. Record these mini 

trainings so they can be viewed. A suggestion is to create an interactive data reporting course that state 

administrators must attend.

No recommendations for improvement

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.).

Perhaps quarterly informal state director meetings to highlight best practices that OCTAE approves 

of/likes?

it helped me alot.

More organized scheduling for targeted assistance. The virtual technology has not always worked 

properly. Follow-up on identified issues takes a long time (several weeks, even months).

More difficult to share best practices in online meetings - not quite as useful as in person.

It would be nice if department staff reach out at least twice a year to provide quidance.

Need more sharing opportunities

The pandemic has shifted training from in-person to virtual, making peer-to-peer sharing more 

challenging.

As a new director, there is a lot to absorb and the often 'high level' overview of statute or regulations is 

not granular enough to support state level decision making or really understand the full breadth of state 

flexibility. I find great value in being able to converse with other state directors with more experience and 

PLEASE bring back in person conferences. The interpersonal connections that are made are invaluable. 

I think the LINCS resources are great, but I struggle to keep up with all the content. The new website is a 

vast improvement and has allowed me/staff to find things easily.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 331

The trainings and national leadership activities are very valuable.

NA

Technical assistance can be improved by creating a technical assistance portal where questions can be 

asked and FAQ's and Examples of best practice tools can be housed.

No suggestions for improvement

Trainings should now be in person. As a state we are back to in-person services, staff at DOE should 

provide in person training to better connect and build relationships with state directors.

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that provided 

technical services to you.

AIR

NRS

OCTAE

AIR

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role? (Other, please specify)

WIOA Programs in-house advisor

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

AEFLA - 2022 - Q3.11. What can DAEL do over the next year to meet your state’s 

technical assistance/program improvement needs?

Have states with innovative practices share those in a conference or meeting.

more training.

It is challenging for all training to fit the variety of states from size to which type (K-12, CC, 

Labor) of agency receives funds. NRS staff do what they can to think through the issues related 

to this variety.

national sharing is needed
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 332

NA

Everything is good.

NA

Continue to look at ways to use technology to create supports and resources.

No suggestions

In person meetings and trainings. Develop mentoring system. Guidance needs to be clearer 

and provide examples. We need a network.

AEFLA - 2022 - Q3.18. Please describe how DAEL could improve its AEFLA.ED.GOV 

website 

Search results are all over the place and include all the other titles. Not quick to find anything 

that isn't already broad/plain to understand.

more training.

None. Easy to navigate

More timely posting of documents

I still struggle with searching and finding what I am seeking on the [URL] website, especially 

technical assistance documents.

NA

It's good.

NA

Continue to evaluate and utilize the newest technologies to make the website intuitive and 

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 333

Alaska Native Education Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Organizing the site to easily navigate technical assistance resources for grantees, and to be responsive 

(for use on mobile devices like smart phones and iPads. More robust or relevant search function. 

Samples of completed forms.

I haven't used it a lot but some of the pages have a TON of information in spreadsheet format and 

scrolling them is cumbersome. The headers move with the grid and continually scrolling back up and 

down takes away from the process of finding information.

We have not visited [URL]. No feedback given at this time.

Current, updated information would is helpful. Website updates have consistently lagged and not always 

been very useful. Most recent updates are appreciated.

Don't really have a suggestion. It's just a lot of information.

I think this is workable. I have been able to get what I needed. Most helpful, however, is always a live 

person. I have been amazed and pleased with the responsiveness and assistance from my program 

officer. She has assisted in my use of the website which may be what makes it a good experience.

n/a

None

It works well, maybe a connection for all grantees to share.

All is fine.

More responsive, user-friendly design. Simpler and easier to read/interpret design (drop down menus, 

fillable forms, search functions, etc.)

I've not had occassion to visit it so far.

Drag and drop reporting

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).

Honestly, they do a pretty great job. I will say that the support under [NAME] is excellent.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 334

Newsletters should feature successful grant programs/program activities, highlighting successful 

strategies for program implementation.

I feel like we've had a lack of information this year. So my scores were based on that perspective. 

Somewhat new to grants, I realize that I don't know what I don't know and if information isn't sent on a 

regular basis, I simply don't know what questions to ask. I feel like our program could be better 

supported with more information coming to us (and then beyond that, I would hope for clarity and breadth 

of information.)

Organization of information could be improved by putting the subject matters in the same place.

Appreciate thorough presentations and discussion during technical assistance calls and review of 

information and getting updates. Blast e-mails tend to show up very close to meetings, which complicates 

scheduling and creates conflicts with meetings already set on our calendar.

Everything has been very well thought out.

What are "Blast emails"?

n/a

None

Very good.

All is fine.

Provide more notice for attending upcoming events. Emails have been the day before the event 

occurring. This does not provide time for planning or fitting these important events into our tight schedule.

I've not seen very much of these.

These documents feel long and cumbersome. A nice bulleted list of frequently made mistakes might be a 

nice reference.

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.

It is hard to report some of our successes.

APRs should follow the fiscal year prior rather than fall in the middle of program activities. For example, 

ANEP APR is due in June, 3 months before the end of the fiscal year.

We have a report due soon (within 60 days) and have had no information delivered as to how that data 

will be entered. We were told there is a new platform but I've seen nothing regarding the use of it or a 

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 335

Access to submit and review reporting in the G5 System to more than one staff member. When in the G5 

system it is hard to find your way around it, the database is not intuitive.

I understand that our reporting process is shifting a bit this year, and so will look forward to providing 

feedback on that process.

I understand we will be using a new format heading forward. Part of the problem with G5 has been the 

rigidity of the system. Too many data points had to be reported in the narrative section. Looking forward 

to any improvements.

n/a

Really, I cannot respond to the reporting requirement or process. We have not done this, nor have we 

received a lot of specific information. I know this is slated for [DATE_TIME].

n/a

None

Questions answered quicker

This will be my first time so I need to go through the process

Make access easier to get past documents (APRs, etc) from older program years. We have had the 

problem where Grant or Program Directors from previous years were the only ones with access to 

previous reports or award notifications, making it difficult for new staff who replaced them to access those 

documents.

I've not had to submit any reports yet.

I like the shift to working with logic models and reporting based on our outcomes. Standardized test and 

class demographics information has been hard for us to gather, especially through the pandemic.

Drag and drop report entering

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.).

We did not have any technical assistance beyond revamping our logic model. That session was 

incredibly helpful though.

Provide a dedicated TA provider.

We appreciated the support this year with logic models. More feedback like that is invited. What would 

also be very helpful is support to ensure that tribal entities and collaborating agencies are on the same 

page with regard to fiscal management and general program obligations. Also, G5 assistance, since that 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 336

seems to be a confusing space sometimes, would be a recommendation. Finally, a space for entities to 

share successes (both in terms of accomplishment and collaborations) would be great.

There needs to be more peer-to-peer opportunities. There has not been an in-person meeting for ANEP 

in years, even before the pandemic.

n/a

It would be helpful if we did have contact with other grantees. Face-to-face is preferred. Hearing about 

others projects and obstacles/successes would be good.

n/a

More training for new managers would be great.

Good

The logic model training was quite valuable. More training like that with grant-specific follow up either 

during the application period or immediately following project awards would be wonderful.

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that provided 

technical services to you.

Regional Education Laboratories

correcting the spelling for registration of name on GAN

I don't remember, it was just once

Phone center in [ADDRESS]

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role? (Other, please specify)

CTE Director

Grant and Contracts Senior Manager

Former grant coordinator, now supervisor for current coordinator

Program Coordinator

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 337

ANE - 2022 - Q63.3. Do you feel the frequency of technical assistance provided by ANE 

staff is sufficient for supporting the implementation of your grant? Why or why not?

Yes, sometimes I feel the program managers have too much work on their plate.

It is sufficient, staff generally respond promptly to inquiries or requests for assistance. In a 

couple of cases they needed to get guidance from legal staff to provide accurate allowable 

expense information and that was done promptly also.

No. I am worried about the upcoming APR and we've had no guidance in plan or process.

We have not had any contact with a TA provider.

Seems sufficient, although I would welcome more TA sessions.

Yes. ANE staff have done a great job. Very responsive, especially to questions via e-mail.

Would like to see a monthly open session to ask questions.

It is sufficient because my program officer is RESPONSIVE every time I need help.

n/a

I'm still pretty new, so I'm not sure.

Sufficient

Yes. All questions have gotten answered.

Yes. Timely, but not a burden.

No. Quarterly check ins may be more helpful.

yes, we have a strong program with excellent local resources, little assistance has been needed 

to lift the ANE grant

Yes, this is a well established grant and was running smoothly when I took over.

Yes because my organization has a lot of experience with the grants. I receive a lot of internal 

support.

ANE - 2022 - Q63.5f. Which form of technical assistance do you find most helpful? 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 338

one on one consults

phone calls

ANE - 2022 - Q63.7. What technical assistant topics can the ANE program provide at 

Project Directors’ meetings to support the implementation of your grant projects more 

effectively?

It would be nice to have some more in-depth grant training. Compliance issues etc.

more clarity on indirect cost rate and administrative caps

No cost extension requests and carryforward/carry over topics.

APR plan and process. And maybe budgeting. I've struggled with finding a good tool to recordkeep and I'd love guidance in that as well as budget surplus plans. (It's been a rough couple of 

years...)

Grant reporting guidance and clarification.

1. Sessions for tribal entities and collaborating agencies on fiscal management and general 

obligations. 2. Successful collaborations and successful projects 3) G5 training

Webinar/Consult in overcoming barriers

We need some detailed and sustained training about data for reporting: what is required, what 

will be ours to respond to, how to legitimately assess and report our progress.

steps for semi-annual reporting

na

APR assistance

APR, Logic Model

More budgetary and reporting webinars. On LAB reports and budget restrictions and best 

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 339

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

A

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

currency of information; more descriptive info

Visually I could be updated and easier to search for information.

No comments at this time.

Very "governmental" in the way it looks. Seems like it's rarely ever been updated, or if it has, I haven't 

heard about it. Dashboards to see trends or ideas from other ANNH grantees? Highlight certain grantees 

or colleges to promote best practices?

no suggestions, excellent design

Information can be hard to find on the Dept of Ed websites in general. Sometimes information that used 

to be there is not. Things are better since [NAME] has left. As far as I can tell, she purposely made 

information unavailable. For example, the grants forecast was not updated for years, literally years, 

during her tenure.

None

Not sure. It is very functional

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.

clarity of fiscal year to report; deduce redundancy questions on the APR; allow to save input without 

completing all questions on the page

There are some questions that are repetitive, can they be deleted?

The online reporting for Objectives and Performance Measures is difficult to navigate and doesn't align 

with approved grant proposal.

No comments at this time.

Don't know if these reports are ever read, never heard from the department how these would be used. No 

feedback is offered.

No sugggestions
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 340

Overall the reporting format has improved. The first question in the executive summary could have a 

more generous word limit say 500 words. I often have projects with multiple components and I cannot fit 

a good summary into the alloted space. The current format does provide a place to expand on each 

component in the performance measures section, so that is good.

None

Have not completed a report yet.

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

ANNH - Part A - 2022 - 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.

We communicated more about redistribution of funds

It was difficult reaching the program specialist or anyone within the ANNH program by phone 

when questions would arise or to follow up in that status of budget revisions. Email responses 

were also delayed.

No comments at this time.

Not much guidance from the program specialist during this period. Also, not much guidance on 

how to creatively spend down funds that couldn't be expended due to shelter in place 

restrictions. Flexibility and guidance would have been helpful and appreciated.

[NAME] and [NAME] have always been great at answering questions, helping me resolve 

technical issues and providing information in a timely manner. I really appreciate them.

Very helpful and satisfied.

My Specialist is excellent.

ANNH - Part A - 2022 - Q15.5. What can the ANNH-Part A do to improve communication 

with you?

facilitate peer sharing

Having more staff available to answer basic questions about program on phone.

No comments at this time.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 341

Program Specialist needs to answer email/program requests in a more timely manner. Difficult 

to get approvals on requests without having to send multiple requests.

Regarding the timeliness issue, it's the first year of a new award that does not match up with the 

academic cycle. Having the award start [DATE_TIME] means the semester is already 

underway. This is not an issue in continuation years. That is the beginning of the federal year, 

so I don't know as anything can be done about that.

Very professional.

ANNH - Part A - 2022 - Q15.7. How would you advise on improving the overall process 

and protocols associated with this grant competition?

Improve the APR form

Earlier communication about funding opportunities.

No comments at this time.

Competitions have been inconsistent in recent years, sometimes varying by 6 months from year 

to year. Continuation awards have also varied, sometimes arriving just before the new grant 

year begins. This increases stresses for colleges and employees.

The grant competition documents are clear and well put together.

None
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 342

American Rescue Plan and Emergency Relief HCY

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

I like the website and the resources provided.

It took me a little while to figure out how to navigate around and get to the things I wanted. Some of the 

terms are only accessible to those who know exactly what they are looking for.

1)Many documents that are still relevant to the grant have broken links located within the text of the 

document. _x000D_ 2)Many of the webpages are too wordy. When we go to the site it should be easier 

to navigate and find what we are searching for.

More user friendly_x000D_ Make sure links work

Sometimes it's a little clunky to find things. It's nicer looking and more modern than the previous version, 

but not always easy to locate the specific resources.

N/A

The website could use more visual appeal. photos, fonts, color adjustments. The website contains great 

information but does not grab the appeal to continue to read or search through.

I feel like it was hard to navigate to the specific EHCY & ARP-HCY. Like when I was looking for SEAapproved or returned state plans it was not easy to find the landing page for this. It was confusing. But 

once OI found the page it was easy to see the information I was looking for.

The font is small and it is not always clear where to find what I am looking for.

Nothing at this time.

The website is fine, but requesting the posting of more timely guidance re: ARP-HCY grant funding and 

the use of these funds. There was an initial delay in written guidance provided by EHCY when the funds 

were first released. The guidance has recently been provided in a more timely manner...written and 

verbal guidance.

Have it more accessible- if go to [URL] website 1st you need to click "all over' to find MV/EHCY

I'm not sure.

The website could be more user-friendly for easily locating resources.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 343

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).

A newsletter with changing or upcoming information could be useful on a regular basis. I have enjoyed 

the blast emails with information as well.

provide more relevant, updated guidance_x000D_ provide relevant information to specific populations 

(i.e. rural, LGBTQia+, parenting and pregnant youth, etc.)

There are many gray areas that state departments have a hard time adjusting to accomodating -

especially with regard to spending and contracting. Some help from EHCY with regard to state systems 

feeling confident or suited to adjust/shift would be great. When the feds speak, people listen.

N/A

Updated non-regulatory guidance would be greatly appreciated as the current one is now going on 5 

years old. I am not sure I receive the newsletter. Emails are the best news and very clear and concise.

Sometimes the FAQs raise more questions and it can take a while to get more information.

Nothing at this time.

I think it would be beneficial to provide a searchable online EHCY-specific FAQ that could cover 

allowable costs and clarification of various EHCY topics.

N/A

n/a

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.

More webinars with clarifying information.

I'm not sure how to answer this.

N/A

I love the training we receive; however, I would like training on how my state specific data can be 

interpreted. Also, as we grow into newer data hungry times, we need to discuss the disparity in race and 

ethnicities experiencing homelessness. It would be great to discuss age brackets, not just grade levels. I 

believe 2 other departments in my DOE submit and collect the data for me and their input would be 

greatly appreciated. I find it difficult to get my state data in a file that is helpful to myself as the SC.

Data reporting is done by our data office. I am not involved in that.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 344

Nothing at this time.

The last question helped me realize I'm not sure how the Department uses the data unless that's part of 

the collaboration with NCHE. I know they post it on their website.

There is nothing on the OESE website for EHCY or ARP HCY that speaks to the grant reporting process 

that I could locate.

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.).

More frequent meetings and trainings.

Putting people together in a room to talk through real-time challenges is valuable. _x000D_ We could use 

more support with regard to the hard things -- the spending on unconventional things and the contracting 

for unconventional services, our plans are developed based on data in ongoing needs' assessment, and 

yet we are shut down by state systems frequently. It'd be helpful to have backup support for the things 

that are allowable, but not easily attainable.

N/A

Request for assistance should be appropriate for the sender. Many times, assistance is just restating the 

Act verbatim or quoted from another resource such as the non regulatory guidance. Sometimes more in 

depth discussion and explanation is needed so that the sender understands the reason for the "why". I 

would like ANY support with the EHCY grant as we do not have great direction on how the SEA could 

provide a better service with their allocations. For example, we are still seeing "supplies" in our grants. 

We receive that it's the SEA to train LEAs to use the grant for something more functional. Some support 

from the DOE level would help the SEA enforce that (setting limits on % of allocation to be used for 

supplies) and having webinars to share great applications from SEAs or activites that have started from 

the grants would be very helpful.

I do not go to program staff for technical assistance. I prefer to reach out to NCHE.

Nothing at this time.

It seems the majority of the TA received by my state is through the technical assistance center and not 

directly from Department staff. I appreciate their participation in the meetings sponsored by the TA 

Center, however.

The work/coordination w/the TAC is helpful.

n/a
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 345

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that provided 

technical services to you.

National Center on Homeless Education

Education Northwest

NCHE

Neglected or Delinquent Education Technical Assistance Center

National Center for Homeless Education (NCHE)

NCHE

National Center for Homeless Education (NCHE)

nche

National Center for Homeless Education

NCHE

[NAME]

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role? (Other, please specify)

State Level Dept of Ed staff

state coordinator

Grant Manager

Federal Programs Assist. Administrator

Homeless Education State Coordinator

state homeless education coordinator
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 346

American Rescue Plan Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools 

(ARP EANS)

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Ensuring page layout consistency that aligns across the department is critical for ensuring ease of use.

Need information on reversion of funds to a Governor's office.

Add the statutory language from the federal reserve to the actual website.

Provide up-to-date information reflecting all requirements from the US Department of Education with 

regard to the EANS program.

No comments at this time.

The ARP EANS Application process was very confusing and the requirements were hard to understand. 

USED leaned in and enforced statutory language, specifically "enroll a significant percentage of students 

from low-income families," that could have been left up to the States to define. It was unclear what 

standard the USED used to establish the proposed minimum percentage of low income students, nor 

how they went about approving alternate calculations (Indiana was told that they would go no lower than 

20%, but that was not written anywhere). Finding vague language like this and then enforcing it through a 

vague application process across all 50 states and [ADDRESS] territories made ARP EANS significantly 

more cumbersome to administer and shifted implementation of the program away from how state 

allocations were determined, at least in Indiana's case. This small and unnecessary decision to enforce 

this language the way USED decided to enforce this language put administrative limitations on Indiana 

(and other states) that limited our ability to effectively serve students in non-public schools. This 

requirement is not enforced under any other COVID relief program, LEAs are free to use ESSER funds 

on schools that enroll any percentage of students from low-income families. Enforcing this language for 

the EANS program seemed targeted and malicious.

no additional feedback at this time.

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).

Non-regulatory guidance should consider operational differences state to state.

Need guidance information on reversion of funds to a Governor's office.

There were many questions regarding the program for which we were told we would receive answers to. 

We never received answers to most of the questions that were asked. Some individual states received 

different information. The FAQ was only published twice but did not include the questions asked during 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 347

outreach and trainings. Email blasts only went out regarding the obligation period. No other information 

was provided. The lack of guidance and direction made this program EXTREMELY difficult to manage.

We recommend that all guidance documents include accurate, up-to-date information on EANS 

requirements from the Department. In order to implement successfully, we needed more granular 

information on both the federal requirements and technical assistance on implementation. _x000D_ 

_x000D_ SEAs often have different relationships/structures with their private schools versus their 

traditional LEAs and nonpublic schools. It would have been helpful to receive additional support and 

written guidance on how to navigate grant implementation given these unique structures.

No comments at this time.

Guidance was released after implementation had begun, with key changes that impact program 

implementation.

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.

Quality of published data is a potential concern because there have been instances in which definitions 

and indicators have been unclear or have changed.

We have not submitted the report yet so I could not expand on how to improve the process.

SEAs require multiple levels of approval for high stakes federal reporting. As such, we strongly 

recommend that the Department open the reporting portal much earlier in the reporting window to allow 

sufficient time for internal reviews and approvals. In addition, we request that any data/information in the 

reporting process be included in a data template (Excel) provided by the Department. This will allow us to 

navigate our own internal approval and review processes. Some of the required data fields were provided 

by the Department solely in PDF form and not in the data tables which made prep work challenging. 

_x000D_ _x000D_ We strongly recommend that the Department provide technical assistance webinars 

in preparation for reporting that focus on tough issues, data errors, previewing submissions in the portal, 

etc. versus an overview of previously provided written documentation

Establish reporting requirements at the start of the grant period and do not change them subsequently. 

Limit requirements to elements required by federal statute.

Provide more details on how U.S. Department of Education intends to use the data (aside from posting to 

the central page).

Because of the way we structured our program, and the fact that the SEA provided services on the 

school's behalf (either directly or through contract) helped make data collection and reporting very easy.

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.).

Guidance seems to be issued on the fly or after certain requirements have been implemented. Although 

in this case it is a statutory issue based on tight and sometimes unrealistic timelines, USDE staff might be 

able to work with Congress directly to address some of these issues before authorization.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 348

Webinars tend to just read materials already available; that isn't helpful.

Program staff read to us from slides during their "office hours". They did not answer any question that 

was not directly addressed in the presentation slides. They did not answer any questions answered in the 

chat that were not directly related to the presentation slides. Program staff promised to share answers to 

our questions but that never happened.

Per our previous feedback, we recommend that the Department provide training that supports SEA 

program staff with implementation. Focus areas could include sharing of best practices across SEAs; 

navigating structural challenges with respect to SEA/private school partnerships; reporting data 

errors/simulations; peer-to-peer discussions on procurement challenges and reimbursement processes, 

etc.

Technical assistance sessions should be limited to state staff.

Department staff have been very responsive to our questions. If an email is unclear, a meeting is set up 

to talk through it. No specific improvement comments at this time.

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that provided 

technical services to you.

NDTAC

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role? (Other, please specify)

SEA Finance Administrator

Senior State Official

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

ARP EANS - 2022 - Q70.5. Describe how the Office of State and Grantees Relations can 

further empower you to make decisions about the implementation of your ARP EANS 

grants.

Ensuring solid guidance up front is key in program success.

Provide more guidance and best practices. Provide more direct services to struggling states. 

This program was not established with state procurement laws in mind and caused a lot of 

headaches for states to administer.

States need timely responses from USDE to our questions. USDE should not require states to 

obligate ARP EANS funds within 6 months when this is not required in federal statute and is not 

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 349

No comments at this time.

Dissolution is a big issue and guidance form USED has initially been helpful.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 350

American Rescue Plan to the Outlying Areas

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

I have no complaints. The staff are excellent in addressing any questions we have.

It is fine as it is. Very informative and user-friendly.

No comments. It's effective as it is.

Updated videos, templates, guidance

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).

Excellent pefornance.

There is a need for more information sharing through emails to update and inform outlying areas on 

expectations, requirements, additional useful resources, etc.

Evaluation samples that could help with implementation of LEA projects.

Newsletter and blasts emails.

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.

We are Ok with the process.

Fine as is.

Need support on what type of data that could be helpful in improving projects.

Revisit reporting formats. More guidance on evaluating ARP(evaluation templates, etc.).

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 of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 351

N/A

Staff has been very helpful considering I am only in Grants Office for one year.

N/A

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that provided 

technical services to you.

REGIONS 18 & 19 COMPREHENSIVE CENTERS

Region 19 Team

NGMA

[NAME]
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 352

Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander Institutions 

Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

The website contains a lot of great information that is needed but is very text heavy. It would be nice to 

have more aesthetic, visuals of students, DOE staff...make it look for human verses institutional. I 

understand need for uniformity across DOE pages. One or two photos of staff or program population 

would be nice to see.

There should be a guide for first-time AANAPISI grantees - what to do, what to consider, what to contact 

Program Officer for assistance, etc.

It would be helpful to have more resources/examples of spending. The categories are so broad (which is 

appreciated), but then it causes concerns with whether or not something is allowable. The number of 

emails with program officers could be reduced by having more information readily available.

Keep it more up to date.

It needs to be adapted to work on mobile

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.

the APR process and system has improved and ease of use is getting better. The pre-populated answers 

was helpful. Continue ability to pre-populate responses so we can just input what the current updates are 

is helpful annual. With the ability to make edits as well would be great.

The webinar was useful but was delivered at a very quick pace. It would be helpful to have a session at 

the APAHE conference about the annual grant reporting process.

There should be a technical or a training session for the first-time grantee to fill the APR report. I had a 

hard time figuring out what to submit especially in the budget section 3C under "Next year's actual 

budget?" -- what do you mean by that? Do you want us to include rollover funds to include that column, 

etc? _x000D_ _x000D_ Section 5- I think it's too early for first-year grantees to complete. That section 

should be for year 4-5 grantees.

The live sessions that are held could be live examples. Essentially, what I attended just walked through 

the documents we already had, so it did not feel helpful.

A section of the APR would not save any work so it was difficult to complete as all fields had to be filled in 

for the save button to work. It was a very long section requiring lots of data so this was not conducive to 

the reporting process.

It needs to be accessible by mobile
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 353

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role? (Other, please specify)

Project Director

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

AANAPISI - 2022 - 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.

Communications about my questions during the pandemic was responsive, thorough, and 

provided through multiple modalities such as webinars, emails, and ability to engage with other 

AANAPISI colleagues. My program specialist communication was timely and available when I 

needed.

Pearson is great! He responds to our questions accordingly. But, I think there should be more 

training and support for the first-year first-time grantee.

I cannot say how it was impacted or not. I have only worked with them during COVID-19.

We didn't have the project at the beginning or middle of pandemic. We started in [DATE_TIME].

AANAPISI - 2022 - Q20.5. What can the AANAPISI do to improve communication with 

you?

keep it up. Pearson is always available and responses are very quick. He is always accessible, 

professional, informative of what is needed to be successful. He is approachable and kind which 

in past experiences with other DOE officers this was not the case. I feel that as a program 

officer he wants us to be successful to support grant objectives, students, and overall mission of 

our college and program. Keep it up! AANAPISI in [ADDRESS] state is growing and I am 

excited and grateful for the opportunity to build collectively AANAPISI state wide and to working 

with [NAME] and your team.

Make better use of verbal communication. To date communication has been limited to written 

only.

Maybe a quarterly reminder on what needs to be done or an upcoming AANAPISI grant that we 

can apply to.

It would be helpful to have more regional and/or part-specific meetings. We have the list, but 

facilitation would help to gather people together to discuss wins, challenges, and other 

opportunities. There may be ways grant recipients could even collaborate differently to make 

dollars go further. This is especially true with the hybrid/virtual environment in which we are now 

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 354

It would be great to have workshops and/or webinars specifically for new projects with new

Directors. The one I attended seemed very general but something that is interactive or with 

smaller groups (for individual attention) would be good.

Sometimes more information or details could be provided when communicating about certain 

situations. _x000D_ _x000D_ Overall, replies to specific questions are timely and helpful.

AANAPISI - 2022 - Q20.6e. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with 

your program specialist?

email & phone

AANAPISI - 2022 - Q20.7. How would you advise on improving the overall process and 

protocols associated with this grant competition?

I appreciated the webinar, collective sharing at least initially. Then we can build and collaborate 

from then on. What would be helpful if possible, is to share a timeline annually of upcoming 

grant competitions we can prepare for in the future. I am not sure how regular funding 

competitions happen. Lately it has been annually which is awesome.

Notify all grantees when a new RFP/RFA is issued. Institutions who submit an AANAPISI grant 

for the first time struggle with developing a strong proposal in a 60 day timeframe and meeting 

submission deadlines. Consider extending the deadline to 3 months from the time the RFP is 

issued.

Early communication. Provide more training and/or manual for first-time grantees.

I don't have any to improve the competition.

Provide more time for the application process (eg. at least 12 weeks). Provide more notice when 

a grant competition may open.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 355

Assistance for Arts Education Development and Dissemination 

Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Maybe by putting some best practice resources on the front of the website.

Remove all invalid content. There should be designated pages for each program (e.g.: AAE, AAEDD, 

PDAE, etc.). We shouldn't need to slog through so many items that don't pertain to our program._x000D_ 

Also, update the reporting pages. Instead of attending a webinar about what we don't need to fill out, 

create a new document in which all items are valid.

Provide more direction and information about the website, how to navigate, and the information it 

contains.

The website seems to be designed well and easy to follow.

Finding reporting templates, dates, etc. is extremely difficult.

The website looks clunky and is difficult to navigate. There's a lack of organization that makes it less than 

intuitive.

I can't say I regularly use the website. I use it primarily if there is a new grant competition. I think 

perhaps there could be more prominent information/FAQs geared towards new grantees, who often have 

the most questions. Visually, the site is rather bland, but sometimes that is what is desired, and that I 

can't comment on.

Search tool is not very efficient or accurate

I believe the website could provide materials/links that promote much better dissemination from projects. 

Many projects maintain websites (well past the end of funding) with materials that others could benefit 

from. As a dissemination focused project, the encouragement for more dissemination and facilitation of 

that dissemination could be much improved. Some projects are also publishing research from their work, 

but there is no place to disseminate those publications on the public-facing page or one the grantee site. 

Same thing for project evaluations. This seems like an easy area to improve the utility of the website.

No suggestions at this time.

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).

Example, I was sent an email which came with the instructions, "Look for the Dear Colleague email." 

That email never came.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 356

I think the communications from the DOE staff are fine as regards the AAEDD program.

NA

There was some confusion around GRPA measures but this was clarified during the webinar

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.

I think the process is very good. No recommendations at this point.

See previous comment on website. Remove superfluous documents, dedicate pages per grant program. 

Issue report templates for each grant program instead of creating a webinar about what we do and don't 

have to fill out.

Increased contact with the grantees regarding the reporting process and data required.

The grant reporting process is clear and as it stand it works.

Perhaps more frequent reminders and clarifications of what is or is not expected when!

How is the data for all grantees summarized and used?

I have not received feedback on my reports in recent years and I have no idea how the department 

processes the reports or acts on the information. Some feedback and additional information would be 

helpful.

It would be helpful to have follow up meetings with our program officer post report submittal in regard to 

our findings and the specifics around what and how the USDOE uses the data that our organization 

submitted.

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.).

Our team has always felt a lot of value from the technical assistance. We feel very supported and have 

enjoyed our interactions with the Department staff and the tech assistance providers.

I am unclear how this support is available.

Increased opportunities to share ideas/strategies for program improvement with department staff and 

other grantees.

Everything has been fine, our program officer has been wonderfully helpful.

Liked it better in person. The networking in person is essential sometimes
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 357

More reminders and opportunities to share best practices, findings from evaluation and research, and 

even grantee-led or facilitated subgroups, networking, and dialogue.

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that provided 

technical services to you.

Safal Partners

Safal Partners

[NAME] and [NAME]

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role? (Other, please specify)

Program Director

Senior Program Manager

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

AARTED - 2022 - Q69.3. What could the Arts team do to improve the content of technical 

assistance?

Not much, I think the content of the tech assistance is very good. Maybe give some more 

examples of best practices across other projects. Overall, I've always been very satisfied.

Increase opportunities to interact with staff.

We need to start meeting in person. Virtual meetings need to end.

Perhaps more peer to peer sharings and conversations?

in person meetings

More opportunities for grantees to regularly network and share.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 358

Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education State Directors

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Nothing specific comes to mind. Websites are continuously a work-in-progress.

easier to navigate

None

Improve the search feature on the website - allow for the use of filters to help with specificity. The overall 

look and feel of the website could be improved.

More headings to help find key resources.

NA

Items need to be tagged better. Many times when I search it takes me to places that are more research 

and not the actual document or resource I need from [NAME].

Very text intensive so that it is sometimes difficult to sift through the materials

Clearer explanations

Search for specific issues is sometimes not easily done. Broaden the search to allow for more specific 

input.

No concerns.

Content- include definitions for each special population sub category (may be CAR guidance manual 

however, data staff would like to be able to link to USDOE website for definitions)_x000D_ Contentinclude additional evidence based best practices that may be replicated

No comment.

Moe detail within the reporting modules rather than having to refer to an email for different items.

It may be the way I think of keywords versus the website. Websites are difficult to organize.

More specific links to FAQ.

Videos of content would be helpful and not just bulleted lists.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 359

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).

The information provided is mostly sufficient. I can't think of a specific instance where it wasn't sufficient.

With Perkins V, there has been no updated non-regulatory guidance issued to support our work.

I find the documents are helpful. It is then very helpful to have webinars/town halls where they are further 

explained.

Many times the information is too vague. Need more specifics and examples.

N/A

Being more direct and providing specific guidance

Program specific newsletters.

Documents usually assume one's knowledge level is high about past circumstances or policies, or 

sometimes that one knows what next steps might be. Should assume no knowledge. Use plain talk, not 

jargon. If referencing citations in law or rule, provide a direct link, not to a website where you have to 

search and, worse, remember your password. Also, documents rarely acknowledge the environmental or 

contextual differences among states. There should be mechanisms included to address current or 

emerging environments (what is waiverable and/or what is process for requesting adjustments?).

No comment.

The documents are descriptive. Sufficient information is provided and they are provided in a timely 

manner.

More specific timeframes and consistent communication.

The documents are often vague and open to multiple interpretations. Specificity and technical guidance 

would help.

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.

This is in relation to the CAR. We were asked for additional information/clarifying questions regarding 

our data. It would be helpful if states were given precisely what information is needed so we don't have 

to continue to respond to questions about our data.

Issues around submitting/having information may be a state issue and not a US DOE issue, but the 

financial reporting has been difficult for us in recent years.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 360

It was frustrating having to provide the same information in the "supplemental information" section upon 

follow-up request multiple times. For instance, information provided in the CTE participants section (like 

the state not offering programs in a specific career cluster) had to be re-entered and copy/pasted into 

each subsequent performance indicator page.

If you're going to let states determine their own performance indicators, then let us do that. If you want to 

control the performance indicators, then don't tell us we are in control. Don't require data that we don't 

have access to. Reporting old data doesn't inform decision making - by the time we report the data, the 

decisions have already been made.

The CAR is cumbersome to submit. One change requires recertifying dozens of pages that have not had 

changes.

3S1 is a difficult indicator to collect. We do not collect social security numbers which makes it difficult to 

collect employment information. It is not possible to collect military and service corps. Our numbers do 

not accurately reflect what is occurring. _x000D_ _x000D_ The data reporting after it is submitted does 

not represent clearly what we entered into the system. This needs changed.

The Perkins Portal for uploading templates is not intuitive and it is difficult to tell if it is uploading correctly 

and created literally hours of time of our staff time, our OCTAE contact's time and the contractor's time:(

Provide specific details of the data you want pulled. Also, one clear document that walks us through the 

whole process step by step.

The data requirements are in the law so Ed cannot change these.

As the lines between CTE and academic education become increasingly blurry and permeable, and CTE 

credential options are proliferating at a rapid pace, we need to rethink which measures are truly 

meaningful. We can't be expected to innovate with new pathways, public-private partnerships, LERs, or 

taking advantage of the full on-line marketplace if we are going to be held to a performance accountability 

system built to measure the way things were. Also, e need to see investments in SAAS/AI technology to 

ease reporting at the school level--still the weakest link in the reporting chain.

None

No comment.

Depending on the size of the state, time requirements necessary to pull data vary. Accurate lag data is 

more beneficial to program improvement than is self-reported data.

It is nice using one reporting system--Perkins portal.

Many of the items we entered in the system reported back errors based on old practices at OCTAE that 

did not align with our approved Perkins or ESSA plan. Providing a more complex system that can be 

manipulated based on state data performance.

This survey should have a "back" button on all of its pages. The manner is which we receive feedback 

requires the portal to be open multiple times.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 361

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 specific comes to mind. The technical assistance we are provided is always helpful. Our 

questions are always responded to in an orderly fashion.

I would like to see more peer-to-peer opportunities.

There is so little technical assistance provided.

Non-regulatory guidance would be helpful.

They are great with compliance/reporting issues -- but that is the extent of what they have offered to us.

Information is too limited.

training opportunities for support staff in addition to the state director's would be helpful

The department seems to focus on a couple of states more heavily than others.

Great availability, no concerns or suggestions.

No comment.

The OCTAE team is the best. I appreciate their assistance with every question we bring to them.

More consistent communication and engagement from our regional coordinator would be nice. The only 

communication we have is this when items are due OR when we initiate the questions.

Periodic meetings to keep State Directors up-to-date, letting State Directors know about upcoming 

changes, and opportunities for State Directors to share promising practices.

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that provided 

technical services to you.

REL-Central

We are currently involved with the Manhattan Strategy Group to improve our data

[NAME]

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role? (Other, please specify)
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 362

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 363

Centers of Excellence for Veterans Student Success (CEVSS)

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Sometimes it is hard to find information because it is buried deep in the website. Find a way to keep it 

easy to find. A good expanded list of FAQs is good.

I believe that the organization does a good job. It is very difficult to stay ahead of the many cyber attacks 

we go through on a daily basis.

Up to data info is needed; resources are needed;

No improvements is recommended.

The site needs to be more user-friendly when it comes to target deadlines and date specifics.

We were unable to click into several areas--e.g. resources.

Easier navigation

More resources and a clear navigation menu.

Conciseness and timeline with associated form management for delivery into the ED system.

A master list of grantees could be helpful for future reference, but I think the staff and the website are 

incredibly helpful and outstanding.

Modernize

N/A

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.

No suggestions at this point.

n

N/a

Not required to submit a APR yet
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 364

We have not received a request or link for any reports.

More updates on when reporting is due, how, and what is needed. It has been over a year since the grant 

was received and I have not had to report anything.

Have not yet participated in a reporting period.

Clarity on deadlines, a sample of past submitted reports for guidance

Clearer expectations after grant award.

Better forms online.

N/A

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role? (Other, please specify)

EVC, grants and partnerships

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

CEVSS - 2022 - 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.

All of the information received was very helpful. The clarity was very instrumental.

n

When asked questions, she responds quickly.

Our response from the program specialist did not appear to be affected by the pandemic as our 

program specialist provided consistent and timely communication.

Since we could not meet in person, virtual sessions should have been [should be] conducted to 

provide training on the CEVSS grant just like we would have received at the in-person meeting. 

I have felt very in the dark about this process and had to re-do the original plan and still achieve 

the same outcomes. I feel the annual meetings, virtual or in-person, would have been a 

tremendous help.

[NAME] an outstanding leader and an incredibly supportive administrator. I am so thankful she 

supports us and she always gives great guidance.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 365

Great response rate online.

N/A

CEVSS - 2022 - Q18.5. What can the CEVSS do to improve communication with you?

So far, all of the communication has been superb.

a listserv

Information on reporting requirements would be helpful.

Regular updates would be helpful as well as a project directors meeting

Provide 90-day and 60-day reminders before reporting requirements are due.

MONTHLY emails - updates - what are other grantees doing? Tips? _x000D_ Virtual annual 

meeting / Teams group for communication

Online notices, short and sweet

N/A

CEVSS - 2022 - Q18.6e. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with your 

program specialist? - Other (please specify) - Text

Video call

CEVSS - 2022 - Q18.7. How would you advise on improving the overall process and 

protocols associated with this grant competition?

The process has been fair in my opinion.

n

N/A

n/a
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 366

Better online forms.

N/A
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 367

Charter Schools Program (CSP) Grants to State Entities

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

The CSP website if forced to follow the bad layout of USED's website. Trying to do cross references is 

very difficult. I have liked the new steps CSP has taken in updating the website, but the whole site is 

rather antiquated.

Update the content more regularly and make it more timely

I feel like the info is hit-or-miss, and I've found occasional dead links. Could use a full revision and update 

so all materials are most up-to-date.

no suggestions. Sometimes out of date pages come up in the results.

More relevant and up to date information.

I can never find anything

It has improved greatly during the past few years. USDOE still needs to post up-to-date guidance, 

however.

The site changes a lot. Information seems to come and go. It's hard to stay oriented to where information 

is. _x000D_ I wish that information did not go away.

It's not easy to find items on the site. I have more luck by searching Google first.

- Videos and multimedia_x000D_ - lots of links within paragraph texts (perhaps a heading that says 

'important links', etc)

The website is dated. The materials on the website do not match the needs of SEA's. Example: many of 

the materials are connected to NCLB and not ESSA.

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).

I need guidance on how to wind-down the grant.

The information is very comprehensive.

It would be very helpful to future grantees if [NAME] would create a 'playbook' or guide for new grantees. 

Very little information was provided on how to get started administering your grant, including prioritizing 

what a new grantee should tackle first. The only way we figured out what is needed and in what order 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 368

was by connecting with previously-funded SE's. Sample RFA's, sample sub-grant contracts, sample 

monitoring documents, etc...would be very helpful.

I find this part of what the CSP team does done well.

Materials have mostly been provide via webinar. Slides are complete and detailed. There is non-reg 

guidance that dates from [DATE_TIME] and should be updated.

Update Non Regulatory Guidance.

It can be challenging to find all relevant documents, identify which key information is contained in each, 

and what resources may be outdated.

This could be improved by providing documents to grantees on a regular basis. While the resources from 

the TA provide are helpful. Direct documents from the program director and clear and consistent (timely) 

communication would serve grantees in their work. The creation of document templates to support the 

work (abbreviated allowable cost guide, updated policies, cross-office/department training outside of the 

SEA exchange would be appreciated. Regularly scheduled meetings for additional training online could 

also support the work.

Make up-to-date guidance, etc. available.

Waiting on non-regulatory guidance under ESSER. There's a lot of technical questions we encounter 

where there is not clear guidance from [NAME].

Some of the guidance seems to be very wordy, without being direct. A clear, concise answer would help 

mitigate any confusion on requirements.

Blast emails - the Opportunity 180 team is not included in the emails only our Project Executive. Is there 

any chance the team could be included?_x000D_ _x000D_ Blast emails - lots of blast emails can get lost 

in the midst. If there's a certain action item and/or important items, perhaps put <Action Item> or 

<Important Resources> in the subject of the email?

The APR needs a refresh. It seems like there should be an easier and more intuitive way to report out 

annual progress and tie out draws from G5.

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.

G5 is horrendously antiquated and difficult to manage and navigate.

G5 is sooooo slow at time which is the only reason this is marked lower.

The challenge here is not only interfacing with USDOE and understanding what data they want and in 

what form to provide it (that is a challenge), but an even greater challenge is getting the required data 

from our state department/board of education. Getting access to timely and accurate student data is 

difficult in [ADDRESS] and requires public records requests and patience.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 369

Reporting each year, but having that report only cover part of the year (reporting [DATE_TIME] on the 

period from [DATE_TIME]), does not seem helpful. The addition of the narrative component makes up for 

tis somewhat.

G5 is a clunky, difficult system to use. It is redundant to complete performance data in both word doc and 

G5 platform. Some information in the webinars seems to be outdated or contradicts the instructions.

Each year, the verbal information (garbled language, contradictory statements, unclear provided in the 

webinar makes me unsure of how to complete the report even though I've been doing it for years. I just 

use the cover letter and the slide deck. If they don't like the result, that's on them. Feedback after 

submission is derogatory and confrontational, attempting to make me "prove" myself and our SE's 

management of the award.

The timing of the report and dates are really awkward. What years are we talking about? School year? 

Calendar year? Federal fiscal year? Seems to be all over the place in terms of financial reporting and 

performance data reporting._x000D_ The CSP data collection is also very confusing. I think it would be 

simpler if we reported on total anticipated obligations to a subgrant recipient and expenditures to date. 

The multi-year breakdown and how that rolls into summary statistics is confusing. Also, it seems like we 

should be able to only report School Name and NCES ID. I don't understand why we have to put so much 

into the other fields (addresses, authorizer info, etc.). Isn't that all collected through EdFacts?

The G5 website does not match the way the preparation documents for the Annual Report are made, 

making the transfer of information from the APR documentation (via Word, excel) difficult into the G5 

website.

It would have been great to receive the monitoring information when we were first awarded the grant. It 

could have been used to create the systems and drive the collection of documentation from day one 

rather than trying to pull it together later.

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.).

Our CSP program officer is amazing and we are all fortunate to have her support to the SE program.

1:1 meetings with program officer (scheduled twice a year?) would be great. It's always good to connect 

with other grantees but that doesn't usually change the course of our work. TA directly from those who 

approved program requests would be very helpful.

The technical assistance provided by the Department staff and their consultants is excellent. The 

challenge for us in the states is getting the time of these individuals. Out in the field it looks like the 

USDOE team is overworked and understaffed. The people doing the work are first rate.

The sessions provided by the NCSRC are helpful - mostly when they connect program directors to their 

peers across the country. The in-person director's meetings are well run and helpful.

More staff that doesn't quit.

Peer to peer sharing might be easier on a platform that is not directly supervised by ED, to create a more 

safe space for difficult questions. I have heard that previously there were quarterly trainings or calls, and 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 370

would appreciate more frequent technical assistance (webinars). _x000D_ _x000D_ There is often a 

discrepancy in the timeline and precision of feedback in which different staff respond to questions.

No longer interested in seeking TA from Department staff.

Lack of non-regulatory guidance is a problem. Otherwise, I've been pleased with the TA. _x000D_ The 

SE/SEA exchange has been a let down. I have proposed questions but get no answers. I think that the 

ED or the contractor should be attempting to offer an answer to any/all questions asked. Maybe that 

would help encourage participation from others.

Unsure if this exists - is there a calendar of events for Technical Assistance opportunities?

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that provided 

technical services to you.

WestEd

Asking me to serve as mentor to a new grantee and asked to speak about SE to developer grantees.

WestEd

West Ed

NCSRC

WestEd

[NAME]

WestEd

WestEd, Manhattan Strategies. (not for CSP, but support on a separate area = [NAME] through the REL)

National Charter School Resource Center

#NAME?

Manhattan Strategy or WestED
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 371

College Assistance Migrant Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Keep things up to date

The website is great.

There are few broken links, e.g. [DATE_TIME] CAMP profiles.

Adding an FAQ section will be helpful.

A scroll down page with a better search engine.

It is not search friendly, and it is not easy to find information by scrolling either

Maybe during the Annual Directors Meeting someone can present in a workshop on how to navigate the 

website for New Directors.

I answered N/A as I can't remember accessing the website in the last year to look for resources

Provide the most recent pdf slides from recent webinars.

To be honest, I don't use it very often.

As the PI, I don't utilize the website often but am sure that the Project Director does and that they have 

provided more information on this.

Add some videos of interviews with best practices. Maybe a video on student stories about the services. 

Consider online bot.

No recommendations; The website knows it user, well-designed, navigation friendly, its organized and 

consistent.

Incorporate an FAQ

At times, when I have visited the site, content won't load or website is not working properly.

N/A, website is easy to navigate in identifying CAMP information

While the website contains all of the information for disseminating facts regarding CAMP, it could benefit 

from a refresh. Also, there are certain elements that contain information that is more transparent than 

other areas, but are still confusing, e.g. information on grant project performance (which I think is 

absolutely necessary, but could be better presented).
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 372

Put updated information about APR results

Department could provide additional resources on website, the current material is extremely helpful.

Please provide consistent information about grantees each year and share their proposals on the 

website.

I appreciate that work has been done to ensure all the tech resources/documents are in one place. It 

used to be difficult to find the various pieces in one place (e.g. guidance documents, ADM presentations). 

I like how simple the setup is, I would only ask that the documents/presentations be updated and perhaps 

include an archive with the old documents/presentations.

There are links that are broken and there are error messages.

It can be improved with guidance on how to use it. When to use it and more.

I haven't been a director using the website longer than 3 months so I don't feel confident providing 

feedback in this area.

NA

Update the website more often. House some of the announcements that sent via e-mail for archive 

purposes.

N/A

Satisfied.

I think it is good but I have a harder time finding some things. It will probably just take time for me to get 

used to it.

A link to the National HEP/CAMP Association.

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).

none

I do not have any recommendations at this time.

Items that relate to what's alllowable and reasonable with expenditures.

more specificity on guidance
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 373

monthly workshops via on-line

organization of email blasts is good, with separate topics clearly delineated but sometimes too much 

information for one email.

None that I can think of.

Newsletters of updated challenges and how to solve them. Q& A newsletter

N/A

N/A, CAMP documents are reader-friendly, informative, and helpful in managing the project

Email communications could benefit from formatting through HTML in order to organize the emails better 

so that they have the feel of the DOE branding and one can easily sort through the very important 

information regarding program updates, legislative changes, budget changes, etc. and other 

anouncements.

None

The content is relevant and extremely useful.

N/A

EDGAR in a condensed format specifically outlined to our programs AND where to identify them within 

the actual regulations. I believe it would help us to understand and apply them.

N/A

NA

No comment.

N/A

I am satisfied with it as is.

It's great quality and documents are very helpful.

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.

The grant reporting process its improved during the years. Its great and friendly to use.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 374

It is a little cumbersome to enter the Part D information on an Excel spreadsheet. I understand the need 

for consolidation, but the work document was a bit easier to use.

Is it possible to move away from excel sheets?

quarterly reminders when reports are due

Specify the type of data collection for the reporting categories to best understand how to manage our 

programs.

Rather than attach an email maybe an online software to log in and do report online.

N/A

Grant reporting process is clear for programs to follow. I appreciate the support around the reporting 

process from webinars to electronic instructions.

Some clarity on how the data is being used would be helpful for folks who are actively attempting to 

improve programming for their students at their institution and in their region. Simple questions in line 

with how other Offices within the [ADDRESS] DOE are using data, what decisions the data drives in the 

department, and how each part of the data is utilized.

None

Omit the requirements to provide data that does not get shared or used for anything.

N/A

N/A

I am still not a fan of the Cover Sheet being a word document. If this would be a PDF with fillable fields it 

would help with the formatting of the document. The grantee student worksheet is very helpful when 

completing the APR.

NA

Creating language to include COVID pandemic for upcoming reporting period. As program Directors, we 

worry that context will not be taken into account years from now when data will be referenced.

N/A

Satisfied with the process.

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 of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 375

none

More opportunities for peer-to-peer support/conversation may benefit some of the newer projects.

Maybe a Checklist sent out to program directors quarterly

Regional meetings to be able to bring more staff._x000D_ Dallas etc

N/A

N/A, I appreciate that technical assistance is available to programs throughout the year

It seems that the structure, delivery and format is clear for the training and information that is provided to 

individual project staff. However, more discrete, or specific, ways in which the use of evaluation for 

evidence of promise and expectations of projects to provide evidence of promise would be helpful. What 

assistance can OME offer grant projects that are actively an legitimately producing and pursuing 

evidence of promise?

None

Provide multiple office hour sessions when reporting is required. One session is often difficult to meet.

I appreciate the fact that the OME staff recruit HEP and CAMP staff veterans to share their best 

practices.

More program-to-program collaboration.

N/A

Create more opportunities to share best practices.

More time to share what programs are doing, perhaps curating a visual graphic to illustrate the many 

different CAMP programs/models to learn from one another.

N/A

Make more frequent contact with the grantees.

Still learning some of this, but it's good.

I have only been the Director for a few months. During that time, I have not had any substantive 

interaction with the Program Officer.

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that provided 

technical services to you.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 376

Department of Migrant Education

[NAME]

Readiness and Emergency Management for Schools Technical Assistance Center

G5 assistance; Office of Business Support Services, U.S. Department of Education

OME

[NAME], [NAME], and [NAME].

It was very helpful.

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role? (Other, please specify)

PI

PI and Project Director

Program Director

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

CAMP - 2022 - Q66.6. What additional topics would you like discussed during CAMP 

meetings, webinars, or phone calls to help you implement a high-quality program?

none

Increasing funding for the projects funded at $425,000 per year.

Success Stories

staffing - hiring and retention has become more difficult during the pandemic
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 377

Hearing about tracking softwares and other technology items being used to help run projects

I'd like to get additional training on NFJP Eligibility.

New and efficient student retention strategies

NA

None

Other grant opportunities that could relate to a CAMP grant.

Staffing retention, team building, etc.

Service examples among programs.

I believe discussing COVID-19 and the impact to our programs is something I would like to see.

Transparency in explaining how prior experience points are decided upon

High Impact Practices

Pandemic effects on migrant community._x000D_ Retaining CAMP staff and preventing 

burnout_x000D_ Collaborating with MEP programs

Institutionalizing CAMP efforts beyond grant funding for long-lasting impact.

I do not any additional topics.

CAMP - 2022 - Q66.7. What could the CAMP team do to improve the content of technical 

assistance?

none

I think they are already doing a pretty good job.

Topics related to our project and environment the program serves

they're doing a great job. Quarterly office hours as I would like more contact with the team

Provide pre readings and have folks sign up for smaller sessions to allow for More classroom 

type Interactions.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 378

Provide plenty of example scenarios.

N/A, keep up the excellent level of service

Continue doing great work and also working hard to fill the staffing needs.

Having current officers information.

Offer additional office hour sessions.

Update the forms.

N/A

More information on how prior experience points are awarded

NA

More interactive webinars.

More information on participant eligibility and gathering data for the annual performance report.

I think they do an amazing job, it's great.

CAMP - 2022 - Q66.8. What could the CAMP team do to improve the structure or format of 

technical assistance?

none

The webinars are working well. I would like to see them posted on the webpage.

The Format is ok

appreciate the availability of resources, sending powerpoint and materials to us

Move to regional trainings

Allow time for discussion.

N/A

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 379

Having sessions in person

They are doing great, and I appreciate their support.

Nothing.

N/A

Breakout sessions to encourage more interaction.

All is good.

CAMP - 2022 - Q66.9. 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.

The service is great and meet all the needs for the program.

Encourage more collaboration with the state MEP projects.

The Team does the best they can during these COVID times

The only worry I have is about the changing personnel and if that will affect the stability and 

responsiveness thus far.

Continue mentoring and allow for more frequent meetings for directors via regional centers or 

online director monthly meetings. Coffee chats online.

The team does an exceptional job. I am extremely please with the support and services 

provided to grantees.

Continue to be attentive to the needs of our programs.

Keep up the consistent and timely communication to address questions and project needs

I would need guidance and resources/information regarding producing evidence of promise 

which produces valid results, Once those results are produced, discussion surrounding how 

those results will be used and what may be a strategy in the future for producing continued and 

meaningful research, evaluation and reporting. I'm interested in how my project/institution can 

support this research and how it may be used in the future to determine and highlight "Promise".

They are doing a great job giving us information and helping us managing the grants! 

Something that is a little hard is the continue changes in personnel.

Offer sessions at the National Association Conference.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 380

More frequent.

I would like feed back from my program officer.

Provide each project with their prior experience points

I recently started communicating with Program Officer assigned to the grant. I appreciate the 

open lines of communication.

Just touching base more frequently.

The previous director is still receiving all the communications even though we have requested 

the change and had that approved. _x000D_ Assistance with getting on the various listservs 

would also be great.

CAMP - 2022 - Q66.10. Are there any other federal programs providing you technical 

assistance in form and/or content the HEP/CAMPteam should consider as a model?

none

I do not know of any.

n/a

none

No

No

NA - I think HEPCAMP is a model to follow.

No that I know.

No.

The regional round tables are helpful and we should continue to have them.

No comment.

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 381
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 382

Comprehensive Literacy State Development

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

I have not visited the website.

Needs to be updated. "What's New" dates back to [DATE_TIME] and it's difficult to navigate.

The website is good, I honestly haven't used it extensively enough to offer suggestions at this point in 

time.

The current website is user friendly and contains a wealth of resources in literacy that are relevant and 

useful to the end user. I do not have any suggestions for improving the site.

Information is not up-to-date, is insufficient and difficult to locate.

I think it is great.

I usually don't go to the site. I utilize the KMS for the majority of my information and work.

It has improved tremendously compared to previous years. I'm struggling due to connectivity and other 

tech issues.

N/A

I have not been accessing the site since requested support comes from the CLSD program officer. I often 

receive information from the site indirectly for one of the Comp center partners. This survey serves as a 

reminder to review the site often.

Sometimes we have difficulty navigating, e.g., finding links to regulations and other guidance, lists of 

CLSD awardees, etc. We eventually find what we are looking for but it doesn't seem intuitive.

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).

N/A

No comments.

I think the department is doing a great job.

I do not have any recommendations for improving the quality and usefulness of the documents.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 383

Using word documents for large budget numbers is a little outdated. Would appreciate formatting that 

allows for numbers and math for addition and subtraction to be populated automatically.

Communication from the CLSD Program team is always very last minute, not always clear, and minimal 

in frequency at best. This is especially frustrating because many of these communications require big 

changes for our program team, such as the change to our APR reporting timeline this year. We often feel 

like we're floating on our own without much support or guidance from the USDE CLSD team and feel like 

we often have to do more work than is necessary to seek clarification.

I appreciate the information I receive from the program office and officers. They give very clear directions 

and offer many opportunities to request feedback.

Truly satisfied including technical assistance.

Email and other written from the CLSD program have been concise, informative, and useful. I have not 

had many questions after receiving written communication. I feel that I have the information needed to 

respond, make decisions, or get more information.

The guidance documents received from the program officer is usually clear and meet the purpose for 

which requests are made. With several grant years on the table at the same time, the program officer is 

very intentional in addressing emails/requests, through one grant year at a time; I appreciate her 

strategy!

We were thrilled with the short videos shared this year concerning allowable expenses. These types of 

questions have been coming to us with increased frequency and the video training and linked resources 

are very helpful.

Every state is different so we recognize the challenge of addressing the varying needs.

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.

We do not have a good understanding of how USED uses our submitted data or the importance of it.

Some of the student-level data is difficult to obtain in a timely fashion.

The KMS website, especially the budget amendment part- doesn't seem to allow you to print or preview 

without submitting the amendment.

At this time, I do not have any recommendations for improving the grant reporting process

Please do not use Word Document for large budget items. It is extremely time-consuming. Most fiscal 

teams use excel for formatting and then we have to input those numbers back into a word document. 

KMS is also not user-friendly.

Help identifying project performance goals.

I appreciate the shift to fewer reports. I am unsure what the reporting is for besides accountabillity.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 384

We are unable to provide performance data to the department in May. Districts don't report data until the 

summer and therefore the annual performance report timeline isn't helpful.

The TA support both from Project Officer and CoP has bee superb. Easy to follow, communication plan 

is great!

Grant reporting is a large lift, but is necessary for all parties. It is helpful and informative for both grantors 

and grantees. I think the only thing that could be more helpful is clear deadlines for reporting through the 

lifetime of the grant. I know generally when reports are due, but their always seems to be slight changes. 

It would be helpful for planning sake to know 6 months ahead of time what the exact date will be.

It's hard when processes change in the middle of a grant cycle. While it's nice that the reporting now only 

happens twice a year, it would have been nice if the budgeting reporting stayed the same for the final few 

years. There are so many people from my agency that have to be a part of the budget process and when 

there is a change in the middle of a grant cycle it takes a great deal of work to get all of our processes 

changed to meet those requirements.

While I am not quite clear on how the data is used except to justify continued funding, the program officer 

is very clear, often complimentary in response to the submission. She clearly points out the strong points 

of the submission and is often understanding if specific data cannot be reported as a result of natural 

disasters, for example.

It was very helpful when we had a presentation from the USED walking us through the steps. As we 

become more familiar with the process it gets easier, but with the recent changes in the timeline for filing 

reports we would have benefitted from a presentation clarifying the expectations.

All 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.).

The convenings are interesting for knowledge building but they could be much more targeted at effective 

program design and management.

The state meetings and webinars are fantastic.

Publish a toolkit for new SEA Program Directors. Information about GANS, what it is, how to read it, why 

it's important. G5 navigation - what it's for, how to use it. etc.,

My technical assistance provider [NAME] is great! He is available and friendly and answers questions 

quickly and knowledgeably.

While all the Communities of Practice, Topical Meetings, and Convenings have provided grantees with 

useful information on best practices, updated research and relevant guidance, because the insular area 

entities have a different structure for carrying out the activities, I feel it would be helpful if more 

opportunities to collaborate and interact with the other insular area entities were given so we can address 

our common challenges and leverage our limited resources.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 385

The staff from The Department are incredibly difficult to work with. They are not responsive, do not seem 

knowledgeable about program requirements, and have not provided any support with implementation. I 

am referring specifically to the program team at USDE, NOT our TA provider through SEI.

When I reach out to the program officer, answers are slow combining and sometimes I have to reach out 

again.

The program staff is excellent! Our state works with [NAME]. He's been absolutely amazing in 

supporting our knowledge and work.

It would be more helpful if we could meet as Directors in person.

I'm extremely satisfied with the technical assistance provided both from Project Officer and TA support!

I think more content related to starting a grant and implementation would be helpful for new/ first time 

grantees. A lot of good information on content of programs, but could always use more help/ way other 

grantees implement and set up infrastructure.

The staff does a great job in providing technical assistance particularly through directors' meetings, 

providing variety for community of practice sessions, and virtual conferences. Often, the sessions are 

near the end of the work day which works well for me. The structure is also appreciated, whereby, state 

teams are encouraged to present what they are doing within their programs; sharing in through this 

structure allows for great learning opportunities.

Timing of responses from our Program Officer has been inconsistent; however, when we contacted 

additional staff in the office, our questions were answered in a timely manner.

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that provided 

technical services to you.

AIR

[NAME]

[NAME]

SEI Services

[NAME]

R11CC--but not for the CLSD grant.

Southeastern Regional Education Lab

CLSD TA in building capacity and improvements -CoP
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 386

REL-SE and R7CC

AIR

American Institues for Research (AIR)

Our Department has worked with Regional Laboratories and Comprehensive Centers but not exclusively 

with regard to this CLSD grant.

AIR

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

CLSD - 2022 - Q47.10. The most important thing I want ED to know about my experience 

with CLSD is: 

We are grateful for the opportunity to participate.

It provides an opportunity to expand state-level staff capacity along with local capacity in the 

area of literacy. Provides an effective model for aligning initiatives statewide.

Our TA [NAME] [NAME] is lovely! She is smart and helpful and upbeat! We looking forward to 

meeting with her and she is eager to help and provide connections.

My project officer's communication and responsiveness need significant development. She 

always seems unsure or unwilling to actually answer questions directly and inflexible to change.

The Program Staff and the Technical Assistance Team work hard to deliver current, relevant, 

useful tools and information to help grantees carry out their respective programs and do so with 

professionalism and kindness.

AIR technical assistance is very supportive and response and support from my Program 

Director is very supportive.

Our federal program officer has made implementation of the grant incredibly difficult. It is nearly 

impossible to get a meeting scheduled with them and I regularly have to chase them down to 

respond to emails and questions. When I do finally get a response, the tone and attitude is 

usually court and unprofessional. I also feel that our federal program officer is not very 

knowledgeable about federal grant programs in general. Like many in education, our SEA has 

encountered many obstacles this year with implementation and meeting grant goals. Our federal 

program officer has not been helpful or made themselves available when we attempt to reach 

out for support. We do not view our program officer as a valuable resource to support 

implementation of our grant. The majority of effective and helpful learning has come from the TA 

team at SEI, the National TA convenings, and collaborative work with other SEAs who are 

CLSD grantees. The Resource Portal in KMS is also very helpful.

We are continually improving our approach and would like the project measures to reflect that 

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 387

I have been completely satisfied with my partnership with the CLSD team at ED. The only issue 

is the due date for the APR. I realize that is beyond ED's control.

I have amazing, excellent and caring PO Dr. [NAME]! Thank you and we are forever grateful!

The network of support from other states.

My Program Officer, [NAME] is a rock star! He is so incredibly helpful. He has made the process 

streamlined and easy to follow. He answers all questions in a timely manner and provides 

excellent advice and support.

When I've been unable to get a quick response from my PO, I have found the other staff 

members to be extremely helpful. I know the ED personnel we have worked with on this grant 

support us and share in our goal to help Michigan students improve literacy outcomes.

It is imperative that states continue to have support at the federal level to sustain the hard work 

that has happened through CLSD.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 388

Demonstration Grants for Indian Children/Special Projects for Indian 

Children

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

links to powerpoint questions be available; up to date information

It's always nice to see more photos/comments about the success of other projects.

More user friendly._x000D_ _x000D_ Needs to be more engaging

I have not used the website much while in the grant process. Most information has been provided by the 

Technical Assistance providers.

I don't have any ideas of how it could be improved. There's a lot of information. I had trouble finding 

something and had to ask for help.

Have webinars, etc. easily accessible without several links to get there. Up to date information.

Grant application materials are a little bit of a challenge to find

I didn't know this website existed; it would have been helpful to know this resource was available.

AS a new project manager with little prior info to go off of, I've had to call the help desk a few times for 

clarification on where to navigate/find documents. Per my last program report for Q4, the report had been 

'uploaded/pending', but was not visible to my team and I for several days after the reporting period had 

opened. I placed a ticket for this via the help desk. We lost about a week to start our report because of 

this, then were never notified when it was uploaded. I kept checking the website daily. Finally, one of the 

documents that was supposed to be included online in our report packet was not, so I retyped all of the 

questions, with answers, via a word document as shown in a DOE video that explained the reporting.

Easier access. I find that I always have to search to find access.

Please have all meetings and session with PPt's on web site as soon as possible.

G-5 is very Awkward to use.

No recommendations.

No Suggestions at this time. Adequate to meet my current needs and information.

I believe that communication may need to improve. Majority of the time our program specialist is irate 

with our consultants who are hired by the Tribe. We also receive one email regarding deadlines and do 

not receive any more until a day or two before it is due. _x000D_ _x000D_ Also, being yelled at because 

being informed we didn't attend webinars/meetings. Sometimes, unfortunately we are not able to as it is 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 389

a conflict with other meetings setting priority. Also our technical assistant do not reach out to our office 

as they use too. _x000D_ _x000D_ Communication is KEY. Its unfortunate when my staff reach out 

they are yelled at or we are directed elsewhere to get the help needed. *This is not every staff, we have 

one specifically who I believe can be very disrespectful and hard to communicate with. _x000D_ 

_x000D_ Overall, all others have been very easy to work with. It is a problem when we don't get our 

questions answered in a timely manner.

More simple links

Just make sure that you share where information is shared so links can be bookmarked.

Good as is.

Somewhat easier navigation

It is nice to see project photos of what is happening with other projects.

N/A

The website is user friendly.

Perhaps links to open opportunities (NOFAs) could be on the website in the How to Apply section which 

would lead people to [URL]?

Keeping everything up to date. I have found answers but they were outdated.

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).

non-regulatory guidance:letters need more clarification for me sometimes.

I really appreciate the annual report documents. They are very helpful in getting reports completed 

correctly.

Documents should be engaging and detail should be quick and easy to read.

Sometimes the guidance covers so many grants and projects, it is hard to tell what applies to my small 

grant.

It's all great. No changes.

N/A
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 390

Completing grant reporting information is complex to understand and the information in G5 does not 

clarify very well. Thank goodness for [NAME], and their team for being SO helpful.

Grantee spotlights would be helpful.

We are a non-profit that provides college and career focused programming to our American Indian youths 

in high school. Sometimes the documents, info and/or workshops we have been a part of are more 

geared toward Native American Schools/Tribal Government education programming.

The documents are outstanding and very helpful.

Some emails that require us to participate and states mandatory. Sometimes, we don't know if it is 

mandatory or just sharing information if interested. _x000D_ _x000D_ All other documents seem to be 

self-explanatory and if we do not know what to do with it we normally will contact our program specialist 

who (1) is easy to work with and explains and the other program lead can be very difficult and be 

impolite.

None at this time

I felt the department did a good job not overwhelming participants.

all helpful

Instructions and FAQs are clear and easy to understand.

Didn't receive much information.

All the information is good.

Perhaps links to the YouTube videos for TA meetings which address specific policy related topics and 

documents might be useful, or links to breakout sessions from Director's meetings.

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.

Slower detailed instructions on the Section where we report on objectives, GPRA with data not available 

yet like the 999 responses and its difficult when we need to insert updates in September..

G5 takes some getting used to, but once you've submitted the first report, it's easier.

There were a few discrepancies in the guidance provided and the rules for this year's NYCP Year 

[DATE_TIME] report. However, I used the power point provided in the training as the guidance for this 

year's report.

It was my first time submitting one so all a learning curve for me. I was stressed but in the end it wasn't 

as hard as I thought it would be.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 391

Streamline the reporting process. It seems to change year to year.

The portal could be more user-friendly.

More clarity on the changes in reporting of data.

Not clear how data is used._x000D_ Please keep all GPRA objectives together within the G5 system.

Develop an New reporting tool tha allows for basice information to transfer to the new year report. This 

would allow for only data/numbers to be entered and not goals and objectives every time.

The training we received this week on reporting was outstanding. The training team walks through each 

reporting document step by step and provides examples. They are outstanding and the work they put in 

preparing is appreciated.

I very much appreciated the step by step process outlined for completed the reports.

I believe the only issue sometimes with the reporting piece is not getting quick feed back from help desk 

or when reaching out to TA to assist with clarification on reporting sheets.

Some Sections seem to repeat but different information is requested. Ex: Executive Summary vs. 

Objectives vs. Section C.

The reporting system has improved since I first started the program.

no suggestions

Timeliness of feedback from APR submission would be helpful.

I don't like reporting twice a year but I understand why. It's hard to predict anticipated expenditures but I 

know why you need to know this when making decisions about continuation awards.

The timing of the report is not at a good time. It would be better if it aligned with the end of the school 

year.

Some feedback would be helpful. We submit reports and never really hear anything about the data we 

submit.

Understanding the use of the data that is provided is something that would perhaps make it mean 

something other than being a requirement. Does the data get used to plan for future program objectives, 

or do you compare programs?

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 at this time. My Project staff is very helpful and if she doesn't know she will find out and get back to 

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 392

They have been very helpful with budget questions/issues.

As I answered these questions I was specifically thinking of the NYCP Talking Stick sessions. These 

sessions have been extremely valuable and provided clarity on content, program structure, ideas to 

enhance our program and opportunities to share with other projects.

I liked the ladies who helped us with the presentations. Ms [NAME] is amazing.

structure and format of information

I've learned helpful information in the talking stick sessions when other grantees ask questions. However, 

many grantees don't contribute (share or ask questions). Hearing about the work/activities of other 

grantees would be helpful. _x000D_ Maybe having grantees ask questions or share on a specific prompt 

in advance of the sessions could ensure that a number of tangible points would be included.

No recommendations. We receive outstanding support. The Department wants us to succeed in serving 

our communities. I'm very grateful for their support.

I would say allowing a little more time to ask questions and possibly structuring the content shared in 

smaller time intervals. Sometimes too much information can be overwhelming.

None at this time

The monthly table talks were great and should be continued.

needs are being met

I like that they are only an e-mail away.

The content did not apply to our early childhood grant most of the time.

The support has been strong.

Perhaps reviewing project management strategies, methods, software, systems, etc. might be helpful 

particularly for those tribes/LEAs that have multiple grants/programs with different requirements (STEP, 

NYCP, Title VI, etc.) - and how to structure programs for leveraging funds, supporting multiple program 

goals efficiently, and how to go about cross-training for TEA capacity building when certain programs

only pay for certain things.

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that provided 

technical services to you.

OIEServices

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 393

[NAME] / [NAME]

OIE helped with technical difficulties submitting Annual Report

[NAME], [NAME],

Director's meeting.

Clarification on APR Section on Objectives.

technical assistance

Synergy Interprises, Inc.

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role? (Other, please specify)

Indian Education Director

Youth Program Manager

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 394

Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

I don't use the website really

The website is fine as is.

No suggestion. I rarely use the website.

They could send us email with notifications of updates on the website. I'm not sure which website this 

survey is asking about. _x000D_ Have a short video to all directors on how to navigate the website, and 

what resources are available.

Make sure technical assistance dates and link are clearly posted in more clear place.

Better Categories based on the actual grant awards - Shared folder drives with resources, examples, 

templates specifically for certain grant. Would make navigating to find information much easier.

I can't think of anything at the moment.

Improving the way to search for topics and sections.

Less clicks to find things, better search results, more visually appealing

In fact, the site is easy to navigate. It contains the information to be used to produce the required 

documents. I have no recommendations at this time.

The website is very text heavy and the material could be better organized. I read the material and found 

what needed but still had to go elsewhere for information. Some of the explanations seemed very short 

and cursory. More depth would have been helpful.

N/A

Needs to be updated more frequently

Fix all the links that lead to nowhere, or give error messages.

I would like to be able to check boxes based on my institution's characteristics so that I could find all of 

the grant opportunities that are a good fit for me. On this page: [URL]_x000D_ _x000D_ You pretty much 

have to read each one before you can determine whether or not you are eligible. Don't get me wrong, I 

really like the information that is there. I just wish there was also a mechanism by which you could 

FILTER the opportunities listed.

[NAME], our Program Officer, is very attentive and quick to respond on any and all inquiries/questions 

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 395

No comment at this time.

Easy to use search box, more up to date materials posted, one example is my Program Officer's name 

and contact is no where on site_x000D_ _x000D_ Highlight announcements and key deadlines on front 

page

none.

Overall, it's good. I don't use the site frequently, but at times I've felt while searching for information that it 

took me in circles.

better navigation in the website

provide a livechat option

The website could be enhanced with a live, web-based help chat where we can ask questions and have 

a real-time answers for national project directors/ leads.

Maybe include a chatbox

The website has a lot of valuable information. It would be nice to segregate the topics in a way that is 

more user friendly.

N/A

some pages are overwhelming, like this one: [URL]_x000D_ _x000D_ might be helpful to put them into 

areas, like k-12 outreach, k-12, hispanic serving, etc._x000D_ _x000D_ overall the website could use a 

refresh.

Regrettably, I feel that the single most important aspect that would include almost all aspects of the 

website would be to essentially have all digital support material loaded, cross-referenced and searchable. 

I do not believe that will ever be practical or realistic.

Perhaps minimize text and links and replace with graphics. Also create tabs within tabs or folders to 

house connected material. As an example, all grant documentation can be contained in a grants 

document folder.

The hardest information to find are the rules and policies for use of grant funds.

It seems like it is now better organized and updated, but in the past this was a problem. Some grant info 

was really out of date. It would be great if there were even more resources, best practices, and so on. 

Also it would be helpful to have EDGAR in a single document as well as the sections, I haven't been able 

to find one. That would make it easier to search online for keywords.

There have been good updates to using the search box and having it guide us to the correct link within 

the first 2-3 results._x000D_ Improve the number of levels that is takes to drill down to in order to find 

information relative to past grant competitions. For instance, while looking for Abstracts from the past 

PPOHA grants, it took several attempts to click around and a few search term searches to find what we 

were looking for._x000D_ Better job in posting the information about funded projects.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 396

The site is among the better of the ones ED provides. Continue reflecting most current changes. Add a 

place where the most current post-award webinars are kept or establish a community of practice site for 

grantees to share best practices.

Less clicks to get to resources and regulations. UnderstandLy legal jargon is needed but, some common 

questions and common searched items could be more user friendly in language.

It's fine but maybe make website more intuitive and easier to find things.

The website is excellent.

Place all docs loaded to [URL] on the website as well.

It is overwhelming. A lot of information to weed through.

Better organization of the material. Perhaps organized by stakeholders and what they may want from the 

Department.

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.

I am not sure. I find the report format makes it difficult for me to provide a big picture description of 

project progress. I am not sure how the format could be improved, but I have improved in regards to my 

reporting skills and better at utilizing the existing format.

