U.S. Department of Education

Office of the Chief Financial Officer 

Fiscal Year 2019 Grantee Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

October 2019
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

This page intentionally left blank
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

Chapter I................................................................................................................................4

Introduction and Methodology...............................................................................................4

Segment Choice................................................................................................................. 4

Data Collection................................................................................................................... 4

Response Rates by Program ................................................................................................ 5

Questionnaire and Reporting................................................................................................ 6

Chapter II...............................................................................................................................7

Survey Results.....................................................................................................................7

Customer Satisfaction (ACSI)................................................................................................ 7

Customer Satisfaction Model .............................................................................................. 10

Drivers of Customer Satisfaction.......................................................................................... 12

Satisfaction Benchmark...................................................................................................... 22

Chapter III............................................................................................................................23

Summary and Recommendations.......................................................................................23

Results by Program........................................................................................................... 25

Office of English Language Acquisition (OELA)...................................................................... 25

Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education (OCTAE)...................................................... 25

Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE)............................................................................. 26

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS)............................................ 28

Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE).......................................................... 29

Contact Information.............................................................................................................39

Appendix A: Questionnaire.................................................................................................40

2019 Grantee Satisfaction Survey ......................................................................................41

Introduction...................................................................................................................... 41

Online Resources.............................................................................................................. 44

ACSI Benchmark Questions ............................................................................................... 45

Appendix B: Attribute Tables and Non-Scored Responses.............................................87

Appendix C: Verbatim Responses by Program..............................................................179

Adult Education and Family Literacy to State Directors of Ad.............................................180

Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education State Directors.......................................181

National Professional Development Program....................................................................182
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 2

Native American and Alaska Native Children in School Program.......................................185

21st Century Community Learning Centers.......................................................................186

Charter Schools Program (CSP) Grants to State Entities ..................................................188

Comprehensive Literacy State Development.....................................................................189

Demonstration Grants for Indian Children/Special Projects for Indian Children...................191

Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program.......................................................193

English Language Acquisition State Grants (Title III State Formula Grants).......................194

Grants for State Assessments..........................................................................................197

i3/Education Innovation and Research..............................................................................198

Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agency...................................199

Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Education Agencies (LEAs)..............................200

Magnet Schools Assistance Program................................................................................205

Migrant Education Programs (Title I, Part C).....................................................................206

Neglected and Delinquent State and Local Agency Programs ...........................................209

Payments for Federal Property (Section 7002)..................................................................210

Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 7003)..............................................212

Promise Neighborhoods...................................................................................................216

REAP-Rural and Low Income School (RLIS) Program ......................................................217

REAP-Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) Program................................................221

Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools..............................................224

School Climate Transformation Grants (LEA)....................................................................225

Student Support and Academic Enrichment......................................................................226

Supporting Effective Educator Development Program.......................................................227

Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants....................................................................228

Child Care Access Means Parents in School....................................................................229

Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions...........................................................................235

GEAR UP ........................................................................................................................238

National Resource Centers Program ................................................................................240

Strengthening Institutions Program...................................................................................245

IDEA-Part C Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities Program..............................................260

IDEA-State Directors of Special Education (Part B)...........................................................265

RSA Vocational Rehabilitation Program............................................................................268

Appendix D: Explanation of Significant Difference Scores ............................................270
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 3
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 4

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 36 programs participated in the FY 2019 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 36 participating programs provided a list of grantees to be contacted for the survey. Data 

collection took place from May 9 to July 1, 2019 through e-mail invitations that directed respondents to an 

online survey. In order to increase response, reminder e-mails were sent periodically to non-responders 

and phone call reminders were also placed. A total of 1,485 valid responses were collected for a 

response rate of 47 percent. Response rates by program are shown on the following pages.
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 5

Response Rates by Program

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

that had a statistically valid participation rate using an 80% confidence interval of +/- 5 points. 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 (80% confidence interval)

Program Invites

Valid 

Completes

Response 

Rate

CSI

Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions 204 116 57% 79

Strengthening Institutions Program 200 144 72% 77

Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Education Agencies (LEAs) 200 49 25% 75

Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP)/Small, Rural School Achievement 

(SRSA) Program 199 83 42% 76

Child Care Access Means Parents in School 198 122 62% 82

Education Innovation and Research Programs 196 40 20% 75

Payments for Federal Property (Section 7002) 192 47 24% 83

Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 7003) 185 50 27% 79

GEAR UP 153 71 46% 72

National Resource Centers Program 106 60 57% 77

Demonstration Grants for Indian Children/Special Projects for Indian Children 103 39 38% 61

National Professional Development Program 93 45 48% 77

RSA Vocational Rehabilitation Program 80 38 48% 49

School Climate Transformation Grants (LEA) 71 40 56% 77

21st Century Community Learning Centers 65 42 65% 74

IDEA-State Directors of Special Education (Part B) 60 30 50% 71

Adult Education and Family Literacy to State Directors of Adult Education 57 34 60% 76

Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education State Directors 56 26 46% 78

IDEA-Part C Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities Program 56 36 64% 69

Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program 55 29 53% 79

Grants for State Assessments 53 32 60% 75

Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies – Title I 52 24 46% 59

Neglected and Delinquent State and Local Agency Programs 52 25 48% 55

Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP)/Rural and Low Income School (RLIS) 

Program 49 31 63% 72

Migrant Education Programs (Title I, Part C) 46 35 76% 79

Magnet Schools Assistance Program 46 29 63% 79

Expanding Opportunities Through Quality Charter Schools Program (CSP) Grants to 

State 39 26 67% 62

Teacher and School Leader Incentive Grants 27 19 70% 79

Native American and Alaska Native Children in School Program 17 16 94% 76

Promise Neighborhoods 11 14 79% 78

Overall 2,924 1,389 48%
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 6

Table 2: All other programs surveyed

Program Invites Valid 

Completes

Response 

Rate

CSI

Supporting Effective Educator Development Program 41 14 34% 68

Student Support and Academic Enrichment 51 22 43% 51

English Language Acquisition State Grants (Title III State Formula Grants) 52 21 40% 61

Charter Schools Program Grants for Replication and Expansion of High -Quality Charter 

Schools 52 12 23% 59

Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants 52 17 33% 52

Comprehensive Literacy State Development 16 10 63% 86

Overall 264 96 36%

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

worked, as identified by the sample.

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. In 2019, changes were made that include the removal of questions 

measuring performance of the G5 Grants Management System and certain attributes related to technical 

assistance. 

A new Trust metric was added to the questionnaire in 2019. This “future behavior” rating is a measure of 

the level of trust grantees have that their program office will work with them to meet their organization’s 

needs. This new question was applicable to grantees of all participating programs and is considered an 

outcome of satisfaction. That is, as satisfaction increases, so too will the Trust grantees have in the 

Department’s intentions of helping them implement their grant. 

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 some 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.

Most survey years see a number of programs participate in the survey for the first time. In 2019, this list 

includes:

· National Resource Centers

· Child Care Access Means Parents in School

· RSA Vocational Rehabilitation Program

· Teacher and School Leader Incentive Grants

· Supporting Effective Educator Development Program

· Charter Schools Program Grants for Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools

· Expanding Opportunities Through Quality Charter Schools Program (CSP) Grants to State

· Education Innovation and Research Programs

· Magnet Schools Assistance Program

· Promise Neighborhoods
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 7

Chapter II

Survey Results

Customer Satisfaction (ACSI) 

The Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) is a weighted average of three questions: Q32, Q33 and Q34, 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 (Q32); satisfaction compared to 

expectations (Q33); and satisfaction compared to an ‘ideal’ organization (Q34). 

The 2019 Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) for the Department of Education grantees is 74, a 

point higher than the 2017 and 2018 measurements and its highest rating at the aggregate level.

Customer Satisfaction Index: 2006 – 2019
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 8

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, measured in 2018. The satisfaction of the 2019 Grantee Satisfaction Survey is 

rated 5 points higher than the 2018 Federal Government Average and compares favorably to several 

similar programs that measure satisfaction among government program grantees.

Satisfaction Benchmarks
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 9

Customer Satisfaction Index - Scores by Program
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 10

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, added to the questionnaire in 

2019, is considered a “future behavior” or “outcome” of customer satisfaction. Its score is measured 

independently from satisfaction or any driver. The score of 81 for Trust is an encouraging result and 

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

sponsoring office. 

2019 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 the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 11

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 (77 to 82), the Customer Satisfaction Index would increase by the amount of its impact, 1.7points, 

(from 74 to 75.7). 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 the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 12

Drivers of Customer Satisfaction

Documents

Impact 1.7

The Documents driver continues to have a high impact on satisfaction. In 2019, Documents was rated a 

77, which is a 2-point decline from the previous measurement. Three attributes experienced statistically 

significant declines: organization of information, sufficiency of detail to meet program needs and 

comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues faced. The clarity and relevance of the 

correspondence provided by program offices also declined but only by a single point for each attribute. 

Despite the modestly lower scores, the area of Documents still receives high marks. The decline should 

be viewed as an opportunity to evaluate the documentation provided to grantees to ensure that it is 

current and distributed in a timely fashion. With the largescale Department restructuring, certain 

resources are prone to contain outdated information which leads to confusion on the part of grantees.

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

Documents section of the questionnaire.

Documents - Aggregate Scores

2018

Scores

2019

Scores Difference Significant 

Difference

Documents 79 77 -2 ↓

Clarity 78 77 -1

Organization of information 80 78 -2 ↓

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 78 76 -2 ↓

Relevance to your areas of need 80 79 -1

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues that you face 77 75 -2 ↓

Sample Size 967 938 1 ↑

Arrows indicate a statistically significant difference from 2018 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. Scores range from 60 for the RSA Vocational 

Rehabilitation Program to an 89 for Comprehensive Literacy State Development. This is the first year that 

the RSA Vocational Rehabilitation Program participated in the survey so its scores in 2019 serve as their 

baseline. 

This wide range of scores suggests that there are best practices being carried out by certain programs 

from which other programs could benefit. Leveraging the successes of those with the highest CSI scores 

and sharing best practices with those in need of assistance may serve, over time, to level out the 

relatively large disparity in satisfaction. 

To the extent possible, programs should collaborate to identify best practices being carried out among the 

higher scoring programs that can be adopted by programs where the greatest room for improvement 

exists. 
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 13

Documents - Scores by Program

Program (Documents) Score

Comprehensive Literacy State Development 89

Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program 88

Migrant Education Programs (Title I, Part C) 86

Payments for Federal Property (Section 7002) 85

National Professional Development Program 83

Adult Education and Family Literacy to State Directors 83

Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 7003) 83

Magnet Schools Assistance Program 81

Grants for State Assessments 80

Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education State Directors 79

21st Century Community Learning Centers 79

REAP-Rural and Low Income School (RLIS) Program 79

Teacher and School Leader Incentive Grants 79

Supporting Effective Educator Development Program 79

IDEA-Part C Infants and Toddlers w ith Disabilities Program 78

Indian Education Formula Grants to LEAs 78

Native American and Alaska Native Children in School Program 77

REAP-Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) Program 77

IDEA-State Directors of Special Education (Part B) 76

i3/Education Innovation and Research 74

School Climate Transformation Grants (LEA) 74

English Language Acquisition State Grants 72

Promise Neighborhoods 72

Charter Schools Program (CSP) Grants to State Entities 70

Student Support and Academic Enrichment 69

Improving Basic Programs Operated by LEAs – Title I 69

Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants 68

Demonstration Grants for Indian Children 68

Neglected and Delinquent State and Local Agency Programs 67

Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools 65

RSA Vocational Rehabilitation Program 60

Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions --

National Resource Centers Program --

Strengthening Institutions Program --

Child Care Access Means Parents in School --

GEAR UP --

Scores are not listed for programs where the questions were not asked.
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 14

OESE Technical Assistance

Impact 2.0

The OESE technical assistance driver applies only to the programs within the Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education (OESE) program office that participate in the survey. For grantees of OESE 

programs, the technical assistance component is the most influential driver of their overall level of 

satisfaction. This is the first time this component has had the highest impact on satisfaction, a result that 

can be attributed in part to the removal of other technical assistance components of the questionnaire. 

The OESE Technical Assistance score fell 2 points to 72 though the change was not enough to be 

considered statistically significant. Respondents rated the effectiveness of the OESE technical assistance 

in its ability to help grantees learn how to implement their grant programs (75) notably higher than its 

usefulness in serving as a model that can be replicated with their subgrantees (68).

OESE Technical Assistance - Aggregate Scores

2018

Scores

2019

Scores Difference

81

Significant 

Difference

OESE Technical Assistance 74 72 -2

Effectiveness of OESE in helping you learn to implement grant 

programs

78 75 -3

Usefulness of OESE’s technical assistance services as a model 69 68 -1

Sample Size 550 526

Arrows indicate a statistically significant difference from 2018 scores at 90 percent level of confidence.

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

Technical Assistance scores range from 53 to 85. Student Support and Academic Enrichment scores the 

lowest in 2019 while the Comprehensive Literacy State Development program rated OESE’s Technical 

Assistance the highest. There does not seem to be any strong correlation between grant program size 

and OESE Technical Assistance performance evaluations. This suggests that high scores and a high 

level of technical assistance can be carried out across all levels of OESE’s grant programs. 

This particular year carried unique challenges with the organizational restructuring OESE endured. OESE 

staff were largely able to combat the reduced bandwidth among available staff and uphill learning curve 

caused by new policies, procedures and general reorganization by providing quality technical assistance. 

As the dust settles on the organizational changes in FY 2020, the overall technical assistance provided 

stands to gain strength as staff become more familiar with the new landscape. 
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 15

OESE Technical Assistance - Scores by Program

Program (OESE Technical Assistance) Score

Comprehensive Literacy State Development 85

Indian Education Formula Grants to LEAs 81

School Climate Transformation Grants (LEA) 81

REAP-Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) Program 80

Grants for State Assessments 80

Magnet Schools Assistance Program 79

Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program 78

21st Century Community Learning Centers 77

Migrant Education Programs (Title I, Part C) 77

Promise Neighborhoods 77

i3/Education Innovation and Research 76

REAP-Rural and Low Income School (RLIS) Program 71

Demonstration Grants for Indian Children 64

Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools 62

Charter Schools Program (CSP) Grants to State Entities 61

Improving Basic Programs Operated by LEAs – Title I 60

English Language Acquisition State Grants 59

Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants 58

Neglected and Delinquent State and Local Agency Programs 57

Student Support and Academic Enrichment 53

Native American and Alaska Native Children in School Program --

National Professional Development Program --

Adult Education and Family Literacy to State Directors --

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

Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions --

National Resource Centers Program --

Strengthening Institutions Program --

Child Care Access Means Parents in School --

GEAR UP --

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

IDEA-Part C Infants and Toddlers w ith Disabilities Program --

RSA Vocational Rehabilitation Program --

Payments for Federal Property (Section 7002) --

Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 7003) --

Teacher and School Leader Incentive Grants --

Supporting Effective Educator Development Program --

Scores are not listed for programs where the questions were not asked.
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 16

Online Resources

Impact 0.3

The Online Resources score decreased 5 points in 2019, signaling a need to investigate the reasons for 

the lower evaluations of the ED.gov website and putting plans into place to reverse the decline. All 

attributes fell in uniform fashion, moving either 4 or 5 points lower than in the previous survey wave. 

Grantees reported a more difficult time navigating the site, leading to a decreased ability to accomplish 

their intended tasks. The website’s resources should be reviewed to ensure that outdated or obsolete 

materials are purged and replaced with relevant and current content. The extensive reorganization of the 

Department is likely a factor in the lower scores for this component. Making sure that grantees know 

where to direct questions related to the website and the Online Resources available to them is key to 

making sure this aspect of the grantee experience is a benefit and not a hindrance. With a new OESE 

website forthcoming, grantee comments in Appendix C of this report should be reviewed for an in-depth 

look at what grantees like about the current online materials and where there are areas of opportunity for 

improvement.

Despite the relatively low impact for this driver, the website does warrant attention as further declines 

could increase its impact value and have a pronounced negative effect on grantee satisfaction.

 

Online Resources - Aggregate Scores

2018

Scores

2019

Scores Difference

81

Significant 

Difference

Online Resources 73 68 -5 ↓

Ease of finding materials online 72 67 -5 ↓

Freshness of content 73 68 -5 ↓

Ability to accomplish w hat you w ant on the site 73 68 -5 ↓

Ease of reading the site 74 70 -4 ↓

Ease of navigation 73 68 -5 ↓

Sample Size 1,429 1,392

Arrows indicate a statistically significant difference from 2018 scores at 90 percent level of confidence.

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

There is evidence of very beneficial Online Resources as the program-level score reaches as a high 83 

for the Comprehensive Literacy State Development program. Grantees of three other programs gave a 

score of 80 or above for this driver. An in-depth evaluation of the sites grantees are using is particularly 

prudent among the programs receiving a score in the 40s or 50s.
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 17

Online Resources - Scores by Program

Program (Online Resources) Score

Comprehensive Literacy State Development 83

Payments for Federal Property (Section 7002) 81

Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education State Directors 80

Migrant Education Programs (Title I, Part C) 80

Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 7003) 75

Magnet Schools Assistance Program 75

Grants for State Assessments 74

National Professional Development Program 73

Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions 71

Indian Education Formula Grants to LEAs 71

REAP-Rural and Low Income School (RLIS) Program 70

REAP-Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) Program 70

Teacher and School Leader Incentive Grants 70

Strengthening Institutions Program 69

21st Century Community Learning Centers 69

Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program 69

i3/Education Innovation and Research 69

Adult Education and Family Literacy to State Directors 68

Native American and Alaska Native Children in School Program 67

Supporting Effective Educator Development Program 67

School Climate Transformation Grants (LEA) 67

IDEA-Part C Infants and Toddlers w ith Disabilities Program 66

National Resource Centers Program 65

Child Care Access Means Parents in School 65

GEAR UP 64

IDEA-State Directors of Special Education (Part B) 64

Promise Neighborhoods 63

English Language Acquisition State Grants 61

Student Support and Academic Enrichment 60

Demonstration Grants for Indian Children 59

Neglected and Delinquent State and Local Agency Programs 58

Charter Schools Program (CSP) Grants to State Entities 57

Improving Basic Programs Operated by LEA – Title I 55

Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools 55

RSA Vocational Rehabilitation Program 53

Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants 47
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 18

ED Staff/Coordination

Impact 0.4

The ED Staff/Coordination driver fell 3 points but maintains a very strong score of 82. This is a particularly 

positive result considering the reorganization of the Department, increasing the need for administrative 

guidance. While the score changes for all attributes are statistically significant, this component does not 

stand out at the aggregate level as an area of the grantee experience that needs significant change. The 

accuracy of responses is again a key strength of the federal staff grantees interact with, evidenced by its 

2019 score of 86. 

ED Staff/Coordination - Aggregate Scores

2018

Scores

2019

Scores Difference Significant 

Difference

ED Staff/Coordination 85 82 -3 ↓

Know ledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, and procedures 88 83 -5 ↓

Responsiveness to your questions 84 80 -4 ↓

Accuracy of responses 88 86 -2 ↓

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 86 82 -4 ↓

Consistency of responses w ith ED staff from different program offices 85 80 -5 ↓

Collaboration w ith other ED programs or offices in providing relevant services 86 80 -6 ↓

Sample Size 1,367 1,406

Arrows indicate a statistically significant difference from 2018 scores at 90 percent level of confidence.

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

The range of ED Staff/Coordination scores range from the lowest score of 62 for Student Support and 

Academic Enrichment to the highest score of 94 achieved by the National Resource Centers Program. 

With no program recording a score of less than 60 and only five programs below 70, the support provided 

by senior level federal staff is meeting or exceeding the needs of grantees across nearly the entire 

Education Department grant program landscape. 

The organizational restructuring has very likely played a role in the decline this year as personnel has 

changed as have policies and procedures. This can cause a compounded issue where more guidance is 

needed by grantees while new ED staff are simultaneously being reassigned and may not have as firm a 

grasp on the legislation, guidelines and protocols associated with each program. 
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 19

ED Staff/Coordination - Scores by Program

Program (ED Staff/Coordination) Score

National Resource Centers Program 94

Comprehensive Literacy State Development 92

Payments for Federal Property (Section 7002) 90

Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education State Directors 89

Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 7003) 88

Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program 87

National Professional Development Program 86

Indian Education Formula Grants to LEAs 86

Migrant Education Programs (Title I, Part C) 86

Adult Education and Family Literacy to State Directors 85

21st Century Community Learning Centers 85

Native American and Alaska Native Children in School Program 84

Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions 84

Strengthening Institutions Program 84

IDEA-State Directors of Special Education (Part B) 84

REAP-Rural and Low Income School (RLIS) Program 84

Grants for State Assessments 84

i3/Education Innovation and Research 84

Magnet Schools Assistance Program 84

Child Care Access Means Parents in School 83

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

IDEA-Part C Infants and Toddlers w ith Disabilities Program 82

Teacher and School Leader Incentive Grants 81

Promise Neighborhoods 81

Supporting Effective Educator Development Program 80

Improving Basic Programs Operated by LEAs – Title I 75

School Climate Transformation Grants (LEA) 75

English Language Acquisition State Grants 74

Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants 72

Charter Schools Program (CSP) Grants to State Entities 72

GEAR UP 70

Demonstration Grants for Indian Children 68

Neglected and Delinquent State and Local Agency Programs 68

Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools 65

RSA Vocational Rehabilitation Program 64

Student Support and Academic Enrichment 62
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 20

Information in Application Package

Only respondents representing the Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE) program were asked about 

the information in the application package. This component’s score significantly increased in 2019 to a 

very impressive score of 87. While this has historically been a very high scoring driver, the rating of 87 

matches its highest level and gives OPE staff confidence that the application packages provide 

comprehensive information that is clear to understand. The result of higher scores for all related 

Application Package attributes is evidence that past survey results were used to inform where changes 

could be made. 

It is important to note that three of the OPE programs sampled in 2018 had not been included in the 2017

survey.

Information in Application Package - Aggregate Scores

2018

Scores

2019

Scores Difference

81

Significant 

Difference

Information in Application Package 82 87 5 ↑

Program Purpose 83 88 5 ↑

Program Priorities 83 88 5 ↑

Selection Criteria 81 85 4 ↑

Review Process 78 82 4 ↑

Budget Information and Forms 79 82 3 ↑

Deadline for Submission 86 91 5 ↑

Dollar Limit on Aw ards 83 88 5 ↑

Page Limitation Instructions 82 87 5 ↑

Formatting Instructions 79 85 6 ↑

Program Contact 85 90 5 ↑

Sample Size 269 414

Arrows indicate a statistically significant difference from 2017 scores at 90 percent level of confidence.

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

At the program level, the ratings of the Information in the Application Packages ranged from 82 for GEAR 

UP to 88 for the Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions and Child Care Access Means Parents in 

School programs.
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 21

Information in Application Package - Scores by Program

Program (Information in Application Package) Score

Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions 88

Child Care Access Means Parents in School 88

Strengthening Institutions Program 87

National Resource Centers Program 86

GEAR UP 82

Native American and Alaska Native Children in School Program --

National Professional Development Program --

Adult Education and Family Literacy to State Directors --

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

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

IDEA-Part C Infants and Toddlers w ith Disabilities Program --

RSA Vocational Rehabilitation Program --

Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants --

21st Century Community Learning Centers --

Payments for Federal Property (Section 7002) --

Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 7003) --

Comprehensive Literacy State Development --

Indian Education Formula Grants to LEAs --

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

Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program --

Student Support and Academic Enrichment --

Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies – Title I --

English Language Acquisition State Grants --

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

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

Grants for State Assessments --

Teacher and School Leader Incentive Grants --

Supporting Effective Educator Development Program --

Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools --

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

i3/Education Innovation and Research --

Magnet Schools Assistance Program --

Promise Neighborhoods --

Demonstration Grants for Indian Children --

Neglected and Delinquent State and Local Agency Programs --

School Climate Transformation Grants (LEA) --

Scores are not listed for programs where the questions were not asked.
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 22

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, 88%

responded ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly Agree’. This includes 37% of grantees who fall into the ‘Strongly Agree’ 

category, the largest share of respondents selecting this option in the history of the survey. As in the past, 

only about one in ten respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed. 

“Overall, when I think of all of ED’s products and services, I am satisfied with their quality.”
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 23

Chapter III

Summary and Recommendations

The overall ACSI score of 74 marks the highest level of grantee satisfaction recorded by the survey since 

its inception in 2007. The 1-point improvement since last year continues a positive upward trend in 

satisfaction that dates back to 2015 when ACSI was 5 points lower at 69. 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 shows the performance and impact of each driver area. Thus, those 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 right-hand 

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 five-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 most programs, 

Documents approaches the Key Action Areas quadrant. For OESE programs, it is the Technical 

Assistance provided that should be considered a Key Action Area, where improvement efforts are 

expected to have the greatest impact on driving satisfaction even higher. 
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 24

Key Action Areas

The Documents section of the questionnaire applies to all Offices other than OPE. The grantees who 

rated Documents generally gave the correspondence very favorable evaluations leading to its strong 

overall score of 77. Along with this score, the data analysis reveals an impact value of 1.7 for this driver, 

which qualifies it as a Key Action Area for many programs. The lowest Documents attribute rating is 

associated with the comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues faced by grantees. Reading 

through the verbatim feedback left by respondents to ensure that each program’s grantees are getting 

current and topical correspondence sent to them is important in maintaining or improving upon this 

influential area. Keeping the communication clear and direct is also helpful to grantees and has been a 

strength across the Department in recent years. 

For OESE programs, the Technical Assistance provided was found to be particularly influential on overall 

satisfaction. OESE staff do a good job of helping grantees learn to implement their programs through the 

technical assistance they provide. Responding quickly and finding specific techniques that will be most 

beneficial at the grant level can help drive this score even higher. Additionally, OESE leadership should 

look for ways to carry out their technical service in a way that can be adopted by programs as a model for 

when they in turn provide technical assistance to their grantees. 

Monitor

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

relatively low score makes it an area that needs to be monitored and evaluated for “quick wins” that can 

improve the score to a level commensurate with most of the other key aspects of the grantee experience. 

Its low impact value keeps the driver outside of the Key Action Areas for now, but any further declines 

could increase its impact and have a pronounced negative effect on satisfaction. Ensure that content 

available on the ED.gov website is current, the homepage kept decluttered and links with commonly 

sought-after resources displayed prominently.

Maintain

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

to maintain to keep the CSI score from slipping lower. There was a slight decline in this driver’s score in 

2019 but its high score and low impact relative to the other components keep ED Staff/Coordination in the 

Maintain category. Extensive improvements will be more difficult to achieve and any increases in driver 

score are not likely to yield significant improvements in satisfaction.
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 25

Results by Program

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

absolute score and performance relative to the Department average are considered in identifying the 

recommended areas to improve. 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 was rated a very strong 

76 in the 2019 survey. This is a 13-point decline from the previous measurement but given this program’s 

relatively small number of responses, some volatility in the year-to-year changes should be expected. Of 

particular note for this program’s 2019 results is that 16 of 17 grantees invited to the survey completed 

the online questionnaire, giving a nearly perfect degree of confidence in the results being representative 

of the complete grantee population. Ratings of the support provided to grantees by federal staff are 

summarized by the ED Staff/Coordination component and its score of 84 shows continued strong 

performance in this area. Staff are responsive, clear in their guidance and provide accurate information to 

grantees seeking assistance. The Online Resources made available to grantees through the ED.gov

website were rated a 67 and present an opportunity for improvement as this year’s score represents a 17-

point decline from a year ago. Improving the navigation of the site and keeping the available content 

current should be the focus of improvement efforts. The technical assistance provided by the OELA office 

and the program officer were each rated 78, demonstrating a level of assistance that meets or exceeds 

grantee expectations in most cases. The usefulness of the NCELA website was rated a 77 but the 

usefulness of the OELA Facebook page scored a 53. If the Facebook page is meant to be a primary 

source of information going forward, more attention should be paid to keeping it up-to-date and more 

efficiently promoted to grantees. 

National Professional Development Program

Satisfaction among National Professional Development Program grantees increased for the second 

consecutive year, this time a 4-point rise to a score of 81. This makes it the fourth highest rated program 

in the 2019 survey. Like many other programs, its highest rated driver is ED Staff/Coordination, as federal 

staff do a great job of providing accurate responses to questions and also carry out very effective 

collaboration with other ED programs or offices in providing relevant services. In fact, this collaboration 

rating of 91 was the second highest score for this attribute among all surveyed programs and indicates 

other programs could investigate the protocols NPD has in place to learn best practices that lead to 

positive collaborative outcomes. The high impact driver Documents, which measures the correspondence 

and other written resources made available to grantees, was rated an 83. This impressive score 

illustrates that the correspondence coming from NPD is relevant, well organized and easy for grantees to 

understand. Based on this positive result, no significant changes to the documentation issued by the 

program are recommended at this time. The usefulness of the NCELA website was rated an 82 while the 

usefulness of the OELA Facebook page was rated much lower at 69. More attention should be paid to the 

Facebook page if it is intended to be a resource for program grantees to gather information or get 

questions answered. The overwhelmingly positive survey results for NPD lead to the level of trust 

grantees have in OELA working to meet their organization’s needs being rated a 93, verification of a 

strong relationship between program staff and their grantees. The following grantee comment 

summarizes much of the feedback provided by this program’s respondent in 2019: “The KMS system is 

vastly improved and easier to work with. That Webinar was AMAZING!”

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

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

Grantees of the Adult Education and Family Literacy program rated their satisfaction a 76. This is a 1-

point improvement from a year ago and the highest satisfaction score for this program since 2013. The 

score of 85 for ED Staff/Coordination demonstrates federal staff are providing efficient and helpful 

information to grantees reaching out for assistance. ED personnel are rated highest for their 
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 26

responsiveness and knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and procedures. The Adult Ed 

program also received very strong scores for the Documents ratings, which consist of positive evaluations 

for attributes related to the written correspondence provided to grantees. The written resources 

distributed by this program provide clear direction, are well-organized and include relevant information to 

help guide grantees through a variety of topics related to their grant. Online Resources receive the lowest 

driver rating of 68, which is a 7-point decline from a year ago. An evaluation of the ED.gov website 

resources that pertain to Adult Ed should be done to ensure that the content is current and commonly 

used pages or tools are easy to find. The federal monitoring process as it relates to AEFLA grants is seen 

as well organized and provides adequate pre-planning guidance. The use of state peer reviewers in the 

federal monitoring process is also seen as being highly effective as this attribute was rated a 91 in its 

initial measurement. Additional scores to the custom AEFLA questions asked on the survey can be found 

in Appendix B.