The training is [DATE_TIME] was much better, I didn't feel that support was available for questions. I felt 

more that I had to figure it out on my own. I also got the message that they were overwhelmed, so I 

should not write write a long report because they don't want to read much.

There needs to be a way when you have some five year outcomes that you can put the goal but say in 

progress and be able to leave data cells black because they are not calculated until year five.

Better clarification or even examples in the APR/Interim Reporting document.

I cannot think of anything at the moment.

By improving the grant activities section for example, when you save an activity to return where I left not 

to the beginning

explain how the data is used.

In fact, the grant reporting process is easy so far, but I'm just working on my first Interim Report. I have 

no recommendations at this time. I may have some once I work on the first annual report in 

[DATE_TIME].

The APR system didn't work right the first time and I had to contact DOE when I wasn't getting a quick 

enough response from the system vendor. I was in a panic. My program manager resolved the issue, 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 397

but it was nerve wracking. The issue involved the vendor not coding me as a grant administrator so I 

could input the APR

N/A

Divide up the trainings/support into two groups: years 1, 2, & 3; and years 4, 5 (& 6). The reporting that's 

done at the end brings up different questions and needs. Differentiated instruction is always appreciated!

I really like the new APR form. It just needs to have stretchy boxes so that you can pull it open and see 

your entire response.

More clarity in terms of how the APRs are ultimately utilized.

The language used to describe goals, objectives, and performance measures changes to objectives 

and/or activity. It makes describing objectives vs. measures sometimes hard to decipher in terms of 

where it belongs on the report template._x000D_ _x000D_ Also, the section that asks for endowment 

related financial information from previous grants is often outside the scope of the current grant being 

discussed in the APR so not sure why asked in this report. The designated Grant Director may not have 

access to the information requested.

none.

This year, I found the "Technical Assistance Document for Annual Performance Reports (APR) for FY 

[DATE_TIME]" very helpful. Providing that sort of detailed guidance improves the grant reporting process.

Make availability of lockout assistance 24hrs during APR final days

Offer experienced mentors who can assist new project directors on how to complete DoED reports. 

Responsiveness to APRs after submitting. There is no guidance if the project is on track or not.

Explicit information on how DOE uses the data from the report.

We appreciated the abbreviated format of the report for this year. The copying over of data is both helpful 

and also challenging sometimes. Sometimes it carries over information that doesn't quite make sense 

from the previous year. We worked through it, but we got confused a few times. For example once part of 

it is completed it carries information over to a different part of the report, but the information doesn't quite 

belong there. So, maybe look a little more closely at those dependencies if others are reporting the same 

confusion.

It would be nice to see how you report out aggregate grantee info, or how you use it at all

My humble suggestion, as the DOE organically and progressively evolves the kind of material it wants to 

standardize in its reporting format, is that it doesn't lose the free-form sections of submission. A decent 

length free-form section for both Budget Narrative and Development/Complication of progress sections is 

critical to allow for Institutionally unique features. It also needs to be extra specific in terms of additional 

information it would like. For that latter information, simply ask for it in a fill-in-the blank subsection, 

instead of implying it in a free-form section (as it does with certain things). I think this will help the DOE 

get the actual metrics it really wants. I recognize that neither of these asks may be practical.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 398

It would be wonderful to know what the reporting system structure is as soon as possible, so that we can 

be working on it as we move through the year. It would also be useful to allow for more qualitative data 

collection, analysis, and reporting.

For the metrics I would suggest a new design. It makes it challenging to have entered Goal, then add a 

metric, then add the measure before being about to move on. In order for project directors to begin prefilling and preparing the report it would be helpful if we did not have to submit the performance metric in 

order to save and/or add in others, as in many cases this data is still being collected/finalized.

Some of the goal measurement questions do not seem to match up well with our grant's objectives. The 

APR webinars and materials were very helpful!

I was Director of our HSI Title V, part A grant for all 5 years. Over the years I found the webinar 

trainings/technical assistance workshops to be helpful. I think continuing to have the webinar/virtual 

training would be helpful for new and experienced staff who work on the APR. _x000D_ I also think 

adding examples of 'what to say' or 'what you should be reporting' could be helpful. I always dreaded the 

LAAs because of tying it back to the budget, some objectives/project components are hard to break out 

the cost for.

Publish reporting dates to web site or make clearer what is expected among grantees.

Let us know what you do with it. Allow us to enter data the way the application is or mandate us to all 

have common initial application data reporting

This last iteration the APR was not so cumbersome and lengthy as before and I think more streamlining 

of the whole report would make it even better.

The grant reporting process is good.

It's really streamlined and very helpful!

The reporting of objectives, measures and outcomes can be simplified.

The distinction between performance measures and objectives is not clear and consistent. In terms of 

how the Department uses the data, I have no idea. This has never been communicated. In terms of 

budgets, it would help if there was greater clarity in terms of what the Department expects in terms of 

budgeted amounts, actual expenses, and carry forward.

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role? (Other, please specify)

AOR

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

DHSI - 2022 - 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 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 399

suggestions you have to improve the technical assistance you received should we be 

faced with future national emergencies.

Technical assistance has been excellent. Dr. [NAME] goes above and beyond.

Nothing at this time.

Everything was great.

Technical assistance remained strong during COVID.

offering more workshops related to different topics

webinars, lunch and learns, and emails. The webinars were confusing and convoluted. Maybe 

allow participants to submit questions ahead of time.

Our program specialist was available to help with any questions or concerns that we were 

experiencing. I think the technical assistance that was made available met our needs.

I received answers to questions about links, procedures and documents.

I initially met with the program manager via phone. We also meet as a group for "brunch and 

learns". These have worked well. However, there was also a grant director's symposium that 

was very well done, but not as effective because it was virtual. I believe training is done 

optimally in person. I understand virtual trainings are here to stay and are much more inclusive, 

in a general sense, because more people can attend virtually. However, this is highly technical 

material and in-person training really helps.

It wasn't affected. They kept communications with us.

Everything was handled well and I have no suggestions for improvement.

I like the webinars hosted by the DHSI. They are very informative and include hand outs. 

Recently we have been getting forwards of relevant information from listservs. I did not know 

these listservs existed before seeing the email, so I signed up for several of them. I like emails 

sent out by Program Officers to give us information on relevant issues and opportunities.

Program specialist/officer maintaining communication at all times, offering empathy and 

understanding as we all navigated new territory. Willingness to support and guide within 

unexpected challenges. The strong relationship sustained allowed for trust to be established 

and lessen anxiety of meeting program expectations as originally planned while allowing for 

flexibility in meeting the needs of the moment.

none.

Our program specialist is extremely interested in and supportive of her grantees. She holds 

regular office hours for her grantees, requires and responds to quarterly progress reports, meets 

with us about our most recent APR, connects us to other grantees with similar projects for 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 400

information sharing, and is quickly responsive to all of our questions and concerns. We have felt 

very well supported during the pandemic.

Unfortunately, I very rarely received communication from my Program Specialist. It usually took 

multiple emails and/or phone calls to get a response. I felt I received very little direction or 

feedback from any report I submitted.

We had a transition between project directors which caused delayed communication.

I started as a new project director during the initial stages of the pandemic. I have to say that the 

specialists that have worked with our grant have exceeded my expectations. They have been 

responsive and helpful. Thank you for the good work.

N/A

We could not have had any measure of success during Covid-19 impacts (direct and indirect) 

without the superior level of responsiveness offered by the DHSI support officer and team.

I found the grant officers to be timely, supportive, and extremely helpful!

n/a

Our program specialist, [NAME], was always very quick to respond. He was very approachable, 

and answered my questions quickly, or referred me the right person if there were any outside 

issues.

We received outstanding support from Ms. [NAME] in responding to our inquiries. She has 

been a stellar Federal Program Officer whom we enjoy interacting with professionally.

A lot of great improvements have been made over the last 10 years. If you all could partner with 

Achieving the Dream on content like ideas on implementation, pedagogy, DEI and teaching and 

learning that would make an amazing pairing. Bea has been awesome in her leadership. The 

APR is ever changing and you've taken out feedback on some LAA changes so thank you for 

that. Very helpful. Great program officers.

Nothing specific comes to mind; the COVID guidance was adequate.

The program specialist, Prof. [NAME], is excellent. Professor [NAME] always maintained 

communication and was accessible to clarify any questions or provide support.

Technical assistance is always welcomed and needed. However, in some cases, we are notified 

on short notice. It's hard when you already have things on your schedule. I will drop anything for 

technical assistance that pertains to my role in the grant.

My program specialist has been excellent! Her Brunch and Learn series is a wonderful 

opportunity to build community and to learn about best practices from other institutions.

We really did not receive any information other than approval of a no-cost extension due to the 

impact of COVID.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 401

DHSI - 2022 - Q16.5. What can the Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions do to improve 

communication with you?

I just received the first Newsletter, so I can see an improvement in communication. _x000D_ 

Before the communication seemed to be disconnected, only announcements.

N/A

Possible USDE newsletters on updates from [ADDRESS] and how HSI funds, other Edu. funds 

are being adjusted (less/more/leveled, etc...)

I have excellent communication with my Program Officer.

they already have improved communication in comparison to previous years.

You are doing an excellent work.

No suggestions

N/A

I appreciate the intermittent emails, and would like to see those continue. Our program officer 

also hosts monthly meetings and sends "checking on you" emails, which are much appreciated. 

When we were all freezing to death in [ADDRESS] in [DATE_TIME], I got an email from my 

program officer asking how we were. I am not positive that the message came because Texas 

was suffering, but it felt like that and it really touched me.

keep up the good job, I like the monthly meetings to keep us connected. I also like the new 

newsletter launched recently, great additions.

none

Nothing further is needed. We appreciate the amount and frequency of communication from 

DHSI.

The webinars provided in January to assist with the completion of the Annual Performance 

Report were most beneficial and the most guidance I had received to date with regards to 

reporting.

Perhaps providing a monthly informational newsletter for all project directors and visits to 

regions with concentrated grantees to provide technical assistance and updates.

Grants officer has done a great job keeping open lines of communication with myself and other 

grant directors. She makes herself available via "open door" policy and office hours to answer 

any questions.

Communication is clear and very good.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 402

N/A

Continue this level of communication, which is the best I have experienced since [DATE_TIME].

It is always helpful to reinforce the idea that the department wants to be accessible and 

approachable. When I first started on the grant, I didn't want to reach out unless absolutely 

necessary, to not bother the department or raise any "red flags". But once I heard at a 

conference that the department wants to be helpful and communicative, that was great to hear. 

Since there are so many grants/ staff spread out across the country, it might be necessary to 

repeat that frequently, so everyone hears it. _x000D_ _x000D_ Additionally, the webinars, tools/ 

resources you have created are very helpful!

Continue the emails and open forums/listening sessions.

Schedule semi-annual or annual status meetings outside of the IPR or APR. Support grantees' 

ability to maintain internal controls reflecting the latest changes in the Uniform Guidance or Title 

V requirements.

Let us know more of what other awardees are successfully doing, bring us together more to 

network and share ideas and let us know how the data from the APRs are used and how we can 

make them better for your outcomes. We don't want to lose the opportunities to gain funding.

Be more transparent about how tiebreaks are done in Title V grant competitions.

The communication is good.

There is a lot of communication and I do have trouble deciphering if it pertains to DHSI or 

something else.

A regular newsletter to DHSI grant recipients and the ability to communicate with other project 

directors would be useful. Perhaps a listserv for PDs. And, a newsletter with tips/FAQs from 

experienced project directors and/or program officers.

DHSI - 2022 - Q16.6e. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with your 

program specialist?

Virtual Call

DHSI - 2022 - Q16.7. How would you advise on improving the overall process and 

protocols associated with this grant competition?

N/A

Technical workshops should have break-out periods so project directors can ask specific 

questions. Many of the trainings are read through (reading the actual PowerPoint they are 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 403

showing, so not much insight into how to ask or gather ideas, etc.. for program 

developments/improvements.

n/a

N/A

I have no suggestions at this time.

No suggestions

Technical Webinars should be immediately RFA release

I have no advise to give at this time.

Well, it would always be nicer to have more time to prepare. If possible, getting information 

about competitive priorities earlier would be great. I have to say that the [URL] workspace is 

way easier to manage than FastLane. I can always tell what documents I am supposed to 

submit. I like the webinars about the competition clarifying what you expect and what your 

priorities are.

none

none

Early notification is always helpful.

earlier communication of awards

Project Directors who could mentor new awardees (Project Directors) through their first year of 

the project. This would ensure that implementation and reporting are successful.

N/A

I do not have suggestions to improve this at this time.

n/a

I was not apart of this process.

Webinar/virtual conference, emails direct to the Project Manager,

No suggestions.

Nothing other than what's been stated
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 404

Offer an appeals process especially in situations where 2 referees give almost perfect scores 

and one gives an unusually low score.

They must grant more time between publication of the grants opportunity and the timeline date 

to submit a proposal.

NA

Needed more clarity in terms of the use of evidence and the evidence form.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 405

Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad (DDRA)

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Given that there are different sets of instructions applicable to different parts of the application, it 

sometimes involves quite a search to find the piece of information that you are searching for.

While still basically functional, the "look and feel" of the site is dated

The information is hard to find and outdated. New and up to date information is not provided in a timely 

fashion

There are at least three different locations that post information about the DDRA grant, and sometimes 

one location will present less information than another location.

Put more information on the site itself instead of links to multiple PDFs. Consider breaking down sections 

by audience (a student/applicant section and an administrator/director section).

Include more details/specific responses in FAQ - much of the answers are very vague.

I'm referring to [URL] for these comments. The site is not at all visually appealing. I'm sure there are 

many constraints in terms of having to fit in with other IFLE or ED programs, but there are no photos, no 

stories, very little visual appeal. The "What's New" section on the Purpose page features a [DATE_TIME] 

fellow (recorded in [DATE_TIME], but still seems out of date for a "new" highlight). The awards section is 

inconsistent and really difficult to do any searching in. You have to go year by year instead of having a 

searchable database. Reports are presented in Word, Excel, and sometimes ([DATE_TIME] for example) 

not at all.

I think info is hard to find. A more visual and user-friendly, updated website would be more efficient. I only 

know where to go quickly because I've been working with the same website for many years!

The website is very basic. It could be more user friendly and modernized.

The FAQs are really lacking. These are not the frequent questions that I get from applicants.

The webpages on the [URL] site dedicated to the DDRA have a bit of an outdated feel. The navigation 

headers at the top of the page at not necessarily intuitive and it usually takes me a few clicks on those 

headers to find the page and information that I'm looking for. It would also be helpful if the Guidance for 

Applicants PDF was available/highlighted on the websiteâ€”it includes support for creating an account in 

G5, but is currently only accessible to applicants once they already have an account in G5, which feels 

counterintuitive.

It would be helpful to have more answers posted to FAQs, and sort them by category.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 406

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.

I have not yet gone through the grant reporting process as I am new to this position. Therefore, I have no 

feedback on improvements needed, at this time.

More user friendly IRIS site - ease of correcting information, sharing information with fellows and 

language evaluators

The IRIS system (the only annual report I'm aware of) is clunky and difficult to use. It would be useful to 

have time stamps for things like a fellow completing a report or evaluation, as well as on things like GAR 

submissions. Another improvement would be to allow date entry to self-correct instead of causing errors 

and forcing a loop of errors. Having to enter [DATE_TIME] and having it error out instead of providing a 

calendar or "did you mean" type thing if you enter 22 instead of [DATE_TIME] seems way behind the 

times in terms of programming capability. The whole IRIS system, for PDs and Fellows, should be 

overhauled, and I know that is happening to some extent.

There is little reason for the Project Director to be involved in approving the reports or the GAR, since 

ultimately it is the Dept. of Ed. that approves or disapproves everything. Access to the reports is useful 

but inserting us into the approval process provides no benefit to anyone.

Please provide clearer information and send more reminders.

The system for reporting is awkward to use. Modernizing and making each piece of required information 

clear, as well as letting users know why it's being collected and for whom, would be helpful.

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role? (Other, please specify)

Program Manager

Assistant Director at a university

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

DDRAF - 2022 - 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.

The DDRA staff was extremely helpful in working with our student who was in [ADDRESS] at 

the time and how best to return him to the [ADDRESS]. The delay for the students of the 

[DATE_TIME] cohort was sometimes confusing but that had more to do with shifting travel 

restrictions from the State Dept than anything at DDRA.

These questions are poorly formulated and I am concerned that my responses will harm the 

program. That is not my intention. The structure of this program reflects that the Dept of Ed 

does not understand how graduate education works at the university level. I do not want my 

ratings to contribute to the idea that this program is not needed. It is essential to the success of 

our graduate students. However, managing the program is needlessly time consuming and 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 407

confusing. The management of the program during the pandemic was a disaster. This is not 

due to the staff, it is due to the policies that they must work with.

The scope of this survey is limited to only the last 12 months, so I marked N/A for anything that 

happened before 12 months ago. (I have been in my role for less than 12 months.)

NA

Communication since the fall [DATE_TIME] has been good, but prior to that it was often 

sporadic and difficult to intepret answers that were time senstive with the pandemic. More 

streamlined communication between in-country partners and DOE staff may be helpful to keep 

all stakeholders on the same page.

The initial response was excellent, but it has been less consist in the past 6 months

It is extremely important to note here that our Program Officer changed in the last couple of 

months. My negative responses on the prior screen are in reference to the longer-term PO, with 

whom we experienced many delays, incomplete answers, incomplete reading/understanding of 

questions, and many other frustrations in terms of communication. Our state has recently been 

assigned to a different PO, and that person has been much, much better to work with in terms of 

response time, clarity and completeness of answers, and understanding of the questions and 

issues presented.

During a crisis, it might be helpful to provide a weekly update so there is not such an overload of 

information in any one communication. Smaller more frequent communications are easier to 

manage and follow.

Our Fulbright-Hays DDRA fellows from [DATE_TIME] and [DATE_TIME] were patient yet eager 

to know when they could begin their grants. Their grant timelines were not clear, partly because 

of host country Covid guidelines. We were not able to gain clarity on the DDRA grant extensions 

until much later. This was a little frustrating for our students since they depended on the funding 

for their livelihood and dissertation research. It would be helpful to have improved response time 

and more communication so that we can inform our students in a timely manner with clearer

guidance. Having more staff in the Fulbright-Hays office is already making a difference.

I often sent messages to the ddra email address that went unanswered. Some were of vital 

important to my fellows, as they needed to be able to make time-sensitive decisions. Other 

information was not provided in a clear and concise manner. I find the Fulbright-Hays program 

so much more confusing and frustrating to work with than the Fulbright [ADDRESS] Student and 

Scholar programs.

There is still some disconnect between travel policies that are being implemented by individual 

Fulbright Commissions and general policies of the Department of Education that created some 

challenges and misunderstandings for our fellow. However, I appreciated the relatively prompt 

response of the program staff to help troubleshoot the issue, although there wasn't a lot of 

flexibility to adequately resolve the problem. It would be helpful in the future if both the 

Department of Education and the Fulbright Commission were looped into all communication with 

fellows awaiting departure to ensure that protocol is being properly followed.

The program responded well to the immediate concerns of covid-19 impacted students. The 

university was permitted to draw maintenance funds to help the students through sudden 

income loss, but it wasn't clear what the long-term financial impacts to the awards would be or if 

drawing from non-maintenance funding categories was permissible. For the [DATE_TIME] and 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 408

[DATE_TIME] fellows, some of the written guidance was too generic and confusing with respect 

to permissible changes to award terms and conditions, e.g., how much research could be 

performed in the [ADDRESS] and when; the acceptable amount to pay out monthly for 

maintenance in the [ADDRESS] vs. the original country of study; when award document grant 

changes were required vs. only needing program officer email approval of requested changes to 

the budget or lengths of stay in various areas of a foreign country. Understandably, the DDRA 

office was dealing with these issues in real-time, but it would be useful to have clear policies in 

place should a similar emergency happen in the future.

DDRAF - 2022 - Q21.5. What can Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad Fellowships do 

to improve communication with you?

The addition of several new program officers this past year has greatly improved communication 

as well as answers to specific questions

Accurate information in a timely fashion would be appreciated. Don't hamstring your staff so 

they can't be forthcoming and help solve problems. Recognize that the grantees are adults with 

complicated lives and not children.

More frequent updates and timeliness with responses

[NAME] and [NAME] have been wonderful during the most recent application cycle. They 

respond promptly, and they always respond with concrete solutions to questions that arise.

Share more frequent updates on program/country status

Again, smaller more frequent communications would be easier to manage rather than less 

frequent communications with too much information to follow.

- Stable timing for opening of application, deadline for submission across years_x000D_ -

Funding in place before the start of the fall term_x000D_ - DDRA refuses to communicate 

directly with student fellows, but Project Director has no authority to approve anything, so PD 

must be involved in all communications as a go-between. Time consuming and the PD adds 

little to the process._x000D_ - Project Director is supposed to evaluate plans (such as travel) 

with little understanding of the government rules (such as Fly America Act) that govern the 

travel. DDRA should work more directly with the student fellows.

It would be helpful to have a quicker response time from the DDRA office ideally within 1-3 days. 

What parts of the grant would we have the fellows connect with DDRA office instead of having 

the Project Director be the middleman/go-between? Are there ways that this could be more 

efficient for everyone?

Honestly, if the user guide and information were clearly constructed, not much communication 

would be needed. But it is often hard to find answers to even the most basic questions, and so I 

and my fellows frequently have questions that need to be sent to the ddra email address. I think 

the team is very kind and helpful but they seem so very understaffed. Please hire more staff!

During this period where fellow travel is still impacted by COVID-19, it would be helpful to 

receive general updates on a quarterly basis or so, even if they are basic.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 409
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 410

Education Innovation and Research Programs

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

I did not have chance to visit the website lately.

I don't really use the web site for much

I think the website meets the main goals of the I3 office and Department of Education by reaching 

multiple audiences in charge of improving quality education.

I don't really use the website. I guess a way to better search or filter existing projects by specific 

categories, for easier outreach/collaboration.

Make it more clear what information can be found under each category on the toolbar, perhaps through 

dropdown menus when hovering over Programs, Grantees and Applicants, Families, etc.

Many of the documents that are posted are often outdated and not useful. The search feature will retrieve 

results that are inaccurate (i.e. the wrong year). The directions and information on locating documents is 

often prone to change and needing clarification.

N/a

There is lot of information and resources. Possible breaking down the grants into their respective 

information would help reduce the challenges.

It's busy in places and could use more headings to indicate sections, subsections, etc.

N/A

The website does not have much content and the actual notices to apply for a grant are not posted on the 

main page. The awards section is helpful.

Not much about the site but the content display. Some need to be updated...

Sorry, I have not used the website.

Honestly, I don't use the website very much, so it's hard to provide helpful input. My recollection is that it 

was relatively easy to find basic information.

The reporting functions are HORRIBLE. I think this is done through G5. The complete clunkiness and 

obtuseness of the sites (and the hidden forms) costs days of work from our project team that could be 

spent serving the needs of the project.

I think it is great :)
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 411

No recommendations to make at this time.

It would be helpful to have a page for current grantees - to access important information, interact with 

other grantees, calendar of TA events and webinars, etc.

The fact that you folks posted winning proposals is great! NSF and IES dont do this! You help new 

grant writters a lot with that! Keep it up!

I have no suggestions at this time.

We need more reasons to go to the site.

I give high praise for making past winning grant proposals available for review. Most of any confusion I 

have with the site is knowing where we are with available information which is probably caused by EIR 

having to wait for approvals etc.

Information needs to be more accessible and easier to find

Accuracy of search results: if the program staff refer to the Education Innovation and Research program 

as EIR or know that grantees and others may do so, then the search function should bring up the same 

results for EIR as when writing out Education Innovation and Research. It currently does not. Typing in 

"EIR" does not return the same results.

n/a

Improve navigation--the way the information is presented on different pages can at times be confusing.

More videos could be helpful but other than that the website is easy to navigate.

It needs to be less technical and more focused on the ease of the user experience.

I do not visit the website often. I was looking for a form that needed to be completed with the APR and 

had difficulty finding it. The instructions on the form did not clarify if it was the correct form that I needed 

to fill out. I had to ask my Program Manager for details and confirm. But I could not find the info from the 

website alone.

by not locking out the grantees; I get locked out frequently, and of course at that moment in time I "need" 

something that I'm unable to get instantly. Logging on/off has been my greatest challenge....

It would be great if there were more program specific resources on the website, and an easier system 

than G5 for reporting would be helpful. _x000D_ _x000D_ I really appreciate that the website provides 

proposals and reviews from prior funding cycles. That is really helpful.

I have no specific suggestions. It may be my navigation skills, but occasionally I find my search results 

are not "intuitive."I sometimes find myself redirected to other ".gov"sites and "get lost."

n/a

Sorry, I did not have chance to review it.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 412

I have not utilize the site. It would be great to have an overview of what is available on the site.

It is difficult to find information for current grant competitions

Seems fine to me.

One part is when trying to print submissions I have to log in for every submission as the site kicks me out 

or I can't go back easily to the page I was on.

N/a

I have a great deal of trouble finding required documents for reporting purposes.

The look and feel of the site is clear and consistent. I don't have recommendations for improvement.

I don't have any strong opinions right now, as I've just started the project. But as the project evolves, I 

suspect I'll have more to say.

It serves its purpose as an information hub. No changes from me.

Simpler.

The website and way documents are stored, accessed and maintained is only minimally useful. The 

website could be a lot more helpful to PIs, provide better explanations of the different categories of 

documents, and arranged from the original proposals to annual reports and documentation. If you're not 

doing it here, you might survey individuals about each functionality of the website and do some user 

studies to get more detailed feedback.

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).

May be by providing wide dissemination to those projects that are reaching the mission of the different 

stakeholder including state and local educational agencies, federal office and offices engage with formal 

and informal education. Newsletters, blast emails could fit this goal.

We don't get too many documents at this point in our project, so it's hard to say.

Newsletters and blast emails are plentiful and sometimes redundant, which is likely more indicative of me 

needing to adjust my subscription settings. I'd appreciate more updates regarding when to expect 

guidance like the Dear Colleague letter before annual report deadlines and anticipated timelines such us 

for continuation of funding decisions.

We do not receive all of the information that is needed and had to ask to be included in invites after a 

year of working on the grant. The meetings we have attended are very useful, but are geared towards 

early starts/ year 1 gants. We are in year 3 and would have benefitted from the help.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 413

n/a

They are of good quality.

Lots of lingo used, could be stated more clearly. This applies mostly to non-regulatory guidance

We have appreciated all we have received so far.

I enjoy the newsletters.

I don't receive many documents. The ones I have received have been adequate.

Too much text - hard often to find the salient points in the long messages.

Some documents are really confusing bc their titles are so similar e.g. 524 B and the SF 425. It gets 

confusing to navigate the different numbers when they are so similar.

No recommendations at this time.

The G5 system is horrible for APR purposes. The grantee letter indicates required forms and then there 

is no where to upload them in the G5. We end up attaching them to the narrative and e-mailing them to 

the program officer. The G5 is so difficult to navigate and it doesn't help that my access keeps getting 

disconnected.

It would be helpful if all documents had a heading that clearly stated the audience and goal. I am sure 

that we all receive a lot of newsletters and other documents, and it is helpful to be able to prioritize my 

reading.

The webinars have not been as helpful as [NAME] had hoped.

More examples of completed APR documents would be helpful

the communications documents are often too vague to be helpful in addressing specific 

scenarios/questions that come up on our project.

One piece of feedback is related to the guidance for the APR. It is often referred to as the "dear colleague 

letter." It would be helpful to describe it as the APR guidance document.

There could be more information shared.

Simplified language and less word-heavy documents

There are a lot of documents and opportunities sent, and it would be helpful to have a better sense of 

which are most critical and essential to our grant-funded work.

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 414

N/A

N/a

The documents have been clear and useful. The webinars that the staff have provided on reporting has 

been excellent._x000D_ _x000D_ The one area that could have been improved was advance 

communication about establishing annual targets. When we created our Project measures for the grant -

we did them for the entire length of the grant rather than annually. It caused a little confusion on our part 

when completing the APR.

So far, they have all been very relevant and informative.

They're fine.

documents in G5 are difficult to decipher. One has to wade through and interpret the meaning from a 

number of unintuitive categories of information that are not clearly explained.

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.

G5 is so clunky, it adds several hours to reporting. And it's a useful exercise to have to run all the 

program and GPRA measures, but I'm generally on top of my project enough that it's more a matter of 

looking at everything in the same place at once. I do wish I understood the GPRA measures a little better 

(e.g., do you care if we meet our annual goals, or are cumulative goals more important?)

I am okay with the grant reporting process. It takes time but at the end, I believe it reaches its objective.

G5 is incredibly difficult to navigate, and submitting the reports is even worse. Having to add a new 

section for each reportable outcome is confusing and tedious. It would be great to have a more user 

friendly system for inputting the report documents. _x000D_ _x000D_ It would also be nice to get annual 

reports/summaries on how each cohort is doing, where they are succeeding, where they need more 

support or improvement, and look at that year over year of the grant.

Our Program Officer often provides contradictory feedback that does not align with published guides, 

many many months after submission, causing the grant reporting process to be confusing and frustrating.

The step by step guides for submission in G5 are very helpful. Receiving the guidance for grant reporting 

in the Dear Colleague letter even earlier would be nice.

We would benefit from more guidance. it is hard to know what to write as a first time grantee. The 

instructions and terminology were not linked to easily to locate resources. If we had a question then we 

were either trying to search for an answer or emailing for clarification. It was also hard to find definition of 

the terms.

n/a

You provide great guidance on the reporting process. The time out on the website is the greatest 

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 415

On our end, we are not sure our data is read by anyone except our program officer. So are we reporting 

all of this data for one person? That's just how it feels...

G5 is very clunky and with all the changes to performance measures, it was not an easy process to 

adjust. Also, I asked questions about some forms in the system and received a response one month 

later (the day before the [DATE_TIME] was due), which was not very helpful. The help desk was very 

responsive but the listed program staff did not respond to questions.

All electronic submission, not a mixture

It is very difficult to use G5. Each year I have to relearn how to do the GPRA forms. It is cumbersome to 

have attachments to the main report rather than just a single unlocked PDF file. G5 also won't let you fix 

mistakes after you submit. I had to redo some things for my program officer and had to edit PDF files, 

there was no way to redo them.

The G5 platform for the APR remains cumbersome, but was easier to use the second time around.

See previous comment. Questions asked are not always relevant to the project and the format is very 

rigid. G5 is awful.

No recommendations at this time.

Go back to letting us just e-mail the APR to the program officer.

I attended the webinar and found it helpful but I don't think our program officer was very helpful in 

explaining how the KPIs would be reported. Or team had questions about how to modify the KPIs but had 

little to no guidance on that. We also did not have useful guidance in GPRA reporting.

It's fine

The G5 system needs to be more user-friendly and easier to update information there. In particular, the 

forms for reporting on performance objectives are difficult to complete in the system.

We have had lots of turnover in our program officer which may impact our experience, but it is not clear 

how our annual reporting has been used, or if it is satisfactory. This makes it very hard to understand the 

right amount of time to dedicate to the work, and whether we are on the right track.

The G5 system is a little awkward. The process and questions are good. Some of the feedback I heard 

from a grantee about the G5 report in one of our meetings had me thinking it was extremely difficult. I just 

may be fortunate to have good team members because it wasn't too time consuming in my mind.

We are a new grantee and have not needed to submit an APR or other performance report yet.

I have appreciated the recent meetings to discuss the APR. In the past, I've wondered if anyone reads 

them. I also appreciate the recent focus on performance measures. I would love to see aggregate data 

across grantees - at least for the GPR measures.

Make the web portal used to submit the annual report more userfriendly.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 416

It is fine

Using G5 was difficult for submitting the Annual Progress Report, especially for reporting on performance 

measures. Are there ways to make it easier? Can we just submit a PDF of the report?

I have not completed this form yet because I am in the first year of our grant.

There are pieces of information that could be consolidated so the user fills out fewer forms. For example, 

in last year's [DATE_TIME] annual report, each performance measure was a separate form, even if that 

performance measure fell under the same goals as others. It was a lot of clicking and keeping track of.

na

Certain sections do not make sense for our project and activities.

The electronic process is cumbersome. It would be great if the forms were fillable pdfs rather than having 

to cut and paste the narrative.

N/A

N/a

The portal is clumsy to navigate. I find I spend much time backtracking. I must also copy and paste from 

other documents into the online forms rather than just uploading a pdf.

As I mentioned in the previous comment, it would have been useful to know in advance that we needed 

to establish annual GPRA and project requirements so that everything could be correctly programmed in 

G5._x000D_ _x000D_ [NAME] was extremely helpful in helping us navigate things during the reporting 

process.

G5 is difficult, especially if one is working with another person. Lots of repetition. Help line is great.

Reporting requirements are sometimes oblique and hard to contextualize with the goals of the reports.

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 complaints here! I had one request and got a great support via peer-to-peer knowledge exchanges

I believe all the above assist us in multiple way to improve our job. It includes content, structure, format, 

timing and also costs.

We are further along in our grant, so we require less technical assistance. That being said early on in the 

grant our Program Officer was (and still is) amazing at answering our questions and supporting us, but 

we really lacked technical assistance and training in terms of the grant, compliance, and program, and 

have used an external resource for this support.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 417

The Department staff we interact with directly, our Program Officer, does not provide any support for our 

program.

I think staff do a good job of creating webinars and opportunities to support as many grantees and their 

needs as possible. Please continue offering webinars and recording them on topics of interest.

We did not have quarterly calls. The team on our side had to reach out as needed. When we faced 

numerous issues with another grant in our area we were not given many options on a resolution. The 

department staff were not able to assist us with a resolution and we were left in a difficult position. The 

resources of meetings and topics that were shared with us did not address our issues.

n/a

I feel you are doing an excellent job.

Although COVID necessarily put a hold on many activities that the Dept. does with its grantees, it does 

feel like an absolute flurry of action, both from Dept. staff and the other technical assistance partner. It's 

too much all at once AND I get multiple, repeat emails on each webinar, etc. Spread it out more!

Excellent information and webinars

I am enjoying the rural CoP group. We also have a great rapport and have worked well with our 

Evaluation TA.

I have appreciated the AnLar webinars that I have participated in.

Give direct support in submitting reports, planning next steps.

No recommendations at this time.

We need in-person directors meetings. There has been very little cross-grantee sharing since the 

pandemic. While I understand and support the need for those being virtual in the past, there is a lot lost 

by not being there in person to interact informally with other grantees and ED staff.

I would like more opportunities to network with my peers. In-person activities would be most helpful.

It would be great for the staff to better know and understand our projects goals and status. it often feels 

like the TA that is provided is unrelated to the specifics of our project. Would be much more helpful if 

there was some explanation into how it connected to our work, and was timed to better align with 

implementation cycles during the academic year.

We appreciate the training resources and information provided by webinars, and the communities of 

practice though the topics are not always directly relevant and/or the dates and times available do not 

align with our staff members' schedules.

We are receiving excellent technical assistance (in terms of evaluation and connecting with other 

grantees) from contractors of the Department, so there isn't really much need to receive technical 

assistance from Department staff.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 418

The presentations and training are not as warm as they could be. They could focus more on how adult 

learners best receive information. There needs to be more engagement and passion.

If would be preferable if it were clear earlier in the year what the set of opportunities for technical 

assistance will be, and especially essential for them to be scheduled further in advance. Often when the 

TA is of interest, schedules are already filled up. Provide more opportunities for different stakeholders on 

the project team, so information can be made available to project staff beyond project directors.

I haven't participated in the peer learning groups yet, but I hope to soon and they are well-disseminated.

na

The technical assistance meetings I have been able to attend have been great. My problem was that they 

typically fell on days I was teaching grad classes or had after school meetings and I unfortunately had to 

miss many of them. Not an issue for you all just wanted to share that I loved the idea of these meetings 

and wished I could have attended more

N/a

Abts associates, specifically [NAME] are a wealth of knowledge and support. We could not be happier. I 

have yet to full understand the value of the other technical assistance providers putting together 

community of practice.

I think that the department is doing really well.

All 10s.

Department staff is very helpful and attentive and willing to help navigate the system in ways that are 

productive, but I think they need better quality resources they can share. They need the tools to help PIs 

interpret and make sense of the way ED resources are helpful to supported organizations

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that provided 

technical services to you.

Scale up

Abt Associates Evaluation TA providers

not sure

Through Regional Laboratories.

ABT

EIR Project Officer [NAME]
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 419

EIR's Project Management Community of Practice, and other CoP's offered.

ABT and Anlar

[NAME] at ABT

Abt

abt associates

Abt

ABT Associates

abt associates

Abt Associates (Evaluation)

G5

ABT

[NAME] == [URL]

ERL AP

They mainly work with our evaluator so I'm unsure of the name.

[NAME]

ABT Associates

ABT Associates

Abt

Abt Associates

abt

[NAME]

Abt evaluator,
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 420

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role? (Other, please specify)

District Director

Leading the day to day implementation

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

EIR - 2022 - Q49.6. In what ways can i3/EIR program staff strengthen its support of your 

project-specific work? 

I did not find AnLar sessions very productive and helpful. I think they can be better planned with 

a specific narrow goal/purpose and the design can be better with an end product in mind.

We are/were extremely satisfied with our program officer(s). Always they are/were there to 

assist us in multiple capacities. They are updated individuals and eager to respond any of our 

request(s) including budget issues.

Our program officer has always been very supportive and helps us navigate challenges as they 

arise. Other than her, though, I feel very disconnected from the broader work, and the 

communities of practice and AnLar have been difficult to engage in due to time, a lack of a 

cohesive plan, and a disconnect from fellow grantees.

Our Program Officer needs to have greater knowledge about the EIR program, and needs to 

have some familiarity with our work (after nearly two years assigned to our project, I had hoped 

this might eventually happen but I no longer feel that to be the case). There needs to be a 

formal mechanism in place for requesting a new Program Officer when forced to work with 

someone who expresses great disinterest in partnership and strong lack of knowledge about the 

EIR program.

Monthly calls with Abt to address our project-specific questions and challenges are greatly 

appreciated and very collegial in nature. Quarterly calls with our program officer typically feel 

more high stakes for demonstrating success and not designed to provide just-in-time support. If 

that is not the intent, perhaps those calls might be restructured to better meet the needs of both 

the grantee and the Department.

Abt has answered all of our emails promptly. They have helped our team resolve design issues, 

pushed us to think about possible ways to alter the fidelity matrix to better reflect the grant, and 

work with us to help make our evaluation team more effective.

n/a

I feel the support has been excellent.

[NAME] is my program officer and he is excellent--very responsive, clear in his guidance, 

encouraging._x000D_ _x000D_ However, the AnLar support has been lots all at once almost at 

a frantic pace. As in my previous response, slow it down and spread it out!
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 421

The experience got better as it went on. Our first interactions were ill-fitting to the project and it 

took a while to get on the same page.

No recommendations at this time.

[NAME] has been fantastic and our evaluators have really enjoyed working with him.

RCT requirements are a huge challenge - very unpopular with Superintendents and School 

Board. A well designed quasi-experimental evaluation would be just as useful. Our evaluators, 

while quite familiar with WWC standards, tell us they appreciate the consultation from ABT. 

_x000D_ _x000D_ Anlar has been unrelenting with their COP and requests for information. 

They also seem to be unaware of critical deadlines inherent with the projects (e.g. scheduling 

events around the time the APR is due, or during the crunch of the fiscal year end). They also 

request detailed information with very short turnaround times (1-4 days). We want to be 

responsive, but that just isn't realistic.

Increased involvement and support

It would be great to have opportunities to dialogue with other projects that are involved in 

literacy instruction.

My program officer is awesome. She is firm in establishing what needs to be accomplished, but 

generous in her time to help and fully committed to our success.

Many of the opportunities provided have not allowed for much interaction/networking - in 

particular, I would like webinars and CoP meetings to be more of a two-way communication 

rather than having us in listen-only mode where we can only ask questions or comment via 

QandA or chat.

We receive many emails from ABT and Anlar. It is difficult to know which webinars to attend or 

are required.

The TA provided by AnLar is very general. It would have been much more helpful for the 

communities of practice to do some initial outreach to project teams to understand needs, 

instead of just putting them on us. It would be good to have clear agendas for the arc of the 

programatic support overall, and the specific meetings. The ones I've attended seemed to just 

be guest speakers without clear takeaways or goals to the conversation.

We are still very early in our grant process. I imagine that the technical assistance needed and 

provided will increase over time and will be able to be more specific to our grant funded program 

if needed.

Overall, I appreciate that EIR seems to take more of a collaborative vs. monitoring approach 

with grantees although this has changed a bit since we first started working with USED. In the 

beginning, it felt more like a partnership and our project officer felt like a partner/advocate. Over 

the past year, it has been difficult to get responses to questions and support when needed for 

COVID-related project challenges. There are often long delays in responses to emails or phone 

calls; although this varies across Project Officers. We've had extremely responsive ones and 

hard-to-track down ones.

More support in terms of scale up and sustainability.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 422

Not sure

As a project director, it is extremely helpful to be included in monthly Abt Associates TA calls 

with my evaluator. I suggest making that the common practice across the different EIR projects 

and Abt staff.

na

A bit more regular contact with our program officer. It would also be great to consider an inperson convening. The virtual convenings have been helpful but just not as engaging.

We received our grant in [DATE_TIME]. The support we received the first year of the grant was 

intensive and high quality, but this tapered off as the years progressed.

N/A

They have been exceptional in this regard.

Ever since we started working with [NAME] things have been great! We could not be happier 

with the communication or support provided! If hope every grantee has this level of support.

It's good.

I think there is a consensus building that there need to be more innovative ways to study 

learning embraced by USDOE. The process of seeing the RCT as the "gold standard" for impact 

is an outdated notion and needs to be replaced with acceptance of deeper and more nuanced 

approaches to understanding the effect of novel interventions in teaching and learning practice.

EIR - 2022 - Q49.7. What technical assistance experiences enhanced your capacity to 

implement your i3/EIR grant? 

Review of design doc & pre-registration

Learning about different projects and the ways used to share challenges and opportunities.

I can't think of any, but I would have loved a training on the fiduciary guidance of how many can 

be spent, and proper documentation.

Topical webinars, grantee success stories, communities of practice.

Abt has advised us on power calculation impacts due to recruiting issues. They have helped us 

design a logic model that matches the grant call and helps address our covid challanges.

Monthly & quarterly meetings with the program officer_x000D_ Monthly meeting with ABT 

team_x000D_ annual meetings_x000D_ Website publishing_x000D_ PD offered

Abt has been excellent in helping us prepare our evaluation plan.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 423

Accessibility of Project Officer and his shared expertise

Technica assistance with experimental designs

We are doing a very complicated student-level RCT and the Abt TA's assistance as we kept 

changing plans due to COVID impacts was very helpful.

The new webinar series about the APR process is helpful.

Once we understood each other, ABT was helpful in refining our WWC study to the pragmatics 

of the situation.

NA

Abt has been extremely helpful, especially in my new role as a Project Director. All their 

resources and frequent meetings support our project development and implementation.

No examples at this time.

Working with [NAME] to get the evaluation plan up to standard. He has been wonderful to work 

with.

In the past, interacting with other grantees t the directors conference - both formally (using 

problem-solving protocols) or informally - has been extremely useful. Those have been fewer in 

the past few years. Attendance in the COP doesn't seem to be consistent which makes it 

harder to build relationships with other grantees.

Support with power analysis

Being able to hear from other grantees and their challenges along with reporting needs/plans 

was very helpful.

[NAME]

Abt provided specific and helpful guidance at many steps in our progress.

The Rural CoP is the best opportunity I have had thus far to network, share, and learn from my 

peers.

Our evaluation TA has been very valuable in helping us structure our programs approporiately 

and adjust to the realities of covid. The 1:1 support from these TA's has helped our project. 

greatly.

Work with Abt was very helpful.

Again, it's early but we've found the webinars helpful from Abt Associates as well as the one-onone meetings with our specific TA provider as we work toward finalizing the first draft of our 

evaluation plan.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 424

Working with evaluation consultant to development of evaluation plan_x000D_ Webinars on 

topics such as meeting the matching requirements

The tech support was responsive

[URL]

Abt has worked with our external evaluator to make adjustments to our evaluation plan (covidrelated). The CoPs are an asset to several members of our project staff, in understanding their 

roles and responsibilities (e.g. project management, awareness of similar projects).

Abt TA evaluation meetings

Understanding the logistics of the evaluation (e.g., ideally how much of the intervention the 

treatment should be executing) was extremely helpful for me to communicate to the treatment 

schools. The expectations of engagement were not aligned: schools thought they only had to 

offer one course throughout the intervention, when in fact, the evaluator was building towards 

four courses implemented. That information allowed me to reset expectations with the treatment 

schools. I won't have known that information as early as I did without being a part of the Abt 

calls.

na

The evaluation support from ABT Associates has been critical to our success. Our TA 

coordinator is extremely knowledgeable and helped us to refine our fidelity measures and 

overall evaluation plan.

Clarity for the data collection process was greatly appreciated

Working through the implementation plan and fidelity matrix enhanced my capacity to implement 

the i3/EIR gran. In addition, the ability to work together with other grantees through the Anlar 

webinars and CoPs was very helpful.

They have always been responsive and helpful with any questions, and their advice has always 

enhanced the project.

Abts Associates has been instrumental in crafting our research plan. We meet regularly and it is 

always a pleasure.

Help on working through some very sticky evaluation and program challenges related to the 

pandemic.

Abt has been helpful in thinking through design issues.

Deep discussions with ABT, lots of great questions, and just really helpful dialogue and support.

During COVID, Abt was effective in helping us develop a new evaluation plan.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 425

[NAME] has been a godsend. An incredibly smart, nurturing and supportive force that has seen 

us through the darkest hours of the pandemic.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 426

Education Stabilization Fund-Rethink K-12 Discretionary Grant 

Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Provide links to information otherwise requested directly from Program sponsor.

So much of the website presumes a level of jargon that can be confusing or prevent successful searches. 

Even provided a list of helpful search starters might help.

I have not visited the website, and therefore unable to answer the previous questions.

More easily accessible/easier to find policy manuals, non-regulatory guidance, CFR, FAQs etc. related to 

ESF-REM and other discretionary grant programs

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).

Have a third party review all documents/processes to ensure alignment with products expected from 

grantees

It would be helpful to have more FAQs, policies, and guide that are readily available and more detailed in 

supporting grantees in reporting and budget. Many of the documents we receive are very general

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.

Simplify and consolidate the process. If government forms aren't meeting needs a revision is in order

The quarterly reporting and ESF-REM PM Plan and Measures is a completely different format than the 

annual report. The structure/information around the annual report was provided quite late last year. It 

would be nice if the quarterly reports/spreadsheet was the same as the annual report requested.

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role? (Other, please specify)

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 427
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 428

Educational Opportunity Centers (EOC)

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

N/A

Make items easier to find. I had to search 4 hours for a form because link that led to the wrong place.

I don't mind the website. It's functional.

Frequently out of date or missing information, particularly with the priority trainings. The site also looks 

very out of date and the structure could be more logical to navigate

I believe making it more user friendly while navigating the website.

The information could be kept more up to date. For example, the list of TRIO priority trainings is not 

correct for this program year.

Update the info included regularly, especially regarding TRIO training dates. Some of the info that is 

sometimes left listed is the training for the previous year. This makes planning professional 

development more difficult because I need to search through trainer websites to see if they were 

awarded such grants.

links are not always updated timely. Old info is still posted at times.

All good.

Change appearance on general information of PSE programs by adding more pictures to distinguish 

differences among programs.

The Website works well and is easy to navigate.

It can be difficult to find specific answers to program questions on the website. Many times the program 

officers are overwhelmed with their job responsibilities and take a long time to respond to emails.

Update the look and feel.

I noticed the APR date was incorrect this past year. Also, I think the FAQ is more geared towards people 

who are new to the grant and it could be updated to include more FAQ that directors might want to know. 

The Legislation and regulations area is good, but maybe there is a way to help directors understand 

which laws supersede what other laws.

It is currently very user friendly.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 429

Website should be more user friendly. Currently, the website is predominately written communication. 

The use of images or color-coded sections could help improve the overall appearance of the website. 

Also, consider adding video based communication.

Regulations page can be inconsistent and not always linked to the most user friendly sites to find 

regulations. Also, not every pertinent TRIO legislation is listed. End up needing to find a reference things 

separately. Could also be good to have relevant, pertinent communications from department linked on 

there. Not just in email communications.

More broken down information. Consistency with what the officers are telling us vs. what is on the 

website

Website search provides only general information. Search opportunities should allow for more detail 

searches.

Many of the links or answers to questions are not up to date.

More intuitive search functions with user in mind.... seems pretty "government-esque".

The website is a bit dated. I suggest doing more with the aesthetics.

Just keep it simple.it I sometimes feel like things are hiding within the website

Keep up the good work.

Update to a more of a modern design

Keep relevant information up to date/current.

none

Not my area of expertise.

Keep up to date.

none at this time

Utilize best practices for visualization; provide case study type examples

The whole DOE OPE website needs to be updated. Webpages feel buried, the home page needs a 

serious update, colors used could be updated & have more cohesions, there could be more 

images/photos, boxes/buttons/ribbons could all be less visual harsh & more rounded. Top ribbon could 

utilize drop down lists & help to organize information. The rest of the webpages could follow suit & get an 

upgrade. Information presented could be written like articles rather than just hyperlinks, pdf uploads, 

meeting minutes. The website currently has a a very cold, monotonous, impersonal, outdated feel to it & 

it desperately needs updating & cohesion.

Like they are doing just keep us informed._x000D_ _x000D_ Thank you for your support.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 430

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.

N/A

Overall, the process of reporting is fine. Just a few glitches every now and then.

It would be good to expand on the definitions of terms for those who are new to the reporting process. 

Included examples so there are less questions or gray areas of what is being requested.

The instructions for the APR need to be given out earlier to allow programs to better prepare the data. 

Also, highlighting any changes or areas to watch for would be helpful.

All good.

I like how you created buttons to distinguish the TRIO programs. All you had to do was press a button 

that was your report. Make the signature page easier to download. Sometimes it would cut off some of 

the upper corners when printing from the download.

The training session prior to the grant opening was very helpful. It would be more helpful to add a session 

specicfly on [URL] and G5.

Sometimes it's difficult to get information on students that don't go to college that report to the National 

Clearinghouse. It can be a cumbersome process to make sure we have all the data on which of our 

participants are in the military. It just takes a while to complete and yet at the same time, we need to see 

students and keep things going with our normal day-to-day work of the project. I think you should get a 

director task force together and determine if you need all the data you ask for and if the data is being 

utilized.

Process is currently adequate.

The grant reporting process could be improved through the implementation of better aligned CPP 

objectives. Seeing an overall review of data submitted for all funded programs could help with 

improvement.

On basic reporting, it is 100% fine. It meets all basic requirements, and it is an easy process. Sometimes 

I do wish that we could provide additional context to our reporting. To different objectives. Numbers along 

do not share our story, especially if a challenging year. I don't think we need to provide tons of context to 

the Department, but I do wonder if something like that could be helpful for both programs and the 

Department.

Training

No grant report improvement is needed.

n/a

No comments at this time.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 431

I think it's okay

More than five months into the next grant year ([DATE_TIME]) was a bit too long to submit APR.

Send more than one reminder to new Directors

Grant reporting process needs no improvements... ease of use.

We have only submitted the Interim Performance Report so far with us being newly awarded grant. The 

instructions on submitting the information for the report was confusing. I was able to reached out to the 

lead program specialist she was very helpful and met with me to clear up all the questions I did have.

Clear guidelines that indicates which metrics to report (an example is GPA - what GPA should be 

reported? Weighted? Unweighted? Etc.)

For EOC the documentation for services component is cumbersome and actually creates a barrier for 

EOC staff and takes up time that could be spent on outreach and access.

I am still unaware of how the department uses my data.

N/A

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role? (Other, please specify)

EOC Director

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

EOC - 2022 - 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.

For example, in this survey, one of the questions is, "How much do you trust the Educational 

Opportunity Centers 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." Our program is 

the Educational Opportunity Center. Are you asking how much I trust the Department of 

Education? Are you asking how the EOC meets my organization's needs in terms of its mission? 

What are you asking? This kind of vague and unclear communication is problematic.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 432

Our program rarely receives timely responses from our program specialist. We appreciate being 

given leniency on our program objectives for the year that we were impacted by the pandemic, 

but we do not rely on technical assistance from our program officer because the response rate 

to our inquiries and correspondence is so low and very delayed.

I would like for the program specialist to acknowledge receiving emails sent so that the host 

institution can see that budgets, questions were sent for reply or information.

During the last year I have only received emails from my Officer that were auto-generated by the 

system and sent in mass or from other members of the department. Every individual request for 

discussion about budget and other covid-related policy questions have gone 100% unanswered. 

one question about a zoom link to a webinar was answered timely but immediate follow-up 

questions about the other regulation, budget, or process based questions were not answered.

All good.

My program specialist was very supportive and provided immediate response to any questions I 

had. The pandemic did not affect her assistance.

I appreciate to timely response of my program specialist, but the response to the pandemic was 

slow and not very agressive.

The assistance remained good.

I felt like the program officers did not always know what was in the correspondence for allowable 

use of funds during the pandemic. Also, I was very worried about getting enough participants, 

there was never any reassurance and that made me feel worse about the efforts I was making 

to keep seeing students virtually and try to get my numbers. No one reassured me that it would 

be okay and I really needed that. I secured 80% of participants and given what happened I think 

that was good, but no reassurance that it would be enough.

I think my program specialist provided information in a very responsive manner considering the 

impact the pandemic had on communications channels.

Technical assistance received during the pandemic was in a timely manner given the 

circumstances. For future national emergencies, two-way communication with a 48-72 hours is 

reasonable.

I understand the complexity of the situation the Department was in. There is no doubt that 

answers were not going to be given overnight. I do feel EOC's were impacted in a much more 

unique way that the other programs that still had target schools to connect with. I hoped there 

would have been more timely adjustments and flexibilities granted to EOC's. I know those are 

complex answers and decisions, but I think more communication even acknowledging the 

challenges we faced would have put my mind at ease as a Director, even if we didn't have 

answers yet. During COVID, a simple, "We know this is hard on your program specifically, and 

we are actively working on how to support you" more often would have gone a long way in 

feeling supported by the Department. But I am very thankful for the flexibilities. Those did take a 

while for programs to decipher, but I am glad they happened.

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 433

My program specialist was extremely helpful during the pandemic. I wish the Department of 

Education would have informed the EOC offices about the expectations regarding participants 

recruitment throughout the pandemic.

My Program Specialist was rarely available and it would take several months to get a reply. Very 

disappointing.

Just a quicker response will be good.

Instead of communicating via office phones initially, we were able to communicate with 

specialist at their home phones

These are unprecedented times. EOC staff have never seen anything like this (i.e., closures, 

shutdowns, applicant apathy, etc.). We need strategies for recruitment and serving participants 

in this traumatized time.

We are a brand new grant just funded in [DATE_TIME]

I didn't have questions for the department during this time. I was too busy trying to figure out 

how to flip from in person services to on-line services. I started a EOC directors group and we 

meet weekly to figure out how to do our jobs. I attended zoom meetings and trainings and the 

directors and I figured out what to do. I read all the letters and emails from the department and I 

discussed them with my fellow directors. My assistance and support came from the EOC 

community not from the department.

The Pandemic has not impacted the level of technical assistance we have received; there are 

no areas of improvements needed.

Our program specialist does always respond when our department send emails asking for 

assistance. We sometimes have to multiple emails before a response is given. With us being a 

new program we have been asked to provide a 3 month update and an Interim Performance 

Report, but no feedback has been given.

N/A

Program specialist was still just as responsive & helpful as pre-pandemic.

Slow or no responses to question

EOC - 2022 - Q30.5. What can Educational Opportunity Centers do to improve 

communication with you?

N/A

What can Educational Opportunity Centers do to improve communication with you? Are you 

asking how we can communicate better with ourselves? Do you mean how the Department of 

Education can improve? Again, unclear question. _x000D_ _x000D_ If you mean, how can the 

Department better communicate: share more details regarding internal Department policies for 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 434

decision-making regarding budget approvals, program changes, etc. Improve email response 

rates and decrease response time delays. Provide specific and detailed explanations.

Respond to emails/requests regarding program changes or answer questions within at least a 1-

2 week turnaround time.

Reply or at least acknowledge emails.

Respond to emails at all and respond timely (within two weeks max). Any memos that are sent 

out should be paired with personalized info from the program officer, helping Directors 

understand the memo or announcement. Each Officer should have a goal to connect with every 

program at least once a year individually. It has been over two years since I have had a 

conversation (email or phone) with my assigned officer and it has been the same person for the 

last 7 years. No personal relationship or communication has ever been established to reassure 

me I am supported in the process of implementing the grant. There is no one I can contact with 

other than the officer to appeal or ask for additional help. Publish their supervisors and allow us 

to copy the supervisor when we have not been responded within a reasonable amount of time- 2 

weeks, for example.

All good.

We had good communication.

Past communication has been adequate. Communication during the pandemic came slowly and 

I wish the spending options had been more creative and open.

I really don't know, but I can say I have seen a dramatic improvement in the last 2-3 yrs.

All current efforts are satisfactory.

To improve communication, two way communication within 48-72 hours is reasonable.

Overall, pretty good. I personally have never had any negative experience. My program officers 

have always been fairly communicative, and respond in a reasonable time frame. I have been 

able to call them and talk, which is WAY better than email sometimes for certain requests. Could 

things always improve? I'm sure. But likely given the resources and nature of the grant, I think 

my PO's have done a good job.

Put someone in place who knows what they are doing and is willing to help or find out how to 

help.

Provide more advance notice of upcoming changes.

Hire more Program Specialist.

Just be mindful and consider the amount of time needed to implement programs services and 

activities

Answer email in timely manner.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 435

Just simply communicate more often, and with clarity.

Acknowledge that questions or information was received and then reply with a timeline when 

question(s) will be answered if not answered initially

I keep getting information that is directed to New Programs. It would be better to only receive 

information that is relevant to my program.

Continue to keep lines of communication open as have in the past.

Unsure.

I like the level of communication currently.

none

Respond to emails/ calls

EOC - 2022 - Q30.6e. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with your 

program specialist? - Other (please specify) - Text

Monthly/Quarterly Group Meetings in Zoom/Teams... If email, individual preferred.

Email AND phone

Zoom Calls

Webinar & blast email

EOC - 2022 - Q30.7. How would you advise on improving the overall process and 

protocols associated with this grant competition?

N/A

Extend the grant cycles to 6 years with a mid cycle check in by the program specialist. This 

would provide brand new programs an operational review to ensure they are complying with 

regulations. More importantly, they can be provided with technical assistance and, if needed, an 

action plan to help them meet their performance objectives. _x000D_ This would allow 

struggling programs to make corrections or adjustments so they can serve the students they 

wrote for and increase overall college going and completion rates.

More advance notice.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 436

The TS and EOC competition deadlines were too close together.

Make award notification earlier.

Faster turn around on funding status.

It is a very tough competition especially when community sites are closed due to pandemic and 

enrollment is down at two year public colleges. Readers are also tough as some of don't have 

any idea about TRIO

Just keep offering workshops and webinars about the directions. Make sure the people leading 

these workshops are crystal clear about the requirements.

No suggestions at this time.

The implementation of workspace for grant applications to be worked on in increments was a 

good change. With the upcoming grant competition, readers having concrete guidelines that 

align with the application rubric could help improve the overall process. Subjective versus 

objective opinions when reading grant applications have allowed for grants who followed the 

rubric to enter the funding band or not be awarded. Lastly, receiving notification of funding 60-90 

days prior to the start of services being rendered will afford opportunities to have personnel in 

place and programming to help successfully meet annual objectives/interim report needs for the 

first year.

This was my first one, so I am separating out my learning curve with actual protocols and 

processes. I think it was pretty good. I think the RFP was very redundant and could have been 

cut in half, but I am sure there is a reason it is duplicative. I do wish there was slightly more 

clarity on format, but now that I have been through it, I feel more comfortable. Submission was 

easy, but I also have a grant office who helps a lot with that. Complex, yes, but not too bad. The 

award timing was rough. Not receiving notification until 2 weeks before the end of the program 

year was very rough. Even as a returning grant, I wasn't permitted to do certain things until that 

GAN (like hire new staff, so it left me with a HUGE gap in staffing). That is not setting EOC 

programs up for success. I would have rather written months earlier if it meant getting notified 

with more time. Do everything about the competition was fine, except for the notification part. 

That needs to be improved.

Not really clear on this question. I know there is a big issue with adults returning to school who 

are low income but have used federal aid in the past and are no longer eligible for aid. Thus our 

program suffers its mission in helping those adults return to school and improve their lives with 

furthering education.

Allow the program to establish it's own baseline percentages without being penalized if the 

reader thinks the number is too low or not ambitious enough.

No suggestions at this time.

No problem

Reduce participant numbers especially during a pandemic and issues surrounding the economy 

and higher education.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 437

Awards should be made 3-4 months prior to the start of a new cycle / project year.

The process of delivering the services could be updated since we are now living in a world 

where new opportunities to communicate and deliver services are available. There could be 

funds for marketing and advertising available since in-person event for outreach efforts are 

severely limited. The usual avenues for recruiting are extremely limited and some means of 

promoting our services other than face-to-face would be helpful.

By regulation, we are to be informed of funding 90 days prior to the start of the grant award. 

This has never happened. Projects are held responsible for deadlines, but the department is 

not. Lay off notices have to be given to staff. It causes stress and unnecessary staff turn over 

when award notification is late. In addition, new programs don't have enough time to hire staff 

and they start off the year behind. In EOC we need 365 days to meet our participant numbers 

and goals and objectives. We need EVERY day to prepare for the start of the program.

Continue to keep lines of communication open and continued transparency related to program 

outcomes and objectives.

I cannot think of anything.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 438

Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

I realize the US-Ed home page has a link to the ARP state plans, but it would be great if there was a link 

to all COVID relief package funding. I would be most helpful to those that don't have the ESSER Fund 

book-marked.

Have it tested by actual end users before having it go live.

The navigation tools and menus could be better organized it takes a considerable amount of time to find 

the right information.

I believe it can be improved by adding more best practices information for states.

Is there a way to capture the date of the release or posting? Many times the guidance document has to 

be opened to identify the date of the release.

The website allows easy access to links but it at times is difficult to locate needed documents and 

guidance.

Website is easy to navigate but is difficult at times to locate needed documents.

Exemplars would be helpful.

It would be helpful to consolidate all of the critical information for states on ESSER I, II, III in one place.

Extent of time to locate what is needed takes some effort.

When knowing exactly what we are looking for, we are able to find information, but when searching more 

generally, we often do not find the results or information we are looking for, so refining the search 

function would be helpful.

The website was redesigned and the information is no longer accessible.

The website is great now. But it is more recently developed. At the beginning of ESSER, there was little 

to no information that could be easily accessed on ED's website. A lot of progress has been made and is 

appreciated, but some of it is coming so late in the game. More timely guidance would have been helpful 

in the beginning.

I would suggest using some of the navigation techniques that are used in the Education COVID 

Reporting website. I find that simpler to navigate and find what I'm looking for.

No specific comments at this time.

Remove old/outdated information.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 439

Ability to click to download dates to calendars for federal program administrators; the dates are coming 

from many offices; some are changing; others are just overwhelming to manage.

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).

No specific input at this time. Overall, all non-regulatory guidance, newsletters, and blast emails are 

satisfactory.

I would request all departments/offices would collaborate on FAQs, all guidance documents, and data 

collections sheets as there is often conflicting information. Also, please provide answers in direct 

laymen's terms. Often answers are a bit convoluted without actually answering the question asked-very 

government-ese and CYA answers.

Sometimes I feel the people behind the forms assume I know what they know and this is not always the 

case. Their "definitions" in each form can be better, for example, their emails have improved, but 

sometimes they could be improved as well. The changes are made continuously to some of the forms 

(like this year's data collection) make feel like they do not know exactly the data that they need 

themselves. Some of the data they ask for is also not that helpful to know if the funding used yields any 

results.

There is so much information that is coming at states constantly. It would help if the department held an 

overview webinar every other week that would just provide a high-level update of new information that 

has been released and would be beneficial to states.

The Maintenance of Equity guidance wasn't inclusive of all of the different scenarios by which states 

could meet the requirements relative how they allocate state funding to local school districts.

Non-regulatory guidance needed to be released earlier; however, the document is well put together and 

useful.

Timeliness of documents is a concern.

Information is currently provided via multiple pathways. Choose a single pathway to ensure everyone 

receives the same information. I am no longer receiving blast emails.

Based on recent emails blasts and webinars, it will be helpful for states to have more written 

guidance/clarification on late liquidation requests, and more guidance on if an LEA can request one or if it 

just at the SEA level. The sooner states can get the additional guidance would be most appreicated.

Guidance comes in late, too vague, and often changes.

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 440

The main concerns we have are with being able to gather all of the appropriate data at the state-level 

from the local level; trying to gather this data can be problematic. Also, what does US-Ed do with data 

that gets submitted; it would be great if this was communicated clearly.

.

Have input from a few grant administrators when creating the reporting forms. Not all LEAs/School 

districts have the same resources and manpower as those near you. Rural areas are having real issues 

gathering data that does not always apply to their situation or that makes accepting and/or even using the 

funding a challenge. Allow the reporting to be staggered during the year rather than have them all due at 

the same time would be helpful. Provide in site training for those SEAs that are building capacity to be 

able to provide the reporting needed. Facility the adoption of a universal Grant Management System so 

that USDE can have the data in real-time and prevent issues from happening Also provide the training 

for the GMS. Monitoring and reporting could be done more effectively that way. The data collection 

would take place as it happens, rather than making it a yearly event. This will be more transparent and 

helpful. SEAs and LEAs could be focusing on actual results rather than on the process as it would be 

already taking place. The universal system would gather info and report in real-time. This would also 

help those in the government to see what works and what does not, and more importantly, it would 

prevent any fraud as the monitoring would happen in real-time, and flags would rise in real-time again. 

Filtering between real fraud cases and others would be a lot easier to spot and take care of. The amount 

of time, $, manpower, etc. would be minimized as well. If we can do this for taxes, why cannot we do the 

same for these grants.

The grant reporting process should be closer to the allowable uses listed in statute as those are how 

LEAs were directed to spend funds and that is how they make determinations in spending funding. 

Additionally, each time there is Annual Reporting, expenditures should go all the way back to 

[DATE_TIME]. This would help [NAME] better track and report funds since they can spend funds 

retroactively to that time period.

[NAME] appeared to be releasing data reporting information while comments were still be received and 

addressed. [NAME] needs to keep in mind that states have to set up protocols to collect the data for 

submission which requires final data requirements to be established expeditiously. When ED makes a 

shift in the data reporting requirements (APR) in the middle of states developing tools to collect the data 

this is frustrating for the SEA as well as the LEAs to make the last minute shifts.

Several changes have taken place with the reporting questions; however, it was positive that those 

questions were marked as optional. Several of the reporting questions/data is not typical data that is 

easily available.

Changes to data elements should be communicated faster. Changes were made after the State 

requested data from the LEAs. Thank you for allowing certain changes to be optional for this reporting 

year.

Cultivate focus groups at the LEA level to understand how difficult it is for districts to modify reporting 

requirements temporarily. The USED is out of touch or using a few states with very nimble systems to 

represent all, which is not helpful, nor accurate.

Clarity around when reporting forms are final. When a final version has been sent out to States and then 

a new, revised version is sent out later as the new final version, it can create confusion and version 

control issues. _x000D_ _x000D_ We are interested in having more specific definitions of reporting terms 

(e.g. business rules, data field definitions) and more timely addition of FAQs for annual reporting. States 

need reporting requirements and business rules farther in advance to ensure that States can liaise 

internally with data teams. _x000D_ _x000D_ It would be helpful to provide planning / data collection 

templates for all required data fields that will need to be submitted in the online system.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 441

The performance report rollout has been extremely frustrating. Guidance is being issued through 

rulemaking then changed via multiple emails. Emails are not clear. Requirements are being shifted every 

day. The expectation for reporting is unreasonable. Overall a complete disaster from start to finish.

We have expressed concerns with the grant reporting process through federal register. Some of these 

concerns have been addressed, but many still exist, including the inconsistencies between federal 

reporting periods and state fiscal years, inaccurate explanations of what reporting shows, and lack of 

clarity of reporting requirements until late in the process.

ESSER reporting requirements were not established at the start of the grant period. To date, USDE has 

issued 10 different reporting templates. Reporting requirements continue to change. This is making it 

difficult for states to obtain information USDE is requiring from LEAs and for LEAs to track expenditures 

according to USDE's reporting requirements.

You could consider translation in Spanish.

The reporting requirements on ESSER have been through multiple iterations. Although we appreciate the 

work done to seek feedback and respond to that feedback, the reporting burden on ESSER is very 

overwhelming, time-consuming, and detailed. Much of it is coming long after we were required to release 

funds and implement programs. So, it is requiring a lot of work to now circle back to collecting needed 

information from grantees.

We have struggled with the continued updates and timeliness of getting the reporting requirements. This 

greatly impacts our ability to assist our LEAs in responding.

No specific comments at this time.

Continued refinement - streamlining where appropriate.

the same information is requested multiple times.

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role? (Other, please specify)

SEA grant manager

SEA Finance Administrator

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

ESSER - 2022 - Q71.5. Describe how the Office of State and Grantees Relations can 

further empower you to make decisions about the implementation of your ESSER grants

Overall, I feel that OSGR does a great job to empower us to make decisions. The team has 

been super helpful and willing to meet with us to verbally talk through the process so that 

everyone understands and is on the same page.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 442

Clear concise direct answers and information.

Please do more polls like this and meet our needs, especially in the rural areas. Thank you!

I think just one specific place where all of the information can be relayed at a high-level.

I think it would be more helpful if there were intermediate webinars from OESE to articulate 

program and reporting requirements and not just rely on states to view guidance and interpret 

the responses on their own. No cookie cutter webinars are needed where staff read the 

guidance, please expound on the intent of the interpretation.

More timely reminders and information throughout the life of the grant(s).

Provide more timely updates and assistance on monitoring.

It has been helpful that USED created guidance documents about the different ways SEAs and 

LEAs can use ARP-ESSER funds for recovery.

Having information about specific subrecipient reporting requirements in a timelier fashion would 

enable us to make proactive decisions and build our systems from the ground up in an effective 

way.

Using effective unitary examples for [ADDRESS].

More timely responses to our emails and questions. There have been several times we have 

submitted questions with no reply from [NAME]. Also, there have been a few times when 

[NAME] has followed up to ask us for information we had already submitted or had available for 

[NAME]'s review. In one instance, our Governor's Office was copied on the communication 

indicating we had not provided the requested information when we had in fact submitted.

No specific comments at this time.

Sharing promising practices.

I am most frustrated by the lack of clear guidance and/or changing guidance that shaped 

decision-making in the past and the expectation that past decisions should have been made 

with current, revised guidance that was unavailable at the time funds were being obligated.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 443

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

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

More Guidance specifically for Title III. Easier language to read.

At times, research on specific items is lengthened by a lack of chronological order.

Make it more user friendly with some flexibility of the variation of search terms.

There are many links that are dead links. _x000D_ _x000D_ Update searchable items that return specific 

results versus a table of contents for you to click on to select where you might find the information you 

need.

It is much better than it was a couple of years ago. I can actually now find the actual current text of ESSA 

and resources specific to English Learners. I am not sure how to improve it.

I think website is fine at this time.

While I am sometimes able to use external or internal search terms to yield the guidance or document 

that I am seeking, other times I cannot locate the necessary information or it indicates that there is 

nothing to share when I am aware that such guidance exists. I also find it hard to navigate the site 

visually. Having more topical tabs across the top or left could be one way to make it easier to navigate.

N/A

The website does not feel intuitive and it's not always clear which topics can easily be tied to which menu 

items. Searches are not as productive or efficient as they could be. It would be helpful to include tabs, 

i.e., Tools, FAQs, Current Law, Grants, etc.

Include more resources for program directors at the state and or LEA level.

I'm not sure, I'm sure the site is set up with some kind of logic but when you don't know exactly what 

you're looking for, you tend to just go from page to page trying to see what makes the most sense.

The website is just outdated. There is a current PD flyer on there from [DATE_TIME]. It would be helpful 

to have more guidance to support SEA implementation of Title III (e.g., support for SEAs on the 

requirements of program monitoring, grants management--assessing performance measures and 

outcomes; as well as a platform for sharing best practices). The menu of options should be better 

organized into categories and moved to the top of the page vs. running vertically down the side. It would 

be helpful to have the list of SEA contacts updated and listed on the webpage. It would be helpful to have 

a calendar of events for SEAs so we know when regional meetings are scheduled in advance (we don't 

always get much notice on the meetings).

Title III website is not readily accessible, hard to find and navigate. Additionally, guidance from past years 

is included and not always easy to determine if it is current or not.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 444

I suggest that meetings be held at least every two to three months with the Federal Program Officer and 

the states and territories. This meeting can be divided by sections or can be held with a few people to 

facilitate communication.

There are a lot of outdated links/missing information. I often end up clicking back onto the same starting 

page when looking for information.

It's just a little clunky and difficult to find things.

Increase links to information that cite legal references (e.g. ESSA law, regulations).

better organization and adding some common FAQs.

Clearer use of key words for searches

Wondering if exemplar documents could be shared for us to review as reference?

It would be helpful to have more FAQ-type information that then directs you to the specific federal policy 

or regulations. I find myself having to re-read the same very long policies to find the specific information 

that I need.

Provide Title III contacts of all states so that states can network across.

When I navigate the sight there are often broken links. I would like to see a link to the most accurate 

current version of all the titles, that was there and was taken down. It looks always so formal. Also it 

would be great to have the legal pieces and what that looks like in professional practice. I find the USED 

website in general clunky. I liked the attempt to streamline information, that was definitely 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., non-regulatory guidance, newsletter, blast 

emails).

Non-regulatory guidance is too broad and guidance does bot answer day to day questions.

Make them a little more concise and then include the citations in footnotes instead of embedded in text.

I feel that the documents are helpful and have what I need.

N/A

It could be helpful to differentiate guidance for smaller and larger states which would address same ideas 

w/ different practices, i.e., monitoring of TIII programs for smaller vs larger states.

Updates on the Title IIIA Non-Regulatory Guidance; updates on the DCL for English learners and their 

parents; targeted support for EQ
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 445

We submit questions during our meetings with USED, but do not get responses back. It would be helpful 

if those questions and challenges from the field could be answered in an FAQ section of a newsletter or 

in updated policy guidance. It has been a while since we've received updates via non-regulatory 

guidance.

None

I haven't been in my position long enough to receive any documentation.

The non-regulatory guidance could be quicker. SEAs often have to grapple with issues or months before 

we get guidance.

Release/update guidance more often. Some kind of yearly FAQ might be nice, based on questions 

received from States.

I think just providing more documents and guidance on more narrowed in, specific topics (i.e. high impact 

Title III subgrantee expenditures). I may not be on the correct email list as I haven't gotten too many 

blasts/newsletters.

Increase citations that incorporate court decisions in the implementation of EL program requirements.

Since EL civil rights obligations fall on SEAs, the use of Title III funds are somewhat restrictive, and 

guidance documents that focus on allowability like non-regulatory guidance, newsletter, and blast emails 

would certainly help.