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

Technical Ed

Carl D. Perkins Career & Technical Education Program grantee satisfaction fell 1 point in 2019 but 

maintains a very positive score of 78. Additionally, the rating of 92 for how much grantees trust that 

OCTAE personnel are working to meet their organization’s needs demonstrates the strong relationship 

CTE grantees have with the Department. Overall satisfaction is bolstered by impressive driver scores all 

around. ED Staff/Coordination, a measurement of the interactions had with federal staff, is rated an 89. 

The written correspondence provided to grantees is measured by the Documents driver, which scored a 

79 and Online Resources was rated an 80. The Online Resources score is particularly notable as this is 

the third highest rating of the program resources available on the ED.gov website. Grantees were very 

complimentary of the ease of finding their way around the site and being able to accomplish what they set 

out to do when visiting. In general, all survey ratings among CTE grantees were highest for those who 

have been a state director for less than a year and those who have held the position for more than three 

years. In the custom question section of the survey, CTE directors were asked the Consolidated Annual 

Report (CAR) and the Perkins Collaborative Research Network (PCRN). The user friendliness of the CAR 

was rated a 72 while the usefulness of the PCRN was scored an 84. Looking for ways to make the CAR 

more intuitive for grantees to interpret is likely to have a bigger effect than would improvement efforts 

geared toward the PCRN.

Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE)

Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions

Developing Hispanic Service Institutions grantee satisfaction was rated a 79 in 2019. This is a 7-point 

improvement from a year ago and an all-time high for the program. The Information in Application 

Package was rated an 88, with attribute scores in the 90s for how easy it was to understand the deadline 

for submission, dollar limits on awards and page limitation instructions. If there is any area in which to 

improve the Information in Application Package driver, it likely exists in providing clearer instructions 

around the Budget Information and Forms, which was the lowest scoring attribute in this area. The Online 

Resources driver increased its rating 1 point to 71. The modest improvement is impressive in a year when 

many other programs experienced a decrease in the evaluations of the resources available on the 

ED.gov website. The majority of respondents (61%) said they interact with Hispanic Serving Institutions 

staff a few times a year, and just over a third (34%) reported monthly interactions. Satisfaction and its 

drivers are rated lower among those contacting more frequently, likely as a result of encountering a 

higher number of issues that require program staff assistance. A higher prevalence of issues faced is 

likely to cause lower evaluations of several aspects of the grant experience. Custom questions asking 

DHSI grantees about the technical assistance they receive from the HSI division reveals very strong 

scores in the mid-80s for attributes such as responsiveness, clear communication and timely resolution of 

issues. In the interest of making the online materials even more useful and keeping grantees more 

informed, one respondent suggested that the “website could provide direct links to webinars and also a 

potential newsletter available for recipients to receive on a weekly or monthly basis.”
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 27

National Resource Centers Program

Grantees of the National Resource Centers Program rated their satisfaction a 77 in their first year of 

survey participation. This high level of satisfaction is bolstered by overwhelmingly positive evaluations of 

ED Staff/Coordination (94) and the Information in Application Package (86) components. The interactions 

with senior NRC officers are at an optimal level, with no real opportunity to improve on the mid-90s score. 

Likewise, any gains in the rating of the application package will be marginal given its high score. If 

opportunities for improvement exist, they likely lie in making the Budget Information and Forms as well as 

the Review Process sections clearer as these were the lower rated attributes, though only in relative 

terms. The third driver of satisfaction, Online Resources, stands out as having a lower score and thus, is 

likely the strongest candidate for targeted improvements efforts to boost grantee satisfaction. The 

component rating of 65 is made up of attribute scores also in the mid-60s, for elements such as the ease 

of navigation, freshness of content and ease of finding materials online. A review of the NRC materials 

available on the ED.gov website can be performed to ensure that outdated or obsolete resources are 

deleted and that the pages grantees visit are free of clutter. Website users want clean looking pages with 

quick links to visit common subsections of the website. The custom section of the questionnaire asked 

NRC grantees about the level of technical assistance they have received from their NRC program officer. 

These questions yielded extremely high ratings primarily in the 90s. 

Strengthening Institutions Program 

Satisfaction among Strengthening Institutions Program grantees was a 77 in 2019 – a significant 13-point 

improvement from the previous year’s measurement. The score increases were observed throughout the 

survey, with improvements in all three drivers as well. ED Staff/Coordination rose 2 points to a score of 

84, Online Resources was rated 6 points higher at 69 and the Information in Application Package rating 

improved 3 points to 87. Grantee comments speak of some initial glitches with the rollout of a new 

reporting system but that those issues have been resolved. Now, operations are moving more smoothly 

and when program officers are contacted the response has been swift and helpful. Continuing with 

prompt replies that are accurate and consistent will reinforce the improved performance in 2019. The 

custom question section of the questionnaire asked SIP grantees to rate the quality of the post-award 

guidelines and performance reports. The quality of each was rated higher than a year ago, though the 

increase was more pronounced for the post-award guidelines (78, +9) than for the performance reports 

(69, +3). The majority of respondents (65%) said they interact with Strengthening Institutions Division staff 

a few times a year and another 24% said they interact monthly. When asked about the information 

received from the SIP office over the past year, the overwhelming majority (88%) said it has been 

consistent. This group rated satisfaction an 80, compared to a score of 54 for the 12% who said the 

information received has not been consistent. When asked about the post-award guidance and 

performance reports, one grantee remarked that “In regard to performance reports, deadline, contact 

information, and email reminders were clear and consistent. What was unclear was formatting and 

templates. I was unsure how they wanted to receive budget information (e.g., Excel document, Word 

document, etc.)”

Child Care Access Means Parents in School

Satisfaction was rated an 82 by grantees of the CCAMPIS program in its first year of participating in the 

survey. This impressive result ranks it third in satisfaction among all programs participating in 2019. The 

Information in Application Package was rated an 88, with especially high marks for understanding the 

Deadline for Submission (93) and Program Contact (90) sections. The ED Staff/Coordination also scored 

very well at 83. Opportunities to drive this component score even higher include improving the 

consistency of responses with ED from different program offices and prioritizing quick response times 

when grantees reach out for assistance. The final driver, Online Resources (65), was the lowest rated 

driver by a wide margin. This evaluation of the CCAMPIS resources available on the ED.gov website 

illustrates some opportunities to improve the ease of finding materials on the site as well as the freshness 

of the content by purging outdated information. The website should usher grantees through a decluttered 

homepage to the specific information being sought after. Presenting clear links to commonly used tools 

and informative materials is the first step in creating a pleasant and intuitive user experience. A 

respondent gives voice to the need for these updates: “Make the website simpler. Too many steps to 

access material. Most current information is not always reflective on site.” Ninety-three percent of 

CCAMPIS grantees said that their institution’s leadership provides the required support for them to 
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 28

successfully implement their grant. These respondents provided ratings on the survey generally 10-20 

points higher than the 7% who do not receive sufficient support. 

GEAR UP

Grantees of the GEAR UP program rated their satisfaction a 72, a 5-point improvement since its last 

measurement in 2015. The Information in Application Package was the highest rated driver at 82. The 

Deadline for Submission (90) was the highest rated attribute, while the Review Process (74), Page 

Limitation Instructions (78) and Formatting Instructions (78) were rated relatively lower and present an 

opportunity for improvement. ED Staff/Coordinationwas rated a 70, which places it toward the lower end 

of the spectrum across all programs measured this year. Improvement efforts should be focused on 

ensuring that senior GEAR UP officers are providing consistent information and are able to collaborate 

with other ED programs or offices in providing relevant services. ED staff responsiveness and general 

knowledge of relevant topics are relative strengths, but these attributes still have room for improvement 

and doing so should be expected to boost satisfaction higher. Online Resources, rated a 64, is the lowest 

rated driver and would benefit from replacing outdated materials with fresh content on the GEAR UP 

section of the ED.gov website. Additionally, the navigation of the site could be improved by using bold 

titles for the subdivision headings to draw the user’s eye and make using the site more intuitive. A grantee 

summarizes the website experience by saying “US ED site reflects old data and technology and is hard to 

navigate around as the regulations are hard to find and sort.” A review of the data shows that satisfaction 

and the ED Staff/Coordination ratings are particularly high among GEAR UP grantees who have been in 

their role for less than a year. The scores decline slightly for those with one to ten years of experience, 

and then fall sharply for the most tenured group of ten years or more. It is important to have senior staff 

available for experienced grantees who only need to reach out for assistance with complex issues they 

are not able to answer on their own.

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS)

IDEA – State Directors of Special Education (Part B)

After three consecutive increases, State Directors of Special Education rated their satisfaction with the 

program lower in 2019. This year’s score of 71 is a 4-point decline from a year ago and comes as a result 

of lower scores for all three drivers. Despite the decrease, the ratings are still quite positive, and the 

takeaway should be that efforts can be made to alleviate the decline and put good practices into place 

that will lead to improved ratings moving forward. ED/Staff Coordination was rated an 84, led by strong 

performance in the responsiveness and accuracy in responses. The Documents rating, which is an 

evaluation of the written correspondence provided to grantees, was a 76. Its highest rated attribute came 

for the relevance of the written materials, their clarity and organization. Ratings were slightly lower in the 

areas of sufficiency of detail and comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues faced. The other 

driver, Online Resources, was rated a 64. This measurement of the program’s resources on the ED.gov

website shows an opportunity for improvement in the ease of navigation and helping users accomplish 

carry out their goals of visiting the site. Presenting a decluttered main page with clearly presented links to 

frequently visited website tools and materials will help streamline the grantee experience online. Custom 

questions were asked of this program’s grantees at the end of the survey. The ratings and open-ended 

feedback provided to these questions can be reviewed in Appendices B and C. 

IDEA – Part C Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities Program

Satisfaction among Lead Agency Early Intervention Coordinators declined 3 points from its previous 

measurement for a 2019 score of 69. This slight decline is associated with lower scores for ED 

Staff/Coordination and Online Resources. The ED Staff/Coordination driver fell 6 points but maintains a 

strong rating of 82. Senior ED staff are rated highest for their accuracy of responses (85) and lowest for 

the quality of collaboration had with other ED programs or offices in providing relevant services (79). The 

grantee experience using the ED.gov website was rated marginally lower in 2019 at 66, a 3-point decline 

from the previous measurement. While the navigation and ease of reading the site actually improved 

slightly, the overall Online Resources declines comes as a result of lower scores for the freshness of 

content and the ability to accomplish intended tasks when visiting the site. Removing outdated content 

and replacing with current materials should be the priority in the effort to improve the Online Resources 
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 29

rating. One grantee suggested the need to “improve functionality and ease of finding information, 

navigation and linking to other TA websites.” Grantee ratings were markedly lower among those who 

have been in their role for one to three years. In the custom question section of the survey, grantees were 

asked to rate the clarity of information received in developing applications and reports as well as the 

timeliness of responses by the Monitoring and State Improvement Planning (MSIP) Division. Each of 

these ratings declined 5 points from a year ago though maintain positive scores on the mid- to high-70s. 

Ensuring that MSIP state contacts reply promptly to requests for assistance and work with grantees until 

issues are fully resolved will improve these scores and boost overall satisfaction.

RSA Vocational Rehabilitation Program

Grantees of the RSA Vocational Rehabilitation Program were included in the survey for the first time. 

Their satisfaction was rated a 49, indicating a need for improvement as this is the lowest program rating 

in 2019. The driver scores range from 53 for Online Resources to 64 for ED Staff/Coordination. Online 

Resources can be improved by focusing on purging outdated resources and replacing with fresh content. 

The ease of navigation can be improved by presenting a decluttered home page with clear links to 

commonly used resources. The priority should be on making the user experience intuitive rather than 

attempting to place as much material as possible on the main pages of the website. Additionally, there 

are multiple mentions within the open-ended feedback that tell of difficulty in locating the RSA link on the 

ED.gov website. Look to make the path to this program’s specific content more intuitive and eliminate the 

“loop” grantees speak of that keeps them on the main homepage or OSERS site. The Documents driver, 

which measures the quality of the written correspondence provided to grantees, was rated a 60. The 

materials are rated positively for their relevance to the grantees’ areas of need (70) but score lower for 

their sufficiency of detail (54) and comprehensiveness (53). ED Staff/Coordination was the highest rated 

driver but could benefit from increased collaboration with other ED programs or offices and more prompt 

replies from senior ED staff. Any “quick wins” like better response time should be taken advantage of but 

evaluating the grantee experience on the website in an effort to present an efficient process for accessing 

RSA content should be the main focus of improving satisfaction. 

Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE)

Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants

Satisfaction fell 6 points among grantees of the Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants program. 

This is the second consecutive year where satisfaction has fallen by 6 points for this program and signals 

a need to put new policies and procedures into place to initiate a rebound in satisfaction so that the 

grants’ intentions can be effectively carried out. The clear candidate for where to prioritize improvement 

efforts are the Online Resources through the ED.gov website. This driver score declined 17 points since 

last year to a score of 47. Furthermore, this rating has declined from a strong score of 70 since the 2017

measurement. The navigation of the site to find this program’s materials is in need of a refresh making 

the process of using the site more intuitive for grantees. At present, the site is seen by many as simply a 

repository of documents, many of which are outdated and the content that is current is difficult to find 

either through website navigation or using the search function. This results in confusion on the part of 

grantees and increases the frequency with which they reach out to program staff directly for assistance. 

The ED/Staff Coordination component, which measures the performance of senior department staff, fell 6 

points to a 72. While elements of the assistance they provide, like the sufficiency of detail and 

consistency of responses increased, the responsiveness score fell 14 points from a year ago. This 

demonstrates that staff are well equipped with the knowledge and skills to assist grantees but perhaps 

because of a large volume of requests, are unable to respond as promptly as grantees would like. 

Improving the online experience for grantees so that a larger share of the information they need can be 

self-served will alleviate the pressure on Department staff and lead to a more satisfactory grantee 

experience. 

21st Century Community Learning Centers

21st Century Community Learning Centers grantee satisfaction increased 6 points to a score of 74 in 

2019. This is now the fifth consecutive year of an increase in satisfaction, improving a total of 21 points 

since a low score of 53 in 2014. Persistent improvement in the content provided to grantees and the 
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 30

guidance delivered by dedicated program staff have paved the way for this significant rise in satisfaction. 

ED Staff/Coordination was rated an 85, with very impressive scores for the accuracy (90) and consistency 

of responses (86). The Documents driver, which measures the quality of the written correspondence 

made available to grantees, was rated a 79. This is a 6-point increase from a year ago. Like satisfaction, 

this component has improved its score each of the past four years. In 2019, its highest marks are for the 

content’s relevance (83), organization (82) and clarity (80). Following the pattern of the positive trends, 

OESE’s Technical Assistance also improved in 2019. Grantees rated the effectiveness of OESE in 

helping them implement grant programs an 81, the highest rating for this attribute for this program since 

the inception of the survey. In the custom question section of the survey, grantees of this program were 

asked to rate the likelihood of recommending the 21st CCLC’s You for Youth (Y4Y) website. With an 

overall rating of 91, it is clear that grantees find the website very valuable and a real asset to the program. 

A full listing of the ratings to the custom questions can be found in Appendix B.

Payments for Federal Property (Section 7002)

Satisfaction among grantees of the Payments for Federal Property program was rated an 83, a 6-point 

increase from a year ago. This also represents its highest satisfaction level over the course of the survey 

and the second highest satisfaction score of any program for the 2019 survey. This high level of 

satisfaction is driven by positive scores across all key components of the grantee experience. There is no 

real room for improvement in the area of ED Staff/Coordination as this component was rated a 90 for the 

second consecutive measurement. Senior level Department staff do an excellent job of responding to 

grantee questions promptly, with accurate guidance that effectively informs those needing assistance. 

The Documents driver was rated an 85, with strong scores all around in terms of the written 

correspondence delivered to grantees. Online Resources continue to be an asset to this program’s 

grantees with a score of 81. In a time where the Online Resources made available on the ED.gov website 

is a relative pain point for many programs, the structure and content of these materials for the Payments 

for Federal Property program could serve as a model for other programs to emulate. Open-ended 

feedback to custom questions asked of this program’s grantees include mentions of quicker wait times for 

grant funds to be issued and strong communication from program staff that keep grantees informed. 

Program staff should continue to prioritize quick responses that provide grantees with comprehensive 

information. Grantees were also complimentary of the webinars and other educational resources with one 

respondent saying “all presentations and webinars have been informative. I especially like the semiannual conferences of which I have attended 8 over my 18 years.” The success of this program’s 

customer service is a great example of how carrying out dedicated assistance and responding to 

grantees to meet their needs leads to higher satisfaction and more effective use of the program’s funds. A 

full read-out of the verbatim feedback collected can be found in Appendix C.

Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 7003)

Satisfaction of Payments for Federally Connected Children program grantees increased 4 points to a 

rating of 79. This program’s satisfaction has enjoyed an upward trend dating back to 2014 and 2015 when 

it was rated a 64. The 2019 increase comes as a result of continued improvement in the ED 

Staff/Coordination and Documents drivers. Federal staff provide accurate information and respond to 

grantees quickly. This combination almost always results in a strong ED Staff/Coordination score and in 

turn, high satisfaction. The written correspondence provided to grantees is another strength for this 

program. The materials made available are well organized, relevant to grantees’ areas of need and easy 

to understand. No major changes should be made to the Documents content at this time. Online 

Resources was rated a 75 for the second consecutive year. This positive score puts it in the top five 

program-level ratings for 2019. In looking for ways to further enhance the user experience on the ED.gov

website, consider the addition of a simple user guide to walk grantees through the application process 

(suggested by a survey respondent). The online payment calculator appears outdated and should be 

refreshed if this is the case. In the custom question section of the survey, just under half (44%) of 

respondents said that their school district has been contacted by Impact Aid in the past year regrading a 

field review. A full listing of the ratings and responses, including open-ended feedback, to the custom 

questions can be found in Appendices B and C.
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 31

Comprehensive Literacy State Development

Grantees of the Comprehensive Literacy State Development program rated satisfaction an 86, a 4-point 

improvement from the previous measurement and the single highest satisfaction score at the programlevel in 2019. This is especially remarkable considering that this program’s grantees rated satisfaction as 

low as 45 in 2014 and 2015. While sample sizes are low for this program, the magnitude of that increase 

demonstrates real change that has benefitted grantees leading to this high level of satisfaction. ED Staff/ 

Coordination was rated a 92, supported by exceptional scores for all attributes including accuracy of 

responses (94), knowledge of relevant legislation/regulations/policies/procedures (92) and consistency of 

responses (92). Documents was rated an 89, illustrating the exceedingly useful correspondence made 

available to this program’s grantees. The content is clear, well-organized and relevant to areas of need. 

The Online Resources are also rated very favorably, supported by open-ended feedback that indicates an 

intuitive experience for grantees when visiting the website. The custom question section of the survey 

asks this program’s grantees to rate the helpfulness of their program officer in providing various types of 

technical assistance. These scores are also very high, ranging from 84 to 93. Open-ended feedback 

collected mentions the desire to receive additional technical assistance related to evidence-based 

practices from meetings and Communities of Practice events. Taking advantage of this feedback by 

asking what specific questions grantees have so they can be directly addressed will show that program 

staff are actively listening to the feedback and working to make further improvements. 

Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Education Agencies 

Indian Education Formula Grants to LEAs grantees rated their satisfaction a 75, a 1-point improvement 

from the previous measurement. The highest rated driver for this program was ED Staff/Coordination, 

with a score of 86. This demonstrates the exemplary performance of federal staff working with grantees to 

provide prompt replies, accurate information and a willingness to work to find all necessary information to 

ensure that grants are being carried out effectively. OESE’s Technical Assistance was rated an 81, which 

is a 3-point improvement from a year ago. The ratings associated with the custom questions asked of this 

program’s grantees are also very positive as they relate to technical assistance evaluations. The technical 

support received by grantees was rated an 85 for its timeliness and an 84 for its quality. The Online 

Resources score fell 8 points to 71. The user experience on the ED.gov website can be improved by 

decluttering the main pages and presenting clear links to the most commonly used resources. The ease 

of navigation fell 12 points, more than any other attribute, and could benefit from a website refresh. The 

open-ended feedback is largely complimentary of the fine work carried out by the Office of Indian 

Education in supporting this program’s grantees. Further improvements could be made possible through 

sharing best practices and disseminating success stories to all grantees at development training or 

conferences. Hearing how one grantee is having success in implementing their grant can help a host of 

others and promote an even higher level of effectiveness for the Indian Education Formula Grants.

Migrant Education Programs (Title I, Part C)

Satisfaction of grantees of the Title I, Part C Migrant Education Program (MEP) rated their satisfaction a 

79, unchanged from the previous measurement and a very positive score overall. All drivers were rated 

very high, led by an 86 for both ED Staff/Coordination and Documents. Federal staff do a great job 

supporting grantees with accurate responses to questions, prompt replies and knowledgeable guidance 

regarding relevant legislation, regulations, policies and procedures. The written correspondence provided 

to grantees, measured by the Documents driver, is rated highest for providing relevant information (88), 

being well organized (87) and being comprehensive (86). With such high scores in the ED 

Staff/Coordination and Documents components, no significant changes should be made in these areas at 

this time. Online Resources was rated an 80, which is the third highest program-level score in the 2019 

measurement. The Migrant Education Program uses a contractor-supported website (RESULTS) that can 

serve as a model for many others in terms of how material should be organized and effective navigation 

of the various webpages grantees frequently use. The other driver of satisfaction, OESE’s Technical 

Assistance, was rated a 77 and indicates that the services provided to grantees needing technical 

assistance are effective in helping them implement their grant program. Nearly all grantees (94%) 

reported they participated in a technical assistance webinar in the past year. The EDFacts Submissions: 

Changes for School Year 2017-18 was chosen as the most useful, followed by MPOs to Impact Statewide 

Assessment Results and MEP Program Improvement. The webinars are generally very well received as 

are the conference calls, in-person presentations and emails as preferred methods for OME to 
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 32

communicate pertinent information. Grantees were complimentary of the communication with listserv, with 

one respondent saying “It's current method, of the listserv, is wonderful. Very well organized. It is literally 

the ONE office at USED that is effective in this manner.”

Education for Homeless Children and Youth – McKinney-Vento

The satisfaction among grantees of the Education for Homeless Children and Youth program declined by 

just a single point in 2019, down to a rating of 79. This is a very strong score that continues to trend well 

above the average among the combination of all surveyed programs. The Documents and ED Staff/ 

Coordination components continue to be key strengths of the grantee experience with this program. The 

Documents score, which measures the quality of the written correspondence provided to grantees, was 

rated an 88. This 5-point improvement was the product of the excellent clarity, organization and overall 

content included in the written materials made available to grantees. Federal staff supporting grantees in 

carrying out their grant’s charter received exceptional scores for their knowledge, accuracy and 

consistency of responses. The ED Staff/Coordination component was rated an 87 and along with 

Documents, represents an area where no significant changes are needed at this time. Instead, 

improvement efforts should be focused on enhancing the Online Resources available through the ED.gov

website. This component was rated a 69, down 14 points from the 2018 measurement. The ease of 

navigation and overall ease of reading the site seem to be particular pain points with significant declines 

in these attributes from a year ago. Grantee comments suggest that the site should be simplified with 

links to frequently used resources like the NCHE and NAECHY sites clearly presented. The search 

engine’s functionality is seen as lacking in that search results often return irrelevant or outdated 

information. Investing resources in the online material offered to grantees should be the priority in driving 

satisfaction higher and can be expected to offer a good rate of return if a dedicated effort is put forth. 

Student Support and Academic Enrichment 

Grantees of the Student Support and Academic Enrichment program rated their satisfaction a 51. This 

score lags well below the overall rating of 74 among all surveyed programs in 2019. The highlight of the 

driver scores is the 69 for the Documents component. This represents a 5-point improvement from the 

previous measurement and is boosted by substantial increases in the clarity, organization, sufficiency of 

detail and relevance of the written correspondence provided to grantees. The only attribute related to 

these written materials not to increase its debut score was the comprehensiveness of the documents in 

addressing the scope of issues faced. In looking for ways to further improve the Documents score, 

special attention should be paid to listening to what information grantees need and finding ways to get 

that information to them efficiently. This same idea applies to the Online Resources in that grantees 

voiced their desire for more relevant and current information to be made available on the website. The 

freshness of content attribute was the single lowest rated aspect of the Online Resources component with 

a score of 54. Evaluating the materials currently available and refreshing outdated information should be 

expected to spur an increase in this driver and boost satisfaction. The custom question section of the 

survey asks SSAE grantees about the level of effectiveness of various technical assistance elements of 

their interactions with Department of Education staff. These interactions are rated fairly low for the 

effectiveness in helping grantees with meeting program compliance requirements (54), and the website 

(57). However, staff are rated very high for their professionalism (82), demonstrating that the opportunity 

for improvement likely lies in fully educating staff so they can use their already professional skills to fully 

resolve requests for technical assistance.

Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies - Title I 

Satisfaction for Title I respondents increased 2 points in 2019 to a score of 59. The ED Staff/Coordination 

driver remains a key strength as grantees rated this area a 75. The support provided by federal staff was 

rated highest for their accuracy of responses (81), knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies 

and procedures (78) and consistency of responses (75). This area could be further improved by focusing 

on the responsiveness of staff as this was the lowest rated attribute of the federal staff support with a 

score of 67. The Documents component measures various characteristics of the written correspondence 

provided to grantees. In 2019, this component was rated a 69, a 5-point improvement from 2018. The 

attributes in this area with the greatest increases include sufficiency of detail (66, +7) and relevance to 

areas of need (75, +10). The technical assistance provided by OESE was rated a 60, which is a 3-point 

decline from a year ago. Program staff should focus on being proactive in disseminating information to 
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 33

grantees that will be relevant to their tasks in implementing their respective grants. Utilize the Dear 

Colleague letters and other correspondence to provide step-by-step instructions on staying compliant and 

who to contact for additional questions. Being proactive and demonstrating the availability of a strong 

support staff ready to help will give grantees more confidence that they are staying compliant and 

properly focusing their efforts on carrying out the intended goals of grant funds. Online Resources was 

the lowest rated component in 2019 for this program’s grantees. With the reorganization this year, some 

grantees mentioned being unclear regarding the organization chart and where to direct requests for 

assistance or where to find pertinent materials. One comment collected in the open-ended feedback 

reads “It would be good to have a ESSA section of the website with subsections for each of the Titles 

represented in ESSA. This would probably assist with navigation.” Ensure that up-to-date information is 

posted to the website with clear links presented to commonly used resources. Look to consolidate 

resources by topic so that grantees can more intuitively navigate to relevant materials by category.

English Language Acquisition State Grants (Title III State Formula Grants)

Satisfaction among English Language Acquisition State Grants grantees fell 7 points to a rating of 61. 

This decline comes after an 11-point increase the previous year and keeps the 2019 rating at the higher 

end of its historical average. The decrease in satisfaction comes as a result of lower scores for three of 

the four drivers – OESE’s Technical Assistance, ED Staff/Coordination and Online Resources. OESE’s 

technical Assistance fell 8 points to 59, with a 13-point drop in the rating for OESE’s effectiveness in 

helping grantees learn to implement grant programs. Open-ended feedback was collected to investigate 

ways the Department could improve its support to help grantees implement their grant. The comments 

suggest the need for program staff to offer tailored guidance rather than reading off legal guidelines that 

do not provide sufficient practical applications. Grantees feel that the program’s restrictive requirements 

can make it difficult to know how to most effectively use their grant’s funds. Consider holding webinars or 

utilize time during in person meetings to share success stories and other anecdotes that can spur ideas 

for other grantees in implementing their own grants. The Online Resources component score can be 

improved by refreshing outdated material and presenting a decluttered series of pages that presents 

quick links to commonly used resources. The Documents driver increased its score 3 points to 72. The 

documents provided to grantees received higher ratings for their clarity (75, +6) and organization of 

information (75, +4). Given this positive Documents score, improvement efforts should be primarily 

focused on providing effective technical assistance and a more productive experience for grantees using 

the program’s Online Resources. 

Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP)

Rural and Low Income School (RLIS) Program

Satisfaction of the REAP – Rural and Low Income School Program jumped 5 points to a score of 72 in 

2019. ED Staff/Coordination was the highest rated driver at 84, a 6-point improvement from the previous 

measurement. Federal staff provide knowledgeable guidance that is prompt and consistent across

various ED representatives. The Documents driver was also rated very positively with a score of 79. All 

attributes related to the written correspondence provided to grantees increased their scores, with the 

biggest improvement being a 9-point gain in the comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

faced. In a year when the Online Resources driver was rated lower by various program grantees, the 

online aspect of the RLIS grantee experience was rated 3 points higher with a score of 70. Grantee 

comments that mention specific ways the website could be further improved are included in Appendix C 

of this report. The webinars conducted by REAP are seen as very beneficial to informing grantees and 

offering useful suggestions for implementing their grants. When asked how often REAP webinars should 

be conducted 45% said quarterly, another 45% said semi-annually and just 10% said annually. 

Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) Program

REAP – Small, Rural School Achievement Program satisfaction rose 3 points to a score of 76. This is the 

fourth consecutive year satisfaction has increased dating back to 2015 when satisfaction was rated a 64. 

This consistent positive trend demonstrates the effect that improvement efforts in the key components of 

satisfaction will have. As a product of the high level of satisfaction, the level of Trust that SRSA program 

grantees have that their ED office is working to meet their organization’s needs was rated an impressive 

82. All drivers of satisfaction are rated positively in the 70s and 80s. The SRSA grant application is called 

out in the open-ended feedback as being very straightforward and easy to complete. Appendix C contains 
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 34

the full contents of the grantee comments to the open-ended survey questions. SRSA grantees generally 

find the webinars offered valuable. Forty percent of respondents said REAP should conduct them 

annually, 27% prefer them semi-annually and 29% prefer quarterly. The remaining handful of 

respondents prefer a more variable basis that coincides with the grant lifecycle. No matter the cadence, 

making the presentation slides ahead of time or at least during the webinar would be welcomed by some 

who want to take notes on the slides. 