Adding frequently asked questions.

More often

In the families section, it speaks to explaining ESSA, policies and grants however, it does not speak to 

social-emotional learning or home-school connection. If it exists, I was unable to find it therefore maybe 

making it a bit easier.

Most newsletters and documents are very professional and clear and are useful as a general reference, 

but do not address the more challenging issues that we are facing at the state level. The more "cutting 

edge" these documents are, the better.

I know it is challenging to write this type of guidance. It would be helpful to have a full comprehensive 

document and clearer distinctions of- what pertains to all titles and what is title specific. Rather then 

making one document with all the titles and a chart that outlines which title it refers to where. _x000D_ 

_x000D_ Recently you shared the draft for private schools for comment. There is not much in the title III 

section and this presents a real challenge for the types of questions and nuanced situational questions 

that we receive for which we ]provide support. I want 1 document for title III that includes everything that 

I need, and not have to filter and figure out how things apply.- If that makes sense. Examples I would like 

to see as an addition to title III... What is the intersectionality between civil rights and private schools? Is 

it assumed that the private schools are providing something and these services are above and beyond 

that? More examples of private school related expenditures. _x000D_ _x000D_ I would love a single 

document or comprehensive list of all the things that we must monitor under title III and what would be 

strongly recommended- which ideally could include what is sufficient evidence for both SEAs and LEAs. 

Especially with all the other laws that have intersections and relate with Title III. _x000D_ _x000D_ I 

would also like to see more information that when an SEA has the discretion of something, the nuances 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 446

to how that could be done, potential vignette examples. Example: So for immigrant children and youth... 

some states do a allocations and some run competitive grants. What are considerations for each option? 

and how that pertains to the inclusion of private schools.

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.

Explain specifically what is expected for each question.

Some values for reporting are set by the SEAs, therefore the information collected is not comparable at 

the SEA level across states.

We need specific training on what the different elements are in the CSPR reporting process and how they 

are defined with an opportunity to ask questions. I have realized when attending presentations about 

reports based on the data, that I have not always understood a specific area (such as certified teachers 

in an LIEP) the same way that the agency does. We are revising how we collect data based on that. The 

new webinar series about the CSPR data and English Learners is very welcomed! Prior to this last 3 

months, when I have asked about the definition of certified educators working in an LIEP, I have been 

provided the exact same verbiage as in the spec documents which had NOT been helping us understand 

the definition used. I was very glad to finally receive an email response this spring that clearly answered 

my question about how certified educator was defined.

Provide more professional development on the file specifications and how they are all tied together. Often 

time, it feels like some file specifications ask the same thing. Having a chart that identifies all file specs 

and differences and similarities would be helpful.

Some of the fields were quantitative data are reported are unclear. For instance, colleagues from other 

states and I have spent time trying to determine how to interpret certain instructions (i.e. unduplicated 

counts). This lack of clarity increases the likelihood that the data will be inconsistently reported since 

instructions may be interpreted differently. Clear instructions and definitions are needed to ensure that 

data are reported accurately.

N/A

Improve descriptions of allowables,; updating terminology, i.e., types of programs, student groups; also 

clarify definitions.; updating requirement of LEAs to report (What does ED want from LEAs?)

More information and guidance earlier. Practice sessions. Collab sessions where we can understand how 

others are interpreting what is being asked.

The recent PD on CSPR was helpful, I had not heard or seen a PD like that in the past.

The Department held a webinar to help address questions and issues during reporting this year, but there 

were a few outstanding questions that the team said they would get back to the field with info on and we 

have not heard back yet. It would be helpful to have more timely and consistent communication from the 

USED team, who are so kind and knowledgeable, but feel inaccessible at times.

None

Haven't had experience of this yet.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 447

Some of the CSPR questions, especially regarding teachers in LIEPS, had been vague. This had 

impacted how we frame our data collection with the LEAs. In needing to report student languages, you 

refer to ISO 639-2, which doens't have nearly all of the languages represented in our schools. This leads 

to having to do a lot of research to find the best match/root language which is time consuming. ISO 639-3 

is more comprehensive.

No recommendations at this time.

I can see that the Department is starting to focus its efforts on improving the grant reporting process 

which is great! I really appreciate the webinars and online sessions. More collaboration on grant 

reporting is always good.

I rely on expertise of Utah's data and statistics department

Interactive map for the grants did not work for me.

As someone who is new to this role at an SEA, I found the CSPR reporting unnecessarily confusing. 

Some of the information requested was very difficult to obtain and had to be estimated, which is not 

useful to DOE or to the SEA. I really don't understand what purpose this reporting serves and found it 

time-consuming but not useful to my work. More support and information on this process would be 

welcome!

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.).

Direct guidance to the state coordinators on a monthly basis, even if through an email.

A more in depth description of program models as per latest research and alignment with the EL Toolkit.

It would be great to see some more direct support from the DOE in terms of webinars and peer-to-peer 

groups.

It would be helpful to have a meeting (like in the past) with Title III coordinators from SEAs whether it is 

virtual or in-person.

I need to complete the state leader training modules to see if this is in there. A timeline of suggested 

activities in order to accomplish program activities would be helpful. Resources connected to each 

activity in the timeline would also be helpful. We are still challenged with how to use our state level Title 

III funds and often let it be passed to the districts to use.

I think providing more opportunities to learn from other Title III coordinators. Sharing best practices or 

things you have seen as successful with other states pertaining to Title III, Part A.

We'd like to see more opportunities for sharing best practice in facilitated peer-to-peer learning groups.

N/A
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 448

convene bi-annual or quarterly professional learning communities around specific topics related to 

program & assessment

Content - In depth review of the statute, NRG, and practical implications regarding onsite monitoring of 

LEAs_x000D_ Structure - small interactive sessions, small collaboratives_x000D_ Format -

virtual_x000D_ Timing - offer a variety / provide choice

It would be helpful to have regular routine meetings with Department staff to support and questions SEAs 

have.

More direct approach with each state coordinator.

Haven't had the opportunity for this.

I may just not be aware of the TA opportunities available, which is coloring my responses, but I haven't 

been a part of anything like P2P opportunities, or specific TA, with TIII.

Consider providing specific training to onboard new SEA Title III staff.

Technical assistance in the use of Title III funds to improve professional development, LIEPs and tutoring 

sessions would be very helpful.

More frequent communication. I was thrilled to receive the quarterly webinars..hoping for more technical 

assistance documentation, meeting and hopefully a state directors Title III meeting. I've been working 

with Title III for 3 years and had a hard time connecting with the state directors because of the overlap 

between Title III and the program side.

Technical assistance not immediately relevant

Would encourage and welcome more sharing and peer collaboration.

USDOE's participation and sponsorship of webinars, NAELPA events, CCSSO, etc. has been the most 

valuable content for me as a new state director. I really appreciate hearing from the department in these 

events.

Would like to see more opportunities to network and cross align with other states.

I would like more opportunities to have webinars where I can submit question ahead of time.

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that provided 

technical services to you.

Data collection - language code collection.

Regional Lab

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 449

NDTAC

[NAME]

IES REL at WestEd (REL West) & Region 15 Comprehensive Center

Regional Laboratories - Comprehensive Centers - Equity Assistance Centers

regional

OESE

NA

Region 11

Not direct TA, exactly - but resources from the RELs are always useful and often they come my way and 

we can utilize to inform guidance, support, etc.

R15 Comprehensive Center

Regional Laboratories

Equity Assistance Centers

webinars

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role? (Other, please specify)

SEA Program Staff

consultant

Monitoring and Compliance

interim state director

Lead Consultant (coordinator type not a purchased consultant type)

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 450

TITLEIII - 2022 - Q42.5. 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.

Webinars

Their participation in CCSSO meetings.

CSPR and Title III collaborative webinar series; NCELA newsletter; Title III non-regulatory 

guidance

Non-Regulatory Guidance. Calls with U.S. [NAME] regarding different questions we have had.

Non-regulatory guidance

ESSER webinars have been very thorough. We could benefit from similar webinars (structures, 

comprehensive content) in Title III

Webinars

Opportunities for peer collaboration; webinars, publications and non-regulatory guidance have 

all been valuable. The "Dear Colleague" letters are also very helpful.

I did not participate on all of this activities because I was not invited for all these.

Haven't experienced any of these things.

The presence of Department representatives at monthly NAELPA Executive Board meetings is 

the most helpful. I also appreciate the data quality webinars currently being offered.

The CSPR sessions this year have been helpful, especially in getting some common questions 

answered. I also find appearances at SCASS, WIDA Board Mtgs, and other SEA-facing events 

always beneficial also, when we can send in questions beforehand and do some Q&A.

Technical assistance regarding corrective action identified through Consolidated Performance 

Review process.

Dear Colleague Letters generally provide enough detail to be helpful in unpacking required and 

best practices. Webinars are helpful because they are short, go over targeted areas of content, 

and are available on demand.

Communities of practice and support for the transitioning to the ESSA. Additionally, webinars 

and resources documents during the pandemic were very helpful.

Grantee meetings

webinars has been great so far
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 451

Updates on budget

Opportunities to engage with colleagues.

Already answered

Webinars directly with Federal officers and direct title iii federal officer communication

TITLEIII - 2022 - Q42.6. 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.

More webinars and publications specifically to Title III program.

Peer to peer groups, more webinars and direct response from the DOE.

Provide more State specific outreach on frequently asked questions that come in. This could be 

done in the form of monthly or even quarterly meetings with SEAs to go over FAQs and answer 

other questions that other States may have at that time. It will create a sense of support and 

help States in areas they may have questions but were unable to find the answer to and the 

Department has already encountered and researched the question.

Continue the CSPR and Title III collaborative webinar series; provide a Title III State Directors 

collaborative webinar series where we can all share how we are implementing various parts of 

our programs to generate more ideas on how we can be doing all of this

When we ask questions, don't insult us and quote the law. We can read the law but are usually 

looking for further interpretation guidance. _x000D_ Title III/EL programs are always on the 

bottom rung of the Federal ladder. Topics we need addressed, such as reasonable ways to 

identify and exit ELs with disabilities, seem to get overlooked or addressed in a 'legal' manner, 

rather than realistic. This leaves us to give the same vague assistance to schools which 

diminishes our credibility.

Have specific webinars on Title III.

N/A

More community of practice opportunities; satellite office for localized support in western 

[ADDRESS]

opportunities for peer learning, collaboration calls, grantee meetings, communities of practice, 

etc.

Again, I think a more direct connection to our SEA contacts would be very helpful. All of the 

support we receive from USED is very formal. We need the opportunity to ask specific questions 

and to received timely feedback. I think more sustained and routine 1:1 or regional meetings 

could prove very helpful. I would also recommend USED staff offer Open Office Hours, so SEAs 

could join to access support.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 452

In [ADDRESS] we are Spanish Learners Acquisition. Best practices for teaching in the Spanish 

language need to be included.

?

More accessibility and quicker response to questions. In my role, I am asked to provide 

information about allowable activities and I don't feel as though I have access to a Department 

rep who can provide timely, clear answers when I ask a question.

As I mentioned previously, I may not be privy or may have read past any peer to peer or 

collaborative opportunities, but would love to participate in one with fellow SEAs. I also oversee 

our Migrant program and our regional calls there are great ways to network and address 

common issues. Thank you for all you do!

Continue to provide support and guidance.

Additional specific resources and exemplars are needed for each level of incidence, in particular 

in secondary, pertaining to the implementation of MTSS (ELD is not an intervention it is core 

instruction - where do we find good models?).

Improvement of the website would be great. I often find dead links and navigation to find 

documents is really difficult.

FAQ's and an annual Title III directors meeting please

Ask each state what it needs

Increase grant funding_x000D_ Provide additional flexibilities

Answer the "tough" questions that we pose - don't just point us back to what is already there. 

We wouldn't be asking if we could already find the answer.

More clarity on the use of funds as it relates to other federal funding sources (e.g. ESSER 

funds, Title I)

One recommendation that I have. When someone enters the G5 system and is a new grant 

Director. I would love to have had a personal onboarding for our state, with someone who walks 

me through, available resources, grant management, etc... anything that would be beneficial. I 

feel like an island in this. If I didn't have experienced state colleagues. I would be more 

lost....Someone who brings all the moving parts together.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 453

Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships (FLAS)

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

For a novice like myself, it took some time to become accustomed.

Navigation between diverse elements and clear section, topic, or sub-heads.

Add an easily-located prominent link to current list of Title III, Title V and Title VI-designated institutions, 

please.

I think navigation could be made a bit easier, in particular towards connecting policies and programs, 

providing information about grantees, etc.

There is nothing intuitive about how the site is set up. It seems like a website from the early days of www, 

before efforts were made to facilitate use. I have to consult our Scholarships Coordinator to find the 

information I need, and can't always find it. So the FLAS folks are great, the office is great, and the 

website is... meh._x000D_ _x000D_ I am CERTAIN that D/OPE could design a much easier website to 

use. Just know that many of us Center directors are only half-time, and we should not be spending most 

of our work time just GETTING to the place to submit reports. Make it super-easy on us. _x000D_ 

_x000D_ thank you

The information regarding the grants (due [DATE_TIME]) was confusing and misleading. If there could be 

some consistency in terms of expectations (different paras saying different things), or different 

expectations from the previous cycle to current cycle... It would help us greatly if there was greater clarity 

in the information shared, and in the design of the website to make information more easily accessible, 

rather than having to go down rabbit holes trying to find the information. Thankfully, we have an excellent 

program officer who was able to guide us through the process.

I don't use the [URL] site very often, but it's a nice hub for information about FLAS granting institutions 

and program management questions. I usually consult the FLAS Program Administration Manual pdf 

and/or my program officer with any questions rather than use the website.

Provide more material for current grantees

I have no suggestions

Clarifying criteria for use of and eligibility for FLAS awards, differentiating the conditions of Summer and 

AY awards._x000D_ Provide examples of permissible use of award, especially for overseas language 

study and combining language study and research/preparation for research. This would make it easier for 

applicants to know what's possible and for program coordinators to present requests to program officers.

Loging in after not using the site for a while is always a problem

Difficult thing to do when there are so many audiences that site it trying to serve

The Grants page does not foreground grants offered by the Department/Office of Postsecondary 

Education. Search terms are not brought up in order of frequency by which certain terms are searched. 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 454

The Department needs to weight search terms by 'stickiness'. The absence of ordering of search terms 

when they appear results in the user spending an inordinate amount of time to find the relevant 

reference.

I don't use the website.

No suggestions

Greater clarity, better categories and descriptions, better navigation, better layout, formatting. It is not 

particularly intuitive currently.

I don't use it, so I'm not sure. It always seems clunky and to only have official information for internal use 

rather than information relevant to external parties or even grantees. I've only ever used it to look up past 

grant recipients in our field.

No Sure, we really don't use it that often. If them mostly to look for sister programs.

Keep it up to date: a couple of times several years ago I was not able to find the most up-to-date version 

of the Program Administration Manual.

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.

Not sure how to improved this important process but appreciate DOE attention.

It is a bit unclear how data gets used by the department, and we would appreciate further guidance on 

how we can best provide data that will strengthen the program across the board. The IRIS system is also 

quite cumbersome and doesn't easily interface with the sorts of programs we use to track the relevant 

data (excel, google docs, etc.)

We are often told to get information on persons who work in classified offices in the government. 

Obviously, we can't get the information on them.

Things are fine right now.

This is not the fault of the Dept. of Education, but Title VI institute directors are constantly changing (as 

per university requirements). We come on board with no training, given that our predecessors move onto 

other parts of the university. I'm wondering if it would help for the Dept. of Education to have annual/ 

biannual training and refresher seminars to keep [ADDRESS] Center directors more on the ball. I feel I 

struggle often, especially because my entire staff is more or less new and they have no clue as to how to 

do things either. I've been here two years, and COVID hasn't been easy on the higher education 

workforces. If the Dept. of Education folk could be more hands on in terms of training us, I'd be deeply, 

deeply appreciative.

Some response about our specific reports or how the department uses the data

1. Obtaining data from students can be challenging at times. This fact is not the fault of the 

DoED._x000D_ _x000D_ 2. Data relevant to grant reporting is not always the most helpful in meeting 

University objectives.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 455

Provide on-going opportunity to provide suggestions to improve program

There are major structural issues in the FLAS reports which go out to students. Many students are 

unable to access them, and technical assistance is unable to resolve the issue.

Looking forward to dropping the pmfs because they duplicate a lot of the other information reported.

Regarding the application, the dollar limit on awards was unclear in that those numbers are a 

recommended range. We learned that some applicants far exceeded that number, and were awarded a 

far higher amount than we thought possible. The formatting instructions were confusing because there 

were two applications, for which we were told we should submit one narrative, yet each of the two 

applications required different lettering of sections. We ended up including, for example H-NRC and HFLAS, with the following numbers within those representing different information. _x000D_ _x000D_ 

Regarding reporting requirements, it is sometimes hard to attach the budget and trigger its submission. 

Information needs to be submitted in a certain order for this to work, which we learned through 

experience. _x000D_ The FLAS coordinator needs to submit pre- and post-language proficiency scores 

in ACTFL format. At the same time, the testers use the Interagency Language Roundtable tests. The 

FLAS coordinator then needs to convert the ILR tests to ACTFL format on the Fellow Profile. This often 

means consulting with each language tester as there is no authoritative conversion table. Our FLAS 

coordinator devoted a good deal of time to learning about language testing scholarship in order to do this 

accurately. _x000D_ _x000D_ Questions submitted in the IRIS help function do not receive prompt 

answers (e.g. chat function) and have a delay of a day or more, which requires going in and out of IRIS, 

which takes additional time. _x000D_ _x000D_ Apart from assuring that we have entered the required 

information, we don't understand how the Department uses the data we submit.

The IRIS interface is clunky and difficult to navigate and it takes forever to add the information. It would 

be easier to have something that we could download, fill out, and upload. We have to record the 

information already and we have it. The IRIS then requires us to retype or copy and paste the information 

into the system and this takes hours of unproductive time.

Automated reminders of when FLAS reports are due would be helpful. Also, automated reminders for 

notifying instructors and students would also be helpful

The FLAS/IRIS reporting system is clunky and convoluted and is not easy to use. The amount of 

information we are asked to report is completely reasonable but the system itself is poor.

As an interdisciplinary program that spans faculty based all over the university, it is sometimes 

impossible to find all the information for the resource leveraging screen, for example, in terms of what 

grants / funds faculty or students who study our region have received. It can take weeks to get the data 

for one screen. It's a process and as a result, the reported data always feels like it took way too long to 

track down for how inaccurate it probably is.

It is sometimes difficult to generate the precise data the report asks for as the University doesn't 

necessarily can generate it form the report requests. Also, the University doesn't itself necessarily 

generate the data as often as the report requires it. Example: placement date is often based on 

University conducted surveys that happen typically once every 5 years.

No suggestions.

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role? (Other, please specify)
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 456

NRC/FLAS PI

Completed by Director and Associate Director/FLAS Coordinator.

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

FLAS - 2022 - 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.

Our program officers were very helpful in dealing with change to the FLAS program, they clearly 

communicated the rule changes and spaces for accommodation for our fellows and worked 

together with us to meet both ED and institutional regulations.

Brave, consistent and congenial reaction!

the people who help us are great

No substantial impact

Many of our language courses went online, and students needing area studies courses were 

also moving online. Our program officer was terrific in providing strong leadership and guidance 

through those really confusing days. The problem now is bringing our students and faculty back 

to a post-COVID era. Everyone wants to continue doing online courses, including language 

teaching. This is highly unfeasible, esp. given that we're working with South Asian languages 

with different script, enunciation and pronunciation needing face-to-face, rather than remote 

interactions. This, of course, is not our program officer's concern. But this is something we're are 

facing on the ground.

I have nothing but praise for our program officer. The pandemic has been particularly difficult 

for FLAS programs because of enrollment shifts at both the undergraduate and graduate level. 

These issues have been exacerbated by recent shifts in program guidance. The IFLE staff has 

been exemplary in helping us navigate these situations.

Our program officer changed during the pandemic. When the new officer arrived we were asked 

to justify - after the fact -- decisions and communications made during the predecessor's tenure. 

The new program officer was indifferent to our program success during the pandemic period 

and singled-out minute program details as areas of concern. That is, there was very little 

concern expressed regarding the challenges of running an international program and keeping 

students motivated during the isolation and remote learning required to manage the pandemic.

There was a lot of flexibility during covid and we really appreciated that. We have a fantastic 

program officer who is always responsive and always want to work with us in a positive way to 

solve problems. Thanks!

Earlier more frequent communication. But the staff adapted under trying circumstances. I have 

a lot of respect for the staff of IFLE and their work to improve the FLAS program.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 457

Our program officer was very communicative, sent updates often, responded quickly and with 

very complete answers that helped us resolve any questions or problems. We were told by 

our program officer that grantees always come first. That has been true in our experience.

They have all been excellent.

Our program officer was always very quick to respond to questions and issues relating to FLAS 

fellows, and she consistently had detailed responses to help us address any problems.

We have nothing but good things to say about our last two program officers ([NAME] & [NAME]). 

They have been incredibly helpful, responsive, and accommodating - but also clearly spelling 

out limitations and policy when things were unclear. Their advice and guidance in the shifting 

landscape of the Pandemic was exceptional. Within the practical limitations of the pandemic 

they worked with us to resolve issues related to FLAS awards and did their best to support 

FLAS students in achieving their goals in restricted/limited circumstances. I can't think of 

anything that could have been improved.

I really appreciated the technical assistance webinar we got with insight to how the Summer 

[DATE_TIME] FLAS requests would be fielded... it allowed us to communicate to students with 

clarity and run a successful grant cycle (albeit with far less Summer FLAS awards than in the 

past, which means we have higher carryover than usual). I suggest continuing those kinds of 

meetings while the pandemic is still happening, as we didn't get that insight this year and we 

struggled with approvals for our Summer FLAS recipients as a result.

They did an excellent job, especially when it came to find alternatives for summer programs 

abroad. And we don't even want to think about the next pandemic!

The team at IFLE deserves recognition for their thoughtful and empathetic response to the 

pandemic. The common-sense flexibilities they extended allowed us to support many students 

in crisis and to ensure continuity of instruction during a very difficult time, Thank you!!! I work 

with a number of other federal agencies (State, Fulbright, etc.) and the IFLE team was clearly 

best positioned to be responsive and supportive and logical during a difficult time.

Our program officer provided valuable updates regarding travel restrictions for the students' 

planning to study abroad. We also appreciated the flexibility that was given to students in 

summer [DATE_TIME] to defer using their awards to [DATE_TIME] when some in-person 

programs were resumed.

FLAS - 2022 - Q24.5. What can Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships do to 

improve communication with you?

The communication level is good. Timing of the grant competition with regards to FLAS is out of 

synch with our admissions cycle, which makes the award process and recruitment a bit difficult 

for us every four years.

Nothing. These are the consummate professionals that we all admire.

n/a
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 458

Nothing right now

Our program officer is excellent. I'd love to visit them in [ADDRESS] just to introduce myself (I'm 

a new director). Now that the quarantine is winding down, it looks more feasible.

I am satisfied with our communication.

Rules need to be consistently enforced._x000D_ Program officers need to be aware 

of/interested in/concerned about challenges and constraints of program administration 

especially for LCTL.

More frequent communications

Improvement of the IRIS system and its help function would work wonders. _x000D_ _x000D_ 

Our program officer is extraordinarily helpful and communicative--we don't think it's possible to 

improve communication in that area.

Earlier notification times for the 4 year grants would be helpful in order to be able to best situate 

incoming prospective FLAS fellows. We of course realize this may be outside the control of the 

Department in cases when budgets are being argued in congress.

We have been very satisfied.

We have been struggling to figure out what is allowable and not allowable and received some 

mixed guidance on that this year. I think this will improve as the staff at DoED gain more 

experience and continue to work together to give the same guidance to all grantees. We do 

need to know whether we got the grant or not way before the grant start date-- we are incredibly 

disappointed that despite moving the grant submission deadline up 4 months, we have still not 

heard about the [DATE_TIME] grant cycle. This puts us in a very difficult situation in terms of 

planning for FLAS funding for the coming academic year!

Earlier grant notification is key. We award fellowships in the early spring (March) for the 

following academic year in order to capture the most talented students. Our best students are 

savvy and wary of uncertainty. About half of our [DATE_TIME] awardees have declined their 

awards by now because they did not like having an offer that was contingent on our center 

receiving funding. They made other plans for the fall. This leaves us with a roll-over situation in 

Year 1 of the grant. _x000D_ _x000D_ In addition, some of our awardees have accepted 

concurrent appointments (i.e. an award-contingent FLAS and a TA position) and then they will 

drop the other appointment (i.e. a TA position) once the FLAS is finalized. While this doesnt 

cause any issues with IFLE, it creates BIG BIG BIG problems for grantees and administrators. 

We have to scramble to fill TA positions at the very last minute for frustrated faculty who blame 

us (and FLAS) for "stealing" TAs at the last minute because of our "mismanagement" of a 

federal award. _x000D_ _x000D_ We submitted applications in February this cycle. I was 

hopeful that this would mean an April notification date, which would have prevented all of these 

issues. Our best students make their Fall plans in April/May.

I am pleased with the quality of communication.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 459
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 460

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

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Instead of one static page with information, allowing headings on the site lead to FSCS related content. 

Adding a resource tab for example for FSCS instead of the current resource tab that is for all things 

DOESE

including more information on the APR, submissions. Providing overall guidance if you've never used the 

website before.

Have a page for current grantees with the resources needed to understand the grant, links to forms, 

instructions about G5, other items a new program director might need. Not all of us have been with the 

grant since it was originally submitted by our LED. And with staffing shortages, it has taken months to get 

all the answers and I still have questions that I punt about rather than try and a get a response or try to 

find it on the website.

Increased information and resources for grantees

No suggestions at this time

The link to the "updated website" is broken. Old website information in some areas has not been updated 

since [DATE_TIME].

I never use it; not sure I was aware it existed. If there are items there that would be helpful to us, a plug 

for the website now and then (when something new is posted) would be helpful.

The website is bland and hard to navigate. It would be great to be able to have forms on there that we 

can pull that we will need for grant reports, links to the grantees, their applications, a portal that we could 

all use as part of a discussion board. If a link to future webinars or other opportunities are available that 

would be great. An aggregate of how many students/families and community members have been 

serviced throughout the year and what is being done. Ways to connect with colleagues around the 

country would be great as well.

There seemed to be some outdated information and not easy to navigate

Put recordings of training on the website.

Easier navigation flow as well as contact information when needing to call or email someone.

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).

Provide "exemplars" or examples that meet reporting criterion
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 461

The forms are not very user friendly and it is still unclear what needs to be submitted and how.

Include bullet point summaries of federal regulations that pertain to the grant program. Referencing them 

by number and not including the actual information is painful - can't find it by number anywhere. And, I'm 

an experienced federal grant project manager . . .

An increase in documents to support new grantees would be helpful

Newsletter for FSCS sites would be a great way to release announcements and highlight programs

Outside of blast emails around reporting webinars or cohort webinars, I do not recall receiving many 

documents. I have not seen any newsletters. It would be helpful to see cohort spotlights and understand 

what types of pipeline services are being provided by other grant recipients.

None

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.

Though discussed at the Dec conference, there still lacks definitive or clear approaches around FERPA 

limitations and data we are to report on. It feels like we go in circles and are at the mercy of 

agency/vendor willingness to provide specific data and when its something they'd rather avoid, stick to 

the FERPA argument.

During one of the meetings in the fall, a consultant mentioned that we should have regular checks in our 

program assistant. I have a hard time connecting and getting full responses.

A fillable online form rather than the Word document that we render as a pdf then upload to the G5 

system. It was touted as a huge improvement to the reporting process last year. Perhaps on the fed side 

it was but for us in the field it was no different than attaching the same thing to an email.

The grant reporting process seems to focus mainly on GPRA (number of individuals served) and does 

not focus as much on how outcomes are being achieved through the programming. We have set many 

different outcomes we would like to achieve (improvement in attendance, SEL, literacy, etc) and the 

report does not lend itself to monitoring implementation, outputs and eventually outcomes in a 

streamlined way

It would be great to receive some feedback on the report to ensure we are providing the information that 

the Department is hoping to receive. There is a lot of time put into the report so just some 

acknowledgement of the the work put in and know that someone is at least opening the report would go a 

long way.

Recordings of the grant reporting preparatory webinar and updated slides so the webinar content 

matches the reporting requirements.

Please share feedback on progress on performance measures

It is challenging to have reporting outcomes linked to an application that must be submitted prior to the 

start of the funding. As needs evolve, the static data points often feel like an incomplete look at the work 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 462

being done. Also, some pipeline providers offer a wide array of services and it can be hard to know what 

to include.

We noticed that we had questions that a recording of the webinar might have answered but we only had 

access to slides. Also, the report itself repeatedly asks for the same information. I think the reporting form 

and questions could be streamlined.

The G5 system is cumbersome in trying to navigate and the slowness of it. The report templates are not 

as easy to use when it comes to clicking the boxes. If it was a form that could be created in certain 

sections through the G5 where we don't have to upload and unlock as a PDF that would be great.

None

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 newly established FSCS session have been helpful, such as the ones on data management. 

Expanding on that practice may strengthen this area when more content is built out.

There should be ongoing check ins, updates etc with TA staff. Not only if there are issues and the 

grantee is reaching out.

I have not found it easy to connect with anyone for technical assistance. I get much more information 

from the National Center for Community Schools at Children's Aid in [ADDRESS]

It would be great to receive ideas or evidence-based ideas for service implementation. What best 

practice things are happening across the other grantees._x000D_ I do want to thank [NAME] for her work 

in starting organize a listserv and offer webinar series to help start connect grantees work and highlight 

successes!

The technical assistance we have received is minimal. We have found our staff point person to be 

unresponsive and not supportive in resolving continual issues.

A quarterly meeting of project directors would be helpful to network, collaborate, and discuss successes 

and challenges

There are little to no opportunities to connect with others in the cohort through formal channels. Another 

community briefly organized a webinar series that was not repeated. Creating a sense of community 

among the grant recipients would be extremely helpful.

N/A

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that provided 

technical services to you.

[NAME]
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 463

Youth for Youth: Online Professional Learning and Technical Assistance for 21st Century Community 

Learning Centers

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role? (Other, please specify)

District Administrator

Community Schools Director
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 464

GEAR UP

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Improve the Search function. It is a bit cumbersome.

Unless you just want to review past awards or see upcoming NIA -- there's really not much in the way of 

"resources" -- when I need something I'd call a resource, I contact other Gear Up directors. When I have 

a legs and regs question, I just email my program officer directly. I don't really expect to be able to find 

the answer easily on the website.

More best practices and resources

Updated information on current grantees-perhaps a map of all GEARUP- resources for enrichment 

activities

Perform website updates with relevant information.

Information is easily accessible and well organized.

Add more resources for first time directors.

I believe that the website could be more user-friendly and have video recordings, or tutorials, on ways to 

help new GEAR UP Staff. The Dept. of Edu official has been most helpful in providing webinars and 

recordings, but there isn't much on the website.

The website is adequate for housing necessary information. Sometimes it take a while to find what I'm 

looking for, but it is all there.

Make it more user friendly specifically for each program.

Accuracy. Every now and then, the information we are hearing from Dept. staff does not match what is 

reflected on the website, likely due to a delay of updates. It is important that the website is updated as 

soon as it is communicated to us, so we can refer back to the website for clarity/confirmation later.

make it look more modern

N/A

user friendly

It needs to be easier to navigate and search easier for item like Regs, proposals, funded programs, etc.

College Readiness information should be on it's own bullet and not under data
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 465

Possibly add short informative videos for new grantees.

Consistently update the website with communication options to impact daily implementation options. With 

continuous updates, the website traffic will increase due to the latest and most informative information 

available.

I am not sure. It is fine. It is a government website. No one is expecting it to complete with meta or 

google.

NA

At times, it isn't easy to navigate and search for content that helps to inform aspects of GEAR UP 

compliance. I generally rely on my program officer or grant colleagues to access information, less on the 

website. It might be more helpful to better organize the information under legislation, regulation, and 

guidance.

Guidance isn't consistently posted. Links are sometimes broken.

NA

It would be helpful to have resources and links for Directors, data management coordinators, etc.

Improved navigation and ability to access resources

NA

I haven't always found it so user friendly in that I've had to try different words in some of my searches 

before arriving, or not, at the information I need. Perhaps, enable a broader recognition pattern for 

search words.

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.

The APR asks for information that is not necessarily in the reporting period so we can't report on it (e.g. 

the scholarship information), we are not asked to provide information helps measure programming 

success, i have no idea how [NAME] uses the information we submit. Rumor has it that the only 

information looked at in any degree of detail is the budget and objectives. If those are the most important 

things, then perhaps we should only have to report on those.

1. Not having to enter all of the zeroes for every single fill in field that does not apply to my cohort or year 

of the funding cycle. _x000D_ 2. It would be nice if the services and activities dates could align exactly 

with the fiscal budget and match items. It's confusing to be talking about Year XX as an academic 

year/grade level of a cohort, but then a current budget that is not the same. _x000D_ 3. Since the annual 

report is a "check this box" and "type in this field" online form, it would be nice if the little reports that you 

fill out and email to your program officer throughout the year were also an online form in the same 

format._x000D_ 4. It would be even nicer, if you could enter your grant report, and select your Year and 

be able to review past years. This would be extremely helpful for when you have a change in program 

directors, so you can toggle back and forth between the years or see the progression in the single field. 

For example: baseline data on objective 1 -- it would be nice if you could just add on: baseline in year 1 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 466

was xx, year 2 reported xx, year 3 is blank, and so on. I always feel the need to show my growth from the 

baseline to the current year I am reporting on. It makes it easier to then tell the story to my board of 

education and service schools on how much the cohort has improved.

The APR website has glitches. Many folk work offline and then transfer figures to APR webpage. Allow 

the website to transfer information to APR document.

Even though optional, Section V question 7 regarding rigorous academic curricula in activities/services 

that your project implemented for students who were enrolled in secondary education was difficult to 

calculate number of hours._x000D_ It seemed that there was repetition in reporting data in different 

sections.

Every year when we submit our APR, our program officer will acknowledge that it was received. I know to 

get prior experience points when we re-write the grant, that information in the APR is used. Other then 

that I am not sure how the data is used.

Current APR trainings pretty much list titles of sections-more examples._x000D_ Why doesnt system 

save some prior information and prepopulate?

As the fiscal agent completes more reporting cycles, one may better anticipate and complete the APR.

I believe I had a series of 3-4 PowerPoints I referred to in order to figure out what was mandatory for 

Year 1 grantees and what wasn't. It was a bit confusing, so perhaps those questions could be removed 

completely for Year 1 applications.

The ability to have some areas auto-populate from year to year would be helpful. For example, it would 

be great to have all program partners transferred to future years. That would be a big time saver.

Easy access to pre-recorded webinars with step-by-step instructions when applying. _x000D_ 

Transparency with how data is used, shared or distributed. _x000D_ Provide feedback on submitted 

APRs for improvement and guidance.

When reviewing report for completion and it indicates a particular section is not complete it should 

highlight the specific area(s) that is missing data/information.

I really preferred the old APR portal better than the new one. I would like to see the list of schools table 

be pre-populated each year as well as the partner list. This shouldn't be changing all that much for 

grantees, and it takes a good deal of time to add all of this for a grant that has over 40 schools and over 

10 partners. Additionally, the format of the PDF when we print out the completed APR is very bad. The 

old report was something like 12 pages, and the new report prints it as 80+ pages. This is a result of the 

terrible formatting with a lot of blank space on pages. The tables need to be shrunk in size to reduce 

scrolling and put more information on one page._x000D_ _x000D_ And most importantly, any changes to 

the APR report really do need to be communicated at least 2 years in advance of when they take effect, if 

the department expects accurate reporting. Many grantees use a custom data tracking system for 

capturing accurate services data. Any changes in what we are tracking have to be updated in those 

systems. So if the [DATE_TIME] APR will have any changes, we needed to know about it in 

[DATE_TIME], so that we could update our database, train our staff on the changes for data entry, and 

then implement by [DATE_TIME], as that is the start of the performance period that would be reported on 

in [DATE_TIME].

Have information that doesn't change from year to year (such as schools served) prepopulate. We have 

to enter the same information each year.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 467

N/A

The report shares that you have an error in a section, but does not denote where the error is. Some of 

the sections have over 200 data points. I went over my data numerous times and could not find the error 

until the 10th time. I contacted the Help Desk several times with no response.

Allowing for partner school and other information that doesn't change to be prepopulated every year.

This year I was required to submit an Interim report and the site told me it was submitted, but it really 

wasn't. My program officer was very helpful in getting this problem resolved and eventually, I was able to 

successfully submit the report.

It's not the worst grant reporting process. Others have been much worse.

NA

It will be helpful to get regular feedback that helps me understand how the DOE rates and uses the APR.

1. The report doesn't open until [DATE_TIME], and we are reporting data for the prior year that ended in 

the prior August. There is no way we can be prepared to report what is expected when we don't know it 

during the operating year. 2. There is a question about continuing/new/DO/WD/and total active students 

that calculates incorrectly - the total active is an inflated number and not accurate. It should calculate the 

continuing + new only students for an accurate count. 3. There is no mechanism for reporting non-GEAR 

UP student participation in activities - it maxes out at the # of GEAR UP students we report - yet serving 

additional students is an allowable activity. 4. There are no definitions for the activities that would allow 

for consistent interpretation across programs. 5. The current activities do not reflect all programs, and the 

"other" option is limited to one item now, rather than the four we used to be able to use; so valuable 

particpation and activity information is missing. 6. NCCEP conveined a work group to evaluate and 

review the APR and make recommendations that reflect what is happening in the community, and how 

the Dept could be more helpful in this area - and it hasn't been used to update the APR. We want data 

and reporting that reflects the work we are doing - and that can be useful to our program evaluations, 

which have been approved by the Dept.

It took several hours for the help desk to respond to questions. If that time could be lessened that would 

be very helpful.

Just as we have partnership identification forms, the DOE should draft forms for data sharing agreements 

that are required at the time the grant is submitted. It takes too much time to go back and forth on what 

data is needed and the deadlines to receive data.

More consistent reporting requirements from one year to the next for grantees.

NA

The reporting process is easily understandable. At times, the data being asked for is difficult to obtain 

from partnering schools. This does not fall on the Dept. of Ed, however, but rather on the school districts.

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role? (Other, please specify)
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 468

project assistant

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

GEARUP - 2022 - 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

Our program officer is slow to respond and often times, she does not have the information 

available to assist us with our issues. She has contradicted herself and the Department on more 

than one occasion.

Our program officer ([NAME]) was quick to respond to questions, provide feedback on ideas, 

and reached out to see how we were doing. He's new, and will reach out to colleagues if he 

needs help with a question or situation. For us, his follow up questions were helpful and knowing 

he'd respond in a timely manner were critical.

Since you asked only about the past year and not when COVID first happened in [DATE_TIME] 

-- my current program officer [NAME] is fantastic! I can count on her to help with anything and 

she is highly communicative. But prior to [NAME] coming on board -- I had months with no 

communication, response, or even an assigned program officer. The pandemic really disrupted 

services from the GU office; however, [NAME] stepped in and helped, but I had to ask. Which 

was difficult as a program director who took over when the previous director stepped down as 

the pandemic began. I know we didn't know what we didn't know with the pandemic -- but all of 

my grant's community partners had to be trained on how to handle services and match in the 

pandemic, and it was tough.

Developing budgets with larger carry over amounts than usual due to pandemic. Allowing 

funding to be used in creative ways to help students and parents. Match waiver was very 

appreciated.

Many of the GEAR UP staff were not allowed in the schools or able to connect with students 

during the pandemic. We were all at a loss about what to do, did we still have jobs, would we be 

penalized for not contacting students, etc. The department did give us some information about 

how to apply for an in-kind waiver. However we had a large loss of the number of hours of 

services that were provided to students that was not addressed. I worry that will effect us in the 

next grant competition - or even if there will be a competition in [DATE_TIME].

I had a different Program Officer during Pandemic who was very responsive and_x000D_ 

communicated often.

Our program received immediate approval to purchase laptops for our cohort as districts 

dissolved face-to-face instruction and moved to remote delivery. Because of that prompt 

response, we were able to purchase a laptop for each student in our 4-district cohort. Had our 

program officer delayed that decision, we would not have been able to deliver the laptops prior

to the start of the [DATE_TIME] academic year. And my supplier tells me that such a purchase 

last summer would not have happened due to supply-chain logistical issues.

questions about paying staff who were at home during the beginning of the pandemic.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 469

During the pandemic, we experienced a changeover in program specialists and ended up 

working with three different ones since [DATE_TIME]. I fully understand the difficulties 

experienced at the DOE and appreciate the work of our combined program specialists. 

However, it would have been much more efficient to have the same one throughout the 

pandemic.

Our program officer has been available and quick to respond to any questions.

There was understandably uncertainty on how to continue services which in return included 

spending grant funds which has created large carry over and this is still a huge issue that is 

unclear.

More detail on how programs can respond.

N/A

My previous program officer [NAME] was extremely helpful and efficient with his support or my

program during the COVID-19 pandemic. He was absolutely amazing.

I was not employed by GEAR UP during this time and cannot comment.

As a result of schools being closed in my state from [DATE_TIME] - [DATE_TIME] and then 

intermittently from [DATE_TIME] - [DATE_TIME], we had to change the ways we interacted with 

our students. Our Program Specialist assisted me in making the needed program and budget 

changes and encouraged us to explore all ways to continue to engage students/families and 

provide valuable experiences.

I have a new Program Specialist. However, when COVID first began, [NAME] was our Program 

Specialist and he was very helpful in providing suggestions on how we can enhance our 

programming through the midst of everything that was going on in the world. He was always 

encouraging on ensuring that whatever we did, we remained safe and our students remained 

safe as well. I appreciated his "above and beyond" approach to assisting me during that time 

which became a norm for us all.

I received excellent technical assistance throughout the pandemic from two outstanding 

programs officers: [NAME] and [NAME]. I've worked with program officers for nearly 15 years 

and none have come close to the level of professionalism of these two individuals.

Our program officer responded to inquiries in a timely manner.

[NAME] is our program specialist and he is excellent.

We have underspent only because of COVID and the restrictions in place in our state that 

limited in person activities, and schools being in virtual/remote learning for 18 months in most 

cases. This limited our spending ability, and now we are facing potential consequences for that 

underspending. We will need these funds to help schools and students catch up and make up 

for what was missed. This is not the time to threaten us with losing funds, when needs are even 

greater than ever in our high poverty communities. There is plenty of national news and 

evidence that this is the case. Please let us be creative in our solutions and problem solving to 

address this.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 470

As this was our first year, I have no reference point of how services were previously. I cannot 

tell if the services were impacted by COVID.

Our program specialist was responsive and supportive during COVID.

There were times where answers were needed due to things happening at our institution that we 

know are against regulations. With no answers forthcoming from the Department we have no 

ability to stand up to our organization.

NA

Communication was clear and we were able to continue programming for our youth adhering to 

suggestions and allowances made to confront the challenges of remote learning.

GEARUP - 2022 - Q32.5. What can GEAR-UP do to improve communication with you? 

Provide information in a timely manner and set expectations for responses. It should not take 

more than five (5) business days for a response if folks are working.

I believe the GEAR UP staff with the Department of Education are some of the most dedicated 

and knowledgeable people I have worked with in my 27 years with TRIO and GEAR UP. They 

listen, they provide answers and they are kind. I believe communication has improved 

immensely since Mr. [NAME] took over.

Any timely and relevant communication about grant programming is helpful and welcome.

Quicker replies on budgetary amendments.

Communication with my program officer has been satisfactory for my grant.

Quarterly meeting and monthly updates!

Speed of responsiveness is always important.

Perhaps send a monthly email summarizing actions. NCCEP sends weekly email that "guesses" 

what the Department is doing. I prefer to hear directly from [NAME].

N/A

Share more information regarding the funding in the last competition and why it was done so 

unfairly towards State Grants. The formula seems to be extremely inconsistent.

The only problem we experienced was with the [DATE_TIME] competition - we didn't find out 

until October who was funded and the number of states awarded grants was far below what we 

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 471

Information about applying for awards, how awards are made, the announcement of awards, 

and direct transparent information about implementation expectations are all currently 

suboptimal to non-existent. GEAR UP is too important of a program to have so many aspects 

be so secretive or confusing. Why are some awards so large for seemingly so little service? 

Why are some awardees allowed time for implementation and others are not? Why do "insiders" 

get leaked information before others? Why do insiders know who wasn't awarded before that 

applicant even knows?

NA

I want to receive ongoing communication directly from the DOE about current/pending federal 

education policy/updates that may impact how grantees implement and manage GEAR UP 

services to program participants.

We are provided little to no proactive guidance about regs and reporting, we only have 

communication when we solicit input or guidance.

Continue the recorded webinars to view when my schedule does not allow live viewing.

Perhaps quarterly check-ins

Not sure I'm receiving communications from the GEAR UP program.

GEARUP - 2022 - Q32.6e. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with your 

program specialist?

project assistant

GEARUP - 2022 - Q32.7. How would you advise on improving the overall process and 

protocols associated with this grant competition?

Sufficient notice of a new competition cycle, take the redundancy out of the Application, be 

clearer on the page length (it's pretty gray), be definite related to submission and award 

notification deadlines, and most importantly follow the 30/30/30 rule related to awards. Also it 

looks like there needs to be some changes to the readers training related to consistency and 

scoring. The [DATE_TIME] competition was a mess and didn't reflect well on reviewers or the 

Dept of Ed at all. There was no geographic spread among the state grants awarded and actually 

the states funded looked like there was a political reason. State grants are just as important as 

Partnership grants but in the [DATE_TIME] cycle only 6 states were funded and in the 

[DATE_TIME] cycle only 4-5 were funded. It's startling to look like State grants are not as highly 

regarded to the Dept of Ed as Partnership grants. I find that s inexcusable and lacking all sense 

of rationale.

I'm still waiting to hear if we will even have an official NIA for [DATE_TIME], so I can write 

another proposal. It's very difficult with a partnership grant to get partners lined up to submit 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 472

agreements for the proposal with a short turn around time. Everyone has their Boards who need 

to review their commitments and they only meet once a month, so it can be difficult to get 

everyone on board to put in the proposal.

More GEAR UP webinars to get clarity on regulations. I get announcements about other 

programs having these type sessions, but not GEAR UP.

I believe announcing the money available for partnerships and state grants separately would 

help us understand the distribution of funds. I realize there may be a small adjustment for the 

final grant to use up allocated money. Also I would like the Secretary to use their discretionary 

powers to award grants to smaller states instead of letting big states like Texas or California to 

be awarded so many grants.

If three independent readers find a common fault with a grant application, more points should be 

docked. Otherwise, it appears readers nitpick to avoid giving perfect scores.

earlier start date so staff can be hired as grant year is starting

The Department of Education did not provide transparency on how the [DATE_TIME] grantees 

were chosen and followed the federal grant-awarding guidelines. _x000D_ _x000D_ In the 

[DATE_TIME] grant-awarding, areas were unclear; on how reviewers determined grantees. It 

was said, free and reduced lunch numbers decided awards. Yet all schools nationwide have 

received free lunches for the past two years. Were they choosing that area with numbers from 

three years ago to break ties?_x000D_ _x000D_ As well as equal distribution of GU grants 

nationally, they did not equally cover the nation after looking at awardees._x000D_ _x000D_ All 

the questions should be answered quickly and clearly in all competitions.

Improved communications.

The scoring of the proposal is broken. I've served as a reviewer for other federal grants (within 

ED) and I know that there are other offices within the department that are doing it well. OPE 

can do better to make sure that the best grants get scored highly and are selected. When so 

many grantees score within 1 point of perfect and are still not funded, there is a problem with the 

way the reviewers are scoring the grants, and perhaps maybe a problem with the selection 

criteria. Perhaps its time to up the rigor of the evaluation plan for reviewers to expect more from 

grantees to help enhance the body of research around college access services? Something has 

to be done to improve the review and scoring process to achieve a more standard bell curve of 

scores.

Have consistency of reviewers. It's quite unlikely that the majority of proposals get a perfect 

score, but that's what happened last year. Our proposal was "dinged" for two items and the 

reviewer was wrong on both items. There is no way to appeal the process.

Create and use a clear and concise timeline, from release of the RFP to submission. Get this 

information out to the public in a time frame that allows for a through grant application to be 

prepared.

N/A

Share more information regarding the funding in the last competition and why it was done so 

unfairly towards State Grants. The funding formula seems to be extremely inconsistent with 

program regs with regards to funding for state and partnership grants. There has also not been 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 473

enough information regarding the upcoming competition...particularly those grants who were not 

funded last year.

Identify programs that are sunsetting and sharing with them a timeline and process/training.

From the beginning we assumed that new awards would follow the 33% rule: 33% to states; 

33% to partnerships and 33% at the Department's discretion. When the new awards were 

announced, 4 states received funding and 27 partnerships received funding. This amounted to 

20% for states and 80% for partnerships._x000D_ In addition, the discrepancies between 

reviewers was huge and in some cases, their comments made no sense. For example, two 

reviewers gave us full credit citing the strength of job qualifications listed, while the third 

reviewer took off a point because they said that the qualifications were not included.

Please see previous answer about improved communication. The competition is not transparent 

and too much is left up to personal relationships.

Clarification on distribution among state and partnership awards. 33/33/33 breakdown.

NA

I want to continue to advocate for flexibility in timelines, data entry, and with budgeting 

priorities/allocation adjustments as grantees continue to work through the extremely challenging 

circumstances caused by COVID-19.

Currently, the grant reviewers are scoring proposals only on whether or not we follow the 

instructions and respond to the questions - they do not score based on the quality of our 

program, or the quality of our proposal contents. The last competition made this abundantly 

clear with so many tied scores. The lack of geographic distribution in the consideration of 

awards is also problematic, and partnership programs being allowed to have multiple concurrent 

grants, when states can only have one at a time creates an unfair advantage for them. Why 

should a single partnership grantee get $27M and multiple states that have high quality, model 

programs lose completely? Awards need to be based on the quality of the program proposal, 

and geographic distribution, as the guidance requires.

No advice at this time.

There should be priority points for successfully running programs. Successfully run programs 

should be able to be refunded with approved changes in scope.

Improved transparency regarding competition including criteria for tiebreakers.

Timeliness and communication. Why does Trio seem to have such better communication all 

around when we are under the same department

I was not involved in the process of organizing information for the grant competition.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 474

Governors Emergency Education Relief Fund

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

It would be great if there was a link from the US-Ed home page to the COVID relief funds. Unless you 

have a direct link saved, it can be hard to find these COVID webpages.

The department could add more direct informative content to the webpage with hyperlinked material as 

opposed to just listing the linked documents. This could especially help if some of the most common 

issues and questions are highlighted on the webpage itself.

Ensure that when GEER and ESSER information are combined in one document that the information is 

also included in any GEER-specific websites. _x000D_ _x000D_ The annual reporting help page is welldesigned and helpful.

The website could improve by organizing information for SEAs/LEAs under one tab or specific area (and 

having a dropdown per federal program/grant). Additionally, it would be helpful to have updated contact 

information profiles of the officials that work within the federal programs.

The website should be updated to be more easily find documents.

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).

No specific feedback at this time.

No guidance on how the EANS funds will be transitioned to GEER once time lapses.

No additional recommendations here.

Clarity around when reporting forms are final. When a final version has been sent out to States and then 

a new, revised version is sent out later as the new final version, it can create confusion and version 

control issues. _x000D_ _x000D_ We are interested in having more specific definitions of reporting terms 

(e.g. business rules, data field definitions) and more timely addition of FAQs for annual reporting.

Blast emails, newsletters and emails with reminders of different reports deadlines- create invites with 

events that several days ahead remind the program officials of the SEA of the specific deadlines. This 

could help SEAs to make sure they complete all reports and other requirements on time.

GEER documentation was included with ESSER.

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 475

As a state with limited internal resources, obtaining the information needed to report is challenging, but 

we are working through it. Also, it would be great to have more clear guidance on what US-Ed does with 

the data that gets submitted (beyond putting it on the website for anyone to see).

Provide the information ahead of the program and a easier reporting tool for subrecipients to enter their 

program data instead of relying on the state to compile and submit.

No additional recommendations to report.

Establish reporting requirements upfront and don't change them.

Clarity around when reporting forms are final. When a final version has been sent out to States and then 

a new, revised version is sent out later as the new final version, it can create confusion and version 

control issues. _x000D_ _x000D_ We are interested in having more specific definitions of reporting terms 

(e.g. business rules, data field definitions) and more timely addition of FAQs for annual 

reporting._x000D_ _x000D_ It would be helpful to provide planning / data collection templates for all 

required data fields that will need to be submitted in the online system.

Grant reports could include more examples of the data that SEAs should input. If the US Department of 

Education already has part of the data that should be submitted from G5 or other type of 

systems/reports/applications, they should automatically populate certain fields. Additionally, during 

reporting periods the US Department of Education should avoid meetings and other activities to provide 

the time needed for local officials to complete reports adequately.

Overall, it is difficult to locate all of the necessary data elements needed to report through the 

Tranparency Portal. Changes to the template and the upload processes have been difficult since timely 

notification was not provided.

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role? (Other, please specify)

SHEEO

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

GEER - 2022 - Q72.3f. Please specify "Other" preferred way to receive information

Create event invites for different important deadlines
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 476

GEER - 2022 - Q72.5. Describe how the Office of State and Grantees Relations can further 

empower you to make decisions about the implementation of your ESSER grants

Allowing states to make the decisions and providing guidance when asked, which is what is 

occurring so ensuring that continues.

No additional recommendations.

By providing guidance and responding in a timely manner consultations about the specific 

SEA/LEA situation that is presented.

Timely information about upcoming deadlines and requirements.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 477

Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need (GAANN)

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Completely redesign it. It feels like something from [DATE_TIME]

The site is fine. The problem was that the person in charge of the office was out on maternity leave and 

the people left in charge were largely non-responsive to any form of communication.

I used the website mostly for reporting and I did not encounter much issues.

A current handbook for GAANN should be kept on the site at all times. I had to run Google searches to 

find an out-of-date one.

As an example, more recent samples of reports should be provided.

Provide more timely information regarding the program.

i really was not that aware of it after i received my grant so am unsure what it provided

Sometimes it has too much information and it is difficult to search and find what I need.

answers to basic questions, like: "what is the specific criteria by which i determine financial need for a 

potential GAANN recipient", would have been very helpful.

Because GAANN fellowships are governed by different rules than other Federal fellowships (such as 

being need-based), it would be useful to be able to connect in a timely way with either program staff of 

other awardees who have experience in how best to deploy the funding and benefits to students.

I only found out about the new call a few days before the deadline and then the dates were 

changed/incorrect.

It's good already

Add question and answers section.

Have an updated information on grants awarded and when the next GAANN competition will occur. It 

may not be passible to have an accurate information on future competition given the uncertainty in 

approved DoEd budgets, however, past awards can be updated as soon as possible.

I have not used any search on the website, but in general I like to have search buttons.

Make it more user friendly.

N/A
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 478

Please keep the information updated in time.

Provide relevant information. List the contact information of the appropriate person.

It would be nice if the OPE maintained a page with grant opportunities specific to their department, and 

expected solicitation schedule. For most programs, no idea is provided about when the next solicitation is 

coming. The ED link to its programs has a list of every program in no particular order (it is rather 

overwhelming), and the link to upcoming solicitations is clearly not well maintained. Many deadlines have 

passed. For GAANN in particular, there is no funding award data for FY [DATE_TIME] even though we 

know a competition occurred.

Please have more one-on-one availability.

I don't have any specific ideas

I'm not sure how a complex program like GAANN can be well presented in a static web site. An active 

discussion forum with a promoted set of questions and answers, along with a set of peer project directors 

who can help navigate the various aspects of the program, will be most useful.

The site kept logging me out without giving me a warning. Not a big deal since most of the time I 

remembered to save results, but once I had to reenter information to my annual report. Also, the 

navigation and internal search could be improved

I would have a link to prior announcements so that one could compare how the program has changed 

from year to year.

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.

The process itself is fine. I have no idea how you use the data

Notifiy awardees when reports are due - I've received no communication.

Additional seminars or workshops to understand all the sections of the report.

It's hard to suggest improvements, as we're still in the first year of our GAANN project.

The report is due in the middle of the year and therefore requires a lot of estimation of what is going to 

happen in the summer semester. It is complicated to understand what is expected, especially in terms of 

level of detail.

Works fine now

None

Have more detailed reporting on placement of graduates.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 479

For first tine users, it is not too simple to figure out what to do. Adding some help buttons to explain 

entries required could help.

We have not been requested to provide a report yet, so I could not evaluate this part of the survey

Most of my answers were N/A as I have not yet completed and submitted a report.

N/A

Maintaining an FAQ page on the web for some commonly asked questions.

The grant reporting process is very complex considering the need calculation as well as the matching 

from the institute.

The reporting requirements are not difficult. One challenge is that fellows are generally funded on an 

academic year (August-August) whereas grant budget years are October to September. Therefore, there 

is a discrepancy between fellow funding year and project budget. I tend to report on the fellow funding 

year._x000D_ _x000D_ I would like an opportunity to report in more detail about meeting our fellow 

diversity goals, etc. In general, I am very thorough whereas the report is very terse.

Good system, overall.

The available space for explaining the budget is too small, especially given the information that is 

requested in the instructions (there are probably more characters in the instructions of what should be 

included than are allowed for the response...).

The time spans of the academic year, budget year, and reporting periods are all out of sync. Our 

university's academic year starts in Mid-[DATE_TIME]. GAANN budget year is [DATE_TIME], but the 

first funding cycle start in Oct/Nov. The most crucial difficulty is that the reports are due in end of May, by 

which time we have encumbered some but not all expenses for the reporting year. This makes it very 

difficult to gather the data with sufficient accuracy. From our end, moving the reports to a couple of 

weeks *after* the end of the academic year will make it easier.

Adding the feature of "Saving changes automatically" would be useful

The reporting process is quite straightforward. No complaints. The reporting forms themselves are readily 

understandable and user-friendly.

Report should allow attachments other than the certification page

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role? (Other, please specify)

Academic Dean

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 480

Professor

Professor

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

GAANN - 2022 - 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.

everything was completely unclear, complete redesign of processes needed

This was the only problem. When [NAME] was out on leave, responsiveness of the office fell to 

zero.

The program specialist has been very prompt in answering questions and always goes above 

and beyond.

Didn't receive any information. COVID siginificantly impacted our ability to recruit GAANN 

scholars, but no accommodation has been made.

I received fantastic assistance from my program specialist ([NAME]).

As I both applied for and received this funding during the pandemic, it's hard to say whether the 

issues we experienced are due to the pandemic or to our inexperience with GAANN funding.

Despite being promised in an email and during a program conference call that a program 

specialist would reach out directly in [DATE_TIME], this did not happen. I still have been 

reached out to directly. I do not believe that this lack of communication was due to the 

pandemic. It seems that a staffing shortage resulted in a widespread lack of communication 

across the entire GAANN program.

More communication and particularly meetings with conversations would be helpful. This grant 

has numerous rules and I have no help in following all of them (including from my institution). 

Students were delayed in progressing and I did not know what to do.

No suggestions

We received timely assistance even during the pandemic.

Program specialist was very responsive to needs of the program during pandemic and provided 

all the help to navigate the pandemic-disrupted environment.

It is still not clear to me whether DACA students can receive the GAANN

Assistance was great.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 481

N/A

I was able to get my questions answered in a timely fashion recently. It does not look like there 

is a noticeable impact of the pandemic.

Rarely any. Very unresponsive. Perhaps, the program needs more manpower

I didn't have any specific technical assistance needs related to the pandemic. The program 

officer for the GAANN program, [NAME], is excellent. She is responsive, helpful, and 

personable. She checks in on our program from time to time to make sure we are doing all right. 

She was on maternity leave and unavailable for a portion of the last year, but that is 

understandable.

I anticipated that the pandemic, which hit in the first year of our grant, would significantly 

complicate our circumstances. But the program ran smoothly, assistance was readily available, 

and we didn't skip a beat.

Responses were speedy and precise. I am very satisfied.

GAANN - 2022 - Q33.5. What can Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need do to 

improve communication with you?

Our person was out on leave. The folks left in charge were unresponsive

I would like to have the start date a bit earlier. [DATE_TIME] is too late to do anything within the 

first semester that the fund is awarded.

I would have liked to know that there was no GAANN available to apply for in [DATE_TIME].

Provide some communication - email, call, ...

The most difficult problem was that we were notified of our award after we had already 

appointed students on TA lines, and our funding began after the academic year had already 

been started. As we tried to determine how to begin our first award year, we were unable to 

reach our specialist, who was on leave. We attended the information session for PIs; while that 

contained much useful information and was well-presented, the Q/A session was cut short and 

the presenter was not able to answer our questions.

There has been very little communication. Therefore, increased communication would be an 

improvement.

Financial and contractual documents are sent directly to the faculty principal investigator of the 

program. This person is both unqualified and not approved to deal with any of these documents 

and thus serves as a middleman between the Department of Education and their contracts 

office. It would be significantly more efficient for the department of education to separate 

communications to the principal investigator and the contracts office as appropriate
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 482

Have opportunities to meet with the staff. Have in person training at the beginning of the grant. 

Have grant reviews that are meaningful and train reviewers. My grant reviews were biased; as a 

full professor who has graduated numerous graduate students, I was told I was not qualified to 

lead this. Also, there was no way to get feedback on how to improve my application in the 

future. When talking to other people who have applied for this grant, the first comment is always 

amazement that we were successful. Most people say that they feel that the grant review 

process was not transparent/is somewhat random.

[NAME] is great, very responsive

None

Provide templates for the annual reports. Give us the questions before we have to fill out the 

reports.

Communication is fine.

N/A

As mentioned earlier, the program staff are very unhelpful. Need to add more people to the 

team to address questions and concerns. This is probably an ideal example of a sloppy 

government operation.

This is not the question asked, but the one that is most relevant._x000D_ GAANN program 

requirements are different than many others, and thus our institution had a big learning curve. It 

is significantly more administration work than other grants in working with Financial Aid Office, 

documenting cost share, etc. I do not really have a good suggestion; it is just my personal 

experience with the program. It is also challenging to receive funds in [DATE_TIME], that cannot 

really be used until the following academic year. It would be much better if the program made 

awards in May or June (with advanced notice) that could be used to recruit fellows for the fall. 

Overall, I love the GAANN program and it has been a great tool for recruiting and growing our 

program. We plan to apply again for GAANN funding and it is worth the extra work.

Grant was awarded in the middle of the Fall semester with the expectation of start using the 

funds immediately. It was infeasible for us to allocate the funds in that period nor the following 

semester. We did not admit PhD students in January this year. Hence, we could not spend the 

funds. I feel that more timely communication would help understand when the award will be 

given and allow for flexibility on when to start using the funds

Keep at it! The staff members we have dealt with have all been extremely helpful, attentive to 

questions, provided excellent advice, and always responded in a timely fashion.

Communication is/was excellent. No changes needed

GAANN - 2022 - Q33.6e. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with your 

program specialist?

Telephone would be most useful; individual email also. I would like to see FAQs that we could 

contribute to.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 483

Individual email or telephone, depending on the situation.

Zoom or Teams meeting

GAANN - 2022 - Q33.7. How would you advise on improving the overall process and 

protocols associated with this grant competition?

Make a much clearer longer timeline. Deadline should be known 6 MONTHS in advance

Be mindful of the responsibilities of the people covering for those on leave.

I find the current process is reasonable.

I was thrilled to see that universities with master's only programs could apply. This could be 

more well known.

It is a great program - help with marketing it nationally would be a real service.

I think the competition process and protocols were just fine!

Award notifications should be released before the start of the school year (instead of after) and 

more than a few days before the start of the award.

Improve the review process; reviewers all have different standards and criteria. Scoring across 

reviewers is not consistent.

No suggestions

None

I think it is fine.

N/A

The main improvement recommended would be timing. Our award was announced on 

[DATE_TIME] and then started [DATE_TIME]. However, our academic year had already started 

[DATE_TIME], and we need at least 6 - 8 weeks for students to apply, submit their FAFSAs and 

be evaluated. Thus, our first awards could not be made until [DATE_TIME] and so we were 

behind on spending funds.

Grant competition seems reasonable.

More advance notice of competition schedule. Also, i was not aware that additional awards may 

be funded in the year following a competition (even though it was stated in the fine print, but this 

could be stated more clearly.) Make awards in spring for better agreement with the academic 

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 484

Sometimes, phone calls allow discussions and solve problems. Please ensure availability of 

phone calls.

Thank you for asking. _x000D_ The program start date of [DATE_TIME] creates problems for 

the entire first year, since student recruiting and financial commitments to admitted students at 

least through May are usually established by early September. This meant that we could not get 

a full cohort into the program in year 1, especially with the additional complications of Covid. We 

appreciate that the GAANN system provides some budgetary flexibility to accommodate such 

circumstances (according to the annual reporting anyway), but in general shifting the award 

schedule to notifications in early August would be extremely beneficial (presumably for many 

GAANN programs, not just ours).

It is already adequate

The timing of the submission and awards notification is very awkward as we are expected to 

identify Fellows immediately after the award in August instead of being able to recruit. It would 

be better to have the awards announced in January or February so that recruitment for the Fall 

term is still possible.

Better timing

I can't think of any limitations on the program's conception or operation, other than wishing its 

continuance, and fuller funding.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 485

Grants for State Assessments

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

I really have not used this website. I think because I was not aware of it for my specific needs. So making 

it know to State (Assessment) Directors.

None noted.

N/A

have popup appear at old site informing user that they are at old site and to click link to new site

It is hard to find and navigate the site to find materials for support.

Naming, or description, of files is very ED (internal) specific. It is not clear what documents are until you 

open them; and then we need to bookmark once we find them. The navigation also does not match how 

SEA staff approach tasks.

Please keep the links updated and provide more information online.

It is basically user friendly, although the navigation could be more straight forward.

No notes at this time.

There is just so much information that sometimes some documents are posted not in chronological order 

and there is no explanation why that is the case.

The organization of the information on the webpage should be logical and easy to navigate. The web 

pages could use some systemic organization with parent and child pages. Peer review details are 

available only until [DATE_TIME]. Updates should be made in a timely manner for states to stay 

informed. States will benefit from web pages prioritizing the current topics. At this time, the interest is on 

the ESSA Addendum approvals, updated state plans, and peer review approvals.

This is not my area of expertise. All I know is that it takes multiple clicks to find information, there are too 

many access points, and it is not clear how any of the pages are structured.

Expand search keywords, ensure most recent/current guidance is prominent and easy to find

Make it more visible and reference it more in communication. For the most part, I didn't know it was 

available.

Better awareness of what is / will be there. It doesn't really occur to me to use the website at all.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 486

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).

N/A

N/A

N/A

Please note that [NAME], the longtime director of the Office of Assessment, recently retired. As [NAME] 

was the point of contact for our office, the responses to this survey reflect the fact that other staff have 

not had the same opportunity for contact.

We don't receive all of the correspondence, but the non-regulatory guidance does not cover the specific 

details that may be needed to answer questions. However, overall, the site has good resources and 

information.

No notes at this time.

The memo with subject, "Information Regarding the Requirements to Request a Waiver for the 

[DATE_TIME] School Year (SY) from the One Percent Cap on the Percentage of Students with the Most 

Significant Cognitive Disabilities Who May Be Assessed with an Alternate Assessment Aligned with 

Alternate Academic Achievement Standards (AA-AAAS)" was informative, but it was hard to follow and 

be sure with which category our state was a part of.

Sometimes the communication feels a bit ambiguous and feels like it is up to interpretation. I would like 

some things more black and white or then explain the considerations for those gray areas.

Communicating about policy is a strength, particularly with regard to the willingness to connect through 

CCSSO webinars and events.

I don't recall receiving any documents this year

Provide the documents in advance with clarity and necessary information with sufficient time for 

subsequent submissions that ensures States can respond in a purposeful and meaningful way.

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 487

No notes at this time.

I have no idea how the Department utilizes the data. The challenge is in the CDQR files where 

comparisons are made based on sheer numerical values. It is very time-consuming to review multiple 

data sets from multiple years and infer to an extent what the Department is viewing as a discrepancy -

especially when the data is accurate and challenges related to COVID-19 for example have impacted 

student enrollment counts for example. _x000D_ _x000D_ The two-week turnaround to get this 

information returned to the Department is too short of a timeframe. We do not get responses from the 

Department within a 2-week timeframe.

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

N/A

N/A

Please note that [NAME], the longtime director of the Office of Assessment recently retired. As [NAME] 

was the point contact for our office the responses to this survey reflect the fact other staff have not had 

the same opportunity for contact.

N/A

No notes at this time.

Creating opportunities to share best practices would be helpful to state agency staff as we try to respond 

to the changes to policy, programs, and practices.

From that last section of items, I feel like I am not fully aware of how I could be using the USED team to 

help me at the SEA.

We appreciated the webinars on peer review where states learned from one another from shared 

practices. We are interested to see more of this happening in the development and implementation of 

state assessments.

Learning summits for title staff and directors of assessments have been valuable.

I am not aware of any technical assistance that has been offered in the last year

Technical assistance received has been little to minimal.

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that provided 

technical services to you.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 488

R2CC

Assessment

Center for Standards and Assessments

Regional Lab

Regional Education Labs and comp center

Comprehensive Center

The department uses the Comp. center and other technical assistance on the areas of the Identifications 

and continuous improvement PD and CLCs.

REL-NW, Region 16 Comp Center

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role? (Other, please specify)

Budget and Contracts Manager for Assessment
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 489

High School Equivalency Program - Migrant Education

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Simplify how the programs are listed.

Overall design is not user friendly

I have no problem with the website

Outstanding knowledgeable staff and services

The website is great.

UPDATE INFORMATION

I think more of the training materials could be added.

The Department/High School Equivalency Program (HEP) is doing a great job in providing helpful 

information in a timely manner. I appreciate how they make themselves available to Help. Thank you for 

all that you do to make this programs successful.

Its too basic, making searches difficult. Needs some life...

More user friendly

Having the most updated information available

No improvements at this time, content is adequate for my needs.

Hard to find information you are looking for. Using key words for searches is not helpful.

update resource links to reflect current year

Provide updated pdf slides from recent webinars or organize based on years the webinars were done.

Easy-to-read headers on each site could help clarify organizational structure as well as navigation 

history.

update regarding contact information for all new staff members?

get more input front line program operations.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 490

I have not suggestions at this time.

N/A

Almost everytime that I have used the website it seems to take a long time to load web pages. The web 

page provides all the basic information that is needed to gain a clear understanding of the HEP. Of most 

importance is the accessability of the regulations that govern the program. It is very tough to provide 

input on improving the website when all that is really needed is the information that I have mentioned.

Add links to other HEP programs. More info on other HEPs. Templates to assist directors track and 

manage data for the programs.

Adding resources specific to the programs

I think it's pretty good

availability of funded and not funded proposals on the website. some years it has been provided and 

some not.

More quick links

Links to our HEP/CAMP Association from OME.

Under Grant Management & Monitoring - there are no resources for programs to use. In the resources 

tab - nothing about grant management. New grantees would benefit from having a rubric or guide to grant 

management which highlights the compliance factors looked at in a monitoring visit. Maybe bring back 

the non-compliance guide. (I can't recall the name!)

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).

Continue as they have been sending them out.

Documents are not updated constantly; the FAQ are not updated.

Sometime can't type in them

none

I have no suggested improvements to offer.

The docs are fine.

Documents are always very clear.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 491

Meetings and content of material have been more than useful for our program needs.

Excellent.

DC staff should try to use language that is clear to program operations.

I have not recommendations at this time.

N/A

Upon reading this survey question I took time to look back a prior emails sent from OME. The emails that 

I have received have clear subject line messages. The content of the messages are clear and concise. 

My assigned Program Officer has always done a fantastic job of communicating issues that are helpful to 

know, such as changes in staffing at OME. They have also done a great job of communicating well in 

advance for things like annual and interim reports. Over the course of the past year I do not see very 

many "policy-related documents". The single best document that I have found particularly helpful is the 

Non-Regulatory Guidance on Allowable Services to HEP/CAMP Students found on the OESE.ed 

website.

No comment.

No comments

I think the documents do a good job of explaining the topics

none

na

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.

I believe it comes from individual Director experiences. Reviewing definitions, even as redundant as it 

may seem, helps the average Directors.

The grant reporting process is improved over the years. Its excellent.

Not requiring promising evidence data

I do not have an suggestions for improvement.

Clarify on APR due date to prevent confusion.

no changes needed
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 492

No improvements needed at this time.

The current reports have improved from the previous years. It would be great to specify details to specific 

categories for the ease of collecting data for the programs.

The cover letter for the APR should be changed to a fillable PDF, rather than a word document

I have not comments at this time.

N/A

I think that the grant reporting process is straightforward. The instructions are clear and the submission 

is fairly simple. The fact that guidance is provided by the department by means of webinars well in 

advance of the reporting deadlines is very helpful.

No comment.

We submit the APR in an excel form which is good for numbers. Writing the goals information is 

complicated.

Having it all be in one document would be nice

Working with the APR in an excel sheet can be challenging when entering the narratives. The quantitive 

part of it is good.

Additional training

Examples of resources that should be used. When I first began with the programs, the previous Director 

was not using the National Clearinghouse for Retention and GPRA 2 purposes. I think that new directors 

need that guidance to know how to collect the data.

Streamline more? The new reporting forms are great, we have aligned our data base to the items 

requested which makes it easier. Might be nice to include a narrative space for unique grant 

information?? (i.e. we've operated in a virtual platform for 2 years with our students. The report doesn't 

capture the additional details of what/how/ cost. The information could be useful for future competitions 

and improve OME's understanding of the individual programs operations, challenges, and opportunities.

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.).

Open floor virtual collaboration WITH OME guidance is helpful, even if it comes with, "we don't know, but 

we will check and get back with you". Smaller breakout rooms with areas for development can be 

offered, allowing Directors to choose their area to learn. Smaller breakout rooms would also encourage 

more engagement.

Technical assistance workshops are hurried; too "technical." There needs to be greater emphasizes on 

how do we apply requirements into our daily practices.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 493

none

It would be helpful to have the OME staff attend the HEP CAMP Conference. Hopefully the Covid 

restrictions won't interfere with that this year.

N/A

The OME staff has way too much responsibility for the scope of responsibility dealing with national K-12 

Migrant Ed Program, HEP and CAMP. They do wonders with what they have but, I suspect, burnout is a 

reality to be faced. Having said such, the OME Team is highly professional and truly committed to the 

MSFW communities served across the country.

N/A

I have not had the opportunity to see anything offered by the Department to assist in the development of 

resource materials for use in the program. Nor have I had the opportunity to learn about evidence based 

practices that work. From the National Association I have, but not from the Department. The mentorship 

program is fantastic though - I was teamed up with a great mentor that shared best practices and forms 

with me.

Provide webminars in a quarterly basis for best practices.

Recommend to have sample forms to model or use as resources for HEP programs

I haven't had any issues with the quality of technical assistance

At this moment i can't think of anything.

none

More and more open discussions with other programs is always helpful.