Grants for State Assessments

Satisfaction among respondents of the Grants for State Assessments program was rated a 75 in 2019, a 

9-point increase from a year ago. This improved rating is the product of increases across all four drivers 

of satisfaction. OESE’s Technical Assistance claims the biggest increase of 9 points to a rating of 80. 

Staff providing technical assistance have done a great job of helping grantees implement their grant and 

demonstrating how OESE’s technical assistance can be used as a model for their own program. The 

Online Resources driver rose 4 points, largely boosted by a 10-point increase in the freshness of content 

attribute. Keeping materials current and accurate goes a long way in keeping grantees’ faith in the 

website’s resources high. The ease of finding material online rating rose 11 points and acts as a success 

story for other programs to investigate the specific actions taken by Grants for State Assessments staff 

that has led to these improvements. One respondent summed up the website experience saying that the 

“website has a great look and user experience is very positive.” The Documents driver measures the 

quality of the written correspondence provided to grantees. This component was rated 4 points higher in 

2019 with a score of 80. All attributes are rated consistently high on the upper-70s and low-80s. The 

highest rated driver is ED Staff/Coordination with a rating of 84. Federal staff received exceptional ratings 

for the accuracy of their responses (90) and their knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies 

and procedures (87). The opportunity for improving the ED Staff/Coordination driver lies in enhancing the 

consistency of responses (72) and collaboration with ED staff from different program offices (77). Each of 

these attributes declined in score from the 2018 survey.

Teacher and School Leader Incentive Grants

Teacher and School Leader Incentive grantees rated satisfaction a 79 in its initial measurement. This 

excellent score is 5 points higher than that combined average rating of 74 among all programs surveyed 

in 2019. However, a closer look at the TSL data shows that satisfaction was rated much higher by those 

who were listed in the ‘TIF’ cohort (87) than those in the ‘TSL’ cohort (63). Differences in scores between 

these two segments can be compared using the online reporting portal but since sample sizes are rather 

low in general for this program, scores discussed in the report will focus on the entire set of responses 

from both segments combined. The ED Staff/Coordination driver was rated an 81, with attribute ratings 

ranging from an 89 for the consistency of responses with ED staff from different program offices to a 78 

for sufficiency of legal guidance in responses. The Documents driver was also rated very high at 79. This 

evaluation of the written correspondence provided to grantees received its highest scores for the 

organization and relevance of the materials. In looking for ways to improve the Documents driver, focus 

should be placed on making the written materials clearer for grantees. The Online Resources available 

was rated a 70 which makes it the lowest rated component for this program but the score still exceeds the 

overall average rating among all surveyed programs of 68. The custom question section of the 

questionnaire for this program focuses on asking about the technical assistance provided by AEM. The 

helpfulness of AEM is rated highest in connecting grantees with other experts or practitioners working on 

similar programs (78). Ratings were slightly lower, though still positive (72), for assistance in improving 

program planning and implementations as well as providing relevant information and ideas. 

Supporting Effective Educator Development Program

Grantees of the Supporting Effective Educator Development program rated their satisfaction a 68 in their 

initial year of participation in the survey. Grantees rated ED Staff/Coordination very high (80), with 

especially high marks for the sufficiency of legal guidance (92) and accuracy of responses (89). This 

component’s score could be improved by focusing efforts on speeding up the responsiveness of staff in 

answering grantee questions. The Documents driver also received a very strong score of 79. The written 

correspondence produced is relevant to grantees’ areas of need, sufficient in its detail and 

comprehensive in addressing the scope of issues faced. The other driver of satisfaction, Online 

Resources, was rated a 67. The materials made available on the ED.gov website should be evaluated 
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 35

and refreshed. The lowest attribute score related to Online Resources was the freshness of content with a 

rating of 64. Also investigate the feasibility of restructuring the site to present a cleaner homepage with 

drop down menus that direct grantees to specific resources. The user experience can be enhanced 

through a decluttered path to commonly used materials that is intuitive even for first time website visitors. 

The custom question section of the questionnaire asked SEED grantees to rate the level of ease of 

certain activities in meeting the standards of the What Works Clearinghouse. These evaluations found 

that gaining helpful technical assistance to conduct a meaningful evaluation (68) was relatively easier 

than the actual act of implementing a meaningful and rigorous evaluation (61). 

Charter Schools Program Grants for Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter 

Schools

Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools grantees rated their satisfaction a 59 in 2019. 

ED Staff/Coordination and Documents were the highest rated drivers of satisfaction, each with a score of 

65. Highlights of the support provided by federal staff include the knowledge they have of relevant 

legislation, regulations, policies and procedures as well as their accuracy and sufficiency of legal 

guidance they provide. There is an area of opportunity in improving the consistency of responses with ED 

staff from different program offices as this was the lowest rated attribute with a score of 51. The 

Documents driver, which measures the quality of the written correspondence provided to grantees, was 

rated highest for the material’s relevance to grantees’ needs (72). Improvements to the documentation 

should focus on making the material clearer and better organized as these attributes received relatively 

lower scores. Online Resources was the lowest rated driver with a rating of 55, making it a candidate for 

prioritized improvement efforts. Open-ended feedback collected on the survey regarding the website 

mentions a broken link on the OII page and the need for a more intuitive experience when navigating the 

site. Ensure that the website is technically sound by eliminating broken links or outdated material. 

Enhancing the user experience should then focus on presenting visitors with a clean looking homepage 

with clear links to commonly used resources. Busy screens with an abundance of material appear 

cluttered and can have an adverse effect on the website experience for grantees. Making these realistic 

changes to the written and electronic materials should improve the ratings in these areas and have a 

tangible effect on the overall level of grantee satisfaction. 

Expanding Opportunities Through Quality Charter Schools Program

Expanding Opportunities Through Quality Charter Schools Program grantee satisfaction debuted with a 

score of 62. The ED/Staff Coordination component was rated a 72 – which is a positive score but does 

lag 10 points behind the overall average among all programs combined in 2019. Ways to enhance this 

rating exist in improving the responsiveness of federal staff in answering grantee questions and finding 

ways to collaborate with other ED programs or offices in providing relevant services. The Documents 

driver was rated a 70 by this program’s grantees, demonstrating that the written correspondence 

published generally meets the needs of this program’s grantees though does offer some room for 

improvement. Most notably, the written materials could use clearer language and increase in scope to 

address the full complement of issues faced by grantees. The specific types of questions that grantees 

contact program staff with should be measured and tracked to better understand the areas where there is 

a need for additional information. Online Resources was rated a 57 and also presents an area of 

opportunity. Open-ended grantee comments regarding the website indicate a shared desire for a more 

robust search engine that returns current and relevant information. At present, there are several mentions 

of search results being outdated or not related to the topic being searched. The satisfaction of meetings, 

communications, monitoring and technical assistance were evaluated in this program’s custom section of 

the survey. Scores for these areas ranged from the upper-50s to mid-60s, with detailed score results 

available in Appendix B of this report.

Education Innovation and Research Programs

In its initial measurement on the Grantee Satisfaction Survey, this program’s grantees rated their 

satisfaction a 75. This impressive score is a point higher than the overall average among all participating 

programs combined in 2019. Leading the way in terms of driver scores was ED Staff/Coordination with a 

rating of 84. Federal staff do a wonderful job in providing accurate responses in a timely fashion. OESE’s 

Technical Assistance was rated a 76 with grantees reporting a high level of effectiveness of OESE in 
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 36

helping grantees learn to implement their grant programs. This positive combination provides grantees 

with confidence that they are implementing their grant effectively and have a helpful resource to turn to for 

quick information when necessary. The Documents driver was also rated well with a score of 74. While 

the written correspondence provided to grantees generally meets their needs, there does seem to be an 

opportunity for improvement specifically in increasing the range of topics covered. The 

comprehensiveness of the written material in addressing the full scope of issues faced was the lowest 

rated Documents attribute with a rating of 69. The Online Resources component was rated a 69, in line 

with the overall average among all programs in 2019. All related attributes were rated in a tight range 

from 68 to 72. Improvement efforts can span across a number of elements of the online materials made 

available to grantees including a cleaner look/navigation menu, more current content and a more robust 

search engine that includes only relevant resources in search results. Verbatim comments and ratings to 

custom questions for this program’s grantees are available in Appendices B and C.

Magnet Schools Assistance Program

Magnet Schools Assistance Program grantees rated their satisfaction a 79, which is 5 points higher than 

the average rating among all surveyed programs in 2019. In addition to the strong level of satisfaction, all 

of its drivers were positively rated. Federal staff supporting grantees are performing at a high level, 

demonstrated by the score of 84 for ED Staff/Coordination. All of its attributes were rated in the 80s, led 

by scores of 89 for the accuracy of responses an 87 for the sufficiency of legal guidance in their 

responses. Documents was rated an 81, again with strong marks for all of its attributes. The written 

material made available to grantees was rated especially high for its relevance to areas of grantees’ need 

(85). OESE’s Technical Assistance received a strong rating of 79, as grantees find OESE to be very 

effective in helping them learn to implement their grant program. The final driver, Online Resources, was 

rated a 75, which is 7 points higher than the average rating in 2019. Several respondents were 

complimentary of the navigation and overall intuitiveness of the website in the open-ended feedback 

collected by the survey. One respondent suggested as an opportunity for further improvement saying , 

“the MSAP Center website is difficult to navigate to find the most recent webinars. It would be helpful if 

they were organized by date or if there was a keyword search for webinars.” Other specific comments can 

be viewed in Appendix C of this report. In the custom question section of the questionnaire, grantees 

were asked if they have asked their ED program contact for assistance in areas not related to fiscal or 

grant administration issues. Just four respondents (14%) reported that they had and while the sample 

size is low, the ratings of this type of assistance were extremely high in the 90s and even a perfect score 

of 100 for MSAP Center technical assistance support by this group of four individuals.

Promise Neighborhoods

Promise Neighborhoods grantee satisfaction was rated a 78, a very positive result in this program’s initial 

measurement. A very strong ED Staff/Coordination score of 81 shows the federal staff do a great job of 

supporting grantees by providing accurate responses in a timely manner. OESE’s Technical Assistance 

has also performed at a high level with grantees reporting that OESE has been effective in helping them 

learn how to implement their grant program. The written correspondence provided to grantees is 

measured by the Documents component and was rated a 72. While this score shows that grantees’ 

needs are generally being met in this area, the Promise Neighborhoods score does lag behind the overall 

average rating of 77 among all programs measured in 2019. Ensure that materials sent to grantees 

covers the full scope of the issues faced and are clear to understand. Online Resources is another driver 

of satisfaction and was rated a 63. Areas of opportunity for driving this score higher include improving the 

navigation of the site, making it easier for users to find the content they are searching for. It is also 

important that all outdated materials are purged form the site and refreshed with current information to 

reduce any confusion on the part of grantees. This is especially important given the recent organizational 

restructuring that can lead to the need for additional guidance for website visitors. A respondent to the 

survey suggested sending a notification to grantees when new materials are posted to the website to 

promote increased awareness of the online materials. This could be mutually beneficial as more grantees 

who are able to self-serve on the website will likely reduce the number of calls and emails directed 

specifically to federal program staff.
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 37

Demonstration Grants for Indian Children/Special Projects Demonstration Grants

The satisfaction among grantees of the Demonstration Grants for Indian Children/Special Projects 

Demonstration Grants was rated a 61, which is a 9-point decline from the 2018 measurement. A primary 

cause of the decrease in satisfaction is the result of a 9-point decline in the ED Staff/Coordination driver 

score (68). At a more granular level, the biggest drop offs in scores for the support provided by federal 

staff were their knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and procedures as well as their 

overall responsiveness. Going forward, a premium should be placed on making sure staff are responding 

to grantee requests quickly. Answers do not need to be immediately provided but an acknowledgement of 

the request should be provided to give grantees confidence that their request for assistance has been 

received and will be answered. Online Resources was rated a 59 and open-ended feedback related to the 

website mentions the need to make sure all materials on the site are current and reflect accurate 

information. Several other comments, however, are complimentary of the site and the relative ease of 

navigation it presents for users. The navigation of the site should be continually evaluated to make sure 

that the menus are intuitive and links to commonly used resources are presented clearly to visitors. The 

custom question section of the survey asked this program’s grantees to evaluate the Native Youth 

Community Projects (NYCP) program. Ratings of the NYCP were generally quite positive, including an 8-

point increase in the usefulness and relevance of webinar-based technical assistance rating. When asked 

which topics would be most helpful to cover, Performance Reporting was selected a priority by over half 

of the respondents. 

Neglected and Delinquent State and Local Agency Programs

Grantees of the Neglected and Delinquent State and Local Agency Programs rated their satisfaction a 55, 

which is the fourth lowest program score in 2019. The 10-point decline in satisfaction comes as the result 

of lower scores in each of the four drivers. ED Staff/Coordination fell 13 points to a score of 68. The 

biggest opportunities to help this score rebound exist in improving the responsiveness of federal staff 

when receiving requests for guidance from grantees and demonstrating a deep knowledge of relevant 

legislation, regulations, policies and procedures. OESE’s Technical Assistance score also fell 13 points in 

2019. When working with grantees to provide technical assistance, make sure that staff have the ultimate 

goal of being able to implement an effective grant in mind. Taking this approach will lead to more 

productive interactions with grantees and instill a deeper level of confidence that program staff are 

working to meet the needs of their organization. Online Resources fell 12 points to a score of 58. 

Improvement efforts focused on the website and its resources should be prioritized on ensuring that the 

content is current and accurate, especially given the recent organizational restructuring. One grantee 

gave voice to the confusion surrounding the validity of the online materials, saying “it is difficult to 

determine which is the latest version of laws or if any changes or amendments have been made to laws.”

Consider adding timestamps or announcing in some way when specific materials were last updated to 

inform grantees that they are reviewing content based on the most recent legislation or regulations. 

Custom questions asking grantees to evaluate the technical assistance provided by both NDTAC and 

USDE staff showed a more pronounced decline in the performance of the NDTAC personnel. This result 

could be due in part to the restructuring of the organization.

School Climate Transformation Grants

Local Education Agency

Satisfaction among SCTG Local Education Agency respondents decreased 13 points to a score of 77. 

The lower level of satisfaction corresponds to lower driver scores measuring the key aspects of the 

grantee experience. However, it is important to remember that while the scores are lower than a year 

ago, the ratings are still very positive and reflect efficient support and productive materials made available

to grantees. OESE’s Technical Assistance is the highest rated driver in 2019 with a score of 81. Staff 

providing technical support to SCTG – LEA grantees do so in a way that is effective in helping them 

implement their grant program successfully. ED Staff/Coordination was rated a 75, which is lower than in 

the previous couple of years but generally strong overall. The recent organizational restructuring has 

likely had an effect on these scores as the biggest declines came for the sufficiency of legal guidance, 

consistency of responses across different program offices and collaboration with other ED offices in 

providing relevant services. Ensuring that grantees are provided with detailed information regarding any 

changes to their grant and its related compliance regulations is important in bringing the ED Staff/ 

Coordination component back to its historically exceptional levels. Other improvement efforts should be 
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 38

focused on the Online Resources available on the ED.gov website as this component was rated 23 points 

lower with a 2019 score of 67. Audit all content on the site to make sure it reflects current information. 

Additionally, look into the feasibility of proactively alerting grantees when new content is posted to bring 

any relevant changes to their attention.
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 39

Contact Information

FEDERAL CONSULTING GROUP

Jessica Reed

Director

Theresa Spriggs

Contracting Officer’s Representative

ACSI: Delivered By

CFI GROUP

625 Avis 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 the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 40

Appendix A: Questionnaire
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 41

U.S. Department of Education

2019 Grantee Satisfaction Survey

Introduction 

The Department of Education (ED) is committed to serving and satisfying its customers. To this end, we have 

commissioned the CFI Group, an independent third-party research group, to conduct a survey that asks about your 

experience as a grant recipient of the [GRANT PROGRAM] and the ways we can improve our service to you. 

CFI Group and ED will treat all information in a secure fashion. Your answers are voluntary, but your opinions are 

very important. Your responses will remain anonymous and will only be reported in aggregate to ED personnel.

This survey is authorized by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget Control No. 1090-0007, which expires on 

September 30, 2021, and will take about 10 minutes to complete. 

If you have any questions about this survey, please contact Blanca Rodriguez at blanca.rodriguez@ed.gov.

Please note that ALL questions on this survey (unless noted otherwise) refer to your experiences over the PAST 12 

MONTHS.

Program

NOTE: THE FOLLOWING QUESTION WILL HAVE THE RESPONSE AUTOMATICALLY “PIPED IN” FROM THE 

RESPONDENT LIST. THE RESPONDENT WILL NOT SEE THE QUESTION Q1. THIS INFORMATION WILL DETERMINE 

THE APPROPRIATE CORE AND CUSTOM QUESTIONS THE RESPONDENT WILL RECEIVE. 

Note that individuals will be asked to respond based on their experiences with the program (e.g., OELA) vs. the 

individual research centers.

Q1. PROGRAM RESPONDENTS WILL BE ANSWERING QUESTIONS FOR:

Office of English Language Acquisition (OELA)

1. Native American and Alaska Native Children in School Program

2. National Professional Development Program

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

3. Adult Education and Family Literacy to State Directors of Adult Education

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

Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE)

5. Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions

6. National Resource Centers Program

7. Strengthening Institutions Program

8. Child Care Access Means Parents in School

9. GEAR UP

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS)

10. IDEA-State Directors of Special Education (Part B)

11. IDEA-Part C Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities Program

12. RSA Vocational Rehabilitation Program
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 42

Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE)

13. Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants

14. 21st Century Community Learning Centers

15. Payments for Federal Property (Section 7002)

16. Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 7003)

17. Comprehensive Literacy State Development

18. Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Education Agencies (LEAs)

19. Migrant Education Programs (Title I, Part C)

20. Education for Homeless Children and Youth Grants for State and Local Activities/ McKinney-Vento 

Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program

21. Student Support and Academic Enrichment

22. Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies –Title I

23. English Language Acquisition State Grants (Title III State Formula Grants)

24. Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP)/Rural and Low Income School (RLIS) Program

25. Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP)/Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) Program 

26. Grants for State Assessments

27. Teacher and School Leader Incentive Grants

28. Supporting Effective Educator Development Program

29. Charter Schools Program Grants for Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools

30. Expanding Opportunities Through Quality Charter Schools Program (CSP) Grants to State

31. Education Innovation and Research Programs

32. Magnet Schools Assistance Program

33. Promise Neighborhoods

34. Demonstration Grants for Indian Children/Special Projects for Indian Children

35. Neglected and Delinquent State and Local Agency Programs

36. School Climate Transformation Grants (LEA)
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 43

When answering the survey, please only think about your interactions with [GRANT PROGRAM]. 

 

ED Staff

[INTRO IF Q1=1-4, 10-36]

Please think about the interactions you have had with the federal staff that you work with the most closely from 

the [PROGRAM OFFICE] Consider times when you sought guidance, clarification, or additional assistance.

[DO NOT ASK OSERS (programs 10-13) RESPONDENTS] PLEASE NOTE: This does not include technical assistance 

provided by regional labs, national associations, ED-funded contractors, etc.

[INTRO IF Q1=5-9]

Please think about the interactions you have had with senior [PROGRAM OFFICE] officers (e.g. the Director of the 

Office that administers this grant program). [NOTE: Questions regarding your individual program officer will be 

asked later in the questionnaire..]

PLEASE ALSO NOTE: This does not include technical assistance to states to build state capacity to implement 

education reforms, such as regional labs, national associations, contractors –including those that service G5, 

grants.gov, etc.

[Q2-5 ALL PROGRAMS]

On a scale from 1 to 10, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate the quality of the assistance 

provided by ED staff. 

If a question does not apply, please select “N/A”.

Q2. Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, and procedures(or ability to get the information that 

you need)

Q3. Responsiveness to your questions

Q4.Accuracy of responses 

Q5. Sufficiency of guidance in responses

Q6. [DO NOT ASK PROGRAMS 10, 11, 12, 15,16] Consistency of responses with ED staff from different offices

Q7. [DO NOT ASK PROGRAMS 15,16] Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in providing relevant services 

(e.g., clarify issues regarding program policy and regulations, obtain guidance on grants policy and administration, 

obtain guidance on financial drawdowns, share information regarding best practices)
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 44

[Q8-13 ALL PROGRAMS]

Online Resources

Please think about your experience using the [PROGRAM OFFICE]’s online resources on the ED.gov website. On a 

10-point scale, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate the:

Q8. Ease of finding materials online 

Q9. Freshness of content

Q10. Ability to accomplish what you want on the site

Q11. Ease of reading the site

Q12. Ease of navigation

Q13. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

[ASK Q14-Q18 IF Q1=1-4, 10-36]

Documents

Think about the documents you receive from the [PROGRAM OFFICE]. Documents include non-regulatory 

guidance, frequently asked questions (FAQs), non-regulatory guidance/FAQ addenda, letters, publications and 

blast emails.

On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent, please rate the documents’:

Q14. Clarity

Q15. Organization of information

Q16. Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs

Q17. Relevance to your areas of need

Q18. Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues that you face

[ASK Q19-Q28 IF Q1=5-9]

When you were preparing your application, how easy was it for you to locate and understand the information in 

the application package? Please rate the following on a scale from “1” to “10”, where “1” is “very difficult” and 

“10” is “very easy”.

Q19. Program Purpose

Q20. Program Priorities

Q21. Selection Criteria

Q22. Review Process

Q23. Budget Information and Forms

Q24. Deadline for Submission

Q25. Dollar Limit on Awards

Q26. Page Limitation Instructions

Q27. Formatting Instructions

Q28. Program Contact
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 45

[ASK Q29-30 ONLY TO ALL TO ALL OESE PROGRAMS Q1=13-36]

Q29. [DO NOT ASK PROGRAMS 15,16] How effective have the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education’s 

(OESE’s) technical assistance services been in helping you successfully learn to implement your OESE-funded 

grant programs? Please use a 10-point scale where “1” is “Not very effective” and “10” is “Very effective.”

Q30. [DO NOT ASK PROGRAMS 15,16] How useful have OESE’s technical assistance services been in serving as a 

model that you can replicate with your subgrantees? Please use a 10-point scale where “1” is “Not very 

useful” and “10” is “Very useful.” If you do not have subgrantees or this does not apply, please select “Not 

applicable.”

Q31. How much do you trust [PRINCIPAL OFFICE]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.

[Q32-Q37 ALL PROGRAMS]

ACSI Benchmark Questions 

Now we are going to ask you to please consider ALL of [PROGRAM OFFICE]’s products and services.

Q32. Using a 10-point scale on which “1” means “Very dissatisfied” and “10” means “Very satisfied,” how 

satisfied are you with [PROGRAM OFFICE]’s products and services?

Q33. Now please rate the extent to which the products and services offered by [PROGRAM OFFICE] have fallen 

short of or exceeded your expectations. Please use a 10-point scale on which “1” now means “Falls short of 

your expectations” and “10” means “Exceeds Your expectations.”

Q34. Now forget for a moment about the products and services offered by the [PROGRAM OFFICE], and 

imagine the ideal products and services. How well do you think the [PROGRAM OFFICE] compares with 

that ideal? Please use a 10-point scale on which “1” means “Not very close to the ideal” and “10” means 

“Very close to the ideal.”Now please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the 

following statement.

Q35. Overall, when I think of all of the [PROGRAM OFFICE]’s products and services, I am satisfied with their 

quality. 

a. Strongly agree

b. Agree

c. Disagree

d. Strongly disagree

e. Does not apply

Closing 

Q36. Which of the following best describes your job role?

a. Project/State Director

b. School Officer

c. Grant Coordinator

d. Superintendent

e. Business Manager

f. Other, please specify

Q37. How long have you been in this role?

a. Less than one year

b. Between 1-3 years

c. Between 3-10 years

d. More than 10 years
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 46

NOTE: EACH RESPONDENT WILL ONLY RECEIVE ONE SET OF CUSTOM QUESTIONS CONCERNING THEIR PROGRAM

Again, only think about your interactions with of [GRANT PROGRAM] when answering the following questions. 

After custom question section DISPLAY:Thank you again for your time. To complete the survey and submit the 

results, please hit the “Finish” button below. Have a good day!
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 47

ONLY IF Q1=1 NATIVE AMERICAN AND ALASKA NATIVE CHILDREN IN SCHOOL PROGRAM ASK 1-12 BELOW

NAM1. How often do you receive technical assistance (webinars, professional development, trainings) from the 

OELA office?

a. At least weekly

b. Monthly

c. Quarterly

d. Yearly

NAM2. On a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 is “Poor” and 10 is “Excellent,” how helpful is that technical assistance?

NAM3. How often do you receive monitoring and/or technical assistance support from your program officer? 

a. At least weekly

b. Monthly

c. Quarterly

c. Yearly

NAM4. On a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 is “Poor” and 10 is “Excellent,” how helpful is that monitoring and/or 

technical assistance?

NAM5. How often do you visit the OELA ed.gov website 

(http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oela/index.html)?

a. Daily

b. Weekly

c. Monthly

d. Every few months

e. Never

NAM6. On a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 is “Poor” and 10 is “Excellent,” how useful is the OELA ed.gov website?

NAM7. How often do you visit the National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition (NCELA) website or use 

the NEXUS newsletter?

a. Daily

b. Weekly

c. Monthly

d. Every few months

e. Never

NAM8. On a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 is “Poor” and 10 is “Excellent,” how useful is the NCELA website and the 

NEXUS newsletter?

NAM9. How often do you visit the OELA Facebook page?

a. Daily

b. Weekly

c. Monthly

d. Every few months

e. Never

NAM10.On a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 is “Poor” and 10 is “Excellent,” how useful is the OELA Facebook page?
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 48

NAM11.What, if any, improvements have you seen in OELA over the last year? (open end)
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 49

ONLY IF Q1=2 National Professional Development Program ASK 1-12 BELOW

NPD1. How often do you receive technical assistance (webinars, professional development, trainings) from the 

OELA office?

a. At least weekly

b. Monthly

c. Quarterly

d. Yearly

NPD2. On a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 is “Poor” and 10 is “Excellent,” how helpful is that technical assistance?

NPD3. How often do you receive monitoring and/or technical assistance support from your program officer? 

a. At least weekly

b. Monthly

c. Quarterly

c. Yearly

NPD4. On a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 is “Poor” and 10 is “Excellent,” how helpful is that monitoring and/or 

technical assistance?

NPD5. How often do you visit the OELA ed.gov website 

(http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oela/index.html)?

a. Daily

b. Weekly

c. Monthly

d. Every few months

e. Never

NPD6. On a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 is “Poor” and 10 is “Excellent,” how useful is the OELA ed.gov website?

NPD7. How often do you visit the National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition (NCELA) website or 

use the NEXUS newsletter?

a. Daily

b. Weekly

c. Monthly

d. Every few months

e. Never

NPD8. On a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 is “Poor” and 10 is “Excellent,” how useful is the NCELA website and the 

NEXUS newsletter?

NPD9. How often do you visit the OELA Facebook page?

a. Daily

b. Weekly

c. Monthly

d. Every few months

e. Never

NPD10. On a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 is “Poor” and 10 is “Excellent,” how useful is the OELA Facebook page?
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 50

NPD11. What, if any, improvements have you seen in OELA over the last year? (open end)
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 51

ONLY IF Q1=3 Adult Education and Family Literacy to the State Directors of Adult Ed (AEFLA) ASK 1-10 BELOW

1. Think about the National Reporting System as a way to report your state’s performance data to OCTAE. On a 

10-point scale, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate the NRS’s ease of reporting using the 

NRS Web-based system.

2. Think about the training offered by OCTAE through its contract to support the National Reporting System 

(NRS). On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate the usefulness of the 

training.

If you have been monitored, think about the federal monitoring process as it relates to your AEFLA grant. On a 10-

point scale, where “1” is,” Not Very Effective” and “10” is “Very effective,” please rate the effectiveness of the 

federal monitoring process on the following:

3. Being well-organized

4. Providing pre-planning adequate guidance

5. Setting expectations for the visit

6. Using state peer reviewers in the federal monitoring process

Think about the national meetings and conference offered by OCTAE. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Poor” and 

“10” is “Excellent”, please rate the information provided at these conferences and institutes on the following:

7. Being up-to-date 

8. Relevance of information

9. Usefulness to your program 

Think about the national activities offered by DAEL. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is,” Poor” and “10” is 

“Excellent,” please rate the activities on the following:

10. Usefulness of the products in helping your state meet AEFLA program priorities.
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 52

ONLY IF Q1= 4 Carl D. Perkins Career & Technical Education Program to the State Directors of Career & Technical 

Ed ASK 1-5 BELOW

(Please be as specific and detailed as possible in responding to these questions. Specificity and detail help the 

OCTAE staff to focus on specific concerns.)

PERK1. How long have you held the position of CTE state director? (Less than 1 year; 1 –2 years; 3 or more years)

PERK2. In evaluating the user friendliness of the Consolidated Annual Report (CAR), on a scale of 1 –10, where 1 is 

poor and 10, is excellent, please rate the CAR’s user friendliness?

PERK3. In evaluating the usefulness of the Perkins Collaborative Research Network (PCRN), on a scale of 1 –10, 

where 1 is poor and 10 is excellent, please rate the usefulness of PCRN. Please elaborate on your response 

if there is a particular aspect of PCRN you want to address.
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 53

ONLY IF Q1=5 Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions ASK 1-12 BELOW

DHSI1. How long have you been working on the current grant? (Choose one that most closely approximates the 

amount of time.)

a. Less than one year

b. 1-2 years

c. 2-3 years

d. 3-4 years

e. 4 or more years

Think about your experience with receiving technical assistance from the Hispanic Serving Institutions Division. On a 

10-point scale where “1” means poor and “10” means excellent please rate the Hispanic Serving Institutions Division 

according to the following:

DHSI2. Responsiveness to questions

DHSI3. Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and procedures

DHSI4. Ability to resolve issues

DHSI5. Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication

DHSI6. Timely resolution of general programmatic and/orfinancial issues 

DHSI7. Which best describes how often you interact with Hispanic Serving Institution Division staff? 

a. Daily 

b. Weekly 

c. Monthly 

d. A few times a year 

e. Once a year 

f. Less than once a year

DHSI8. When you interact with Hispanic Serving Institution Division Staff what is the quality of the customer service 

provided to you?

a. Excellent

b. Very Good

c. Average

d. Fair

e. Poor
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 54

ONLY IF Q1=6 National Resource Centers Program ASK 1-17 BELOW 

NRC1. How long have you been working in your current National Resource Center (NRC)? (Choose one that most 

closely approximates the amount of time.)

a. Less than one year

b. 1-2 years

c. 2-3 years

d. 3-4 years

e. 4 or more years

Think about your experience with receiving technical assistance from your NRC program officer. On a 10-point 

scale where “1” means poor and “10” means excellent please rate your program officer on:

NRC2. Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and procedures, including programmatic 

knowledge as necessitated by the Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA)

NRC3. Responsiveness to your inquiries (by email, telephone, letter, etc.)