Mentoring initiative is a game changer for new PD's, please continue that investment. For ADM and 

professional development it is hard to find topics that hit at all the levels of expertise in the room - but I 

do appreciate the effort! We always could use a refresher on Non-reg guidance and budget... and RAA!

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that provided 

technical services to you.

Substantial Progress Office hours

Just whomever I could reach

Department of Migrant Education

OME Team Leader
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 494

HEP

OME

Officer Manager

[NAME]

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role? (Other, please specify)

PI/VP

Program Manager

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

HEP - 2022 - Q65.6. What additional topics would you like discussed during HEP 

meetings, webinars, or phone calls to help you implement a high-quality program?

Scenarios of eligibility. Practical implementation of program services. Showcasing other 

programs has always been welcomed and appreciated.

Everything is great

none

Implementing distance learning effectively.

N/A

Peer-to-peer mentoring program on 1) outreach/recruitment, 2) instruction, and perhaps 3) 

placement. (A mentoring model already exist with the collaboration of OME and the National 

HEP/CAMP Association.)

Strategies to offer support services regarding emotional and mental wellbeing of our students.

Spanish instructional materials/resources

Information about data management and assessment is always helpful.

Continue presentations on the HEP budget....the budget presentations are always great during 

our HEP meetings in [ADDRESS].
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 495

Continuous professional development for program staff.

N/A

1) Discussion on how COVID forced changes on programs that may not be reflected in the 

currently approved Grant (ex. the accomodation of online course delivery) _x000D_ _x000D_ 2) 

Discussion on how campus vaccination policies are forcing online delivery because so many 

students choose not to get vaccinated._x000D_ _x000D_ 3) Discussion on how programs are 

accomodating both online and in-person instruction without increases in budget (this could 

mean shorter class times to offer mornings in person and afternoon online)_x000D_ _x000D_ 4) 

Managing budgets is always a topic that is worthy of attention_x000D_ _x000D_ 5) Discussions 

on how programs can modify program services to meet project objectives (Data driven)

None.

No comments

Need greater assistance in locating equivalent control groups for research projects to meet 

What Works Clearinghouse expectations.

data collection/management best practices

None

Promise of evidence examples and how to use the research in practical ways.

Open educational resources - how can we increase the ability of our program to serve students 

without increasing our per student cost? How to leverage outside funding to support programs. 

Increasing online tools to better prepare HEP completers. (every HEP student attaining a HSE 

in a virtual environment has also increased their job skills (use of technology) and other 

competencies) increasing their chance at a higher wage job.

HEP - 2022 - Q65.7. What could the HEP team do to improve the content of technical 

assistance?

Not much. Great as is.

Everything is fine

none

i don't have any suggestions.

N/A
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 496

Just keep on being the professionals you already are.

They are doing an excellent job.

Take part in understanding the struggles that HEP programs face when working with HEP 

students and the challenges that the program faces to manage its programs

Hosting more TA webinars.

Provide a quarterly updates with any new or relevant information.

1) Compiling more frequently asked questions and making them accessable on the OESE 

webpage. _x000D_ 2) Continue the mentorship initiative_x000D_ 3) Continue to be responsive 

to programs and individuals seeking help and guidance.

No comment.

Continue with the sharing sessions and add a session to share sample forms and applications

format for receiving assistance during office hours, perhaps have an appointment system?

None

More of them.

Survey the programs_x000D_ Use the ideas we are submitting_x000D_ Go back to basics in 

some areas - ie budget and monitoring

HEP - 2022 - Q65.8. What could the HEP team do to improve the structure or format of 

technical assistance?

na

All good

Everything is fine

none

I think it would be helpful to move on from the technical assistance related to evidence of 

promise. In fact, I think we should be spending more time on running effective programs and not 

focusing so much attention to doing research on our projects. It is not a very useful to spend 

time on this when projects are trying to figure out how to put a program together.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 497

N/A

No changes needed, very responsive.

n/a

Simply remind programs that assistance is available and make sure that everyone knows who to 

contact. From my experience so far, [NAME] has been doing a good job doing this. The 

webinars and email blasts keep us informed of important and necessary information. Out of all 

of the government agencies I have ever worked with, I must say the that HEP technical 

assistance is the best that I have had experienced. The HEP team is responsive and get back 

with you in a timely manner. Therefore, it is difficult for me to provide any feedback on 

improving assistance when a great job is already being done.

Unsure.

No comments

I think it's fine

NOne

More of it.

Works well in the webinar and office hour format - good work harnessing technology to make it 

work! _x000D_ One suggestion - give us more lead time in your scheduling so that we can 

ensure attendance of key staff. Possibly record them for us to use at staff meetings with staff 

who can not attend.

Having more than one session

HEP - 2022 - Q65.9. 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.

Provide more collaboration with other programs.

Fully train your program officers and staff on the daily operations of the programs. Train your 

staff on the barriers programs face while executing grant regulations.

Continue as you are

Everything is well organized

The services are great and meet my expectations and needs.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 498

i don't have any recommendations. They are doing a good job.

The development of a management system to collect reporting data could help all 50+ grantees. 

As of now, each program deals with this challenge as they can, most using Excel 

spreadsheets... It could be uniformed, facilitating ongoing management, etc.

No additional recommendations

Our HEP team has done a great job especially through the pandemic. I feel we have a great 

team that will continue to provide great service to our HEP programs.

N/A

1) Continue providing relevent information to projects by means of webinars or email_x000D_ 

2) Continue being responsive to individual requests by phone or email_x000D_ 3) Continue 

offering training specifically for new Directors. _x000D_ 4) Don't forget fundementals of 

program administration such as teaching new Directors what G5 is and how drawdowns work 

and what a simple HEP instructional format that works looks like. Fundementals are key.

More sharing of best practices.

Continue with the open communication and sharing necessary information

I was overall very satisfied with the responses and guidance that I received from the HEP team.

Having a friendlier website. There is a lot of information and sometimes it's hard to navigate.

None

More check-ins with the programs.

1. Schedule webinars/workshops/TA with enough lead time (2 weeks) to allow for attendance. 

_x000D_ 2. Allow Program staff to visit (not monitor) sites to better understand program 

workings. _x000D_ 3. Improve response time in email communication. (I'm a week out waiting to 

hear back on one I've sent) Or provide clear timelines - we will respond in x# of days.

HEP - 2022 - 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?

TRIO

None

None
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 499

No

I do not know of any.

Not at this moment... Thank you.

None at the moment

N/A

HEP has been the model that I wish other federal programs that I have worked with would be 

following.

Trio

No comments

n/a

None

No.

not really - TRiO SSS has great technical assistance models, but outside of that HEP/CAMP are 

one of the better ones. (and I've worked with Title V HSI, NSF S-STEM as well)
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 500

Hispanic Serving Institutions - STEM and Articulation Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

I have difficulty with the search function.

I am recently hired and have not used the website at this point in time. Thank you for asking.

I often feel like I'm going in a circle. I wish there were clear instructions and models of things like time 

and effort certification forms, internal controls manuals, and indirect rate calculations.

You have to know what you are looking for in order to find it. That isn't very helpful if you are new to your 

position.

N/A

Nuestra experiencia con el personal del Departamento ha sido una de excelente comunicaciÃ3n, 

diÃ¡logo, guÃ-a y apoyo. Muchas gracias siempre/Our experience with the Department's Staff has been 

one of excellent communication, dialogue, guidance and support. Thank you very much always.

Less content on each page.

If you are not sure where to look it can be challenging finding the answers you seek.

The information is helpful, but I would recommend more visuals.

Being new to my role in a new grant project, it would be helpful if there were more frequent reminders 

regarding what resources are available. We don't know what we don't know so a little online recorded 

orientation/virtual tour might be helpful to help new folks.

Update information on awards, opportunities in a timely manner. Ensure that the most relevant and 

recent information is available and accessible without having to search through multiple pages.

The website is very stoic. Needs better menu options and search feature needs to be improved.

Maybe add a FAQ page based on the questions the program directors receive.

The website is not intuitive to users. Also, the website is structured in a way that the user needs to know 

a lot about the programs in order to search for different topics or items. New users have a difficult time 

navigating and utilizing the website to help support their work.

A wealth of information, too long, needs time to process. Would like this to be more simplified with easyto-follow instructions and a number to contact for assistance as this service does not currently exist.

Better responses for keyword searches_x000D_ Clearer explanations of complex issues in common 

language; full explanation of all acronyms and program titles
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 501

Overall navigation and landing space for new grantees

Sorry, I have no suggestions for improvement.

Would love to see more information about HSI programs, clearer tabs, resources to assist with project 

implementation.

I think the website is fine and the issues that I experienced were quickly resolved by contacting the 

support information that was provided.

Present the information in a way that more easily allows for independent search.

The flow of the information could be improved, making it easier to navigate within programs.

Make it more user friendly; provide more access to past project reports or filed documentation submitted

I rarely use the website, so I do not have a recommendations at this time.

Updated information for staff

I have not used the website very much.

The website is very slow. Whenever I use it, it randomly freezes up. I often lose my work and have to 

start over again.

Make it more user friendly

I hardly use the website, except to access the contact information of staff and the call for proposals, once 

it is published.

The only information I struggle to get information about is the content of the final report.

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.

Add more prepopulated areas of the report.

It would be helpful to add definitions/links to some of the questions in the cover pages directly to the grant 

report rather than trying to search for it in the help resources.

The technical assistance often seems to just repeat what we could read for ourselves, without any 

deeper explanation. Some of the data is not relevant to our project - for instance, we are not allowed to 

spend funds on recruiting, yet we must report on enrollment as if that were a goal of the grant. The new 

APR is a lot better than the old, though. But the interim report makes no sense at all. How can we have 

project data after six months? Especially when we had to spend the first three months hiring staff 

because we weren't notified of the grant award until two days before its start?
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 502

It is hugely helpful to have office hours to ask questions. There has been a marked improvement. In the 

last five years the APR changed several times without much warning. We often didn't know when it 

would be released. This has gotten better.

N/A

We are working with the IPR, at the moment, we don't have any difficulty with the platform.

N/A

Include more options when reporting performance measures especially when institutions are in the 1st 

year.

Add "more info" links to each question with FAQ or guidance for what to submit. Continue to improve 

upon the online interface to make it more user friendly, especially when adding multiple performance 

measures to each objective and the ability to copy/paste/edit performance objectives and measures so 

that it is easier to add repeat information.

The HEPIS system provides a good platform to ensure consistency in reporting. One of the challenges is 

the character limits on responses to questions in the APR. Most are restricted to 1500 characters 

including spaces which makes it very challenging in some instances. A few other questions have limits up 

to 5000 characters. It would be helpful if there is a small window of flexibility - with a margin of say 1,500 

- 2,500 characters, rather than an abrupt cutoff.

It will be good to know how the department makes use of the data submitted.

The ability to bring in more than one objective at a time.

I have not yet submitted an annual report however encountered issues in submitting my interim report as 

the fields required to be filled were not populated to enter decimal points. The technical assistance 

webinar did not address the concern, and multiple requests had to be submitted for assistance before the 

problem was finally acknowledged and addressed.

Currently the grant reporting process is good to follow.

Provide a clearer understanding of how the data we report is used. _x000D_ _x000D_ You ask about the 

ease of collecting data required for the report. Data management is a challenge for my institution, so it 

was not easy to collect and interpret the required data. However, the requirements for doing so are clear. 

Moreover, our experience in collecting data to report, while challenging, is improving institutional capacity 

in data management overall. Across the grant period, these requirements will make my institution 

stronger.

It was very difficult to submit and the system had a lot of glitches. It was exhausting.

I think it was strightforward. It was just hard the first time though, but it was not frustrating.

Would be helpful to have standardized reporting periods.

Continue to provide accessible information and support for further assistance.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 503

The recent changes to the system are going in the right direction.

The APR system has improved significantly.

The site has gotten easier to use each year. It would help if the information required for the reports 

matched the data/evaluation section of the proposal so we would know from day 1 of the grant what 

information we were going to gather.

No recommendations at this time.

I have had great communications and responses.

I think this process needs to require more flexibility in what we report given that context of grants change. 

I also think that every response should be open ended and people should be able to write as much as 

they need to.

Make it more clear

The HEPIS system is a valuable tool for providing reporting, and I would not change it.

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role? (Other, please specify)

Project Coordinator

Grant Project Manager

Interim Director Title III and V grants

College Grant Project Director

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

HSI STEM - 2022 - 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.

Was recently hired, so I cannot write to that experience.

We are in the first six months of the grant - really the first four months, given I wasn't hired until 

January - so I have seen no real impact from the pandemic. My program officer is very helpful 

and responsive.

TA support is tricky. Grantees want the help but don't want to tattle on your institution. 

Therefore, it is helpful when the support is coming from the Department of Ed rather than having 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 504

to reach in. There has been a shift. The program officer is much more accessible and 

anticipates needs. There's a sense they want you to be successful. In the future, reach out 

quickly. Open the conversation. Convene directors and simply ask what is happening and what 

is needed. No news isn't good news. It means people are hiding and that is likely when 

problems are festering.

N/A

N/A

N/A

It would have been helpful to have a session with our assigned program officer over zoom or a 

webinar where they could have helped explain some of the materials coming out as well as a 

time for us to ask questions and share best practices.

n/a I was only hired [DATE_TIME].

No feedback to due limited time in the role.

Our grants officer changed to Ms. [NAME] in [DATE_TIME]. While she was not our contact 

during COVID, I have no doubt that she would have been very responsive as she doesn't an 

excellent job now. She was a very welcome change.

Keep up the excellent work.

N/A

The project officer helped with any questions related my project activities and carryover balance 

for the No-cost-Extension period. The project officer was always responsive to any question and 

issue about my Title III HSI-STEM grant project.

I do not have direct experience related to the pandemic.

It did not affect things really. It might have even been better because everyone had to learn 

how to work remotely.

N/A

HSI/STEM staff responded very positive to our needs during CV19.

More peer-peer sharing opportunities to problem-solve common issues.

I appreciate all the help our team received from the HSI-STEM team, especially from the senior 

director (Mrs. [NAME]). She was extremely understanding of the impact that the pandemic had 

on our project and continuously provided much needed support and guidance. She knows the 

program very well and was always accessible. I can't thank her enough for her support.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 505

I did not have many technical issues.

It was not affected much

The technical assistance provided by program staff during the pandemic was phenomenal! They 

went far and above the call of duty to ensure we could adjust and support the students we serve 

in the most effective and valuable ways. I have enormous respect for these professionals!

HSI STEM - 2022 - Q23.5. What can the HSI - Science, Technology, Engineering, or 

Mathematics and Articulation program do to improve communication with you?

Perhaps a monthly/quarterly newsletter highlighting important information, deliverables, 

highlights, etc.

My program officer is very responsive, but needs to focus on clarity and, perhaps, careful 

reading. For instance, I submitted a budget change and asked for approval and received a 

"thank you" in response. So I don't know for sure if it was approved or not.

Convene. Convene. Convene. We have learned that this can be online. It doesn't have to be 

expensive. We learn from each other. The avalanche of information makes more sense when it 

is processed. You can figure out what people know and where the gaps are when you listen to 

them talk to each other. Sending information never means it is understood. That doesn't work 

in a classroom and it doesn't work with TA either.

N/A

We have an excellent PO Mrs. [NAME], she always communicate with us and responds all our 

questions. Her guidance in this process is very appreciated and important.

Facilitate a Zoom call at least once a year.

She is doing an excellent job.

Is a bi-monthly check-in call a possibility? Also, being new, perhaps information on what types 

of communication we are to expect/anticipate from DoE and what communication we are 

authorized to have with DoE.

Provide more explanation in the emails when they relate to policy changes or updates. 

Sometimes the emails are hard to interpret since the language is very heavy with regulatory 

terms. HSI STEM team should explain how it is applicable to our grants.

Share information on all STEM projects, contact information, what's excelling and why to help us 

learn from best practice

Beside email communication, we have monthly coffee break meeting with the project officer and 

other project directors that we discussed any issue related to our project implementation and 

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 506

Communication is excellent. The October grant year start date is difficult to coordinate with the 

academic year.

Emails are very dense. We usually do not see entire URLs, which are very lengthy. More 

spacing, and attention to layout, would help._x000D_ _x000D_ Some information sent seems 

not pertinent to our program.

NA

Communicate with staff who are managing the program.

Suggest bimonthly calls when possible. New instituted coffee-meetings have been helpful, 

more consistency on these.

I liked when we did monthly reports and got feedback from our program officer.

Communication with the HSI-STEM team has been great. They are responsive and supportive. 

The leadership team has simply been amazing.

Keep doing the outstanding work that is already being done. The HSI team are so deeply 

appreciated. We see them as partners in our critical work to impact the lives of the stakeholders 

we all serve. It is a privilege to work alongside our Dept of Ed HSI partners.

The emails are so packed with links and other information that they are difficult to read. They 

are difficult in the context that our email boxes are very busy and the more sparse and clear the 

information is, the easier it is to read.

The only information I struggle to get information about is the content and due date of the final 

report.

HSI STEM - 2022 - Q23.6e. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with your 

program specialist?

Coffee hours

All of the above

individual zoom and email

HSI STEM - 2022 - Q23.7. How would you advise on improving the overall process and 

protocols associated with this grant competition?

[NAME]
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 507

I will never understand why the DofEd insists on keeping the program on an [DATE_TIME] fiscal 

year when virtually every institution of higher ed operates on a [DATE_TIME] fiscal year, and will 

also never understand why an award notice cannot be issued in time to interview and hire staff 

before the collection of data begins. We start the whole process with the feeling that we are 

already behind and no one knows how to interpret what we are actually expected to accomplish 

in the first year - and especially in the first six months.

I always wonder what happens to the APRs. It'd be great to hear what happened after the 

purpose was set in the RFP and the grants funded. Is there a report to congress that could be 

repurposed to go to all the grantees? What did we accomplish as a group?

N/A

I really appreciate that we can talk and exchange communication in Spanish.

Provide more time to complete application.

n/a

Uncertain. Time in role is limited to properly respond.

The timeline made it hard to retain staff from the previous HSI-STEM grant since a lot of staff 

ended up taking other jobs due to the tight timeline of application period and award 

announcements. Have you though about maybe doing the new grant competitions in year 4 of 

current grants? That will greatly increase effectiveness of new grants on day 1 with a full 

complement of staff and allow for a well-planned implementation.

Monthly coffee sessions.

A step through the guidance process on expectations. Examples of reports to help new project 

directors.

I am satisfied with the process.

We won! I think it must be the best process in the world. (I know this is not very helpful.)

All seem fine.

Increase the opportunities for supplemental grants during the grant period. Anticipate new 

competitions with at least one year in advance. Longer term sustainability as a potential reliable 

source.

No recommendations at this time.

Allow for video submissions or PowerPoint Presentations

I only had great experience.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 508

Provide the HSI team with additional staff. They are so overworked and underappreciated, in my 

humble opinion. This is not just my opinion, by the way, but is held by many many of the 

persons in the field implementing HSI programmatic priorities.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 509

IDEA National Centers Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

There are too many subsites. [URL] is an easy website to use though it lacks many relevant materials. 

The newer site with logins and groups is difficult to access and not organized in a way that makes sense 

to me. My recommendation is to relocate all materials to [URL] for easy access.

The problem is not on 1 website. The problem is that information is located on several websites making 

it difficult to remember which site has what content.

search engines need to be able to locate key words much better than they currently function

I find the website very difficult to navigate. Very difficult to locate documents.

The site is not easy to navigate and while there are a lot of resources available to states, there are so 

many different groups, it is hard to know where to go to locate what you need.

I dont' think it's easy to find things on this site. For example if I search for "Part C Application" I would 

expect to see the most current application along with the informational docs that we received via email. I 

really just get CFR references, but maybe that is the purpose of this site. I have more luck doing a 

Google search for what I am looking for.

In my opinion, the grantee resources should be the featured link. This link should lead the individual to 

resources to help answer typical questions for grantees and links to critical resources. For example, if I 

was a new director for a Part C program and I clicked on the resources link for Part C the only 

information I would find is a quick overview. It does not help me to understand my federal requirements 

and best practices.

The website would be more helpful for me if it was organized by Program (Part C) and then by specific 

requirements: Child Find, timely resolution of complains, etc.

My search results do not always net the result I am looking for.

So much information on the [URL] website, hard to find IDEA/Part C information readily. Perhaps a tab 

leading to it to make it easier to get to it.

Easier to navigate; easier searching - results you are looking for popping up on first search vs 2nd or 3rd 

level; less text on main pages - less lists

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).

The information is written in legal terms. I'd appreciate use of more lay person's approach.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 510

I wish we received less emails. Specifically, the weekly Thursday email. The content sometimes feels like 

filler content. I would prefer less frequent communication that contains only critical information.

During the past 2 years of COVID, many of the documents were merely re-statements of rules and/or the 

law, with no topic specific adjustments/relief from requirements.

The blast emails with upcoming Part C submission requirements are very helpful to me as a Part C 

Coordinator. I loved the Back to School Roadmap. It gave very specific guidance about how to look at 

child find, progress, etc.

I am guilty of this as well - documents should be super timely and brief so that the salient points pop out.

More straightforward language when able - especially for information we can use with local programs and 

parents

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.

Could the template for the APR/SSIP match the application within EMAPs or show every possible build? 

Could the APR/SSIP in the EMAPs application open sooner to allow states to begin working within it?

The EMAPS platform for reporting results limits how information is provided due to character limits and it 

does not allow for tables/graphs to explain or show results. If you combine character limits with the need 

to explain data results rather than show them, you end up with limitations in what can be explained. The 

directions for submitting data are difficult to find. Presenting the data for the SSIP this year was a 

nightmare due to the format of the template which required repetition of information which when 

combined with character limits really made for a poorly presented document.

I am not sure how you use the Data but that is because I am new. The Partner Support Center always 

helps me with log in or access issues. It would be nice if everything could be in one system. It would also 

be helpful if the APR reporting platform opened sooner.

I've been a Part C Coordinator for 10 years and still learning about the specifics around indicator and 

reporting data. Indicator 1 is tricky...

N/A _x000D_ I put N/A on "ease of obtaining data" due to issues on our end with our database being 

down due to cybersecurity attack.

More TA on utilizing emaps, I understand all the requirements now being a few years in but it was a little 

difficult to understand during my training on where to find the reports for downloads and how to export for 

stakeholders. Although this has been improved with the latest updates.

Support with gathering data for each state/entity that is meaningful for them and transferring it into what 

is required - we are finding as we are doing deeper equity work that what we are required to report may 

not be meaningful to families and communities we are missing the most

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 of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 511

I hope I understood the question correctly--responses are for USDOE staff? I would not use those staff 

for that information. I research it myself and use TA providers for the information related to those 

questions. These are not their areas of expertise.

This is just an opinion, but it seems like our TA centers are more aligned with OSEP's needs than state 

needs. I would like to see OSEP reach out to the State Directors and work on developing individualized 

support by state to promote program growth.

A lot of what was included in this part of the rating scale we get through our TA supports - which is how I 

think it should happen - more efficient for OSEP staff and state staff, less burden on the OSEP staff so 

they can help us with other issues we need their guidance on, etc.

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that provided 

technical services to you.

ECTA

[NAME] and [NAME]

ECATA DASY CIFR

ECTA

ECTA and CiFR

ECTA

DaSY, CIFR, ECTA

DaSy

ECTA

ECTC

DASY

DaSy, CIFR, ECTA

DaSy and NPCMI

Westat

ECTA, NCPMI, DaSY, CIFR
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 512

ECTA

ECTA, DaSy, CiFR

ETCA, CiFR

ECTA (most often), CIFR/WestEd, DaSy, ECPC

DaSy

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role? (Other, please specify)

Part C Coordinator

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

IDEA - Part C - 2022 - 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?

Materials on websites, especially those from the TA centers. Guidance letters issued by OSEP 

have mixed support impact.

monthly TA calls

Monthly TA Call

Monthly calls and topical webinars are usually the most helpful for our state.

Monthly TA calls with my TA lead are most helpful.

monthly meetings with OSEP state lead, TA calls, and monthly OSEP calls

Topical webinars are helpful.

topical webinars

I think all of the above.

I am new to the position (one month) and have not had this interaction yet.

TA calls for sure!!! These have been AMAZING. Especially with the video added where we can 

see staff, submit in-the-moment questions, and even un-mute. Please please keep these 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 513

going!!! Recording them has also been helpful - we go back often to rewatch sections and refer 

to the posted handouts.

Monthly TA calls

IDEA - Part C - 2022 - Q8.5. Which types of assistance were least helpful?

Materials related to COVID

monthly contact with State Lead - our state lead knows NOTHING about IDEA nor specifically 

about IDEA Part C. Completely not helpful to our state.

Letters-only because I'm not sure I see them.

I think everything is helpful.

newsletter

Least helpful - researching the OSEP website.

MSIP monthly TA Calls

some presentations are the exact same for all meetings.

Emails for the new interactive website - I feel like it is one more thing I have to log into/do to get 

info. I have found it extremely helpful that [NAME] and the team still send separate emails for 

the items we really need to see - please continue!

IDEA - Part C - 2022 - 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?

My state lead was always helpful and responsive

Other than the policy letters, didn't receive any from my state contact.

not effective at al

Very effective

TA from our state contact was very helpful.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 514

The TA we receive is always of high quality. We appreciate the responsiveness and assistance!

My state contact is helpful in all areas.

It depended on the guidance needed.

Our TA with our state contact has been very good. I like that we can now see our contact using 

(TEAMS/Zoom) rather than just a conference call. With all the conferences going live this year I 

was disappointed to see our National Leadership Conference will be virtual.

The State Lead is highly knowledgeable and very responsive. TA Centers and their leads are 

incredibly helpful as well.

My state lead was very responsive and helpful. We set up monthly calls to discuss topics and 

ask questions. They bring others to the meeting when necessary.

VERY EFFECTIVE

In the short time that I have been Part C coordinator, the TA has been very helpful.

Regarding my score for the "full automation" - it would be great, as long as we still have full 

access to our state leads as we do now! / Regarding this question: our state lead was 

AMAZING. The only thing I would say that he was so overwhelmed with work himself that he 

sometimes needed time from us to respond. That is on the system, not him though. And we are 

all in the same boat of just "too much to do"!

IDEA - Part C - 2022 - Q8.9. Please provide any suggestions you have to improve the 

technical assistance you received should we be faced with future national emergencies. 

Real guidance on adjustments that can be made, not just restating the regs.

need state leads who know Part C regulations, policies and program implementation

Providing guidance more quickly would help states make decisions quicker and get that 

information out to the service delivery system.

We waited a lengthy amount of time for guidance while we were insuring families received 

services. Direct services could not wait the length of time it took guidance to come from the 

federal level.

Of course, quicker is always better. But I think we've learned that and in the Part C world, we all 

got together and charted a bunch of difference courses that we were able to share with our 

locals. ITCA and its members were super helpful.

More timely guidance and relevant to Part C
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 515

You all were incredible!!! The Zoom calls with visuals and video made all the difference - we got 

to see you as real people just like us, and these allowed you to be responsive in-the-moment to 

our needs. Appreciate how you always left plenty of time for questions. THANK YOU for 

ALLLLLL you did to support us (and continue!!!) these past two + years.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 516

IDEA Part C Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

It's not user friendly and visually doesn't help one find what one is looking for

The search feature doesn't always produce the most relevant searches. It can also be difficult to find 

documents that are linked within pages because the page headings are pretty broad.

possible guidance tools around reporting requirements under IDEA. Questions and answers about MOE 

and excess cost.

Explicit communication. The TA Centers have to fill n the gaps.

Navigation /search tool needs to be a bit more refined. It takes a while to find the area you need even 

when using keywords.

The search feature is insuffient in finding needed information. It is extremely difficult to navigate the 

website when searching for information.

Transparency and Collaboration

Search results do not ever pull up with I am in search of. There needs to be a navigation page, a way to 

see all the content ( like a table of content) so we can get right to the topic we need. I think you have all 

the resources we need it is just finding it quickly that is frustrating.

No suggestions for improvement.

Usability could be tailored to more overarching ideas and provide specific details on each page such as 

easy to find regs, indicators, etc. without having to search and go through the search results. The 

content needs to be reviewed to make sure its' updated - there are grants still listed as open from 

[DATE_TIME].

List the Dear Colleague letters by year and major topic

No revisions recommended.

alternative means to locate specific information on the website

One issue is with the policy letters. They are listed in a manner that gives no insight as to what is in the 

letter. For example, they are titled "[DATE_TIME] letter to [NAME]". It would be very helpful if they were 

grouped by topic or named by topic. I find the entire website to be a bit "clunky" and overwhelming. I 

typically end up searching Google for answers because I can't typically find what I need on OSEP's site.

More precise serch button
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 517

I think by having more up to date resources, and by having video-based, recordings of program 

overviews....provide more context.

More user friendly_x000D_ ease in finding things_x000D_ timely posting of webinars and other 

resources

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).

provide examples and nonexamples

NA

The state contacts are often hesitant to discuss. TA Centers provide much more support.

The information at times seems somewhat vague/ general and left up to interpretation. Addressing issues 

more specifically would be helpful.

More timely....many times we have already given guidance before a response comes from OSEP.

Sometimes the documents gets lost somewhere in the line of communication. Please make sure that the 

information/documents gets to the right people involved.

I think there are areas you could provide some additional details, resources or guidance around or create 

a way to share more about what other states are doing....

No recommendations for improvement.

No revisions recommended.

documents be identified in a manner that will enable identification of any missing document.

Specific Guidance to Unitary Systems

I really think it is very important to update the SPDG Annual Report Guidance document to align with 

associated G5 fields. Language between the two do not always match. Also, it would be helpful to have 

complete exemplars not just exemplars that are partially completed. Also, the G5 system should be 

rebuilt so it has "places" where report components can be uploaded. For example, there were no virtual 

"places"in the shell that called for the required Executive Summary and the required Worksheet, so I put 

them somewhere else in the shell. Also, I think the SPDG team should provide a detailed training on how 

to upload to the G5 system. My amazing program officer provided me a one on one training and it was 

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 518

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.

1) simplify the reporting requirements_x000D_ 2) have states/territories share practices that have helped 

them simplify

NA

The reporting is excessive. Should be streamlined. Numerous staff members are devoted to these 

activities taking away time from supporting state initiatives.

More discussions on how OSEP uses the data.

Continued improvement to the EMAPS functionality and reliability

We have moved to RDA, but OSEP is still monitoring states on compliance items....this is a total 

disconnect.

Again refer the information and contact the correct person responsible for the reporting process.

No recommendations for improvement.

No revisions recommended.

uploading some information can be tedious. much of the information is on the required documents for 

submission. I would like to see the ability to just upload our reports and not have to input while on G5.

conssistency

Reporting to EdMaps is really frustrating. After uploading a document that was worked on for weeks, an 

email is sent to multiple people in the agency to say there has been a "fatal flaw". To those not involved 

in the reporting, it appears as if the uploader has done something awful. Then, fixing and repeating the 

process gets very cumbersome. After receiving the "approved" email, you then have to go back and 

submit... with data notes. Yet, a few months later, we receive a notice to submit data notes for the exact 

same issues that we have already explained. The process is overall very antiquated. I understand that 

this data must be submitted, but there must be a better way!

For APR eliminate indicators that include data from 618 and 619. Example Indicator 15 and 16 and 

Indicator 3. Also Emaps needs to have more icons in the writing sections

Please see prior comments.

Better explanation on how the data we collect is used_x000D_ Parents/stakeholders struggle with the 

use of lag dataQ39. 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 of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 519

contextualized examples of the application of evidence-based practices (small LEA, big LEA, rural LEA, 

urban LEA, secondary, elementary, etc.)

na

TA is mainly sit and get. Asking questions results in hesitancy and discouragement.

We are receiving excellent TA from our TA centers

I am not familiar with the opportunities to share in a peer to peer group? We do engage with the technical 

assistance centers- NCSI, CADRE, IDC, NCTACT, CIFR. All of those offer peer to peer work and sharing 

as well as opportunity to learn more about best practices. We utilize each of these and appreciate all.

No recommendations for improvement.

No changes recommended.

enhancing staff skills for successful program management and implementation

I am so grateful for the responsiveness of Mr. [NAME] and the staff I have reached out to.

NCSI provides great assistance as IDC

I think providing two options for every monthly SPDG webinar is good and could help differentiate 

content/support.

webinars-send out PPT prior to or the day of the presentation would be helpful_x000D_ some webinars 

lack in meaningful content and could be shared via an email

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that provided 

technical services to you.

I don't remember

NCSI, IDC, CIFR, CADRE, DASY, NTACT, CEEDAR

CIFR

CIFR

CIFR and NCSI

NCSI, IDC, CIFR

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 520

NTACT, ECTA, IDC, CIFR, and NCSI

NCSI, CIFR, IDC

NCSI, IDC, DaSy, NCII, NTACT

WestEd

Equity Assistance Centers

comprehensive center

Comprehensive Centers

ECTA/DASY and NASDE

WEST.ED

NCSI

NCSI and NTACT

CIFR

IDC, USDE

CIFR

NCSI, IDC, APH, NIMAC and NTACT

NCSI, IDC, CIFR,

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role? (Other, please specify)

Early Childhood Team

State Fiscal Chief

Compliance Officer

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 521

IDEA - Part B - 2022 - 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?

Q&A doc, TA calls, topical webinars

Q&A Documents, webinars, and monthly TA calls with state lead

na

Webinars

All of the above, in combination.

All have been effective.

Webinars, regular contact with OSEP contact.

Dear Colleague letters, Q & A

Monthly virtual meetings with OSEP staff

attending the monthly calls

MSIP monthly TA calls, OSEP-Director newsletter

Q & A documents, more information about MSIP monthly TA calls

Answers provided to my questions.

Access to TA From [NAME]. He was very responsive and knowledgeable, always guiding me 

through the maze. Fiscal guidance also helped keep me on track.Dear Colleague letters and 

monthly TA calls also help keep me abreast of recent updates and things to come.

weekly contact and OSEP monthly TA calls

Question and Answer documents and FAQs

Dear Colleague letters, Question and Answer documents

Monthly TA Calls from OSEP and Monthly meetings with our State Lead

The SPDG APR guide was good (not great), but it needs improvements as mentioned in prior 

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 522

Q & A_x000D_ MSIP monthly calls_x000D_ Newsletter_x000D_ topical webinars_x000D_ Dear 

Colleague letters

IDEA - Part B - 2022 - Q7.6. Which types of assistance were least helpful?

newsletters

na

One to one meetings as we are reminded that anything asked can come back as a monitoring or 

finding. Additionally, I asked a question in February about one of the Indicators and was told that 

our state contact and her supervisor as well as the person in charge of the indicator were too 

busy to discuss. It was suggested that I collect in the same manner for [DATE_TIME]. If i still 

needed help, I can check back in July. This answer is very unacceptable.

NA

None

none

N/A

webinars. Too technical and they tell what we are required to do without any guidance on how 

to do it.

N/A

webinars on projects that are not related to our project

Some of the monthly webinarsIDEA - Part B - 2022 - 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.

if it was streamlined and the process was very clear, it would be awesome to be fully automated.

The impact would be minimal in terms of our state's process, however, it would make getting 

state leadership signatures easier if there was a digital option.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 523

na

It would be helpful.

I do not believe it would be a significant impact, however, I cannot fully describe if there is an 

impact, and how that would look.

We would need more details on what exactly full automation would entail, but initial reaction is 

that would be positive and reduce extra work on the part of our staff.

It would greatly impact the state if OSEP were to fully automate the IDEA formula grant 

submission and approval process.

this would be a huge benefit to streamline the process and reduce manual labor steps in the 

current process to get data, signatures and responses in the application.

full automation reduces necessary communication with OSEP

As long as the process is smooth automation is good. If it speeds up the approval process then 

we are all for it.

Significant and important impact.

would be appreciated

reduce paper work

It would be more effective and less time consuming

I am not sure what that would mean to "fully automate", sorry.

Not sure

IDEA - Part B - 2022 - 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?

reasonable.

When issues or questions arose as a result of the pandemic or the reporting concerns with it, 

our state lead was very responsive in getting a meeting set up or guidance sent to us.

na

Not as effective as needed. The TA Centers are the true supporters of our work.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 524

Fairly effective.

Our state contact has been responsive and provided clear actionable advice. We greatly 

appreciate his assistance.

Response always lags from OSEP. Most relevant and timely information came from several TA 

centers.

TA was very effective in communicating with our state thru virtual meetings & trainings during 

the pandemic and they continue to do so effectively.

TA was very effective.

Very effective, very attentive to needs and reaching out.

Excellent.

TA was good, just the lack of flexibility regarding timelines was difficult

very effective

Our state contact has been wonderful to work with.

My TA was effective and very helpful as a new state director.

The TA provided was great

Our program officer is amazing and spent very good time helping our team.

Did not receive regular contact from my state lead throughout the pandemic

IDEA - Part B - 2022 - Q7.10. Please provide any suggestions you have to improve the 

technical assistance you received should we be faced with future national emergencies. 

quicker, more contextualized, more examples and nonexamples

na

Need to adopt supportive environment.

Develop a more streamlined operation manual (which will be updated as needed) for handling 

emergencies of various levels (what constitutes a Level 1, Level 2, etc.) and a location in which 

it can be easily accessed.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 525

Please continue to support the nationally funded centers, as they have been a tremendous help.

Timely responses are desperately needed. Requests from states for guidance and information 

should not be months in coming. Guidance during the pandemic was too late to make an 

impact.

TA is doing an excellent job and I suggest they continue to make contact with the states in other 

avenues for improvement.

N/A good work

No suggestions.

N/A

flexibility on reporting and data. no changes regarding IEP deadlines and a lack of guidance. 

understandable given the circumstances

There should be a depository of how every State responded to the emergencies in order to have 

a list to access. For example: how to provide internet to remote areas (Ex. Blank State provided 

WIFI during class hours with school busses)

If that happens again, provide virtual, open-ended office hours for groups of states to engage 

and problem solve.

Continue to provide consistent communication and Q & A resources
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 526

IDEA State Directors of Special Education (Part B) Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.

G5 is awful. Has needed an overhaul for many years. Would like more flexibility in APRs that better 

match grant objectives.

G5 is difficult to work within when submitting the annual performance report.

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

IDEA - NAT - 2022 - 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?

Our project officer ([NAME]) is completely up-to-date on the goings-on of our center and is able 

to offer meaningful and timely feedback. She is a valuable resource to us in meeting our 

priorities, and consistently makes our work better by her review.

Guidance about reporting requirements, facilitating collaborations,

IDEA - NAT - 2022 - 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?

Very effective.

My project office was supportive and flexible. They sought to understand what we were 

navigating and offered support for decision-making.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 527

Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies 

Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

It is not user friendly. It takes too long to navigate anywhere, and out dated materials need to be 

archived or removed.

The ESSA regulation is really hard to search using the Pdf. There used to be a link that had ESSA 

regulations linked to each section that was easier to use.

Create more consistency among different program pages.

The department could improve its website by ensuring that all links are active and not broken.

It was hard to find the general email box for contacting the Title I, Part A team. Could you have a better 

place for finding contact information?

It is really difficult to cull through all the information on the discussion board in order to find what you are 

looking for.

It could update the website with only up to date information and reduce those not applicable. Also, 

organize it in a manner that would be helpful for Title I program requirements, guidance and resources.

Separate current guidance from previous guidance - perhaps an archive folder.

Provide a more user-friendly presentation and format. Too regimented, difficult to find succinct answers. 

Certainly recognize the complexity of the program though.

Additional guidance

It is difficult to find things we are looking for. It would be better to make the searching more intuitive. 

Searching is really difficult - the search terms we use don't seem to bring up the right responses - maybe 

tweak the algorithm?

Hi. The website is very useful as it is, my only suggestion is to make it even more user friendly. Thank 

you.

Somehow highlight the newest guidance in a different way. Also, with some of the guidance over the past 

few years it was difficult to determine if it was still valid or what parts were still valid. One example of that 

is the (ESSA?) Early Learning Guidance and Pre-school guidance. Last time I looked the old, outdated 

pre-school guidance was the only one on the list of guidance documents (indicating that it was new) and 

the newer early learning guidance (not on the list) could only be found if I searched for the exact title. 

Other documents like the old fiscal guidance ([DATE_TIME]) does not indicate what still applies after 

[DATE_TIME].

Providing direct links to non-regulatory guidance would be helpful.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 528

Website could have a more user friendly interface.

N/A

Update content regularly

I appreciate more than anything being able to reach out and ask questions knowing someone will get 

back to me. Your responsiveness has been excellent and a comfort knowing we aren't alone. Thank you 

so much for all you do.

Make it easier to find information, and organize materials under common topics and areas. FOr example, 

it takes forever to find the location of where approved ESSA addendums or waivers are versus approved 

plans, etc. Much of the materials are organized in a disorganized and out-of-date order. It is not mobile 

friendly and is not user friendly with respect to terminology or organization

Improve the search function and some links do not work. Make sure that all documents are up to date.

We've encountered numerous broken links.

Pages need updates. We receive 404 - Page not found.

The guidance page is very confusing and frustrating to navigate and I really do not like using it. I have 

trouble finding the guidance from USED that I am looking for. If I type in a key word or phrase, like 

"parent and family engagement" nothing comes up. It was a lot better on the old site where I could just 

click on the link that said "law, regs, and guidance" and get what I needed. Please adjust that.

The website could be more intuitive in terms of organization. Some webpages are very long and full of 

text. Maybe this could be split up?

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).

N/A

It is hard to communicate to the LEAs that US Ed documents contain different Fiscal Years than State 

documents. It would be nice if US Ed could use FFY (Federal Fiscal Year) instead of FY.

Title I-A documents are usually thorough and useful.

N/A

A step by step document on calculating Title I.A allocations.

Nothing for now.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 529

n/a

I would like to see quick reference guides and Title I monitoring template. A year at a glance for Title I 

programs might be helpful that has a timeline of the program.

More timely release with so many things changing so quickly.

Documents are usually very clear and well organized.

I like the question format and answers provided so keep it up.

We have not been receiving many documents, policy-related or otherwise related to Title III, Part A. 

Especially not since COVID. If documents are being sent out, we aren't receiving them. For example, 

instead of us having to go search for projected allocations, you should let us know.

I've been directing Title I Program for a year and a half. My designated Program Specialist shared with 

me all the non regulatory guidance I needed in order to put me on track. The documents are precise, with 

examples and easy to understand even for someone like me who English is not their first language.

I really like the new "Within-district allocations" guidance.

N/A

Provide a summary up top, big take aways and links to the site for additional questions, research 

information or details. Identify the topic in the email heading

Request questions from the field before finalizing FAQs.

Sometimes information is vague or does not answer the question or has conflicting information that we 

have heard from USED before. In addition, the timing of the release of certain information is an issue -

often information is released too late and SEAs have already planned for a course of action and then 

receive guidance that tells us we need to implement a different course of action.

Increasing the frequency of documents and update older documents for Title I-A.

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.

There are too many collections, too many yearly changes, and it is sometimes difficult to get files 

uploaded-they keep being rejected even though nothing is wrong with them.

It is not clear how all of the CSPR data are used.

N/A

Nothing for now.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 530

I think I just need more time in my position to understand the process/uses of the data

I think it's fine and would not want anything more lengthy.

You do good work given the complexity of this program.

Most of the grant reporting processes are handled by a different state department. We are unable to 

comment on this.

inform the states how the data is used. What trends does [NAME] see in the data. How can we use it to 

improve programs. Mostly, reporting how many served and in what categories doesn't seem to be very 

useful for improving student outcomes.

The Oklahoma data system (on our end) has some conflicts in the reports for various data. We have to 

look in multiple locations.

Access to the data via ED's reporting site could be significantly improved.

N/A

Provide a detailed report of how all of the Ed Facts data is utilized to inform and improve policy. It often 

seems an exercise in compliance and not something that is used in a meaningful manner.

Prioritize the data that we need to collect

More webinars with states to talk about how data are used.

Confusing way to collect data; abbreviations are not intuitive.

Additional information and clarification regarding how the data is used by U.S. Department of Education.

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.).

COPs form, but they never last. ED has too many lawyers and not enough Practioners.

N/A

Nothing for now.

The frequency of peer to peer opportunities is very high. Timing is usually an issue because of the many 

timezones involved.

Hosting monthly or quarterly Title I grant/program webinars and helping states create resources for use in 

the program would be very helpful.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 531

USDOE staff is very willing to present at conferences, which is always very helpful and appreciated.

My expectations are high. Very difficult to obtain contact with USED personnel. Again, though, 

understand the complexity at hand.

We haven't had any technical assistance, so we can't comment on this. The only thing close to TA that 

we have received has been information from NAELPA. We are getting more information from them than 

from the Department of Ed.

PRDE needs more technical assistance. I would suggest training via meetings once per month. Not just 

for the Program but for the Administration of the Department as well.

It would be nice to see data that shows how specific uses of funds can help improve student outcomes.

examples of what other states are doing that is working.

USDE staff has been very helpful in training of new staff with monthly conference calls to Oklahoma 

State Federal Programs Office. We have had onsite training with staff for allocations and set-asides.

N/A

Department staff is responsive to our questions.

More frequent and not reading from a script.

[NAME] and [NAME] are immensely helpful and always available to answer questions. Additional 

opportunities for peer collaboration would be appreciated.

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that provided 

technical services to you.

ED Northwest

NDTAC

National Center Communities of Practice

[NAME]

Regional Comprehensive Center

Comprehensive Center (not Title I related) for school improvement

[NAME]

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 532

Specifically Neglected or Delinquent Education Technical Assistance Center and - Youth for Youth: 

Online Professional Learning and Technical Assistance for 21st Century Community Learning Centers

NDTAC, West ED

CCSSO, Bruman and associates

[ADDRESS]-[ADDRESS] Regional Center

Program analyst

REL

NCHE; NDTAC

Title II

Center for Assessment

REL West, Comp Center, 21st Century

NDTAC

Neglected and Delinquent Technical Assistance Center

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role? (Other, please specify)

Title Funds Financial Manager

Title I Education Consultant

Federal Program Consultant

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 533

Independent Living Services for Older Individuals Who Are Blind (ILOIB)

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

It would be very helpful if the link for the CFR was sectioned out on the website by individual sections. 

For the OIB page, it there is just one link, so I have to scroll and scroll to find the information needed.

Keep up the good work. Thank you.

Some places on the website aren't very intuitive. The place to click on to get to the MIS is at the bottom, 

which isn't where most people are going to look.

I would like to see a "summary" of specific documents, rather than to have to read through and filter 

through what I am trying to find on the site.

The search function does not seem to optimize the best matches on searches

The search engine is not that helpful. You have to be very precise in what you put in the search engine, 

and if the user does not know the proper terminology it will not provide applicable information.

An easier log-in process for filing the 7-OB. Testing of website for screen reader accessibility.

Refine search tool

I do not have any recommendations at this time for RSA.

I seem to have to reset my password every time I log in. Once I do, I can use the site without problems.

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).

Many of the e-mails sent to the RSA Older Blind Director list do not apply to the Older Blind Program.

FAQ's might be useful on the .ED site for the OIB program

There are too many emails with info that doesn't pertain to OIB

The clarity of written information and direction provided is often confusing.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 534

More information specifically related to OIB programs. Organization info. in such a way that OIB 

information is easy to find within other documents.

Increase frequency of outreach to grantees

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.

It is difficult to split out the cost of daily living skills training and assistive technology training. Many times, 

the two services happen at the same time.

The 7OB report has a lot of vague definitions

More guidance on the reporting requirements and what they mean. Info. on how the dept. uses the info. 

Info. on how I can use the data to improve my program.

The most recent 70B report minimized capturing number of secondary and age groups. This information 

was helpful when trying to collaborate with other agencies and potential funding sources.

Not sure. This will be the 3rd year for me to report for my state.

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.).

Every state's OIB program requires different ways of managing the program to tailor it to the specific 

state/territory in question. This is a good thing. There are also areas that may need more standardization, 

as it is a national federal program. For example, when it comes to the definition of legal blindness and 

what constitutes program eligibility, there is a variation.

This has improve 100% since Nikki took over

This section of the survey is confusing. My assumption is that the reference to Technical Assistance is 

the services offered through Mississippi State University. If this is the case then their staff has been 

great to work with.

I appreciate the course that OIB-NTAC offers for new program managers and the opportunity to network 

with other program managers.

OIB-TAC at Mississippi state provides the outreach and guidance. I am rarely if ever contacted by 

department staff.

The support and speed at which technical assistance is provided is excellent. No suggestions.

The majority of Technical Assistance I personally receive is from the NRTC/OIB-MSU. I appreciate 

everything the team provides me in terms of technical assistance. They have updated their website 

which provides additional information and [NAME] is available by phone or through conference call 

options on a regular basis.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 535

They are doing an excellent job in all areas.

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that provided 

technical services to you.

OIB-TAC at Mississippi State University

OIB-TAC (MS State NRTC)

OIB-NTAC through MS-State

OIB-TAC Mississippi State

NRTC - Mississippi State University

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role? (Other, please specify)

Program Manager

Program Specialist

OIBprogram manager

Program Manager

OIB program manager

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

IL-OIB - 2022 - Q13.4. Please tell us how RSA can improve the technical assistance that 

you received from RSA staff or the RSA-funded OIB Technical Assistance Center this 

past year. Please be as specific as possible in your feedback (e.g., identify topics or 

issues RSA should address, describe how we can improve the technical assistance you 

receive during national emergencies). 

The technical assistance has been good over the past year. There has been a lot of good 

information.

I think that the best outcome of the OIB-Tac was in promoting collaboration of all OIB state 

managers through annual meetings where "live" interaction with the sharing of ideas, 

frustrations, successes and failures. We all support each other, which is essential.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 536

Truthfully the products and services related to supporting state's OIB programs really comes 

down to resources. We don't need a lot of assistance because the rules around the program are 

simple and flexible. I believe the resources and assistance should be ramped up to meet the 

needs of the aging Boomers

When I had difficulty loggin gin to enter data for the 7-OB, I could only communicate by email 

with technical support. It would have been much easier to schedule a call.

Reach out more, provide guidance. More opportunities for interstate conferences and 

collaboration. We generally not hear from the RSA contact for IL-OIB. I understand there was a 

change in personnel in late [DATE_TIME]. Since then, I have heard from the new individual 

twice briefly. Prior to that I never had outreach from the RSA staff, only OIB TAC. I am very 

satisfied with assistance we receive from the OIB TAC.

I have not used RSA for technical assistance in the past year but relied on the NRTC with MSU.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 537

Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Education Agencies 

Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

I think if I spent more time on the website it would become more user friendly to me.

Do not have any recommendations at this time. The website is very user friendly.

The search feature provides way too many resources that are not always related. It may be that there are 

additional filters that I am not aware of. I like that the site does have different topic areas for each part of 

the process to help us quickly find the area we are looking for.

The print out after the survey is submitted

Be more user friendly and up to date. More resources, but easy to read and understand resources.

[URL] Links for SRSA says website not found

No recommendations at this time

No concerns

Just continue to update the website by updating ease of use of the site. Have example sample 

documents, objectives, and scenarios that entity's might face.

I like the clarity of the site and have not ideas for improvement at this time.

Simplify the grant process

It is easy to use as is; when printing the font is small about 8 pts. That could improve.

I have no problem working with the staff, they are very helpful to me if I need assistance with my grant 

application. Thank You..

I think the site is very informative and easy to navigate.

None...It is easy to navigate through and find information.

I don't have any recommendations on improvement since the programs and information are accessible.

The website is easy to navigate and find the information I need!
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 538

Simpler tabs on the front pages to navigate through.

I had trouble finding the documents that I needed.

well my main thing is that you time out to fast and the other thing that's even more important is that the 

printout of the completed grant is trash, it was last year and this year and supposedly it was getting fixed.

I find it very easy to navigate.

I am very pleased with the assistance that I receive in order to apply for this grant.

Improve navigability, include more videos/tutorials, include more information on policy influencing Title VI, 

include more support/clear guidance on Title VI advocacy strategies and structure within public school 

districts and information, not for Title VI Project Directors, but for school boards, superintendents, and 

other senior leaders who are also stewards of Title VI dollars and accountable to the student, staff, and 

community these resources support. An inclusion of a "Title VI toolkit" would be helpful - any/all guidance 

for project staff and leads, especially when a Title VI program/project is new or newly relaunched and 

staffed. An inclusion of a national and also a regional community of practice resource would be 

wonderful. NIEA just isn't enough. If OIE could support our continuous improvement and collaboration 

with other Indian Education experts/colleagues it would be a game changer.

easier accessibility.

Broaden search selection

Easier navigation with tabs. The drawdowns are always confusing for me because i am not on the site 

often. it should say drawdown instead of activate payment or something like that.

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).

The emails are very helpful and remindful.

The quality and usefulness of the documents is very user friendly.

The information provided is very practical for how to do things such as submit information and use the 

system, but not necessarily best practices on how to best meet the needs of services, types of effective 

services, ideas from other programs, ideas for conducting needs assessments targeted to our Native 

American students/families, or best practices for parent advisory committees and collaborating with 

tribes.

when program is sent back to you please make all print large enough to read

Please make a easy was to print the application after it has been completed
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 539

Need visually superior sample documents for entities to utilize (EASIE APR, Part 1 & 2).

Simplify the forms - fewer emails

Improve font size when printing.

No problem, communication is excellent.

I think you are doing an amazing job! I thoroughly enjoy the videos and PDF/slideshows we are able to 

print.

None

No improvements

Ideas on how to use funding would be beneficial.

NA

This is my second year of using the website and I find it informative and contains information that I need.

I am very pleased with the ease of applying for this grant.

Webinars and emails I receive from OIE (and thinking I receive all the info that's broadcast to all grantees 

but not definitive) - often come across as rote, somewhat unresponsive to and/or out of touch with actual 

grantee experiences, challenges, strengths, needs and efforts toward improvement, and procedural in 

nature. Orgs and agencies - though I acknowledge there's some stricture here since OIE is a federal 

agency - all across the country have made effective change in terms of relational strategies, relationship 

building, and marketing/communications. The digital age and world we are living in demands that 

publicly-funded orgs/agencies rise to meet the communication and support needs of those stakeholders 

they exist to serve in the first place.

Define exactly what is required of the various entitites involved

The Title VI Program is excellent in providing documentations and sending reminders, consistently until 

you respond. I like that because I get so busy with so much documentations that a reminder helps me, 

tremendously. Reminders keep what needs to be done at the top of my email order all the time because 

it gets confused with so much junk mail. Thank you!

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.

N/A

The pdf printout could be more efficient and condensed. When it prints, it prints up to 20 pages with 

large spaces in between.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 540

Simpler less items to report

The data seems to always to be skewed. We have data to utilize to help build, maintain, correct the 

direction on our programs but no one's data seems to match up with their local or state data.

No problem, communication is excellent.

It is clear and you hit all avenues of communication such as video, slides, email, letters, and zoom 

informational meetings. Great job!

I think the grant application is easy to navigate.

No recommendations

More ideas on how to use funding and how our information is used.

NA

I feel more confident as I have more years of experience now. The confusion I had really had more to do 

with my ignorance than your site.

I think reporting on the data that is produced due to this grant is very acheivable.

The additional reporting process has caused duress for many Title VI programs across the nation. Title VI 

staff, in aggregate, are underpaid, under-supported, under-valued and are often struggling just to meet 

some of the most baseline, but longstanding Indian Ed Formula Grant requirements (e.g. 506 forms, 

grant submissions/reporting on platforms that none of the other Title funding programs use). The whole 

grant-preparation process could be and should be streamlined to meet the 21st century needs and 

realities of Title VI Project Directors (particularly those working in public school districts but not relegated 

to them).

Not aware of how data is used

The boxes for reporting is not too friendly. They are preset that you can not add to it. So it is easier to 

just keep everything the same all the time. I am not sure if it is meant to be that way.

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 would love to see a focus on best practices and peer sharing opportunities including how to address 

challenges, creative ideas, impactful practices, local support structure, grant planning, etc.

The webinars provided are super helpful! Our state holds monthly meetings and creates space for 

sharing best practices or challenges/opportunities
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 541

Be more timely and more knowledgeable about the topics.

We are satisfied with the level of technical assistance.

no problem, assitance is excellent.

They are quick to help me with any questions or troubleshooting I might have! Thank you!

None

None at this time

More information on how to get tribal support.

NA

I cannot think of anything that they could do better.

The assistance received has been clear and helpful.

Surveys are okay but hearing directly, via meetings, forums, and various engagements, from Title VI 

stakeholders - particularly Project Directors is critical. So many of us rely on a once a year tech 

assistance engagement at NIEA and often come away still feeling like the strongest resource is in each 

other, e.g. our T6 professional learning community/community of practice but too often that can be 

insufficient also in meeting the biggest and most pressing needs and concerns. Preferences in content, 

structure, format, timing and more must be taken well in hand by the agency/OIE - what works and is 

needed by Oklahoma Public Schools Indian Ed is not the same as what works and is needed in 

[ADDRESS] or [ADDRESS]. Because so much of what we do and offer is place-based the agency/OIE 

must take a similar approach in supporting our programs/grantees in being our most successful.

In the past, the Partner Support Center was easier to access and receive timely responses

I have never requested much technical assistance except to reset passwords. I did not know they could 

help with improvement of the total program.

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that provided 

technical services to you.

Office Indian Education

[NAME]

Y4Y

Access to the G5 System -
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 542

help in relocating our copy of the Grant

OIE support

EASIE

Partner Support Center

OIE

Regional Ed Lab

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role? (Other, please specify)

Director of Student Services

District Admin

Indian Education Coordinator

High School Secretary

Deputy Superintendent

Principal

Principal

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

OIE FORM - 2022 - Q51.8. Over the next year, what can OIE do to better meet your 

technical assistance and program improvement needs?

Webinars

N/A

I have seen growth this past year in support. Thank you for your ongoing support in helping us 

provide Title VI services for students. Peer sharing and department guidance on best practices 

would be helpful.

N/A
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 543

make the printing of the Title VI grant more printer friendly by having it as a PDF instead of the 

current print out format, both available versions are not feasible to review.

Just keep improving on ease of use and dissemination of data.

Allow us to change the number of 506 forms until the final grant is submitted - we don't know 

until the end of the year

No problem

None

Keep up the good work. Stay true to the mission and never allow the PAC importance to be 

diluted. Indian Education may be the single most effective federal program I have interfaced 

with in a 40 plus year career in education/social services.

More transparency.

better grant print outs

I can not think of any improvements needed.

I am satisfied with OIE.

Ongoing in person (preferred though I know there are statutory and thus budgetary limitations 

on this) or remote human engagements with OIE Director and program staff and an enhanced 

infrastructure for professional learning with our Title VI community of practice. Prior to strategic 

enhancements of OIE's products/services on the tech assistance front (and this surveying is a 

step in the right direction) Project Directors want there to be on the website, and beyond, a 

formal acknowledgement of the challenges we actually face in developing and maintaining 

programs when the programs and the staff who steward them are too often so deeply 

undervalued within public school systems/LEAs.

Be available to answer questions in a timely manner

How we can improve on our monthly culture nights.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 544

Innovative Approaches to Literacy Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

I have not had to spend a lot of time on the website and when I am on the site, if I have difficulty, I know 

who to contact. This is a website that can be successfully by educational personnel.

No feedback at this time. I am so new to my role with IAL that I have not encountered an issue or area 

where it was obvious that improvement is needed.

N/A

Make a link so someone doesn't have to spend time trying to find specifics of the IAL program.

At this time, I have not used it enough to make any suggestions.

I have no suggestions at this time

I have not yet used the website.

The Department/Innovative Approaches to Literacy website is very easy to navigate. No suggestions 

noted.

Report timelines, images, ideas from other grantees, and sample report documentation. The technical 

assistance webinars are from [DATE_TIME].

The only thing I would change is if there could be some coordinated collaboration among grantees and 

the US Department of Education staff regarding the IAL grant.

At this time, I can't think of any needed improvements. It is helpful and can be navigated with ease.

No recommendations at this time.

Some of the information that I'm looking for, like the GEPR standards, I found difficult to find. Additionally, 

it would be helpful to have abstracts and completed applications from past winners available online.

I think the information provided is very informative. I can't think of improvements at this time.

Ease of use, toggling between documents etc.

I see no real deficiencies.

I think it is fine.

None that I have experienced. Pretty straight forward.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 545

I do not have any suggestions regarding improvement at present.

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).

I have utilized the documents successfully. Before beginning, I have always tried to make certain I have 

looked at Q & A, or any other information sent to look over before beginning the task.

Again, I am very new to the role of IAL Director, and the communications have been clear. I am sure that 

I will have more specific feedback in the annual survey next year.

N/A

No improvements suggested

The documents have been helpful.

I have no suggestions at this time

Guidance provided has been very useful.

Examples on completing reports--particularly GPRA.

Found the documents necessary to complete a report difficult to interpret.

I am satisfied with the documents provided.

I have found the information very direct and easy to follow. Whenever I have called the hotline, I have 

found each person to be very helpful.

All documents and newsletters/emails have been professional, informational, and very beneficial.

No recommendations at this time.

I think that all of the documents are fine. No improvements are recommended.

FAQs are helpful, as well as the step-by-step directions with screenshots

N/A

Be more timely.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 546

Guidance is clear and appreciated

I have only been working with IAL for approximately 5 months. I do not have recommendations for 

improvement to documents at present.

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.

The pre reporting form was somewhat different from the actual report online and required some changes 

in format, quantity of words used and a type in form versus upload. My preference would have been to 

receive a pre report form that could be uploaded along with the other information uploaded. However, 

there may be reasons this did not occur that I am not aware of.

It was very difficult to turn around the Interim Performance Report by [DATE_TIME], when the budget 

period was to end on [DATE_TIME]. We, like other districts, held our Spring Break during the first week 

of April, so it left very little wiggle room when we encountered a challenge or needed to attend to other 

priority items within the school district. More space between the end of the budget reporting period and 

the submission of the performance report would be helpful moving forward, even if only by another week 

or two.

N/A

Good clarity

I have no suggestions at this time

The informational sessions provided prior to submitting reports has been very helpful. It would be great, 

if the sessions can be recorded, to be viewed at a later date.

Better explanations of GPRA vs. Project data.

This is similar to the previous question. Some of the report information requested seems to be repetitive 

and not sure if we interpreted the actions correctly. Would really have liked to see a sample.

The grant reporting process is easy, the only problems I have encountered are my own fault.

I am very new at this process. I am still learning.

It has been easier to submit performance reports to our Department of Education program director (Dr. 

[NAME]). However, submitting these to G5 was also not a difficult experience either.

It would be helpful to have a webinar outlining how to use the G5 system for grant reporting.

I think the G5 system works appropriately. I'm sure there are technical improvements that will be made in 

the future to input data.

easier upload of report items instead of reentering the information
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 547

The instructions for the report weren't as clear as needed; For example, the reporting of Program 

Measures.

It is difficult to logon and submit documents. Reporting requirements need to be explained in a more 

timely manner.

The data requested is a good reflection and practice for us to be sure we are accomplishing our goals.

I have only used the G5 site a few times. I have only submitted one Interim Performance Report at which 

time maneuvering the site was a little confusing. The one suggestions I would have at present is that a 

video demonstrating how to maneuver the site and input the data would be extremely helpful. It would be 

a resource that you could be used as a reference point when entering the information.

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.).

When I contacted support, they were very understanding, helpful and knew how to assist. I did not have 

to wait for any information. The personnel were able to work with me immediately.

At this very early stage, I have not needed to utilize the technical assistance as described in the survey 

questions for this section.

N/A

All have been extremely helpful and very kind and approachable

n/a

The US Department of Education's technical assistance team is wonderful. Dr. [NAME] is our IAL 

Program Officer and I cannot say enough about how professional, helpful, knowledgeable, and easy to 

communicate with Dr. [NAME] is. I love this program and what it is allowing our students and staff to 

receive and participate in! I am also so very happy to get to work with Dr. [NAME] to ensure we are 

making the best of it!

No improvement ideas at this time.

I have no recommendations for this category.

More ideas shared

N/A

I did not even know this type of assistance is available.

As a 2 time recipient we always find the assistance appropriate and helpful.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 548

The technical assistance I have received to this point in my grant has been timely and helpful. I do not 

have any suggestions for improvement at present.

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that provided 

technical services to you.

[NAME]

Dr. [NAME]

Youth for Youth

G5 Tech Department

G5 Platform

Do not remember.

[NAME]

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role? (Other, please specify)

Project Director

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

IAL - 2022 - Q64.4. What could the IAL team do to improve the content of technical 

assistance?

No feedback at this time for this question.

N/A

Nothing at this time

My questions/concerns are addressed promptly.

It would really be helpful to have a telephone number to reach out to the program officer for 

clarifying quesitons.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 549

I can't think of anything. Every issue or concern we have had has been addressed and taken 

care of with the help of Dr. [NAME].

They have been very helpful so far.

I have been very satisfied with all the IAL content and technical assistance.

Unsure

N/A

More information please. There is very little communication - perhaps this is due to the Covid 

pandemic?

nothing

I have no recommendations at present.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 550

Magnet Schools Assistance Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

There should be a specific page dedicated to the MSAP grant....and if there is one and I am missing it, 

then it goes back to the difficulty in accessing the information I need.

I don't know how...I just know that information is difficult to find.

NA

N/A

I feel the website is user friendly with ease of access to necessary content as Project Director.

No obvious improvements are needed.

N/a

It's really about the whole ED site - when I search from a browser, I still sometimes get connected to the 

old site. And when I search from the site itself, I usually do not get to where I need to go especially if I do 

not have exact search terms

Less clunky

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).

The informational documents associated with the APR and Ad Hoc reporting could be clearer and more 

specific. Some examples and explanations are too broad

I'd like more opportunity to work with other MSAP colleagues.

NA

n/a

All documents are shared in a timely manner. Information is clear and updates are share accordingly.

N/A
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 551

N/A

I think each grantee has such context-specific issues that would be difficult to do. But returning to issuing 

non-regulatory guidance and posting it where it is easily found on the website so that we can refer to it as 

needed would be fabulous

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.

It is confusing as a lot of requested information is not available to report in the APR but then needed for 

the Ad Hoc. The document should look different. More of the information that has been filled out in the 

APR should auto-populate for the Ad Hoc. The repetition of the full report is redundant and not 

necessary. The Ad Hoc should be a more concise report consisting of the applicants who have actually 

enrolled in the magnet programs and the remainder of the budget spent to close out the year as well as 

any other achievement data which was not available for the APR.

Provide a warning notice in the platform before logging out of the system for inactivity. Often, much work 

will have been typed and not saved as the system automatically logs off.

From APR to Ad-Hoc, there is so much repetition. I think the dept should look for one type of info in the 

fall (and this would be largest portion since that's when May prior year data available) and only a very 

small amount of info in the Spring. The only thing needed in Spring would be updates on implementation 

and budget info. Nothing else.

NA

I am pleased with my Federal Program Officer's support and the fact the office actually reads each APR 

that I submit. To that end, all emails, quarterly calls, etc. are essential to my reporting accurately for the 

department. I do not see any improvements needed at this time.

N/A

The Adhoc report and the APR report duplicate numerous pieces of data. The APR asks for data that is 

not available until late summer, therefor there is a lot of pieces I have placeholder information in. It would 

be great if the APR was more of a narrative report and the Adhoc was more of a data report.

N/A

I understand that our GPRA data is reported to Congress but I don't know what happens with the rest of 

it, or even what elected officials do with our GPRA data.

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 individualized assistance based on the individual needs of the recipient. More opportunities to 

collaborate with other recipients. Project Director meetings should focus more on grant technical needs 

and not magnet theme presentation sessions; i.e., Budget issues, enrollment questions, legal issues, 

lottery, selection, reporting, and grant writing.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 552

More peer-to-peer work.

I have received excellent professional support as Project Director. I would love to see the department 

work with grantees POST funding to document and track the sustainability of the program and what 

could/should be improved for the next possible grant application. Moreover, I would like to see early 

sustainability planning at the time of grant award notification.

N/A

N/A

Other than for reporting, I don't recall receiving any TA

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that provided 

technical services to you.

MSAP Center

[NAME]

[NAME]

MSAP

Hans

I'm unsure of the name

I'm not sure of what you mean by "received" but have looked up resources on the Regional Laboratory 

and Equity Assistance Center sites

MSAP TAC

Reporting

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role? (Other, please specify)

Program Manager

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 553

MAGNET - 2022 - Q50.6. Please elaborate on what about the MSAP program’s products 

and services you have found most helpful.

My program officer is exceedingly positive and responsive.

Dr. [NAME] is very helpful and always answer my questions in a timely manner.

[NAME] has been very helpful and encouraging.

Timely responses and willingness to assist in working through challenges.

A shared commitment and dedication to empowering people to support and build sustainable 

them-based schools, allowing for nuanced approaches and instructional practices that meet the 

tailored needs of people, the individual projects and its funded schools. The warmth, follow-up 

and follow through of communication and action by ED MSAP officers/staff has been most 

helpful and appreciated.

MAGNET - 2022 - Q50.7. Please provide candid feedback on how the MSAP program’s 

services could be improved to better support your program needs (consider content, 

structure, format, timing, etc.). 

Examples of successful strategies and programs.

Not sure._x000D_ _x000D_ I don't think the implementation plan we are required to submit 

helps grantees. That's nothing to do with my contacts with the dept--it's just feedback I haven't 

yet been able to provide.

N/A - I'm very new in the role

Our program officer seems overwhelmed. I don't think that they know much about our specific 

project and therefore cannot provide much TA
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 554

Master's Degree Programs at Historically Black Colleges and 

Universities

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

In reporting two factor authentication is a bother if you leave site and return a little later to complete the 

report and have to log in again.

The Department/Office of Postsecondary Education website is user friendly. Do see, at this time where 

improvements are needed.

Perhaps use Icons instead of words to indicate areas for search purposes.

More atractive graphics and interactive. Looks too plain aesthetically.

Ensure that at the very least, up to date.

At the present time, the website serves its purpose well

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.

There are a lot of tables, that must be completed before you can move around and come back.

Can't think of any improvements at this time.

I am not exactly sure how the department uses the data we submit in the APR.

May be a short training, virtual one.

The time allotted to complete the reports are sometime unrealistic. I would just like to be made aware of 

suspense dates more than what has been given in the past.

None at this time

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role? (Other, please specify)

[NAME] PI

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 555

MDP-HBCU - 2022 - 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.

The technical assistance that I received was excellent. Questions were answered almost 

immediately when they were contacted by email.

Technical assistance received during the pandemic from my programs specialist remained the 

same. He always responded to my emails or voicemail.

My program specialist was available and responsive to all of my needs via email and/or 

telephone throughout the pandemic ([DATE_TIME] - present).

My program specialist has always been responsive and I appreciate his work.

Some of us had to work remotely. The level of technical assistance received was influenced our 

system reliability which often times was not the best

MDP-HBCU - 2022 - Q28.5. What can Master's Degree Programs at Historically Black 

Colleges and Universities do to improve communication with you?

The communication is great.

I am pleased with communication.

At this time I am completely satisfied with the communication I receive from the MD-HBCU unit.

Ensure that communication should be both by email, voice mail with copies to CoPis

MDP-HBCU - 2022 - Q28.6e. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with 

your program specialist? - Other (please specify) - Text

Individual Email and telephone

MDP-HBCU - 2022 - Q28.7. How would you advise on improving the overall process and 

protocols associated with this grant competition?

The process works well for me.

N/A
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 556

I was satisfied with the overall process and protocols associated with the grant competition.

None at this time
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 557

Migrant Education Programs (Title I, Part C)

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Clear explanation of CIG contractor costs for participation prior to SEA making decision to participate

Post most up-to-date information and links to participating state MEP programs for collaboration and 

content information.

The Results.gov website is so good that I use it all the time, at least once per week. I haven't spent much

time on the department website.

Searching for documents on the web site is very difficult at times. In addition, the look of the web site is 

very cold.

No recommendations

One way is by adding information that can be searched in different ways, for example, if I type "Food" I 

would get food for field trips or meetings. Possibly adding more examples of what to spend money on 

that other states have done that is allowable.

N/A

On the main OESE page, getting to the migrant page isn't necessarily easy. I had to go to programs and 

do a CTRL+F for Migrant. On the main OESE page, when I tried to search for "Migrant" in the "What can 

we help you find?", it asked me to enter a username and password for whatever reason. When searching 

in the top right for "migrant" it doesn't show the main OME page as a result. Once on the OME page, the 

resources and content are of high quality.

We prefer to use results.ed.gov website as it has the information we want in an easy-to-search, easy-touse format. The search results on OESE.ed.gov are not good and should be more intuitive, consider 

structuring your website more like results.ed.gov.

By updating it more often.

Make the website more user friendly.

Use drop down tabs on the top menu bar; activate the links under the word "performance" at 

https://oese.ed.gov/offices/office-of-migrant-education/migrant-education-program/performance-migranteducation-program/#monitoring

Would like to see updated information and more of the common topics included.

I do not always find what I need on the website. It takes a lot of searching to find things.

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 558

better organization...similar to results.gov website which is amazing

Including a look/design that shows daily news or recent news may provide the appearance/feeling that 

the website is always current.

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).

Clear concise language regarding any new program requirements that show changes from what was 

required to what is to be required in a chart format showing before and after.

Please continue to upload Q & A to the website. It is so helpful to have the answer to the latest questions 

others have asked. The Non-regulatory Guidance, past webinars, and toolkits are also very helpful

No recommendations

I think the other sections of the non-regulatory guidance need to still be updated to include research 

based strategies. _x000D_ If possible, those questions sent it by other states with responses possibly 

sending out in an email blast or newsletter so everyone is aware of allowable or non allowable 

expenditures would be helpful. Even if the states name is anonymous._x000D_ _x000D_ Adding a map 

for ID&R staff would be helpful. We had a situation the other day where we didn't know who to contact 

but luckily the state director map was avaliable.

Documents are always very useful and well organized. Use of RESULTs website eases use greatly.

N/A

It would be nice to receive quarterly FAQs again. Helps ensure that all states are getting the same 

information and that current issues are being addressed broadly.

The resources and communication from OME are top-notch. It allows SEA staff to be consistently in-theknow. First, the OME emails on a regular basis are extremely helpful - draw-down reports, reminders, 

updates to SEA staff, etc., etc.. The Results webpage is an essential resource also. The MEP policy 

Q&As platform is an easy to utilize resource to find answers from the reg/non-regs cleanly and concisely 

explained.

Q&A questions that were posted on the Results helped a lot understanding the program specially for new 

staff.

I am not clear on how the department uses data related to student services, demographics (aside from 

child counts), or number of migratory children in each school.

I was not on the listserv for a few months thus missing information

Missing the frequently asked questions document that used to come out in quarterly basis.. was 

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 559

Maybe prerecorded sessions to provide direct guidance or reference to service delivery in relationship 

with Legislation, Regulations, and Guidance. These prerecorded session could be distributed at a very 

specific time of the year to target what states should be focusing at the time.

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.

remove duplications and eliminate any unnecessary data collections.

Concrete examples of how to format the EdFacts documents so it is accepted into the tool on the first try 

- the system is very sensitive.

I have been unable to get comprehensive data on HSE completion and feel that there are probably far 

more out there than we are reporting. I'm also nervous about MSIX data collection, but continue to work 

hard on getting reconciliations completed to get the child counts correct.

No recommendations

I think great steps are being made to improve this process already with the use of MSIX.