NRC4. Timely resolution of general programmatic and financial issues

NRC5. Timely acknowledgement and processing of NRC requests such as travel approval requests 

NRC6. Ability to respond to all issues raised based solely on interpretation of laws, regulations and Department 

policies without personal bias or administrative preference

NRC7. The quality of information or feedback received from NRC program staff

NRC8. Is the process for the dissemination of the NRC tracking survey helpful? If not, please provide suggestions 

for easing the process. (open ended)

Think about the extent to which the NRC program establishes, strengthens, and operates language and area or 

international studies centers. On a 10-point scale where “1” means poor and “10” means excellent please rate the 

extent to which you agree with the following:

NRC9. The NRC program is effective in supporting instruction in fields needed to provide full understanding of 

areas, regions or countries

NRC10. The NRC program supports work in the language aspects of professional and other fields of study

NRC11. The NRC program supports research and training in international studies

On a 10-point scale where “1” means poor and “10” means excellent please rate the extent to which the NRC 

grant program establishes and strengthens:

NRC12. Teaching of any modern foreign language

NRC13. Instruction in fields needed to provide full understanding of areas, regions, or countries in which the 

language is commonly used
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 55

NRC14. Research and training in international studies

NRC15. Language aspects of professional and other fields of study

NRC16. Instruction and research on issues in world affairs

On a 10-point scale where “1” means poor and “10” means excellent please rate your satisfaction with:

NRC17. The NRC program selection criteria. (Please provide comments to explain your score.)
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 56

ONLY IFQ1=7 Strengthening Institutions Program ASK 1-15 BELOW 

SIP1. How long have you been working on the current grant? 

(Choose one that most closely approximates the amount of time.) 

a. Less than one year 

b. 1-2 years 

c. 2-3 years 

d. 3-4 years 

e. 4 or more years

SIP2. Think about your experience with receiving technical support from the Strengthening Institutions Program 

(SIP) Division staff. On a 10-point scale where “1” means “poor” and “10” means “excellent” please rate the 

SIP staff according to the following:

a. Responsiveness to questions

b. Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, and procedures

c. Ability to resolve issues

d. Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication

e. Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial issues

SIP3. Overall were you satisfied with the service provided by the representative? 

SIP4. Which best describes how often you interact with the Strengthening Institutions Division staff? 

a. Daily 

b. Weekly 

c. Monthly 

d. A few times a year 

e. Once a year 

f. Less than once a year 

SIP5. When you interact with Strengthening Institution Division Staff what is the quality of the customer 

service provided to you? 

a. Excellent 

b. Very Good 

c. Average 

d. Fair 

e. Poor

SIP6. On a 10-point scale, where “1” means “poor” and “10” means “excellent,” please rate the quality of: 

a. Post-award guidelines 

b. Performance reports (base your answer on the extent of data collection, analysis and reporting 

required and the relevance of data and analyses to your project activities and outcomes). 

SIP7. Briefly describe the reason(s) for your rating of the above listed post award guidelines and the 

performance reports. (Open end) 

SIP8. About what topic(s) or purpose(s) do you most often contact Program staff? (Open end) 

SIP9. How can we improve our SIP website, including links, to help you identify program resources and meet 

your technical assistance needs? (Open end) 
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 57

SIP10. Over the last year of your current grant, have you received consistent information from the SIP Program 

Office? 

a. Yes 

b. No 

SIP11. Please explain your response.. (Capture verbatim response)
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 58

ONLY IFQ1=8 Child Care Access Means Parents in School ASK 1-5BELOW 

CCAMPIS1. In interacting with the U.S. Department of Education (ED) Child Care Access Means Parents in School 

(CCAMPIS) program specialist responsible for overseeing your grant, please rate the service/support 

you receive in the following areas. On a 10-point scale where “1” is “does not meet expectations” and 

“10” is “exceeds expectations,” please rate: 

 a. Your working relationship with CCAMPIS program staff 

 b. The level of accessibility you have to CCAMPIS program staff 

 c. The responsiveness of the CCAMPIS program staff to your inquiries 

CCAMPIS2. How can we improve the Child Care Access Means Parents in Schools (CCAMPIS) website (including 

links) to help you identify program resources and meet your technical assistance needs?

CCAMPIS3. Does the leadership of your institution provide the support required for the successful 

implementation of the grant? 

a. Yes 

b. No 
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 59

ONLY IFQ1=9 GEAR UP ASK 1-4BELOW

UB1. In interacting with the U.S Department of Education (ED) GEAR UP program specialist responsible for 

overseeing your grant, please rate service/support in the following areas on a 1 to 10 scale where 1 means 

Poor and 10 means Excellent. If a service area does not apply, please select “N/A”. 

a. Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulation, policies and procedures.

b. Ability to provide qualitative technical assistance regarding programmatic issues and challenges. 

c. Ability to answer inquiries and concerns in a timely manner.

UB2. The terms of the U.S Department of Education (ED) ability to provide adequate guidance and assistance to 

grantees regarding the completion and submission of reports, please rate the following areas, where 1 means 

Poor and 10 means Excellent. 

a. GEAR UP program specialist knowledge of APR content and reporting requirements. 

b. The accuracy, availability and efficiency of instructions on the reporting system; 

c. The GEAR UP helpdesk ability to resolve technical issues related to the reporting system in an accurate 

and timely manner.

UB3. Think about your experience seeking information from the GEAR UP Program website. Using a 10 point scale, 

where “1” is poor and “10” is excellent; please rate the website on the following: 

a. Organization of information 

b. User friendliness 

c. Accuracy of Information
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 60

ONLY IFQ1=10IDEA - StateDirectors of Special Education (Part B) ASK 1-18BELOW

IDEAB1. How often do you receive technical assistance and support from your State lead?

a. At least weekly

b. Monthly

c. Quarterly

d. Yearly

e. My State Lead does not contact me

IDEAB2. In the past 12 months, how often were you a part of (actively or passively) an education or special 

education policy discussion with OSEP staff?

a.At least weekly

b.Monthly

c. Quarterly

d. Yearly 

e. None

Assistance fromOSEP Staff and other Professional Resources

Think aboutthetechnical assistanceandsupportprovidedby stateContactsfromtheMonitoring and State

Improvement Planning (MSIP)DivisionoftheOfficeof Special EducationPrograms(OSEP). On a 10-pointscale,

where“1” is poorand “10” is excellent, pleaseratethestaff’s:

IDEAB 3. Clarity of information received in developing your state’s applications, annual performance reports and 

other required submissions

IDEAB 4. Timeliness of responses (i.e., returning phone calls; responding to emails; forwarding to others when 

appropriate)

Think aboutthetypes oftechnical assistanceandsupportprovidedbyOSEPsuchasDearColleagueletters,

Question andAnswer documents,MSIP monthly TAcalls,OSEP-Director’s newsletter,topicalwebinars, etc.

IDEAB 5. Which types of assistance were most effective in helping you meet federal requirements and/or improve 

program quality?

IDEAB 6. Whichtypes of assistancewereleasthelpful?

How often do you access the following resources to support your efforts to implement practices based on evidence 

in your state? (Please use a 10-point scale in which “1” means “Never” and “10” means “Very frequently”)

IDEAB7. An OSEP-funded TA provider

IDEAB8. An Education Department-funded TA provider (funded by an office other than OSEP)

IDEAB9. Professional associations (including conferences, listservs, and publications)

IDEAB10. Conferences where research is presented

IDEAB11. Books

IDEAB12. Journal Articles

IDEAB13. Personal interaction with peers

IDEAB14. IDEAS that work website

IDEAB15. The Department’s new IDEA website

IDEAB16. osep.grads360.org

IDEAB17. Describe the impact it might have on the State if OSEP were to fully automate the IDEA formula grant 

submission and approval process. (Open end)
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 61

ONLY IFQ1=11 IDEA-Part C Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities Program ASK 1-17 BELOW

Assistance from OSEP Staff

Think aboutthetechnical assistanceand supportprovided by statecontactsfromtheMonitoring and State

Improvement Planning (MSIP) DivisionoftheOfficeof Special Education Programs(OSEP). On a 10-pointscale,

where“1” is poor and“10” is excellent, pleaseratethestaff’s:

IDEAC1. How often do you receive technical assistance and support from your State lead?

a. At least weekly

b. Monthly

c. Quarterly

d. Yearly

e. My State Lead does not contact me

IDEAC2. Clarity of information received in developing your state’s applications, annual performance reports and 

other required submissions.

IDEAC3. Timeliness of responses (i.e., returning phone calls; responding to emails; forwarding to others when 

appropriate)

Think aboutthetypes oftechnical assistanceandsupportprovidedbyOSEPsuchasDearColleagueletters,

Question andAnswer documents,MSIP monthly TAcalls,OSEP-Director’s newsletter,topicalwebinars, etc.

IDEAC4. Which types of assistance were most effective in helping you meet federal requirements and/or improve 

program quality?

IDEAC5.Which types of assistancewereleasthelpful?

How often do you access the following resources to support your efforts to implement practices based on evidence 

in your state? (Please use a 10-point scale in which “1” means “Never” and “10” means “Very frequently”)

IDEAC6. An OSEP-funded TA provider

IDEAC7. An Education Department-funded TA provider (funded by an office other than OSEP)

IDEAC8. Professional associations (including conferences, listservs, and publications)

IDEAC9. Conferences where research is presented

IDEAC10. Books

IDEAC11. Journal Articles

IDEAC12. Personal interaction with peers

IDEAC13. IDEAS that work website

IDEAC14. The Department’s new IDEA website

IDEAC15. osep.grads360.org

IDEAC16. If OSEP were to fully automate the IDEA formula grant submission and approval process, how 

helpful would that be to the State? Please use the scale below where 0 is Not Helpful and 5 is Very Helpful.
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 62

ONLY IF Q1=12 REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (RSA) VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION PROGRAM

ASK 1-10 BELOW

Please consider the technical support provided by state liaisons and teams from the State Monitoring and Program 

Improvement Division of the Rehabilitation Services Administration. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Poor” and 

“10” is “Excellent,” please rate the staff’s: 

RSA1. Responsiveness to your questions and requests for technical assistance.

RSA2. Supportiveness in helping you complete your Unified or Combined State Plan. 

RSA3. Dissemination of subregulatory guidance including policy directives, information memoranda, and technical 

assistance circulars. 

RSA4. Provision of effective training and dissemination of relevant information through webinars, national 

conferences, email distribution lists and teleconferences.

RSA5. In interacting with the State Monitoring and Program Improvement Division team assigned to your agency, 

please rate the service /support in the following areas on a 1 to 10 scale where 1 means Poor and 10 means 

Excellent. If you did not receive information or feedback in an area please select “N/A”.

a. Data Collection and Reporting

b. Fiscal/Grant Management 

c. Programmatic 

d. Technical Assistance

On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate the Rehabilitation Services 

Administration website at https://RSA.ED.GOV. If your interactions with the website did not include the nature of 

the item listed, please select “N/A” for that item.

RSA6. Utility of the website (RSA.ED.GOV) for entering required data, retrieving and revising reports. 

RSA7. Ease of navigating website (RSA.ED.GOV). 

RSA8. Usefulness of information available on the website (RSA.ED.GOV).

RSA9. Website (RSA.ED.GOV) technical support. 
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 63

ONLY IF Q1=13 Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants ASK 1-6 BELOW

Customer Service and Implementation Support

Think about the support Department staff provide and your participation in the Department’s technical assistance 

activities (e.g., performance reviews, consolidated state performance report, grantee meetings, communities of 

practice, responses to State questions, assistance meeting program requirements). On a scale from 1 to 10, where 

1 is not very effective and 10 is very effective, please rate the effectiveness of these activities to support your State 

in implementation of [PROGRAM NAME from Q1].

SE1. Provides assistance that enhances my capacity to implement Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants

SE2. Provides support that is responsive to my State’s needs to implement Supporting Effective Instruction State 

Grants

SE3. Helps my State address grant implementation challenges

SE4. Provides information about key changes to requirements (e.g., provisions under ESSA, dear colleague 

letters, flexible uses of funds)
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 64

ONLY IF Q1=14 21st Century Community Learning Centers ASK 1-6 BELOW

Customer Service

Think about the support you have received from the Department staff regarding the 21st Century Community 

Learning Centers Grant program (21st CCLC) (e.g., responses to State questions, assistance meeting program 

requirements, connecting you to resources, etc.). On a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 is not very effective and 10 is 

very effective, please rate the effectiveness of 21st CCLC program staff in supporting your State’s implementation 

of the 21st CCLC program.

21ST1. Provides assistance that enhances the State’s capacity to implement the 21st CCLC program.

21ST2. Provides support that is timely and responsive to my State’s needs to implement the 21st CCLC program.

Think about services offered in the previous year to support your State’s implementation of 21st CCLC.

21ST3. How helpful is the information and guidance provided to you by the US Department of Education staff and 

contracted staff in preparing for monitoring activities (monitoring calls, virtual reviews, onsite monitoring 

reviews? Please use a 10-point scale with “1” being “not very helpful” and “10” being “very helpful”.

21ST4. How likely are you to recommend the 21st CCLC program’s You for Youth (Y4Y) website at 

https://y4y.ed.gov/to your State’s grantees as a technical assistance resource? Please use a 10-point scale 

with “1” being not at all likely and “10” being extremely likely.
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 65

ONLY IF Q1=15 Payments for Federal Property (Section 7002) ASK 1-8 BELOW

Think about your experience preparing and submitting your most recent Impact Aid application, including 

gathering and organizing data and preparing the e-application.

1. Did you contact the Impact Aid Program for technical assistance? 

1. Yes

2. No

[IF PFP1=a, ASK PFP 2-4] On a scale of “1” to “10”, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent”; rate the Impact Aid 

Program staff’s: 

2. Responsiveness to answering questions

3. Supportiveness in helping you complete your application

4. Knowledge about technical material

PFP5. Have you attended any Webinars or in person meetings where IAP staff provided you information on the 

Section 7002 program?

a. Yes

b. No

PFP6.[IF PFP5=a] Did the presentation and/or materials prepared help you understand your responsibilities in 

submitting data?

a. Yes

b. No

PFP6a. [IF PFP6=a] Please explain. (Open end)

PFP7. How was the quality of the interaction with Impact Aid program staff members during the review process? 

Please use a scale from “1” to “10”, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent.”

PFP8. What additional communications would you like to receive regarding the status of your application, prior to 

receiving a payment? (Open end)

ONLY IF Q1=16 Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 7003) ASK 1-15 BELOW
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 66

Think about your experience preparing and submitting your most recent Impact Aid application, including 

gathering and organizing data and preparing the e-application.

FCC1. Did you use the written instruction and guidance documents provided for the application?

a. Yes

b. No

FCC2. [IF FCC1=a]On a scale from 1 to 10, where “1” is not very effective and “10” is very effective rate the 

effectiveness of the documents in helping you complete the application.

FCC3. Did you contact the Impact Aid Program for technical assistance? 

3. Yes

4. No

FCC4. [IF FCC3=a]On a scale of 1 to 10, where “1” is poor and “10” is excellent; rate the Impact Aid Program 

staff’s performance in answering your questions and helping you to complete your application.

FCC5. Have you participated in any Webinars or meetings where IAP staff provided you information on the 

Section 7003 program and the review process?

a. Yes

b. No 

FCC6. [IF FCC5=a]Did the presentation and/or materials prepared help you to understand your responsibilities 

in completing the application or submitting data?

a. Yes

b. No

FCC7. [IF FCC6=b] Please explain. (Open end)

FCC8. Has your school district been contacted by the Impact Aid Program in the past year regarding a field 

review of your application? 

a. Yes 

b. No

FCC9. [IF FCC8=a]Did the letter you received provide sufficient explanation of what and how you need to 

prepare your documents for the review?

a. Yes

b. No

FCC10. [IF Q9=a] Please explain. (Open end)

FCC11. Did you receive timely communications regarding the outcome of the review? 

a. Yes

b. No

FCC12. [IF FCC11=b] Please explain. (Open end)
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 67

Please use a scale from 1 to 10, where “1” is poor and “10” is excellent to rate the Impact Aid staff members on 

the following.

FCC13. Ease of reaching the person who could address your concern

FCC14. Ability to resolve your issue

FCC15. Please provide any additional specific suggestions for how the Impact Aid Program can improve customer 

service. (Open end)
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 68

ONLY IF Q1=17 Comprehensive Literacy State Development (previously Striving Readers) ASK 1-9 BELOW

Think about your experience with receiving technical assistance from your SRCL program officer. On a 10-point scale 

where “1” not very helpful and “10” means very helpful please rate your program officer on:

SR1. Responsiveness to questions.

SR2. Timely resolution of general programmatic and financial issues.

SR3. Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication.

SR4. The quality of information or feedback received from SRCL program officer.

SR5. Frequency of communication regarding grant information, deadlines, expectations, requirements, or other 

pertinent information

SR6. Your overall level of satisfaction with the service provided by the program officer.

SR7. Your satisfaction with the face-to-face SRCL Program Director’s National Convening. 

SR8. How helpful is the information and guidance provided to you by the US Department of Education staff and 

contracted staff (TA Liaisons) in preparing to implement your SRCL grant activities (developing individualized 

technical assistance plan, responding to issues that arise, etc)? 

SR9. What technical assistance topics can the SRCL program provide during meetings and SRCL Communities of 

Practice events to support the states more effectively? (Open-ended)
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 69

ONLY IF Q1=18 Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Education Agencies ASK 1-9 BELOW

Think about the particular ways in which you have received technical support and/or assistance from the Office of 

Indian Education (OIE). On a 10-point scale, where “1” is not very effective and “10” is very effective, please rate 

the effectiveness of technical assistance in: 

 

IEFG1. Responsiveness of OIE staff in answering questions and/orinformation requests.

IEFG 2. Timeliness of OIE staff in providing information to meet your Title VI application and APR deadlines.

IEFG 3. Quality of support and technical assistance provided by OIE staff on Title VI program implementation. 

IEFG 4. Comprehensiveness of guidance documents OIE provides, e.g. Getting Started; Frequently Asked 

Questions, website links and EASIE Community website.

Think about the application process when applying for a grant through the Electronic Application System for Indian 

Education (EASIE). On a 10-point scale, where “1” is poor and “10” is excellent, please rate the EASIE System on the 

following:

IEFG 5. Ease of using the EASIE system when applying for a grant. 

IEFG 6. Quality of training via webinars provided by the EASIE system and grant application process.

IEFG 7. Think about the Title VI formula grant requirements. Select two topics around which you have greatest 

need for technical assistance:

a. Establishing parent committees

b. Expanding membership of parent committees

c. Verifying student information

d. Using the EASIE system

e. Allowable uses of funds

f. General grant program requirements, deadlines and milestones

g. Using the G5 system

Open ended questions for your comments:

IEFG 8. What professional development training or conferences do you or your staff attend locally, regionally or 

nationally to improve the performance of your programs (i.e. State Conferences, National Associations, 

Federal Program Conferences, etc.)? (Open end)

IEFG 9. Over the next year, what can OIE do to better meet your technical assistance and program improvement 

needs? (Open end)
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 70

ONLY IF Q1=19 Migrant Education Program (MEP) -- Title I, Part C ASK 1-5 BELOW

MEP1. The Coordination Work Group (CWG) represents Migrant Education Program (MEP) State Directors across 

nine US regions. The CWG facilitates interstate coordination for the purpose of gathering voices from all States 

in making recommendations to the Office of Migrant Education (OME). In addition, OME works with the CWG 

members to gain insight into States’ priorities, challenges, and successes.

MEP2. Which of this year’s technical assistance webinars were most useful to you? [BI: leave old values in, trend 

variable]

a. MEP Program Improvement

b. EDFacts Submissions: Changes for School Year (SY) 2017-18

c. MSIX Cybersecurity and Accounts Management

d. Measurable Program Outcomes (MPOs) to Impact Statewide Assessment Results

e. I did not participate in a webinar this year

MEP3. Please check up to three technical assistance topics that you will need in the future, in order to improve the 

performance of your MEP. (Check boxes with the maximum of three to be selected for the topics below) [PN: 

Multi-select with max of 3 choices. Randomize] 

a. Child Eligibility 

b. Comprehensive Needs Assessment 

c. Continuation of Services

d. Data Management and Reporting 

e. Fiscal Requirements

f. Identification and Recruitment (ID&R) Methods and Strategies 

g. Interstate Coordination 

h. Parental/Family Engagement 

i. Priority for Services 

j. Program Evaluation 

k. Identification and Recruitment (ID&R) Quality Control 

l. Records Exchange, including the use of the Migrant Student Information Exchange (MSIX)

l. Re-interviewing 

n. Service Delivery Models 

o. Service Delivery Plan, including Measurable Program Outcomes (MPOs)

p. Subgranting 

q. Service Delivery Strategies (Instructional and Support) 

r. Subrecipient Monitoring 

s. Other, please specify [ANCHOR at bottom]

MEP4. What is the most useful method for OME to communicate pertinent information, such as new 

developments or policy, to you (e.g. webinars, in-person presentations, listserv, mass emails to G5 program 

contacts, conference calls, website posting) (Open end)
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 71

ONLY IF Q1=20 Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program –McKinney-Vento ASK 1-7 BELOW

Think about the technical assistance (TA) you received from individual US Department of Education program staff 

for the Education for Homeless Children and Youth program, including coordination with activities arranged by the 

technical assistance contractor, National Center for Homeless Education (NCHE), or independently.

On a 10-point scale, where “1” is Poor and “10” is Excellent, please rate the TA provided NCHE staff on the 

following: 

Put “NA” if the item is not applicable to you or you don’t know how to respond.

NCHE

EHCYP1.Responsiveness in answering questions.

EHCYP 2.Knowledge of technical material

On a scale of 1 to 10, where “1” is “Not very effective” and “10” is “Very effective,” please rate the effectiveness of 

the TA efforts provided by the US Department of Education and NCHE staff in helping you with the following:

Put “NA” if the item is not applicable to you or you don’t know how to respond.

FORMATTING NOTE –USE 2 COLUMNS FOR EACH QUESTION TO SHOW USDE and NCHE 

US Department of Education

EHCYP 3. Meeting program compliance requirements

EHCYP 4. Assisting you (as state coordinators) to impact performance results

EHCYP 5. Developing cross-agency collaborations

NCHE

EHCYP 3a. Meeting program compliance requirements

EHCYP 4a. Assisting you (as state coordinators) to impact performance results

EHCYP 5a. Developing cross-agency collaborations

Think about the products the Department and NCHE provided to you. On a scale of 1 to 10, where “1” is “Poor” 

and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate the products to support the Education for Homeless Children and Youth 

program: 

Put “NA” if the item is not applicable to you or you don’t know how to respond.

FORMATTING NOTE –USE 2 COLUMNS FOR EACH QUESTION TO SHOW QUALITY AND USEFULNESS 

Quality

EHCYP 6. Products

Usefulness

EHCYP 6a.Products
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 72

ONLY IF Q1=21 Student Support and Academic Enrichment ASK 1-8 BELOW

Think about the technical assistance (TA) you received from individual by US Department of Education (ED) 

program staff for the Title IV, Part A program.

On a 10-point scale, where “1” is poor and “10” is excellent, please rate the technical assistance provided by ED 

staff on the following: 

Put “NA” if the item is not applicable to you or you don’t know how to respond.

US Department of Education 

SSAE1. Responsiveness in answering questions.

SSAE 2. Knowledge of technical material

On a scale of 1 to 10, where “1” is not very effective and “10” is very effective, please rate the effectiveness of the 

technical assistance efforts provided by ED staff in helping you with the following:

Put “NA” if the item is not applicable to you or you don’t know how to respond.

US Department of Education 

SSAE 3. Meeting program compliance requirements

SSAE 4. Website

SSAE 5. Products

Please rate the program staff on the following attributes, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent”.

SSAE 6. Clarity of communication

SSAE 7. Professionalism 
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 73

ONLY IF Q1=22 TITLE I PART A – IMPROVING BASIC PROGRAMS OPERATED BY LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCIES 

(LEAs) ASK 1-6 BELOW

Customer Service and Implementation Support

Think about the support Department staff provide and your participation in the Department’s technical assistance 

activities (e.g., performance reviews, consolidated state performance report, grantee meetings, communities of

practice, responses to State questions, assistance meeting program requirements). On a scale from 1 to 10, where 

1 is not very effective and 10 is very effective, please rate the effectiveness of these activities to support your State 

in implementation of [PROGRAM NAME from Q1].

T1PA1. Provides assistance that enhances my capacity to implement your Title I grant

T1PA2. Provides support that is responsive to my State’s needs to implement your Title I grant

T1PA 3.Helps my State address grant implementation challenges

T1PA 4. Provides information about key changes to requirements (e.g., provisions under ESSA, dear 

colleague letters, flexible uses of funds)
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 74

ONLY IF Q1=23 English Language Acquisition State Grants/Title III State Formula Grant Program

ASK 1-6 BELOW

Customer Service and Implementation Support

Think about the support Department staff provide and your participation in the Department’s technical assistance 

activities (e.g., performance reviews, consolidated state performance report, grantee meetings, communities of 

practice, responses to State questions, assistance meeting program requirements). On a scale from 1 to 10, where 

1 is not very effective and 10 is very effective, please rate the effectiveness of these activities to support your State 

in implementation of [PROGRAM NAME from Q1].

ELA1. Provides assistance that enhances my capacity to implement your Title III grant

ELA2. Provides support that is responsive to my State’s needs to implement your Title III grant

ELA3. Helps my State address grant implementation challenges

ELA4. Provides information about key changes to requirements (e.g., provisions under ESSA, dear colleague 

letters, flexible uses of funds)

Think about services offered in the previous year (e.g., opportunities for peer learning, collaboration calls, grantee 

meetings, communities of practice, webinars, publication of non-regulatory guidance , support transitioning to the 

Every Student Succeeds Act, review of State Plans) to support your State’s implementation ofyour Title III grant.

ELA5. What services provided by the Department have been most helpful or effective? (Please cite specific 

examples) (open ended)

ELA6. How can the Department’s services be improved over the next year to better meet the needs of your State 

as you implement your Title III grant? (Please cite specific recommendations) (open ended)
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 75

ONLY IF Q1=24a Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP)/Rural Low-Income School Program ASK 1-8 

BELOW

RLIS1. How could we make the REAP webinars more beneficial to you? (Open end) 

RLIS2. How frequently should we hold REAP webinars? 

a) Annually

b) Semi-annually

c) Quarterly

d) Other (please specify) 

Please rate the following using a 10-point scale, where "1" means poor and "10" means excellent. (Q2 & Q3 only)

RLIS3. Accessibility and responsiveness of REAP program staff

RLIS4. Clarity of information provided by REAP program staff

RLIS5. What could the REAP team do to improve the content of technical assistance? (Open end)

RLIS6. Please check up to 3 topics for technical assistance that you will need in the future in order to improve the 

performance of your RLIS grant. (Check boxes with the maximum of 3 to be selected for the topics below) [PN: 

Multi-select with max of 3 choices. Randomize]

a) Use of grant funds 

b) Use of G5 (i.e., grantee information, grant award notice (GAN), available funds, drawdown of funds, etc.)

c) Use of Max.gov

d) Providing Technical Assistance to Grantees

e) REAP Eligibility Data and Estimating Award Amounts

f) Consolidated grant application process

g) Grant eligibility data review & submission

h) Fiscal accounting procedures

i) Monitoring RLIS grantees

j) Use of grant funds for administrative costs

k) Reporting and use of data

l) Other (please specify)

RLIS7. How can we improve the content and navigation of our online resource, 

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/reaprlisp/index.html in order to make your experience more useful? (Open end)

RLIS8. What recommendations would you like to make to the REAP program staff to assist you in administering 

your grant effectively? (Open end) 
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 76

ONLY IF Q1=25 Rural Education Achievement Program/Small, Rural School Achievement Program ASK 1-8 

BELOW

Please rate the following using a 10-point scale, where “1” means poor and “10” means excellent. [Q1 & Q2 only]

SRSA1. Accessibility and responsiveness of REAP program staff

SRSA2. Clarity of information provided by REAP program staff

SRSA3. How could we make REAP webinars more beneficial to you? (Open end)

SRSA4. How frequently should we hold REAP webinars? 

a) Annually

b) Semi-annually

c) Quarterly

d) Other (please specify) 
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 77

ONLY IF Q1=26 Grants for State Assessments ASK 1-6 BELOW

Customer Service and Implementation Support

Think about the support Department staff provide and your participation in the Department’s technical assistance 

activities (e.g., performance reviews, consolidated state performance report, grantee meetings, communities of 

practice, responses to State questions, assistance meeting program requirements). On a scale from 1 to 10, where 

1 is not very effective and 10 is very effective, please rate the effectiveness of these activities to support your State 

in implementation of [PROGRAM NAME from Q1].

GSA1. Provides assistance that enhances my capacity to implement your Grant for State Assessment

GSA2. Provides support that is responsive to my State’s needs to implement your Grant for State Assessment

GSA3. Helps my State address grant implementation challenges

GSA4. Provides information about key changes to requirements (e.g., new provisions under ESSA, dear colleague 

letters, flexible uses of funds)
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 78

ONLY IF Q1=27 Teacher and School Leader Incentive Grants ASK 1-6 BELOW

Think about the technical support and assistance you have received from the TQP TA provider, AEM. On a 10 point 

scale, where 1 is not very helpful and 10 is very helpful, please rate the technical assistance provided in terms of 

their:

TSL1. Assistance in improving your program planning and implementation 

TSL2. Providing relevant information and ideas 

TSL3. Connecting you with other experts or practitioners working on similar programs 

Consider your experiences with your Program Officer and/or other program staff members (through monitoring, 

periodic phone calls, email exchanges, or regular report review) over the course of your grant period. On a 10 

pointscale, where 1 is not very helpful and 10 is very helpful, please rate the assistance they have provided in 

terms of their:

TSL4. Relevant knowledge of your program activities

TSL5. Quality and helpfulness of communication 
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 79

ONLY IF Q1=28 Supporting Effective Educator Development Program ASK 1-6 BELOW

Think about the technical support and assistance you have received from the TQP TA Center/Mathematica/AEM. 