Improvements have been made over the years that have reduced the burden of CSPR. Still more 

reporting than other programs.

Fewer reporting requirements would be more useful.

This past year I was needing support to help understand the logic used for one part of the EdFacts 

reporting and the department was unresponsive.

More clarity on how you use the data we submit. Maybe share some reports with us or make a clear 

connection between the information you use in the annual directors meeting / other communications and 

the reports we submit?

Making it more user friendly.

Would it be possible for OME to set up a bilingual parent portal for information nationwide regarding the 

migrant education program?

na

it's been great

Meeting one on one with states?

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 of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 560

Keep to the purposes of the program and services to clients in addition to the current emphasis on 

numbers and funding.

Continue the flexibility with meeting times that allows for more states to participate in some of the 

meeting structures.

I love all of the opportunities we have for learning and have participated in the ADM, 2 communities of 

practice, webinars, conference presentations, IMEC presentations, etc. All of it is very helpful.

Excellent technical assistance support, particularly Dr. [NAME].

The department does a great job of sharing relevant information when they can. I really enjoy the ADM 

and hope next year we can be face to face again. Content had been explained well, perhaps more 

guidance on how to supplement funds with the use of ESSER and other federal funds would be helpful. 

Ways to meet student's individual needs without crossing over into other programs such as EL. Maybe 

more guidance and understanding on civil rights and what parents have a right to request, interpreters, 

etc. That would be very helpful PD.

The Community of Practices were very useful as are quarterly calls with program officer.

n/a

Compared to other USED offices I engage with, the TA provided by OME is of very high quality. I don't 

have obvious recommendations for how to improve it. All [NAME] staff we've interacted with have been 

supportive and helpful, on whatever the topic is: funding, MSIX, guidance, etc. The CoPs, the regional 

calls, annual meetings, and individual interactions all contribute to a positive experience.

We have not requested much technical assistance support. When we've attended the annual directors' 

meeting, it has been helpful, but the meetings are so far apart that more learning about how to run the 

program happens within the state than it does from OME. The Regional meetings are helpful, but I'm not 

sure that they are effective yet. I am hopeful that we'll get there.

Technical assistance provided by the Department is good. However, questions send to the Department 

sometimes takes a few months to get an answer.

Very appreciative of the technical assistance. I would like to see more summaries of what is shared for 

the benefit of all states, as appropriate.

Specific small program support

support has been beyond amazing...need more support for technical reviews from USDOE to the states

The assistance has been great! we have an excellent and approachable regional contact and she always 

responds to questions. The department could collect service delivery/best practices from states and 

share them on a platform that MEP state directors could easily access.

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that provided 

technical services to you.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 561

Identification and Recruitment Consortium

[NAME] Northwest focus group at NASDME.

Data submission

MEP office staff

[NAME]

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

TITLEIII - 2022 - Q42.6. 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.

Provide additional training (in-person, virtual, recorded, technical assistance paper/dear 

colleague letter) on recommendations for calculating subgrant allocations to local educational 

agencies.

MEP - 2022 - Q43.1. 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).

reduce data collection burden

Provide regular updates on the work of the Consortium Incentive Grant (CIG) efforts and how 

the states can access and utilize the resources as part of their ongoing continuous improvement 

efforts.

More communication with the field as well in a timely manner.

Would love to have the ADM back in person next year. Would like the Q&A to include answers 

to all questions asked by states. I definitely want the quarterly calls with our program officer to 

continue.

No recommendations

create and maintain collaborations at the national level that can benefits the states. MIgrant and 

seasonal headstart, migrant health, etc.

My only complaint is when asking questions to receive a timely response. Sometimes I am 

unclear if [NAME] received the question or if they are working on it. Maybe even sending state 

directors a progress, such as: "your question is not in committee to review." Even if we had a 

rough timeline of what to expect. Lately, most of my questions I get better response from my 

peers, that [NAME]. If we could even have discussion time (nothing formalized) but time to talk 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 562

to program officers to ask questions and get input in an informal way so we know how to best 

move our program forward would also be helpful. Maybe even "open door days" I am available 

from this time to this time and state directors schedule a time to meet with our program office if 

wanted to ask questions.

Hopefully, will be able to meet in person for ADM.

Consider to eliminate unnecessary data requirements

Ensure technical assistance is inclusive of all types of migratory populations and state 

programmatic structures.

The Directors Meetings can be pretty crammed together to cover all the variety of topics. 

Perhaps having SEA-focused sessions on particular topics throughout the year will allow for 

some of those topics to "breathe" a bit more. For instance, at the ADM there are general 

overviews of use of funding. It would be useful to have an extension on that session, maybe 

later in the year, focusing on more specified topics (i.e. how SEAs utilize unique admin).

While we understand that OME monitoring will look different for each state, it would be helpful to 

have the general questions / documents / rubrics posted online that we can use as a selfassessment / self-review checklist. This could be posted permanently for State Directors to use 

in an annual evaluation of the program. It would also help new directors understand what sorts 

of things they should be looking for.

By providing on-going professional development and by speeding the question answering 

process.

We appreciate the regional meetings. I would like to see more narrowed topics that [NAME] 

sees as current trends or patterns discussed these meetings. These sessions have been very 

worthwhile and beneficial.

na

thank you for everything you do

Could we have monthly meetings with our regional contact?

MEP - 2022 - Q43.2s. 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.

program structure in the state

Services that help migrants who are also English learners

No.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 563

MEP - 2022 - Q43.3. Are there any other federal programs providing you technical 

assistance in form and/or content the MEP team should consider as a model? 

No

they should work on credit transfer for our secondary students.

No

No

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 564

Minority Science and Engineering Improvement Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Use hyperlinks within the page rather than taking one out to another website.

Looks good to me

N/A

update the website with the latest information, such as awards and new funding announcements.

N/A

It is good as is.

It would be helpful to develop a standalone panel under the "Grants" panel for the MSEIP grant. This way 

we do not have to type in "MSEIP" in the search box and sift through the volumes of search results.

The website of Department of Education is easy to use.

I think is fine the way it is.

No improvement needed

More user-friendly; better placement of resources (maybe more tabs?)

less information on each page

No comment at this time. I have been able to use the site with out fail to find what I wanted.

Abc

Dr. [NAME] is a most helpful program director we have worked with over the years

The MSEIP landing page is functional, but just looks a little dated.

Maintain updated information.

None

In my experience, I did not have any problems in receiving on-time responses from the program officers.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 565

Keep information updated

I have no suggestions for improvements.

Probably see how the National Science Foundation site is and create a simple one similar to that.

I find the pages often take a while to load (perhaps that is more due to my office computer system). Also 

there is a lot of info on landing page and it takes some experience to better navigate where I need to go.

Actually I used it only to retrieve my Grant documents

The web map could be more precise by type, topics and functions.

N/A

Perhaps require email validation only once a year.

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.

Nothing to add at this time.

N/A

1. Allow to attach more than 3 files._x000D_ 2. Allow to replace the uploaded file.

One of the improvements that was done recently is having the previous year activities pulled to the new 

cycle, that was very helpful and time saving.

It will be helpful to provide clear understanding on how the Department uses the data reported in this 

form.

Reduce the sections.

I am satisfied with the reporting process.

No changes

Sent a few emails regarding my access to my grants, took a while for responses to come back from help 

desk

No comment at this time as the process went smoothly.

Provide it at the beginning to better target our efforts towards completion. At some point, I have 

considered the answers as potential dissemination notes in a magazine
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 566

More workshops and focused report

It's great that our program officer gives us a technical assistance webinar every time before a report is 

due. The system feels a little clunky, but it's mostly straightforward.

Have technical webinar for APR much earlier before deadline, especially for new project directors.

Make it more concise.

I received all the help I needed for completing and submitting APRs.

Revise some questions that can be redundant.

More clarity on deadlines.

There is too much background institutional data required but not directly related to the specific project. If 

possible, reduce that part.

Since this is the first year of my award, I only had the requirement to complete the half year report (not 

yet the annual report). For a first-timer I thought they should have made the electronic report available 

sooner. Even though I did attend a training session, it was a little stressful trying to navigate what I should 

actually write in the report and where exactly I should actually put the info. Also after I did submit the 

report, I got back no feedback as to whether it was good or maybe just acceptable? Since I received no 

negative feedback, I guess it was at least acceptable? I think going forward it will be easier because I 

actually now have a template to work off of?

It would be nice to have the forms ahead of time maybe when one first gets the award, and each year a 

month before the Grant year begins so one knows what the interim and annual reports will entail. It would 

help plan Grant activities with the expectations in mind.

I can't think of anything at this time. My program officer is very intentional in informing me of new 

opportunities for students and proposal solicitations and offered great feedback on my first report.

The continuation grant reporting process might focus on progress and remaining budget 

amounts_x000D_ _x000D_ The form should be pre-check for years following the initial year. Data 

should be updated if new and constitute a material change in the grant functions.

N/A

It is pretty straightforward.

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role? (Other, please specify)

Principal Investigator/Executive Director

Project Director/MSEIP
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 567

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

MSEIP - 2022 - 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.

We had virtual meetings and they all worked well for us.

N/A

N/A

Nothing, everything went smooth last two years.

The technical assistance I received from [NAME] program specialist was not affected by the 

pandemic.

Very helpful experience with technical assistance regarding/related to the pandemic

Technical assistance from the program specialist was not affected by the pandemic. Instead, I 

received information and support as we move to a virtual and back to face-to-face for our project 

areas.

Dr. [NAME] is always available to assist

Our program officer routinely kept us up-to-date with emails. If another national emergency were 

to occur, perhaps a broad technical assistance webinar would be an efficient and effective way 

to touch base.

Logging

Our program specialist is excellent in responding and resolving issues

Dr. [NAME] provided excellent direction in the ways that we could continue the grant initiatives 

in a time of great uncertainty.

On occasions the response was not received in a timely manner but we understood all schools 

must have been asking questions.

More specific information and deadlines.

The support provided by the MSEIP was excellent.

Since the award started in [DATE_TIME], I did not sense a problem with technical assistance 

despite the continuation of the COVID pandemic. Perhaps most issues had been resolved by 

[DATE_TIME], compared to the initial challenges in [DATE_TIME].
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 568

My Grant ended in [DATE_TIME]. In [DATE_TIME] when COVID first hit we got excellent 

suggestions for a virtual summer school program that I think was invaluable, We had 2 

exceptional virtual summer academies in Summer [DATE_TIME] and [DATE_TIME] that gave 

us tremendous insights into virtual engagement and products. We were more than grateful to 

our MSEIP Program manager for her suggestions and advice.

The webinars were excellent at informing me on how to report.

The technical assistance received from our program specialist was exceptional. No down time, 

always responsive to our questions, and offered suggestions to improve online,hybrid and face 

to face learning during COVID 19 for our consortium.

N/A

The Technical Assistance that Dr. [NAME] provided was invaluable. She provided guidance and 

assistance given the unthinkable occurence of a pandemic.

MSEIP - 2022 - Q22.5. What can the MSEIP do to improve communication with you?

I think the program is doing well at this time.

N/A

N/A

The grant officer is doing amazing job communicating with us.

It's good. It is there when you need it.

No. I communicated with [NAME] very well.

nothing / very satisfied

Nothing.

Nothing, satisfied

Communication is routine and has been great. Understandably, our program officer is very busy, 

and there are periods where it may take a two or three days to receive a response, but there 

have also been plenty of times when I've received a response in the same day.

None

I only had excellent communication.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 569

I think they are already doing an excellent job

I think MSEIP is doing excellent in the communications side.

So far I think the DOE/MSEIP program has things well under control. [NAME] is an excellent, 

helpful and well informed Program Director

I was more than satisfied.

N/A

[NAME] does an outstanding job with providing information regularly and often.

MSEIP - 2022 - Q22.6e. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with your 

program specialist? - Other (please specify) - Text

Videoconference (i.e. webex, zoom, etc.)

Zoom or video conference

MSEIP - 2022 - Q22.7. How would you advise on improving the overall process and 

protocols associated with this grant competition?

I think the MSEIP grant competition is clear and concise and explained well especially in the 

guidelines.

You guys are doing well.

N/A

If possible, release the solicitation earlier.

It is great.

We want to know some details about the results of grant competition: how many applications 

you received, which grants are funded, etc.

No suggestions

None
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 570

No changes would be noted at this time.

In comparison to other agencies (NSF, USDA), the information provided could be confusing or 

limited. USDA has improved their information and calendar.

Make it simpler

I do not need any changes.

perhaps more updates un status of process

Create a program to strengthen the research capabilities in HBCUs.

I do think providing/communicating a point system for each specific area that is being evaluated 

would be helpful in submitting a stronger grant proposal. The proposal instructions are very 

wordy and because of that sometimes unclear? it seemed a little like a mystery or puzzle as to 

whether I was strongly hitting each criteria and listed priority in the narrative. Still I received an 

excellent score (thank you [NAME]) so I guess I did well addressing the major points within the 

instructions.

An in person workshop prior to applying for a MSEIP Grant would be nice

N/A

While grant competition must occur, projects that are producing outstanding results should be 

invested in for discretionary funding awarded as an additional year of activities and publishing.

No improvement
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 571

National Professional Development Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Updating materials more quickly.

It is just clunky and not visually appealing. I think it does what it was made to do. Algorithms on search 

feature could be improved. It gets to the information, but not directly.

I am not an expert on how to improve websites, and also not terribly good at thinking like a website 

developer.

Some of the links are old or broken- and content dated- it could use a lot of work.

Provide information earlier on the due date and package for APR

The website seems very bare and not always up to date. I cannot always find what I am looking for.

I have not accessed the website in the last 12 months.

I did not find information on indirect cost when applying as joint-university project.

N/A

separate site from student loan information, laws, data

Thanks for the resources in your website.

The website is very text-heavy, so reducing the amount of text and/or adding other visuals would make it 

easier to navigate.

OELA's website is consistent with the Department of Ed website/brand. It's hard to improve the website 

without overhauling the Department of Ed website concept and usability.

Update frequently and remove out-of-date information

Links to professional organizations

Information from conferences and webinars should be available and easy to find. Especially when it 

comes to reporting/budgeting etc. There is no practical grant management information on the website.

A more robust navigation menu

Make sure it is updated regularly and old material removed.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 572

I suggest that OELA make the website easier to navigate and a little clearer in language.

I don't know.

NA

I find it to be very user-friendly.

make it more user friendly.

It's just too complex, but I understand that they're working within the larger ED website structure. Also, it 

seems that the path to get to a specific resource changes when a new/updated version of that resource is 

added--so improving consistency would help.

It could be more visually appealing.

The KMS website does not seem to be very user-friendly. Some sections were not fillable when the 

grantee needed to enter information. Clear guidance would be appreciated.

Work on removing glitches for uploading reports.

up to date materials

Having a list of all the websites we need to access as NPD grantees in one place by adding links where 

we can access the other NPD-related websites via the links (secured with our log in credentials) would be 

helpful.

There are years in which there are only summaries of awarded grants instead of the full narrative. There 

should be consistency about this.

Better/Improved forecasting for funding opportunities

It is functional and includes important information, but its layout and organization isn't as intuitive as it 

could be.

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).

When they have documents and site sources it would be nice if they linked the sources to what was 

specifically referenced rather than a -this is the info we found and these are all the sources we used.

They are clear.

The KMS communications were- well- unclear- and the system could also use some work.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 573

Only documents I've received have been notices for Update and Annual Reports.

N/A

Thanks.

The website is very dense in text. I do not receive blast emails, so if there are emails with important 

information, I am not receiving them.

OELA documents are professional quality. Their webinars communicate a professional brand, as do their 

educator toolkits, infographics, data sheets, and slide presentations.

More information regarding pandemic effects on achievement will be needed and ongoing; therefore, 

continuing data.

Be a little more specific in details.

NA

Documents are straight-forward and clear in providing guidance and relevant information.

The documents should reflect changes in laws that affect English learners or other diverse learners 

Highlight effective programs Make sure these programs are available to other grantees. Partner with 

What works. I feel the grants are not necessarily research-based.

I can't really name a specific document, but I'll give blast emails and newsletters as an example. We get 

emails when there's an event or deadline announced. But it would be good to have a regular newsletter 

from OELA (not just NCELA) specific to NPD, even if it announces the fact that a PDF or other form of 

newsletter has been posted within the KMS. Something regular would be best, and would help me feel 

more connected.

Exemplary sample documents (e.g., KMS report and annual report), with a caveat that they are only 

samples aligned with specific project goals, would be very helpful.

n/a

N/A

I think the documents and notices from the Office of Language Acquisition are high quality.

We've had a couple of conflicting sets of information regarding the deadlines for our no cost extensions, 

but this was resolved very quickly.

I am very satisfied with the documents I receive.

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 574

They touched on it at the NPD meeting, but I would like more info into how they use the data...just 

because I'm curious.

The key is in the program officers. They are fantastic.

Better guidance on what measures should be used for reporting. Some exemplars that are clear. Happy 

to structure reports in a way [NAME] would like but sometimes it isn't clear on what information the 

agency would like grantees to report.

Have had difficulty completing sections of KMS Updates due to software problems (ex: couldn't save or 

enter certain items). Also - have never been able to correct inaccurate amounts on Budget page. Staff at 

Manhattan Strategy have been helpful.

N/A

Better details regarding timeline for reporting and materials to be reported. Webinars with sample 

processes not at onset but later and closer to reporting period.

The timeline is very challenging. We have only just begun our project and the first APR is due on 

[DATE_TIME]. This means I have to prepare the report at the same time as my Spring courses are 

ending and grades are due. To complicate things more, we have not completed a full year, so we are left 

to speculate about how the remainder of the first year will play out. If the APR was due at the end of 

Year [DATE_TIME], we would have the summer - when we are off from our normal faculty responsibilities 

- to complete this report. Annual reports should be aligned with each "year" of the grant._x000D_ It 

would have been helpful to disseminate information about the APR at the Directors Meeting when we 

were all together and had that time blocked off. The webinar was scheduled over our K-12 schools' 

Spring Break and I was not able to attend it because I was away on vacation with my family. We were 

told that a recording would be available, but I cannot locate the recording and still do not know what 

needs to be done for a report that is due in less than five weeks.

Ideally, the KMS system and the G5 system would connect and have the same format.

dates for reporting clarified

KMS is a headache

There appears to be "technical issues" when entering data. Sometimes there is a character limit, but it is 

unknown until it is being entered--these types of issues.

The KMS is not particularly useful when tracking qualitative data, and is extremely unhelpful when goals 

and activities are changing each year as the program grows. It locks us in to one set of measures in year 

1 even though our grant clearly describes multiple years of activities.

Make it clearer what specific information is required.

The G5 and KMS are too complicated.

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 575

It is a doable process, though I'm still learning the KMS system. I appreciate OELA's support in 

navigating the systems.

The grant reporting process should be based on accomplishment in line to meet objectives.

A set of how-to videos would be best. I know there are usually webinars that are recorded, but I mean 

short videos on specific steps and components, or if it has to be a longer video it should have chapters 

with a ToC so we can find specific help at the moment we need it.

For new grantees, having examples of what these completed reports look like not just the blank format of 

the report would be helpful to get a sense of the scope and tone of these reports. Also, guidance and 

multiple examples of how to translate our project-specific measures into GPRA performance measures 

would be appreciated. Finally, having later time deadlines that take into account the different time zones 

(for example instead of [DATE_TIME] ET consider [DATE_TIME] ET). This at least gives more time 

zones the full day to submit.

I understand about the technical difficulties, but sometimes the system are not fully operative or it is not 

clear where it is expected to include some information.

Part of the challenge stems from the original proposal using %s and the conversion to reporting in 

numbers. Secondly, the combination of KMS and G5 systems should be explained earlier on, even for 

seasoned grantees, most especially if there are major changes ( or even minor ones in the systems).

The KMS system is clunky and not intuitive. It has improved over time, but it could be streamlined and 

made easier to input information.

The GPRAs are confusing to interpret. For example, GRPA 2 is "The number of pre-service program 

participants enrolled annually. GRPA 3 is "The unduplicated number of in-service program participants 

served annually." Why does GRPA 3 specify "unduplicated" and GRPA 2 doesn't? Is GRPA 2 also

supposed to be an unduplicated count? It's also unclear when creating targets whether those targets are 

supposed to be cumulative or not.

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 staff do an outstanding job. It is hard to know how to improve their work.

Need more information available, especially on the website- regarding evidence-based practices for ELs 

and ELs with disabilities.

I have had several NPD projects and have not needed any technical assistance. We've always been 

successful in meeting our goals and objectives.

more peer to peer interaction to learn various management structures

N/A

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 576

There are no resources in KMS and I was expecting to find a variety of resources there to help me with 

my grant project.

OELA staff are highly responsive and extremely helpful. I have had many interactions with my Program 

Officer, Itzetht Testa, who responds quickly offering instant help and good information. The 

communications from [NAME] are always timely, clear, and impeccable. I have received help from 

[NAME], who is very prompt, responsive, and knowledgeable. It's a privilege to be able to hear from Dr. 

[NAME], who is an extraordinary leader and advocate for equity. Thanks and kudos to the entire OELA 

staff!

i haven't had time to use all of the resources available yet

Have more Webinars but with grantees being the presenters to share their successes and challenges.

Department staff are generally helpful with one to one situations, but the training/conferences etc rarely 

offer useful information.

We only had problems one time and the problem was corrected within a day.

NA

I think it is well-organized and I feel supported. The annual meeting really helps in that regard.

More assistance on how to disseminate information that shows successful academic growth of English 

learners. This is very limited.

I don't feel that the four items in the previous list are really addressed much at all. I don't see the OELA 

group providing skill-building guidance. Instead, it feels like every step of the way is a test to see if we 

can figure out what we're supposed to do and to see if we're smart enough to actually do so. I get support 

when I ask questions and/or have a problem. I don't find that OELA staff sees NPD grant management as 

a professional development vehicle other than the fact that people do end up engaging in selfdevelopment as part of the process. But we're doing that on our own, and that wasn't the intent of the 

four items prior to this one.

Although in KMS there is a section for peer collaboration and information exchange, it seems that it's not 

systematically encouraged and utilized. Would there be a better way to establish a community of 

collaboration?

I am not a fan of the KMS system_x000D_ They do not respond to requests for help_x000D_ I do not 

have access to resources, including the presentations from this year's Directors' Meeting. Reporting was 

made difficult because of flaws in this platform.

The technical assistance provided by the Department staff has been exceptional so far, particularly what 

was provided at the National Project Director's meeting in [DATE_TIME].

Including some webinars about specific requirements

Our current Program Officer, [NAME], is outstanding. She is responsive and even as a new PO, is super 

knowledgeable. We are also in a no cost extension period with our prior grant, and did not have as good 

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 577

Ongoing opportunities (e.g., twice between meetings) to engage with other grant teams virtually

I have found the technical assistance very helpful.

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that provided 

technical services to you.

Manhattan something

[NAME]

KMS staff

IDRA Equity Assistance Center, [ADDRESS], TX

Manhattan Strategy Group

I don't recall

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

NPD - 2022 - Q2.11. What, if any, improvements have you seen in OELA over the last 

year?

They revamped KMS and it seems easier to work with.

Consistent high qualify.

Not applicable, but current project officer is excellent (though past POs have been excellent 

also).

The program officers provide support and communicate with project directors on a regular basis.

The NCELA website needs to be updated more frequently

More publications, more information shared through webinars, more resources in the 

newsletters

The meeting in [ADDRESS] this year was excellent! It was well planned and executed. Thanks.

Responses from individual program officers has been great
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 578

I attended the Directors Meeting in [DATE_TIME] and found it very well organized and useful. 

Everyone was very kind and helpful.

NA

The team is knowledgable and supportive. They provide helpful guidance that ensures the 

success of the project. They break down what can be a very complex process into very simple 

steps that are easier to navigate. I feel like they are part of my project team, and they help 

facilitate excellent work.

I have not seen significant changes

KMS 2.0 does seem to be working better than the first version.

Since everything is new to me, I can't say if there have been any improvements I've noticed over 

the last year.

Program Officer [NAME] is an extraordinary professional who knows our projects well and helps 

us do everything better. She is a wonderful resource and source of encouragement to 

continuously expand and improve our work.

I really appreciate the existence of the NPD program and OELA. The challenges that I see seem 

mostly due to bureaucracy. Webinars for NPD project directors are organized and clear.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 579

National Resource Centers Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Much of my problems in navigating the site is due by newness to it.

Navigability is a bit clunky, the site could do more to connect programs/grantees and make policy 

questions more explicit.

create clearer bullet points which take you to relevant information as describe in the bullet point heading

Better navigation and search tools

Make it easier to navigate.

I don't know but there is so much varied information and data that the site can be difficult to navigate.

I think it is very good now.

The website is excellent. I found especially informative are the winning applications, links to federal 

register, and uploaded webinars.

Less busy. More clarity.

No suggestions

I don't use it. Why would I?

The categories are not intuitive and it is difficult to understand what they represent and what information 

is provided. The information is often buried, making it difficult to navigate easily. The site is not userfriendly and sometimes can send a user on a loop - you click links and don't find what you are looking for, 

but rather end back where you started. The categories need to be far more explicit - "Click here for Title 

VI applications for [DATE_TIME]", etc. That would be a good start.

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.

Technical issues aside, the data required by the reporting process are often difficult to obtain and not 

useful in other contexts. This mismatch occurs because the University collects and values different 

information than the DoED. It is not necessarily a flaw in the reporting system.

I've only been in this position since [DATE_TIME] and have not had to do any reporting yet.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 580

The IRIS system does not easily work with contemporary systems used to track the required data 

internally, especially with regards to outreach events and course enrollments. At large institutions, it is 

quite difficult to bring together reporting on every area studies course and language course available in 

the first year -- it would be much easier to simply report on courses that receive direct or indirect support 

from the program, or receive clearer guidance on what qualifies as an area studies course. How the 

department uses our data beyond considering it during application cycles is very unclear.

Some of the website features require hours of cutting and pasting, especially for outreach activities. 

Could we just upload an excel file of outreach activities instead? _x000D_ _x000D_ Much of the 

information is impossible to gather. Is it better to estimate or leave blank? Please remember that the 

people completing these reports are often in very small offices with minimal or no administrative support. 

In out office, we prioritize planning and implementing activities. We try to keep our reporting quick and 

simple. Perhaps a simplified reporting form coupled with quick 1-on-1 meetings with the program officer 

would better help the department identify programs, data, or activities that would be helpful to highlight.

make it clearer why the data is gathered and what it is used for. It feels like it goes into a black hole.

The reporting requirements are onerous. There is a lack of clarity regarding data (epsecially on outputs) 

which makes it difficult to pull together data and diminishes the utilty of data for comparing different 

instituions. The system for inputting data on outreach is very onerous. It would be ore useful to provide 

an uploadable excel template for this data (as is already done for the course data).

It would be helpful to have a small task force of seasoned NRC staff from a handful of centers and IFLE 

staff sit down to map out the grant reporting process. If NRC grant recipients knew how IFLE wanted to 

use the data from the report, the purpose of the data, we could help IFLE staff design a report that could 

give them that information. Otherwise, there feels as if there's a disconnect between the information/data 

IFLE ultimately wants and what the NRCs are being asked to provide.

â€¢ There are conflicting instructions in the report. We are supposed to report each degree/certificate 

under the degrees section, regardless of whether a student is represented more than once. Then the 

placements section asks us to count each person only once, which is impossible since they pull the 

numbers from the degrees section and we have to match those numbers in order to save this 

section._x000D_ _x000D_ â€¢ This doesn't have to do with instructions but is a suggestion. Courses and 

enrollments are entered through forms. Once a form has been entered, it is visible on the main course 

tab along with all the other entered courses but the only details visible are title, course number, and 

language. If changes have to be made, which is frequent, I have to click on each entry with the same 

course title to see the details and find the correct one I'm looking for. It would be nice if they included 

more information on this page, such as semester and number of hours._x000D_ _x000D_ â€¢ 'Discipline' 

is spelled incorrectly is 'disipline.' We think it only shows up in the completed report under majors, 

minors, or certificates.

Increasing character limits for text boxes

It would help to find out how the reports are used in IFLE so that we understand why we're being asked 

to provide such information. The reporting takes up quite a bit of our time and resources.

no suggestions

FLAS fellow entry fields should default to home institution and last entered value, or have ability to clone. 

Currently requires far too much needless repetitive typing.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 581

It is extremely unclear how you use our data. Some of it is simply unobtainable, e.g., "how many 

recipients of these funds go on to do government service?" Obviously, we can't track persons in 

agencies. Also, some of the basic tracking information is nearly impossible to maintain (undergraduates 

and their "placements").

There are some reporting requirements that are so ill-defined as to be meaningless in regards to 

collection and reporting. For example, collecting faculty publications and output - unless it is a researchbased grant, why does the Dept. collect this information and how does the Dept. use it? Faculty do not 

view their courses, publications and output based on an area studies percentage - they guess - so 

everything we report is based on guesses, which makes the data largely meaningless. If we are funding 

research, and publications and output are based on that output, great - the publication is a direct 

measure of the success of the grant. But not NRCs, UISFLs, etc. as faculty output is not divided in that 

way. It would be far better to seriously reconsider what these grants fund and redo the reports on what 

the grants produce - what courses are funded, what outreach events are funded, etc. Everything else that 

forces anyone to report on something with a percentage of area studies content will have such a high 

degree of error to render it meaningless.

Provide some responses to the reporting. In my six years managing the NRC grant, I have not received 

any feedback on our reports.

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role? (Other, please specify)

PI

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

NRC - 2022 - Q35.2. 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 and the IFLE staff in general are exceptional. The pandemic presented 

novel problems at every stage of the implementation process and continues to reverberate 

through our programs. DoED staff has been responsive, clear, and flexible as these events 

have unfolded. Transparency, prompt communication, and flexibility in working with us are the 

most important aspects of a strong working relationship in circumstances such as these.

The pandemic has caused us to cancel many activities and add new ones. The Dept of Ed has 

been very helpful in allowing us to shift funds from different line items in our budget to carry out 

our mission in these extraordinary times. Sometimes the responses are a little late, but overall 

the communication has been satisfactory.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 582

Our program officers were very clear with us about how the pandemic would affect the program, 

and their easy facilitation of accommodations helped us enormously in adjusting to the 

circumstances of the pandemic.

[NAME] was amazing. He helped us put our students first. He was ready to creatively problemsolve instead of to just legislate with legalese. _x000D_ _x000D_ Thanks to the flexibility and 

support of IFLE staff during this extremely difficult year, we were able to keep our students on 

track and to ensure the continuity of instruction. Many other federal programs were not as 

nimble or supportive, leaving many of our students in a lurch. The efforts of the IFLE staff to 

keep language and area studies moving forward was really and truly spectacular. I cannot say 

enough about what a great job they did. Thank you!

Interestingly, the pandemic allowed us more "face time" with our program officer, because in the 

past we would usually just make a phone call. However, during the pandemic, rather than phone 

calls, we ended up conferring with our program officer via video chat (Zoom, Microsoft Teams, 

etc.). This was especially useful because we were assigned a brand new program officer, so we 

got a chance to know her a bit more personally than through a phone call.

The webinars that announced program changes in response to the pandemic were helpful.

During the pandemic our program specialist provided the same high level of responsiveness 

and helpful information we received prior to the pandemic. We feel fortunate to have a 

remarkable, and remarkably well-informed, program officer who pays close attention to 

grantees' needs.

Technical Assistance has been excellent. Our program Specialist was very supportive during 

the pandemic.

Program specialist provided excellent guidance, detailed and appropriate to the situation. The 

pandemic was unprecedented, and it continues to cause concern and potential for further 

disruptions.

Need for flexibility regarding program execution and use of funds for new activities when 

previously established activities not possible._x000D_ _x000D_ We had two program officers 

during the past year. One understood the challenges faced by programs to execute programs. 

One was more concerned with close conformity to strict interpretation of program guidelines, 

making implementation difficult.

All inquiries to our program officer were answered quickly and fully. Many programs were 

canceled and/or postponed or moved completely online, so our Center maybe had fewer 

complications than others.

There was an issue that had nothing to do with our program officer, but with disarray in the 

overall Program's way of dealing with a particular issue. Some world areas had benefitted from 

less rigid rules than others. This could have been explained by staff turnover, vague legal advice 

from the federal government, or other factors.

We appreciated her flexibility and understanding.

There always seemed to be a willingness to solve the problem, but it always took time, and time 

is sometimes what a student doesn't have due to program deadlines or the need to make 

financial commitments (sometimes without knowing if they had authority to use the funds). While 

we realized the difficulties everyone faced during the pandemic, the students faced the worst of 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 583

it, and bore the most risk, and decisions could have been made more quickly to mitigate their 

risk and stress. Also, program officers could have their messaging be more consistent. All 

program officers need to be quoting the same policy the same way- not interpreting it in different 

ways and causing confusion.

NRC - 2022 - Q35.5. What can National Resource Centers do to improve communication 

with you?

I am satisfied with our communication and have no specific suggestions.

The grant competition was announced with little to no warning on [DATE_TIME], essentially 

ruining the holidays and shortening the 60-day period for writing the grant because many of 

[ADDRESS] directors and associate directors were grading papers and final exams at the end of 

the fall semester. On the other hand, I appreciate the accelerated timeline to be able to know 

who to hire for Fall [DATE_TIME].

Communication is generally very good. We might appreciate an update on when to expect the 

GAN.

I think communication is good.

General communication is good. The problem is with the approvals and clearance processes. 

They seem to take way too long, without any consideration of the timetable with which 

centers/universities work.

My NRC program officer ([NAME]) is highly responsive to all of my questions. I couldn't be more 

satisfied with her assistance with and knowledge of NRC and FLAS.

First, I would like to comment on your question about aspects of the process through which we 

receive grant award notification. In the past this has sometimes been challenging in the first 

year of a grant cycle, when awards were announced after the semester began. This is no

reflection on the hardworking staff in the Office of Postsecondary Education. They don't have 

control over the timing of award announcements, which are driven in part by the amount of time 

it takes to obtain necessary approvals. Grant award notifications proceed more smoothly in 

Years 2-4 of the grant cycle. _x000D_ Our program officer is a model communicator. We 

receive replies quickly, and with the information we seek.

Communication is very good.

Our program officer is doing an excellent job communicating with us. The only issue we have is 

the late notification of the results of the competition which is not in her control.

Have program officers who understand the realities of higher education and impediments to 

realizing program goals when guidelines are narrowly interpreted.

no suggestions.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 584

Grant notification happens after the AY is already scheduled for the first year of the grant. 

Notification in mid-September means the loss of an entire year of programming for many 

LCTL's.

We honestly don't hear much from our Program Officer - we write when there is an issue or a 

problem or we have a question.. We also write when we have highlights to share. However, 

communication is a 2-way street - it would be nice to hear from them and get feedback on how

we are doing as a Center. In fact, the one time our Program Officer had to showcase a recent 

accolade we shared with the Dept., we heard no feedback - it was very disappointing, and our 

highlight went unrecognized without his support.

NRC - 2022 - Q35.6e. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with your 

program specialist? - Other (please specify) - Text

zoom & email

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 585

Native American and Alaska Native Children in School Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

It is very out of date and references old information.

The web page needs to be updated! [DATE_TIME] information is not helpful. If searching is leading folks 

to an outdated webpage, then the search needs to redirect folks to something more recent.

Provide easier access to update-to-form required forms

Send all templates used for reporting so project directors can understand the documents. I think the 

system training has gone well, i just like to have all reporting documents at hand (hard copy/e file).

I found the site to be self sufficient.

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).

The information is sometimes too broad - I realize the NAM program is small but maybe you don't need to 

always try to cover all OELA programs as once.

Sometimes we have more information to share but there is limit characters that is accepted.

In the information age when we are all inundated with information, I appreciate it when the messages are 

short, concise, and to the point.

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.

KMS is a very difficult system to use and has a lot of glitches that made reporting difficult and time 

consuming.

Oh my goodness! The KMS system is the most burdensome ED reporting site there is. You should know 

that people who have/are using it are cautioning potential applicants about the difficulty of KMS as a 

consideration for applying for this competition! I do not know what the program gains from this frequency 

of reporting or from the time spent trying to fix and interact with this system.

More formal training designed to guide new users.

Please submit more information on how data is used.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 586

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.).

Well, first off when you click on links to things such as FAQ's they are dead links.

In person conferences.

There should be peer to peer contacts to help new Directors learn the process.

Be able to answer questions instead of referring us out to contractors and others.

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that provided 

technical services to you.

[NAME]

The ability to enter was not available at an earlier date
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 587

Native American Career and Technical Education Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Keep it current - the awards page lists grantees only from [DATE_TIME]. I used it when applying but 

have not gone back since we were awarded the grant.

If we could possible use the site for our sharepoint and lincs access. The sharing of information for all 

grantees. Maybe a sign in for grantees would work. I think having these seperate creates confusion and 

sharepoint was hard to access.

The NACTEP Department is doing an excellent job providing the technical assistance and information 

that we need to implement our grants and get our reporting done! I enjoy working with our Program 

Officer and cannot think of anything needed to improve her or the website. The information is there. The 

help is there.

I did not use the site, so I am not a good judge of what needs improvement.

I think the language on the site could be more tangible. And it seems like there are too many areas to 

click so its difficult to clearly see what you are looking for. I would say reducing the number of areas and 

topics on the landing page might be helpful. I would really benefit from some virtual explanations of the 

laws and regulations or videos or having those available for reader applications. The emails with the links 

can be really content-heavy and contain a number of links but the time to break down the email and 

check out the individual resources so perhaps a brief video that gives an overview of the different 

sections of the website on the landing page. I honestly haven't spent too much time on the site because it 

is a bit overwhelming for me to be on.

I'm new to the project so for me I thought I completed sign in on G5 because I was able to pull up G5 

however I did not know my registration was not complete so I was unable to see some applications. But 

once I called the help line they were able to direct me and help me get access to what I needed

More user friendly. Maybe a table of contents of some sort...

It's hard for me to think about the website separately from the community of practice share point folders. 

The Share Point was a mess with having to constantly ask for access codes.

To be honest, I haven't gone on the website. I will do so following the completion of this survey.

The website in my opinion is very confusing. I think NACTEP should have its own website page with 

links for information.

On reporting, the HELP function provides guidance to upload a document file rather than complete an 

online section in G5. Are two options available to support a report?

When searching for participant or concentrator data, there is a lot of time spent navigating the website. 

The number of clicks it takes to land on the webpage is too high. There should be more quick links or 

tabs to give better direction.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 588

n/a

Could be more compatible with multiple browsers.

I would like to have access to documents and forms not connect to the LINCS site.

Thank you [NAME] for serving and being responsive.

It's not very user friendly. If you know what you're doing, you can manage just fine, but it just doesn't 

really help you, if you are new to it.

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).

I often have to read through things three or four times and ask follow up questions to feel I understand 

requirements and directions. So glad I have a responsive person to help me sort through the complicated 

documents.

The quality and usefulness of the documents is fine! There are always questions, so having a attentive 

and informed program officer who can answer questions is absolutely essential.

No suggestions.

I think the layout of the material could be condensed. I think it does provide a good direction of what is 

next but they amount of pages and content can be overwhelming at times but I think it is important at the 

same time because then people kind of have a good idea of what questions to ask on which topics. 

Some of the lingo is hard to understand so it would be good to have an area with definitions. I am having 

an extremely difficult time accessing the share point file I wish there were another way to access that 

material. I remember there was a private webpage at one point in time from a previous directors meeting. 

Maybe that method would be helpful for sharing resources between grantees.

Use more "[NAME]'s" terms.

Examples of how things need to be filled out is always good with regards to mandatory forms. The nonregulatory guidance is helpful, I guess, but just tell me what you want - don't suggest stuff. That didn't 

work with Section A. The performance measure forms took three or four submissions before we had 

everything exactly like it was supposed to "look" however, it didn't make any kind of improvement to the 

information provided on the form. Section A forms are awful and we end up writing the most meaningful 

stuff in Section C anyway. We got a LOT of emails - so many that I honestly didn't have time to read them 

all. It was information overload for me. Bullet points with need to know info, major changes, etc. is what I 

have capacity for.

I have no recommendations. When I give my full attention to reading the documents, they are 

informative.

The documents in G5 could be improved for the reports.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 589

More templates for reporting and tracking would be helpful. The grants require reporting on GPRA 

measures but new grantees have to create their own tracking and reporting systems which is time 

consuming. Templates or uniform guidelines on applications for direct assistance would also be helpful.

better templates for easy reporting

I would like documents that can be pre-completed before having to upload. Having to re-log into the 

website every few minutes is frustrating.

Please consult with previous grantees, G5 is inefficient.

There isn't anything really wrong with it, it does what it needs to and that's about it.

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.

I have not submitted a report yet but will very soon.

Someone needs to change the G5 reporting system to make it more user friendly! It is not a very good 

reporting system, way too technical/complicated, specifically the Objectives/Performance Measures 

section. And, sometimes it doesn't seem to work properly. Please get that system changed!

As a G5 novice, I had great difficulty navigating to file my Semi Annual Report. Spent the better part of 

half of my time for two weeks to get it done. Did request assistance a couple times with no response from 

a person which is what I needed.

I can only speak for myself but I think it is challenging to try to put some of this data into the target and 

actual data ratios. It took me a long time to figure out how to do it in a way that makes sense. So perhaps 

a different method of reporting would be beneficial the charts are kind of difficult to maneuver the 

objectives into at times. Because the goals are not necessarily all quantitative. Like maybe something 

where you simply enter whether or not progress was made and then explain the actions taken to make 

progress or something like that. I started out with no help my first year and now I understand better but 

this could be really difficult and confusing for new people. Lastly I think it is important to highlight that they 

should be demonstrating the progress made on each of them because it doesn't really state that clearly in 

the instructions like how much progress or maybe even percentages of particular steps of goals etc.

It has gotten a lot better. I wouldn't make any recommendations at this time.

How we are supposed to report anything truly meaningful with regards to numbers within the first six 

months of our very first grant is beyond me. The questions regarding graduating seniors is stupid to 

answer in April when they haven't even graduated yet. It was frustrating filling out forms with 999 

everywhere knowing I am just going to fill these out again in the Fall. We won't have graduating seniors 

from our program until year 4 who have been through the entire program. The grant reporting process 

seems all about numbers and not about impact and seems rushed when you are in the first six months of 

the grant and barely through the planning stages. ADDITIONALLY - trying to get information up to date 

from the Accounting Office on all activity through [DATE_TIME] when the report is due [DATE_TIME] isn't 

practical. How are we supposed to do that? I just cut off the financial reports as of [DATE_TIME] because 

that's the last time we had reconciled general ledger reports. Also - drawing down funds reported on the 

Cover Sheet - that confirms that we drew down funds from G5 but it doesn't ask about obligations that 

haven't been drawn down yet, so how does that provide [NAME] with any real data on where we are at 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 590

implementing the grant. I spent 57 hours writing the report and honestly I got NOTHING out of it that will 

benefit our program implementation. We aren't changing anything because we haven't gotten through a 

single school year yet to see the results, so what am I reporting? A bunch of...we're 35% through Goal 1, 

and 45% through Goal 2, etc. How is that helpful?

I do like the training we receive from the Office of Indian Education. They are very precise in walking us 

through the entire reporting process. They provide models that are very helpful.

The G5 system is not easy to use, and the documents required to fill out are difficult to complete. The 

questions on the cover sheet 524B are confusing, and unclear the GPRA measures are difficult to apply 

and confusing on how to apply your data.

Having an online form to edit or upload for the budget so that all grants are producing the same outputs 

for reports.

I had some difficulties uploading attachments for the reporting requirements. There was one instance 

where a required document didn't have specific place so I uploaded where I was able.

better templates for reporting

Consistent instructions. I had multiple instructions for the same form (I believe ED 528 cover sheet for 

semi-annual?), and some of the instructions had a different question for #11-12 than appeared in G5.

Having forms we can complete before having to upload them. The website is constantly closing out too 

quickly making me have to re-log in often.

Reporting needs improvement.

A little more information about what you want and how you want it. There are things that I should have 

added, but didn't know to add. I would have done so, had I known.

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.).

[NAME] is on top of all things.

[NAME] is a real gem. She provided me with real guidance regarding what to do with a grant that I had 

inherited from the previous Project Director who passed away on [DATE_TIME]. She was very patient 

with me and provided whatever help I requested._x000D_ _x000D_ This was the only technical 

assistance I received.

I would say it would be helpful to have the resources shared in an internal website with a password. I am 

having a terrible time accessing the SharePoint with the resources.

They can consider that organizations with NACTEP grants also have OIE grants and to please NOT 

schedule the annual director's meeting in conflict with the other director's meeting that [NAME] has 

scheduled. I had to be in TWO director's meetings at once. Literally had two laptops open - one signed in 

to OIE's director's meeting, and the other signed into NACTEP's director's meeting, and I know I wasn't 

the only one having to do that. Tribes can be small organizations, and project directors can oversee 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 591

multiple grant programs. This was extremely stressful, and I do not feel our programs were served well. 

As this was our first NACTEP grant - I really missed out on what I wanted to know having to be in two 

places at once. So, yes, I was disappointed that at a Department level - [NAME] isn't more aware of this 

kind of thing.

No recommendations.

I think the technical assistance provided by the Department staff has improved dramatically for this 

funding project, and I can only thank them for all the improvements they have added for this grant project.

n/a

I have one really great program specialist and one whom I barely interact with. I would be able to score 

everything really high if it was for the one specialist, and lower if it was the other.

It's good. Our rep does a great job of providing assistance.

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that provided 

technical services to you.

NACTEP and NHCTEP, Department of Education

Department of Education

[NAME]

A director's meeting was held this month.

[NAME]

[NAME]

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role? (Other, please specify)

[NAME] Executive Director

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 592

Native American Serving Non-Tribal Institutions Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

None at this time.

While not a specific improvement, I would like to see a library of past projects/best practices

No suggestions...

At this time, I do not think any improvements are needed.

Give examples. Some reporting is difficult to understand what is desired.

Timeliness of updates on recent awards has improved and is appreciated.

The website needs to be updated frequently to ensure the information is not out of date. I would also 

suggest a redesign of the website to easily navigate to what the user is looking for. Perhaps a dropdown 

menu would be helpful for navigation.

The security protocol can be made faster and easier to complete.

Include updated information about current awardees and a keyword search feature for grant notices. 

Could a listserv feature be added for NASNTI project directors? There was one through WICHE but I 

don't think it is functional at this point. This isn't related to the website, but I appreciate receiving general 

DOE press releases via email and webinar opportunities.

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.

Make sure contractors hold webinars first thing in the APR process, not when the report is almost due.

I believe the process to be concise and efficient.

By explaining how the Department of Ed uses the data.

The reporting process is very detailed and changes frequently. New members of our team were surprised 

by the differences in reporting from the mid-year interim report to the full Year 1 report. Consistency and 

simplification would be helpful. _x000D_ _x000D_ The limitations on character counts for individual 

questions are appreciated. _x000D_ _x000D_ In some years it would be helpful to be able to add an 

additional attachment to the report.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 593

Take a look at redundant questions and simplify. I found myself answering the same questions several 

times.

I like how it is. It is easy to complete and submit. However, the financial information required should focus 

more on the objectives and goals, that in my opinion is what really matters.

There were a lot of simple questions that were answered by asking the individual to refer to their program 

officer. Maybe there should be someone present in the technical assistance zoom meeting that can 

answer these types of questions.

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

NASNTI - 2022 - 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.

Communication was good from the program officer. No other suggestions at this time.

Clear consistent communication was essential, and I appreciated the timeliness. I'd rather hear 

"we are working on it" rather than silence.

The program was given timely direction and there were no issues with technical assistance.

The communication and technical assistance received were sufficient.

It would be helpful to have the opportunity to have more peer-to-peer information sharing among 

grantees and consultative services (teleconferences, on-site meeting, video conferences). We 

were looking forward to the Title III directors meeting was cancelled due to the pandemic. Virtual 

gatherings of and presentations by successful NASNTI grantees on relevant topics would be 

particularly helpful and appreciated.

There really was no change in the technical assistance provided by my program specialist 

during the COVID-19 pandemic. Perhaps holding "office hours" on a regular basis would be 

helpful for Project Directors to know open times when we can get a hold of them. I often have 

trouble getting a hold of my program officer and he is slow to respond to my emails.

I don't think that the technical assistance I received was markedly affected by the 

pandemic._x000D_ Programs and activities were, but not as much as the technical assistance.

I think checking in and providing more information/ best practices for grantees.

Our program didn't experience many pandemic-related hiccups because of our focus on the 

remote/online experience. It actually placed in a more well-poised position to manage needs 

related to the pandemic. However, I received helpful communications from our program officer 

that offered expanded flexibility for approaching objectives within the scope of the project, so I 

felt that the support received was beneficial.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 594

NASNTI - 2022 - Q19.5. What can the NASNTI do to improve communication with you?

Quarterly ZOOM meetings and an annual in-person meeting with other grantees would be 

helpful.

I am very satisfied with the quality of communication.

The communication is good. The only improvement I want to see is an earlier award notification.

Earlier notification on grant awards would be greatly appreciated.

Have regularly schedule "office hours" that we can reach out to the program officer and know he 

will be available.

I never had problems not getting the critical information I needed. When I started in this position 

I received more frequent and robust information or assistance. Now the communication is not as 

frequent, but still, I receive all information and clarification I need. _x000D_ Since the COVID 

protocols and safeguards are not as rigid as in the past, I would suggest creating more 

opportunities to bring NASNTI program directors together for learning and sharing opportunities.

more resources for planning and best practices. Resources that are written in ways that are 

familiar and easier to understand.

I am satisfied with communication and feel well-supported.

NASNTI - 2022 - Q19.6e. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with your 

program specialist?

Zoom / WebEx

I am good with the distribution blasts, when individual email isn't necessary. I also appreciate 

the webinars.

NASNTI - 2022 - Q19.7. How would you advise on improving the overall process and 

protocols associated with this grant competition?

Don't have submission of the APR due at the same time as the grant proposal. Earlier 

notification of award.

I am very satisfied with the overall grant competition process.

I would like to see a more extended deadline and earlier award notification.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 595

The information webinar / call was very helpful. Scheduling it a little earlier after the RFP is 

issued would be helpful.

A webinar at the earliest possible date after a Notice is published to guide those writing the 

grants and to answer questions regarding the requirements.

To increase in number and quality of communication between the Education Department 

(NASNTI) and the awarded school leadership, including the President or Vice-President.

more information for directors and project staff about planning, timelines, budget, and working 

with departments and faculty at colleges and universities.

I think they were adequate-just wish the funding ceiling had been a bit higher like for past 

NASNTI opportunities. :)
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 596

Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Education Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Insert specific access to helpful links, such as Uniform Guidance with clear examples.

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).

Director letter explaining various reports and due dates, might be better served with separation of the 

different report due timelines. To post all in one letter is not as helpful. The letter serves its purpose, but 

could be upgraded.

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.

Update the g5 system. Often there is a need to submit reports via email, which is confusing at both 

levels, due to the g5 system not up-to-par.

Unable to access G5 for reporting purposes. Has been this way for 3.5 years. Appreciate being able to 

send forms to Project Monitor in place of using G5.

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.).

Keep providing TA as currently applied, and keep the same staff. Awesome leadership and guidance. 

Very much appreciated.

The technical assistance currently provided by [NAME] has been excellent. Her responsiveness, 

helpfulness, and professionalism exceed all expectations. She has coordinated a learning collaborative 

as well as checked in regularly through one-on-one meetings. I feel confident in being able to rely on her 

to answer my questions or assist me in attaining the official guidance I need._x000D_ _x000D_ The 

technical assistance previously provided by [NAME] was almost non-existent. I rarely heard from him. It 

often took multiple follow-ups to receive a response to my inquiries, and I often did not receive timely or 

clear guidance.

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role? (Other, please specify)
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 597

Director, CTE, Non-profit agency.

This is identifying information I'm not comfortable sharing, given the small number of NHCTEP grantees
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 598

Native Hawaiian Education Act Program/Education of Native Hawaiian

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

I haven't had a need to use the website.

The website is not intuitive nor user friendly. I find it cumbersome and difficult to use - especially the G5.

If notification of awards could be announced earlier than later. _x000D_ Whether it's a new grant award 

or notification for continuing to the next grant year 2 or 3, _x000D_ and No Cost extensions. It is hard to 

plan for the next grant year when you don't know if you will be given the next year award or what is the 

status of roll over money that was not spent during the current grant.

No suggestions here.

possibly make it more user friendly/intuitive.

Provide updates, such as funding and applicant information.

We are a 1st year grantee and NHEP has taken extra care to assist us in refining our logic model as well 

as given us guidance on how to request a budget modification. We are very grateful to [NAME] for her 

patience and time given to us as we navigate our programs, progress and achievements of our 

outcomes. This funding is changing lives. Mahalo [NAME] [NAME]

I found that information on the website was sometimes outdated. Keeping the website updated would be 

helpful.

The website is sufficient and provides enough accurate information.

I wasnÊ»t aware of this resource.

The website has a clean design and easy to navigate. I feel it is very user friendly.

I can't think of anything at this point in time. I have been able to find information I was looking for or have 

been able to contact someone to assist me.

The NHEP website is designed to provide relevant information to a number of people and programs 

including awardees. However, the challenge. like many other websites, including ours, is to make is 

make it easy to navigate and that is the issue. The website could be improved by making the content 

headings easier to understand and having a sidebar that allows you to see where you currently are. 

navigation is the biggest challenge so make it easier to find the most searched for info.

I don't really have any good suggestions
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 599

The support staff at the NHEP office are FANTASTIC. This is our first time receiving an NHEP grant and 

as novice applicants, the staff has helped us navigate new territory with ease. They are responsive and 

helpful. The webinars have also been great. I wish all grant programs operated this way.

I find the NHEP staff to be extremely caring and helpful - including with problem solving issues

The website works, but as an individual I like to talk to a person. That is my preference and so I always 

try to reach out to my grant officer.

As a new recipient, I wouldn't mind a little training of what is important and where to find it all. To be fair, 

I was hired onto the grant after it was already awarded so playing catch up and not seeing the work from 

its inception through the end is rather challenging.

no suggestions

Update the site regularly to provide timeline for grantees (i.e. when APR template will be released, due 

date of APR, deadlines for meeting target budget spenddown, final reports due, etc.).

Not sure specifically what to suggest. When learning a departmentÊ»s terminology and processes, it can 

be overwhelming and confusing, not only when trying to find information on a website, but when trying to 

figure out what things mean that have been downloaded or printed from there.

Navigation is difficult on the website. It is difficult to find grant resources and to answer questions using 

the site.

perhaps just being able to see in a tab a program, and then it goes a walkthrough of the requirements or 

updates that we need for directors

Updated look, I would prefer if reporting and website were combined. Info for grants etc are on one site 

but grant reporting on another platform. It is cumbersome.

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).

This too could be improved and be less wordy and organized in a reader friendly way.

Logic model was introduced for our grant application, but the format was not specified in the application 

process. We later had to modify our logic model to meet the format required by the NHEP. The 

modifications meant we had to collect new data to specify baseline and targets for improvement. The 

NHEP staff were patient with us. But it would have been helpful if the application was more specific so 

that modifications were not needed after the award.

At this time, we are satisfied with the quality and usefulness of the documents.

Federal documents are always difficult to read and understand.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 600

No comment on improvements.

None. Maybe more communication.

I feel the documents are straightforward and very useful for our program. We appreciate the constant 

updates via newsletters and email blasts.

Nothing to add at this time.

There's a lot on important information that needs to be dispersed. An improvement would be to have a 

regular monthly info site that would easily disperse information to groups identifioed through a dropdown 

menu.

I don't have any suggestions for improvements.

Keep up the great work.

I honestly just haven't received many documents and the ones that exist I was told were in the process of 

being revamped.

no suggestions

In regards to the email blast regarding research of NHEP [DATE_TIME] grantees by AIR, it failed to 

address the intent of the study and how our data will be used and shared. While the presentation 

addressed these concerns, it would be good to know that NHEP is sensitive to indigenous data 

governance issues, which include secondary use of data and protecting indigenous rights and interests in 

indigenous data.

The forms we need to use for reporting have not been provided and itÊ»s been confusing trying to 

understand the process and timeline of all the moving parts.

n/a

Very helpful as is.

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.

The G5 is not user friendly at all.

The MAX Survey was an easier annual on-line process that the G5 one we have been using _x000D_ for 

as long as I remember.

Targets should change after each year to reflect progress, or lack thereof. The current APR form doesn't 

consider the pace of change over the three year funding period.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 601

Appreciated the guidance on how to use the online system, such as saving, as each response is 

completed. Would prefer reviewing each section of report versus having to complete each section first to 

enable the "next"button.

I understand that the department does not want to be prescriptive, however if logic models will now be a 

required portion of the grant, a few acceptable examples would be helpful.

You should host an annual conference for all grantees to share lessons learned, successes, challenges 

overcome to the benefit of new programs.

As a first year grantee, it was unclear when the annual report was due. At our award meeting, they said 

"about [DATE_TIME]," but we were recently given a date, which is very helpful. I don't know how to 

submit the report, but am looking forward to the training.

No areas of concern or comments.

The G5 website is not that intuitive. The reporting process and submission on this site can be improved 

to make it more user friendly.

Reports are the biggest challenge of all grants. Providing a template that easily breaks down the 

reporting requirements with examples would be great.

In some of the boxes, you couldn't see the full answers. So expanding those response options to include 

more characters would be helpful

I look forward to the training webinar on the new APR website.

In the past, a zero was not accepted, which means that I could not move on in my grant report. I have 

never ran into that issue again, but just making sure all internal functions make sense.

We haven't submitted 1st report yet so many of the questions were NA at this time.

I will be attending a one-on-one so I'm hopeful that this will be helpful and then my ratings might change.

no suggestions

None. The shortened APR template in [DATE_TIME] was very efficient to program staff's time and effort 

to complete the report.

Provide a detailed look at the year-long process from the beginning of the award year, and provide the 

actual forms we need to use (or provide more specific information on reporting) from the get go.

updated years of the annual report template

Can we return to the old grant reporting platform?

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 of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 602

Frequently asked questions and webinars have been the most useful to my grant team.

I haven't seen TA that improves the project manager's skills, or that assists in the development of 

resource materials or provides opportunity for learning groups.

have not had to use TA very much.

No comments

I had a great zoom meeting with tech support and have no issues. However, tech is always evolving so 

it's important to stay on the frontline of how to support awardees.

Because I am on an odd funding cycle it is sometimes hard to interpret what dates are for us and what 

applies versus what is for the more traditional cycle of funds. Also there were resources shared, such as 

support for the logic model, but then the contract person wasn't able to provide feedback and meet and 

kept canceling. So that wasn't helpful and created a little bit of anxiety. I'm sure it was extenuating 

circumstances, but maybe having two options in the future for "help and feedback" could be useful.

an in-person technical assistance meeting would be greatly appreciated. Online forum/trainings are hard 

and do not allow the necessary time needed to get all the answers.

We haven't really received tech assistance.

no suggestions

We have not reached out to staff very often to engage in capacity building, but Department staff has been 

very helpful during one-on-one meetings in providing guidance on project management. Guidance on the 

logic model refinement was very helpful and produced a better logic model that informed project 

evaluation.

Again just a better idea of what the arc of a grant year is so we know what we will need when and what to 

even ask for assistance with if weÊ»re not sure.

Creating opportunities to meet and network with other NHEP grant recipients would be a benefit. There is 

commonality in our work and providing opportunity for all grantees to come together as a cohort and 

learn would be of value. The networking, camaraderie and collaboration may extend beyond the duration 

of this grant cycle.

n/a

I'm looking forward to in-person meetings.

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that provided 

technical services to you.

I can't remember but it was regarding recovering a password or some other trouble I was having. The 

person was extremely polite.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 603

Native Hawaiian Education Program

NHEC

I communicated with NHEP tech staff

I was supposed to receive Logic Model Support - and then just the technical assistant calls for the 

different requirements

[NAME]

Youth for Youth

The Native Hawaiian Education Council hired technical assistance services for the grantees.

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role? (Other, please specify)

PI & Coordinator for grant

Nonprofit Officer

Project Manager

Program Director

Program Director

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

NHE - 2022 - Q62.4. Do you feel the frequency of technical assistance provided by NHE 

staff is sufficient for supporting the implementation of your grant? Why or why not

The people are great. The G5 and website is lacking.

We haven't needed technical assistance since we have been working on a number of NHEP 

grants through out many years.

Yes, the TA provided to launch a grant, and complete APRs have been helpful. We might need 

something similar to "close" a grant and complete the final report.

yes, offers good frequency of check-ins to address questions, issues, etc.

Yes. More so, because NHEP staff is very responsive to emails.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 604

I have 2 grants currently running for the first one yes, and for the second less so.

Yes, we are just starting up, so we don't need assistance. I look forward to the annual report 

technical assistance. That could have come a little earlier for me.

Assistance provided is sufficient. We receive regular and timely communication and reminders 

from NHE.

Yes, NHE staff have been very responsive and helpful. I have appreciated the time they've 

allowed for personal meetings to discuss our project.

Yes.

Yes, I do feel that the frequency of technical assistance is sufficient. And the staff is very 

responsive to my questions.

I feel it is sufficient and timely.

Yes I feel it is sufficient, although better understanding how they feel about our program and if 

we are on track on a more regular basis might be helpful.

The technical assistance has been incredibly helpful. I especially appreciated the guidance with 

our logic model.

Yes. It's purposeful and timely.

Yes. Informed of major requirements ok.

No. This may be because I'm new in this world of federal grants so I feel overwhelmed by what 

I need to submit and can't find solid answers on due dates. Or at least, couldn't find them until 

the time to submit them came closer but that makes me nervous to not know at the start of the 

grant.

NHE staff is readily available via email or phone so that customized technical assistance can be 

provided.

It feels very disjointed, to be honest. Not sure if thatÊ»s fair, but the grants are large and we 

thought there may be a closer and ongoing working relationship as a result. Perhaps this is the 

norm, and after the first year, weÊ»ll be pros and know what to do and when.

Yes, questions and needs are address in a timely manner.

yes, to answer any confusion, although sometimes we feel that we donÊ»t know the questions 

to ask because we donÊ»t know what else more we need to think of pertaining to the 

requirements of the grant

Yes, they have been super helpful and responsive to my many questions and concerns!

Yes, I would like more but am aware and encouraged by [NAME] to reach at any time.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 605

NHE - 2022 - Q62.6f. Which form of technical assistance do you find most helpful?

phone conversations

NHE - 2022 - Q62.7. What technical assistant topics can the NHE program provide to 

support the implementation of your grant projects more effectively?

I can't think of any at the moment

Logic Model requirements_x000D_ Successful teacher recruitment and maintenance strategies 

in "hard to serve areas", rural districts, etc. We experience high teacher turnover._x000D_ 

Would like to have opportunities for peer sharing among other NHEP grantees.

G5 and Budget

Its all good.

Annual Performance Reporting preparation

What is in place is excellent. I can't think of anything else.

regular meetings

I look forward to the APR training webinar.

I would like to learn big picture, and also to collaborate with other grantees. Is there opportunity 

to learn from other grant projects?

Grant Maintenance, Evaluation, reporting expectations, review of time and effort

I think they already exist but Grant Writing, Report Writing.

Re-budgeting carryover funds.

A look at the grant year for first-time grantees_x000D_ Reporting forms youÊ»ll need, when 

theyÊ»re due, and how you submit them_x000D_ What steps youÊ»ll need to take to request 

monies / interaction of G5 with NHEP

Navigation of the OES website and grant portal

n/a
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 606

Information training sessions for report requirements and new grant opportunities.

Grant management, evaluation from qualitative data perspective
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 607

Neglected and Delinquent State and Local Agency Programs

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Make it more user friendly. Have more up-to-date content available. Make sure items are up-to-date for 

people who use the "search" feature on the website.

Please work to get the definitions for neglected and delinquent updated so LEAs are more easily able to 

understand the difference between the two.

There needs to be updated material that doesn't come from NDTAC. Longevity is HORRIBLE.

Great legal mumbo jumbo for those who are looking just to read statute, but it lacks the need to know in 

regards to specific look fors and examples to truly help states create and build programs

Please update the non-regulatory guidance, provide annual training by ED staff on the CSPR data 

collection, and provide training on the upcoming CSPR data collection changes (sooner rather than later, 

States start to collect that information over the summer when the program year ends) on the new 

requirements, what they mean and how ED and congress will use that data (along with all of the other 

questions in the CSPR).

Font is too small, and there are too many words on the landing page.

N/A

There is so much content and resources it is sometimes hard to always know what is available and what 

is needed. Having a robust and effective search engine and some standardized organizational structures 

would be helpful.

I find the website easy to navigate.

Make it easier to navigate and locate information on the website.

If it were more searchable and had more relevant and current documents.

The Department could expand more information for Juvenile facilities to include more needs 

assessments, topic briefs, and data collection suggestions.

One recommendation would be to make the website more user-friendly so that information is easy to 

obtain; perhaps a training on how to navigate the website for those that are new to their positions and are 

not familiar with it.

Remove any outdated information._x000D_ Improve searchability (using keywords) for specific topics

no suggestions
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 608

N/A

The most difficult part of overseeing Title I, Part D is how individualized each program is. I would love to 

see highlights of how other states oversee this programming and what their ground level facilities look 

like. I especially think it can be confusing the difference between oversight for Subpart 1/ Subpart 2

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).

The training guide - A Guide to Meeting Compliance Requirements is 10+ years old and NOT user 

friendly.

We have only received Child count information and fiscal updates but no real updates to Title I, Part D.

There has actually been very little/few new guidance or policy-related documents - much of the guidance 

is very old.

It would be helpful to know how the neglected and delinquent feed into Title I. There is is a column for 

Delinquent within the Census data file for the State, but there are never any delinquent numbers.

Non-regulatory guidance is so old and needs to be updated

When you are brand new, old information is not helpful.

Documents are archaic and many need to be rewritten as they are confusing and make the job of truly 

understanding TIPD ridiculously difficult

More information and updated guidance would be helpful._x000D_ _x000D_ Information the teams send 

is helpful and appreciated. But it seems like TIPD staff are often the last to know information which 

therefore makes sharing information with States less timely than it could be. Also, TIPD staff should be 

working with program coordinators on the CSPR data collection requirements and ensuring program staff 

understand the data collections.

Annual Survey is very small font, too many words, and a little confusing. Non-Regulatory guidance is 

fantastic, but VERY outdated. I've not received any newsletters.

N/A

Updated non-regulatory guidance for Title I, Part D would be helpful.

The non-regulatory guidance needs to be updated.

Focus more on the direct implications of policy on our programs.

More information that can be shared with the facilities to improve their programs.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 609

I have not received any policy related documents, or FAQs or updated guidance. My comments were 

specifically to the listserve type of email blasts I've received. In terms of messaging, clarity, organization, 

etc. they're fine; they're just not particularly useful to me or my stakeholders. But I'm sure they're great for 

others.

non-regulatory guidance needs to be updated

Non-regulatory guidance, etc needs to be updated. It is very dated.

Documents provided are not up-to-date in relevant issues concerning the environment we are in.

Overall the guidance is good.

I would like to receive CSPR questions directly. I have to survey grantees for the information and 

someone else at the Department gets the questions.

Would love to have an updated non-regulatory guidance document.

N/A

I have not used many of these documents and have a difficult time connecting them to our needs as a 

state. As a new coordinator, the "New Coordinators' Preconference Session" PWPT from [DATE_TIME] 

and the NDTAC small group sessions have been most helpful for getting a general sense of what the 

program is.

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.

In my role I serve as two state coordinators. My non-N&D role I had the opportunity to attend multiple 

information sessions about EDFacts and CSPR submissions and TA was always available via email or 

phone. I believe the N&D group provided a couple information sessions and when contacted for 

assistance it took forever to receive a response.

It is difficult to collect data 90 days after a youth leaves a facility.

The data we are asked to provide really isn't useful in any measurable way.

There is a very short turn around time between when the LEAs have data reported to the State and when 

we have to report the info the US Ed.

Since I am not the one who currently submits our state's data - but I oversee the grantees for our state it 

would be nice to have more information on that process and other aspects on how to provide more or 

better Technical assistance to my grantees from [NAME] based on the data reported or other aspects of 

the Title I, Part D requirements.

Additional work is needed in this area, especially with the new requirements about to come online. States 

need a clear understanding of them, and soon, as programs will need to be aware of them at the start of 

the school year. _x000D_ _x000D_ While ED staff has counted on TA staff to provide this training in the 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 610

past, it would be helpful to hear directly from ED staff on this topic, as [NAME] presented on funding 

during last year's conference, it was very helpful. _x000D_ _x000D_ See previous comments for 

additional information.

CSPR is the least favorite aspect of the job. No training is given on what it is...I know that the data are 

used to make sure the facilities are improving and serving students, but what if they aren't? Is funding 

actually pulled? No training on EdFacts either. I would like intensive training on why we collect this 

mountain of data, how the data are used, and the complete process from collection to analysis.

N/A

The recent public comment period for CSPR/EdFacts data collection was helpful. More understanding of 

what the Department does with the data to improve overall grant functions would be helpful.

No recommendations.

Make it make sense.

Changes in what is being reported to include more details on subgroups, more data in changes in 

programmatic levels due to the facility and numbers of certifications issues and in what area.

Data is very hard with this program. I'd love to see different metrics that are more actionable.

The reason for the N/A answer, is because I do not fill out the report, I only provide the information to the 

State person who fills the CSPR.

The reporting process (overall) is pretty good.

I would like to receive CSPR questions directly.

We would love to hear how the data is used.

N/A

This process is very unclear to me and I think more individualized help sessions on how to do this and 

what the categories mean for new coordinators would be helpful. Thank goodness our state contact has 

been so wonderful to work with and patient with all 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.).

In my role I serve as two state coordinators. My non-N&D role I hear from my TA group weekly with a 

quick check-in and have the option of monthly trainings for best practices, relevant topics, etc. and 

monthly refresher meetings re: policies, procedures, etc. Other than attending a new coordinator meeting 

(I have been in the position almost a year) I rarely hear from N&D TA group. When I have contacted via 

phone or email to ask questions I have always received a slow response time. When I have asked 

questions more often than not I have received the answer of "I don't know, I'll get back to you" - and the 

response time is again slow.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 611

Little contact has been made with Department staff this past year other than the annual conference.

We have not really had any significant technical assistance from department staff.

Having a portal so that I know I am getting the latest information/communication about updates.

I haven't received much directly from US [NAME]. Most comes through NDTAC.

Comprehensive training for new coordinators - something that looks like an actual walk through to help 

new coordinators interact with the information to actually understand TIPD and how it functions.

I know this is a small grant program, that also faces staff turnover challenges like the field, but it would be 

helpful to hear from ED staff more often. Their knowledge and expertise is always appreciated.

N/A

Department staff have always been helpful when we have reached out for technical assistance in 

clarifying questions and even proactive with support in some instances. Making connections with other 

grants and efficiencies we can implement would be helpful.

No recommendations.

Staffing changes make a difference in knowledge in the program and the ability to respond during 

webinars - years on the job definitely impact their ability to provide immediate technical assistanc.

Need more resources to share with LEAs

We need additional opportunities for collaboration with other states. The new NDTAC is not working well.

Resources and other training materials that we are able to provide to sub grantees for training; 

infographics, and other visuals for content delivery.

The TA sessions have been pretty good overall. However, our discussions (in our CoP) that follow the 

TAs are beneficial to those fairly new to the program.

I have asked a few questions. Most of the time it takes a couple of weeks to get a response. I don't 

recall that USED has been involved in any technical assistance other than answering my questions sent 

by email.

N/A

I would love more structured programming around best practices and more training on the data 

collection/ oversight process. Some of this was covered at the national conference, which is great but 

more on this would be lovely.

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that provided 

technical services to you.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 612

Neglected or Delinquent Education Technical Assistance Center

NDTAC - Longevity Consulting

NDTAC

NDTAC

NDTAC

an onboarding webinar

NDTAC

Neglected or Delinquent

Longevity/NDTAC

NDTAC

NDTAC

NDTAC

NDTAC

NDTAC

NDTAC

NDTAC

NDTACT

NDTAC

NDTAC

NDTAC

NDTAC- Longevity

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 613

ndtac

NDTAC

N/A

NDTAC

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role? (Other, please specify)

State Coordinator

Title I Education Consultant

Payments for Federal Property (Section 7002)

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

n/a

No recommendations at this time.

Districts need to be informed via email when payment vouchers will be distributed. We have encountered 

situations where the communication in the system to our district was unclear.

all good

No input at this time.

The little blue arrow is difficult to know that is how you select an item.

Our District thinks that the website is fantastic. It is organized, easy to use, and has a lot of helpful 

information. We don't have any improvement suggestions.

It's not easy to determine how to file an application. Once I figure it out each year, the application area 

doesn't seem to be distinguished from the rest of the website so it's always a bit confusing and I wonder if 

I'm in the right area.

I think it's adequate as is. IF changes are made, we, the users, need to have easy access to tech/help 

support. Links on each page for help would be great.

I would like to get an email notification when a payment has been made.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 614

The website could be more user friendly, It takes several clicks/screens to get to your open application, 

the current application needs to be easier to find and navigate to.

I have no concerns.

Na

Nothing at this time. My issues may have been on my part._x000D_ Thank you.

Streamline, make it more user friendly. Very confusing right now

I think the website is easy to find resources and other information.

From my it provides all the information I need. [NAME] has always been extremely responsive.

There are specific areas that are highly visited like the "impact aid payment" data that might need to be 

identified in its own link.

N/A

I only use the grant portal piece of it, and it's not easy to navigate. I have to click multiple places each 

year when I do our grant to find things.

No suggestions.

The more I work in it the better I like it.

NA

It is very clunky. Difficult to navigate in arrows/back buttons are either not present or very visible. Difficult 

to indicate where I am on the site mapping on the website. Am I inside the appliction? Am I on my 

homepage? 7002 page? 7003 page?

I think the website is very easy to navigate and no changes are needed.

Always having to change the password frequently is frustrating.

Have never had a problem with it.

You need to go back and forth to find results. Also the results could be listed by year not by sections 

([IP_ADDRESS]).

It's difficult to go between screens. I wish there was a straight path from beginning to end without having 

to go from one screen to another. I will say however, that it has improved as compared to previous 

years.

No feedback on the website.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 615

If your district is not filing a 7003, don't make it available on your district page. Its confusing.

Post recordings of webinars for future reference. Thank you.

Like all websites, continue to keep it updated with information that is relevant to the individual viewing the 

site. In my case, education.

I think for many people that do not work in this system all the time (once a year) it seems a little clunky. 

Not sure how it could improve though

I have had a problem search for and navigating the site.

I was unable to reach anyone to answer my question and I have requested a re-set password 

link/directions and cannot get a response. Therefore I am unable to access the site. The number for my 

specific contact person is no longer in service. No one is answering the main line.

No comment

NA

Clearer differentiation between grant programs would make navigation easier.

Traffic is often difficult and it slows down the data entry

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).

n/a

No recommendations at this time.

I don't see any need for improvements.

all good

No input at this time.

Our District feels that the quality and usefulness of the documents were superb and there are no 

improvements needed.

I have no concerns.

They were fine.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 616

I do not have any suggestions for improvement.