On a 10 point scale, where 1 is not very helpful and 10 is very helpful, please rate the technical assistance they 

provided your team in terms of their:

SEED1. Assistance in improving your program planning and implementation 

SEED2. Providing relevant information and ideas 

SEED3. Connecting you with other experts or practitioners working on similar programs 

Consider the SEED program’s unique focus on having program level evaluations sufficient to meet the standards of 

the What Works Clearinghouse. On a 10 point scale where 1 is not at all easy and 10 is very easy, please rate your 

experience: 

SEED4. Implementing a meaningful, rigorous evaluation 

SEED5. Gaining helpful technical assistance to conduct a meaningful, rigorous evaluation
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 80

ONLY IF Q1=29 Charter Schools Program Grants for Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools 

ASK 1-6 BELOW

Please rate the following questions that ask about meeting and communications. Use a scale from 1 to 10, where 

“1” is “not very satisfied” and “10” is “very satisfied.” 

Meetings/Communications 

CSP1. The dissemination of resources and opportunities the CSP provides 

CSP2. The overall communication and information is accessible and is provided by the program is timely and 

responsive manner.

Monitoring/Technical Assistance 

CSP3. The technical assistance you receive by the program staff on project implementation and budget questions 

CSP4. The monitoring activities, annual performance report, and quarterly calls/reports allow you sufficient 

opportunity to provide program staff with an understanding of your project’s practices, challenges, and 

accomplishments 

CSP5. How satisfied are you with the guidance CSP provides on Federal grant compliance (i.e. Non-regulatory 

guidance, EDGAR, OMB Circular A-122, etc.) 
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 81

ONLY IF Q1=30 Expanding Opportunities Through Quality Charter Schools Program (CSP) Grants to State ASK 1-6 

BELOW

Please rate the following questions that ask about meeting and communications. Use a scale from 1 to 10, where 

“1” is “not very satisfied” and “10” is “very satisfied.” 

Meetings/Communications 

EO1. The dissemination of resources and opportunities the CSP provides 

EO2. The overall communication and information is accessible and is provided by the program is timely and 

responsive manner.

Monitoring/Technical Assistance 

EO3. The technical assistance you receive by the program staff on project implementation and budget questions 

EO4. The monitoring activities, annual performance report, and quarterly calls/reports allow you sufficient 

opportunity to provide program staff with an understanding of your project’s practices, challenges, and 

accomplishments 

EO5. How satisfied are you with the guidance CSP provides on Federal grant compliance (i.e. Non-regulatory 

guidance, EDGAR, OMB Circular A-122, etc.) 
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 82

ONLY IF Q1=31 Education Innovation and Research Programs ASK 1 BELOW

EIRP1. What type of Investing in Innovation or Education Innovation and Research grant(s) do you currently 

have?

a. Development or early phase

b. Validation or Mid-phase

c. Scale-up or expansion
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 83

ONLY IF Q1=32 Magnet Schools Assistance Program ASK 1-6 BELOW 

MSAP1. Did you ask your ED Program Contact, “PROGRAM OFFICER”, for assistance in areas not related to fiscal or 

grant administration issues?

MSAP2. [If Q1=Yes] On a scale from 1 to 10, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate the Program 

Officer quality of assistance. 

MSAP3. On a scale from 1 to 10, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent”, please rate the Program Officer 

responsiveness.

MSAP4. On a scale from 1 to 10, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate the MSAP Center 

technical assistance support. 

MSAP5. On a scale from 1 to 10, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate the GRADS 360 system.

MSAP6. On a scale from 1 to 10, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate the overall effectiveness 

of the assistance you have received from the MSAP.
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 84

ONLY IF Q1=33 Promise Neighborhoods ASK 1-6 BELOW

PN1. Did you ask your ED Program Contact, “PROGRAM OFFICER”, for assistance in areas not related to fiscal or 

grant administration issues?

a. Yes

b. No

PN2. [If Q1=Yes] On a scale from 1 to 10, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate the ED 

Program Contacts quality of assistance. 

PN3. On a scale from 1 to 10, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate the Urban Institute’s 

Needs Assessment Quality. 

PN4. On a scale from 1 to 10, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate the Urban Institute’s 

other services. 

PN5. On a scale from 1 to 10, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate the SCORECARD system.

PN6. On a scale from 1 to 10, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate the GRADS 360 system.
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 85

ONLY IF Q1=34 Demonstration Grants for Indian Children/Special Projects Demonstration Grants ASK 1-8 BELOW

As it relates to the Native Youth Community Projects (NYCP) program, please rate the following using a 1 0 point 

scale, where “1” means “Poor” and “10” means “Excellent” 

DGIC1. Accessibility and timely responsiveness of program staff 

DGIC 2. Usefulness and relevance of webinar-based technical assistance

DGIC 3. Usefulness and relevance of project director meeting technical assistance 

DGIC 4. Usefulness and relevance of technical assistance resources on the OIE web site. 

DGIC 5. Assign the priority, 1 being highest and 8 being lowest, that you would assign to the following technical 

assistance topics:

a. Data Collection

b. Performance Reporting

c. Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)

d. Capacity Building

e. Parent Engagement

f. Partnerships

g. Cultural Relevance

h. Allowable Costs and Budgeting Flexibilities
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 86

ONLY IF Q1=35 Neglected and Delinquent State and Local Agency Programs ASK 1-6 BELOW

Think about the technical assistance (TA) you received from individual U.S. Department of Education program staff 

for the Neglected and Delinquent State Agency and Local Educational Agency Program, including coordination with 

activities arranged by the technical assistance contractor, The National Technical Assistance Center for the 

Education of Neglected and Delinquent Children and Youth (NDTAC), or independently.

On a 10-point scale, where 1 is Poor and 10 is Excellent, please rate the TA provided by the US Department of 

Education and NDTAC staff on the following: 

Put “NA” if the item is not applicable to you or you don’t know how to respond.

NDTAC 

NDTAC1.Responsiveness in answering questions. 

NDTAC2.Knowledge of technical material 

FORMATTING NOTE –USE 2 COLUMNS FOR EACH QUESTION (3-5) TO SHOW USDE and NDTAC 

US Department of Education 

NDTAC3.Meeting program compliance requirements 

NDTAC4.Assisting you (as state coordinators) to impact performance results 

NDTAC 5. Developing cross-agency collaborations 

NDTAC 

NDTAC 3a. Meeting program compliance requirements 

NDTAC 4a. Assisting you (as state coordinators) to impact performance results 

NDTAC 5a. Developing cross-agency collaborations 

FORMATTING NOTE –USE 2 COLUMNS FOR QUESTION 6 TO SHOW QUALITY AND USEFULNESS

NDTAC 6. Think about the products the Department and NDTAC provided to you. On a 10-point scale, 

where 1 is Poor and 10 is Excellent, please rate the products to support the Education for Neglected and Delinquent 

children program. 
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 87

Appendix B: 

Attribute Tables and Non-Scored

Responses
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 88

Dept of Ed CFO – Aggregate (2018 v 2019)

Score Table

2018 2019

Difference Significant 

Difference

Aggregate 

Impact Scores Scores

Sample Size 1,462 1,485

ED Staff/Coordination 85 82 -3 ↓ 0.4

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, and 

procedures 88 83 -5 ↓ --

Responsiveness to your questions 84 80 -4 ↓ --

Accuracy of responses 88 86 -2 ↓ --

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 86 82 -4 ↓ --

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different program 

offices 85 80 -5 ↓ --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in providing 

relevant services 86 80 -6 ↓ --

Online Resources 73 68 -5 ↓ 0.3

Ease of finding materials online 72 67 -5 ↓ --

Freshness of content 73 68 -5 ↓ --

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 73 68 -5 ↓ --

Ease of reading the site 74 70 -4 ↓ --

Ease of navigation 73 68 -5 ↓ --

Documents 79 77 -2 ↓ 1.7

Clarity 78 77 -1 --

Organization of information 80 78 -2 ↓ --

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 78 76 -2 ↓ --

Relevance to your areas of need 80 79 -1 --

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues that 

you face 77 75 -2 ↓ --

Information in Application Package 82 87 5 ↑ N/A

Program Purpose 83 88 5 ↑ --

Program Priorities 83 88 5 ↑ --

Selection Criteria 81 85 4 ↑ --

Review Process 78 82 4 ↑ --

Budget Information and Forms 79 82 3 ↑ --

Deadline for Submission 86 91 5 ↑ --

Dollar Limit on Awards 83 88 5 ↑ --

Page Limitation Instructions 82 87 5 ↑ --

Formatting Instructions 79 85 6 ↑ --

Program Contact 85 90 5 ↑ --

OESE's Technical Assistance 74 72 -2 2.0

Effectiveness of OESE in helping you learn to implement grant 

programs

78 75 -3 --

Usefulness of OESE`s technical assistance services as a 

model 69 68 -1 --

ACSI 73 74 1 N/A

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 79 80 1 --

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 70 71 1 ↑ --

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 68 70 2 --

Trust -- 81 -- 4.2

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- 81 -- --

Nativ e American and Alaska Native Children in School 

Program

Technical assistance from OELA office -- 78 -- --

Technical assistance from program officer 91 78 -13 ↓ --

Usefulness of OELA website 85 76 -9 --

Usefulness of NCELA website 88 77 -11 --

Usefulness of OELA Facebook 100 53 -47 ↓ --
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 89

2018 2019

Difference Significant 

Difference

Aggregate 

Impact Scores Scores

Sample Size 1,462 1,485

National Professional Dev elopment Program

Technical assistance from OELA office -- 80 -- --

Technical assistance from program officer 84 82 -2 --

Usefulness of OELA website 79 78 -1 --

Usefulness of NCELA website 86 82 -4 --

Usefulness of OELA Facebook 85 69 -16 --

Adult Education and Family Literacy to State Directors of 

Adult Ed

Ease of reporting using the NRS web-based system 80 76 -4 --

Usefulness of the training offered by OCTAE through its 

contract to support NRS 80 79 -1 --

Being well-organized -- 84 -- --

Providing pre-planning adequate guidance -- 90 -- --

Setting expectations for the visit -- 84 -- --

Using state peer reviewers in federal monitoring process -- 91 -- --

Being up-to-date 90 88 -2 --

Relevance of information 88 87 -1 --

Usefulness to your program 88 87 -1 --

Usefulness of products helping your state meet AEFLA 

program priorities 83 83 0 --

Carl D. Perkins Career & Tech Ed State Directors

CAR`s user-friendliness 78 72 -6 --

PCRN’s usefulness to your program 86 84 -2 --

Dev eloping Hispanic Serving Institutions

Responsiveness to questions 82 84 2 --

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, and 

procedures 88 85 -3 --

Ability to resolve issues 87 85 -2 --

Use of clear communication 85 85 0 --

Timely resolution of issues 85 84 -1 --

National Resource Centers Program

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, and 

procedures -- 93 -- --

Responsiveness to inquiries -- 96 -- --

Timely resolution of issues -- 94 -- --

Timely acknowledgement and processing of requests -- 96 -- --

Ability to respond to all issues without bias or preference -- 97 -- --

Quality of information or feedback received from program staff -- 94 -- --

Effective in supporting instruction in necessary fields -- 93 -- --

Supports work in language aspects of professional and other 

fields of study -- 90 -- --

Supports research and training in international studies -- 92 -- --

Teaching of any modern foreign language -- 94 -- --

Instruction in necessary fields -- 94 -- --

Research and training in international studies -- 93 -- --

Language aspects of professional and other fields of study -- 92 -- --

Instruction and research on issues in world affairs -- 94 -- --

NRC program selection criteria -- 83 -- --
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 90

2018 2019

Difference Significant 

Difference

Aggregate 

Impact Scores Scores

Sample Size 1,462 1,485

Strengthening Institutions Program

Responsiveness to questions 76 82 6 ↑ --

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, and 

procedures 81 86 5 --

Ability to resolve issues 80 87 7 ↑ --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication 78 85 7 ↑ --

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or fi nancial 

issues 74 83 9 ↑ --

Post award guidelines 69 78 9 ↑ --

Performance reports 66 69 3 --

Child Care Access Means Parents in School

Working relationship with program staff -- 81 -- --

Level of accessibility you have to program staff -- 81 -- --

Responsiveness to inquiries -- 80 -- --

GEAR UP -- 76 -- N/A

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulation, policies and 

procedures -- 79 -- --

Ability to provide qualitative tech assistance regarding issues 

and challenges -- 77 -- --

Ability to answer inquiries and concerns in a timely manner -- 77 -- --

GEAR UP program specialist knowledge of APR content and 

reporting requirements -- 81 -- --

Accuracy, availability and efficiency of instructions on the 

reporting system -- 76 -- --

Helpdesk ability to resolve issues in accurate and timely 

manner

-- 84 -- --

Organization of information -- 71 -- --

User friendliness -- 69 -- --

Accuracy of Information -- 77 -- --

IDEA-State Directors of Special Education (Part B)

Clarity of information received in developing applications and 

reports 82 75 -7 --

Timeliness of responses 86 79 -7 --

OSEP-funded TA provider 88 85 -3 --

Education Department-funded TA provider 57 62 5 --

Professional associations 83 81 -2 --

Conferences where research is presented 75 74 -1 --

Books 54 52 -2 --

Journal articles 61 60 -1 --

Personal interaction with peers 82 80 -2 --

IDEAS that work website 73 61 -12 ↓ --

The Department`s new IDEA website 74 60 -14 ↓ --

osep.grads360.org 85 71 -14 ↓ --
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 91

2018 2019

Difference Significant 

Difference

Aggregate 

Impact Scores Scores

Sample Size 1,462 1,485

IDEA-Part C Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities 

Program

Clarity of information received in developing applications and 

reports

81 74 -7 --

Timeliness of responses 86 79 -7 --

OSEP-funded TA provider 90 88 -2 --

Education Department-funded TA provider 44 46 2 --

Professional associations 80 81 1 --

Conferences where research is presented 70 70 0 --

Books 48 55 7 --

Journal articles 59 60 1 --

Personal interaction with peers 79 80 1 --

IDEAS that work website 59 60 1 --

The Department`s new IDEA website 59 56 -3 --

osep.grads360.org 76 70 -6 --

RSA Vocational Rehabilitation Program

Responsiveness to questions and requests for technical 

assistance -- 61 -- --

Supportiveness in helping complete Unified or Combined 

State Plan -- 64 -- --

Dissemination of subregulatory guidance -- 61 -- --

Provision of effective training and dissemination of relevant 

information -- 58 -- --

Data Collection and Reporting -- 56 -- --

Fiscal/Grant Management -- 67 -- --

Programmatic -- 59 -- --

Technical Assistance -- 59 -- --

Utility of website for entering required data, retrieving and

revising reports -- 62 -- --

Ease of navigating website -- 57 -- --

Usefulness of information available on the website -- 57 -- --

Website technical support -- 67 -- --

Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants

Provides assistance that enhances capacity to implement 68 59 -9 --

Provides support that is responsive to my State’s needs to 

implement 67 59 -8 --

Helps address implementation challenges 65 63 -2 --

Provides information about key changes to requirements 73 66 -7 --

21st Century Community Learning Centers

Provides assistance that enhances the capacity to implement -- 80 -- --

Provides support that is timely and responsive to my State’s 

needs to implement -- 77 -- --

Helpfulness of information provided 88 85 -3 --

Likelihood to recommend Y4Y website 92 91 -1 --

Payments for Federal Property (Section 7002)

Impact Aid staff`s responsiveness to answering questions 94 95 1 --

Impact Aid staff`s supportiveness in helping complete 

application 94 97 3 --

Impact Aid staff`s knowledge about technical material 93 97 4 --

Quality of interaction with staff during review process 88 93 5 --
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 92

2018 2019

Difference Significant 

Difference

Aggregate 

Impact Scores Scores

Sample Size 1,462 1,485

Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 

7003)

Effectiveness in providing TA or instructions regarding 

performance reports 79 80 1 --

Staff`s performance in answering questions and helping 

complete application 83 86 3 --

Ease of reaching person who could address concern 75 83 8 --

Impact Aid staff`s ability to resolve issue 78 85 7 --

Comprehensiv e Literacy State Dev elopment

Responsiveness to questions 94 91 -3 --

Timely resolution of general programmatic and financial 

issues 89 87 -2 --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication 91 89 -2 --

Quality of information or feedback received from SRCL 

program officer 92 93 1 --

Frequency of communication 82 89 7 --

Service provided by the program officer 92 93 1 --

Face-to-face SRCL Program Director`s National Convening 96 90 -6 --

Information and guidance provided to implement SRCL grant 

activities 90 84 -6 --

Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Education 

Agencies

Responsiveness of staff in answering questions 84 83 -1 --

Timeliness of staff 87 85 -2 --

Quality of support 85 84 -1 --

Comprehensiveness of documents 83 82 -1 --

Ease of using EASIE system 82 84 2 --

Quality of training via webinars 80 81 1 --

Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program

Responsiveness in answering questions - Technical 

Assistance Center (NCHE) 98 91 -7 ↓ --

Knowledge of technical material - Technical Assistance 

Center (NCHE) 97 92 -5 ↓ --

Meeting program compliance requirements - US Department 

of Education 88 88 0 --

Assisting you to impact performance results - US Department 

of Education 82 81 -1 --

Developing cross-agency collaborations - US Department of 

Education 80 82 2 --

Meeting program compliance requirements - Technical 

Assistance Center (NCHE)

93 89 -4 --

Assisting you to impact performance results - Technical 

Assistance Center (NCHE) 89 85 -4 --

Developing cross-agency collaborations - Technical 

Assistance Center (NCHE) 85 85 0 --

Products - Quality 92 90 -2 --

Products - Usefulness 95 89 -6 ↓ --

Student Support and Academic Enrichment

Responsiveness in answering questions 59 51 -8 --

Knowledge of technical material 65 61 -4 --

Meeting program compliance requirements 63 54 -9 --

Website 62 57 -5 --

Products 58 56 -2 --

Clarity of communication -- 58 -- --

Professionalism -- 82 -- --
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 93

2018 2019

Difference Significant 

Difference

Aggregate 

Impact Scores Scores

Sample Size 1,462 1,485

Improv ing Basic Programs Operated by Local 

Educational Agencies – Title I

Provides assistance that enhances capacity to implement 71 69 -2 --

Provides support that is responsive to my State’s needs to 

implement 64 67 3 --

Helps address implementation challenges 60 65 5 --

Provides information about key changes to requirements 67 68 1 --

English Language Acquisition State Grants (Title III State 

Formula Grants)

Provides assistance that enhances capacity to implement 76 62 -14 ↓ --

Provides support that is responsive to my State’s needs to 

implement 70 64 -6 --

Helps address implementation challenges 73 63 -10 --

Provides information about key changes to requirements 77 73 -4 --

Rural Education Achiev ement Program (REAP)/RLIS

Accessibility and responsiveness of staff 64 82 18 ↑ --

Clarity of information provided by program staff 71 83 12 --

Rural Education Achiev ement Program (REAP)/SRSA

Accessibility and responsiveness of staff 81 81 0 --

Clarity of information provided by program staff 82 81 -1 --

Grants for State Assessments

Provides assistance that enhances capacity to implement 69 77 8 --

Provides support that is responsive to my State’s needs to 

implement 69 80 11 ↑ --

Helps address implementation challenges 66 75 9 --

Provides information about key changes to requirements 72 82 10 ↑ --

Teacher and School Leader Incentiv e Grants

Assistance in improving program planning and implementation -- 72 -- --

Providing relevant information and ideas -- 72 -- --

Connecting you with other experts or practitioners -- 78 -- --

Relevant knowledge of program activities -- 73 -- --

Quality and helpfulness of communication -- 75 -- --

Supporting Effective Educator Dev elopment Program

Assistance in improving program planning and implementation -- 71 -- --

Providing relevant information and ideas -- 74 -- --

Connecting you with other experts or practitioners -- 74 -- --

Implementing a meaningful, rigorous evaluation -- 61 -- --

Gaining helpful tech assistance to conduct meaningful, 

rigorous evaluation -- 68 -- --

Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter 

Schools

Dissemination of resources and opportunities the CSP

provides -- 59 -- --

Comms and info accessible and provided in timely manner -- 50 -- --

Technical assistance receive on project implementation and 

budget questions -- 63 -- --

Assistance gives opportunity to give staff an understanding of 

your project -- 54 -- --

Guidance CSP provides on Federal grant compliance -- 50 -- --
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 94

2018 2019

Difference Significant 

Difference

Aggregate 

Impact Scores Scores

Sample Size 1,462 1,485

Charter Schools Program (CSP) Grants to State Entities

Dissemination of resources and opportunities the CSP 

provides -- 60 -- --

Comms and info accessible and provided in timely manner -- 62 -- --

Technical assistance receive on project implementation and 

budget questions -- 65 -- --

Assistance gives opportunity to give staff an understanding of 

your project -- 65 -- --

Guidance CSP provides on Federal grant compliance -- 57 -- --

Magnet Schools Assistance Program

Program Officer quality of assistance -- 94 -- --

Program Officer responsiveness -- 79 -- --

MSAP Center technical assistance support -- 85 -- --

GRADS 360 system -- 60 -- --

Overall effectiveness of assistance received from MSAP -- 82 -- --

Promise Neighborhoods

ED Program Contacts quality of assistance -- 87 -- --

Urban Institute`s Needs Assessment Quality -- 79 -- --

Urban Institute`s other services -- 76 -- --

SCORECARD system -- 77 -- --

GRADS 360 system -- 53 -- --

Demonstration Grants for Indian Children/Special 

Projects for Indian Children

Accessibility and responsiveness of program staff 67 66 -1 --

Usefulness and relevance of webinar-based technical 

assistance 67 75 8 --

Usefulness and relevance of project director meeting technical 

assistance 78 74 -4 --

Usefulness and relevance of technical assistance resources 

on the OIE web site 67 67 0 --

Neglected and Delinquent State and Local Agency 

Programs

Responsiveness in answering questions - Technical 

Assistance Center (NDTAC) 81 87 6 --

Knowledge of technical material - Technical Assistance 

Center (NDTAC) 82 82 0 --

Meeting program compliance requirements - US Department 

of Education 76 60 -16 ↓ --

Assisting you to impact performance results - US Department 

of Education 70 57 -13 --

Developing cross-agency collaborations - US Department of 

Education 67 59 -8 --

Meeting program compliance requirements - Technical 

Assistance Center (NDTAC) 83 80 -3 --

Assisting to impact performance results - Technical 

Assistance Center (NDTAC) 82 78 -4 --

Developing cross-agency collaborations - Technical 

Assistance Center (NDTAC) 78 79 1 --

Products - Quality 83 82 -1 --

Products - Usefulness 82 80 -2 --
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 95

Dept of Ed CFO – Aggregate (2018 v 2019)

Demographic Table

2018 2019

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Program

Native American and Alaska Native Children in School Program 1% 9 1% 16

National Professional Development Program 4% 46 3% 45

Adult Education and Family Literacy to State Directors of Adult 

Education 4% 42 2% 34

Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education State Directors 3% 30 2% 26

Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions 10% 109 8% 116

National Resource Centers Program 0% 0 4% 60

Strengthening Institutions Program 11% 120 10% 144

Child Care Access Means Parents in School 0% 0 8% 122

GEAR UP 0% 0 5% 71

IDEA-State Directors of Special Education (Part B) 3% 32 2% 30

IDEA-Part C Infants and Toddlers with Di sabilities Program 3% 31 2% 36

RSA Vocational Rehabilitation Program 0% 0 3% 38

Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants 3% 28 1% 17

21st Century Community Learning Centers 4% 37 3% 42

Payments for Federal Property (Section 7002) 5% 48 3% 47

Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 7003) 5% 49 3% 50

Comprehensive Literacy State Development 1% 11 1% 10

Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Education Agencies (LEAs) 5% 56 3% 49

Migrant Education Programs (Title I, Part C) 3% 32 2% 35

Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program 3% 32 2% 29

Student Support and Academic Enrichment 3% 31 1% 22

Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies –

Title I 2% 23 2% 24

English Language Acquisition State Grants (Title III State Formula 

Grants) 2% 24 1% 21

REAP-Rural and Low Income School (RLIS) Program 2% 25 2% 31

REAP-Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) Program 8% 79 6% 83

Grants for State Assessments 3% 32 2% 32

Teacher and School Leader Incentive Grants 0% 0 1% 19

Supporting Effective Educator Development Program 0% 0 1% 14

Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools 0% 0 1% 12

Charter Schools Program (CSP) Grants to State Entities 0% 0 2% 26

i3/Education Innovation and Research 0% 0 3% 40

Magnet Schools Assistance Program 0% 0 2% 29

Promise Neighborhoods 0% 0 1% 11

Demonstration Grants for Indian Children/Special Projects for Indian 

Children 3% 32 3% 39

Neglected and Delinquent State and Local Agency Programs 3% 36 2% 25

School Climate Transformation Grants (LEA) 6% 59 3% 40

Number of Respondents 1,053 1,485

Formula v s Discretionary

Formula 48% 667 43% 633

Discretionary 52% 736 57% 852

Number of Respondents 1,403 1,485
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 96

2018 2019

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Ov erall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

serv ices

Strongly Agree 35% 505 37% 555

Agree 54% 786 51% 750

Disagree 8% 120 8% 117

Strongly Disagree 2% 27 2% 30

Does Not Apply 2% 24 2% 33

Number of Respondents 1,462 1,485

Job role

Project or State Director -- -- 61% 902

School Officer -- -- 2% 35

Grant Coordinator -- -- 20% 292

Superintendent -- -- 4% 58

Business Manager -- -- 6% 94

Other -- -- 7% 104

Number of Respondents -- 1,485

Length of time in role

Less than one year -- -- 13% 199

Between 1-3 years -- -- 33% 487

Between 3-10 years -- -- 34% 510

More than 10 years -- -- 19% 289

Number of Respondents -- 1,485
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 97

21st Century Community Learning Centers

Score Table

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Sample Size 34 26 29 36 41 37 42

ED Staff/Coordination 76 76 73 71 82 78 85

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 80 78 76 74 83 83 84

Responsiveness to your questions 80 80 68 65 78 77 83

Accuracy of responses 81 80 81 76 84 81 90

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 77 75 76 67 81 76 83

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 67 70 67 72 84 78 86

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 74 72 59 73 84 82 84

Online Resources 66 56 61 60 70 74 69

Ease of finding materials online 66 53 62 60 71 69 69

Freshness of content 62 52 56 60 68 73 66

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 65 58 62 61 69 70 67

Ease of reading the site 70 57 65 66 72 76 72

Ease of navigation 64 58 65 65 70 76 70

Documents 63 65 63 68 70 73 79

Clarity 61 66 63 69 71 74 80

Organization of information 66 69 66 73 73 76 82

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 58 61 61 67 67 72 77

Relevance to your areas of need 67 66 67 71 72 76 83

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 61 61 58 63 68 69 74

OESE's Technical Assistance 67 61 59 64 72 74 77

Effectiveness of OESE in helping you learn to implement 

grant programs -- 67 62 67 75 79 81

Usefulness of OESE`s technical assistance services as a 

model -- 54 56 59 69 71 74

ACSI 61 53 54 59 67 68 74

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 69 60 60 65 73 74 80

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 53 48 52 56 63 64 74

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 56 48 50 56 64 66 68

Trust -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

21st Century Community Learning Centers

Provides assistance that enhances the capacity to 

implement -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

Provides support that is timely and responsive to my 

State’s needs to implement -- -- -- -- -- -- 77

Helpfulness of information provided -- -- -- 77 84 88 85

Likelihood to recommend Y4Y website -- -- -- 89 89 92 91
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 98

Demographic Table

2018 2019

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Ov erall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and serv ices

Strongly Agree 19% 7 29% 12

Agree 65% 24 60% 25

Disagree 14% 5 12% 5

Strongly Disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does Not Apply 3% 1 0% 0

Number of Respondents 37 42

Job role

Project or State Director -- -- 81% 34

School Officer -- -- 0% 0

Grant Coordinator -- -- 7% 3

Superintendent -- -- 0% 0

Business Manager -- -- 0% 0

Other -- -- 12% 5

Number of Respondents --

Length of time in role

Less than one year -- -- 19% 8

Between 1-3 years -- -- 19% 8

Between 3-10 years -- -- 43% 18

More than 10 years -- -- 19% 8

Number of Respondents --
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 99

Adult Education and Family Literacy to State Directors of Adult Education

Score Table

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Sample Size 34 20 38 32 31 42 34

ED Staff/Coordination 91 91 85 83 84 89 85

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 94 94 87 85 86 91 89

Responsiveness to your questions 92 92 87 84 85 91 89

Accuracy of responses 93 94 88 86 87 92 88

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 87 86 81 76 81 86 84

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 88 86 86 85 83 87 83

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 91 93 82 83 81 87 81

Online Resources 76 76 79 73 74 75 68

Ease of finding materials online 69 69 74 68 69 69 67

Freshness of content 77 79 82 72 72 74 70

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 75 73 79 73 72 75 67

Ease of reading the site 76 76 80 73 74 75 70

Ease of navigation 71 71 74 69 72 73 67

Documents 81 84 79 77 80 83 83

Clarity 81 85 82 78 80 84 84

Organization of information 83 88 82 81 84 84 85

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 80 83 78 73 75 81 81

Relevance to your areas of need 82 83 80 83 86 87 85

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 77 81 75 70 76 78 81

ACSI 77 75 75 72 72 75 76

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 83 80 82 78 79 81 83

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 73 73 71 73 69 74 74

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 72 72 71 66 68 71 72

Trust -- -- -- -- -- -- 93

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- -- 93

Adult Education and Family Literacy to State 

Directors of Adult Ed

Ease of reporting using the NRS web-based system 84 88 83 82 80 80 76

Usefulness of the training offered by OCTAE through its 

contract to support NRS 81 88 79 79 78 80 79

Being well-organized -- -- -- -- -- -- 84

Providing pre-planning adequate guidance -- -- -- -- -- -- 90

Setting expectations for the visit -- -- -- -- -- -- 84

Using state peer reviewers in federal monitoring process -- -- -- -- -- -- 91

Being up-to-date 92 91 90 86 87 90 88

Relevance of information 91 89 88 89 89 88 87

Usefulness to your program 92 85 87 86 87 88 87

Usefulness of products helping your state meet AEFLA 

program priorities 85 79 78 79 80 83 83
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 100

Demographic Table

2018 2019

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Ov erall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and serv ices

Strongly Agree 33% 14 47% 16

Agree 60% 25 44% 15

Disagree 5% 2 6% 2

Strongly Disagree 2% 1 0% 0

Does Not Apply 0% 0 3% 1

Number of Respondents 42 34

Job role

Project or State Director -- -- 100% 34

School Officer -- -- 0% 0

Grant Coordinator -- -- 0% 0

Superintendent -- -- 0% 0

Business Manager -- -- 0% 0

Other -- -- 0% 0

Number of Respondents --

Length of time in role

Less than one year -- -- 15% 5

Between 1-3 years -- -- 24% 8

Between 3-10 years -- -- 47% 16

More than 10 years -- -- 15% 5

Number of Respondents --
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 101

Carl D Perkins Career and Technical Education State Directors

Score Table

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Sample Size 37 28 23 24 24 30 26

ED Staff/Coordination 86 89 83 86 85 93 89

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 89 91 89 88 89 94 90

Responsiveness to your questions 87 90 82 85 90 93 93

Accuracy of responses 88 90 87 88 87 93 93

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 85 87 78 80 74 91 85

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 80 85 82 85 82 93 89

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 74 86 90 85 85 92 86

Online Resources 72 70 68 76 75 83 80

Ease of finding materials online 68 68 66 74 75 80 81

Freshness of content 70 74 72 80 72 81 78

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 69 69 68 74 75 85 81

Ease of reading the site 73 72 70 77 75 84 81

Ease of navigation 70 69 69 77 75 83 76

Documents 78 81 79 77 80 83 79

Clarity 79 81 78 75 79 83 83

Organization of information 80 81 79 81 82 84 81

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 77 80 76 75 81 83 76

Relevance to your areas of need 78 82 85 79 83 84 84

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 75 81 78 75 77 83 72

ACSI 70 74 71 72 77 79 78

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 77 80 77 80 83 83 84

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 67 70 69 68 75 78 75

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 65 70 65 67 72 74 73

Trust -- -- -- -- -- -- 92

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- -- 92

Carl D. Perkins Career & Tech Ed State Directors

CAR`s user-friendliness 76 65 68 69 73 78 72

PCRN’s usefulness to your program 75 76 80 82 81 86 84
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 102

Demographic Table

2018 2019

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Ov erall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and serv ices

Strongly Agree 37% 11 46% 12

Agree 63% 19 42% 11

Disagree 0% 0 4% 1

Strongly Disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does Not Apply 0% 0 8% 2

Number of Respondents 30 26

Job role

Project or State Director -- -- 100% 26

School Officer -- -- 0% 0

Grant Coordinator -- -- 0% 0

Superintendent -- -- 0% 0

Business Manager -- -- 0% 0

Other -- -- 0% 0

Number of Respondents --

Length of time in role

Less than one year -- -- 27% 7

Between 1-3 years -- -- 38% 10

Between 3-10 years -- -- 27% 7

More than 10 years -- -- 8% 2

Number of Respondents --

Length of time as CTE state director

Less than one year 0% 0 27% 7

1-3 years 0% 0 50% 13

3 or more years 0% 0 23% 6

Number of Respondents 0 26
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 103

Charter Schools Program (CSP) Grants to State Entities

Score Table

2019

Sample Size 26

ED Staff/Coordination 72

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 72

Responsiveness to your questions 67

Accuracy of responses 79

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 74

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 74

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in

providing relevant services 68

Online Resources 57

Ease of finding materials online 58

Freshness of content 58

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 55

Ease of reading the site 60

Ease of navigation 52

Documents 70

Clarity 68

Organization of information 71

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 71

Relevance to your areas of need 71

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 66

OESE's Technical Assistance 61

Effectiveness of OESE in helping you learn to implement 

grant programs 64

Usefulness of OESE`s technical assistance services as a 

model 59

ACSI 62

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 68

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 61

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 57

Trust 69

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs 69

Charter Schools Program (CSP) Grants to State 

Entities

Dissemination of resources and opportunities the CSP 

provides 60

Comms and info accessible and provided in timely 

manner

62

Technical assistance receive on project implementation 

and budget questions 65

Assistance gives opportunity to give staff an 

understanding of your project 65

Guidance CSP provides on Federal grant compliance 57
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 104

Demographic Table

2019

Percent Frequency

Ov erall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and serv ices

Strongly Agree 23% 6

Agree 50% 13

Disagree 19% 5

Strongly Disagree 8% 2

Does Not Apply 0% 0

Number of Respondents 26

Job role

Project or State Director 81% 21

School Officer 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 15% 4

Superintendent 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0

Other 4% 1

Number of Respondents 26

Length of time in role

Less than one year 15% 4

Between 1-3 years 54% 14

Between 3-10 years 31% 8

More than 10 years 0% 0

Number of Respondents 26
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 105

Child Care Access Means Parents in School

Score Table

2019

Sample Size 122

ED Staff/Coordination 83

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 84

Responsiveness to your questions 81

Accuracy of responses 89

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 82

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 79

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 85

Online Resources 65

Ease of finding materials online 63

Freshness of content 64

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 65

Ease of reading the site 68

Ease of navigation 67

Information in Application Package 88

Program Purpose 88

Program Priorities 88

Selection Criteria 86

Review Process 86

Budget Information and Forms 84

Deadline for Submission 93

Dollar Limit on Awards 89

Page Limitation Instructions 90

Formatting Instructions 88

Program Contact 90

ACSI 82

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 76

Trust 87

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs 87

Child Care Access Means Parents in School

Working relationship with program staff 81

Level of accessibility you have to program staff 81

Responsiveness to inquiries 80
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 106

Demographic Table

2019

Percent Frequency

Ov erall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and serv ices

Strongly Agree 50% 61

Agree 45% 55

Disagree 2% 3

Strongly Disagree 1% 1

Does Not Apply 2% 2

Number of Respondents 122

Job role

Project or State Director 49% 60

School Officer 4% 5

Grant Coordinator 27% 33

Superintendent 1% 1

Business Manager 2% 3

Other 16% 20

Number of Respondents 122

Length of time in role

Less than one year 22% 27

Between 1-3 years 25% 31

Between 3-10 years 25% 31

More than 10 years 27% 33

Number of Respondents 122

Institution leadership provides support required for successful 

implementation

Provide required support 93% 114

Do not provide required support 7% 8

Number of Respondents 122
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 107

Comprehensive Literacy State Development

Score Table

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Sample Size 9 5 5 5 0 11 10

ED Staff/Coordination 83 73 59 75 -- 90 92

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 83 78 58 80 -- 89 92

Responsiveness to your questions 91 73 71 84 -- 91 91

Accuracy of responses 83 64 50 76 -- 96 94

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 83 81 56 76 -- 85 91

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 78 75 48 61 -- 89 92

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 78 63 30 59 -- 88 86

Online Resources 71 59 29 66 -- 86 83

Ease of finding materials online 57 61 31 63 -- 84 82

Freshness of content 67 64 33 63 -- 83 84

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 65 49 31 63 -- 84 82

Ease of reading the site 67 69 31 63 -- 88 84

Ease of navigation 75 60 31 64 -- 91 82

Documents 70 57 42 75 -- 88 89

Clarity 67 47 38 78 -- 87 88

Organization of information 70 56 40 75 -- 87 90

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 70 64 40 75 -- 87 89

Relevance to your areas of need 72 62 51 72 -- 90 89

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 69 56 40 75 -- 89 89

OESE's Technical Assistance 74 60 39 74 -- 82 85

Effectiveness of OESE in helping you learn to implement 

grant programs -- 67 44 81 -- 87 90

Usefulness of OESE`s technical assistance services as a 

model -- 53 22 50 -- 77 79

ACSI 60 45 45 66 -- 82 86

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 67 60 60 71 -- 85 91

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 57 33 38 64 -- 82 82

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 54 40 36 62 -- 79 83

Trust -- -- -- -- -- -- 91

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- -- 91

Comprehensiv e Literacy State Dev elopment

Responsiveness to questions -- -- -- -- -- 94 91

Timely resolution of general programmatic and financial 

issues -- -- -- -- -- 89 87

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication -- -- -- -- -- 91 89

Quality of information or feedback received from SRCL 

program officer -- -- -- -- -- 92 93

Frequency of communication -- -- -- -- -- 82 89

Service provided by the program officer -- -- -- -- -- 92 93

Face-to-face SRCL Program Director`s National 

Convening -- -- -- -- -- 96 90

Information and guidance provided to implement SRCL 

grant activities -- -- -- -- -- 90 84
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 108
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 109

Demographic Table

2018 2019

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Ov erall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and serv ices

Strongly Agree 64% 7 70% 7

Agree 36% 4 30% 3

Disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Strongly Disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does Not Apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 11 10

Job role

Project or State Director -- -- 80% 8

School Officer -- -- 0% 0

Grant Coordinator -- -- 20% 2

Superintendent -- -- 0% 0

Business Manager -- -- 0% 0

Other -- -- 0% 0

Number of Respondents --

Length of time in role

Less than one year -- -- 10% 1

Between 1-3 years -- -- 50% 5

Between 3-10 years -- -- 30% 3

More than 10 years -- -- 10% 1

Number of Respondents --
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 110

Demonstration Grants for Indian Children Special Projects for Indian Children

Score Table

2017 2018 2019

Sample Size 30 32 39

ED Staff/Coordination 75 77 68

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 81 84 71

Responsiveness to your questions 72 78 67

Accuracy of responses 79 79 74

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 77 80 75

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

Online Resources 68 62 59

Ease of finding materials online 70 63 58

Freshness of content 69 66 57

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 70 62 58

Ease of reading the site 70 63 62

Ease of navigation 66 58 59

Documents 69 68 68

Clarity 70 68 69

Organization of information 69 71 69

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 68 71 68

Relevance to your areas of need 69 69 70

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 70 62 66

OESE's Technical Assistance 67 61 64

Effectiveness of OESE in helping you learn to implement 

grant programs 68 66 66

Usefulness of OESE`s technical assistance services as a 

model 64 53 62

ACSI 68 70 61

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and servi ces 71 76 67

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 68 68 57

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 64 65 57

Trust -- -- 68

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- 68

Demonstration Grants for Indian Children/Special 

Projects for Indian Children

Accessibility and responsiveness of program staff 76 67 66

Usefulness and relevance of webinar-based technical 

assistance 74 67 75

Usefulness and relevance of project director meeting 

technical assistance

73 78 74

Usefulness and relevance of technical assistance 

resources on the OIE web site 68 67 67
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 111

Demographic Table

2018 2019

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Ov erall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and serv ices

Strongly Agree 22% 7 13% 5

Agree 69% 22 72% 28

Disagree 9% 3 10% 4

Strongly Disagree 0% 0 5% 2

Does Not Apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 32 39

Job role

Project or State Director -- -- 64% 25

School Officer -- -- 5% 2

Grant Coordinator -- -- 26% 10

Superintendent -- -- 0% 0

Business Manager -- -- 3% 1

Other -- -- 3% 1

Number of Respondents --

Length of time in role

Less than one year -- -- 15% 6

Between 1-3 years -- -- 36% 14

Between 3-10 years -- -- 28% 11

More than 10 years -- -- 21% 8

Number of Respondents --

Data Collection

1st 16% 5 15% 6

2nd 23% 7 10% 4

3rd 6% 2 23% 9

4th 6% 2 13% 5

5th 16% 5 13% 5

6th 6% 2 13% 5

7th 23% 7 10% 4

8th 3% 1 3% 1

Number of Respondents 31 39

Performance Reporting

1st 16% 5 21% 8

2nd 10% 3 31% 12

3rd 10% 3 3% 1

4th 13% 4 3% 1

5th 0% 0 3% 1

6th 16% 5 15% 6

7th 19% 6 10% 4

8th 16% 5 15% 6

Number of Respondents 31 39
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 112

2018 2019

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Family Educational Rights and Priv acy Act FERPA

1st 19% 6 15% 6

2nd 3% 1 8% 3

3rd 6% 2 3% 1

4th 10% 3 5% 2

5th 10% 3 3% 1

6th 3% 1 10% 4

7th 10% 3 10% 4

8th 39% 12 46% 18

Number of Respondents 31 39

Capacity Building

1st 10% 3 10% 4

2nd 10% 3 13% 5

3rd 13% 4 8% 3

4th 23% 7 21% 8

5th 13% 4 5% 2

6th 16% 5 18% 7

7th 6% 2 15% 6

8th 10% 3 10% 4

Number of Respondents 31 39

Parent Engagement

1st 10% 3 10% 4

2nd 10% 3 8% 3

3rd 26% 8 8% 3

4th 10% 3 18% 7

5th 16% 5 26% 10

6th 19% 6 15% 6

7th 10% 3 13% 5

8th 0% 0 3% 1

Number of Respondents 31 39

Partnerships

1st 3% 1 3% 1

2nd 16% 5 3% 1

3rd 6% 2 28% 11

4th 26% 8 5% 2

5th 16% 5 31% 12

6th 16% 5 10% 4

7th 13% 4 13% 5

8th 3% 1 8% 3

Number of Respondents 31 39

Cultural Relev ance

1st 10% 3 8% 3

2nd 16% 5 15% 6

3rd 13% 4 13% 5

4th 0% 0 18% 7

5th 23% 7 21% 8

6th 16% 5 5% 2

7th 13% 4 15% 6

8th 10% 3 5% 2

Number of Respondents 31 39
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 113

2018 2019

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Allowable Costs and Budgeting Flexibilities

1st 16% 5 18% 7

2nd 13% 4 13% 5

3rd 19% 6 15% 6

4th 13% 4 18% 7

5th 6% 2 0% 0

6th 6% 2 13% 5

7th 6% 2 13% 5

8th 19% 6 10% 4

Number of Respondents 31 39
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 114

Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019

Sample Size 111 102 109 116

ED Staff/Coordination 85 91 87 84

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 90 92 91 85

Responsiveness to your questions 81 89 85 82

Accuracy of responses 89 91 90 87

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 84 93 91 84

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 83 90 87 83

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 81 90 92 82

Online Resources 75 79 70 71

Ease of finding materials online 72 77 71 69

Freshness of content 74 78 71 70

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 75 79 72 71

Ease of reading the site 74 78 73 72

Ease of navigation 72 76 71 71

Information in Application Package 87 89 81 88

Program Purpose 88 90 80 88

Program Priorities 87 88 80 89

Selection Criteria 84 88 80 85

Review Process 82 86 77 85

Budget Information and Forms 85 87 77 83

Deadline for Submission 91 91 85 91

Dollar Limit on Awards 89 90 84 91

Page Limitation Instructions 89 91 84 90

Formatting Instructions 86 88 82 88

Program Contact 88 92 85 89

ACSI 73 78 72 79

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 79 84 78 84

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 71 76 70 77

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 69 74 66 75

Trust -- -- -- 86

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- 86

Dev eloping Hispanic Serving Institutions

Responsiveness to questions 80 88 82 84

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 87 92 88 85

Ability to resolve issues 87 91 87 85

Use of clear communication 87 90 85 85

Timely resolution of issues 83 90 85 84
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 115

Demographic Table

2018 2019

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Ov erall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and serv ices

Strongly Agree 30% 33 41% 47

Agree 57% 62 49% 57

Disagree 10% 11 6% 7

Strongly Disagree 3% 3 2% 2

Does Not Apply 0% 0 3% 3

Number of Respondents 109 116

Job role

Project or State Director -- -- 73% 85

School Officer -- -- 2% 2

Grant Coordinator -- -- 22% 26

Superintendent -- -- 0% 0

Business Manager -- -- 0% 0

Other -- -- 3% 3

Number of Respondents --

Length of time in role

Less than one year -- -- 17% 20

Between 1-3 years -- -- 35% 41

Between 3-10 years -- -- 34% 40

More than 10 years -- -- 13% 15

Number of Respondents --

Length of time working on current grant - HSI

Less than one year 10% 10 24% 28

1-2 years 27% 28 14% 16

2-3 years 42% 44 22% 25

3-4 years 17% 18 26% 30

4 or more years 5% 5 15% 17

Number of Respondents 105 116

Frequency of interactions with HSI-Div ision staff

Daily 0% 0 3% 3

Weekly 0% 0 0% 0

Monthly 32% 34 34% 40

A few times a year 60% 63 61% 71

Once a year 4% 4 1% 1

Less than once a year 4% 4 1% 1

Number of Respondents 105 116
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 116

2018 2019

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Quality of customer serv ice from HSI-Div ision staff

Excellent 50% 53 53% 61

Very Good 36% 38 36% 42

Average 10% 10 9% 10

Fair 4% 4 1% 1

Poor 0% 0 2% 2

Number of Respondents 105 116
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 117

Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program

Score Table

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Sample Size 33 19 37 35 36 32 29

ED Staff/Coordination 94 89 91 86 93 88 87

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 96 92 95 91 97 90 90

Responsiveness to your questions 95 88 91 84 93 87 84

Accuracy of responses 95 90 94 93 94 90 88

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 93 88 90 81 87 86 88

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 91 84 86 91 95 88 88

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 94 89 86 91 93 85 84

Online Resources 72 76 70 68 76 83 69

Ease of finding materials online 71 74 68 65 79 85 72

Freshness of content 75 77 74 75 80 81 71

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 72 77 71 66 83 83 69

Ease of reading the site 73 77 71 69 80 84 68

Ease of navigation 67 74 69 66 74 80 65

Documents 86 83 86 81 89 83 88

Clarity 86 78 86 80 91 83 89

Organization of information 88 83 88 84 93 83 90

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 85 83 84 77 86 81 87

Relevance to your areas of need 89 87 89 84 93 87 89

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 83 82 85 80 86 81 83

OESE's Technical Assistance 83 85 83 75 85 73 78

Effectiveness of OESE in helping you learn to implement 

grant programs -- 90 86 77 90 80 82

Usefulness of OESE`s technical assistance services as a 

model -- 80 78 73 82 66 76

ACSI 75 77 78 73 83 80 79

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 79 81 83 76 88 85 84

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 73 78 74 71 82 76 76

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 73 73 76 71 79 77 76

Trust -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program

Responsiveness in answering questions - Technical 

Assistance Center (NCHE) 98 96 96 95 100 98 91

Knowledge of technical material - Technical Assistance 

Center (NCHE) 98 96 97 97 100 97 92

Meeting program compliance requirements - US 

Department of Education 93 90 87 84 92 88 88

Assisting you to impact performance results - US 

Department of Education 90 85 81 81 84 82 81

Developing cross-agency collaborations - US 

Department of Education 84 83 83 78 85 80 82

Meeting program compliance requirements - Technical 

Assistance Center (NCHE) 96 96 97 93 98 93 89

Assisting you to impact performance results - Technical 

Assistance Center (NCHE) 93 95 96 91 94 89 85

Developing cross-agency collaborations - Technical 

Assistance Center (NCHE) 84 87 89 82 87 85 85

Products - Quality 93 94 91 90 88 92 90

Products - Usefulness 94 95 97 96 97 95 89
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 118

Demographic Table

2018 2019

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Ov erall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and serv ices

Strongly Agree 59% 19 38% 11

Agree 38% 12 59% 17

Disagree 3% 1 3% 1

Strongly Disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does Not Apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 32 29

Job role

Project or State Director -- -- 79% 23

School Officer -- -- 0% 0

Grant Coordinator -- -- 14% 4

Superintendent -- -- 0% 0

Business Manager -- -- 3% 1

Other -- -- 3% 1

Number of Respondents --

Length of time in role

Less than one year -- -- 7% 2

Between 1-3 years -- -- 24% 7

Between 3-10 years -- -- 41% 12

More than 10 years -- -- 28% 8

Number of Respondents --
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 119

English Language Acquisition State Grants (Title III State Formula Grants)

Score Table

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Sample Size 27 38 22 30 20 24 21

ED Staff/Coordination 76 82 67 71 76 84 74

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 80 88 73 72 85 85 73

Responsiveness to your questions 76 85 68 70 70 83 73

Accuracy of responses 81 84 68 78 79 87 78

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 78 82 70 70 79 86 75

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 66 75 64 71 71 82 71

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 66 74 59 65 74 85 68

Online Resources 60 64 55 63 60 68 61

Ease of finding materials online 54 60 56 64 59 67 62

Freshness of content 62 64 55 63 59 66 62

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 60 65 54 62 59 66 59

Ease of reading the site 64 65 59 64 62 68 62

Ease of navigation 63 62 52 59 60 66 60

Documents 68 69 69 72 62 69 72

Clarity 71 69 72 74 63 69 75

Organization of information 75 72 70 75 68 71 75

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 61 67 66 69 55 68 71

Relevance to your areas of need 72 72 69 74 65 72 75

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 62 65 66 67 57 66 64

OESE's Technical Assistance 68 72 53 59 56 67 59

Effectiveness of OESE in helping you learn to implement 

grant programs

-- 74 58 64 65 74 61

Usefulness of OESE`s technical assistance services as a 

model -- 69 51 53 47 59 57

ACSI 63 61 56 55 57 68 61

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 72 67 60 61 61 73 67

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 57 59 52 50 54 66 61

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 59 57 55 52 54 63 53

Trust -- -- -- -- -- -- 63

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- -- 63

English Language Acquisition State Grants (Title III 

State Formula Grants)

Provides assistance that enhances capacity to 

implement -- -- -- -- 74 76 62

Provides support that is responsive to my State’s needs 

to implement -- -- -- -- 65 70 64

Helps address implementation challenges -- -- -- 59 66 73 63

Provides information about key changes to requirements -- -- -- -- 72 77 73
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 120

Demographic Table

2018 2019

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Ov erall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and serv ices

Strongly Agree 13% 3 10% 2

Agree 71% 17 57% 12

Disagree 13% 3 19% 4

Strongly Disagree 4% 1 0% 0

Does Not Apply 0% 0 14% 3

Number of Respondents 24 21

Job role

Project or State Director -- -- 90% 19

School Officer -- -- 0% 0

Grant Coordinator -- -- 0% 0

Superintendent -- -- 5% 1

Business Manager -- -- 0% 0

Other -- -- 5% 1

Number of Respondents --

Length of time in role

Less than one year -- -- 5% 1

Between 1-3 years -- -- 29% 6

Between 3-10 years -- -- 48% 10

More than 10 years -- -- 19% 4

Number of Respondents --
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 121

GEAR UP

Score Table

2019

Sample Size 71

ED Staff/Coordination 70

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 75

Responsiveness to your questions 75

Accuracy of responses 76

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 69

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 62

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 66

Online Resources 64

Ease of finding materials onl ine 64

Freshness of content 60

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 64

Ease of reading the site 66

Ease of navigation 65

Information in Application Package 82

Program Purpose 86

Program Priorities 83

Selection Criteria 80

Review Process 74

Budget Information and Forms 79

Deadline for Submission 90

Dollar Limit on Awards 85

Page Limitation Instructions 78

Formatting Instructions 78

Program Contact 89

ACSI 72

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 77

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 70

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 68

Trust 75

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs 75

GEAR UP

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulation, policies 

and procedures 79

Ability to provide qualitative tech assistance regarding 

issues and challenges 77

Ability to answer inquiries and concerns in a timely 

manner

77

GEAR UP program specialist knowledge of APR content 

and reporting requirements 81

Accuracy, availability and efficiency of instructions on the 

reporting system 76

Helpdesk ability to resolve issues in accurate and timely 

manner

84

Organization of information 71

User friendliness 69

Accuracy of Information 77
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 122

Demographic Table

2019

Percent Frequency

Ov erall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and serv ices

Strongly Agree 35% 25

Agree 46% 33

Disagree 13% 9

Strongly Disagree 4% 3

Does Not Apply 1% 1

Number of Respondents 71

Job role

Project or State Director 87% 62

School Officer 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 8% 6

Superintendent 1% 1

Business Manager 0% 0

Other 3% 2

Number of Respondents 71

Length of time in role

Less than one year 30% 21

Between 1-3 years 27% 19

Between 3-10 years 27% 19

More than 10 years 17% 12

Number of Respondents 71
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 123

Grants for State Assessments

Score Table

2017 2018 2019

Sample Size 17 32 32

ED Staff/Coordination 73 82 84

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 75 84 87

Responsiveness to your questions 70 86 82

Accuracy of responses 79 86 90

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 71 82 83

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

Online Resources 64 70 74

Ease of finding materials online 61 63 74

Freshness of content 63 70 80

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 64 67 73

Ease of reading the site 67 70 73

Ease of navigation 63 66 70

Documents 69 76 80

Clarity 71 76 79

Organization of information 69 79 81

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 66 73 80

Relevance to your areas of need 71 77 82

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 66 71 80

OESE's Technical Assistance 64 71 80

Effectiveness of OESE in helping you learn to implement 

grant programs 64 75 82

Usefulness of OESE`s technical assistance services as a 

model 59 64 76

ACSI 63 66 75

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 68 74 80

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 61 62 72

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 58 60 70

Trust -- -- 78

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- 78

Grants for State Assessments

Provides assistance that enhances capacity to 

implement 68 69 77

Provides support that is responsive to my State’s needs 

to implement 67 69 80

Helps address implementation challenges 60 66 75

Provides information about key changes to requirements 71 72 82
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 124

Demographic Table

2018 2019

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Ov erall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and serv ices

Strongly Agree 25% 8 34% 11

Agree 66% 21 59% 19

Disagree 6% 2 3% 1

Strongly Disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does Not Apply 3% 1 3% 1

Number of Respondents 32 32

Job role

Project or State Director -- -- 91% 29

School Officer -- -- 0% 0

Grant Coordinator -- -- 3% 1

Superintendent -- -- 0% 0

Business Manager -- -- 0% 0

Other -- -- 6% 2

Number of Respondents --

Length of time in role

Less than one year -- -- 13% 4

Between 1-3 years -- -- 31% 10

Between 3-10 years -- -- 47% 15

More than 10 years -- -- 9% 3

Number of Respondents --
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 125

i3 Education Innovation and Research

Score Table

2019

Sample Size 40

ED Staff/Coordination 84

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 84

Responsiveness to your questions 83

Accuracy of responses 87

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 82

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 81

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 85

Online Resources 69

Ease of finding materials online 69

Freshness of content 69

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 68

Ease of reading the site 72

Ease of navigation 69

Documents 74

Clarity 76

Organization of information 75

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 77

Relevance to your areas of need 72

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 69

OESE's Technical Assistance 76

Effectiveness of OESE in helping you learn to implement 

grant programs 78

Usefulness of OESE`s technical assistance services as a 

model 67

ACSI 75

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 80

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 74

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 70

Trust 81

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs 81
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 126

Demographic Table

2019

Percent Frequency

EIR Cohort

Early-phase 74% 23

Mid-phase 23% 7

Expansion 3% 1

Number of Respondents 31

Ov erall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and serv ices

Strongly Agree 38% 15

Agree 53% 21

Disagree 8% 3

Strongly Disagree 0% 0

Does Not Apply 3% 1

Number of Respondents 40

Job role

Project or State Director 78% 31

School Officer 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 23% 9

Superintendent 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0

Other 0% 0

Number of Respondents 40

Length of time in role

Less than one year 3% 1

Between 1-3 years 35% 14

Between 3-10 years 45% 18

More than 10 years 18% 7

Number of Respondents 40

Type of Investing in Innov ation or Education Innov ation and 

Research grants

Development or early phase 68% 27

Validation or Mid-phase 30% 12

Scale-up or expansion 3% 1

Number of Respondents 40
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 127

IDEA-Part C Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities Program

Score Table

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Sample Size 27 23 22 34 36 31 36

ED Staff/Coordination 79 77 80 88 85 88 82

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 78 83 86 90 87 89 82

Responsiveness to your questions 81 76 82 87 83 88 82

Accuracy of responses 82 80 81 90 87 89 85

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 78 74 79 87 82 86 81

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 74 67 77 -- -- -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 78 81 80 -- -- 89 79

Online Resources 63 57 67 68 68 69 66

Ease of finding materials online 56 51 62 63 62 68 65

Freshness of content 64 67 71 71 73 75 69

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 62 57 65 69 65 69 64

Ease of reading the site 63 55 68 69 71 67 68

Ease of navigation 59 51 66 63 64 64 65

Documents 71 66 74 71 76 75 78

Clarity 72 66 71 74 77 76 79

Organization of information 74 68 75 74 77 76 80

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 66 64 74 72 73 77 77

Relevance to your areas of need 76 72 78 70 79 76 78

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 67 61 70 66 75 72 74

ACSI 66 55 63 71 69 72 69

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 73 62 75 78 76 80 77

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 64 53 58 69 66 70 64

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 55 48 55 65 62 65 64

Trust -- -- -- -- -- -- 77

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- -- 77

IDEA-Part C Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities 

Program

Clarity of information received in developing applications 

and reports 75 73 -- -- 82 81 74

Timeliness of responses 84 82 -- -- 89 86 79

OSEP-funded TA provider -- -- -- -- 88 90 88

Education Department-funded TA provider -- -- -- -- 57 44 46

Professional associations -- -- -- -- 79 80 81

Conferences where research is presented -- -- -- -- 71 70 70

Books -- -- -- -- 59 48 55

Journal articles -- -- -- -- 63 59 60

Personal interaction with peers -- -- -- -- 82 79 80

IDEAS that work website -- -- -- -- -- 59 60

The Department`s new IDEA website -- -- -- -- -- 59 56

osep.grads360.org -- -- -- -- -- 76 70
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 128

Demographic Table

2018 2019

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Ov erall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and serv ices