Most of the information I review is from NAFIS rather than the US DOE

I'm not sure. I just don't feel like I really understand Impact Aid. We have national forest in our school 

district, which is why we apply for funds. I would love to know how to increase that value over time so 

that we could potentially get more funding, and I don't know where to even start.

NA

Sometimes I am so overwelled with trying to meet deadlines, I find all the emails some what 

overwhelming.

Difficult to understand ins and outs and navigate step by step information from the ocmmunication I've 

received. It was my 2nd year doing the grant and I feel like I am just "making it up" and going from one 

item to the next with no clear direction via the website, application software, or help documents.

All the documents are fine.

The documents are pretty easy to understand

Have never had a problem with them.

I don't recall receiving documents. Only logging onto the website.

TMI!! Just send what I need and not all sorts of other stuff. I'm overwhelmed with paperwork/computer 

work.

Thank you.

I appreciate the non-regulartory guidance provided. Documents pertaining to policy updates have been 

beneficial.

No comment

When I do have questions, I would just like to be able to call and normally get to a customer service 

person asap. When I do get to a representative, they are very helpful and answer my question.

The information is broad and expansive. Sometimes it can feel overwhelming.

No suggestions.

make downloaded pdf

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role? (Other, please specify)
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 617

Secretary

Finance Director

Accounting Manager

Federal Programs Director

Building Secretary

Impact Aid Consultant

District Representative for Impact Aid. Retired Business Administrator

Admin Assistant/ Impact Aid Coordinator

Bookkeeper

Accountant

Director of Accounting

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

PFP - 2022 - Q57.5. Please explain.

Nothing I heard was different from what I had already read or experienced but it may have been 

helpful to someone who was new.

PFP - 2022 - Q57.6. What additional communications would you like to receive regarding 

the status of your application, prior to receiving a payment?

n/a

None at this time.

I contact the Department of Education Impact Aid office directly for application status / updates 

as needed._x000D_ _x000D_ [NAME] is our program analyst, and he does an outstanding job 

in communicating with me about any questions regarding Impact Aid applications / changes.

Confirmation that you've received the application and nothing additional is needed.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 618

Email saying application has been accepted. We get an email saying it was received, but would 

like to know once it has been processed, as well.

[NAME] is a rock start

None at this time.

I don't think we should have to provide the same info year after year if there are no changes 

(acreage in district, for example)

An opportunity for review by program analyst before submission would be helpful.

The confirmation emails are adequate.

None

Things were fine.

Emails

I would like to see more information regarding the 10% that is held back each year so we know 

if we will be receiving it and if so, when we might receive it. Also better communication directly 

to the districts, especially regarding payments, rather than expecting us to go pick up info from 

the website. There aren't that many of us in [ADDRESS]- not sure about [ADDRESS]- but the 

vouchers used to be emailed to us when payment was initiated.

I emailed to ask about our grant earlier in the year and did not receive a reply.

NA

I like the way the system works

None

No additional communication is needed.

I also appreciate the information we receive regarding what is happening at the federal level 

with Impact Aid.

Just notification of when and how much is coming.

Communication is fine.

It would be nice to have notice of the amount we will be receiving and the date we can expect 

payment.

thank you for your time
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 619

Post recordings of webinars for future reference.

An email to keep us posted as to where our application is in the process would be very helpful.

I would like to have access to the website and to my contact person.

just confirmation that the application was received.

No comment

I would like a direct email confirmation if possible. I think this used to happen up until a few 

years ago.

A confirmation email when all current year documents are submitted and timeline for when next 

tasks will be due.

I work with our local rep here in [ADDRESS]

PFP - 2022 - Q57.7. Please provide any additional specific suggestions for how the 

Impact Aid Program can improve customer service.

n/a

None at this time.

None

A well defined link accessible throughout the application that can be used to get help.

I would like to get an email notification when a payment has been made.

NOne

Nothing to add at this time.

Any time I have reached out to the Impact Aid staff, they respond quickly and professionally.

I am getting the information I need via multiple sources.

Answer emails in a timely manner. Send information that is specific to different entities (e.g., 

schools).

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 620

I am satisfied

Why do I only get survey's on the Section 7002, I would really like one on Section 7003

Customer service is excellent.

NA

We have only a couple of times needed assistance with filing our application. We emailed our 

contact and received a quick response. Years ago, we need help with an issue and [NAME] 

was very helpful and also provided a quick response. I have no issues with our communications 

with them. Everyone was very quick to respond, professional and knowledgeable.

As the deadline approaches, please have C.S. beyond business hours.

for 7002, I feel things are good.

No comment

No suggestions.

I have none

You've always been extremely responsive and helpful!

PFP - 2022 - Q57.8. What improvements would you like to see to the Impact Aid Grant 

System (IAGS)?

n/a

Nothing at this time.

None

easier to use website

Understandable that the application needs to meet the needs of many but the less the 

application is constantly changed, the better. I think it's critical the order in which we must 

"invite" users is stressed so all of the application is available to everyone who needs access. 

The most recent directions did a better job of communicating that. Maybe also something 

stating the sequence of what we may need to do prior to actually starting the application in bold, 

obvious print near the "start" button would be good.

I would like to get an email notification when a payment has been made.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 621

creating a new log in every year is a pain, communication through the website can be diffcult 

because communication from all past years are all listed together, when working on current 

application it takes way to many screens to get to the data entry portion.

None

I can't think of anything right now.

Easier navigation...it is a bit wonky.

I would like to see it be more user-friendly and easier to navigate.

NA

If the Fed gov't overpaid, better instructions on how to return the funds.

No changes are needed.

Not require password changes so frequently

Have no complaints. My only issue with them was from many years ago when they penalized 

the District 10% for a late submission. Think that is a little harsh. Our payment was late 

because the submission date had been changed from the prior year and I was a "newbie," so 

our District paid the price.

Overall I'm pretty satisfied.

Everyone is doing a great job.

I would like to be able to access the site and my contact person.

no comment

No suggestions.

I cannot think of any at this time
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 622

Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 7003)

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

I think the website is easy to access.

The website is functional. Sometimes some of the data included like our federally impacted locations (low 

income housing locations etc.) seems as though it is not fully current, but other than that. I am able to 

navigate things fine.

N/A

Unburying access from the tabs would be helpful, for example, making access directly to payment 

information directly from the home screen.

I'm not sure because I'm not very "techy", but I do sometimes have trouble knowing where to go. It has 

improved dramatically, though.

Try and provide more user friendly resources. Simply putting the direct law is not always helpful, there is 

so much information to get through to find an answer.

Appreciate the fact that there is more material that we are able to look at for questions.

It would help to have a print option on the allocation page. Thank you.

I have always received satisfactory assistance when I needed help in navigating the website. I believe it 

is efficient and provides ease of use, especially when submitting applications. I also appreciate the quick 

responses from my analysts when I need help. Thank you.

Make sure the links that you need to click are easily accessible. Also, define the difference in the different 

forms. It was hard for me to go back to the application I had started working on previously.

None needed

I'm just not a fan of how it is setup. I feel like everything could flow a lot better.

Get rid of old links

We have no problems with the website.

Can't think of anything.

The website could be more intuitive once logged into the secure program.

No additional feedback at this time.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 623

overall, I am very pleased with the information provided on the website. However, my problem is getting 

connected with the right person when assist in navigating the website to complete our application.

The most challenge that I encountered is when I am trying to find out if there are or would be a program 

for Covid relief and I could not find something related to my specific case. Or when I have a specific 

question to our district and I end up calling or emailing our official because I cannot find it on the 

webpage.

More focused on User Interface to find answers to questions.

NA

na

I would like to be able to print the payment forms like I did with the old system.

I am new in my position as Business Technician, so I am trying to figure out what Impact Aids are and 

filing the application. So, I have been trying to get into the website and exploring to get a better 

understanding.

I found it difficult to naviagate clearly when entering information not listed from previous year. I was able 

to, eventually.

The website functions well for our purposes and I do not know of any improvements offhand.

Clearer headings/groupings of information, how information is organized

I do not have any recommendations. It provides a lot of good information.

No suggestions.

More training opportunities

The payment information is great on the Grant System. Easy to find and understand. So glad the 

special ed portion is separated.

n/a

Having a more laid out and clear bar that allows you to find topics in relation to pieces of the application.

I am not sure. It just seems like navigation is not intuitive on the website.

I don't have any suggestions, as I am entirely pleased.

The website is fine. Within the grant system, however, it would be nice to be able to print the vouchers in 

the format we received them in prior years.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 624

N/A

Approval flow chart

Clearer explanations of how payments are calculated

Don't know

I find the Department of Education website user friendly.

the website contains excellent information

The only trouble we have is actually finding our grant. There are several steps we have to go through and 

having to trace those steps each time is often confusing. Other than that, everything is great.

I'm new to Impact Aid, so I haven't had the opportunity to really study it and see how to improve.

I feel that it can be more user friendly. The current website is a bit antiquated and slow.

No additional feedback at this time

The amount of information on each screen is confusing and makes it difficult to find information quickly. 

Placing a box around related information might help.

N/A

NA

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).

No comment.

N/A

The FAQs are by far the most helpful resource. They are written in understandable terms and often 

match the same questions we have regarding the programs.

We are a smaller school district and have not qualified for the past 2 years. Is there a way to find out 

even beforehand that we don't qualify and shouldn't have to fill everything out?

It would be great if there were allocation notices that could be emailed out each fiscal year so that we 

know how much to budget.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 625

They are now more easily accessible than as in the past.

None needed

Hard to do, but many of us don't use all programs within the IA system. Targeting those schools with 

only the information they need, so we are not overloaded with info we do not need.

We have no problems with any of the documents.

No additional input at this time.

Very pleased with responses and documents we receive from IA.

NA

letters in the emails

I am new to my position so I am learning as I go with the Impact Aid.

For us, I cannot think of any improvements to the documents.

I feel the information is presented well and when I have had questions about something the staff have 

been very helpful to clarify it.

None

I would like to be able to access blank source check forms directly on the Impact Aid Program Webpage.

n/a

Not sure

N/A

It would be great to have more guidance on how to increase our revenue and better target the right 

populations that will generate more funding.

Don't know

No comment.

the documents are very good

The documents that are unclear, when we contact our specialists, they always work wonders in finding 

the answers to meet our needs and make us understand how we can fix areas of concern.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 626

No additional feedback at this time.

N/A

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role? (Other, please specify)

District Director (40 schools)

Business Service Specialist

Finance Secretary

Budget Department

District Secretary

Assistant Superintendent

Secretary

School Director

Administrative Assistant

School Improvement Specialist

Data Entry

Administrator

CFO

School Consultant

Assistant Superintendent

District Administrator

Grant Writer/Curriculum Generalist

Compliance Officer

Federl Projects Director for District
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 627

Director of Federal Programs

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

FCC - 2022 - Q38.8. Please explain.

Did not understand what the cover letter was.

I needed further assistance

Was very vague and need to call and ask for assistance and clarifying questions.

FCC - 2022 - Q38.10. Please explain.

I have not received information regarding my submission of new data.

No field review

[NAME]

We did not have a review. In the past, the review process was cumbersome and the employee 

did not have a good handle on the process themselves.

We were not reviewed

Been a month since I submitted.

Our school had a 'paper' review. I received an email stating that the review was completed and 

determination available, but could never find the 'determination' on the web site. I have looked a 

couple times and figure that if there is a problem I will be contacted.

Found info on the website

Haven't heard back yet. Not sure what the time frame should be.

Have not been contacted about a field review.

I have not received the feedback on my review.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 628

Did not have a field audit.

Our last review was for the [DATE_TIME] Impact Aid Application.

I am not part of the team that completes the Impact Aid Application.

We were already working on the next application before finding out the results of the prior year 

so we couldn't implement any lessons learned because we didn't have results.

no review

I have not heard results from my review this year.

We have not received a response yet but the review data was only submitted two weeks ago.

FCC - 2022 - Q38.13. Please provide any additional specific suggestions for how the 

Impact Aid Program can improve customer service.

I do have to say that my excellent customer service experience really relates to the relationship 

with my key contact point, [NAME], who I have worked with for several years. He is always 

accessible (even sometimes into the evening) if I need support. He is prompt in getting back to 

me via email even when close to submission deadlines. I am grateful for that support.

I was advised to contact my local base and produce a Source Check Form. What an awesome 

method ! Everyone at the Washington DC office and JBLM office have been wonderful to work 

with. I received an extension of the deadline because of technical issues we had and without it 

would not have made the original deadline. Without them, we would not have come close to the 

number of qualified students. I plan to meet with my JBLM contact to discuss next year and 

how we can make it easier for both of us. I will do a Source Check Form from now on.

N/A

I find it very difficult to get a timely response unless I contact their leadership

N/A

None needed

Impact Aid is an important program that for some schools is imperative if they plan to keep their 

doors open. When doing trainings, there needs to be a consistent expectation between the IA 

program and its participants as to what is acceptable and what is not in the application process. 

And this advice needs to be consistent across the Dept. of Ed IA program employees. So all 

are giving the same advice.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 629

When we received our review it was a bit confusing but at the NAFIS conference we were able 

to meet with our specialist. She was great and was able to make the process and needed 

document easier. Had I not gone to NAFIS; I would have reached out via email/call.

Sometimes difficult to reach person by phone and usually a long response time for emails.

Increased clarity/consistency with timing/scheduling of payments. _x000D_ Staff are often in the 

dark regarding this and are not able to be helpful because they themselves lack clarity on 

timing.

I would help if more webinars were recorded

Everyone that we have been in contact with were very knowledgeable and very helpful with the 

process in completing the application and notice when there is a payment that needs attention.

No suggestions.

Not sure it is a practical expectation but I, at times, have had great difficulty in getting responses 

from our BIA office to certify our source checks. If the staff was allowed to mediate that 

process it would be very helpful. Also, the program has dropped my review doc in the "my 

tasks" portion and I have had to contact my review person several times to have it re-set.

The program is responsive and helpful.

Timely response when reaching out for questions/help on application.

Just want to say the staff is excellent. Each time I call and have questions the analysts are 

there to help and a joy to work with.

Return phone calls sooner.....

N/A

The staff went above and beyond to ensure that we completed submission on time and in 

assisting me and new staff members.

In prior years we used to collect significantly more money and while demographics have 

changed we still think there shouldn't be this much of a disparity. This could be better explained 

and tips should be provided to districts.

Not at this time

I think the Impact Aid program staff is very knowledgeable of the program and provides great 

service when needed.

I've had great response when I have emailed or called with questions

continue customer service at the current level
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 630

They are always so helpful and take on a wonderfull attitude of helpfulness and fix issues as 

quickly and professionally as possible. They are amazing to work with.

No additional feedback on customer service. The main improvement area would be the timing of 

payments to divisions as sometimes payments can come in from previous years that the division 

is not aware of but I don't if this is due to changes in the federal budget that are out of the 

Impact Aid office control.

FCC - 2022 - Q38.14. What additional communications would you like to receive regarding 

the status of your application, prior to receiving a payment?

I appreciate the emails sent when a payment is posted as it allows us to look for the pending 

payment when it hits our account rather then it just showing up. Thank you.

An email confirming my submission was accepted would be wonderful.

N/A

Updated payment timelines would be helpful. Even if they're estimates

If we know how many students qualify beforehand and we do not meet the required amount 

even before starting - do we still have to fill out the application?

allocation notices

I receive adequate communication.

None needed

We are a member of NAFIS and receive more information through that organization than we 

receive from the Dept. of Ed regarding our payments.

Any updates available.

Increased communication around expected timelines of payments.

the current media is satisfactory.

Let me know ahead of time if documents are needed or any information pertaining to how and 

when payments will be received.

I do get notices when payment is being received, which is very helpful.

None.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 631

NA

None

n/a

N/A

Balances owed and the calculation process

Not sure

None

none at this time

N/A

No additional feedback at this time

FCC - 2022 - Q38.15. What improvements would you like to see to the Impact Aid Grant 

System (IAGS)?

None that I can think of at this time.

None

n/a

I have had no issues with IAGS, so can't think of any improvements.

None needed

Less paperwork or less time for research and input of the data._x000D_ _x000D_ The amount 

of time involved to prepare data, over the past 5-10 years, is becoming very 

burdensome....more and more each year.

Retain staff, educate that staff and new employees consistently. Appreciate the efforts made so 

far in the regard.

N/A
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 632

No comment

Faster turn a round on payments

The website was a little complicated at first but now that I've been using it and in there 

researching around it's getting easier to find your way around.

I am getting to know the system, so I am new to it.

I cannot think of any improvements at this time.

The system has dropped the doc in "my tasks" multiple times and I have had to have it re-set. It

I appreciate the information and guidance provided.

None

n/a

Ability to print the pay vouchers.

N/A

n/a

Not sure

None, that I can think of.

the IAGS is user friendly

N/A

More user friendly

Timing of payments as provided comment on the previous question.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 633

Predominantly Black Institutions (PBI) Competitive

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

N/A

I feel the website is very good as it is currently. I'm able to smoothly navigate and find information.

No suggestions at this time.

Update site with current information througout.

Make it more interactive

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.

N/A

Clarify the relationship between the need for project data compared to institutional data.

Character limitations on some ares can be reduced in order to accommodate other sections that would 

provide pertinent information, such as the Executive Summary.

Maybe host a data summit or workshop on the data elements, the data source, and how the department 

uses the data.

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role? (Other, please specify)

Principal Investigator

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

PBI-C - 2022 - 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.

Department of Education gave full support to my institution and we are grateful.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 634

I feel thee technical assistance provided was adequate and allow us, as a provider, to meet the 

needs of the students we served.

None identified.

The technical assistance provided was appropriate. The pandemic did appear to affect the 

technical assistance.

PBI-C - 2022 - Q26.5. What can Predominantly Black Institutions (PBI) Competitive do to 

improve communication with you?

N/A

Clear and prompt responses/feedback to all issues presented.

Make sure communication is sent to 2-3 individuals associated with the management of the 

grant. Many times communication is not made available to individuals directing managing the 

grant when it is sent to Senior Administrative leadership.

None needed at this time.

PBI-C - 2022 - Q26.7. How would you advise on improving the overall process and 

protocols associated with this grant competition?

I am a grant director and am not involved with the grant competition/writing portion.

Building stronger relationships through frequent and positive communication.

None identified.

Nothing at this time.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 635

Predominantly Black Institutions (PBI) Formula

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Alerts to upcoming grant competitions.

Update site throughout with current information.

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.

While the reporting process has improved with this last iteration, there is still a large amount of 

redundancy in the information needed across the different sections.

Additional technical training for budget and LAA sections.

Provide a data summit/workshop on each data element, the acceptable (required) data source, and how 

the department utilizes the data.

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

PBI-F - 2022 - 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.

The assistance I received from [NAME] was excellent; however, the assistance I received from 

[NAME] was not adequate, perhaps because of his inexperience. Mrs. [NAME] is a seasoned 

program officer who provides prompt, direct and helpful assistance.

The pandemic did not affect the technical assistance received.

PBI-F - 2022 - Q27.5. What can the Predominantly Black Institutions (PBI) Formula do to 

improve communication with you?

More clarity in announcement about Phase 1 Data Report and the fact that it is the FIRST 

required step in submitting a grant application. Program officers should send an email to Project 

Directors announcing the deadline date. This was not done in [DATE_TIME].

No suggestions at this time.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 636

PBI-F - 2022 - Q27.7. How would you advise on improving the overall process and 

protocols associated with this grant competition?

The timelines for announcements, deadlines and awards are different every year for reporting 

and the grant cycle. Therefore, just monitoring the USDEO PBI program website is not the most 

helpful or reliable way for program officers to know what to do._x000D_ _x000D_ Direct 

communication from the program officer is critical.

No suggestions at this time.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 637

Promise Neighborhoods

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

No suggestions

The website portal for grantees is not functional. I signed up for newsletter multiple times, but I have not 

received one. Much of the TA should be earlier in the planning phase. A lot of the research and 

literature is pre-pandemic.

I have no suggestions at this time. Thank you.

haven't accessed the site in the past year

More pictures from various communities. It took a bit of navigating to find our Promise Neighborhood 

webpage from the list of offices/programs. The list/structure of various offices was complex to look at and 

navigate.

Optimizing search function to enable easy and efficient access to topics/issues.

Nothing I can currently think of

As a new grantee, we could not ask for a better experience so far. We are getting excellent information 

in a timely manner and great support

More specific information would be helpful. However, it has improved from 10 years ago.

User friendly tab for easier access to information.

No suggestions at this time

There appears to be much content that can overwhelm a visitor. Perhaps restructuring so that it's a step 

by step visual to reach what you are searching.

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).

No suggestions

We have received newsletters but don't recall getting consistent guidance documents or blast emails.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 638

Monitoring the volume of correspondance and document sharing, including materials sent by authorized 

TA providers, to minimize grantees being overwhelmed by the amount of material requiring review.

Nothing I can currently think of

The resources are concise and include timely and relevant information. They are a great help to new 

grantees

Continue to seek guidance from it's user. The responsiveness of the department is much improved over 

the years. To underscore, there is a significant improvement in terms of responsiveness

I think there was more guidance and documents and coaching that could have been offered when we 

were first awarded the grant.

This might already be available, but perhaps a centralized library where sites can visit to retrieve 

documents. If it already exists, further promotion of the site.

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.

Clear Impact is challenging to use and report is very redundant.

Thanks for all of the support during COVID.

Ease of using and getting information from the Scorecard is low. The user interface is old and dated. The 

functionality is subpar for a funded federal program. DOE needs a new system.

It would be helpful to encourage grantees to use this process as a continuous learning opportunity in 

addition to compliance. This might require guidance and TTA from DOE's providers.

We have yet to experience grant reporting and will share opinions in the future based on such 

experience.

Nothing I can currently think of

I had to mark NA on this section, since as a new grantee, we have not yet experienced a reporting period

There is a significant improvement with the support and clarity of the reports provided over the years. It 

has been appreciated.

The system to input data can be confusing and the data does always calculate in accurately.

This could be streamlined

Promise Scorecard is a great platform. Visually, the only recommendation would be to reduce the 

number of indicator links so that reporters can see only the links where data is entered rather than all the 

links that feed into the percentages.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 639

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.).

Keep the good ideas and support coming.

Technical assistance is so very helpful; however, with it coming from different groups, it sometimes 

seems to get confusing and overlapping - content wise and time wise. Would be helpful if this was laid 

out for us in one document, spacing them a part so that we had time to digest one TA before doing 

another one. I've had to create a chart to keep all in front of me for the next several months. Can be 

overwhelming.

Continue providing peer types of groups like the communities of practice.

Anticipate greater experience with TA as work continues to evolve.

Nothing I can currently think of

It is clear that the PN Grant team has devoted much time and effort to creating clear, concise, and useful 

technical assistance guidance and guidance materials

The technical assistance has been much improved and responsive to feedback over the years.

We have had limited technical assistance provided and there have been a lot of changes in personnel or 

technical assistance teams over the years. The best technical assistance has been group technical 

assistance, peer-to-peer learning, specific equity, and the sustainability calls.

Increasing the number of programs, such as Results Count or STAR.

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that provided 

technical services to you.

Center for Study of Social Policy

Clear impact

Clear Impact

Four Points

Clear Impact

Policy Link

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 640

CSSP -- in response to questions of methodology with respect to the neighborhood survey.

Urban Institute and CSSP

Urban Institute

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role? (Other, please specify)

(PI) Principal Investigator
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 641

Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans 

Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

More intuitive when looking for items. FAQs that can answer questions and not just give generalities.

Easier navigation of site - maybe consider more visuals

No suggestions; all looks good.

The website can be improved by using more images and to be more attractive to the visitors.

It would be helpful if the website was consistently updated.

The Department of Education is big, so finding information on your grant can take several steps. I don't 

see a way to fix this with as many programs as you have.

Sometimes the website has too much information and it is difficult to search and find specific data.

Many pages are old with dead links. There should be a library page for old documents but the RFP 

pages should always be new. When RFPs are reused, please remove the former names (TRIO does this 

a lot)

Make the site more user friendly and interactive.

I don't use it often enough to have an opinion

None. It is great as it is.

Often in the FAQs I still need further clarification about policies.

Offered a demonstration webinar showing all the links in the website and how to access in an 

organizational way to familiarize the users with all the information available.

I often find the content is outdated. Things change but the website seems to remain the same.

More easily searchable items

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 642

More information on how the grant reports are used and that they are read.

The APR is a very detailed report and at times the actual system online is cumbersome and not always 

easy to understand.

My grant is for graduate students, and the report requires details on undergraduate enrollment. It would 

help to know why undergraduate information is helpful or relevant to my grant.

I haven't done an APR yet. I am working on an IPR at this time.

I don't know how ED uses data. Also your survey won't let me give it a one - it only let me give it a 3.

I am a new Project Director and was not involved in with the application process nor with the recent APR.

The APR was set up for reporting undergraduate retention/graduate data, not graduated programs for 

PPOHA grantees

I had troubles with the security questions in the log-in steps. I sent an email to the IT people, did not get 

an adequate response, and had to figure it out myself (which took a couple of hours).

The language used in the reports did not seems consistent with what was in our application. Also 

aspects specific to the PPOHA program such as the GPRA table was for undergraduates but for PPOHA 

we needed to make changes as most of our programs relate to graduate student outcomes. _x000D_ We 

would like to know more about how the information provided helps the Department of Education and how 

you hope we can use the report to improve our projects

None

The trainings have not been useful. Our information did not pre-load from the previous year like it was 

supposed to. It is unclear how our reports are used. Institutionally, we have challenges obtaining the data 

that is required.

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role? (Other, please specify)

Dir Grants & Sponsored Research

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

PPOHA - 2022 - 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.

She was always available and went out of her way to provide support and encouragement.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 643

TA was offered regularly and online. Responsiveness was excellent.

With everyone working remotely, our program specialist made sure we knew how to best reach 

her. She also organized online group meetings so we could share our work and questions, held 

online office hours - she has been incredibly responsive and supportive. So grateful for her!

N/A

My program officer has been extremely helpful since I took this position in November.

The technical assistance received from the program specialist has been excellent. I appreciate 

that even with the pandemic, she is always available to discuss situations, answer questions, 

and even have frequently virtual meetings._x000D_ For this reason, I suggest that you follow 

the communication and actions that my PPOHA program specialist has used over this global 

emergency with other DoEd programs. She is the best!

First - LOVED [NAME] and wish her the best! Second, [NAME] jumped in, knows her job, gets 

the information and helped us through COVID when none of us knew what was going to 

happen, if the schools would closed - it was a difficult time. [NAME] supported us so well. We 

are really grateful for her.

Our program officer has demonstrated to be very accessible, helpful, knowledgeable and 

collegial. The office hours are an extra resource that has proven extremely helpful.

Project officer responded quickly to questions when we needed to make changes.

N/A

The technical assistance received was useful but a little late. Our suggestions is the need of 

receive guidance information immediately. Our suggestions is offering technical assistance 

considering the long COVID effect and future emergencies and including a "First Aid 

Administrative Practice Kit" in a webinar or reference document.

WE needed to make a number of changes in our activities as a result of the pandemic. Out 

FPO was very helpful and understanding in approving the changes we hoped to make.

PPOHA - 2022 - Q17.5. What can the PPOHA do to improve communication with you?

No additional comments.

I have been very pleased with the frequency and type of communication received from my 

Project Officer. She is very professional and responsiveness to my questions.

N/A
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 644

I can't think of anything. I love that I am receiving response within a day or two at the most. 

This is very different from previous years and grants. I appreciate the virtual office hours that my 

program officer offers where I can listen in on what others are saying and ask questions for

myself.

Nothing. I think PPOHA is run by a fantastic person who is knowledgeable and on the ball!

Communication from my project officer has been great

No suggestions

Sending by email more information.

We all need to know further in advance when a competition is coming. And we need to get a 

funding decision well before the start date. I know this is probably not the fault of the 

Department of Ed. But not knowing when a competition will start makes if difficult to write the 

proposals and not knowing if your proposal was funded makes it hard to get started with the 

project.

PPOHA - 2022 - Q17.6e. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with your 

program specialist?

Office hours and then follow-up with email

PPOHA - 2022 - Q17.7. How would you advise on improving the overall process and 

protocols associated with this grant competition?

None

Reconsider the format of the APR

N/A

I wasn't part of this process.

Do you remember when program evaluation became a boutique business? Well, now with all 

the short deadlines and grants coming out at the same time, everyone and their brother is doing 

grant writing services -and they are flat out robbing institutions. Instead of announcing a 60 day 

deadline for September, why not announce like NIH for the next three years - so we know three 

years in advance, we can apply starting just shy of six months of the due date and we can 

count on it.

no suggestions
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 645

it is fine as it is at the moment.

No suggestions

The overall process and protocols in this competition is excellent.

Let us know further in advance when a competition is coming and get funding decisions out 

further in advance of start dates.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 646

REAP-Rural and Low Income School (RLIS) Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

There are typically broken links within guidance documents that lead nowhere.

Large navigation buttons of general topics that allow you to drill down into specific information.

The search feature on USED website has never taken me to the most recent version of what I am looking 

for, if it even brings it up in the search at all.

I'm not sure how the new REAP website can be improved. The new Resource Document is great for 

answer all of my questions and any from my State constituents.

Seems too layered. Should be easier to get to needed information.

I'm not sure RLIS could improve its website. It is "standard" format for US ED webpages. I just need to 

become more familiar with it. Every once in awhile I use an old link, but appreciate the redirect link to the 

current webpages. I do try to keep the state Rural Program webpage links updated so they match the US 

ED webpages directly.

I have none at this time.

Nothing for now.

Districts that are potentially or determined to be eligible are the ones using the site, so I'd suggest that 

viewing it mostly from their perspective would be most helpful. Eligibility definitions, listings, how to apply, 

and how to use funds would then be most prominent...in that order.

I do not believe I have used the website for RLIS informational purposes in the last 12 months.

I have no suggestions at this time

For example, on the REAP Resources page, you have to get there by going through SRSA or RLIS. Is 

there someway to link it to the REAP landing page?

Add more information about how LEAs are using funds. Add more examples for how LEAs can use funds 

within each category. Add a serachable database of activities.

Provide more resources and guidance documents. Especially regarding SAIPE data.

Resources are occasionally repeated on multiple webpages, and some LEAs have expressed confusion 

regarding whether the resources are the same on each page.

Making sure links are active and not broken. Navigation and search functions could also be improved to 

make finding needed information more efficient.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 647

I don't know

Sometimes, it is difficult to find the information I know to be on the website. Even when doing a specific 

search related to a term, it can be difficult to find what I am looking for. Overall, I like the look of the 

website. I would say the basic information is easy to find; it is more difficult to find answers to complex 

questions. Our REAP Program Officer, [NAME] is very helpful in answering questions. She responds in a 

timely manner and lets me know if she needs additional time to find the answer to a question.

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).

I do not recall receiving documents pertaining to RLIS and again, when I search for guidance (allowable 

uses, etc.) often times links are broken.

Since this program really uses MAX.gov for a lot of communication and document holding/sharing, it is 

not convenient to always have to toggle between emails, website, and [URL] to make sure we have the 

full picture. I don't know the solution to this, as I understand the reason for all of it. It just is a time-eater to 

have to check all three to make sure I have the full picture.

I don't have thoughts on improvements at this time.

There was an issue which was not clear to me even after reviewing the guidance. However, in 

conversation with REAP staff, they were able to provide clarity on the issue. At that time, I went back to 

the guidance document on the issue and the information made more sense to me.

I have none at this time.

Nothing for now.

From where I sit, it's most important to copy the state contact on communication to district SRSA 

recipients.

Beyond the GAN and the REAP Eligibility Spreadsheet, I do not believe I have seen or needed RLIS 

documentation. The GAN and spreadsheet are sufficient just as they are.

Guidance more often than not repeats what is in statute rather than illuminating statute. Including 

examples from states--or creating another document with examples--could prove helpful. I realize 

examples are risky, and the safe call is always to stick precisely to the laws, the guidance may end up 

codifying a few examples rather than allowing districts to think more broadly about the funds. For 

example, using RLIS for Title I is a typical, but there are many other uses of funds for RLIS that districts 

may not even consider that would allow for more unique uses of funds as needed to meet student needs.

Send out information regularly.

Sometimes guidance is a little vague or may not include FAQ that would be useful.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 648

I don't have any suggestions or comments in this area.

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.

When there are requirements or recommendations to be met, there is a lack of clarity on what is needed 

to satisfy the requests.

A little more information as to why the Department is collecting data and what it is used for.

I have not yet completed a full year in the Rural Education Coordinator position, so I am not familiar with 

all of the reporting requirements yet. The REAP staff and my state accountability staff are always willing 

to assist me when I have questions on any of the data being requested.

I'd like to see more detailed instruction on what data is needed to report.

Nothing for now.

It help to know more about how the reported data is interpreted and used.

I find the current process to be sufficient.

I have been waiting to get access to [URL] for months without a response. _x000D_ It would have been 

nice for the data to get updated more often when the deadlines were approaching.

I do not understand how the USED uses the data...maybe I haven't paid attention! It's easy enough to get 

the reporting requirements from our grants management system and easy enough to submit the report 

online. However, I do not believe the data gives us enough information to inform our programs; it's very 

general.

Specific guidelines with examples. Workshops and webinars.

I provide the information to a person in my agency (SEA) to complete the report. However, I have never 

received technical assistance on providing the information and data needed to complete the report. If the 

REAP office could provide more insight into the RLIS component of the report that would be very helpful.

No comments.

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 best technical assistance is found with my federal REAP coordinator, [NAME]. [NAME] is very 

knowledgeable and responsive.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 649

The Departments efforts in this area is vastly improved. The peer-to-peer groups facilitated by the REAP 

Group for the State Coordinators has greatly improved the communication between the REAP Group and 

the States and the other State Coordinators are very helpful and supportive of each other.

I am very pleased with the technical assistance the REAP staff members provide to meet our state's 

Rural Education program needs. I have received assistance via email, [URL] messaging and REAP work 

group on line meetings. Thank you!

I have none at this time.

Nothing for now.

More information and examples on use of evidence-based practices is needed.

I do not have any improvement suggestions. Overall, the federal REAP staff are quite responsive when 

inquiry is sent.

Sharing best practices among states is certainly moving in the right direction. This year has seen great 

strides in providing space for state managers to share and learn from each other. This is really helpful.

The webinars are not engaging. It is as if the presenters are reading a script which contains information 

that is already available. It would be nice to have more unstructured conversations with other states and 

USED. _x000D_ They also cannot answer questions during sessions. While the answers to all questions 

may not be known, there are a lot of "we'll research/get back to you," type responses to the questions for 

which we really need answers.

Unlike other federal programs in my office, I feel like the technical assistance we receive is repetitive 

each year and I wish the structure could be different (from TEAMS platform) and that the content of the 

information is more in-depth and more resources were provided to the SEA on rural district needs and 

resources.

It would be helpful if the webinars would be recorded and made available to those who cannot attend. 

Sometimes, I have a conflict in my schedule that cannot be rearranged. I don't have someone who can 

attend in my absence because my backup is my supervisor and the conflict is usually related to a 

meeting or event that we are both attending.

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that provided 

technical services to you.

Comprehensive Center

[NAME]

REAP TA

[NAME]

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 650

NDTAC

ndtac

REAP

REAP SEA Work Group

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role? (Other, please specify)

State Rural Education Coordinator

Title Funds Financial Manager

State Coordinator

Program Manager

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

REAPRLIS - 2022 - Q53.1. 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?

With the pandemic, it was difficult for LEAs to gather census information (always a challenge in 

rural LEAs) and therefore, low-income counts decreased which affects LEA allocations. 

Perhaps having more information on options to assess more accurate LEA low income % would 

be useful.

[URL] is cumbersome and annoying.

The process is fairly easy/smooth.

I don't have suggestions for how this process can improve. The process has improved greatly 

over the past few years.

Adding [ADDRESS]'s CDS code to the MES would help with the accuracy of retrieving data for 

eligibility.

MAX.gov is a little tricky for me to navigate yet. The layout is not intuitive to me. Also, I needed 

some internal state team assistance to collect some of the data points needed for the LEA 

eligibility spreadsheet._x000D_ The emails from [URL] which includes direct links to resources 

referenced are quite helpful._x000D_ Overall, I am quite satisfied with the technical assistance 

provided by the REAP program office.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 651

Our contact person was great. He reached out to us letting us know certain criteria was needed 

and how to gather information. However, the [URL] website is not user friendly. The interface is 

unwieldy and not very intuitive in nature. Had major challenges in accessing our required sheets 

and then uploading them.

I have none at this time. Each year the REAP team perfects its delivery of the process of 

access and submission of SEA data through [URL].

Nothing for now.

ADA (Average Daily Attendance) is the hardest piece of data for us to calculate. Most everything 

else relies on ADM (Average Daily Membership.)

I would love to see a separate training on RLIS and SRSA instead of lumping them together.

Use of [URL] works well for this purpose and for communication about it, overall.

I think the current process is sufficient

I feel confident with how the data is asked to be submitted.

One thing that can be confusing is the number of times the US ED issues and re-issues 

spreadsheets. I'm thinking about the master eligibility spreadsheet, which seems to get issued a 

few times, with updates. Maybe naming them differently with more than just a date would be 

beneficial. Also, letting us know what changes have been made between versions, explaining 

the difference between an earlier version and an update would be helpful.

Staggered submissions, clear outline for what to submit and when, one-on-one assistance with 

screen sharing, clear explanation on how data is pulled from SAIPE and why USED uses 

delayed data.

Explain SAIPE data and how it is used to determine eligibility.

Additional guidance/definitions for the data elements (for example, average daily attendance) to 

ensure all states are accurately and consistently reporting this data.

The master eligibility sheet is quite cumbersome, maybe it could be turned into a digital platform 

or something less unwieldy.

Leave the window open a little longer--like 4 weeks instead of 2.

Could the collection of the data for the master eligibility spreadsheet be part of the application 

process for the LEAs? They have the information we provide to the Department. If the 

application was programmed to determine eligibility for whoever applied, this might streamline 

the process. It seems inefficient to use school contact data from the previous application. It is 

very time-consuming to determine which districts have changes to contact information and in 

some cases, might be inaccurate because we are relying on districts to contact our state 

department of education with this updated information, which doesn't always happen in a timely 

manner. Also, our state department of education collects the average daily attendance data 

from the LEAs. This sometimes delays my submittal of the master eligibility spreadsheet to the 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 652

Department. If districts had to submit this information as part of an application process with a 

strict deadline, it might ameliorate that problem. Is there a way to advertise the REAP grant 

opportunity in such a way that it would still reach potentially eligible districts while having them 

provide the relevant information as part of their application?

REAPRLIS - 2022 - Q53.2. How could we make the new REAP Work Group more beneficial 

to your State educational agency?

Provide timely notifications of opportunities for LEAs to state rural coordinators for 

dissemination. Keep offering State Coordinator webinars and trainings.

More one on one interaction and support

I would love to know if there is a collective of states with very, very few SRSA or RLIS grantees 

so that we can talk together about how to address the funding associated with the administration 

of this grant and how to maximize it, and to learn more about their few districts are using the 

funds when their awards are small - how are the LEAs maximizing the use of a small grant. But, 

there may only be a few states in this situation.

I would like to see a topic for work group on AFUA.

The REAP group is doing an excellent job. I'm grateful for all of their knowledge and assistance.

The REAP Work Group is beneficial. Unfortunately, there are times I am unable to attend 

because of other responsibilities. I appreciate the information being available after each 

meeting. Thank you.

I have no suggestions at this time.

Nothing comes to mind for now.

Keep doing what you are doing. It is great to hear from other states.

By copying us when communicating directly with district SRSA recipients.

n/a

By making it state Specific. LEAs participating in a forum with only their State Representative

Every session I've attended has been helpful. I make it priority to attend. I think people are 

hesitant to ask questions, so encouraging people to ask questions is important. The smaller 

breakout rooms are a good technique, where there is a topic for discussion and a deeper dive, 

where discussion is focused. It's easier to ask questions in this type of open/focused setting.

Model T4PA Center.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 653

N/A

Offered tiered supports for individuals who are new to the program, etc.

The REAP Work Group is a good resource.

I don't have any comments on this. I think the REAP Work Group is a good idea and a beneficial 

way to collaborate with other states.

REAPRLIS - 2022 - Q53.3f. How do you hear about REAP program updates and events 

(e.g., webinars)?

Select all that apply.

[URL]

[URL]

REAPRLIS - 2022 - Q53.4l. 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 - 2022 - Q53.5. How could the REAP program office improve technical 

assistance directly to SEAs and LEAs?

answered previously

Provide calendar of events with specific directions

I'm satisfied by the TA provided to both myself as an SEA liaison and our constituent LEA's.

I hope to be able to connect with REAP program office if any staff persons are involved in 

National ESEA Conference and/or NAESPA summer meetings in the future.

I have no suggestions at this time.

Nothing comes to mind for now.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 654

It would be nice for SEAs to see what LEAs see so we can provide TA to them.

by providing specific TA on the topics noted...beyond the application process

n/a

By working with their specific state, 1:1 webinars. not all States at one time

Increase work groups and time in those groups.

A technical assistance conference

I think they do a good job

No comment. I feel satisfied with the technical assistance I am receiving.

REAPRLIS - 2022 - Q53.6. Please use the space below to share any additional thoughts 

you have about the RLIS program.

N/A

I appreciate all the support I have been given by REAP office. The number of LEAs receiving 

RLIS funds has decreased during the past few years. There are little funds available at the state 

level for RLIS administrative costs. Thus, US ED support continues to be extremely important.

I have none at this time.

Nothing for now.

The RLIS program needs to review the process used to determine poverty. Realistic poverty in 

some communities is far greater than the census bureau sometimes identifies.

REAP FAQ in Q and A format is very helpful.

I think the team communicates quickly and effectively and is responsive to requests. _x000D_ 

_x000D_ _x000D_ I don't want too much excessive information because for our department this 

is only given 5% FTE. I don't have time to do anything other than the basic compliance. I feel 

like most of the information this team offers is around compliance so that fits my needs well. But 

the optional peer webinars are available for those who have more time and need. I like that 

those are separate.

I have no further comments.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 655
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 656

REAP-Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

I never looked at it.

No suggestions

I would like to be able to access information - current and past - in a more user friendly fashion.

Search Engine for site that will find general words that may be specific to a particular grant._x000D_ 

Example. REAP for schools in search and it takes you to the home page.

It is very basic and not visually appealing.

No recommendations. The site works well.

N/A

I have not used the website, so I can't provide an answer.

I'm not real tech savvy so I think it has more to do with me than the website.

Worksite was great to work with.

All is good I just don't use the website much.

I am satisfied with the website.

There is not much I use the website for. A good website makes life easier for people and is worth using 

frequently to make things easier.

Very easy to navigate.

I do not have any suggestions or insights on how it could be improved.

don't change it. I just got it figured out.

I have found that I need to make the time to focus as I navigate to complete work.

no improvements at this time

More key words tagged for searches.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 657

I find it very user friendly

Keep helping small, rural schools. Thank you

I think it's just fine.

No feedback

I found the website to be informative and helpful.

It was better this year where we didn't have to retype everything. Much appreciated. The REAP Grant 

was a painstaking process in the past.

KIS_x000D_ Keep It Simple

It's often hard to find things and when you do a search, many things come up and then you are still 

searching for what it is you actually are looking for.

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).

Not specific to a document, but overall, documents are too wordy.

No suggestions

Explain things in more [NAME]'s terms than governmental language.

The only issue we have had with any documents was finding out how to switch the primary contact 

information. Our District suffered the resignation of the Superintendent and his Administrative Assistant at 

the same time. The proper information was not coming through as it was being sent via email.

The quality and usefulness of SRSA communications meets our needs and expectations.

N/A

The Grant Award Notification is what I have and all of the information is clearly listed on the first page.

I would like to see the budget detail in an easy to read format on the award document.

I do not have any insight or guidance to provide at this time.

I am very pleased with the communication.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 658

no improvements at this time.

Highlight the intent of the document at the beginning -- RE sample

I have found all correspondence and documents to be very helpful and clear.

N/a

Reduce paperwork burden when possible

Documents have complete clarity.

Anytime I needed help, I was always able to find it.

I don't get a lot of info/docs regarding this grant (which I appreciate) but those I do are helpful.

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.

No suggestions

Again [NAME] terms when describing narative, and examples when filling out reports

I see no areas for improvement at this time.

N/A

I don't believe I do any of this reporting.

This is my first year working with the REAP Grant, I have not gone through the reporting process, yet.

I don't have any suggestions, I am satisfied with the reporting process.

Reporting always seems worse than it is. Making the reporting fast and easy to understand is always 

helpful.

I do not have any insight or advice that would add to improving.

It is for me time to dedicate and focus so as to avoid errors and also knowing my password.

none at this time.

I have found the process easy to complete.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 659

N/a

no feedback

I have had no difficulty with the grant reporting process.

Just keep it as basic as possible.

I don't complete this part of the grant, the treasurer does so I'm not sure how it could be improved.

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

I would find it helpful to have opportunities to connect with other SRSA recipients to discuss the program.

N/A

I have not contacted staff in the last 12 months.

At this moment, the program is working great.

I am pleased with the technical assistance department.

I do not have any insight or advice that would add to improving.

[NAME] has been super to work with; we had a change in personnel assigned to us for this past period of 

time.

all is great.

I have receive professional help whenever needed.

no feedback

Needs are met.

never had to ask for technical assistance

Make the information relevant. Sometimes there's so much information, it's hard to make it thgrough.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 660

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that provided 

technical services to you.

Equity Assistance Centers

[NAME]

not sure

Not sure which one.

ESSDACK

reap

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role? (Other, please specify)

Administrative Assistant

Administrative Consultant

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

REAPSRS - 2022 - Q54.2j. 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.

I know I'm knew at this, but just a basic informational overview. I feel like I just had to live it. 

And [NAME] was very helpful with this, actually I feel they were the only ones that really helped 

me.

UEI number transfer. Our grants are tied to this number and no one is helpful at the federal 

level to local districts to help with this transition, especially districts like mine where both the 

superintendent and treasurer have changed and we can't get access to the old system which 

denies us access to the new system.

REAPSRS - 2022 - Q54.4. Please provide any suggestions for how the REAP team can 

reduce the overall burden to your school district.

No suggestions

N/A
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 661

This is my first year working with the website.

I am satisfied with the grant administration processes and protocols.

I do not have any insight or advice that would add to improving.

stop with the surveys

Application is much easier. Sending the application to the superintendent not so good. Needs to 

go to the grant person (for our district business mngr) and maybe the superintendent. A year 

ago our superintendent passed away after a short illness, therefore it is very important to send 

to more than one person.

The process was simple and easy to follow.

no feedback

REAP is the BEST grant program I have experienced in 30 years of administration.

Just a 1 page overview of what it is. Even though you can Google that information.

REAPSRS - 2022 - Q54.5. How could the REAP program office improve technical 

assistance directly to LEAs?

No suggestions

In our circumstances it would have been beneficial had someone reached out to the district after 

the funds were left in the account to clarify what had happened. When changes are abruptly 

made in a school district both the primary and secondary contact may no longer be employed. 

No district would leave funds unspent on purpose. The process to request a change of contact 

was difficult and the staff were not very polite. It seemed as if they didn't believe that both the 

primary and secondary contact had left and were reluctant to update the information.

N/A

At the moment, the assistance I received via email was prompt, courteous, and overall 

satisfactory.

I am very satisfied the technical assistance received from the REAP program.

frequent communication.

I do not have any insight or advice that would add to improving.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 662

stop surveys

none at this time.

Not sure

no feedback

I don't contact [NAME], I contact [NAME].

Again, something needs to happen to help districts with the transfer of DUNS numbers to UEI's. 

This is a mess for our district and I've been trying to fix since March with no luck. No one will tell 

us anything and we can't call, we can only do only chats which are a waste of time. We've got a 

grant in limbo for next year because no one will help us with this process and both myself 

(superintendent) and treasurer are new since this process began and we can't get into the [URL] 

system to fix it. Very frustrating!

REAPSRS - 2022 - Q54.6. Please use the space below to share any additional thoughts 

you have about the SRSA program.

Thank you

Our district is extremely happy with the process and the access to the SRSA funds. These 

funds assist our district to go above and beyond in our continuous improvement plans. We 

appreciate the support that this grant gives our students and staff.

None at the moment.

I appreciate the SRSA program and all that goes with it.

I do not have any insight or advice that would add to improving.

Very thankful that we have been awarded the grants and were able to recover past grants that 

had been overlooked by prior administration as opportunities to improve student learning across 

all grade levels.

So tired of filling out surveys.

none

not sure

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 663

no feedback

Nothing.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 664

Rehabilitation Long-Term Training Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

It is not designed to be responsive to user needs. It is so government, way to wordy and not very useful

easier to find materials

Make information easier to access- too many links. Lots to sort through.

No problems

Improve G5

No suggestions

I had issues updating the records for scholars, due mostly to having to log in several times to move from 

one record to the next.

I find G-5 difficult to work with but it seems to have improved this last time

too cluttered and perception is it is antiquated and hard to find things.

Suggestion of having tabs for the different categories and the site having better direction. Separate pages 

recommended for each tab. There is too much information on the home page, it is recommended to 

separate this material. The current set up leads to confusion

Provide copies of current documents and any updates that become available

The reporting system is challenging to manage, reported information from the previous year does not 

fully load into the next year report requiring duplication of data entry, as an example.

Provide a link to an updated copy of the RSA Scholar Payback Manual.

I think that it takes awhile for the user to learn the language of the program. I'm not sure of how to help 

from your end.

n/a

In RSA PIMS, have encountered the need to scroll through a page that has a table, and meanwhile by 

scrolling, I lose the header row. Similarly, if I need to scroll left to right, I lose the first column.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 665

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).

It seems that the program officers have no idea what we actually do in running complex master's 

programs. They don't even seem to understand that we operate on semester (or occasionally quarters). 

They have no sensitivity to the academic year, or the immense challenges we have faced with COVID. 

Our institutions (and I would say students and faculty) have worked doubly hard during these past 2 

years, and RSA seems to be indifferent or oblivious to these challenges. They continuous increase 

irrelevant and redundant reporting that in no way reflects or supports our programs.

clarer language

One of the things that always seems to be in conflict is the timeline of the Federal Fiscal Year with the 

Academic School Year. From my perspective, these grants are here to serve universities and scholars so 

they can prepare highly qualified professionals. But I find myself more worried about the Fiscal Year 

deadlines because they don't align with Academic Semesters. Meaning, I have to constantly remind RSA 

representatives that we will indeed draw the money down, but the timeline of the academic semester 

doesn't align with the timeline of the Federal Fiscal Year. I recognize there are likely constraints, but 

some type of understanding could likely be achieved.

Everything from rsa is very high quality

Topical Newsletters would be nice

No suggestions

Blast e-mails are great. Newsletters are too much content at one time and often dated information.

General/ overall observation. It is the first time I manage an RLTT grant, and I am not familiar with the 

overall documentation process. Thus it takes me some time to figure out the process or the time of forms 

or additional documents I am supposed to submit. I am not sure if there are any additional instructions or 

webinars targeting first-time grantees to help us navigate the process a bit better. Smaller programs do 

not always have other program managers or faculty members who can help you learn the process.

Its all good

You are asking for redundant information. Please figure out how to just ask for information in one place. 

For example, we provide budget information in 2-3 different places within the annual report.

It would be helpful to have a tip sheet to extract the truly pertinent information due to the extensive 

amount of information often transmitted.

Provide an updated copy of the RSA Scholars' Payback Manual.

Sometimes there seems to be different language used in different places. It makes it difficult for the user 

to know if it is the same reference or something different.

n/a
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 666

No recommendations right now.

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.

There are specific requirements for our grants. Why aren't those requirements pre-populated in G-5? 

Why does every report have to start all over as though we haven't completed the exact same data 

elements before. Why can't we just update the system (as we do with PIMS) twice a year when we have 

new information.

The information required in reporting has continually increased and become more burdensome.

The reporting timeline does not fit with the academic year making the annual reporting difficult as the 

timeline does not match up with when funds are being spent down. G5 is often difficult and sometimes 

the project officers want status charts in Word documents and other times we have to fill it all in on G5. 

The reporting is often redundant (two separate budget sections) and the instructions are tedious. There 

are two very lengthy reports that are often redundant. Overall it takes up too much time to comply with all 

of the reporting that could be spend on recruiting and program evaluation, improvement. It is a prime 

example of federal bureaucracy.

I like how some of the reporting has been minimized. This was ideal because again, the Federal Fiscal 

year and the Academic Year don't align. We have moments with a flurry of activity (right around the start 

of a new semester) followed by long moments of little activity (just delivering coursework). Because of 

this, there were times when we really had nothing new to outline in the quarterly reports because we 

were in those long periods of time with little activity.

Great reporting process

Improve G5

Perhaps eliminate information that was submitted in the original grant proposal from having to be copiedand-pasted into our interim reports. Instead, ask us to certify with a checkmark that we are operating in 

accordance with our original proposal.

The annual report dates do not correspond to financial dates and actual performance times (the report is 

due in May but covers projected activities through October??) . Thus much of the data appear to have 

limited validity.

For me at least, it would be helpful to have a training video/session or materials focusing on first-time 

grant managers.

G-5 is a difficult system

G5 sucks. Metrix are not meaningful and reporting of raw/percentage/ numbers is convaluted

Do not have G5 go down on the weekends around when grant reports are due. This is very frustrating to 

not have complete access to complete the reports during the reporting time period.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 667

1. I'm not clear on what RSA does with our data and why they need the information so many times in the 

year. I understand the EOY reports as to how you spent your money and met your goals, but the 

[DATE_TIME], along with quarterly reports and the EOY report is redundant. I wish RSA would have a 

streamlined approach to providing the data you need instead of more reports. _x000D_ 2. G5 is not that 

user-friendly to use and with the new UEI number it was a mess this time. It would have been helpful to 

have a short window of time to contact the helpdesk on the weekend or don't have the report due on a 

Monday so you can get technical help before the due date.

Remove Q1 and Q3 reports. We spend all of our time submitting reports. LTT is a semester based 

program. Not much changes during a semester. Asking for Q1 (End of Dec) and then Q2 (end of Mar) 

there isn't much change. You should ask for [DATE_TIME], June, and then end of year.

It is sometimes confusing to report outcomes for 5 year project broken down by each year (or quarter)

1) Clarify that when entering data into the G5 system, just uploading the distributed forms is not an 

option. The data must be re-entered into the G5 system manually._x000D_ 2) Provide better guidance 

prompts about where what kinds of data should be included, such as data about percentage of 

practicum/internship site placements with VR agencies, which is information currently required by RSA, 

but guidance about how and where to include it is unclear.

When uploading different aspects of the required grant paperwork, I feel like I upload many of the items 

twice. Again, I think this might be a language problem, where I am not sure if you and I are calling a form 

or requirement the same thing.

n/a

Reduce redundant work. The reporting plus upload is cumbersome .

No recommendations right now.

The grants reporting requirements and the frequency of reporting are administratively heavy. Reducing 

the frequency and or the redundancy of the reports would be helpful.

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.).

Most of the areas in the survey are not addressed.

Timing should be in relation to grant related activities (e.g. understanding the academic calendar of most 

higher education institutions). RSA staff should be better versed in and more transparent in answering 

questions. It often seems they rattle off regulations with no ability to explain exactly what that means or 

to navigate nuanced questions. Often times these formats are all information giving with no Q and A 

opportunities which is what most programs need to get answers specific to their programs.

I am not aware of anything that the department offers that is substantially helpful in this regard. I feel like 

we are alone sometimes. I have been to conferences where feedback was solicited, but it seemed 

superficial at best and the RSA personnel did not seem to really want to listen to the feedback or make 

changes. Felt like they were there because they had to be.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 668

Excellent technical assistance

I believe the "Coffee Talk" is a good idea to exchange information with other Project Directors.

Perhaps quarterly group zoom "coffee-table" meetings to share experiences would be most feasible and 

effective.

Our P (Broschi) is excellent. Responds quickly. I like the new PD virtual discussion.

The staff has always been easy to contact and very responsive. Visiting the website to find information is 

something I rarely do. I just took a look and I see there are several webinars available that I should have 

watched prior to submitting my report. Most likely I received the email about that training, but the 

information never register in my mind, I don't even remember the mention of the training. So, I can't really 

suggest anything for improvement.

[NAME] is the best Grant officer I have had in my 8 years of working with RSA. He is knowledgeable, 

thorough, responsive to email, and provides clarity on ambiguous requirements. In the past, Grant 

Officers have not been clear or responsive.

Think about what we need instead of what you need

not sure

n/a

No recommendations right now.

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that provided 

technical services to you.

VR TAC QE

Comprehensive centers vrtac qe

National Clearinghouse of Rehabilitation Training Materials

Clearinghouse ofr Rehabilitation MAterials

G5 Help Desk, PIMS Help Desk

RSA

Project Director

Don't remember the name of the provider
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 669

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role? (Other, please specify)

Project Director

PI

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

RLTT - 2022 - Q10.1g. What training would you like RSA to provide to assist you better in 

managing your RLTT grant?

ways to support more students

N/A

G5

Introduction to grant-management for new Directors

increase the font size in G5

How and what information to include in each of the different types of quarterly reports.

RLTT - 2022 - Q10.2. How can RLTT Project Officers assist you better with fiscal 

management, program reporting or other technical areas?

They need to actually understand what we do, and move from a punitive and advisory position 

to a partner.

Already doing a good job.

Be better equipped to answer question and respond in a timely manner to specific questions.

Flexibility is key. When I have questions about fiscal management, I realize this needs to be in 

place, but rather than trying to find solutions that are manageable, it seems more often than not 

I'm being asked to do a lot of work to justify some very small requests. Maybe consider a policy 

that if the request is less than a certain amount (say $2500), then email correspondence and 

tracking would suffice. Sometimes I end up leaving money on the table because what is 

expected to justify the use of funds is simply not worth the time.

Knowledge regarding working with HBCU's

Joint meetings with directors and business managers and RSA staff when new technical 

information-exchange is needed
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 670

Help identify metrics that are not useful to evaluating outcome from RSA perspective and 

discuss their relevance to the PA in evaluating the Project and eliminate un-useful data from 

reporting as the Project goes through each annual review.

I have no idea. Honestly, I only think about contacting the project officers to request 

authorization for some activity or if I have specific questions about an issue, not on advice about 

management or reporting. When in doubt, or if I need support with something, I contact 

colleagues who have experience managing the grant for advice.

Have better trained officers and consistent contracts and paperwork. There was too much 

inconsistency and it leads to wasted time and effort trying to gather what is being requested. 

Have specific forms and do not deter from them for the entirety of the grant.

The fact that grant notifications go out after the start of the academic year puts programs behind 

in recruitment, since we typically don't have new students until the following Fall. This can have 

ripple effect into following years. Clearer guidelines about when carryover is allowed or how to 

adjust for this would be beneficial.

1) Update the RSA Scholars' Payback Manual. 2) Better clarify exactly what kinds of 

information should go into which areas of which quarterly reports. 3) Fix glitches in the RSA 

Payback Management Information System, such as not being able to enter updated information 

in a semester for which no Federal funds were expended for the scholar [resulting in a 

"workaround" of inputting a dollar, and reducing another semester's expenditures by a dollar, 

which is inaccurate reporting], and 4) fixing the new electronic exit certification system so that 

scholars can sign their exit certification forms just BEFORE actually graduating [so that project 

directors can make signing of the exit certification form a requirement of graduation].

I think because this grant is new to me, there is just a learning curve. But I feel like I am working 

in the dark sometimes. I do have people to reach out to but I don't quite feel like I have a good 

understanding of the regulations/requirements. I am guessing it is just a matter of time and 

experience.

n/a

Suggestions for continued advising of scholars

Provide an example of performance report.

RLTT - 2022 - Q10.5. Please provide an explanation to support your rating.

I think the training programs are very serious and committed to our mission of quality training of 

students to work for VR. It is disappointing that RSA doesn't seem to recognize this, and treats 

us with disrespect. We are really good at our jobs. RSA seems to think they should micromanage complex training programs they don't understand.

support for study of rehabilitation counseling encourages students to consider this which leads 

to interest in working in. a state VR agency
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 671

The grants provide important funding to fill a need in state VR. Other fields are not as equipped 

to serve individuals with disabilities and these grants are imperative to continue meeting the 

needs of state VR consumers.

We can't keep up with the demand. Supply issues at it were. Then, when I talk with scholars and 

their work in State VR settings, they are not interested in staying there long term. The work 

environment/culture, large caseload sizes, and low pay cause them to start looking elsewhere. 

While preparing qualified providers is important, without some type of substantial changes within 

the practice setting, we will continue to train counselors with a very transferable skill set and 

then after their payback is complete, they'll look for work in a parallel field with higher pay and 

lower caseloads.

The state of florida vr program now has mang more qualifies counaelora who underatand vr well 

qnd hqve bettwr outcones for consumers. Best practices are more common

The RLTT Program is critical for VR state agencies in suppling rehabilitation counselors.

Funds and program requirements have historically and currently lead to counselors receiving 

quality training and entering the work force.

As much as I like the Program and working with RSA on the training Project, more students 

would be better served, and there would be in increase in applications to the VR system, by a 

program that provides post graduation student loan forgiveness for employment in qualifying 

agencies rather than RSA supporting an infrastructure that supports up-front payment with work 

payback.

Without the RSA's support, it would be difficult for students to complete their degree without 

falling into a great debt (that thought keeps students from going for graduate studies). 

Furthermore, it help's the agency in the recruitment process due to the payback requirements, 

which provides a pool of qualified candidates to choose from. However, some local VR agencies 

have issues retaining employees after the payback period is overdue due to working conditions.

The funds are critical in getting scholars into and through the programs. The paperwork sucks 

for us PD but without the funds we would not have scholars to train.

The Training program provides very thourogh traning and very real life training.

This program is very helpful for training students for state VR positions. It allows us to maintain 

relationship with state VR and work closely to connect students with internships and job 

openings.

The training program is absolutely essential to increasing the number of qualified rehabilitation 

counselors who are ready and willing to work for state VR agencies.

n/a

The program is extremely necessary to the continued recruitment of scholars into the field.

The grant provides support for students to attend graduate programs to become rehabilitation 

counselors. It is effective in educating a potential workforce. Legislative changes broadening 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 672

where the scholars can be employed following graduation may be more effective in enhancing 

the employment of PWD.

the scholarship helps my program to recruit prospective students from diverse backgrounds.

RLTT - 2022 - Q10.6. Describe how your Rehabilitation Long-Term Training grant project 

is improving employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities.

I am very proud of the high quality training we provide to our students. In all aspects of our 

training program we infuse the importance of helping PWDs to enter, or re-enter the world of 

work. We are very skilled at providing our students the skills, knowledge and values to dedicate 

their lives to helping PWDs succeed vocationally.

The project supports training in rehabilitation counseling which leads to improved employment 

outcomes for individuals for individuals with disabilities.

Prepares high-quality professionals to support adults with blindness and low vision to meet 

employment goals and overall quality of life

Master's level Rehabilitation Counselors are BEST equipped to serve individuals with disabilities 

and these grants ensure high quality training for the next generation of VR counselors.

We believe our curriculum is of high quality. Our graduates' pass rate on the Certified 

Rehabilitation Counselor exam was 89% last year, 30 points higher than the national average of 

59%. We try to emphasize relationships with employers, techniques for working with transition 

youth, and how to be a good rehabilitation counselor. We believe well prepared rehabilitation 

counselors are in a better position to serve people with disabilities.

Better qualifird. Counselts spwnd more timw with coaumers u derstabdjng thwir goals and 

providing better ways to reach goals and see more opportunities such as self employment

The RLTT provides pre-service rehabilitation counselors training and necessary skill set to 

assist people with severe disabilities to obtain competitive employment.

Increased understanding of our trainees in the special needs of blind/visually impaired 

consumers and the techniques and best practices used to help them achieve employment 

outcomes.

Approximately 6 highly qualified Rehabilitation Counselors form rural areas graduate each year 

seeking employment in qualifying agencies. Graduates of the Program serve as counselors, 

field office supervisors, and agency administrators. Extensive training in self employment and 

supervised educational experience with employers increases the career opportunities for 

persons with disabilities in the Midwest [ADDRESS].

It definitely ensures qualified vocational rehabilitation counselors, who understand the 

implications of having a disability in the work environment, receive better services.

By funding counselors to get a master's degree that are highly trained to provide the services
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 673

we are putting high quality persons int owrk helping persons with disabilities. the program works 

great and many people have jobs, and their consumers are benefiting greatly. Employers are 

thrilled with our grads. So this program is critical for scholars and new VR personnel. It just 

sucks for us trying to do the teaching/training work to have to do so much reporting 

requirements.

By training counselors the importance of advocacy, employment and independent living

We are training people in the demandside/dual customer model. We focus heavily on 

employment and our students are working in VR or related agencies.

Our RSA scholars are getting specialized training in VR to effectively serve diverse customers 

with disabilities. Are students are prepared to recognize the importance of work and that all 

individuals should have the right to work in competitive, integrated employment settings. All our 

scholars do an internship in vocational rehabilitation to apply this training and work directly with 

customers towards their employment goals.

Through providing scholars with evidence-based approaches to working effectively with people 

who have disabilities, in pursuit of those individuals' employment goals, the program is 

improving not only the quantity but also the quality of employment outcomes for people with 

disabilities. We are also preparing future supervisors of the vocational rehabilitation counselors 

in state vocational rehabilitation agencies, and helping them to understand how to best prioritize 

resources within those agencies to maximize quality employment outcomes for people with 

disabilities.

Many of my scholars are persons with a disability. So, the program is helping in that end. 

However, sometimes students with state funding do not want to take RSA funding. It is another 

level of responsibility and they would prefer to just accept the state funding. So, sometimes the 

RSA dollars are not helpful, in those situations. This is usually 2-3 students a year.

The grant program is developing highly trained rehabilitation counselors who are able to meet 

the employment needs of individual with disabilitities.

Individuals with disabilities are reporting an overall increase in skills related to employment 

following services provided by scholars.

we graduated counselors who are the representation of the populations in this area.

RLTT - 2022 - 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?

My project officer seemed to only worry about how I completed the forms. I experienced no 

interest in the actual work we do, or the incredible obstacles our students, and our programs 

over-came to maintain high quality training leading to learning outcomes, and the development 

of the skills needed to help PWDs obtain competitive employment. RSA was only a barrier to 

my running a successful program, they wasted my time and provided no value-added to the 

mission of the long-term training program.

Not very as the university provided this.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 674

N/A

N/A - the pandemic did little to disrupt our program as we are distance based educational 

program.

It is always excellent. Timely and with the intent of being hpful to program abd perwons qith 

disabilities

Very helpful

It was mostly website resources from National Clearinghouse of Rehabilitation Training 

Materials

Excellent. The program has gone quite well despite pandemic-related in-person restrictions.

Very effective, especially recruiting applicants to the Program.

I didn't receive a specific TA related to the pandemic. Most likely the prior PI did.

great

It was very effective, however, there is a lot of uncertainity with the acceptable forms

N/A

Project officer was always timely with communication.

It was effective, but more guidance would be helpful regarding what information to include in 

which ways for which reports, and how to continue improving the RSA Payback Information 

Management System (PIMS) so that information can be entered accurately (even during a time 

period when the scholar did not receive funds, such as after [DATE_TIME] for a scholar who 

received their last payment in September, and is graduating in December).

Not sure what TA is. Technical Assistance? I was starting around this time, so this is hard for 

me to answer.

Very effective

Very effective

The guidance they provided was important although it did not substantively alter the course or 

issues encountered as a result of the pandemic.

RLTT - 2022 - Q10.8. Please provide any suggestions you have to improve the technical 

assistance you received should we be faced with future national emergencies. 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 675

Actually listen to the needs of the programs. They have started a rather useless "coffee talk" 

program which is so poorly organized and inept I have no interest in attending. They should do 

something thoughtful and professional.

Flexibility is helpful in areas such as carryover.

Flexibility on reporting timeline (e.g. [DATE_TIME] of 20 should have fallen under "natural 

disaster" for program reporting extensions).

Use thia as an excellwnt blueprint

Definitely access to ZOOM and GOOGLE Meet would be an excellent resource.

Develop alternate ways of communicating in case of infrastructure breakdown or requirement for 

social isolation.

N/A

Think about what is hard for us and offer suggestions to ease the challenges

Providing electronic methods for generating and signing payback agreements and exit 

certifications will be helpful (this is scheduled for implementation on Thursday of this week). 

What would be even more helpful would be 1) allowing completion of the electronic exit 

certifications just BEFORE the scholars graduate, and 2) also providing ways for scholars to 

electronically sign certificates of eligibility and to upload evidence of citizenship when they sign 

their initial payback agreements.

I think having someone available to answer questions. Which you do provide already.

n/a

No suggestions for technical assistance.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 676

Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Instructions need to be as simple as possible

It has been quite obvious for some time now that our program officer has never read our grant 

proposal/project narrative nor our budget narrative.

The website doesn't feel user-friendly or intuitive. It would be more helpful if all functions were organized 

according to the grant and not separated around the site.

I have not visited the site.

I cannot think of anything at this point.

On each grant page (e.g. [URL]), place links to relevant documents.

I did not use it. Most of my interaction was with materials sent my my program officer and the G5 system.

N/A

Have not accessed in years.

I went to the website just to view contents, not to seek specific information. Therefore, I don't have any 

suggestions for improvement.

The site that administers the grant - the G5, is very clunky and outdated.

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).

G5 needs to be updated- so it is user friendly

all correspondence needs to be simplified

The CSP non-regulatory guidance has not been updated since [DATE_TIME].

I do not believe I have received any of these documents from the CSP office. The documents I 

referenced in the rating are from NCSRC.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 677

These materials were succinct and helpful. A few times the program officer responded to my question 

while also citing the location in the slide decks.

N/A

Policy-related documents, including the GAN, are too complicated and use too much legal-language to 

understand and glean the important/necessary information.

Link to previous guidance or relevant references whenever possible. _x000D_ Never just cite some 

statute or guidance without a link (and a FAQ)

APR--instructions regarding whether documents were to be downloaded and how was confusing. As a 

result, I did not have all the documents I needed to prepare a complete APR._x000D_ _x000D_ DUNS 

conversion email (and instructions in G5)--language was a bit confusing as to whether agency had to 

take independent action.

Emails can be better organized visually and less text dense

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.

Not requiring everything be in PDF format

It is unclear how the annual progress report is used by the department.

The process is a lot of work and we have been short-staffed.

More clarity on what type of data can or should be submitted after the [DATE_TIME] deadline. Also more 

clarity on when this data must be submitted. I think I have to submit data by [DATE_TIME], but I can 

submit data later if we're still waiting on it.

N/A.

The g5 site is very difficult to navigate and not very user-friendly for reporting.

the performance measures aspect of APR is just awful. needs to be rebuilt completely.

I've never received any feedback from DOE on the outcomes/data that we report. Are our outcomes 

similar to, better than, or worse than our grant cohorts? It's unclear whether our outcomes will have an 

impact on future DOE or other federal agency grants.

Clunky process.

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 of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 678

did not use

Our program officer has never provided technical assistance to us.

N/A

Webinars spend too much time introducing staff members and repeating general information about the 

department/grant that awardees should know at this point. The idea of sharing "common concerns of 

practice" is a good one for TA, but if those concerns don't apply to your particular organization it seems 

like a waste of time. That was the case for us with the last required grants management training. I'd love 

to have an in-person grants management conference with tracks based on experience level with the 

grant and the various needs to grantees (budgeting, program management, best practices for replication, 

etc.)

I see the efforts being made, it just needs to keep improving.

While the [DATE_TIME] management training sessions were of better quality than previous webinars, 

they were ill-timed. It was mandatory and held during the final days of preparing the APR.

I haven't attended enough to weigh in fully

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that provided 

technical services to you.

WestEd and National Charter School Resource Center

[NAME] - [NAME]

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 679

RSA Vocational Rehabilitation Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

think about what an end user might be searching for and make those resources easily findable through 

clear link labels from the home page/.

It is difficult to find information on the website.

Federal reports section of the website has frequent errors, and often i have to try 3-4 different web 

browsers before i find one that works. Chrome might work in the morning, and later that same day i try 

Chrome, Firefox, Edge, IE, and can't get to Federal reports. Clearing history doesn't work, but 

occasionally restarting does. Recently, the RSA-17s weren't available on the website until 2 weeks 

before they were due, and there were errors in submitting the RSA-15 for both FFY 2021 and FFY 2020.

Hard to say since there is so much information - perhaps sort by most frequently searched for or 

accessed information using data analytics to drive how the website content is organized if you don't 

already.

highlight new info, increase intuitive design

I think RSA's website is much improved. There is a lot of information on it, and like any website that is 

content-rich you can get lost among the information. However, it feels like it is put together pretty well, 

seems to be updated, and usually provides me with the information I am seeking.

On occasions the search engine finds information that is outdated. Website should be updated on a daily 

basis with regards to all the changes in procedures and regulations.

I think overall the website is user friendly and resourceful.

N/A

The state plan portal is difficult to navigate and edit options are confusing.

Guam DVR continues to have superior working relationships with USDOE RSA staffers in [ADDRESS]. 

[NAME] and [NAME] are the two lead advisors I deal with on a constant basis. Both are 

awesome!_x000D_ [NAME]_x000D_ VR Administrator_x000D_ GUAM

Results from the search function often bring information and materials from other parts of the US Dept. of 

Ed that makes looking for information specific to VR program onerous at times.

Better search results, more FAQs or searchable questions for common questions using common 

language, make clean recordings of trainings with FAQs and have them available with keywords to know 

what is in them.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 680

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).

greater transparency, commitment to timely responsiveness. We understand many things need to go 

through many layers of review, but by the time guidance comes, we have had to make decisions, then we 

get chastised for being out of compliance. RSA sends us to a TAC, we work with a TAC, RSA says we 

still aren't right, we go back to the TAC. Then we get in trouble because we didn't get the policy out to our 

staff in a timely manner. I'd be more specific but I'm already worried this feedback will get tied back to me 

and my agency will get more scrutiny. Our monitoring felt like an inquisition. I know virtual monitoring 

does not allow for more explanation and better demonstration of how things work, but it felt as though 

there was no real interest in helping us solve the problems we said we wanted help with. The entire pace 

at which RSA works is so slow and out of sync with how state VR agencies need to work in order to meet 

the needs of those we serve, we spend so much time trying to predict what will be wanted from us and 

praying we made the right decision so we don't get in trouble 5 years from now. We spend so much time 

waiting on prior approvals. We are told we will get a response in a couple of days and it is weeks or 

months. We are trying so hard to be in compliance but we can't get approval to get the tools we need to 

be in compliance. There is so much attention paid to the technicalities and minutia of the regulations and 

so little attention paid to whether or not we are actually helping disabled people get quality sustainable 

employment. RSA forces us to divert resources from providing direct and meaningful services to people 

with disabilities so we can make sure every single "i" is properly dotted in the deep piles of paperwork 

they require. We understand that this is how it works and when RSA says "jump," we will sa"how high," 

but it feels bad to waste time, effort, and taxpayer dollars in the ways we are required to do.

RSA-15 guidance re: FRPP funds was delayed over and over again, causing repeated delays and 

postponements of the due date for the RSA-15. Once guidance was finally released, it left many 

unanswered questions, resulting in an additional communication and then a training session to answer 

many remaining questions. Delayed due dates were not widely communicated, and we often had 

unconfirmed rumors of delays for weeks before we could get proper communication and confirmation.

Link to TA Center resources

When reading technical assistance circulars, there is often a first layer of understanding what in it applies 

to our local program, and if any, how much and which aspects. I don't mind a little analysis as no on state 

VR program is organized or operates exactly the same, and therefore don't expect RSA circulars to be 

completely black and white.

Thus far I see no issues or needs improvement on any documents.

N/A

FAQs and examples are most helpful. Much other guidance tends to be too broad.

Use plain language in your guidance. At times it appears that RSA is more concerned about providing the 

legal references then it is about providing useful information to individuals who are not lawyers.

could be better with less jargon or a common response with the jargon response. examples and FAQs 

are very helpful.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 681

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.

quarterly reporting of so many elements is very cumbersome and not helpful. We are already pulling the 

key data and looking at it monthly. Less frequent reports with fewer elements would be more helpful.

See previous comments about RSA-15. I would also say that there is widespread confusion about how 

reports should be completed amount various agencies throughout the country.

Allow an individual to have ability to enter data for more than one agency in a state with two VR agencies

Appreciate the programmatic data quarterly meetings, and looking forward to adding fiscal data review 

with the RSA teams in those quarterly meetings. Through a recent monitoring we discovered that there 

has been lots of opportunity to clarify and align fiscal understandings early and before problems arose if 

our team had been presented data on a regular basis and had conversations with our RSA fiscal team on 

it. Our RSA team has agreed to do so in future, and it is appreciated.

The ability to obtain data elements that are resident in partner agencies is very difficult due to the 

complexity of data-sharing agreements and clearing confidentiality requirements across agencies.

It is okay thus far, any errors that comes up on our report was taken care off at a reasonable time.

N/A

Gathering data for performance measures is cumbersome and confusing.

There are times when RSA is more concerning about the data collection then it is about actually 

delivering services to individuals. RSA needs to continue to look for ways to reduce it data collection 

requirements and set realistic expectations. VR counselors got into this field to work with people, not to 

be data entry clerks or have to defend every second on their timesheet as to whether its a VR or a PreETS activity.

Would love more interaction with the data team. The importance of data and the management of the 

program is so important and I think that needs to trickle down to the field level staff - "we help people" is 

not enough and although we communicate that at the state level understanding the importance of the 

data from a national perspective is needed and how the field staff contribute to the overall national 

picture.

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.).

Reduce duplicity of notifications - receive notices several times through different avenues from RSA. 

Provide more of the 'why' behind the information. Provide reasons for "new" interpretations of guidance.

faster release of PD and Q&A

We need more support for the [NAME] Act reporting - RSA15.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 682

RSA claims to give technical assistance, but all they really do is scold us for not knowing the answers, 

refer us to VR TAC for answers, then question the answers we received from VRTAC.

If the RSA team were more open to the range of local application of the VR grant, instead of having a 

sharp reaction that any unique aspect to their experience of the norm of VR operations nationwide is 

wrong, would be helpful. Hearing the local need, trying to understand it, and offering creative solutions 

that meet the VR grant and federal regulations but also meet the local need in a perhaps unique way -

that would help! Also, the monitoring format is not set up for a non-gotcha experience, no matter the 

intent of the team. Providing areas of concern well ahead of time to allow us time to consider the context 

would provide a more meaningful collaborative interaction than being grilled with data provided at the 

last-second.

Peer to peer learning collaboratives could be used more often

The TA Department has been very helpful with all of our request thus far. They provided 

recommendations and guidance in addition, they have connected us to the appropriate individual 

specialized in areas we needed guidance in or concerns

I have found the TA to be exemplary.

Could RSA establish a learning community across similarly sized states? or for specific topics like 

financial management, data management, policy development, stakeholder/PARC engagement

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that provided 

technical services to you.

VRQE, VRQM

Quality Management VR Technical Assistance Center

Ntact

VRTAC-QM

TAC for Quality Management

NTACT-C

VRTAC-QM

VRTAC

VRTAC-QM and NTACT-C

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 683

VRTAC-QM

VRTAC-QM

TAC-QM and TAC-QE

Business Engagement

USDOE Rehabilitation Services Administration Staff led by [NAME] and Team Staffers [NAME], [NAME], 

[NAME], [NAME], [NAME]

RSA TAC QM, RSA NTAC

VR QMTAC

San [ADDRESS] State

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role? (Other, please specify)

Fiscal

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

RSAVOC - 2022 - Q9.5. Please tell us how RSA can improve the technical assistance that 

you received from RSA staff or RSA-funded Technical Assistance Centers this past year. 

Please be as specific as possible in your feedback (e.g., identify topics or issues RSA 

should address, describe how we can improve the technical assistance you receive 

during national emergencies).

Ou state liaison is very responsive and I feel we have great communication. I feel frustrated by 

the responsiveness of our fiscal rep. I don't want to give examples to have it tied back to my 

agency, but I have a number of examples. I know there are good folks working there and trying 

hard to be helpful. It feels like they are wanting to help but their hands are tied. I don't know if its 

the culture or expectations from higher up. I find myself generally stressed, confused, or 

disappointed when I need to work with RSA on anything more complex than what my state 

liaison can handle herself without going up the chain.

Policies, procedures, best practices should be shared among agencies if RSA's true intention is 

to help us best serve clients. Instead it is clear their intention is to tell us we are doing things 

wrong but not help us improve. Get rid of the "GOT'cha" attitude and help us improve our 

services. Or get out of the way and let us truly rely on the great assistance we get from VRTAC!

Again, just remembering that VR programs are unique, and not all things need to be interpreted 

in one way only based on how other programs may do it. Provide the VR Teams support for 

working together to discover unique ways to improve service and performance. Actively seek 

and foster those unique practices.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 684

The only setback we have is the different time zone other than that

N/A

Additional flexibilities to spend carry over_x000D_ Data management, collection, and internal 

controls_x000D_ Financial management and internal controls_x000D_ Innovative Service

Provision Models that could be replicated/agreements
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 685

School Climate Transformation Grants (LEAs) Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

I do not have any suggestions. The website meets my satisfaction.

Make it simple aligned to the needs of the Program supporting.

I would like resources supporting the implementation of SCTG to be more front and center on the 

website. It requires some digging to find pertinent materials and partners such as the National Center on 

Safe Supportive Learning Environments.

NA

I think the website is very user-friendly.

Overall, the website is easy to navigate and resources links to both [URL] and [URL] are very helpful. The 

one recommendation that I would suggest is either including a direct link to the SCTG topic area on 

[URL] or suggestions on how to navigate. Both [NAME] and [NAME] explain this resource and how to 

navigate when we meet so it is covered. Could be a line at the end of the PBIS paragraph that 

information related to SCTG can be found under topics.

None at this time.

I think there is a lot of valuable information on the site to assist with our programs.

Minor Suggestion: I am visually challenged and the text is small. The FAQs page has the number in 

green and the question in blue. The format is visually challenging because there is not much white space 

between the questions.

No concerns at this time

I have to be honest, I have not really used the website for assistance.

It's perfectly fine. There is just a ton of information on it -- so it's a bit daunting the first few times I go to 

it. But there is no need to change things. All those resources are great.

I do not have any suggestions for improvement of the website at this time.

I don't have any suggestions, it is probably that when I search for things I may be using different 

language

Nothing at this time

No suggestions at this time.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 686

I think just a quick tips tutorial for a toolbox that you can reference when stuck ad becoming frustrated 

_x000D_ Many times it is user error caused by all the different site we access and the specifics on best 

ways to navigate a particular information portal

There are two items I would suggest to improve the website:_x000D_ 1) Make the password less 

complicated and long, but if it needs to be so, please reduce the numbers of times it needs to be 

changed._x000D_ 2) Please allow items to be cut and pasted into the APR from a Word document.

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 provided is timely and relevant. I am not inudated with emails that are of no use to me.

It is great when a summary is provided in an email with expectations and allowing the grantees to 

problem solve and meet expectations.

NA

I have no issues with the current delivery of pertinent documents.

The IPR Guiding Document and Instructions could be more clear and user friendly.

Blast emails - We appreciate getting notices about upcoming webinars and letting us know what we are 

welcome to attend vs. what we are encouraged to attend. If we could have more notice on upcoming 

webinars that would be appreciated.

none at this time

N/A

Materials come last minute, day before...

The challenge for us isn't the content of the emails and such, we realize that not every email can be 

personalized. However, our small, rural context creates a variety of different challenges.

I am please with the types of documentation and equally important, the timeliness of the information.

No concerns at this time

I get these types of documents through emails and I have a system of filing those documents, so I am in 

favor of continuing the email distribution of such documents.

Guidance and other documents are clear and typically very comprehensive.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 687

We appreciate the presentation and usefulness of documents as they are at this time. I do not have any 

suggestions at this time.

Nothing at this time

You could set up a shared Google Drive to house all of the documents, and sorted into folders. That way, 

grantees can easily pull whatever documents they need.

No suggestions at this time.

The information is so broad that again the used(grantees and their TEAM) need to have a pla as to what 

we are looking to access.

No suggestions since documents have been wonderful.

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.

One issue we have is that all PreK - 12 information and data resources/ reporting programs differ across 

the country/states/regions. We are not collecting or using data and information in the same way. 

Consideration and understanding of this issue by USDOE. Would be helpful to all grantees and USDOE. 

Standardization of tools used if awarded a grant, etc.

My experience has been excellent. Due to illness last year I could not submit my APR by the due date. 

[NAME] and [NAME] held me accountable , YET provided the guidance needed to submit the APR by my 

extension date. Both were understanding and encourage me through a difficult time with my health. 

They did not allow our conversation to end until they provided me a refreser in G5. There patience was 

remarkable!

Even though our grant has reached its 3-year mark, I would appreciate more lead time between the 

instruction meeting on how to complete the IPR/APR documents and their due date. I would also 

appreciate examples of how the documents should look upon submission.

NA

When facing an issue, [NAME] is readily available to assist. If not [NAME], [NAME] is just as seasoned.

APR reporting in the G5 system is straight forward, easy, and very user friendly; however, the paper 

reporting for the IPR Interim could be better if there was an opportunity to also make it electronic.

The GPRA guidance sheet and discussion about tips to completing have been wonderful. More guidance 

about navigating G5 would be helpful. We appreciate the opportunity to upload documents so that we 

have a place to include charts and graphs.

None at this time

N/A
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 688

We have had difficulties utilizing G5, necessitating submission of a report via email.

The submission program seems antiquated. It would be helpful if a program that saved every report was 

used so we would just continue to add to it.

The G5 program is complicated and the program itself is not user friendly. Finding where to upload 

documents for the APR can be a hunt. Also, having to individually upload parts of the data is time 

consuming.

A little more clarity and specific details for requirements in the reporting elements - any questions we 

have are answered immediately and we are very thankful for that, but could eliminate some of those 

emails or calls with some clarity and specifics!

I think a webinar on how different grantee's collect data and review or share out , etc..

none

This is NOT our program officer -- or the program's fault. _x000D_ G5 is always a bit wonky to use. For 

example, it doesn't allow us to post a table or chart._x000D_ The spring IYR is much more user friendly 

as we can submit our GPRA and Project Measures as PDFs._x000D_ But I understand why we have to 

report annually in G5.

There are no suggestions for improvement at this time.

Again it is most likely because this is a newly learned skill that I am building, I may not always be asking 

the right questions or using the same language or process the information differently.

N/A

The IPR is very simple and easy to turn in - emailing it to our Project Officer is fast and easy. The APR is 

not as simple because of the use of G5. It would be great if both reports could simply be turned in via 

email.

No suggestions at this time.

Make the G5 more user friendly. Also allow the SCTG administration pass code to word process the 

document in the G5 and then the Program Director does final edits and is the only pass code with rights 

to submit. Make the G5 a system that allow a user to cut and paste information so that when a word 

document draft will easily move into the G5. Most folks creating the reports are Educators, Social 

Emotion/Mental Health practitioners not typist/keyboard/data entry staff.

This grant has been one of the most straight forward with on-the-spot assistance with which I have 

worked.

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 689

NA

[NAME] and company do a phenomenal job of supporting us.

The technical assistance is very helpful. No changes needed.

none at this time

They are doing a great job supporting our work.

I have not used the services, nor seen opportunities for peer to peer learning.

Update evidence-based programming.

I am aware that this space is designed for critiques; however, I would like to share the following: The 

School Climate Transformation Grants technical assistance does a wonderful job of helping the district to 

address issues associated with the need to build and strengthen the capacity of staff skills to implement 

school climate transformation by: - Assisting in designing and implementing a program of training and 

technical assistance that addresses the skills and competencies that district staff needs to implement 

school climate transformation efforts fully. Assisting in using EBI to develop lessons appropriate for staff 

to learn the skills necessary to implement school climate transformation fully. - Assisting in building the 

capacity of district staff to use the curriculum and lessons.

I'd think a few examples of how different grantee's used or obtained help from Technical providers. 

Maybe more on specific ways or services they can assist us with.

Our program staff are terrific. They just are serving so many grantees that sometimes it takes them a 

while to respond. No complaints, however. If it's really important they respond quickly. And their 

resources typically have the answers we need.

There are no suggestions for improvement of technical assistance at this time.

We need dedicated time to connect with other states on the SCTG to better understand what they're 

finding that's working and to address barriers across the board.

It is helpful to have someone assist me when I am struggling with how to complete the forms or reports

N/A

I think it will be most helpful to bring the Project Director meetings back in person - that way there is 

better opportunity for peer to peer collaboration and support.

No suggestions at this time.

It has been our experience that the technical assistance group is very knowledgeable with quick turn 

around time. The are also are very good on referring for services._x000D_ Finally they do a good job with 

connecting the grantees so we share experience and success with a safe place to discuss challenges.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 690

nothing at this time

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that provided 

technical services to you.

PBIS

[ADDRESS] SWPBIS

Regional PBIS networks, Mental Health Transformation Center at University of WA , REMS

[NAME]

We received equity assistance.

PBIS, we work directly with the MU Center for Schoolwide PBS.

PBIS

[NAME]

Equity assistance centers

[NAME]

Regional Laboratories

[NAME], PBIS

[NAME]

PBIS TA Center

[NAME]

Midwest PBIS

Midwest PBIS

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role? (Other, please specify)
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 691

Manager

Assistant Superintendent

District office administrator

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

SCTG LEA - 2022 - Q61.3e. Which form of technical assistance do you find most helpful 

in the completion of your grant?

email is strong/site support is better. Must say your conferences are very well designed and 

delivered. Lots of take a ways.

"most helpful" is relevant to whatever your current needs are. I find that all of the above rises to 

most helpful depending on the need.

email communication and site-specific support

Occasional direct Zoom or phone meetings.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 692

State Personnel Development Grants

CORE QUESTIONS

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.

I always find it confusing when it comes to uploading documents as it seems to change just a bit every 

year, but enough so that the process I used to upload last year isn't the exact same process as this year. 

The whole website for uploading is not intuitive and the naming conventions of the documents 

themselves and what they are called on the website don't match. Also, it's always confusing to click on 

"view form" vs. "edit form" and understand/remember which button does what. I take really good notes 

every year when I do this but it never seems to be structured in the same way from year to year, and I've 

been doing this since [DATE_TIME].

I think upgrading the G5 system to make it easier to upload our APRs and view documents would be 

great!

The State Personnel Development Grants program has been a huge support to our state and our local 

education agencies. OSEP personnel and our program manager have both been supportive and helpful. 

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the SPDG to promote student achievement and 

preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

I am not sure to be honest. It seems to be convoluted and such a regulated process I am not sure what is 

possible to be able to improve the process.

Training for all new directors on G5 & Sig Network site_x000D_ Make sure what is in G5 aligns with titles 

in the directions

I have no recommendations. [NAME] is an excellent program officer and has made herself available to 

assist us when needed.

G 5 is not a user friendly application. I would like to just upload all required documents, not cut and paste 

them into G 5 documents. The templates for the grant reporting process can sometimes be difficult to 

edit.

N/A

No suggestions

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.).

Providing a set of trainings (live or pre-recorded) that go over the basics of federal grant operations 

(budget management, large project management, etc...) would be very helpful._x000D_ Many states 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 693

align their SPDG and SSIP work. If those offices could collaborate to share reporting, it would reduce the 

burden on many states of having to complete two reports on the same activities and results.

I think they do a great job, for me it's just that serving as the State Level Director for this grant is only one 

of my many duties, so I'm not always able to effectively use the technical assistance provided just 

because I have so many other competing duties.

We have had a very positive experience getting technical assistance for our state needs.

The peer groups have been very helpful

working meetings on report writing and completion/submission

I don't have any recommendations at this time. I've learned so much from the opportunities provided by 

USED's staff.

I need an introduction to the technical assistance that's available. It would be helpful to have an assigned 

person that supports my state similar to the SSIP.

N/A

No suggestions

I think it is stellar.

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that provided 

technical services to you.

NCSI, NCII, IDEA Data Center, TAESE

National Center for Systemic Improvement

SISEP

NCSI-UDL

PBIS, [NAME]

ECTA

NCSI

CEEDAR

[NAME]
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 694

SISEP

SISEP; PBIS; SIG network; NSSLE

NCSI, SISEP, ECTA, IDC

SIGNetwork

The Collaboration for Effective Educator Development, Accountability, and Reform (CEEDAR)

CEEDAR

NCII; CEEDAR; SISEP

PBIS

IDC

NCSI

[NAME]

NCSI

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

SPDG - 2022 - Q12.1. Which types of assistance were most effective in helping you 

improve your project’s services?

SIG Network resources and monthly meetings

SIGnetwork website, just-in-time discussions, SPDG National Meeting

SIGnetwork newsletter and website; SPDG National Meeting and contact with Program Officer.

Signet website

All above and SISEP/NIRN outreach.

The SIGnetwork provides a plethora of resources. I find great value in the Directors' webinars, 

communities of practice, SIGnetwork website, just-in-time discussions, and the SPDG National 

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 695

Sharing of information, processes, and tools among projects.

Exposure to the large variety of projects being implemented across the Nation.

OSEP

communities of practice just getting off the ground...not sure yet_x000D_ _x000D_ My OSEP 

rep's webinars on requirements specific to reporting and changes. _x000D_ Check in meetings 

with my OSEP rep specific to my grant

All of the technical assistance and support is helpful and appreciated. I believe the Directors' 

webinars are the most effective as they provide information about best practices and exemplars.

SIGnetwork website and Director's webinar were most helpful to me.

I have found the National Meeting very helpful, but not as effective when virtual. The 

SIGnetwork webinars are very useful

Monthly meetings with our assigned SPDG OSEP person. Also, the SPDG National meeting 

had some outstanding speakers and information.

CoPs, SIGnetwork website, discussions

I've only been in this position for a few months so the APR guidance, resources, and webinars 

were the most effective for me this winter/spring.

SIGnetwork website, communities of practice, SIGnetwork newsletter

SPDG National Meeting, SIGnetwork website, Directors' webinars, SIGnetwork newsletter, 

communities of practice- in order of most effective type of technical assistance.

NCII - Tools Charts; Intervention Guidance; Resources_x000D_ CEEDAR - HLPs_x000D_ 

SISEP - Early Warning indicators

The communities of practice and workgroups have been most effective. The format of an OSEP 

facilitator and other professionals within state SPDG's is very helpful to hear multiple 

perspectives and learn from colleagues in a problem-solving approach.

cross state sharing

directors webinars and SPDG National Meeting

directors' webinars, meetings with our project officer, communities of practice

SPDG - 2022 - Q12.2. Which types of assistance were least helpful?
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 696

no answer

Communities of practice

N/A

The workgroups in Signet haven't always been the most helpful - but they have been helpful in 

understanding that we are all in the same boat with issues and concerns

CoP-so far...again just beginning

When our grant project was struggling, it would have been helpful to have received targeted 

assistance to review and revise the plan.

The MTSS Community of Practice was sometimes a bit high level, that I could not tease out 

some concrete steps that were taken to achieve the end results being showcased.

I would say I appreciate all their assistance.

N/A

I have not had the capacity to explore all the resources yet having only been in my role for a 

short time.

NA

All are helpful in some manner.

none

The website was difficult to navigate prior to the restructuring. All assistance has been helpful 

now.

some topics for the monthly webinars.

Community of Practices just because of scheduling difficulty on my end.

SPDG - 2022 - 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?

Very effective

In this last year, we were assigned a new Program Officer, Dr. [NAME]. Dr. [NAME] has been 

amazing in terms of the support and TA he has provided to me and to our project staff. We 

meet with [NAME] on a quarterly basis to provide TA, support and answer questions. He is also 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 697

very responsive to all emails. I have truly appreciated his guidance, TA and support for our 

project this last year.

NA

We obtained effective TA for our state throughout the entire SPDG timeline.

Our state contact did the best he could with providing the information he could.

effective in helping complete the report

I appreciated the information shared at Director's meeting and national meetings to address the 

topic.

It was effective and timely. Her suggested resources were always helpful, and when she 

connected me with colleagues in other states it was great to engage in same brainstorming to 

advance the project.

Very responsive

Our state project officer is amazing.

Our TA was helpful to submit our APR. I am new in the role of Project Director, so this was the 

most critical step since I have taken over the project that needed TA support from the Project 

Office.

Very effective, there is a close working relationship with the project office.

The TA received was excellent through virtual means.

Very effective. When challenges were presented, the project officer shared best practices and/or 

identified other resources for information and support.

SPDG - 2022 - Q12.6. Please provide any suggestions you have to improve the technical 

assistance you received should we be faced with future national emergencies. 

I have found our quarterly meeting with our program office to be most informative in addition to 

the state-wide SPDG leadership meetings where we had a chance to hear how other states 

were addressing COVD and other emergencies, and what changes they had to make as a result 

of school closures, etc.

N/A

None at this time. OSEP did a fantastic job of pivoting and getting information out to states in 

the best way they could
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 698

Not take funding away until the end of the whole grant period, instead of from the start, which 

only set us up for failure.

I think having a protocol in place to identify root issues would be helpful. In times of crisis, I find 

that there may be an over reaction to visible issues and sometimes we neglect addressing 

system needs that could have a greater benefit.

Flexibilities

N/A

None

none
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 699

Statewide Family Engagement Centers (SFEC) Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

More directed to content

I honestly haven't used the site enough to make recommendations. I will make an effort to utilize it more 

moving forward.

I don't really use the website in my work, so I am not familiar with it.

Thank you for such an informative website. The topics under Families are great resources for our SFEC. 

The website also lists all TA centers and serves as a hub for us grantees. I don't have specific 

suggestions for how to improve what you have already. Thank you for the wonderful website. We should 

spread the word about the website and use it regularly for our work.

N/A

I do not have suggestions for improvement 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., non-regulatory guidance, newsletter, blast 

emails).

The amount and clarity of information I receive is good. I don't have any recommendations or changes to 

the current usefulness of documents.

I don't have any suggestions. We do not receive a large number of documents other than emails from 

our program officer.

I have been satisfied with all related documents -

I do not have suggestions to improve the quality and usefulness of the documents.

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.

very clean, easy system.

There may be a way to do this that we are not familiar with, but we would like to be able to save our 

entire online submission in a reader-friendly PDF format so that we could refer back to it. It would also be 

helpful if Survey Monkey would retain the data and documents we entered previously, like copies of 

MOUs or standard information that does not change from report to report.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 700

(1) Retaining field information that we have populated. The need to repopulate information we have 

reported in the IPR (interim performance report that could remain there for the APR (annual performance 

report)._x000D_ (2) One or two of the questions should be different for the IPR because you are only 

collecting information for 6 months, not the entire 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.).

TA content could be at a much more advanced level. Guest speakers on TA calls have promoted their 

businesses and books - and gave very elementary presentations on family engagement. More training 

could be provided to SFECs on how to build and sustain state-wide systems of support for family 

engagement. Examples from other statewide centers in other fields and how they make an impact for a 

significant portion of their state may be helpful.

The TA for this period has been better in providing a balance between peer interactions/learning and 

hearing from researchers and other experts in the field who can enrich our knowledge. I think both are 

important, and I am glad to see more of the latter is being offered.

The technical assistance we have sought has been relevant and has helped us meet our program's 

needs. I don't have specific suggestions for improvement.

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that provided 

technical services to you.

SFEC Project Officer

Manhatten Strategy

Comprehensive Center serving Georgia, NC, and SC; Equity Assistance Center based in [ADDRESS]

comprehensive centers -webinars

Manhattan Strategy Group

Regional Lab; Comprehensive Center, funded technical assistance provider for Statewide Family 

Engagement Centers (Manhattan Group) and the Manhattan Group was the most primary of the three 

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 701

Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) 

Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Additional search functions. Post training resources on the website. Post recording of training 

sessions/meetings the website.

Nothing to add. Our institution is satisfied. Thank you.

Develop an updated/refreshed look that is more intuitive for endusers. Searchers should have the ability 

to drill down for specific items desired.

Make sure that the content is the most recent.

Most of the applicant information shown on the website refers to grant periods from 5 years ago. It would 

be nice to see more success stories under Performance. The funding status shows the most recent year 

being [DATE_TIME]. LAAs should be included since some revisions have been made and we don't know 

it until we report on the APR and the option is no longer listed as a choice.

No improvements needed at this time.

Site is a bit antiquated. Make the site more interactive. Incorporate live chat representatives where 

questions could be asked regarding allowability and/or interpretation of the legislation, regulations and 

guidance.

No comment.

The website is fine. Make sure that the information is current and accurate.

May offer a live chat feature for tech support

Update it annually. Make sure information is updated and relevant. Add most recent technical 

assistance information. Add explanations for information that doesn't align with what is written or brief 

explanations of legal jargon - for example, the regulations have been updated since [DATE_TIME], list 

what the links on the regulations webpage are and from what year...

N/A

Sometimes what they see and what I see is different. I have had to have several conversation to correct 

items that are not visible to me. It is just an awkward design. Not user friendly at all.

dates, updates, and rules (allowable costs, etc.)

I have not had problems with the website.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 702

The department websites should be easy to navigate like the homepage.

The website can be improve by adding more specific q&a; instead of general questions.

N/A

Headers and drop down options are not clear enough to find what one is looking for the first time. I have 

had to look under a tab for something only to find it's not where intuitively I thought it should be but was 

placed under a different tab.

Needs to be updated consistently

Everything is sufficient

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.

I think there were some changes in the form this year that created some issues with some of the 

information carrying forward. Much of it had to be deleted and reentered.

It is better than previous formats. Now that we have used it a couple of times, a session on how we can 

better report what the agency needs would be helpful.

Just speaking on the design - when adding objectives and performance indicators don't make the page 

scroll all the way back to the top after saving, then you have to scroll back down to your spot to continue. 

It was a bit more tedious with the information pre-populated. In the past when the system scrolled to the 

top, we could scroll back down to the point where no information was populated. We knew that's where 

we left off. Now with pre-populated information you have to be a lot more careful and make sure that 

what is populated is correct or if it needs to be edited. The pre-population of approved activities was 

thoughtful but not helpful for me. The question about audit requirements doesn't immediately expand 

when you Yes. You have to save and continue to the next tab and then go back to the prior tab for the 

additional questions to show up because you chose Yes. Allow for larger attachments.

The grant reporting process is efficient. Can't think of any improvements at this time.

Give adequate time and continue to provide workshops on how to successfully complete the report.

The one size fits all does not adequately show the achievements of individual projects. HBCUs are 

different from Title V and each institution has a different mission and student body. _x000D_ Collaborate 

with other Department of Education departments to create a better timeframe for grant reporting. The 

overlap in HEERF and HBCU is very hard on small institutions with one/two staff persons managing both 

grants as well as other institutional responsibilities.

no additional recommendations at this time

n/a
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 703

I have no idea how to steer it in a direction that would make the process more streamline and productive 

to us as useable data.

Clear instructions for the APR with examples on how the data should be reported.

For me the issues this year has been the time given to complete information requested.

The page to report your objectives, performance indicators, etc. can be very confusing. There needs to 

be a better format.

Provide standard templates for submission.

N/A

The report formatting on the portal is still challenging to maneuver although it has improved from previous 

years. There is much scrolling back and forth required to input the data.

The HEPIS was easy to maneuver

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role? (Other, please specify)

Program Director

Director of Title III Grant

Title III Director

PD

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

HBCU - 2022 - 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.

More feedback and guidance in writing would be useful, as well as including this on the website. 

Additional virtual trainings/meetings would also be useful.

Communications were timely and easily comprehended for my institution's program. We were 

able to navigate the pandemic and remain in compliance with grant regulations.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 704

I think they were going through the same difficulties as everyone else and considering the 

challenges, the technical assistance was good. I would recommend that the workshops be 

conducted twice to catch those that were not available at the time of the first session.

Pandemic (or non pandemic), it's hard to reach the assigned program specialist by phone or get 

an email response. At one point I wasn't even sure if that person still worked at DOE. I was told 

that it could take up to 30 days for a response. After 30 days, I reach out again and get an out of 

office reply. I reach out to the Supervisor and I'm told that the specialist will get to it when they 

return. I reminded her that it had already been over 30 days and the specialist would be out for a 

while longer. Sometimes 30 days is too long to wait for a response. Most of us try our best not to 

have to reach out and request anything but when we do, it's a matter that most likely has a time 

barrier and an answer would be appreciated sooner rather than later. I have questions that I 

emailed last year (or two years ago) that I still haven't received a response on. Sometimes I just 

want to ask my specialist questions, but I feel like a bother and I get a response like, didn't I 

already address that when X was the Director. You know, I wouldn't know what you and X 

discussed at that time. It's responses like that, that make me not want to reach out and inquire 

about anything I can't find online or by reaching out to a colleague. When I don't get a response 

from ANYONE, I tell my Activity Directors to hold off on whatever they're trying to do until I can 

get guidance. This sometimes delays activity progress and I have to report the delay on the 

APR. It's frustrating at times wondering if it's safe to ask this or that or will I receive a rude 

response or no response at all.

The technical assistance I received from my program specialist during the pandemic was the 

same affect as previous years. She responded to my emails and voicemail.

Despite the turmoil caused by the pandemic, my program specialist was very responsive 

whenever I requested assistance.

During this pandemic my specialist was able to work with me via telephone and through email in 

a very timely manner.

Timeliness of responses to questions and approvals.

Delay in responses

Be more responsive and the Department of Ed is required to communicate directly with grantees 

instead of sending messages to the Title III association which requires a paid membership fee.

Pandemic had very little impact. Had all of the personal contact info. Program Specialist 

answered calls or immediately followed-up.

I am a follow-up person, so if my emails were not responded to in a timely manner, I would resubmit the documents to ensure they were not lost in a mound of emails. That did not happen 

too often, but it has.

Unwavering support and responsiveness throughout.

They responded and helped me to address all my issues.

My program officer was very responsive and knowledgeable to support me during the COVID-19 

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 705

The technical assistance as if related to Title III was very responsive and supportive before and 

during the Pandemic.

The technical assistance provided by USDOE during the pandemic was most helpful in 

informing us of the latitude allowed to use grant funds to address the needs of the College as 

they related to providing instruction and support to students, faculty, and staff.

I would suggest that DOEd contact the Title III Project Directors to ensure the new reporting 

portals are conducive to the program. The APR and G5 does not provide clear instructions and 

we are submitting information blindly. We want to be involved with the testing before it goes live.

Just receiving approval for NCE for SAFR funds, allow time to get the money spent due to 

COVID

HBCU - 2022 - Q29.5. What can Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and 

Universities (HBCU) do to improve communication with you?

I have no suggestions at this time.

Communication is excellent.

Respond quicker to requests for changes.

Respond to emails in a timely manner. Especially when you can tell from the type of request if a 

quick response is required. Communicate changes to reporting dates, LAAs, system updates, 

etc. Maybe design a quarterly newsletter that highlights what's going on, what's coming up, 

FAQs, tips, new DOE staff, etc. Establish a phone line or email address that can be used for 

general questions that don't need to be answered by a specialist.

Continue their process through emails and with the National Title III HBCUs Administrators, Inc.

Continue to respond in a timely manner.

I have no issues with communication at this time.

More timely responses

Communicate directly with grantees for all information. The Title III Association is a paid 

membership group and should not distribute key information that grantees will be responsible for 

knowing.

n/a

Conduct an in person workshop for new Directors and do a training to acclimate them to the 

federal workings as they navigate systems in an efficient and effective manner.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 706

Continue to provide frequent information and updates.

Improve the turnover time for when Phase I is due and the release of the amount of funding to 

colleges/universities so that we have time to plan.

N/A. I've always received timely responses, feedback and notifications.

N/A

Have monthly scheduled calls

Monthly newsletters would be a great idea.

[NAME] is doing a wonderful job

HBCU - 2022 - Q29.6e. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with your 

program specialist?

Individual email and telephone

Zoom or Teams meetings

HBCU - 2022 - Q29.7. How would you advise on improving the overall process and

protocols associated with this grant competition?

The CDP was requested much earlier in the year than it has been previously. For institutions 

that had been using past experience to schedule meetings to work with the campus to address 

the CDP, this has created some issues with being able to get solid input from all campus 

constituencies in the time allotted to submit the CDP.

No recommendations at this time.

Add best practices webinar that is available online for a resource.

The grant we receive is not a competitive grant (at this time).

n/a

Continue to provide the assistance that is need to administer the grants in a timely manner.

More clarity regarding the grant application requirements, such as the page limit for the CDP. 

Does the page limit include everything or just the project abstract through conclusion?
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 707

No additional comments/recommendations at this time.

Post updated information on the webpage.

n/a

Consistency of dates for reports and award letters.

More webinars.

Have training in January or early February for the competition; have instructions available in 

January for registering with G5, and completing forms; and more intensive training on objectives 

and performance indicators.

I am satisfied with the process and protocols.

N/A

I am a new Project Director and the APR, CDP process has run well
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 708

Strengthening Institutions Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

The Dept of Ed's website is very helpful. Every time I've needed info, whether it be on TRIO programs or 

Title [NAME], I have been able to find what I was looking for. Also, the folks I've talked to over the phone 

have always been extremely helpful.

No improvements needed.

Finding links could sometimes be better enhanced with icons rather than hyperlinking text.

Aesthetics, user friendly, more informational content

I am not sure, but please consult people with expertise in user experience design.

No changes.

No suggestions

Provide more clarity and maybe a dedicated section to support awardees.

Information on the site is out of date. There are several places where something says one way to 

compete something and then we are advised of a different way.

N/A

No issues with the website. It's very helpful.

Have up-to-date information, readily accessible information, and contacts.

N/A

Updating grant info frequently

i think the website is excellent

It's pretty logical. No changes required as far as I can see.

It is not clear when you use G5 vs the HEP IS site. As a new user, this made the process very frustrating. 

Things on the G5 site feel crammed together (small font; a lot of info on the home page). Adjusting view 

and increasing font do not help with this. It has also been frustrating to click on things in the G5 site and 

not find what I was looking for.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 709

Your search engine and algorithms need help. I find it easier to use Google to find the information on 

your site than to do internal searches. This is an algorithm problem.

no feedback at this time

Easy to find resources, including forms online.

Make it more user-friendly to find information.

Samples of request program modification forms, etc

Increase resources and clear access to grant rules, regulations, etc.

I don't visit the website.

Simplify the navigation and search

Post timely information that can be mostly helpful to new project directors. It seems to have improved 

over time, but when I first started, there wasn't much there to help answer my questions.

The website is intuitive which I appreciate. There is an overabundance of information and choices that 

can be overwhelming.

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.

The APR is kind of tricky. The version this year ([DATE_TIME]) was much easier to use than in years 

past. The problem is in the section where you upload objectives and report on them. That section is so 

hard to maneuver. If there was some way the whole thing could open and you could go from section to 

section within a section instead of closing, saving, expanding, etc. would be so much easier to navigate.

I have only submitted an Interim report at this point in time.

The requirement to report expenditures by standard budget categories and activity area and LAAs means 

we've had to institute two, separate, parallel accounting systems just for the SIP grant. _x000D_ 

_x000D_ The reporting portal is riddled with jargon and typos, and does not always match the user guide. 

For things like the Objectives and Performance Measures, saving currently closes all expanded windows 

and takes you back to the top of the page, requiring users to find where they were. It requires insider 

knowledge that the reporting of progress each year is done in the Objective and Process Measures 

description text box, and this description is copied forward the next year, meaning you have to edit out all 

the updates from last year. Having a more user-friendly interface, with clear, common English language 

terms would be helpful.

Provide clear guidance on the reporting expectations such as what to do on interim reports when you 

have incomplete data. A large portion of the answers on the FAQ simply state to contact program 

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 710

I am in the process of completing our Interim Performance Report (IPR), I selected N/A to the questions 

as we are months away from our first Annual Performance Report, however, the process for the IPR has 

been seamless.

Provide more clarity on how to complete certain sections by providing examples on how they should be 

completed. More workshops/trainings on how to complete the report would be helpful.

The system is broken.

None. I appreciated everyone's flexibility to adjust dates and for responsiveness when I mistakenly 

locked myself out of my account.

Have a webinar each year on best practices for completing the APR along with information on how the 

Dept of Education uses the results.

The structure of the goals seems to be a one size fits all. It sometime feels like we are putting a round 

peg in a square hole. I understand the need for this structure and I am not sure I have a good suggestion 

for a change.

The issue that I am running into is that when I ask questions to the Program Officer the responses are 

very brief, they do not answer my specific questions and simply direct me to previous documentation.

There are a few areas on the APR that do not ask for items that our Grant Officer then required. 

Example: upload of the Audit into the APR was not noted in the report document (2D.2.)

More regular reminders via e-mail

Directors' availability.

Consistent reporting dates would be helpful. Sometimes the APR due date is well into the next grant 

year. It's a mattering of stopping to focus on what happened last year when you need to also focus what's 

happening this year. When reporting is closer to the end of the prior year, the process is smoother.

Regular and timely feedback on the reports. The clarity in how to report and which metrics should be 

reported on beyond the goals. Which formative pieces are most important. Clarity on if an activity has not 

been started during a fiscal year and what the reporting should look like for those items.

Include more webinars

Have available staff to answer questions promptly.

The requirements are all over the place. Right now i have a grant officer that is my third in four years and 

she is requiring items above and beyond the things that previous officers have required.

The reporting process could expand the allowable size of files that may be uploaded.

The training session was not very thorough. I didn't know until after our report had been submitted that I 

could have printed a "blank" reporting template so I knew what questions were coming up. I had the 

guide that I printed prior to the training, but that was only slightly helpful. It did not include all the 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 711

questions and the font was miniscule. You couldn't adjust that, so seeing what it even said was 

challenging.

More examples in the area of the objectives and what to include in the written part of that. With the word 

limit, want to be sure to include the correct information.

The report is fine, but requires a consultant to assist in explaining the fields and what information the 

Department is looking for. I provided the data. There was no data provided to me from the Dept. of 

Education. I recall no explanation of purpose for requesting the data.

HEPIS is simple to use and understand. Copy and Paste functionality to fields within the report can be 

difficult but manageable. Overall the system works well.

Some sections are very clear and others less so. For example, it's unclear if / when an institution needs 

to complete the sustainability section; and if so, how much detail to include.

I think the reporting is very user-friendly and easy to complete.

Allow us to enter percentages.

Simplify questions

When we first obtained our grant, there was little to no assistance available that we could find. Our 

program representative was unresponsive, and I was not able to find any tutorials to help me complete 

our first midterm and APR report. Since then, we've been offered a couple of webinars that were helpful, 

but I would've appreciated some guidance in the beginning. For example, I didn't realize that we 

submitted our budget proposal for the next year as part of the APR since that is different than how our 

other federal grants work. We continuously tried to reach out for answers to how we should be submitting 

our budget proposal to no avail. It was only after gaining access to the first APR that we realized it was 

submitted as part of that report. It's little things like that which would've been helpful to know ahead of 

time.

I appreciate that grantees are able to shape the outcomes that are sought, based on regional priorities.

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role? (Other, please specify)

Associate [NAME]

PI

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

SIP - 2022 - 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 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 712

suggestions you have to improve the technical assistance you received should we be 

faced with future national emergencies.

We are very fortunate to have [NAME] as our program specialist. He is awesome and extremely 

responsive to our needs/questions.

No impact as our grant was awarded in [DATE_TIME]

Responses were timely and excellent given the circumstances. Very helpful and supportive.

Technical assistance was limited to a few emails, which I had to decipher with others at my 

college. We have an outside consultant, who we pay to help us understand DoED requirements.

No response from program officer, despite multiple attempts. Ed needs to hire more program 

officers and perhaps implement a transparent case management system.

Things like emails tend to get lost in the shuffle. However, once I was on the radar again 

guidance was helpful and for the most part timely

We have always received wonderful support, but particularly so during the pandemic.

We did not experience any significant impact on the technical assistance from our program 

specialist.

The technical assistance that I received was very good. I was happy to receive semi-regular 

updates.

As stated in the previous section, responses to my questions have not actually answered my 

questions specifically but just given links or very general responses.

Ms. [NAME] was so helpful during this process.

APR guidance

We submitted a question about paying staff under contract to provide lab assistance when the 

labs were closed during the pandemic and received a response within 24 hours. This was 

excellent service; we have no suggestions for improvement.

My program officer, [NAME] has been very responsive and pro-active, which is greatly 

appreciated. She is one of two program specialists in my 12-year experience as a program 

director for various Title III grants whom I can express this - Pearson [NAME], of the Title 

[NAME] being the other. This did not change due to the pandemic. Thank you!

Very satisfied with the accommodation of reporting due to COVID-19 interruptions

We have not seen a decline in service.

What kind of accountability does staff have regarding quality and/or timeliness of support?
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 713

Our program specialist was timely with responses. I had no issues with reaching her.

We appreciated the flexibility and understanding that we were struggling as an institution, as 

was everyone. We were able to make adjustments to our grant, and continue to work through 

those.

I submitted multiple requests to gain access to the portal. Additionally, reports would not save 

causing me to not be able to submit my report. The tech support team's response time was 

inconsistent. Sometimes very responsive, sometimes days and multiple requests. I was just 

grateful that my tech issues were resolved in time to submit the report by the due date. The staff 

were always polite.

No feedback at this time

Response time to questions has greatly improved over the past year. We also appreciated the 

extended reporting deadlines due to the pandemic.

I was pleased with the technical assistance.

I did not receive any technical assistance this past year

After three years of little to no interaction with our program specialist, a new person came in and 

was somewhat overwhelming with questions, requests, and requirements. This may have been 

fine if these expectations were consistent throughout the grant, but coming into Y4, the new 

demands were jarring.

Not affected

We did not receive any technical assistance during this time at all.

The technical assistance provided was not affected. The technical assistance was very helpful 

relating to adjustments we had to make because of COVID-19.

SIP - 2022 - Q14.5. What can the Strengthening Institutions Program do to improve 

communication with you?

Nothing I can think of.

No improvements needed.

Strip communications of unnecessary jargon and insider speak.

Hire more program officers to give them a more manageable case load. Implement more 

transparent case management solutions.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 714

The deadline for the APR was extended this year which was great, but we didn't find out about it 

until the day of the deadline. A little more advance notice would have been tremendously 

helpful.

The communication received is timely and clear. Prior to the pandemic, the national Directors' 

meeting was planned but subsequently cancelled due to COVID. It would be wonderful to have 

the opportunity for Program Directors to gather together and to be able to meet with the 

Program Officers to connect and share best practices and collaborate on successes and 

challenges in grant project administration and implementation.

Not applicable.

Monthly email reminders about what to plan for this month in any given grant cycle. Reminders 

about time/effort reports, information/discussion of legislative allowed activities, best practices 

for managing budgets and drawing down, etc.

Support has been non-existent, with the standard email list distributions.

Answer the questions that I ask with more specific and clear responses.

N/A

More frequent communications

Respond to correspondence/phone calls.

I just looked at the SIP website. The main page still references the FY21 competition without 

saying it is closed or directing the reader to the Awards page. The Awards page provides a 

document with abstracts and funds requested, but it doesn't summarized the total number of 

awards and amount awarded.

I'm sure the Fed folks are very busy, but it would be nice to receive more timely responses to 

communications. Some emails that I've sent regarding grant personnel/updates seem to not 

have been received. Unrelated: it'd be nice to bring the Project Directors conference back!

Respond to e-mail in a timely manner

Have some accountability for performance.

The guidelines for what is actually due need to be clearer

Ensure that all staff listed receive the appropriate communication. For instance, only one person 

received the link to complete this survey, and it should have been to both of us.

No suggestions at this time

I think communication is adequate.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 715

Again, it was the sudden expectation of quarterly report, justifications for changes that were 

approved in prior years, and so on that caught me off guard.

Other than routine communications, we have struggled to communicate with anyone (mostly our 

program representative) when we had questions. We finally gave up ever contacting anyone 

and sought answers elsewhere.

We greatly appreciate the immediate responses we've received to inquiries and the support for 

needed/requested changes.

SIP - 2022 - Q14.6e. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with your 

program specialist?

Email or Phone

SIP - 2022 - Q14.7. How would you advise on improving the overall process and protocols 

associated with this grant competition?

I can't think of anything specific to change.

None noted.

Develop more training materials and webinars/workshops on best practices.

1. There is something wrong with all the "extra points" involved in the competition. Why isn't a 

strong proposal based on the primary criteria enough? _x000D_ 2. There needs to be a more 

transparent approach to how each section is evaluated and scored. Who is selected to judge 

applications and what is there training or priorities?_x000D_ 3. Invite current or past successful 

grantees to judge applications._x000D_ 4. Don't over script the solutions you are willing to fund. 

Be open to innovate projects.

The competition process is clearly presented.

I do not have any suggestions. I appreciate the web based submission option that carried over 

data from year to year.

ensure that all the requirements are in one place. There are some that we were not aware of 

until we started submission. Those were not listed anywhere else but in the submission form 

instructions.

Offer more guidance reporting and budget modifications.

N/A
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 716

As previously stated, more or clearer information on the website would be helpful.

More lead time in submission so that people aren't spending nights and weekends preparing the 

submission based on the competition. Earlier access to the APR system and longer submission 

time.

None

N/A

No feedback at this time

A point of contact for any questions that come up in the writing.

Provide examples of change requests, etc

I was not involved in the competition process.

I have no suggestions for improvement.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 717

Student Support and Academic Enrichment

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

NA

I use the T/A site, but really never use ED's site. When I am looking for the ESSA online it is sometimes 

difficult for me to find it on ED's site.

It would be helpful if the search function populated the most recent relevant information first.

N/A

Easier to find keyword searches regarding statute related questions.

I am not referring to the T4PA site which I understand is maintained via the Tech Assist Contract. That 

site is very good. If this is the site you are referring to, I would change my responses to the previous 

question._x000D_ _x000D_ Using the USEd website to find Title IV-A info is extremely difficult.

More regulatory guidance and clear answers to statute related questions. There are several items we've 

asked that have not been answered, even though we were promised answers previously.

resources and webinars are from when funding was first awarded. perhaps some updating webinars on 

what has been done with the program along with examples of how LEAs are using funds. perhaps some 

advocacy resources for community stakeholders.

more about the allowable use of funds

NA

I never use the department site.

I don't recall using the website in the past year.

Ease of navigation. Ease of connecting to relating support and resources.

Perhaps have a FAQ location with come common questions. Provide a list of not allowable activities or 

purchases. Update the non-regulatory guidance after experiencing several years of questioning. Provide 

more information and guidance on operations, rather than content for grants, in terms of state 

management and LEA grant management expectations.

I have sometimes ended up on older webpages from searches, not the most current versions for specific 

items.

n/a
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 718

I think the website is great.

We answered NA to the previous questions because we never go to that website to find the info we 

need._x000D_ _x000D_ Add FAQs to the FAQ link. Add updated resources and information (award info, 

guidance, etc.).

I do not believe I have seen or visited the website. The way Oklahoma is set up it makes it hard to really 

dig into the programs.

Provide more specificity as it relates to program requirements.

Some information has not been updated since [DATE_TIME]. It is difficult to find specific information 

regarding the implementation of Title IV, Part A. The FAQ is not helpful.

I do not think I have accessed the site recently, I typically find information through the T4PA portal or the 

National Center on Safe and Supportive Learning Environments

Expand the search feature wording.

I think the site is fine and works well.

Do not have specific examples that could be useful. Still learning my way around the site for the various 

things I utilize it for.

A suggestion might be to make links more explicit by topic.

This website is out of date. [URL] non-regulatory guidance should be updated.

I think the website is helpful, and I like that it links directly to the TA center portal, which allows me to 

access all the information I need through one link.

I feel the Department/Student and Academic Enrichment program's website is good for now.

NA

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).

I am waiting for updated non-regulatory guidance/faqs and would also like to see equitable services 

NRG's specific to TIVA.

No suggestions.

N/A
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 719

The resources are great and could be even better if they were updated more frequently.

I think it is very hard to answer these questions because from my understanding, most of the 

communication comes from the Tech Assist Center, not directly from USEd. I know that some things like 

the Non-Regulatory Guidance is officially from USEd, but I'm not sure that I've noticed newsletters or 

email blasts coming from USEd.

There are some specific items such as state-level equitable services not addressed in the non-regulatory 

guidance that is cropping up in other places such as the draft Title VIII nonregulatory equitable service 

guidance. Need to work on consistency between guidance documents.

updated guidance on equitable participation of private schools specific to Title IV-A.

NA

We rarely receive information from SSAE program. The timeless of information could be approved upon, 

as could the frequency of communication. SSAE staff seem to rely heavily on the T4PA Center to 

communicate with SEAs and lack demonstrated evidence of specific programmatic knowledge.

After a few years of running the program, it should be clear where the gaps in understanding and 

information are based on questions from the field. A new set of guidance materials with those issues in 

the forefront would be extremely useful.

n/a

I do not see any changes that need to be made in this area.

The only document we have received is the Non-Regulatory Guidance ([DATE_TIME]), which is clear 

and well-organized but limited in scope. We have not received other resources listed above except a 

DRAFT copy of an FAQ, but we haven't received a finalized copy and would like updated guidance that is 

more comprehensive now that the program has several years of implementation.

I am not fully educated on these items to make a suggestion however, I would research across the states 

and group similar states and issues together to keep the non-reg guidance, newsletters, and blast emails 

relevant.

It is not helpful to only post answers behind the portal and click through to find what is needed.

The current CSPR resources are helpful. It would be great to have updated non-regulatory guidance and 

an FAQ that could be shared with [NAME].

Sometimes information provided just quotes various regulations but no "final" answer is given.

na

I appreciate the regular correspondence from [NAME], and am able to share the information with 

colleagues throughout the agency. I have found the CSPR training for program staff helpful, especially 

the detailed explanations of the business rules and how to self assess the data quality before submitting 

materials to ED. It would be helpful if all federal programs received this type of detailed support for 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 720

program staff. I found the draft TVIII equitable services guidance, with specific references to Title IV-A 

helpful, and hope to have updated TIVA guidance in the next year or two.

N/A

NA

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.

Would like more TA/guidance around the performance reporting (not CSPR) requirement - what form this 

must take, level of detail that is expected, etc. The Department has done a lot of TA around the CSPR 

data reporting requirements, which has been extremely helpful.

More help on the program outcomes reporting would be useful. Our State is moving slowly in that regard.

No suggestions.

N/A

N/A

I haven't really been through the reporting process yet, which is why I marked NA for many of the 

items._x000D_ _x000D_ However, I have to say that there is really not much onboarding for someone 

new to the position. You have to do a lot of digging through various websites, asking questions, etc.

NA

I have asked how the department uses CSPR Data and have not received a response. I have also asked 

about how we can best meet the requirement of "publicly reporting the degree to which LEAs met their 

stated outcomes and objectives." to no response.

The CSPR reports are difficult to figure out because they are based on spending in a year over all open 

grant years. This is difficult to accumulate in our system, and doesn't make much sense. It seems to me 

the more useful set of data would be how quickly each grant is spent down, which you may already have 

when you pay them out. So the usefulness of this data isn't very clear to me. The FFATA reporting is a 

nightmare. The tools says you can bulk upload, but it doesn't really work and won't accept bulk uploads. 

When you ask for help about it, you are given the alternate to enter the data one LEA at a time. Not cool 

when you have 200 of them to enter over several grants. The reporting tools should be fixed and made 

to be very user friendly.

Please discuss any proposed changes to CSPR data collections with program managers with lots of lead 

time to allow for program managers to explain challenges that may occur if the data is not readily 

available.

n/a

N/A
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 721

From a Title IV, Part A perspective, the timing of the data collection window is not aligned with when the 

SEA has the information readily available. Currently, I do not have the appropriate data collecting 

tool/platform that allows me to pull the data during the CSPR reporting window.

CSPR data collection is well-supported and clear; state reporting guidance is very limited and vague. 

More support related to state reporting guidance is needed.

Someone else in our agency handles the grant reporting.

It would be helpful to know more about how the Title IV, Part A data is used.

still learning about this process.

The T4PA Center provides most of the technical assistance.

Staff do a great job explaining the data collected, and the business rules, and share the information in a 

timely manner. Their support is appreciated. It would be helpful to have this type of support and clarity for 

other federal programs, e.g. TI-A and TI-D.

N/A

NA

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.).

Would like more written resources (e.g., tools, FAQs, non-regulatory guidance, etc.)

No suggestions.

N/A

Sometimes the volume of meetings can be overwhelming during busy periods of the grant cycle.

Again, it is so unclear to me what is coming from the Department versus the contracted tech assist 

provider.

NA

Ensuring questions are answered in a timely manner.

I have not received this support form SSAE department staff

The focus of the T4PA Center is normally on LEA level content, ie: what are good programs in the three 

categories of IV-A. What the center should provide is assistance to grant managers on managing grants, 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 722

not the content of this specific program. This disconnect is widened when you consider that questions 

about the law itself and interpretation are not answered by the center staff but have to go back to the 

program officer at USED. It seems the center is set up to serve LEAs better than to serve state 

coordinators.

n/a

The technical assistance provided is top tier.

Most of these supports are provided by the T4PA Center or other national groups (NAESPA, Brustein & 

Manasevit, etc.). Our program officer seems disengaged from meeting the needs of our state 

implementation team. More proactive efforts to let us know how to be in compliance with program 

implementation, including how to best monitor LEAs, guidance documents released and/or questions 

answered in a timely way, information about waiver options, etc.

Increased availability and ensuring content is relevant and understandable.

Provide focused training at ESC 4 Program Coordinator meetings on the requirements. Specifically, on 

the public reporting requirements.

More visual charts and graphs.

Most TA is through the TA provider and I think they do a great job. US ED staff are always helpful and 

answer questions timely and help point to TA resources available.

Continue working to meet our needs. At this time I haven't had a lot of experience with needing specific 

TA, but in the future hope the support is available if need be.

T4PA Center

N/A

NA

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that provided 

technical services to you.

T4PA TA Center

[NAME]

Comprehensive Centers and Neglected and Delinquent Youth

T4PA Center

AIR, Title IV-A Liaison
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 723

T4PA Center - [NAME]

T4PA Center

TA Center

T4PA Center

T4PA Center

T4PA

T4PA Center

T4PA Center

T4PA Center

T4PA Center

T4PA Center

T4PA

T4PA Center

T4PA

I don't remember.

T4PA Center

T4PA

T4PA TA Center

T4PA Center

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role? (Other, please specify)

Project/State Coordinator
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 724

Education Adminsitrator

Program Manager

SEA Program Consultant

Education Specialist

Assistant Director

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

SSAE - 2022 - Q40.3. How can we improve our T4PA Center WEBSITE, including links, to 

help you identify program resources and meet your technical assistance needs?

By having one document with all of the responses from ED located in one place. It should also 

be updated quarterly to reflect any new information.

No suggestions.

N/A

Updated FAQs more frequently.

Better searchability

NA

It took me a little while to figure out the organization of the site when it first started, but I've since 

learned.

It's cumbersome. It's organized in a weird way. It constantly times out, so you have to login 

over and over again. It's difficult to navigate and find things. It needs to be more user friendly, 

and less control-oriented.

n/a

I love the T4PA website. It is easy to use, and any question I may have, I always go to the 

website first.

We only go to the website to access the portal, so we don't really utilize the website specifically.

I am not technological savvy enough to make suggestions for improving websites.

The website works great.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 725

I sometimes find it challenging to find a specific topic within the discussion board. The search 

function does not seem to work well with searching the discussion portal. However, the T4PA 

staff are great about helping me find what I am looking for.

I think their on the right track to help make it more user friendly and things accessible and 

searchable.

It should be easier to search for things.

It would be helpful to have one document with all of the questions answered from ED in once 

place, that is updated quarterly/bi-annually, as well as keeping the responses in their relevant 

areas. It would save time when it comes to searching.

NA

SSAE - 2022 - Q40.6. How can we improve our T4PA Center PORTAL to help you identify 

program resources and meet your technical assistance needs? 

Please see the previous answer - one stop shopping document that captures all of the 

responses from ED in one place.

No suggestions.

N/A

Make keyword searches easier.

Better searchability

Perhaps pull out all of the allowable costs responses into one FAQ for easier perusing.

NA

faster responsiveness from USED relating to statutory questions.

Difficult to find things and to post things sometimes.

n/a

No improvement is needed.

Good resources but difficult to navigate to find the information needed. Refine the search 

functionality.

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 726

The portal works great.

The information is very helpful, however, sometimes it can be hard to find what I am looking for. 

Navigating the dropdown menus and search criteria is difficult.

on the right track

All assisted with completion.

By having summary documents - please see the last response - that coordinators can download 

with responses from ED and by key topics.

T4PA Portal is fine to me

NA

SSAE - 2022 - Q40.7e. Which form of technical assistance do you find most helpful in the 

completion of your grant?

All of the above

combination- depends on the need

All of the above

All of the above - personally, I find the annual meetings most helpful, and love having OIG staff 

answer questions, but having written guidance to share with the agency or email communication 

is helpful as well for communicating key points with leadership.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 727

Student Support Services

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

With updated information. The site has a nice look.

Faster updates (documents are frequently 8-10 months behind or late from being announced to available 

online).

More consistent message from all ED Program Officers on various policies that are regulated for TRIO 

programs

The website is wordy and difficult to navigate. It often has old information on it not relevant to current 

grant cycle beyond the announcements.

Current information; I find it lacks materials that clearly reflect the "last updated date."

Add the poverty guidelines timely and add ALL the priority training schedules timely

The website is difficult to navigate and often times has broken links and outdated information. I believe 

this website needs to be more accurately maintained.

It would be great if the updated Low-Income levels for TRIO programs were available closer to the 

effective date. While the levels were updated effective [DATE_TIME], the website was not updated until 

[DATE_TIME].

Relevant and timely data, look and location of information, linking TRIO Training opportunities in a timely 

manner

I received a new Program Officer back in September but I have never heard from them.

Add a suggestion portal.

The news feed on the side of the site when looking at the main page for the TRIO programs is distracting. 

The site does not flow well. It is not always clear where information on issues can be found. For example, 

we were searching for the language on how to help students under the [NAME] Act but were having 

trouble finding guidance other than an old announcement regarding it being enacted. Maybe have a little 

section where we can look up issues affecting specific populations of students served by the Dept of Ed 

special programs.

Update more regularly and on time.

Only list up to date information by staying on each page accurate as of the days date. Have old 

information completely eliminated._x000D_ Show which guidelines supersede other guidelines and 

which ones are specifically reliant to each program SSS vs UB vs TS. _x000D_ Show specifically what is 

allowable for costs and what is not for each program. Show specifically what a change in scope is and 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 728

what is not. So much is up to interpretation it can be hard to know you are making the right decisions 

without having to ask various people.

Better search function more interconnected links.

Use good color contrast. For example, lighter shades of blue blend in and not contrast with a white 

background.

More user friendly

Much like students experience as users of their college website, I would like to see a dashboard or portal. 

It would be great to have one place to see my grant, my program officer, my budget/drawdowns, the 

regulations specific to my grant type, etc. As it is now, the website seems more useful to the curious 

public, than to awardees. Old information is left up far past the dates while still sporting "new" headings. 

Each page has bullets and the information seems to be in random order - lots of reading to find items.

unsure - it seems very functional and user friendly as it is.

Break out regulations by specific programs like the CFR regulations, OMB ciruculars, etc. It is very 

difficult to find specific information for a specific program.

Post information timely, such as those regarding APR instructions and Low Income Levels.

The current TRIO Trainings are not published on the website and it is unclear where to find this 

information.

Making it more user friendly.

Expand page content

Update information more frequently_x000D_ Have accurate information on the website

Making sure that they most recent documents are uploaded and if that most recent is from 10+ years ago 

they should make note that it is the last one based on congress or law so that we as users know.

A more modern design that is easy to navigate... actual pages versus hyper links to documents that SSS 

grants need. A chat feature

When searching for information make sure the terminology is consistent in all areas of the site.

Update materials and content in a timely fashion

I would suggest having more clarity. It feels cluttered.

The website lists [DATE_TIME] Training opportunities coming soon and it still listed [DATE_TIME] 

training. It took some time to get the new Low-Income Levels on the website as well.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 729

I think it would be valuable to have an FAQ page for current grant recipients, dealing with such things as 

allowable costs. Also, some information is out of date.

TRIO Training Grant information/dates should be easier to locate/navigate.

Keep information up-to-date and explain what is on a page. There is a lot of clicking that I have to do to 

find what I want. Sometimes I just give up and hope for the best

Please make the site more user-friendly. Sometimes I have to click three levels deep in order to find 

items. Additionally, the search feature does not away find items.

I have limited interaction with the website.

The web page is very user friendly and easy to navigate.

Folders by year perhaps? Who to call or contact for troubleshooting section

More user-friendly interface with data dashboards

Ensure that the information is up-to-date, more readily accessible, more succinct and concise.

It seems that often there is a disconnect from us to them. I think in part it is because of the distance 

between. It would be nice to have a bi annual zoom between programs and DOE SSS to cover various 

topics and get to know that we are all human!

Make sure all the information/ training schedule/ income verification/ forms etc are updated and correct. I 

refer to the website for information, and sometimes it takes months for it be updated,

I have no additional feedback in this area.

It needs to have updated accurate information.

Make it easier to navigate and locate the information that the user is searching for.

The website does not have any visuals that represents any faces that it supports.

The Priority trainings listing could be updated when dates are available; in the past, I've found that the 

dates are not updated on the website.

making it more easily accessible and easier to find information.

Have the taxable income chart up sooner. TRIO website is hard to navigate around

Have an easier method to search regulations and program guidelines.

Continue with the updates and information.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 730

By making it some items easier to find. It is not very user friendly.

Hard to find things, some stuff are out of date. Should have backdate records of Federal Low Income 

levels at least 10 years out.

The website needs to be updated. The current website is outdated, many of the links kickback, and it is 

very difficult to navigate as a whole unless you know exactly what you are looking for.

Links to regulations are often broken. TRIO Priority Training never seems to be up to date.

Cannot think of specific ways at this time on how it can improve at this time, but all websites should be 

looked at on a regular basis to make sure information is being distributed in an effective and efficient 

way.

Have a section for people who have new projects and identify the most important information they need 

to know to get started, perhaps a checklist and where to find the information on the Website would be 

helpful.

Improve the ability to search for specific documents.

Fix broken links, update in a timely manner

The headings are helpful but there is a lot of information buried under. Perhaps include addition heading 

and subheadings making it easier for the user to find information.

They could make sure it is updated, user-friendly and organized.

Just got hired as the new Director of SSS on [DATE_TIME]. I can navigate the website and find the 

information that I am looking for.

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.

CPPs are redundant of mandatory services and feel useless when reporting in the APR

Consistency in due dates for the APR and clarity on what is done with the data provided would be helpful 

to know.

There is little to no help with this process provided by the Department of Education.

I am fairly content with the reporting process. One helpful change may be explicit guidance on the 

permissibility of e-signed documents within the reporting process. While we completed our signature 

page with wet signatures, it may be easier for some programs to do so with electronic signatures, if 

explicitly authorized to do so.

Eliminate reporting of fields not necessary for PE points or other demonstrated need.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 731

Your Program Offices need to do more outreach and help us; not ignore us.

1. Sticking to the reporting schedule (90 days after close of the program year) is helpful._x000D_ 2. 

Making sure the qualitative nature of competitive preference priorities are measured appropriately.

A summary of the data showing how the program impacted students of different demographics would be 

helpful to us so that we can work on targeted solutions to make college persistence and completion more 

equitable.

Had a great experience doing the reporting process.

Not asking for financial information on students. Not requiring 2/3 to be low-income, first-generation and 

1/3 to be either low-income or first-generation.

N/A

User friendly, 1 800 line where there in person to answer questions

Every year, it feels like there are some gray areas of how to label/categorize a student. The race often 

will get flagged which always feels odd. Serving 'active' students who are finishing an incomplete or 

internship but were technically enrolled the previous term is an example of a gray area. Having more 

examples of standardized application of how to document students may be helpful. Since programs use 

external data management programs such as Student Access or Blumen, some of the issues are not 

exactly in the Department of Educations control.

Regarding APR fields: some students are not reporting their gender. There is no way we can report 

genders other than M/F - as a result, we have to report on our best guess. Also, you may consider adding 

another ethnicity field - multiple races. Some participants do not like being classified as being associated 

with a specific race.

Fewer fields, clearer instructions about unique scenarios.

Not sure. It is challenging with fluctuating dates from one year to next. Would be great if it SSS APR 

wasn't due during busy time with college students.

It would be beneficial to know how program performance can be improved as a result of the data.

Clearer explanations of options and how they apply

Specific information about how the government will take into consideration impact of COVID on data 

reported would be extremely helpful.

A more modern design that is easy to navigate.

I was hired after the grant submission process there fore was not part of the application process.

live chat for submission issues
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 732

N/a

Better instructions_x000D_ Q19 - If a student enrolls in SSS in the spring, it's confusing because 

question states "participant's college grade at entry into the project". I was marking item 2, when I should 

have been marking 1 and have to think in terms of the academic year. Needs more clear instruction on 

First Time Full Time enrollment._x000D_ Q23 - Talks about semester credits. Should I count the hrs 

students enrolled in deficiency courses? Technically they aren't for credit, but they do count for financial 

aid purposes and they aren't audited courses. I have always counted them, but this one gets confusing 

since it references incomplete or failed courses. So if I have a student withdraw from all of their classes, 

would I answer 4=less than 1/2 time or should I answer 0=No response/unknown. Technically they were

enrolled but then withdrew from all. _x000D_ It would be nice to get input from folks who do the APR to 

help with some clarification for the next APR or implement some more directions on what I have brought 

up her. I think the rest of the APR is pretty good. When going to the site, sometimes it's hard to figure out 

what the system wants on some people. I had directors complaining that they had to report on someone 

that should have dropped off, but they counted them the 5th year and now they may have to count them 

for 3 more years before they roll off. More clarity on counting cohort groups and how to code them would 

be helpful.

We don't really get feedback on how the Department uses the data, other than evaluating our individual 

programs. I think it would be interesting to see some kind of summary report, e.g., what percentage of all 

SSS students from community colleges graduate and transfer? When we switched to case numbers, the 

Department provided excellent webinars to explain the process. There always seem to be one or two 

students that are problematic; the specific "case study" examples given in the instructions are helpful and 

could be expanded. Also, there could be more specific instructions given on what fields are related--

seems I find out about those when I go through the errors in the submission process.

COVID's impact of implementing a new Veterans SSS program provided many challenges to deliver 

services to first generation, low-income, and/or disabled students. With my 20 years of experience in 

higher education, my opinion is that the [DATE_TIME] - [DATE_TIME] APR and budget carry over should 

not follow pre-COVID past practices.

* During the SSS APR training, we learned that Cares Funds where NOT to be included in field #35 

(Amount of Financial Aid Received), yet the Director letter did not mention/clarify that Cares Funds 

should/should not be included for field #35._x000D_ * Clarity on how to properly code a participant (Field 

#19 & Field #22) as either: ([DATE_TIME])new summer participant OR (1) new participant(part of 

[DATE_TIME] cohort for reporting period) when the new participant enroll in two college courses while a 

junior/senior in high school for FREE through the local college's JumpStart program and earned college 

credit on their college transcript, but did not graduate high school until [DATE_TIME]. Because several 

participants earned college credits while still in high school, a [DATE_TIME] cohort was assigned to 

them, rather than assigning them a [DATE_TIME] cohort that would have given them 4-full years to 

obtain their degree from a 2-year college. Clarity on this type of scenario would be very much 

appreciated.

Students who select Hispanic and nothing else, are flagged as they are supposed to select ethnicity and 

race; however, they view themselves only as Hispanic. This has been an issue for years. Reporting on 

students who we have served longer than the recommended 4 years, it is allowed for us to continue 

serving them; however the report was not allowing this function during the last APR.

I think the grant reporting process should have a more detailed guide for preparation.

1. Open the submission tool earlier; provide grantees with more than one month._x000D_ 2. Give more 

detailed explanations in the actual APR instructions for potentially confusing items to alleviate the timeconsuming activity of having to correct errors on submission day.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 733

Make it less technical and more clear. feels like information is black or white/ when our students have a 

variety of issues/ outcomes and it's hard to capture all the data in a way that really reflects our program. 

ALSO COVID affected outcomes

It would be helpful to offer a technical support webinar for grantees to ensure new grantees have a space 

to get technical quesrions answered.

The SSS APR needs clearer more detailed instructions for each required field.

Pre-fill more of the fields where the information does not change.

I had a great experience due to the APR workshop. This workshop provided great details and 

explanations for the reporting process. The workshop provided worksheets which were a great reference. 

It is my belief that if this is a required workshop for Directors then it could improve the grant reporting 

process.

I was not able to provide detailed information as our director stepped down in February and did not share 

their experience with the Grant application process OR the APR process.

It's dated. Not user friendly in the initial piece, but the latter is more understandable.

Continue with similar reporting process.

Sending clearer instructions.....uploading it to the site (if not in the correct format) just gives error 

messages without giving suggestions or sending you to a troubleshooting page for assistance, instead 

you need to call the help desk and wait.

We use Blumen so the ability to download from Blumen and then to upload to the APR is easy. _x000D_ 

While I understand the questions being asked in the APR, I don't think they are helpful in improving the 

grant but the APR is too quantitative and rigid while the program itself - to better adjust and therefore, 

improve outcomes within a grant cycle needs to be more fluid and flexible. Though this may be better 

feedback on how the grant is evaluated than about the reporting process itself.

There needs to be more clarity from the Department of Ed directly. It is impossible to get information 

directly from the Department of Ed. For new Directors, this makes it very difficult to know the needs of the 

office.

I have never heard from my current or previous program officer about meeting/not meeting my program 

objectives. I have no idea how the Department of Ed uses this data.

Share data and allow for much greater utilization. Be consistent with reporting times. We never know 

when we will have to work over [DATE_TIME] or [DATE_TIME] breaks.

Do not feel that there is anything at this time that needs to be improved. The review of the process 

should be reviewed on a regular basis to assure that any updates needed are made prior to the new APR 

going live date and deadline.

Provide clarification on the importance of the data and why it is being used. Allow for flexibility within 

each program to report on the trends they are noticing with their student population and suggestions for 

improving services.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 734

The upload process is very cumbersome. Refine and make it easier to upload documents.

I don't know. Last year was my first year completing the APR for SSS and it was difficult.

Increased hours for individuals to contact the department during the reporting period. For example 

evening availability. Also, a faster response time to emails and questions.

The department of Ed should create its own database so that all information is directly submitted to the 

department of Ed excluding any outside vendors.

I read the information for the APRG and the instructions and all of the information was very well written 

and being a new director this will be very beneficial when submitting my first APRG.

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role? (Other, please specify)

Interim Director

Academic Success Coach/Interim Director

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

SSS - 2022 - 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.

We needed guidance on our carryover and could not get a clear answer for many months. The 

rules seem different for UB/McNair than they are for Student Support Services often leaving us 

trying to speak with one another to gain clarity

Program Specialist (PS) has changed several times (4) in the last 3 years. Need consistency of 

PS and of their interpretation of regulations. Some programs get approval for activities and 

others do not (for the same activity)

My program specialist, [NAME] Mompoint, is very difficult to reach out too and often takes a 

month or more to respond to inquiries. I also submitted a budget for approval to her, it was 

approved and then 3 months later she claimed that she had never received my budget. This 

program specialist has no idea what she is doing and provides zero assistance or helpful 

information when asked. Often times when I ask her a specific question she will, instead of 

trying to answer the question, send me a link to the guidelines where I have already searched 

for hours to find the answer. She is inconsistent and overall just not good at what she does.

To my knowledge, assistance was not significantly impacted by the pandemic. One potential 

area of improvement would be streamlining or accelerating the budget revision approval 

process. I am sympathetic to our program specialists- especially those with especially numbers 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 735

of programs to service- and would welcome any way to more quickly and effectively authorize 

annual budget revisions.

Many of the newly hired program specialists have no experience working in any of the programs 

they oversee. This is a handicap to them and the project directors they serve. They lack 

credibility in offering suggestions of how to better serve our populations. When I first started 

working in TRIO, the program specialists had a wealth of practical knowledge of how to 

effectively operate a project under normal circumstances. Having a global emergency only 

added credence to my argument that many of them were ill-equipped to answer our questions or 

advise us on next steps. We need folks with practical experience working in those positions.

Although the adjusted program allowable expenses were communicated quickly to us, the things 

that were allowed and how they were to be implemented were unclear. It took some time and 

asking around to figure out what exactly we were allowed to do with regard to helping students 

with technology for home use.

Our PO was great in getting back to me when I had issues during the pandemic. We also 

received new grant during this time and they did a great job assisting us with the 

implementation process.

I think guidelines on what is ok to do or ask for and how to do or ask for those things.

She was responsive.

Our specialist is [NAME]. She was very good at getting back to us in a timely manner. If she 

didn't know the answer she would let us know that she needed to get back to us.

N/A

The pandemic didn't seem to interrupt the assistance I received. My campus policies affected 

me more. My program specialist did change twice, assuming it was due to turn-over, and it 

would be nice to get notified of the new program specialist formally.

I was not a director during the Covid pandemic, and thus had no interactions w/my program 

specialist during that time. During the time I have acted as director (since [DATE_TIME]), my 

program specialist has been very helpful, professional, and responsive to emails.

I really did not receive much in the way of guidance from my program specialist. I did receive 

what the department put out but that was somewhat ambiguous, but it was an ever-evolving 

situation.

It's understandable about being short staffed and busy. Timely response to questions is greatly 

appreciated.

The technical assistance needed during COIVD was delayed and often times decisions were not 

made in a timely manner to adequately address issues and concerns. I found the program 

specialists were not able to answer questions because they were waiting for decisions to be 

made at a higher level. In talking with colleagues, information that was shared was inconsistent 

between Program Specialists.

I only reached out to my program specialist once during this past year, however the emails from 

him were helpful.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 736

Every national emergency affects the implementation of service programs. The Department 

must translate the emergency into the impact, quantity of services offered by the programs, in its 

evaluations and reports.

Slower responses specially when it comes to approving budget makes it harder to spend and do 

events for students

Overall, direction and changes to the SSS program was slow. My program specialist was 

excellent at responding but overall the department would respond to questions at a length of 

time that left many staff like myself unsure of what to do.

I was new to the position and she was able to send me all the documents that I need to interpret 

how to use funds.

I have confidence in my program officer, he is responsive to my questions. I feel that any delay 

in communication and guidance was from the top down. Delays and clarity from the DOE

I have had numerous program specialists in the last year. My current specialist seems 

passionate about the work, but some of the previous specialists set a tone that I felt hurt new 

directors.

We went back and forth on the budget, which was extremely stressful, but ultimately got it 

approved. Overall, she was doing her job and making sure things were right. She replied fairly 

quickly as well.

My program specialist made a point of reaching out via a phone conference to discuss issues 

we may be having, and I appreciated that. There was a lack of clarity at first regarding 

flexibilities, i.e., purchasing technology to help out our students suddenly having to go online, 

but I understand how difficult it was for everyone. I wish the regulations, or the interpretation of 

regulations, would allow programs to purchase computers and hotspots to loan to students, 

since that is such a strong need for our rural low-income students. Access to technology 

sometimes makes all the difference in determining whether or not a student succeeds.

I had multiple program specialists during our first year as a new grant. Communication was nonexistent. If it wasn't for other program directors, I would have been totally lost since the guidance 

in starting a new programs is limited from [NAME]. We now have an amazing program specialist 

that I have heard nothing but positive feedback on and is highly communicative.

As a new Veterans SSS, there was no consideration provided by [ADDRESS] Dept of Education 

on flexibility based on the impact of COVID towards first generations, low-income, and/or 

disabled students. [ADDRESS] Dept of Ed Program Specialists should not be held accountable 

to a system that did not demonstrate an understanding to the challenges that SSS professionals 

were adjusting too COVID county, state and federal restrictions of interactions.

When we were all forced to go remote, there was not any timely guidance for DOE on how we 

were able to proceed, it took months to get guidance and by the time it came, we were close to 

done with that school year. When there is such a disruption in our normal daily functions we 

need the guidance on what is and is not allowed in the new normal; before it becomes 

irrelevant.

All my questions and technical assistance requested were resolved in a timely fashion.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 737

NA - Just assumed this new position.

Have a plan in place and provide more timely communication; project directors did not receive 

initial communication related to the pandemic until [DATE_TIME]! Grantee institutions had 

questions regarding use of left-over grant funds (due to cancelled activities that were previously 

budgeted); the purchase of laptops and hotspots so students who did not have and could not 

afford these items, could borrow them; flexibility in substantial progress requirements, etc. It 

seemed guidance was communicated so late, it added to the frustration and confusion.

There were several transitions between program specialists during the pandemic with limited 

guidance at times. The current program specialist is great.

Our Program Officer responded to our questions in a timely manner which helped us to continue 

to serve our students

The message was clear and that message was to continue to assist our program participants in 

achieving their goal of a bachelor degree. To access our population to find the gaps in services, 

if any, and to make the necessary adjustments according to the flexibilities we were given.

During the pandemic, I did not experience any challenges with technical assistance.

I had many new program officers. It was hard to keep up with who was the new one in 

charge._x000D_ _x000D_ I wish SSS was a little more flexible with funds for activities to host 

dessert, pizza, etc. Money towards Orientation to feed students.

Guidance on obtaining digital signatures.

The college and I really appreciate the technical assistance and flexibility of the program 

specialist (Mr. [NAME]) and The Department of Education in meeting the needs of the SSS 

programs and students in the mist of a National Emergency. I think there have been many 

lessons learned by this Pandemic for us to prepare for a future emergency to be able to work 

remotely.

For the most part did a good job of responding in a timely manner. I may had to wait a little 

while for a response but given the circumstances that was understandable.

N/A, I was not hired into my Director role during Covid. This had all passed before I joined.

It is [DATE_TIME], and I still have not received budget approval from [NAME] for my 

[DATE_TIME] grant budget.

More thought to how that pandemic affected the ability to met numbers due to relocations and 

working from home. Suggestions and strategies to manage programs.

I had been very pleased with support from ED, but then we got a new program specialist and 

everything became much more difficult. Our budget was approved, then approval was 

rescinded. Broad and unnecessary guidance was issued including food being disallowed in all 

circumstances. Much more justification was required for routine allowable expenses tied to 

program objectives. When we met I was lectured to about how allowable expenses such as 

mentoring programs are merely allowable and I should really focus on required services. There 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 738

was tremendous disparity on how different specialists applied inconsistent guidance outside of 

legislation and regulations. ED from from ally/partner to very adversarial.

Due to Covid-19 and hiring limitations our project started late and this was a brand new project 

for our institution. We basically had one semester to learn all of the grant regulations and 

requirements, hire support staff, build the program, recruit students to participate in the program, 

and serve them. When we failed to hit our target number, which was an impossible task, we 

were threatened with the possibility of having our funding pulled. It felt like the focus was just on 

meeting the numbers for the Department of Ed, not identifying and serving the most appropriate 

students. Everything felt very rushed, staff felt threatened and uneasy, and we had to focus on 

recruiting as many students as possible rather than truly serving them.

I had no need to contact the program officer.

I did not get hired while in the pandemic, but I can say that I've been hired for a year and my 

program specialist has not communicated as she should.

During the pandemic, a lot of programs needed more immediate and definite answers, however, 

the department would state that they would share a response and that would normally take 

anywhere from 30-60 days.

It would be nice to have the Program Specialist contact us directly about any updates regarding 

global issues that could affect the program.

I am a new director for TRIO-SSS ([DATE_TIME]) and I have not had the honor of meeting my 

program specialist.

SSS - 2022 - Q31.5. What can the Student Support Services do to improve communication 

with you?

Clarity in communication would be helpful in general.

Hire a better program specialist that actually cares about SSS and will answer questions and be 

helpful when needed.

My only suggestion would be a shorter duration between request and response, particularly 

related to budgets. I recognize, however, that each program specialist works with many 

programs, and this impacts the speed of review and response to requests.

Have the Program Officers be more proactive and engage with us.

When new "interpretations" of regulations and policies are enacted should be communicated in 

three ways: email, follow-up training meeting (web & in-person) citing examples, and follow-up 

blog for questions to be answered._x000D_ _x000D_ Also, there needs to be consistency 

between program specialists as to what is communicated for various reasons.

It might be helpful to send a monthly digest with important information and reminders affecting 

SSS programs.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 739

Not sure. Reply to our emails and question in a timely manner.

I had an excellent program specialist during the pandemic [NAME]. I get a new program officer 

so often it is difficult to form a relationship with each one.

She does a good job.

Implement the Newsletter again

The communication I have received, seems to be mostly mass emails to multiple project 

directors. It hasn't been personalized past the greeting. Do program officers and key staff even 

want to know us? They issue important news updates like when a grant opens or there is a 

deadline we must meet.

I like the additions to the 'TRIO maps' link on the DE SSS website! I also appreciate the 

reminders when the APR is open, and reminders regarding when it's due.

The current program specialist is fine, we have had three in the last year. The one we had for 

the last few years was not at all clear. She would just cut and paste the same message, it often 

had no relevance to anything, just an opportunity for her to check off that she had 

communicated. I am glad we have a different program officer now who seems to be more 

attuned to what is happening.

Nothing. Good communication via emails.

Approvals of budgets and student travel need to completed in a timely manner for programs to 

execute programming. A budget request template may be helpful so Director's know exactly 

what information to provide when seeking approvals.

Consistency among program officers would be helpful - especially with recent and frequent 

switches in assigned officers.

I am pleased with the level of communication I received from my program officer

My program specialist, [NAME], is WONDERFUL! Mr. [NAME] sends out timely communication 

and answers emails in a timely manner whenever I have questions. However, I do miss the "old" 

days when it was appropriate to call up your program officer. I started working with TRIO 

Programs in the mid-[DATE_TIME] and worked within various TRIO Programs for over 12 years 

and left the TRIO word. I've been back since [DATE_TIME], and the feel is a little different from 

what I remember; I don't feel as "connected" with [NAME]. I miss the encouragement & 

establishment of having a personal relationship with your program officer/specialist, which was 

so vital because it built trust and confidence in your position of being the Project Director.

Build on the changes that have already begun.

I recognize that the Specialists have a lot of programs, but a friendly email letting directors know 

that they can ask for help would be appreciated. Previous specialists made it difficult to want to 

reach out for help.

It would be nice for Dept of Ed to email out the slate of awardees, regardless of what TRIO 

program we are with and also post it on the website.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 740

I feel I receive the information I need when I need it. I also depend on COE a lot to get 

information.

Have more consistency in the interpretation of legs and regs. One specialist says this, another 

says that and it is so not helpful when trying to establish policies and practices as a new 

program.

I believe the communication process is accurate

More longevity with program specialist assignments_x000D_ More timely with communicating -

both with response time when grantees send emails/leave voicemail messages, and with 

sending grantees information and announcements, instead of sending announcements 2-3 days 

prior to the meeting/webinar/event)

Notification of Grant Approval of funds by prior to August would allow time for programs to plan 

their upcoming academic school year.

This is based on my former PO, but my new PO is much quicker on response.

I am pleased with the communication that I have with my program specialist.

Just continue to provide communications as is.

Updates, newsletter, Best practices, virtual trainings, handbooks, Did you know updates.

Continue to keep the SSS programs updated and alerted as soon as possible with updated 

information.

N/A haven't really had communication yet

There needs to be more consistent communication from the program officer, direction and 

guidance, and clarity. It seems that program officers do not interpret the rules and regulations 

the same way which makes it difficult for programs.

[NAME] could approve my budget, that would be a start--it is [DATE_TIME]! I never hear from 

her, except for mass mailings on external programs. Never sends a personal note on successes 

as a director or the SSS program as a whole. She does not know financial regulations well and 

misinterprets them and has made me do extra work to prove a financial expense that has been 

allowable in the past.

Be much more consistent among the specialists. We function within the legislation and 

regulations and don't need unnecessary and more restrictive guidance being applied. Treat us 

as partners. Treat us with respect. We are all working toward the same goals.

As a new project director, I don't know what I don't know. Being able to connect with the 

program specialist on a personal level via zoom or phone would go a long way in building 

relationships which would make it easier to ask questions or seek guidance.

No improvement needed.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 741

You can start by hiring more program officers; communicate better and in a timely manner; 

approve budgets in a timely manner so that we are able to begin spending quicker. Be fair 

across the board-Don't approve something for one college and deny another.

Grant notifications are always sent AT THE VERY LAST MINUTE! This causes an extremely 

high level of stress for employees and this causes many to leave their positions prior to being 

informed of funding status. Projects should be notified at least a 90 to 120 days prior to the end 

of current grant cycle.

Monthly Check-in if not Quarterly.

Continue to be in contact with the institution.

Add more program specialists.

SSS - 2022 - Q31.6e. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with your 

program specialist?

My preferred method is telephone because I enjoy communicative engagement & relationship 

building; however, I understand the purpose of having a paper trail.

All the above

SSS - 2022 - Q31.7. How would you advise on improving the overall process and 

protocols associated with this grant competition?

Readers seem untrained and subjective. Some feedback seemed irrelevant or nit-picky when 

compared to directions provided by RFP instructions. For example, I lost points for not listing 

"intermediate objectives" in my evaluation plan and only having short and long-term objectives. 

Instructions provided did not specify a 3rd objective requirement for the logic model or 

evaluation plan.

It would be helpful to have a schedule in advance of what to expect. We do not always know 

what to expect during the years of grant competition and it takes awhile to gain clarity

Adequate time to receive funding notice BEFORE the last 30 days of the grant.

I was not part of the most recent grant competition, and have no feedback to offer.

Hire better Program Officers who actually care about us and not folks who flat-out ignore us.

The process is should be transparent and standardized. The "shroud of secrecy" and element 

of surprise for when its coming out should go away. Set hard dates as to when it will open and 

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 742

More timely award notifications

Not wait until the a week or two before the beginning of the grant to notify institutions if they 

have been approved.

Don't to CPP's. Allow for grants who are renewing to complete a less lengthy grant. Allow 

directors a certain amount of time off to work on the grant.

Unsure

In the next grant cycle release the slate in late June or early July. Our college would not let us 

do any hiring of mentors and tutors until we got the award letter. In the last grant application we 

were notified in mid August, which means we did not have our services in place on the first day 

fall semester.

Early as possible for the competition so its not late July or August finding out about awards

Unsure - I have never written or researched data for our TRIO SSS grant, nor participated in it's 

submission.

Do away with the CPP's. They typically are a repeat of information already discussed in the 

original proposal.

Unsure.

Establish a timeline that allows for funding notices to be announced in May. Clarity on budget 

forms in the application.

Communicate the grant competition results sooner.

The parameters and evaluations of service programs for students with disabilities must be 

adapted to the population. For example, services such as support services on reasonable 

accommodation, assistive technology, among other specialized services for persistence, 

graduation and good academic standing of this population are not considered necessary, so 

they are not reported.

Earlier notification_x000D_ More information about a No Cost Extension request

More communication around when awards would be announced

Not sure was not part of the process at this institution

N/A

Maybe a quarterly check via an online Teams meeting may make the assistance more fluid.

SSS wasn't in grant competition this past year and I answered n/a on questions associated with 

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 743

Have more time between the release of the RFP and the deadline, especially if that time period 

overlaps with winter holidays. Of course, most of the grant can be drafted before the RFP, but 

not the CPPs.

N/A

Setting a clear timeline of evaluation and announcing the results in a timely manner

For those of us that are new, a fact sheet on where to start and how to proceed through the 

processes and protocols would be great.

Earlier and more frequent notifications_x000D_ Clear, concise and succinct information

An earlier timeline from RFP to grant award notification would be great.

I would like to be notified earlier about the funded status.

I think the overall process and protocols that have been given are great. My experience with the 

workshops and documents to assist with the program have been outstanding. I do not have any 

advise for improving.

It would be helpful to receive GAN earlier in the summer, especially in preparing and when 

submitting the budget to allow time to plan/coordinate as well.

Quality control over the text of the instructions. When these need to be corrected after 

publication, it can be very confusing for applicants.

Update sharing, workshops, handbooks

Thorough training for the readers to be familiar with the purpose and operation of the SSS grant 

programs to have a clear understanding to limit any biases.

N/A - I was hired after this competition. However, I hope DOE will be flexible about the future 

competition (and using prior experience points in grading the next competition) due to the 

extreme circumstances of COVID and it's impact on enrollment (which has steadily declined 

across higher education over the last decade), retention, and academic success.

Give expectations on CPP's further in advance. We scrambled to pull the extensive research 

backed info together the past two competitions.

Grant competition process/protocols was clear.

Processing of the process and releasing the full slate of programs in the funding band to be 

more timely to assure retention of staff, ability to implement program with out delay and have full 

range of services from the start of the program year.

Less threats of pulling funding and more guidance on best practices.

Consider not putting the application out during holiday breaks.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 744

MOre webniars

N/A I am new

Provide a timely manner for announcing the funding of programs.

Having set deadlines to notify grant awardees. In our competition, we were notified less that 30 

days before the end of the grant year.

N/A

I think that what' s in place works well so continue doing the same process.

Have the competition opening and closing dates the same every cycle.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 745

Supporting Effective Educator Development Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

I find the federal register hard to navigate

I rarely visit the site. I have a very difficult time finding what I am looking for.

I do not access the website much.

The site is excellent for supporting the application process and looking up specific technical details. It is 

less useful once grants are awarded, because much of the information that grantees is shared with us 

directly by our program officer and TA providers.

Have more relevant and up to date information. You have to go to [URL] to get any real 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., non-regulatory guidance, newsletter, blast 

emails).

Our project's contacts were not included in the email blasts that went out with documents and updates. I 

informed the program officer multiple times but this was never corrected. We received the documents 

only because I was following up, expecting information to be sent for annual reports, etc. Otherwise, we 

never would have received them.

In the first years of our reporting, the reporting documents changed each year. It is difficult to do the work 

ahead without consistency. Other federal grants we have participated in do not have two reports each 

year. It seems like a lot of reporting. Often I prepared reports/presentations for program officer 

meetings... so a lot of reporting for busy staff.

The quality and usefulness of the documents that I receive from the SEED program staff is great.

Occasionally there are inconsistencies between presentations and written guidance. For example this 

year, we had heard that there would not be an opportunity for an NCE, then during a presentation it 

seemed that there might be, and then there was a return to the original guidance. We really understand 

that the Department is pressed and appreciated quick clarification.

They do not really most much relevant information you have to go to the documents at [URL]

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 746

I appreciate that the grant reporting process is stable and allows us to focus on our projects._x000D_ 

_x000D_ Improvement areas: We never get feedback on our performance reports and it's not clear 

whether or how they are used. I feel uncomfortable submitting the reports and budgets via email and 

would prefer that there was a secure system we could upload them to.

Timely dissemination of the information to ALL projects and more responsiveness to emails requesting 

assistance. I understand there is a lot of movement and reassignments between offices for program 

officers and this is likely the reason we were not receiving the information nor responses to requests 

confirming receipt of information.

Addressed in the previous question. GPRA requirements for following teachers for two years beyond the 

grant program is problematic for funding and for teacher confidentially.

The process is good as is.

Effectiveness ratings for teachers and principals is difficult for us to obtain since we are a thrid party 

service provider, not an LEA

The requirement to follow teachers for two years after program completion is quite burdensome. Further, 

as an external partner, collecting measures of teacher quality is challenging when working with multiple 

districts and states -- and general measures of teacher quality may not get at the micro-level changes 

that teachers make. Working in a smaller number of settings makes this easier. We really appreciated 

Dave English's thought partnership in making a plan that makes sense for our work.

I feel like the quality of the reports is basically the level the reporter wants to put on themselves. We did 

extensive reports to find out others had barely explained or supported any of their work and were not 

using hard data to support.

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 general, the SEED program appears to not acknowledge that we have been through a pandemic. The 

requirements to not carry over due to pandemic related savings appears unrealistic.

I don't know what other grantees are working on and wish there was a way to identify and connect with 

peers that face similar issues.

Our SEED program officer and those we interact with are simply wonderful.

we did not really receive any technical assistance

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that provided 

technical services to you.

EED and Communities360°

Effective Educator Development TA Center
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 747

EED

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role? (Other, please specify)

PI

Faculty PI

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

SEED - 2022 - Q56.8. What recommendations would you like to make to the SEED 

program staff to assist you in administering your grant more effectively? 

I think that whatever directive was given to program staff about pandemic related cost savings 

has become a challenge for the grantees. It is not fair to the grantees to say that they did not 

spend the money while we were in a pandemic.

Regular meetings, we had to reach out to our PO, they did not reach out to us for meetings. 

However our PO was responsive in meetings and emails.

I don't have any recommendations but want to say Thank You! to our program officer and the 

SEED program manager for being such an amazing support team.

More support in alternate measures of educator effectiveness

When we had quarterly meetings, these were extremely helpful. Also, feedback on GPRA 

measures through conversation and email was helpful. _x000D_ _x000D_ The thing that would 

be most helpful would be to have consistent reporting dates, established well in advance. It

would also be helpful for the guidance r.e. cost match documentation to stay consistent from 

year to year. This would really help us with managing the reporting and cost match 

documentation processes.

Know the grant, meet with the grantee on a timely basis. I selected quarterly, but if I met with 

her once a year that was something.

I would love it if we could have one annual report rather than 2 reports a year.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 748

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

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

There are a LOT of programs listed and unless you read carefully it's easy to overlook what you're 

looking for, however I'm not sure how this can be improved other than page design that makes things 

easier/clearer to navigate.

Some of the titles for links could be shortened to make it easier to read.

Add training and/or informational PPT presentations related to Title II FAQs, allowable uses of funds, 

innovative ways to use Title II funds, etc.

I was unable to find the general email box for Title II, Part A. Could you have a dedicated area for listing 

contact information?

Please list evidence based instructional practices related to the School Leadership training programs.

N/A

Move from a list format to a more visual and user friendly format. Provide more grouping of resources. 

Provide information about promising practices and their impact.

no suggestions since it is significantly improved from the previous website; continual improvement will 

make it even better over time.

n/a

Long lists of links can make it hard to find things. Using expanding trees to list documents by category 

rather than having them all on the page could be helpful.

Make it easier to fine guidance documents and dear colleague letters.

no suggestions at this time.

Add a few more search features.

No specific ideas at this time.

N/A

How might ED promote the contents of its website? I.e., How does ED make its audience aware of 

guidance available in a timely /relevant manner? For instance, we approaching the beginning of a new 

grant cycle, what information on your site is most timely and relevant for SEAs to made aware of or to 

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 749

Not particularly user friendly, links are broken

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).

We don't have recent II-A guidance, but perhaps updates are not needed since current guidance is based 

on ESSA.

Newsletters and email blasts. I have not received any.

There is often so much information it is hard to access. More high level summaries with links for more 

information would be helpful.

Nothing for now.

Thanks, all is good

N/A

Please update non-regulatory guidance for the program and for guidance related to equitable services.

updated guidance

n/a

As was done in the past, develop a useful NRG that includes Q and A section that addresses key issues.

I have not received any direct communication specifically from IIA program staff. Perhaps there is a list 

serve that I am not connected to where I could be getting this information. I regularly receive updates 

from T4PA regarding Title IVA.

no suggestions at this time

I find them helpful and I am pleased with the content.

No specific comments at this time.

N/A

I have not received a single document. How does [NAME] determine who receives these notifications?
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 750

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.

Appreciate the US Department of Education and state level assistance in reporting in CSPR and APR. I 

definitely rely on support from both to complete grant reports. Both CSPR and APR have reduced 

required elements over the course of ESSA, which has been helpful. However, both reports still require a 

significant amount of time to complete.

No comments at this time.

Nothing for now.

Thanks

N/A

n/a

no suggestions at this time.

Sometimes, when there is a problem with submitting the data the group that is supposed to help with the 

fix problems doesn't get back to you in a timely fashion as in the past. Someone on the helpdesk should 

be ready to help asap.

No specific comments at this time.

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.).

No suggestions for improvement, but a big thanks to [NAME] for participating in our state coordinators 

meetings from time to time.

The Department staff has participated in SETDA Title II-A Collaborative. There have not been specific

sessions lately for Title II-A during National ESEA Conference or other NAESPA meetings. My 

understanding is there is no provision for Title II-A Technical Assistance Center in ESSA. Overall, the 

non-regulatory guidance documents and collaboration with other state Title II-A Coordinators through 

SETDA, NAESPA and CCSSO have met my needs.

There have been no convenings specific to this program hosted by USED as of late.

Monthly or quarterly meetings related strictly to Title II, not combined with Technology.

Nothing for now.

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 751

N/A

The staff will come to outside organizations meetings to speak but there are very few opportunities 

shared directly by the Title II, Part A staff.

n/a

I did not rate these because I have not reached out with questions. However, I would appreciate outreach 

from the IIA team. I have attended the quarterly REAP meetings which have been helpful and it would be 

great to hear presentations/resources shared by the IIA team to support SEA implementation of IIA.

No technical assistance has been provided from ED to program staff.

Timing can always improve. Sometimes we get notices for opportunities for webinars on great topics but 

the timing of the announcement is too short to be able to participate.

In comparison to the communications and interactions with our Title I and ESSER program offices and 

officers, we have very little connection with our Title II office. In fact, I am not even sure I can name our 

Title II program officer.

No specific comments at this time.

N/A

I have not been privy to any formal guidance organized by [NAME] as it pertains to TII-A apart form the 

Non-Regs published in [DATE_TIME]. ED staff have been guests to SETDA TII-A collaborative meetings, 

but I have not been made aware of any trainings organzied by [NAME] itself.

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that provided 

technical services to you.

Department staff participating in SETDA Title II-A Collaborative

Comprehensive Centers

NDTAC

[NAME]

Labs and peer to peer

Title II A

[NAME]
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 752

NDTAC

NDTAC

WESTAT (I think) It was the group that provided TA for the use of funds survey.

Tactile, T4PA

[NAME] via email. He always provides prompt and accurate assistance.

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role? (Other, please specify)

Title Funds Financial Manager

Project/State Coordinator

SEA Assistant Director
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 753

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

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Information is not easy to locate and is often out of date. It would be helpful to post any notices for grants 

on the main page for the grant.

We feel that there could be links to program officer staff beyond the group leader and links out to the 

program support sites, including and importantly, fiscal management.

The team of professionals has been great to consult with this year.

No comment

Update information in a timely manner.

There are no recommendations for improvement.

I feel that the information available is relatively easy to find, but I would like to see more depth of 

information about the program. I was able to find information related to goals of the grant through the 

NIA, but I had to read the full document in order to do so. It would be helpful to have relevant information 

and history related to the program also outlined/summarized on the website.

D/K

N/A -

No feedback at this time.

It can be more user friendly and appealing to the eye.

Information is consistently missing on the awards page (reviewer comments, PDFs of awards, etc.) Some 

of the information on the EED TA center page would make sense to also have on the TSL website.

N/A

Never directed to use the website

I have not interacted with 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 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 754

type of document(s) your comments address (e.g., non-regulatory guidance, newsletter, blast 

emails).

When we get our instructions for APRs, they often reference TIF, which is no longer applicable. It makes 

it feel like the documents are out of date.

We don't see much documentation being sent beyond the APR information. Most program info comes 

from the TA Center. Perhaps more official OESE grant management information, including fiscal 

management, could be an area where grantees could benefit.

Email communication has been great. Thank you for the consistent communication in regards to updates 

on the grant.

The major problem is change in personnel.

N/A

None at this time

Newsletters and blast emails have been helpful and informative. Other communication and documents 

have needed proofread prior to sending as they contained errors in information, dates, and directions, 

creating unnecessary questions and uncertainty.

I think that the [DATE_TIME] Cohort Mid-Year APR guidance/instructions document did a generally good 

job of providing information for me to think about when completing my Mid-Year APR. I understand that 

a certain degree of specificity is not possible because each grantee's project differs. However, there are 

some sections that do not seem to align across the Mid-Year APR cover sheet, template, and instructions 

document. For example, the second row on the Mid-Year APR cover sheet indicates a need for "(Block 5 

of the Grant Award Notification - 11 characters.)" The next block (into which I perceive I should be 

entering the information) states, "(See instructions. Up to 12 characters.)" When I review the GAN, block 

5 is "Key Personnel" and our GAN states "N/A." When I look for additional information on the provided 

instructions, I cannot find guidance about these blocks. Again, generally the instructional documents are 

helpful, but it seems that some components are not aligned across documents.

Good report, not so burdensome as TQP.

None noted at this time.

NA

I do not have any feedback at this time to share.

I cannot recall a newsletter or blast email in the last 12 months from the TSL program.

The documents are great. They are specific, timely, and helpful.

Communication regarding timelines as they pertain to reviews of grant extensions would be helpful so we 

can be transparent with our grant funded roles and projects.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 755

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.

Update the instructions to reference TSL and not TIF.

We have not seen much in the area of how individual project data is aggregated to talk more about the 

impact of TSL programming in general, so that could be an area of improvement.

The paperwork burden and expectations sometimes impacts the amount of time necessary to focus on 

program implementation rather than rehashing the proposal.

N/A

None at this time

Proofread documents prior to sending to grantees to ensure that directions, tasks, requirements, 

timelines, and due dates are correct. Also consider the grantee and cohort to ensure the grant reporting

process is relevant to each grantee.

I don't think the Department necessarily can/should make adjustments here. I think that I am simply in 

the early phases of implementation and am developing my understanding of how these requirements are 

met in my specific project.

D/K

None noted at this time.

NA - very smooth process overall

Make the document a fillable PDF.

Requiring an APR prior to the end of a grant year (fall [DATE_TIME]) was very challenging. The budget 

narrative portion could included clearer guidance. Sometimes FPO asks for information that was not in 

the APR (ex: budget narrative for match funds or full budget with narratives for projected carryover + next 

year of grant).

The process of submitting reports so far seems like an exercise in defending what has been done or not 

done so far. The reporting process does not seem like an opportunity for reflection and improvement. 

Maybe reflection and improvement is not the purpose of the reporting and that would be okay as long as 

the purpose is made clear.

It would be helpful to assemble grantees from the field to discuss the GPRAs in light of:_x000D_ 

alignment to and impact on project design; availability, timeliness, and feasibility of collecting and 

reporting on requested data; guidance and consistency in operationally defining the required data 

elements; utility of the required data elements in actually measuring project progress.

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 of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 756

For the item, I am specifically focusing on OESE staff and not on the technical assistance staff (who I 

take to not be the subject of this survey). We don't feel that there is ongoing technical assistance directly 

from Department staff beyond the APR work and the yearly meeting in the fall, which has been online the 

past two years. We would welcome more ongoing information about successful grant management, 

including fiscal management.

We need to be able to focus on program implementation. Let us ask questions rather than trying to meet 

a one-size-fits-all approach to staff development.

N/A

None at this time

Most of the technical assistance I have received for the categories listed on the previous page come from 

the EED-TA Center, not Department staff. I would love guidance and/or assistance in creating 

documents and resources for use in my grant. This has been a substantial undertaking in the early 

stages of my grant. I would love to hear best practices and/or guidance from others about how this can 

be most effective and efficient.

Consistency with staffing.

None noted

NA

It is fine.

I cannot recall any technical assistance that was provided by department staff to assist with networking, 

development of tools, or the other outcomes listed in the survey.

The structure of the Zoom calls is difficult to navigate. It took me a while to understand how the districts 

were processing the problem of practice. It felt very awkward and I did not get a lot out of it.

Onboarding training of expectations of a project director for someone that started after the grant was 

awarded

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that provided 

technical services to you.

logic model

EED-TA Center

NA

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 757

EED TA

EEDTA

EED

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role? (Other, please specify)

program director

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

TSL - 2022 - Q45.6. What recommendations would you like to make to the TSL program 

staff to assist you in administering your grant more effectively? 

We are very happy with the support.

With regard to federally funded technical assistance, although it may have been stated at one 

time, it would be good to be reminded often of technical assistance options beyond the EED TA 

Center that our program could take advantage of. For instance, we had not thought to connect 

to the Comprehensive or Equity Centers for support until the question in this survey brought it 

up. Also, it would be helpful to have specific support for the central program element of PBCS 

when school unions are pushing back. In general, having feedback from program officers in a 

timely manner without having to email constantly has been an issue for us and we'd like to 

encourage better responsiveness. Having ongoing discussions about fiscal management 

requirements and examples of successful program management would be helpful for newer 

grantees. I think a key for us would be to make these elements sustained and ongoing so that 

program information isn't just discussed once per year al together -it's hard to capture it if it's just 

said one time, in one format.

No suggestions.

N/A

None at this time

I would love more frequent check-ins with Department staff to ensure that I am on the right track 

and monitor progress. I think the Department does a good job in delegating connection events 

through the EED-TA Center, but I would love additional, intentional connections with the 

Department if feasible.

New federal officer and already the second officer since [DATE_TIME]-- not able to rate

I've enjoyed working with and learning from Ms. [NAME] our program officer
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 758

Budget concern questions.

Additional examples related to carryover (besides the two in the APR webinar) would be helpful. 

The PPT from the webinar was never sent out.

Our program officer is focused on understanding our project focus and the context in which we 

work.

None. Program staff have been helpful in providing guidance as we seek.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 759

Teacher Quality Partnership Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

N/A

A video introduction about how to navigate the website.

Make sure every link is working. There was recently a FAQ link that didn't work and it was reported but it 

wasn't fixed until after a webinar a few days later.

Direct log on and link to program communications for grantees.

Search terms are not always the same as what a participant might be using.

It would help if the website presented information that was more user-focused (designed to meet the user 

needs) rather than Department-focused (language, organization, relevance, etc.)

No recommendations

D/K

It is difficult to navigate and hard to find things.

I don't use it.

I have found the website to be very user friendly. I am not technologically savvy, so I do not have a lot of 

suggestions to improve the site.

There isn't a lot of useful information about the TQP program once you've been awarded a grant. I never 

use the site because it never had any useful information.

Keep information upto date especially the projection timetable for grant funding and the search-ability of 

grant funding

I find it easy to use. I would like for it to have a running banner announcing when grants will be up for 

proposals, as a way to attract attention and a reminder.

N/A

I rarely access the website and therefore I do not have any recommendations.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 760

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).

N/A

Communication and documentation are strong.

Increase the lead time when distributing information, particularly when there are due dates involved.

Eligible districts were limited in [ADDRESS] due to size of requirement for low income rural. We have 

very few rural districts with over 10,000 students, so it was difficult to find rural partners who met the low 

income guidelines. The rural districts we chose were very small. We were however, able to find a more 

urban partner with 10,000 students to accompany our rural/urban design.

Too much paperwork and not enough time to focus on implemention of the programs.

I find that often the documents, such as guidance documents or FAQs, do not provide additional clarity 

but repeat information that has already been provided elsewhere.

Simpler spreadsheets for KPI metrics.

I may not be the norm, but I find the emails, newsletters, and guidance documents very informative and 

helpful. I don't have a lot of suggestions for improvement.

At the last TQP conference we were encouraged to find our own sustainable funding, but there was 

barely any information or detail ever provided about it. _x000D_ _x000D_ The guidance about APRs and 

DVSs have always been clear.

the print font of the US Ed newsletter is so small it is very difficult to read and certainly not 504 

accessibility compliant. TQP report guidance documents are not always accurate and the guidance is 

incomplete. Directions often are for a new grantee expectation that does not apply to previously funded 

grant programs.

As a first time grant director, I would appreciate a "model" completed of each document required for 

submission to make sure I am including all info that is needed.

Documents and emails are always clear and useful.

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.

N/A

The webinars you hold on completing various forms have been helpful. Please continue these.

Redesign the forms to increase the relevance and usefulness.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 761

Our Program officers has been very helpful as have the webinars from the TQP leadership._x000D_ We 

appreciate [NAME] support and opportunity to share our stories with other grantees and learn from each 

other.

Less repetitive paperwork. The burden has become excessive.

The GPRA indicators are a challenge to understand, but the training is very helpful. The reporting 

process has been very easy to understand and complete.

I have no idea how the DOE uses our data.

TQP grant reporting is so detailed it is onerous, with separate reporting for federal funding and nonfederal match twice annually (APR & DVS) each year. Each report is approximately 35 pages. Then the 

program officer wants separate quarterly reports that run 15 pages each and are redundant to the APR & 

DVS. In the quarterly mtg it is obvious the reports are never read by the Program Officer. When the Y4 

DVS was due we never received guidance, despite reaching out to the Program Officer 2 times and the 

supervisor once. Another Project Director shared the guidance we received. Our program seemed to 

have been dropped off a list.

Some of the budget information hasn't been clear.

Sending "models" of completed reports is so helpful for first time grant directors.

No recommendations 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.).

N/A

We have a new program manager who seems to have this in better shape. Feedback will be more 

meaningful after we have interacted with the program manager more.

Times when we have met with our Program Officer to share information from both sides have been really 

valuable for us. More of those would be excellent.

We appreciate the webinar from EDD and other technical assistance to examine our sustainability

D/K less for sure

The programs offered are often too general to be useful (target audience is too diverse in terms of project 

focus, for example).

The technical assistance has been very helpful and efficient.

Our team is really small, we cannot travel to the live conference, and the virtual conferences/meeting 

have not really met the needs of our unique program.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 762

For first time recipients, more clarity in creating logic models and the initial requirements would be so 

helpful. That was super hard for us to muddle through when we received our grant.

The staff have been great in providing technical assistance.

Q40a2. Please identify the primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider that provided 

technical services to you.

[NAME]

APR webinar

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role? (Other, please specify)

Executive Director

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

TQP - 2022 - Q60.8. What recommendations would you like to make to the TQP program 

staff to assist you in administering your grant more effectively?

I have had 3 program officers in 5 months. I would like to have a permanent professional 

assigned to my project.

It seems like the office is short-staffed, so increasing capacity through hiring knowledgable staff 

members would be very important.

We appreciate that our Program officer realizes the flexibility of our cohort model. Our project 

includes students High School students in Teacher Career classes at our urban and rural LEAs, 

through the Community Colleges, with the final two years of the professional program in 

Teacher Education at Kansas State University.

Consistency of federal officers in the department would be nice.

The TQP program staff has been very helpful throughout the administration of our grant. We 

are very satisfied in the amount of interaction and support we have been given.

We've had multiple grant officers and currently don't have anyone. Our second officer was very 

helpful, our first officer was friendly and supportive, but didn't seem to have as much information 

about the program. It would be nice to have consistency, but I guess that's out of everyone's 

hands.

Differentiate email communication. The program officer sends email blasts to all grantees that 

are written as missives that don't apply to all on the email - misinformation that as Program 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 763

Director I have to spend time trying to gain clarification on. Also the emails are often abrupt - no 

greeting or salutation that often come off as unprofessional. This may be acceptable in the 

military but in education, it comes off as rude

We hit the jackpot having Dr. [NAME] as our mentor through this grant. He is so supportive, 

informative, and has been a great help to us!

I cannot say enough about how helpful the TQP staff are. My program officer is [NAME] and the 

program lead is [NAME] and they are both amazing. They are always available and eager to 

help. They connect grantees with each other to share best practices. They know the program 

extremely well and provide timely and useful information. It's been a pleasure to work with them.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 764

TRIO Talent Search

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Specific answers to grant competitions, awards, and program corrections.

improve responsiveness to documents submitted, i.e., carry over, one-time extension- the department's 

communication is often inconsistent with regulations.

Good Job communication

The website is well-designed. It is easy to locate information.

Get things up quicker . More and better explanations

The site needs to have updated report information. Right now it really gets the most use when it is APR 

time or a

Keep things up to date. Many times I look for items and the item is very out of date.

Keeping information up to date and relevant. _x000D_ Make the page more user friendly. _x000D_ More 

TRIO related updates and information._x000D_ The font is hard on the eyes

Priority Training dates are over a year past date.

It's visually bland, but straightforward. We have a lot of TRIO pride and celebration and that spirit is 

really absent from the website. It would be great to have profiles: projects/programs, students, etc. But I 

feel like the DOE just keeps things super neutral and informational.

Update the income levels right away each year. The information is available on the Health and Human 

Services website long before it gets posted to ED website. Also, some of the regulations can be hard to 

find.

Current information on trainings. Seems to be outdated all the time.

There are some links that have old information and not updated.

The website has a lot of information on it that may be unnecessary and makes the important information 

hard to find. With such a vast amount of educational resources out there (tech world we live in), the 

website can improve in making information easier to find and only placing the very necessary information 

on there. (Information overload)

Have the training that TRIO offers up to date. Make the grant section easier to understand because I get 

a lot of questions about this.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 765

I feel like i only go to the website a couple of times a year and what i am looking for, mostly at APR time, 

is right there. The Trio Trainings could be more prominent as I look for those as well.

Update it. It has looked the same for a very long time. This does make it easier to find things (prior 

usage)

All of the TRiO training is out of date. By a YEAR. _x000D_ There need to be more training offerings; so 

far many of them have been full and I am new and so is my staff. _x000D_ The "resources" page is hard 

to navigate.

The website is very informative and useful, no further comment at this time.

better finding of relevant documents from the search box.

It could be more user friendly. The search results often have old information. Most of the time you have to 

do multiply searches to find exactly what you are looking for. It would be good to have some best practice 

information on the site as well.

The Training page is not up to date.

Add an index, so that if the department identifies something in a different context, I can potentially find 

what I need.

As soon as a communication comes out to grantees post it to the website also.

The website meets my expectations when looking for information.

more up to date information

No recommendations

As someone older, I really appreciate the simplicity of language. As I gather information from the website, 

it makes it easier to read the guidelines instead of having to refer to sub-sections of the law. Although, it 

may be repetitious, it makes sense to me when I need to clarify definitions of what the grant needs to be 

successful. Working with community, parents, students and educators, I need to explain in easy wording 

what is Talent Search or Upward Bound Math and Science requirements and why their children need to 

stay after school or go to school on a Saturday.

The Deparment/Office of postsecondary Education's website is accessible. However, the public may 

benefit from more tools and updated resources to provide students and families in regards to HBCU's, 

majors, graduation, and other datapoints that impact college choice.

Fix broken links, update links to reflect most recent information about grant.

information can be kept up to date - specifically, priority trainings, awards, and upcoming virtual trainings

just keep it updated
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 766

Nothing at this time.

Make sections easier to navigate to.

Right now it provides what I need.

It would be useful to have links to past trainings.

I think it is easy to use. I can always find what I need.

More interactive workshops

I definitely really like the new updates to the website. I wish the department would communicate more in 

general, though. And the TRIO Trainings page has been out of date for as long as I can remember. I 

wish that there was more written guidance on some of the frequently asked questions around grant 

administration. I also wish that there was more support for our programs in general. We are lucky to have 

good supportive infrastructure here but most programs do not. I think more support would help ensure 

that funding is spent well. The best thing, though, that has happened for our program in recent times is 

that [NAME] became our program officer. She is, hands down, the best program officer that I've worked 

with in the past 20 years. I hope that all other programs see the same level of response and 

professionalism from their program officers!

The site has so many words, maybe the use of more icons and even how to videos.

Feels outdated and not user friendly, as many other sites. _x000D_ On search bar, the top searches 

should pop up_x000D_ The face of the platform, is "old"_x000D_ Documents are not always updated on 

the sites. (maybe a technical assistance on how to use the website? - even if it's a recording).

There should be an increase in the number of resources (i.e., training videos, PPT, handouts, etc) 

available to program directors to effectively manage their programs. I recently transitioned to this position 

and am having a difficult time identifying resources. I have reached out to other TS directors to obtain 

such resources.

I am still navigating the changes with [NAME] and G5 but that is more on me than the access of the site 

managment. Thank you!

It's not always updated with the most current info and depending on the search, it can take a while to find 

what you need.

N/A

It's actually more from a user standpoint - technically challenged - that the actual site. Most information is 

relatively easy to locate.

Provide some visual variation either through color or art. The text and color is monotonous and hard on 

the eyes.

Modernization of aesthetics of the site. More images - too much monochrome text
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 767

Keep links updated.

Keep information posted there as current and accurate as possible please. Listing of Priority Trainings 

for [DATE_TIME] would be a great start.

Making sure links work for everyone

NA

more up to date information

Sometimes it's hard to find what you're looking for. Sometimes areas are not current when looking for 

specific things.

No suggestions

More updates are needed. The links to priority trainings is not easily found.

There is a great deal of information on the website that is needed and useful. In my opinion for a first time 

user, the amount of visual context provided and available on the website can be overwhelming. It would 

be nice for the website to have more of a visual impact to improve the user experience and keep them 

interested longer without leaving the website. In my opinion the blocks of text are not as inviting as 

images, icons, or info graphs, which would enhance the user experience.

Website could have a better user interface. It's effective but bland and at times confusing, especially for 

older professionals using the site. Search results usually pull up old articles/sites. Would be nice if it was 

more of a one stop shop with multiple resources such as guides, more relevant FAQ's (questions that 

directors are asking TODAY), etc.

n/a

Streamline the material so that navigation makes more intuitive sense.

Uncertain

The website is stale - like a revamped version of a late [DATE_TIME] holdover. The webpages feel 

buried & I feel like I have to pour over press releases & pdf uploads to find information. It would feel more 

updated if the home page was more visually pleasing with rounded ribbons, an updated color palette (the 

darker blue, blue, sage green, neon green, & bright white just are not doing any favors to the US Ed 

'brand'). The 'What's New' bulk info box could be placed along the right side of the page with catchy 

headlines, rather than sentences. It should only be the top 5-8 new information - only as long as the main 

body of information & the rest of the information could be continued through a clickable link to another 

webpage. The "How Do I Find.." & "Information About..." could be on the top ribbon in a drop down menu 

when the cursor is hovered over it. The long line down the home page looks terrible & needs to be 

removed for a more clean look. The tethered contact information at the bottom of the webpage 

information looks bad as well, because it's just hanging onto the information. It can be placed at the very 

bottom of the 'What's New' side information, the very bottom of the webpage, or just moved to the 

'Contact Us' page & left there. The home page would look more visually pleasing with photos or images 

that correlate to the information being presented. The rest of the webpages can follow suit.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 768

Should be updated more frequently and more clearly identify what the links are for and what formats they 

are available in (pdf or word)

Modernize

Website could be more user friendly and have accurate links earlier,

NA

I am satisfied with the way it is now.

Have a fast or easy way to search for information in reading materials or documents.

The website is user friendly, but some of the information may need to be updated.

Federal income levels posted in a timely manner. Most times they are not posted several months past 

January, but the post date on date in January.

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.

Summarize critical information on the application like page limit, formatting, and new changes on a signal 

page after the narrative explains this information to make it easy to refer back to this information without 

having to search several pages

Well, it is a government site.. it will always be a little difficult.

Good

The grant reporting process is explained very well. The instructions and other information are repeated 

several times.

We should have known beforehand the consequences of not meeting numbers served and objectives 

before the end of the grant cycle during the covid affected years. No one knew and no answers were 

given although asked during webinars, etc. COE asked but never got it in writing. These have been and 

for us, even this year has been so far affected adversely by Covid. It is not the normal and we should not 

be graded as such and know that ahead of time. It has been so very stressful.

I am not sure how you use the data.

Have better communication when items are changing on the reports so we can begin gathering data in 

advance.

It was not clear to me how the department uses the data collected to improve my grant program/project, 

and other ways the data collected is used
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 769

N/A

For the most part it is very smooth. The APR has clear instructions and it is easy to understand what is 

required. The challenge is gathering detailed information for 1,000 students from multiple sources--this 

can take a while each year. It is, however, helpful to have to inform our program.

The instructions for the interim report was unclear and did not match the G5 system.

The FAFSA Question - often times this is hard to collect the data for this on our seniors. We help them, 

etc. but having the evidence based data of their submission date to [URL] is not always accessible and 

students don't always share that confirmation data. I understand why you may need this data but it is 

hard to collect as there is no national database that we have access to that shares individual student's 

FAFSA confirmation status.

Everything works great.

That we could report the same year of the grant instead of a year before which makes it more confusing.

I don't have any issues with the ETS APR Process.

I feel like there are areas that contradict themselves. Meaning, what we need to report on and how it is in 

the explanation. It makes interpretation at times difficult. I have been doing this for 5 plus years and I feel 

each year I am doing something different to get the same end result

Navigating G5 is unnecessarily [NAME]. The 'dear colleague' letter was not comprehensive enough. The 

instructions are all about 'how' and not 'what' which is very confusing for brand new directors and 

programs.

It's easy to follow

It would be helpful to have step by step instructions; especially for interim reports. It would also be very 

helpful to have a workshop or any additional information to explain how the U.S. Dept of Ed uses our 

information. This would help us do better with improving our programs.

No recommendations at this time.

updated information

No recommendations

When I listen to the webinar, the information made so much better to understand. Although the voice 

became tedious, there were two voices presenting and that made a big difference in my attention to 

taking notes. I could have just taken pictures of the slides, but as someone older, I like to refer to my 

notes along with the slides. I will go back and review the video recording.

This was my first year submitting and I did not see an area for improvement.

No Problem with the reporting process of our APR
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 770

More webinars

Probably legislative - clarifying required documentation.

Webinars can be less chaotic. Streamline and simplify. Begin with the basics (don't assume new directors 

know anything about reporting their first time completing the APR)

Make the area where we input our numbers easier to understand.

I wish the Department would give partial points for those section on which we are very close on obtaining, 

such as total number of participants: if we were to have 452 for example, and the required is 500. Also, if 

our objective states 50% have to graduate with rigorous courses, and out senior class only 47% obtained 

it.

Clarity of language in certain sections--some information reads cryptically and is open to interpretion. 

More concrete language would be helpful.

N/A We are a new grant and have not yet submitted APR.

It is a good, efficient process.

This was my 5th grant application, and I still don't feel like I fully understand all of the places to get the 

information that I need. I understand that the grant application process is fully wrapped in legislative 

language and restrictions, but the grant application process really is unnecessarily cryptic and confusing. 

Furthermore, the competitive preference priorities seem very, very out of touch. I'm never sure where 

those come from. Those should really help encourage innovation, but many of the ideas: tutoring??, 

career readiness??, are often already within our scope of service and just become a writing exercise 

rather than a real opportunity for serving our students better. Furthermore, why does the U.S. 

Department of Ed think that a webinar during which they are reading information directly from documents 

that we already have is useful? Please, please get better at providing guidance when you do offer it. We 

really need your help and we know that your ability to offer good guidance could be very effective in 

helping us continually improve what we do!

The APR system is pretty seamless. No complaints

Not much is talked about or informed on how the data is used.

We did not complete the APR report this is our first year being awarded the TS grant.

I appreciate the ease of the reporting modalities.

not sure

The process is fairly straight forward, the issue is more in the gathering of information. with nearly 800 

students that task becomes quite onerous. Especially when looking at secondary persistence, 

graduation, and especially with post secondary enrollment. Utilizing Student Clearing is very beneficial, 

however all post secondary institutions do not report to clearinghouse, variations in students names 

([NAME] names, the use of initials, etc. can make it difficult to find the student), and postsecondary 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 771

attainment -again clearinghouse is beneficial, but some female students who have married with name 

changes can present a challenge.

The November deadline for the APR is a bit inconvenient because it's during the start if the holiday 

season.

Provide samples of what works when dealing with school who have committed to partnering but denying 

assess to students

Na

Provide data back to grantees on progress of all projects.

Can't think of anything that needs to be improved. Not having to track 6 year graduates would be nice 

but I know that's not happening.

Make sure any changes are articulated at the beginning of the grant that is to be reported, so we don't 

have to go back and try and obtain data.

A) Open comments for a longer period of time_x000D_ NOTE: The following suggestions are based on 

my perceptions of previous comments submitted by me and my colleagues _x000D_ B) Process and 

discuss all comments in sincerity_x000D_ C) Validate comments that address identical issues and track 

the number be transparent about the results_x000D_ D) Discuss comments and initiate real change as a 

result of the comments

More detailed explanations as to when a student is considered what and how to report in special 

situations. Redundancy, I think, would be helpful so no assumptions are made from one section to 

another.

A live chat service where grantees can get their questions answered in case they need help.

none

I'm still unaware how the department fully utilizes our data

NA

More training with uploading the section IV participant data.

The grant reporting process works well.

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role? (Other, please specify)

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 772

Advisor, Talent Search

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

TRIO TS - 2022 - 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.

Sent in questions concerning program issues and never received a response.

Timeliness of responses could be significantly improved, Understanding both letter of the law, 

purpose, and intent of the language in maximizing the flexibility in management program within 

the law and for benefit of services students.

none

Our program specialist is extremely knowledgeable. When I did not understanding something, 

the program specialist took the time to explain it to me in a very professional manner. Going 

through the COVID shutdowns was difficult. Our program specialists were always there for us.

We need information on how the government will help us or give us a break in times like this. It 

was all so stressful and we needed less stress, not more. What could be more stressful than 

having trouble recruiting and serving our students and not meeting numbers. We had trouble 

spending money in a way that it impacted and helped our students and to meet numbers. We 

were trying to do the best we could and nothing seemed to work. We have lost a lot of our 

momentum at schools and are struggling still. Our last major covid upswing here was 

[DATE_TIME]. Schools, parents, and students do not seem as interested. We are still 

struggling although Covid is better now again.

Marques has been a great addition to the Program Specialist staff! He is responsive, clear, and 

pleasant in his communication even before the pandemic.

Many times if my program officer could not offer assistance it was not his fault, but rather other 

government red tape. They were just as frustrated as we were with trying to accomplish things.

I have to admit the Mr. [NAME] was very receptive during the pandemic. Whenever I was 

unclear or needed guidance he responded with a resolve if not immediately, within 24 hours. He 

gave me clear directions on items that are not allowable for Talent Search like stipends, once I 

sent him a rationale and an updated budget. He helped me through a very uncertain time

N/A

To be honest, with staffing changes at the department the response has been better than ever. I 

have gotten questions answered and problems resolved far more quickly over the past two 

years than previously. Both the program specialists we have had during this time have been 

responsive and helpful. In future national emergencies knowing the repercussions, if any, on 

falling short of targets would be helpful to know as soon as possible.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 773

Always quick to respond with specific information.

The pandemic was difficult for everyone, including our students. Providing additional options, 

flexibility, and an ease on grant objectives and events would have benefited our students 

tremendously. While I understand the need to ensure rules and regulations are being met, the 

pandemic has required all of us to adapt, be flexible, and be understanding on innovative ways 

to meet goals.

It took a long time before we knew what we were able to do and not do with students. Maybe 

next time let all programs know what we can or can't do sooner because we were just waiting 

and did not know how to proceed.

I did not reach out as the information the department provided was sufficient.

I don't really feel I can say anything negative about something we were all trying to figure out 

together. When I needed anything, the program specialist always answered

I only used technical assistance with some of the webinars, and it was okay. _x000D_ I have no 

advice for the future in incase of national emergencies.

I just started in this position less than 90 days ago. I have not had a great deal of assistance at 

my org and am subsequently VERY BEHIND on all measures. What resources are there for 

achieving success, not just measuring numbers?

My PO, [NAME] [NAME] is the best, very responsive and professional. I wish she will stay on 

with TS for forever!

Respond immediately to the people who seek your help, and instead of being condescending, 

negative, and threatening be supportive, positive and kind - PLEASE.

We are still being affected by the pandemic as far as recruitment and meeting numbers. I hope 

the DOE takes that into consideration.

I only experienced having to send in several revised budgets during the pandemic. We did 

receive different ideas of things we could do to serve students during the pandemic; however, 

we were only allocated approved services for a short time. It would have been helpful to put 

some of the pandemic information on the website to revisit as we planned new services.

My program specialist is great with responding quickly and is friendly and approachable. He 

gives me clear information and answers.

Our program specialist was always prompt in responding to any questions and changes.

We were unable to get answers to questions. Decisions that would have been helpful were 

made too late and students and programming suffered. It was not handled well.

Appreciate the additional webinars

The technical assistance from the program specialist was timely and adequate. The virtual 

meetings held be ED were also helpful in navigating through the "unknown" presented by the 

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 774

more timely communication

I had to seek outside corporate assistance to provide lunch for students, because it took forever 

to receive advise on providing access to funds to make government funds to purchase gift cards 

or provide stipends.

n/a

The assistance we received from our ETS Program Specialist, in preparing a summer budget to 

use the unspent dollars because of the pandemic was very helpful. The summer workshops 

were well attended, and the students were very appreciative of the stipends and credit cards 

they received. Many students stated they were going to use these dollars to help purchase 

school supplies and clothing for the upcoming school year. It would certainly be nice if they 

Department of Education would allow Talent Search to continue having a summer program 

wherein students could receive a small stipend for participating in working workshops, rather 

than being in the street over the summer. Hopefully, in years to come, this idea will fall on the 

right ears, and this will come to fruition.

There was different information regarding meal cards & carryover funds._x000D_ _x000D_ 

They could improve by having one source of information.

My program specialist communicates briefly and infrequently. I believe that more frequent 

updates with the space to ask questions would be helpful.

[NAME] is very knowledgeable and responses in a very timely manner!

I feel the technical assistance I received was on par with any other year. He was responsive to 

questions and concerns.

N/A, New grant that just started

I know the department was working under constraints and it was difficult for them to get quick 

answers. It was sometimes difficult for us to make decisions regarding service to our 

participants because we were waiting on answers from the department. However, my program 

officer was great - answered all of my questions to the best of their abilities and was truly trying 

to help. I understand that some decisions required permissions and approval from higher up and 

that there weren't things my program officer could do until that came down from the top. I do 

appreciate all the concessions that the department made to aid our program and to help us best 

serve our participants during the global pandemic.

The department, like many institutions dealing with pandemic issues, took time to provide 

direction and guidance but once decisions were made, assistance was fine. Example: Approval 

for ETS to issue stipends. The request/approval process was very smooth and timely. The 

pandemic affected programs' ability to meet funded number and/or ability to provide services 

caused by the change in students and families motivation/desire to participate in program. Will 

there be considerations for these issues affecting programs?

[NAME] is the picture of professionalism and efficiency. You should clone her.

I had questions about COVID flexibilities and my questions were answered in a timely manner.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 775

We did not received much communication from DE, or if we did, it was not always TRIO specific. 

Most of the communication came very late and created much more anxiety and frustrations. 

_x000D_ COE was our to-go, more so than the DE. _x000D_ I know many of us were not ready 

for this type of experience, but even an email letting us know that the DE was working on a 

response, would have been helpful. Usually it was crickets or mixed information, until we got 

letter from [NAME]-

My program specialist met with me to discuss program objectives and gave insight to our 

program's budget.

Mr. [NAME] was on the same boat as us and did a phenomenal job as we navigated uncharted 

waters together. Thank you, Mr. [NAME]!

NA

More than anything overall education system employees are overwhelmed; as we hold space 

with them to partner for best practice student services, our program specialists need to do the 

same for TRIO programs. There is a high turn over everywhere so filling the gaps of the 

unknown is fluid at best. The more clarity and accountability expectation with [NAME]; the 

better. The talent search program specialist has changed multiple times and there has been 

little clarity regarding that change. Our temporary contact at one time was out for months at a 

time. At times, especially in regard to budget/financial inquiries, it takes a while to hear back. 

So timely communication is key. Thank you.

The technical assistance received was good, but providing technology should have been in 

place prior to the pandemic, although it was allowable under the Cares ACT once our student 

receive it they faced having to learn virtually. By the time they adjusted to the virtual 

environment their learning loss was increasing during to cognitive overload. They were forced to 

learn how to learn a new way while having to learn academic content. My suggestion is the dayto-day products and services of talent search should be reevaluated and updated to meet the 

current needs and situation of the FG/[ADDRESS] students to allow for some degree of leveling 

the playing field among students so that future national emergencies are not as devastating.

I had limited need of technical assistance with the program. The information and various 

correspondence and guidelines were helpful in keeping me updated on various requirements.

There was a lot of technical difficulty during several webinars I attended this year. Hopefully 

those issues have been addressed so future webinars can progress more seamlessly.

There was no adjustment to what was required of TS programs for reporting even though our 

lives and our students' lives were so drastically impacted.

Our program specialist, [NAME], was always responsive and timely in providing services to our 

program. He is a tremendous help, providing guidance and support whenever called upon. I 

can't speak highly enough about his professionalism and customer service.

I appreciate the prompt, professional. and concise response to help I requested from my 

program specialist. I feel that he is always available to assist if needed.

Very helpful but requires a quicker response. Hopefully we all learned to be more proactive
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 776

This is not about the program specialist, but about the inflexible nature of the guidance from the 

department of education, which was lacking.

helped with carryover of funds from old grant to new grant cycle was very helpful

I think at times we got delayed responses to questions due to shortage of staff.

Letting us know in a timely manner with specific details. Much of the flexibility was not 

understood or communicated well. A lot of the flexibility came after the fact.

The technical assistance I received from my program specialist this past year was affected by 

the pandemic in the following ways:_x000D_ (a) Response time to emails was much slower 

_x000D_ (b) Did not have clear answers for what the Department of Education expected from 

programs reporting information on the APR_x000D_ (c) Information was not timely_x000D_ 

During national emergencies I would suggest that the safety of the participants and staff 

responsible for the programs success be considered as the number one priority. For example, 

the Secretary of the Department of Education should make timely decisions with respect to 

informing the TS programs of the Department's plan to allow flexible services across the board 

without fear of penalties (APR objectives/documentation, etc.). The anxiety level of the general 

population during a national emergency is already at a high level of anxiety so the Secretary of 

Education should make frequent and timely decisions and effectively communicate those 

decisions to all stakeholders to assist in easing the existing anxiety.

At times questions are very situational, so I would like to see recurring open meetings where 

program officers can just do a Q & A and where other programs can collaborate.

My program specialist is very responsive and sends out valuable information with regards to the 

Talent Search Program.

I feel I had more assistance from the program specialist in the last few years then we had in the 

past. I hardly ever heard from the program specialist in my first few years as a director.

none

Mr. [NAME] responses to me were always timely and informative.

It was not affected. I have no suggestions to improve technical assistance.

In the last year my communication with my project specialist has been timely and I have had no 

issues. However, this question does discuss COVID-19 and I was extremely disappointed with 

my project specialist for [DATE_TIME] [DATE_TIME]. I tried contacting my project specialist 

multiple times over a span of months in late [DATE_TIME] and [DATE_TIME] [DATE_TIME] with 

no response. I was assigned a new project specialist and I finally received an answer to a 

question I had more than 3 months after my initial query.

na

We were allowed the flexibility to provide stipends, meal cards, and virtual activities. I don't 

have any suggestions at this time. I think the assistance we received was very helpful.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 777

Allowing Talent Search technical help to sign applications was a big help.

The technical assistance received was not negatively affected b the pandemic.

TRIO TS - 2022 - Q25.5. What can the Talent Search do to improve communication with 

you? 

Notify grant awardee earlier in the year - in time to prepare budgets for the coming year.

Have better understanding of the Program community context-.e.i., access to student in the 

school and access to the schools during time like the pandemic, every school district is 

difference and recruitment success will vary but that is not a part to communication with some 

staff. Really improve the turnaround time and level of engagement in discussion about tough 

program issues and not just rely on Departmental promogated practices--the regulations and 

Uniform Guidance-cost principles have the last word and should be interpreted in compliance 

and in best the manner to inform and guide best practices.

Being informed in October after the school year began has made it difficult to implement 

regarding hiring of staff and recruiting students.

nothing

The communication methods are excellent.

Give direct answers to questions and get back with people. I asked a question and she did not 

know the answer and did not really answer adequately when she got back with me. I contacted 

technical and they responded a lot later by email that when to spam/junk after the hours of our 

university on deadline submission day. I did not they finally answered and it had gone to junk.

Maybe a monthly/quarterly email communication from our specialist just to talk about "what's 

happening" and maybe spotlight a program?

The communication is great.

Mr. [NAME] communicates with me by sending out trainings, and he responds to my emails in a 

timely fashion and he always responds with a very detailed response that is clear to 

understand._x000D_ _x000D_ I would like more access to G5. I am unable to see drawdown 

reports. I know that it is the responsibility of my institution to share that information, however 

having access would better help me as I manage my budget

Its going great.

Overall, I am very happy with Talent Search and everything it communicates to be in the best 

interest of students. Always consider the best interest of our students, and I think we are 

accomplishing the mission of Talent Search.

I think besides the time during the pandemic they have communicated well until now.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 778

I would love to be the first person to know if our grants were funded versus sending the 

information to congress and needing to constantly call their offices to find out if we were funded. 

I believe we should all know at the same time, since the Department has all of our emails and 

information it only makes sense for all of us to know at the same time. As well as needing to get 

things ready for the next school year, we need time to get things ordered and in place. it is very 

frustrating when you wait until [DATE_TIME] or [DATE_TIME] to let people know.

I absolutely understand the new grants and the timelines, but in reality, some people are waiting 

to hear if they have jobs while waiting for a renewal or in the case of a new grant, when you can 

get to hiring. Award notifications (new grant cycles,) should come much sooner.

I regard this question in the pandemic years. Of course, we were all in the to-do mode. I 

believe we all question what are we to do if we don't meet our numbers, the amount of money 

that was carried over, and not being able to be in the school meeting with students. This was 

very alarming to me. Even after the pandemic and we are able to meet our numbers this worries 

me. How to improve communication with us is to give us some hope of what we can do. Every 

grant population is a little different but we are all in the same situation of reaching our number 

that we are to serve. It is as if the students are so tired they are not wanting to do anything for 

the future.

More training

By being kind, responsive, answering right away and by being supportive. Instead it feels like we 

need to be afraid of our program officer and defensive about the decisions we make and the 

services we provide.

Have program officers respond faster to emails and calls.

To have more webinars so that a person could clarify written communication. Many times 

programs have different circumstances and have other questions to ask.

There have been times when we were not notified about funding until July when an old grant 

runs out in August. It doesn't give much time to plan._x000D_ My program officer, [NAME], is 

excellent. She stays in communications, answers questions, and follows up if she doesn't have 

an answer right away.

Communication is timely and information provided is clear.

more timely communication

I appreciate folks like [NAME] and [NAME] who can relate to working in the field. Both of them 

provided easy instructions and were easy to communicate the needs of the program. I am 

looking forward to having the same type of communication with the present people in Talent 

Search.

Have no problem with communicating with program specialist.

Provide information in a more timely basis.

I would appreciate more communication. Concise, timely updates regarding trainings and 

program changes would be great.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 779

would ideally like to have a quarterly update sent to all of us with any new information that may 

affect us.

Nothing I can think of at this time.

Great TS representation

Program Specialist has done an excellent job.

More timely release of slates.

I'd love to see more frequent, regular updates and articles about how to run a great Talent 

Search program and the resources available to us. We also need more money. We can barely 

hire people because our salaries are so low and our budget is so small. We depend on the 

passion of great people to do our work well but they need to be compensated.

My Program Specialist us amazing.

I have gone through a few specialists now, our current PO is much better at communicating and 

in the previous years. (ie checking in, stories, asking for ideas to support)_x000D_ I feel, 

however, the new PO is still learning about their position.

Increasing the frequency of the communication. Also, we had some very difficult conversations 

with the director and regional rep. We expressed to them some of the hardships we 

encountered but that was not well received.

Talent Search website and even COE communication is very good. It is more program 

specialist specific communication but that has recently improved as well.

N/A

I do not have suggestions for improvement.

I understand the Department has a tremendous job. I appreciate the communication they 

provide.

Frequent communication maybe quarterly

More timely grant notifications.

I was satisfied with the communications

I don't have any issues that need to be improved.

Timely. When we ask a question, we usually need to know, so 3 months response makes 

decision making next to impossible.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 780

The process of funding grants needs to be transparent with all prospective and existing grant 

proposal writers. The roll out of the proposal timelines for each TRIO grant needs to start much 

sooner and the language regarding what should be included in the grant proposal must be much 

clearer and not so ambiguous. The TS staff often appears to not have clear answers to 

questions that are asked and when asked again, do not have answers from their supervisors.

Our program officer, [NAME], has been great.

Earlier notification of funded status after competitions. Also earlier access to the GAN's each 

year.

good communication

I like the quality & amount of communication currently.

na

Improve response times.

I am satisfied with the communication.

The communication received from Talent Search is consistent and no improvements are 

recommended.

TRIO TS - 2022 - Q25.6e. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with your 

program specialist?

Ever now and then a phone call.

Group email to all directors

Group/Individual

Webinar & distribution list email is fine

TRIO TS - 2022 - Q25.7. How would you advise on improving the overall process and 

protocols associated with this grant competition?

More clear, concise grant application package - remove any conflicting language_x000D_ 

Earlier award notification

Generally, the process is acceptable but Program Officers should be better trained to 

understand the project's environmental perspectives and the actual operational challenges, and 
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 781

then they would be better prepared to give reasonable administrative assistance and not 

regulatory jargon.

I know it is difficult to inform new grants on our funding but you really need to improve on this 

across the board. Implementing after the school year began where educators have contracts to 

work the year, it was difficult to find people to work in ETS so we are now behind. The 

Specialist are great people.. no complaints there..

Extend the Grant competition for longer period of time

The grant competition processes and protocols are excellent.

Make sure awards are out far enough in advance that programs know. Less than a month notice 

is hard on everyone.

Email the process and protocols associated with this grant competition and have trainings on 

areas when needed

If we did not start the grant writing process until the grant competition was actually announced 

there is no way we would get it done on time. The process is clear; we just don't know the 

process until close to the deadline to submit. We have to start the research and writing process 

and make assumptions about what is expected based on previous competitions, then make 

changes when we learn the actual guidelines for the competition.

Timely communication,adhere to set timelines, and communicate delays in those timeline.

Thanks for everyone's hard work! [NAME] is the best of the best - he truly understands TRIO 

and Talent Search and it always feels he has high integrity, is there to support us and wants us 

to succeed. Program Officers are amazing as well. Thanks for all you do!

Nothing at the moment, everything is great.

Personally, I really value social and emotional development of students. I would include more 

about that on the grant protocols as to develop the whole student. (holistic approach)_x000D_ 

The process is very lengthy and I would suggest giving more than 45 days, from when the grant 

comes out to when it is due. It is a long process, especially if we want to collaborate with a large 

team on our grant.

I think doing more webinars on this topic and keeping good communications with program 

officers is always helpful.

Webinars and training, especially for those who do not have grant writers at their institution. 

Break it down so that it doesn't intimidate you. Readers prior to submission with feedback to 

improve content. _x000D_ _x000D_ Quicker notifications when funded

No comment

Put awards out in a more timely fashion. We have to meet deadlines, so should the DOE.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 782

There are many outside sources who offer grant competition grant writing workshops. It would 

be helpful if the Dept of Ed could add a grant writing component after the Technical Assistance 

Workshops. The Dept of Ed knows exactly what they are looking for so it is helpful to hear it 

from the source rather than outside sources who may not give the most accurate information.

Please send the awards out sooner.

The competition went well and an early August notification was okay. My institution supports us 

so I wasn't worried. It is very hard to wait but I totally understand.

No recommendations at this time.

monthly communication

Increase the Program officers caseloads

The grant competition is always nerve-wreaking. Although I registered for today's UBMS 

webinar, I listened to the webinar yesterday because I had extra time. I believe the webinar is a 

tool that gives better information for the grant competition on Talent Search, UBMS and all ED 

grants.

No problem, was always webinars

Set deadlines earlier in the process (i.e., we should know when the grant is due before the 

RFP), provide consistent writing periods each cycle, set a notification date that is well before the 

start of the grant cycle and make sure grantees know more than a couple weeks ahead of time.

Perhaps have a staff member who is dedicated to answering questions/concerns during 

competition periods and have that staff member contact info readily available.

keep us updated with any changes. Like when training/informational sessions are provided.

Providing more clarity around the resources we could use to support the competitive preference 

priorities. The studies available on the What Works Clearinghouse are largely dated and limited.

PO specific website for the states they represent with notices, updates and training dates.

Much earlier grant award announcements.

Timeliness

More clarity. Everything that you need in one place. Less mystery. More guidance. Please let 

us know long before the last month of our current grant.

No suggestions at this time.

Information, communication, and event- possibilities on what could happen or what the DE plans 

for._x000D_ We only hear information if we ask, where we feel the DE should be informing us of 

things happening in [ADDRESS] consistently.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 783

[NAME]

N/A

Maybe a bit more instruction regarding the required layout of the grant - such as number of 

pages, where to number the pages, and other issues like that.

Submission days should not include holidays or dates when most colleges and universities are 

closed for the holidays.

More timely awarding. Less onerous applications.

I think the process went well and they informed of us awards earlier than some previous 

competitions.

Earlier. I have to send lay off notices to my staff, because they cannot notify us in time. It is 

hard to plan and get good quality services in the amount of time we receive notification.

Prospective grant writers/researchers should be given more time between the proposal rollout 

and the due date. Language in the grant application invitations are vague and ambiguous. 

Precise language is needed in the proposal of what elements are required and should be 

included in the grant proposalRFP should be released sooner rather than later.

Releasing a draft that was a carbon copy of the previous competition is not helpful. An actual 

draft of what is currently being worked on for that competition would be very helpful. Also, 

notification often comes really late and really close to many programs' start dates. That process 

needs to be better and needs to happen earlier. Also getting readers comments for successful 

and unsuccessful grant submissions is not an easy process.

Open the competition earlier. When I first started working for a Talent Search Grant, 

competitions seemed to be completed and notifications of funding were at least 6 months prior 

to the grant closing. _x000D_ _x000D_ While formatting was not an automatic disqualification 

as it has been in the past, it was still confusing to have conflicting formatting directions in the 

application packet. Example: One place indicated double space tables and another said single 

space tables)

not sure

Follow the timing guidelines set in the legislation/regulations.

I don't know

Improve timeliness of notifying grantees. We were not notified until the beginning of August 

which made planning for the new year almost impossible and created lots of stress for staff.

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 784

It would be nice if it could be simplified. I understand why all the information is needed, 

however, it's a very time-consuming process.

Sometimes we received mixed messages in adding information about COVID in the grant 

application during the process.

I think the process is fine as it is.
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 785

Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Language

CORE QUESTIONS

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

More detailed guidance or links to guidance docs/videos.

Looks good.

The website is very formulaic and structured, but it seems that I can never drill down to current, relevant, 

useful information. It feels quite bureaucratic and a little out of touch. Perhaps making an attempt to vary 

the layout of the site depending on the kind of information that is most likely to be sought after and useful 

to users would be helpful, instead of maintaining the rigid layout.

The website is a little complicated when completing reports. I would have liked some training sessions on 

how to do so instead of spending as much time as I did last year to complete the report.

Q33. Please describe how we could improve the grant reporting process.

more guidance on what's wanted for the narrative portions; hard to know how much detail is sufficient

The performance measures are cumbersome and difficult to enter. They take time to track down and 

navigate between many different menus/pages in IRIS, but don't actually seem directly related to the 

success or impact of the grant program. I think the reporting process could be improved if information 

could be entered directly on each page in response to specific questions rather than requiring so much 

back and forth on the different pages of the site.

It would be helpful if this information was clearer from the beginning.

The type of required report, their format, and where to submit them has been very unclear. The program 

guidelines we received at the beginning of the award indicated that we needed to submit a narrative 

report. There was no mention of this in IRIS, nor place to upload it. When we asked the program officer 

for clarification, we received only a vague answer that didn't provide additional insights. A clear list of 

required reports, their formats, and modes of submission would be helpful. We also encountered 

problems when trying to revise the PMFs as originally submitted. The program officer indicated we could 

do so in IRIS, but there was no mechanism in the portal to do so. This required diligence and much back 

and forth on our end to make sure our performance measures accurately reflected our approved changes 

of scope.

I found the process cumbersome. I was not sure how much data to report and ended up adding more 

information because i did not want to miss any. I am getting ready to start this years report, and when I 

looked through the website, I did not see where I can start that.

Writing a competitive grant was only possible after submitting an unsuccessful application and receiving 

feedback from reviewers that wasn't present in the instructions or in the RFP. World Learning, which 

administers the [ADDRESS] dept of state's IDEAS grant, does an exemplary job with the application 

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 786

Q46. Which of the following best describes your job role? (Other, please specify)

grant PI

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

UIS - 2022 - Q34.5. What can Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Language 

do to improve communication with you? 

No improvements necessary - they're great! I do wish we could get notified sooner as 

notification occurs after the academic year has begun but I understand they're at the mercy of 

the review process and this year, a later proposal deadline.

Ongoing communication specific to current grantees of the particular program would be 

appreciated. I feel like the only communication I receive is general departmental newsletters and 

nothing about how to administer the grant or issues that may be arising that would be directly 

relevant and helpful to our programming. I often feel that we are running this grant in a vacuum 

with no ongoing relationship with the grant specialist. I know enough people associated with the 

program that I can generally get a response from someone, but there is no proactive 

communication or relationship building coming from the grant specialist. I miss having that 

human connection which I've experienced with other IFLE grants.

It would be enormously helpful to learn about the award much earlier. We received notification in 

mid-August, just before the start of classes, which gave us little time to plan and prepare before 

students returned to campus. Receiving the award notification in May or June (or even earlier) 

would have been ideal.

Answer questions directly. It was common to receive answers that never directly addressed the 

question we asked and left us unsure how to properly address the issue. We asked because we 

wanted clarification and direct answers, but after receiving responses, we often needed to 

surmise and use informed guesses to address the issue.

I have not seen many information regarding our grant. There has not been any travel and I 

would assume more information would have been communicated when travel might happen. 

Also, not to forget we have been in a pandemic for the last two years, so I am sure my 

experience reporting about communication is not typical. There has not been much need for 

that!

UIS - 2022 - Q34.6e. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with your 

program specialist?

Distribution list email to a small community of awardees of a particular grant program
Department of Education Office of Acquisitions and Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2022 787

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

SWEDEN - Stockholm

ITALY - Milan

CHINA - Shanghai