Strongly Agree 29% 9 25% 9

Agree 65% 20 61% 22

Disagree 3% 1 11% 4

Strongly Disagree 0% 0 3% 1

Does Not Apply 3% 1 0% 0

Number of Respondents 31 36

Job role

Project or State Director -- -- 83% 30

School Officer -- -- 0% 0

Grant Coordinator -- -- 8% 3

Superintendent -- -- 0% 0

Business Manager -- -- 0% 0

Other -- -- 8% 3

Number of Respondents --

Length of time in role

Less than one year -- -- 11% 4

Between 1-3 years -- -- 31% 11

Between 3-10 years -- -- 33% 12

More than 10 years -- -- 25% 9

Number of Respondents --

Frequency of technical assistance and support from State lead -

IDEA-Part C

At least weekly 0% 0 3% 1

Monthly 57% 17 47% 17

Quarterly 40% 12 33% 12

Yearly 0% 0 14% 5

My State Lead does not contact me 3% 1 3% 1

Number of Respondents 30 36

Helpfulness of fully automating grant submission and approv al 

process

1 0% 0 3% 1

4 0% 0 19% 7

Very Helpful 0% 0 72% 26

Don ́t know/Not applicable 0% 0 6% 2

Number of Respondents 0 36
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 129

IDEA-State Directors of Special Education (Part B)

Score Table

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Sample Size 27 16 17 38 32 32 30

ED Staff/Coordination 77 78 80 84 87 90 84

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 85 83 88 89 88 94 84

Responsiveness to your questions 76 72 79 83 85 89 85

Accuracy of responses 80 79 83 83 91 92 86

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 80 79 76 79 84 89 83

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 77 75 77 -- -- -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 67 81 76 -- -- 90 81

Online Resources 56 53 63 65 66 73 64

Ease of finding materials online 49 44 58 59 63 71 63

Freshness of content 64 58 62 70 68 72 66

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 53 53 63 63 65 72 63

Ease of reading the site 56 51 67 69 66 75 67

Ease of navigation 47 47 58 60 62 72 63

Documents 74 73 68 75 75 78 76

Clarity 72 71 67 73 74 76 77

Organization of information 77 77 75 77 77 79 77

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 72 70 64 74 73 76 73

Relevance to your areas of need 78 81 71 80 79 82 79

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 72 67 64 71 70 77 74

ACSI 60 63 61 66 69 75 71

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 67 73 67 72 77 81 76

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 56 58 59 63 65 72 70

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 55 56 55 62 64 70 67

Trust -- -- -- -- -- -- 81

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- -- 81

IDEA-State Directors of Special Education (Part B)

Clarity of information received in developing applications 

and reports 82 73 -- -- 77 82 75

Timeliness of responses 79 79 -- -- 81 86 79

OSEP-funded TA provider -- -- -- -- 82 88 85

Education Department-funded TA provider -- -- -- -- 57 57 62

Professional associations -- -- -- -- 81 83 81

Conferences where research is presented -- -- -- -- 75 75 74

Books -- -- -- -- 54 54 52

Journal articles -- -- -- -- 66 61 60

Personal interaction with peers -- -- -- -- 87 82 80

IDEAS that work website -- -- -- -- -- 73 61

The Department`s new IDEA website -- -- -- -- -- 74 60

osep.grads360.org -- -- -- -- -- 85 71
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 130

Demographic Table

2018 2019

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Ov erall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and serv ices

Strongly Agree 31% 10 27% 8

Agree 66% 21 63% 19

Disagree 0% 0 7% 2

Strongly Disagree 3% 1 3% 1

Does Not Apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 32 30

Job role

Project or State Director -- -- 100% 30

School Officer -- -- 0% 0

Grant Coordinator -- -- 0% 0

Superintendent -- -- 0% 0

Business Manager -- -- 0% 0

Other -- -- 0% 0

Number of Respondents --

Length of time in role

Less than one year -- -- 20% 6

Between 1-3 years -- -- 33% 10

Between 3-10 years -- -- 30% 9

More than 10 years -- -- 17% 5

Number of Respondents --

Frequency of technical assistance and support from State lead -

IDEA-Part B

At least weekly 3% 1 3% 1

Monthly 58% 18 73% 22

Quarterly 32% 10 17% 5

Yearly 6% 2 3% 1

My State Lead does not contact me 0% 0 3% 1

Number of Respondents 31 30

How often part of policy discussion with OSEP staff

At least weekly 0% 0 7% 2

Monthly 0% 0 37% 11

Quarterly 0% 0 40% 12

Yearly 0% 0 10% 3

Never 0% 0 7% 2

Number of Respondents 0 30
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 131

Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies – Title I

Score Table

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Sample Size 22 18 15 39 20 23 24

ED Staff/Coordination 86 83 86 70 77 75 75

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 91 84 88 69 78 74 78

Responsiveness to your questions 85 79 84 66 69 71 67

Accuracy of responses 89 86 89 74 81 76 81

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 87 83 87 71 81 73 73

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 82 80 85 72 81 74 75

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 82 82 81 70 81 74 72

Online Resources 61 62 66 65 68 54 55

Ease of finding materials online 53 56 60 59 65 48 51

Freshness of content 74 65 67 64 70 49 57

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 59 59 67 64 67 50 55

Ease of reading the site 57 65 67 65 69 54 56

Ease of navigation 51 57 59 63 66 53 54

Documents 81 71 83 69 78 64 69

Clarity 81 72 81 70 78 66 68

Organization of information 83 73 82 72 79 67 69

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 79 69 85 68 76 59 66

Relevance to your areas of need 85 72 85 70 79 65 75

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 78 68 81 65 78 61 65

OESE's Technical Assistance 78 69 72 61 67 63 60

Effectiveness of OESE in helping you learn to implement 

grant programs -- 74 78 64 71 67 65

Usefulness of OESE`s technical assistance services as a 

model -- 63 66 58 64 59 55

ACSI 68 63 68 58 66 57 59

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 75 69 76 65 72 61 65

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 63 62 66 55 65 57 54

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 63 59 61 54 61 54 57

Trust -- -- -- -- -- -- 63

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- -- 63

Improv ing Basic Programs Operated by Local 

Educational Agencies – Title I

Provides assistance that enhances capacity to 

implement -- -- -- -- 63 71 69

Provides support that is responsive to my State’s needs 

to implement -- -- -- -- 61 64 67

Helps address implementation challenges -- -- -- 54 67 60 65

Provides information about key changes to requirements -- -- -- -- 69 67 68
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 132

Demographic Table

2018 2019

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Ov erall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and serv ices

Strongly Agree 13% 3 17% 4

Agree 61% 14 58% 14

Disagree 13% 3 13% 3

Strongly Disagree 4% 1 13% 3

Does Not Apply 9% 2 0% 0

Number of Respondents 23 24

Job role

Project or State Director -- -- 100% 24

School Officer -- -- 0% 0

Grant Coordinator -- -- 0% 0

Superintendent -- -- 0% 0

Business Manager -- -- 0% 0

Other -- -- 0% 0

Number of Respondents --

Length of time in role

Less than one year -- -- 13% 3

Between 1-3 years -- -- 38% 9

Between 3-10 years -- -- 29% 7

More than 10 years -- -- 21% 5

Number of Respondents --
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 133

Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Education Agencies (LEAs)

Score Table

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Sample Size 66 27 58 91 73 56 49

ED Staff/Coordination 85 88 87 87 87 85 86

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 85 87 87 87 87 85 87

Responsiveness to your questions 84 88 89 88 89 87 88

Accuracy of responses 86 90 88 88 90 88 89

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 83 87 85 86 85 83 83

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 84 85 88 87 84 85 81

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 84 90 89 85 85 83 80

Online Resources 83 85 81 82 83 79 71

Ease of finding materials online 79 80 78 77 82 74 68

Freshness of content 82 84 81 82 84 78 70

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 84 86 83 83 84 80 71

Ease of reading the site 84 87 82 83 84 83 75

Ease of navigation 82 83 81 82 83 82 70

Documents 80 83 82 83 81 78 78

Clarity 79 82 80 82 81 78 79

Organization of information 81 82 82 84 81 81 78

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 81 84 83 83 82 77 79

Relevance to your areas of need 80 85 83 84 82 79 78

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 78 83 80 83 82 76 78

OESE's Technical Assistance 83 81 85 82 87 78 81

Effectiveness of OESE in helping you learn to implement 

grant programs -- 83 86 82 87 78 81

Usefulness of OESE`s technical assistance services as a 

model -- 75 81 82 85 77 79

ACSI 79 80 80 80 80 74 75

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 83 84 84 84 84 81 81

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 76 74 79 78 78 70 72

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 76 79 77 79 77 71 69

Trust -- -- -- -- -- -- 79

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- -- 79

Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Education 

Agencies

Responsiveness of staff in answering questions -- -- -- 87 91 84 83

Timeliness of staff -- -- -- 89 90 87 85

Quality of support -- -- -- 88 91 85 84

Comprehensiveness of documents -- -- -- 87 89 83 82

Ease of using EASIE system -- -- -- 89 89 82 84

Quality of training via webinars -- -- -- 86 87 80 81
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 134

Demographic Table

2018 2019

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

OIE Cohort

BCG-I 0% 0 7% 3

LEA 0% 0 74% 34

LEA-C 0% 0 7% 3

T-M 0% 0 4% 2

T-S 0% 0 9% 4

Number of Respondents 0 46

Ov erall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and serv ices

Strongly Agree 34% 19 39% 19

Agree 59% 33 51% 25

Disagree 5% 3 8% 4

Strongly Disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does Not Apply 2% 1 2% 1

Number of Respondents 56 49

Job role

Project or State Director -- -- 8% 4

School Officer -- -- 6% 3

Grant Coordinator -- -- 53% 26

Superintendent -- -- 14% 7

Business Manager -- -- 4% 2

Other -- -- 14% 7

Number of Respondents --

Length of time in role

Less than one year -- -- 0% 0

Between 1-3 years -- -- 33% 16

Between 3-10 years -- -- 35% 17

More than 10 years -- -- 33% 16

Number of Respondents --

Greatest need for technical assistance~

Establishing parent committees 9% 5 10% 5

Expanding membership of parent committees 41% 23 35% 17

Verifying student information 21% 12 20% 10

Using the EASIE system 9% 5 12% 6

Allowable uses of funds 52% 29 51% 25

General grant program requirements, deadlines and milestones 43% 24 20% 10

Using the G5 system 23% 13 39% 19

Number of Respondents 56 49
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 135

Magnet Schools Assistance Program

Score Table

2019

Sample Size 29

ED Staff/Coordination 84

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 84

Responsiveness to your questions 80

Accuracy of responses 89

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 87

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 80

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 82

Online Resources 75

Ease of finding materials online 75

Freshness of content 73

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 77

Ease of reading the site 76

Ease of navigation 75

Documents 81

Clarity 79

Organization of information 82

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 81

Relevance to your areas of need 85

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 82

OESE's Technical Assistance 79

Effectiveness of OESE in helping you learn to implement 

grant programs 84

Usefulness of OESE`s technical assistance services as a 

model 71

ACSI 79

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 83

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 78

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 77

Trust 83

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs 83

Magnet Schools Assistance Program

Program Officer quality of assistance 94

Program Officer responsiveness 79

MSAP Center technical assistance support 85

GRADS 360 system 60

Overall effectiveness of assistance received from MSAP 82
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 136

Demographic Table

2019

Percent Frequency

Ov erall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and serv ices

Strongly Agree 45% 13

Agree 41% 12

Disagree 7% 2

Strongly Disagree 7% 2

Does Not Apply 0% 0

Number of Respondents 29

Job role

Project or State Director 76% 22

School Officer 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 21% 6

Superintendent 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0

Other 3% 1

Number of Respondents 29

Length of time in role

Less than one year 7% 2

Between 1-3 years 55% 16

Between 3-10 years 34% 10

More than 10 years 3% 1

Number of Respondents 29

Asked for assistance in areas unrelated to fiscal or grant admin 

issues - MSA

Asked 14% 4

Did not ask 86% 25

Number of Respondents 29
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 137

Migrant Education Programs (Title I, Part C)

Score Table

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Sample Size 22 34 30 33 37 32 35

ED Staff/Coordination 75 83 80 82 87 92 86

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 83 85 86 86 91 93 88

Responsiveness to your questions 68 81 77 81 85 90 83

Accuracy of responses 79 86 83 82 90 94 91

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 76 85 79 77 87 93 88

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 77 82 80 86 90 91 89

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 69 77 72 81 84 92 86

Online Resources 60 66 59 61 75 82 80

Ease of finding materials online 58 63 55 58 77 83 81

Freshness of content 62 68 57 65 75 79 78

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 62 65 59 62 78 80 79

Ease of reading the site 61 67 59 63 78 82 83

Ease of navigation 56 64 54 61 76 81 79

Documents 74 76 74 78 81 88 86

Clarity 77 76 71 79 83 87 86

Organization of information 77 78 76 79 85 89 87

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 73 75 74 80 77 89 85

Relevance to your areas of need 74 78 78 79 82 87 88

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 69 74 71 75 78 86 86

OESE's Technical Assistance 68 70 71 69 68 75 77

Effectiveness of OESE in helping you learn to implement 

grant programs -- 76 74 70 71 78 80

Usefulness of OESE`s technical assistance services as a 

model -- 64 66 67 64 73 74

ACSI 64 68 64 72 75 79 79

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 70 73 70 79 80 85 85

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 62 65 61 70 72 77 77

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 57 64 59 66 71 75 76

Trust -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- -- 78
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 138

Demographic Table

2018 2019

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Ov erall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and serv ices

Strongly Agree 44% 14 57% 20

Agree 53% 17 34% 12

Disagree 3% 1 6% 2

Strongly Disagree 0% 0 3% 1

Does Not Apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 32 35

Job role

Project or State Director -- -- 100% 35

School Officer -- -- 0% 0

Grant Coordinator -- -- 0% 0

Superintendent -- -- 0% 0

Business Manager -- -- 0% 0

Other -- -- 0% 0

Number of Respondents --

Length of time in role

Less than one year -- -- 11% 4

Between 1-3 years -- -- 37% 13

Between 3-10 years -- -- 40% 14

More than 10 years -- -- 11% 4

Number of Respondents --

Most useful technical assistance webinars~

MEP Program Improvement 0% 0 51% 18

EDFacts Submissions: Changes for SY 2017-18 0% 0 69% 24

MSIX Cybersecurity and Accounts Management 0% 0 40% 14

MPOs to Impact Statewide Assessment Results 0% 0 54% 19

I did not participate in a webinar this year 0% 0 6% 2

Number of Respondents 0 35
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 139

2018 2019

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Technical assistance topics needed~

Child Eligibility 23% 7 11% 4

Comprehensive Needs Assessment 10% 3 20% 7

Continuation of Services 20% 6 3% 1

Fiscal Requirements 27% 8 43% 15

Interstate Coordination 17% 5 26% 9

Parental/Family Engagement 10% 3 20% 7

Priority for Services 13% 4 14% 5

Program Evaluation 23% 7 11% 4

Quality Control 7% 2 11% 4

Records Exchange 10% 3 9% 3

Recruitment 17% 5 20% 7

Re-interviewing 10% 3 9% 3

Service Delivery Models 27% 8 11% 4

Service Delivery Plan 7% 2 9% 3

Subgrant Formulas 10% 3 11% 4

Service Delivery Strategies (Instructional and Support) 30% 9 17% 6

Subrecipient Monitoring 30% 9 23% 8

Data Management and Reporting 0% 0 17% 6

Other 7% 2 0% 0

Number of Respondents 30 35
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 140

National Professional Development Program

Score Table

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Sample Size 51 56 69 64 29 46 45

ED Staff/Coordination 93 85 81 84 91 95 86

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 94 88 86 87 93 94 88

Responsiveness to your questions 92 80 80 83 86 95 83

Accuracy of responses 93 86 82 83 95 96 90

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 93 90 87 84 94 98 91

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 93 83 81 88 95 97 86

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 95 85 90 90 97 95 91

Online Resources 76 79 78 76 66 77 73

Ease of finding materials online 77 78 79 78 66 79 73

Freshness of content 81 79 80 83 72 83 77

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 74 79 78 76 68 78 73

Ease of reading the site 76 81 81 78 68 78 75

Ease of navigation 76 79 80 77 64 75 70

Documents 82 81 80 80 80 81 83

Clarity 82 81 78 79 82 80 84

Organization of information 83 83 81 81 83 81 84

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 81 81 80 80 77 79 80

Relevance to your areas of need 81 83 82 80 81 83 86

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 80 80 79 79 79 81 81

ACSI 78 75 73 78 71 77 81

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 86 83 79 83 80 82 86

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 72 71 70 75 66 76 78

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 73 70 69 74 66 71 77

Trust -- -- -- -- -- -- 93

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- -- 93

National Professional Dev elopment Program

Technical assistance from OELA office -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

Technical assistance from program officer -- -- -- 72 74 84 82

Usefulness of OELA website -- -- -- 76 70 79 78

Usefulness of NCELA website -- -- -- 78 77 86 82

Usefulness of OELA Facebook -- -- -- 62 78 85 69
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 141

Demographic Table

2018 2019

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Ov erall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and serv ices

Strongly Agree 43% 20 47% 21

Agree 46% 21 42% 19

Disagree 11% 5 7% 3

Strongly Disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does Not Apply 0% 0 4% 2

Number of Respondents 46 45

Job role

Project or State Director -- -- 67% 30

School Officer -- -- 0% 0

Grant Coordinator -- -- 24% 11

Superintendent -- -- 0% 0

Business Manager -- -- 0% 0

Other -- -- 9% 4

Number of Respondents --

Length of time in role

Less than one year -- -- 0% 0

Between 1-3 years -- -- 42% 19

Between 3-10 years -- -- 27% 12

More than 10 years -- -- 31% 14

Number of Respondents --

Frequency of tech assistance from OELA office - NPD

Monthly 0% 0 20% 9

Quarterly 0% 0 56% 25

Yearly 0% 0 24% 11

Number of Respondents 0 45

Frequency of monitoring tech support - NPD

At least weekly 2% 1 0% 0

Monthly 31% 14 13% 6

Quarterly 60% 27 71% 32

Yearly 7% 3 16% 7

Number of Respondents 45 45

Frequency of v isiting OELA website - NPD

Weekly 13% 6 11% 5

Monthly 31% 14 24% 11

Every few months 53% 24 62% 28

Never 2% 1 2% 1

Number of Respondents 45 45
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 142

2018 2019

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Frequency of v isiting NCELA website - NPD

Weekly 16% 7 4% 2

Monthly 40% 18 44% 20

Every few months 29% 13 49% 22

Never 16% 7 2% 1

Number of Respondents 45 45

Frequency of v isiting OELA Facebook - NPD

Weekly 7% 3 2% 1

Monthly 4% 2 9% 4

Every few months 20% 9 16% 7

Never 69% 31 73% 33

Number of Respondents 45 45
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 143

National Resource Centers Program

Score Table

2019

Sample Size 60

ED Staff/Coordination 94

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 94

Responsiveness to your questions 95

Accuracy of responses 96

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 96

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 89

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 95

Online Resources 65

Ease of finding materials online 64

Freshness of content 64

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 67

Ease of reading the site 66

Ease of navigation 65

Information in Application Package 86

Program Purpose 88

Program Priorities 89

Selection Criteria 85

Review Process 80

Budget Information and Forms 81

Deadline for Submission 90

Dollar Limit on Awards 85

Page Limitation Instructions 87

Formatting Instructions 85

Program Contact 90

ACSI 77

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 85

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 74

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 71

Trust 93

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs 93

National Resource Centers Program

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 93

Responsiveness to inquiries 96

Timely resolution of issues 94

Timely acknowledgement and processing of requests 96

Ability to respond to all issues without bias or preference 97

Quality of information or feedback received from program 

staff 94

Effective in supporting instruction in necessary fields 93

Supports work in language aspects of professional and 

other fields of study 90

Supports research and training in international studies 92

Teaching of any modern foreign language 94

Instruction in necessary fields 94

Research and training in international studies 93

Language aspects of professional and other fields of 

study 92

Instruction and research on issues in world affairs 94

NRC program selection criteria 83
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 144

Demographic Table

2019

Percent Frequency

Ov erall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and services

Strongly Agree 45% 27

Agree 50% 30

Disagree 3% 2

Strongly Disagree 2% 1

Does Not Apply 0% 0

Number of Respondents 60

Job role

Project or State Director 23% 14

School Officer 8% 5

Grant Coordinator 45% 27

Superintendent 0% 0

Business Manager 7% 4

Other 17% 10

Number of Respondents 60

Length of time in role

Less than one year 10% 6

Between 1-3 years 40% 24

Between 3-10 years 22% 13

More than 10 years 28% 17

Number of Respondents 60

Length of time in current NRC

Less than one year 8% 5

1-2 years 28% 17

2-3 years 12% 7

3-4 years 3% 2

4 or more years 48% 29

Number of Respondents 60
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 145

Native American and Alaska Native Children in School Program

Score Table

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Sample Size 4 11 9 13 12 9 16

ED Staff/Coordination 98 95 96 82 83 95 84

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 97 94 98 85 76 92 83

Responsiveness to your questions 100 96 95 81 89 99 83

Accuracy of responses 100 94 94 81 83 96 84

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 96 94 94 81 79 94 81

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 96 94 95 80 84 94 83

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services

97 96 95 78 81 97 84

Online Resources 83 90 91 67 60 84 67

Ease of finding materials online 78 87 90 70 74 81 69

Freshness of content 86 91 90 68 59 88 69

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 86 89 94 68 58 79 67

Ease of reading the site 81 92 92 70 61 83 67

Ease of navigation 81 91 92 67 58 83 66

Documents 83 88 91 78 74 84 77

Clarity 75 88 89 76 73 81 78

Organization of information 83 89 92 76 75 84 78

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 78 89 92 79 77 85 79

Relevance to your areas of need 89 88 90 79 75 84 77

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 89 86 90 78 69 84 76

ACSI 88 86 90 75 66 89 76

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 92 92 95 81 70 95 81

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 89 83 86 74 65 86 74

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 81 82 89 69 63 85 70

Trust -- -- -- -- -- -- 82

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- -- 82

Nativ e American and Alaska Native Children in 

School Program

Technical assistance from OELA office -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

Technical assistance from program officer -- -- -- 68 79 91 78

Usefulness of OELA website -- -- -- 66 72 85 76

Usefulness of NCELA website -- -- -- 76 80 88 77

Usefulness of OELA Facebook -- -- -- 22 -- 100 53
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 146

Demographic Table

2018 2019

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Ov erall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and serv ices

Strongly Agree 56% 5 44% 7

Agree 44% 4 44% 7

Disagree 0% 0 13% 2

Strongly Disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does Not Apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 9 16

Job role

Project or State Director -- -- 63% 10

School Officer -- -- 6% 1

Grant Coordinator -- -- 19% 3

Superintendent -- -- 0% 0

Business Manager -- -- 0% 0

Other -- -- 13% 2

Number of Respondents --

Length of time in role

Less than one year -- -- 13% 2

Between 1-3 years -- -- 31% 5

Between 3-10 years -- -- 38% 6

More than 10 years -- -- 19% 3

Number of Respondents --

Frequency of tech assistance from OELA office - NAM

At least weekly 0% 0 6% 1

Monthly 0% 0 50% 8

Quarterly 0% 0 31% 5

Yearly 0% 0 13% 2

Number of Respondents 0 16

Frequency of monitoring tech support - NAM

At least weekly 0% 0 13% 2

Monthly 44% 4 38% 6

Quarterly 56% 5 38% 6

Yearly 0% 0 13% 2

Number of Respondents 9 16

Frequency of v isiting OELA website - NAM

Daily 11% 1 0% 0

Weekly 22% 2 6% 1

Monthly 22% 2 38% 6

Every few months 44% 4 56% 9

Never 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 9 16
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 147

2018 2019

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Frequency of v isiting NCELA website - NAM

Weekly 33% 3 0% 0

Monthly 33% 3 31% 5

Every few months 22% 2 50% 8

Never 11% 1 19% 3

Number of Respondents 9 16

Frequency of v isiting OELA Facebook - NAM

Weekly 22% 2 0% 0

Monthly 11% 1 6% 1

Every few months 0% 0 19% 3

Never 67% 6 75% 12

Number of Respondents 9 16
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 148

Neglected and Delinquent State and Local Agency Programs

Score Table

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Sample Size 20 14 30 32 32 36 25

ED Staff/Coordination 87 88 83 79 75 81 68

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 90 91 89 79 80 81 66

Responsiveness to your questions 83 85 84 73 70 80 65

Accuracy of responses 88 87 87 80 74 84 73

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 87 88 80 79 73 76 69

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 87 89 83 83 80 83 74

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services

82 90 78 82 81 83 75

Online Resources 69 69 70 73 68 70 58

Ease of finding materials online 66 68 69 72 69 70 58

Freshness of content 72 71 69 73 66 64 49

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 70 70 69 72 66 70 57

Ease of reading the site 70 67 71 73 73 72 67

Ease of navigation 66 62 67 73 70 71 61

Documents 78 78 77 72 66 72 67

Clarity 78 79 78 72 66 75 70

Organization of information 78 79 81 75 67 75 70

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 77 79 76 70 67 70 63

Relevance to your areas of need 79 79 77 72 67 71 70

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 77 76 75 71 63 69 60

OESE's Technical Assistance 79 77 75 67 62 70 57

Effectiveness of OESE in helping you learn to implement 

grant programs -- 83 78 71 66 74 61

Usefulness of OESE`s technical assistance services as a 

model -- 71 70 64 61 67 52

ACSI 72 70 67 62 60 65 55

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 75 73 73 66 67 73 62

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 69 70 64 59 56 60 52

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 68 67 62 61 56 62 51

Trust -- -- -- -- -- -- 70

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- -- 70

Neglected and Delinquent State and Local Agency 

Programs

Responsiveness in answering questions - Technical 

Assistance Center (NDTAC) 87 84 81 80 79 81 87

Knowledge of technical material - Technical Assistance 

Center (NDTAC) 86 89 84 82 80 82 82

Meeting program compliance requirements - US

Department of Education 86 82 85 81 70 76 60

Assisting you to impact performance results - US 

Department of Education 82 77 81 79 64 70 57

Developing cross-agency collaborations - US 

Department of Education 81 81 76 77 59 67 59

Meeting program compliance requirements - Technical 

Assistance Center (NDTAC) 88 86 86 85 80 83 80

Assisting to impact performance results - Technical 

Assistance Center (NDTAC) 83 79 84 84 83 82 78

Developing cross-agency collaborations - Technical 

Assistance Center (NDTAC) 79 80 79 82 74 78 79

Products - Quality 84 89 84 85 81 83 82

Products - Usefulness 82 88 86 84 85 82 80
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 149

Demographic Table

2018 2019

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Ov erall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and serv ices

Strongly Agree 25% 9 16% 4

Agree 58% 21 52% 13

Disagree 14% 5 28% 7

Strongly Disagree 3% 1 4% 1

Does Not Apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 36 25

Job role

Project or State Director -- -- 68% 17

School Officer -- -- 0% 0

Grant Coordinator -- -- 32% 8

Superintendent -- -- 0% 0

Business Manager -- -- 0% 0

Other -- -- 0% 0

Number of Respondents --

Length of time in role

Less than one year -- -- 4% 1

Between 1-3 years -- -- 44% 11

Between 3-10 years -- -- 28% 7

More than 10 years -- -- 24% 6

Number of Respondents --
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 150

Payments for Federal Property (Section 7002)

Score Table

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Sample Size 56 37 48 0 77 48 47

ED Staff/Coordination 83 77 81 -- 84 90 90

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 84 76 82 -- 85 90 88

Responsiveness to your questions 83 76 83 -- 79 90 91

Accuracy of responses 83 76 86 -- 85 91 92

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 82 73 76 -- 83 90 91

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 81 72 77 -- 84 -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 88 75 81 -- 83 -- --

Online Resources 77 72 74 -- 78 81 81

Ease of finding materials online 74 70 69 -- 71 79 78

Freshness of content 79 75 76 -- 79 83 83

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 78 74 76 -- 80 83 83

Ease of reading the site 78 72 73 -- 79 81 82

Ease of navigation 75 70 71 -- 78 77 78

Documents 77 75 70 -- 78 82 85

Clarity 77 75 69 -- 76 82 84

Organization of information 80 75 72 -- 79 84 85

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 76 77 71 -- 79 81 86

Relevance to your areas of need 75 75 71 -- 80 83 86

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 75 76 68 -- 77 82 86

OESE's Technical Assistance 74 72 73 -- 78 -- --

Effectiveness of OESE in helping you learn to implement 

grant programs -- 72 74 -- 79 -- --

Usefulness of OESE`s technical assistance services as a 

model -- 69 72 -- 78 -- --

ACSI 75 68 70 -- 76 77 83

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 80 71 74 -- 79 82 89

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 72 65 68 -- 75 75 78

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 72 66 66 -- 73 75 81

Trust -- -- -- -- -- -- 86

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- -- 86

Payments for Federal Property (Section 7002)

Impact Aid staff`s responsiveness to answering 

questions 85 79 81 -- 86 94 95

Impact Aid staff`s supportiveness in helping complete 

application 85 79 83 -- 89 94 97

Impact Aid staff`s knowledge about technical material 79 80 81 -- 90 93 97

Quality of interaction with staff during review process 86 76 83 -- 84 88 93
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 151

Demographic Table

2018 2019

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Ov erall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and serv ices

Strongly Agree 31% 15 47% 22

Agree 60% 29 51% 24

Disagree 6% 3 2% 1

Strongly Disagree 2% 1 0% 0

Does Not Apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 48 47

Job role

Project or State Director -- -- 0% 0

School Officer -- -- 6% 3

Grant Coordinator -- -- 9% 4

Superintendent -- -- 26% 12

Business Manager -- -- 40% 19

Other -- -- 19% 9

Number of Respondents --

Length of time in role

Less than one year -- -- 9% 4

Between 1-3 years -- -- 19% 9

Between 3-10 years -- -- 30% 14

More than 10 years -- -- 43% 20

Number of Respondents --

Contacted Impact Aid Program for technical assistance

Contacted 41% 18 30% 14

Did not contact 59% 26 70% 33

Number of Respondents 44 47

Attended mtgs where info on Sec 7002 prog app submission rev

process prov ided

Attended 61% 27 62% 29

Have not attended 39% 17 38% 18

Number of Respondents 44 47

Presentation and or materials prepared help understand 

responsibilities

Helped understand 96% 26 97% 28

Did not help understand 4% 1 3% 1

Number of Respondents 27 29
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 152

Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 7003)

Score Table

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Sample Size 59 37 66 81 77 49 50

ED Staff/Coordination 85 81 71 79 85 85 88

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 86 84 74 78 85 87 89

Responsiveness to your questions 83 79 71 80 84 82 88

Accuracy of responses 87 85 74 81 87 86 89

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 83 78 71 77 81 86 87

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 82 80 67 75 82 -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 83 75 67 78 85 -- --

Online Resources 77 72 72 77 78 75 75

Ease of finding materials online 72 68 70 72 73 73 73

Freshness of content 81 76 73 79 78 73 75

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 80 74 73 79 79 75 76

Ease of reading the site 76 72 72 76 77 75 77

Ease of navigation 75 71 71 74 78 74 74

Documents 77 70 67 75 78 79 83

Clarity 77 69 65 76 78 78 83

Organization of information 79 70 67 77 80 80 84

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 76 70 67 75 78 79 82

Relevance to your areas of need 78 72 68 76 80 79 83

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 75 70 66 76 77 77 82

OESE's Technical Assistance 76 68 69 72 76 -- --

Effectiveness of OESE in helping you learn to implement 

grant programs -- 68 70 73 77 -- --

Usefulness of OESE`s technical assistance services as a 

model -- 58 63 70 74 -- --

ACSI 72 64 64 71 74 75 79

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 76 70 69 76 79 80 82

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 71 61 61 67 72 73 78

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 69 60 62 69 71 71 78

Trust -- -- -- -- -- -- 85

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- -- 85

Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 

7003)

Effectiveness in providing TA or instructions regarding 

performance reports 81 74 72 79 82 79 80

Staff`s performance in answering questions and helping 

complete application 85 76 63 78 82 83 86

Ease of reaching person who could address concern 75 68 69 72 81 75 83

Impact Aid staff`s ability to resolve issue 80 72 69 73 82 78 85
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 153

Demographic Table

2018 2019

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Ov erall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and serv ices

Strongly Agree 31% 15 34% 17

Agree 59% 29 62% 31

Disagree 6% 3 2% 1

Strongly Disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does Not Apply 4% 2 2% 1

Number of Respondents 49 50

Job role

Project or State Director -- -- 2% 1

School Officer -- -- 4% 2

Grant Coordinator -- -- 24% 12

Superintendent -- -- 14% 7

Business Manager -- -- 34% 17

Other -- -- 22% 11

Number of Respondents --

Length of time in role

Less than one year -- -- 4% 2

Between 1-3 years -- -- 22% 11

Between 3-10 years -- -- 38% 19

More than 10 years -- -- 36% 18

Number of Respondents --

Used written instruction and guidance documents for the Impact 

Aid application

Used 82% 40 98% 49

Did not use 18% 9 2% 1

Number of Respondents 49 50

Contacted the Impact Aid Program for technical assistance

Contacted 33% 16 40% 20

Did not contact 67% 33 60% 30

Number of Respondents 49 50

Participated in meetings where info on Sec 7003 prog or rev iew 

process prov ided

Participated 59% 29 76% 38

Did not participate 41% 20 24% 12

Number of Respondents 49 50

Presentation and or materials helped understand responsibilities

Helped understand 93% 27 100% 38

Did not help understand 7% 2 0% 0

Number of Respondents 29 38
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 154

2018 2019

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

School district contacted by the Impact Aid Program in the past 

year

Contacted 37% 18 44% 22

Was not contacted 63% 31 56% 28

Number of Respondents 49 50

Letter provided sufficient explanation to prepare documents for 

rev iew

Provided sufficient explanation 89% 16 86% 19

Did not provide sufficient explanation 11% 2 14% 3

Number of Respondents 18 22

Receiv e timely communications regarding outcome of rev iew

Received 80% 39 80% 40

Did not receive 20% 10 20% 10

Number of Respondents 49 50
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 155

Promise Neighborhoods

Score Table

2019

Sample Size 11

ED Staff/Coordination 81

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 82

Responsiveness to your questions 81

Accuracy of responses 84

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 82

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 79

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 81

Online Resources 63

Ease of finding materials online 62

Freshness of content 64

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 66

Ease of reading the site 63

Ease of navigation 61

Documents 72

Clarity 70

Organization of information 73

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 72

Relevance to your areas of need 74

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 70

OESE's Technical Assistance 77

Effectiveness of OESE in helping you learn to implement 

grant programs 83

Usefulness of OESE`s technical assistance services as a 

model 73

ACSI 78

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 81

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 79

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 75

Trust 74

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs 74

Promise Neighborhoods

ED Program Contacts quality of assistance 87

Urban Institute`s Needs Assessment Quality 79

Urban Institute`s other services 76

SCORECARD system 77

GRADS 360 system 53
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 156

Demographic Table

2019

Percent Frequency

Ov erall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and serv ices

Strongly Agree 64% 7

Agree 27% 3

Disagree 9% 1

Strongly Disagree 0% 0

Does Not Apply 0% 0

Number of Respondents 11

Job role

Project or State Director 91% 10

School Officer 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 0% 0

Superintendent 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0

Other 9% 1

Number of Respondents 11

Length of time in role

Less than one year 18% 2

Between 1-3 years 55% 6

Between 3-10 years 27% 3

More than 10 years 0% 0

Number of Respondents 11

Asked for assistance in areas unrelated to fiscal or grant admin 

issues - PN

Asked 45% 5

Did not ask 55% 6

Number of Respondents 11
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 157

REAP-Rural and Low Income School (RLIS) Program

Score Table

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Sample Size 19 9 23 11 6 25 31

ED Staff/Coordination 87 90 81 87 85 78 84

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 89 92 82 86 85 85 82

Responsiveness to your questions 85 88 76 87 78 70 79

Accuracy of responses 89 94 85 88 89 79 88

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 87 89 77 84 94 77 84

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 87 91 82 89 78 79 84

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 85 82 78 83 83 75 80

Online Resources 67 76 71 79 71 67 70

Ease of finding materials online 60 64 70 78 74 68 73

Freshness of content 65 81 67 79 67 63 67

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 65 77 73 81 69 68 68

Ease of reading the site 70 78 74 79 69 69 74

Ease of navigation 65 77 71 78 70 67 71

Documents 79 73 67 73 65 74 79

Clarity 80 77 70 72 65 74 79

Organization of information 81 74 71 75 69 76 80

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 77 69 66 72 67 73 78

Relevance to your areas of need 81 73 66 74 69 78 81

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 77 72 60 68 57 70 79

OESE's Technical Assistance 73 79 62 69 51 67 71

Effectiveness of OESE in helping you learn to implement 

grant programs

-- 83 65 70 53 74 75

Usefulness of OESE`s technical assistance services as a 

model -- 75 59 63 50 63 64

ACSI 71 74 62 64 64 67 72

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 79 79 69 69 69 72 76

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 68 70 57 63 61 64 70

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 65 70 59 61 63 63 71

Trust -- -- -- -- -- -- 81

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- -- 81

Rural Education Achiev ement Program (REAP)/RLIS

Accessibility and responsiveness of staff -- -- -- 83 74 64 82

Clarity of information provided by program staff -- -- -- 81 78 71 83
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 158

Demographic Table

2018 2019

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Ov erall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and serv ices

Strongly Agree 24% 6 29% 9

Agree 52% 13 52% 16

Disagree 16% 4 10% 3

Strongly Disagree 8% 2 3% 1

Does Not Apply 0% 0 6% 2

Number of Respondents 25 31

Job role

Project or State Director -- -- 74% 23

School Officer -- -- 0% 0

Grant Coordinator -- -- 23% 7

Superintendent -- -- 0% 0

Business Manager -- -- 3% 1

Other -- -- 0% 0

Number of Respondents --

Length of time in role

Less than one year -- -- 16% 5

Between 1-3 years -- -- 29% 9

Between 3-10 years -- -- 35% 11

More than 10 years -- -- 19% 6

Number of Respondents --

How frequently should REAP webinars be held - RLIS

Annually 0% 0 10% 3

Semi-annually 0% 0 45% 14

Quarterly 0% 0 45% 14

Number of Respondents 0 31

Future technical assistance for RLIS Grant~

Use of grant funds 32% 8 45% 14

Use of G5 16% 4 16% 5

Use of Max.gov 32% 8 35% 11

Providing Technical Assistance to Grantees 40% 10 35% 11

REAP Eligibility Data and Estimating Award Amounts 44% 11 35% 11

Consolidated grant application process 4% 1 6% 2

Grant eligibility data review & submission 28% 7 26% 8

Fiscal accounting procedures 8% 2 16% 5

Monitoring RLIS grantees 64% 16 55% 17

Use of grant funds for administrative costs 12% 3 3% 1

Reporting and use of data 12% 3 16% 5

Other 0% 0 3% 1

Number of Respondents 25 31
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 159

REAP-Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) Program

Score Table

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Sample Size 15 8 29 46 45 79 83

ED Staff/Coordination 78 85 88 84 83 83 83

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 78 93 88 84 83 85 84

Responsiveness to your questions 80 81 88 84 80 82 83

Accuracy of responses 83 81 92 90 85 88 87

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 75 89 90 82 81 87 86

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 71 72 88 85 81 84 85

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 72 72 82 86 82 85 86

Online Resources 75 79 75 73 64 73 70

Ease of finding materials online 67 78 68 69 60 72 68

Freshness of content 78 83 75 73 71 78 75

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 77 81 75 73 66 76 75

Ease of reading the site 73 81 77 71 64 73 69

Ease of navigation 75 73 75 70 61 70 68

Documents 70 89 74 74 72 77 77

Clarity 72 89 74 73 70 75 75

Organization of information 76 90 75 74 72 77 75

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 70 89 71 73 71 77 76

Relevance to your areas of need 66 89 77 75 74 77 80

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 66 89 73 73 70 77 79

OESE's Technical Assistance 75 87 71 68 70 74 80

Effectiveness of OESE in helping you learn to implement 

grant programs -- 85 72 70 69 75 81

Usefulness of OESE`s technical assistance services as a 

model -- 83 65 63 74 72 80

ACSI 61 83 64 69 72 73 76

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 70 88 66 72 75 77 80

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 58 82 64 68 71 71 73

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 56 78 63 67 70 72 73

Trust -- -- -- -- -- -- 82

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- -- 82

Rural Education Achiev ement Program (REAP)/SRSA

Accessibility and responsiveness of staff -- -- -- 77 77 81 81

Clarity of information provided by program staff -- -- -- 78 75 82 81
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 160

Demographic Table

2018 2019

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Ov erall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and serv ices

Strongly Agree 35% 28 46% 38

Agree 54% 43 47% 39

Disagree 4% 3 6% 5

Strongly Disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does Not Apply 6% 5 1% 1

Number of Respondents 79 83

Job role

Project or State Director -- -- 0% 0

School Officer -- -- 2% 2

Grant Coordinator -- -- 5% 4

Superintendent -- -- 35% 29

Business Manager -- -- 52% 43

Other -- -- 6% 5

Number of Respondents --

Length of time in role

Less than one year -- -- 4% 3

Between 1-3 years -- -- 14% 12

Between 3-10 years -- -- 45% 37

More than 10 years -- -- 37% 31

Number of Respondents --

How frequently should REAP webinars be held - SRS

Annually 0% 0 40% 33

Semi-annually 0% 0 27% 22

Quarterly 0% 0 29% 24

Other 0% 0 5% 4

Number of Respondents 0 83
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 161

Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools

Score Table

2019

Sample Size 12

ED Staff/Coordination 65

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 81

Responsiveness to your questions 64

Accuracy of responses 78

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 77

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 51

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 63

Online Resources 55

Ease of finding materials online 54

Freshness of content 52

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 52

Ease of reading the site 59

Ease of navigation 61

Documents 65

Clarity 59

Organization of information 64

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 67

Relevance to your areas of need 72

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 66

OESE's Technical Assistance 62

Effectiveness of OESE in helping you learn to implement 

grant programs 72

Usefulness of OESE`s technical assistance services as a 

model 64

ACSI 59

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 61

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 56

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 58

Trust 60

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs 60

Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter 

Schools

Dissemination of resources and opportunities the CSP 

provides 59

Comms and info accessible and provided in timely 

manner

50

Technical assistance receive on project implementation 

and budget questions 63

Assistance gives opportunity to give staff an 

understanding of your project 54

Guidance CSP provides on Federal grant compliance 50
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 162

Demographic Table

2019

Percent Frequency

Ov erall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and serv ices

Strongly Agree 17% 2

Agree 67% 8

Disagree 8% 1

Strongly Disagree 0% 0

Does Not Apply 8% 1

Number of Respondents 12

Job role

Project or State Director 58% 7

School Officer 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 33% 4

Superintendent 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0

Other 8% 1

Number of Respondents 12

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0

Between 1-3 years 67% 8

Between 3-10 years 33% 4

More than 10 years 0% 0

Number of Respondents 12
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 163

RSA Vocational Rehabilitation Program

Score Table

2019

Sample Size 38

ED Staff/Coordination 64

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 70

Responsiveness to your questions 59

Accuracy of responses 68

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 63

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 56

Online Resources 53

Ease of finding materials online 52

Freshness of content 52

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 55

Ease of reading the site 56

Ease of navigation 52

Documents 60

Clarity 59

Organization of information 65

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 54

Relevance to your areas of need 70

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 53

ACSI 49

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 57

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 46

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 42

Trust 56

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs 56

RSA Vocational Rehabilitation Program

Responsiveness to questions and requests for technical 

assistance 61

Supportiveness in helping complete Unified or Combined 

State Plan 64

Dissemination of subregulatory guidance 61

Provision of effective training and dissemination of 

relevant information 58

Data Collection and Reporting 56

Fiscal/Grant Management 67

Programmatic 59

Technical Assistance 59

Utility of website for entering required data, retrieving and 

revising reports

62

Ease of navigating website 57

Usefulness of information available on the website 57

Website technical support 67
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 164

Demographic Table

2019

Percent Frequency

Ov erall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and serv ices

Strongly Agree 8% 3

Agree 53% 20

Disagree 26% 10

Strongly Disagree 11% 4

Does Not Apply 3% 1

Number of Respondents 38

Job role

Project or State Director 87% 33

School Officer 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 3% 1

Superintendent 0% 0

Business Manager 5% 2

Other 5% 2

Number of Respondents 38

Length of time in role

Less than one year 8% 3

Between 1-3 years 45% 17

Between 3-10 years 37% 14

More than 10 years 11% 4

Number of Respondents 38
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 165

School Climate Transformation Grants (LEA)

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Sample Size 45 57 55 59 40

ED Staff/Coordination 94 94 96 96 75

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 93 92 95 96 79

Responsiveness to your questions 95 95 97 96 76

Accuracy of responses 95 95 97 96 86

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 96 94 93 97 74

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 93 94 95 97 76

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 94 93 95 94 72

Online Resources 78 83 86 90 67

Ease of finding materials online 81 87 86 89 71

Freshness of content 81 89 89 91 69

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 79 85 89 89 65

Ease of reading the site 80 85 88 88 71

Ease of navigation 77 83 87 88 69

Documents 78 88 88 91 74

Clarity 77 87 88 91 75

Organization of information 79 88 88 91 78

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 78 87 89 92 75

Relevance to your areas of need 79 88 89 93 77

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 78 87 88 92 72

OESE's Technical Assistance 81 88 90 91 81

Effectiveness of OESE in helping you learn to implement 

grant programs 82 90 91 93 82

Usefulness of OESE`s technical assistance services as a 

model 78 85 88 90 77

ACSI 75 84 87 90 77

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 80 88 91 95 80

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 73 83 84 87 76

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 71 81 84 88 74

Trust -- -- -- -- 76

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- 76
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 166

Demographic Table

2018 2019

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Ov erall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and serv ices

Strongly Agree 86% 51 45% 18

Agree 12% 7 43% 17

Disagree 2% 1 10% 4

Strongly Disagree 0% 0 3% 1

Does Not Apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 59 40

Job role

Project or State Director -- -- 43% 17

School Officer -- -- 0% 0

Grant Coordinator -- -- 53% 21

Superintendent -- -- 0% 0

Business Manager -- -- 0% 0

Other -- -- 5% 2

Number of Respondents --

Length of time in role

Less than one year -- -- 10% 4

Between 1-3 years -- -- 20% 8

Between 3-10 years -- -- 57% 23

More than 10 years -- -- 13% 5

Number of Respondents --
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 167

Strengthening Institutions Program

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Sample Size 102 0 0 120 144

ED Staff/Coordination 78 -- -- 82 84

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 83 -- -- 86 84

Responsiveness to your questions 70 -- -- 79 81

Accuracy of responses 83 -- -- 87 90

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 76 -- -- 84 86

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 82 -- -- 83 85

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 85 -- -- 87 86

Online Resources 72 -- -- 63 69

Ease of finding materials online 67 -- -- 64 69

Freshness of content 72 -- -- 60 67

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 72 -- -- 62 69

Ease of reading the site 71 -- -- 65 71

Ease of navigation 72 -- -- 66 70

Information in Application Package 85 -- -- 84 87

Program Purpose 85 -- -- 86 88

Program Priorities 85 -- -- 84 88

Selection Criteria 81 -- -- 84 85

Review Process 79 -- -- 83 82

Budget Information and Forms 82 -- -- 80 83

Deadline for Submission 88 -- -- 86 90

Dollar Limit on Awards 86 -- -- 87 88

Page Limitation Instructions 87 -- -- 85 87

Formatting Instructions 85 -- -- 81 85

Program Contact 86 -- -- 86 90

ACSI 67 -- -- 64 77

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 73 -- -- 73 84

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 65 -- -- 61 74

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 62 -- -- 58 71

Trust -- -- -- -- 85

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- 85

Strengthening Institutions Program

Responsiveness to questions -- -- -- 76 82

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures -- -- -- 81 86

Ability to resolve issues -- -- -- 80 87

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication -- -- -- 78 85

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or 

financial issues -- -- -- 74 83

Post award guidelines 74 -- -- 69 78

Performance reports 72 -- -- 66 69
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 168

Demographic Table

2018 2019

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

SIP Cohort

84.031A 0% 0 84% 121

84.031F 0% 0 16% 23

Number of Respondents 0 144

Ov erall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and serv ices

Strongly Agree 23% 27 42% 61

Agree 57% 68 49% 71

Disagree 15% 18 3% 4

Strongly Disagree 3% 3 1% 1

Does Not Apply 3% 4 5% 7

Number of Respondents 120 144

Job role

Project or State Director -- -- 58% 84

School Officer -- -- 7% 10

Grant Coordinator -- -- 31% 44

Superintendent -- -- 0% 0

Business Manager -- -- 0% 0

Other -- -- 4% 6

Number of Respondents --

Length of time in role

Less than one year -- -- 26% 37

Between 1-3 years -- -- 36% 52

Between 3-10 years -- -- 32% 46

More than 10 years -- -- 6% 9

Number of Respondents --

Length of time working on current grant - SIP

Less than one year 0% 0 30% 43

1-2 years 0% 0 13% 19

2-3 years 0% 0 25% 36

3-4 years 0% 0 22% 32

4 or more years 0% 0 10% 14

Number of Respondents 0 144

Satisfaction with serv ice

Satisfied 88% 100 94% 136

Not Satisfied 12% 14 6% 8

Number of Respondents 114 144

Frequency of interaction with staff

Weekly 0% 0 1% 2

Monthly 0% 0 24% 35

A few times a year 0% 0 65% 94

Once a year 0% 0 4% 6

Less than once a year 0% 0 5% 7

Number of Respondents 0 144
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 169
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 170

Quality of customer serv ice prov ided

Excellent 0% 0 47% 68

Very Good 0% 0 35% 50

Average 0% 0 15% 22

Fair 0% 0 3% 4

Number of Respondents 0 144

Receiv ed consistent information from the program office

Received consistent information from the program office 82% 94 88% 126

Did not receive consistent information from the program office 18% 20 13% 18

Number of Respondents 114 144
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 171

Student Support and Academic Enrichment

Score Table

2018 2019

Sample Size 31 22

ED Staff/Coordination 69 62

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 77 68

Responsiveness to your questions 70 54

Accuracy of responses 81 69

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 76 69

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

Online Resources 64 60

Ease of finding materials online 61 60

Freshness of content 63 54

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 62 60

Ease of reading the site 67 69

Ease of navigation 64 61

Documents 64 69

Clarity 66 74

Organization of information 69 73

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 61 66

Relevance to your areas of need 65 73

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 60 57

OESE's Technical Assistance 62 53

Effectiveness of OESE in helping you learn to implement 

grant programs 66 58

Usefulness of OESE`s technical assistance services as a 

model 55 48

ACSI 56 51

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 61 56

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 52 47

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 54 51

Trust -- 61

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- 61

Student Support and Academic Enrichment

Responsiveness in answering questions 59 51

Knowledge of technical material 65 61

Meeting program compliance requirements 63 54

Website 62 57

Products 58 56

Clarity of communication -- 58

Professionalism -- 82
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 172

Demographic Table

2018 2019

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Ov erall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and serv ices

Strongly Agree 6% 2 9% 2

Agree 68% 21 68% 15

Disagree 10% 3 18% 4

Strongly Disagree 13% 4 5% 1

Does Not Apply 3% 1 0% 0

Number of Respondents 31 22

Job role

Project or State Director -- -- 86% 19

School Officer -- -- 0% 0

Grant Coordinator -- -- 14% 3

Superintendent -- -- 0% 0

Business Manager -- -- 0% 0

Other -- -- 0% 0

Number of Respondents --

Length of time in role

Less than one year -- -- 9% 2

Between 1-3 years -- -- 59% 13

Between 3-10 years -- -- 27% 6

More than 10 years -- -- 5% 1

Number of Respondents --
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 173

Supporting Effective Educator Development Program

Score Table

2019

Sample Size 14

ED Staff/Coordination 80

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 85

Responsiveness to your questions 72

Accuracy of responses 89

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 92

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 75

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 77

Online Resources 67

Ease of finding materials online 68

Freshness of content 64

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 67

Ease of reading the site 68

Ease of navigation 70

Documents 79

Clarity 76

Organization of information 78

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 79

Relevance to your areas of need 81

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 79

ACSI 68

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 75

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 65

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 63

Trust 74

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs 74

Supporting Effective Educator Dev elopment Program

Assistance in improving program planning and 

implementation 71

Providing relevant information and ideas 74

Connecting you with other experts or practitioners 74

Implementing a meaningful, rigorous evaluation 61

Gaining helpful tech assistance to conduct meaningful, 

rigorous evaluation 68
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 174

Demographic Table

2019

Percent Frequency

SEED Cohort

FY 2015 23% 3

FY 2016 Evaluation Extension 8% 1

FY 2017 31% 4

FY 2018 38% 5

Number of Respondents 13

Ov erall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and serv ices

Strongly Agree 43% 6

Agree 50% 7

Disagree 0% 0

Strongly Disagree 7% 1

Does Not Apply 0% 0

Number of Respondents 14

Job role

Project or State Director 57% 8

School Officer 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 21% 3

Superintendent 0% 0

Business Manager 7% 1

Other 14% 2

Number of Respondents 14

Length of time in role

Less than one year 7% 1

Between 1-3 years 43% 6

Between 3-10 years 29% 4

More than 10 years 21% 3

Number of Respondents 14
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 175

Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants

Score Table

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Sample Size 50 57 19 31 24 28 17

ED Staff/Coordination 88 86 69 74 74 78 72

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 89 85 71 73 81 79 75

Responsiveness to your questions 89 87 68 70 69 78 64

Accuracy of responses 91 90 71 75 78 83 80

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 91 85 66 71 72 74 79

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 81 83 64 80 80 75 79

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 81 84 65 79 78 80 72

Online Resources 67 64 55 63 70 64 47

Ease of finding materials online 65 59 49 59 65 65 48

Freshness of content 68 66 53 65 72 60 51

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 67 63 53 62 71 66 48

Ease of reading the site 67 66 58 63 70 62 50

Ease of navigation 62 63 50 58 66 61 45

Documents 78 77 58 70 78 70 68

Clarity 77 77 61 69 78 73 70

Organization of information 79 79 60 73 83 74 71

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 78 76 52 66 76 67 64

Relevance to your areas of need 81 79 59 73 80 70 72

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 76 74 58 67 74 67 64

OESE's Technical Assistance 71 68 48 63 67 64 58

Effectiveness of OESE in helping you learn to implement 

grant programs -- 74 52 64 70 71 65

Usefulness of OESE`s technical assistance services as a 

model -- 60 38 60 64 60 52

ACSI 66 65 50 61 64 58 52

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 72 69 58 65 68 67 58

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 62 64 46 59 61 51 49

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 61 61 44 57 61 54 48

Trust -- -- -- -- -- -- 57

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- -- 57

Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants

Provides assistance that enhances capacity to 

implement -- -- -- -- 66 68 59

Provides support that is responsive to my State’s needs 

to implement -- -- -- -- 65 67 59

Helps address implementation challenges -- -- -- 66 67 65 63

Provides information about key changes to requirements -- -- -- -- 74 73 66
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 176

Demographic Table

2018 2019

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Ov erall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and serv ices

Strongly Agree 14% 4 6% 1

Agree 54% 15 35% 6

Disagree 25% 7 35% 6

Strongly Disagree 0% 0 6% 1

Does Not Apply 7% 2 18% 3

Number of Respondents 28 17

Job role

Project or State Director -- -- 94% 16

School Officer -- -- 0% 0

Grant Coordinator -- -- 0% 0

Superintendent -- -- 0% 0

Business Manager -- -- 0% 0

Other -- -- 6% 1

Number of Respondents --

Length of time in role

Less than one year -- -- 0% 0

Between 1-3 years -- -- 29% 5

Between 3-10 years -- -- 41% 7

More than 10 years -- -- 29% 5

Number of Respondents --
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 177

Teacher and School Leader Incentive Grants

Score Table

2019

Sample Size 19

ED Staff/Coordination 81

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 82

Responsiveness to your questions 82

Accuracy of responses 81

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 78

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 89

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 81

Online Resources 70

Ease of finding materials online 71

Freshness of content 73

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 70

Ease of reading the site 72

Ease of navigation 70

Documents 79

Clarity 76

Organization of information 80

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 78

Relevance to your areas of need 80

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 78

ACSI 79

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 84

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 76

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 75

Trust 85

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs 85

Teacher and School Leader Incentiv e Grants

Assistance in improving program planning and 

implementation 72

Providing relevant information and ideas 72

Connecting you with other experts or practitioners 78

Relevant knowledge of program activities 73

Quality and helpfulness of communication 75
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 178

Demographic Table

2019

Percent Frequency

Formula v s Discretionary

Formula 0% 0

Discretionary 100% 19

Number of Respondents 19

TIFTSL Cohort

TIF 5 61% 11

TSL 39% 7

Number of Respondents 18

Ov erall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and serv ices

Strongly Agree 37% 7

Agree 58% 11

Disagree 5% 1

Strongly Disagree 0% 0

Does Not Apply 0% 0

Number of Respondents 19

Job role

Project or State Director 58% 11

School Officer 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 37% 7

Superintendent 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0

Other 5% 1

Number of Respondents 19

Length of time in role

Less than one year 5% 1

Between 1-3 years 53% 10

Between 3-10 years 37% 7

More than 10 years 5% 1

Number of Respondents 19
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 179

Appendix C: 

Verbatim Responses by Program
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 180

U.S. Department of Education

Grantee Satisfaction Survey 2019

Verbatim Comments

The comments reported in this section have been edited so that identifying information and names of 

individuals given in comments have been omitted.

Adult Education and Family Literacy to State Directors of Ad

CORE QUESTIONS

Q13. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

It needs to be organized by content area. IELCE, IET, Allowable costs, Procurement, etc.

Overall excellent

Organization. Large Topics -sub topics. Better search capability.

The search feature needs to have more capability when attempting to find items or guidance.

The website is sufficient for my needs. There is always an opportunity to improve user interface and user 

experience, including video snapshots of news and information.

I think it's already pretty user friendly. The 'what's new' section isn't updated very frequently and has old stuff. 

Also there are some broken links occasionally.

Clarity on various approvals and programs Less busy/wordy

More subject search responsive.

Give training on how it is set up and ways to navigate this site. Especially add this to the New Directors training.

It would be helpful to have links to the NRS website and other places where materials from State Directors' 

meetings and other trainings are housed. (Much like NASDAE posts everything from the NTI.)

None. It is pretty user friendly.

Almost anything will help. Very pleased to learn about proposed website changes.

There is too much information and text.

The Virginia staff have experienced high-quality technical assistance in all service areas. Continue to maintain 

awareness of best practices across the region and country.

Continue to share relevant federal grants administration data with states.
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 181

Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education State Directors

CORE QUESTIONS

Q13. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Make it user friendly by ensuring that current topics are easily accessible and available in less than three 'clicks'.

There is a lot of useful and important information - I think the website is fine. It is making sure the users (me) 

think and search in the same terminology that you use.

Nothing to recommend in this area.

Not always clear in answers esp with Perkins V guidance

Keep up the good work!

N/A

No suggestions

It would be helpful if they posted current state data in a more timely manner

Difficult to find public comment documents and resources, needs to be more clear

the RTI site is quite good, hope that is what you are asking about...dont use ed.gov

Don't know, because I am not a web developer. I should be able to type any Perkins grant term and get a 

response.

Make it easier to find relevant content. The navigation is tough to get to programs you want, and then often, 

what you need is not there.

I can't think of anything.

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

PERK3. In evaluating the usefulness of the Perkins Collaborative Research Network (PCRN), on a 

scale of 1 – 10, where 1 is poor and 10 is excellent, please rate the usefulness of PCRN. Please 

elaborate on your response if there is a particular aspect of PCRN you want to address.

I find the PCRN easy to use and very useful.

NA

Is not used frequently

the data explorer is a great tool; the webinars have helped new staff,
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 182

National Professional Development Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q13. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Please keep things updated. If a report changes (such as adding a new question to G5 that apparently we did 

not need to answer but sent our team into a week of panic), please post NEW and UPDATED instructions. At the 

very least, please let the program officer know (she was also confused). But overall, what I find on the ED site is 

either difficult to find or what I find seems to be several years old.

The Clearinghouse (NCELA) website could be updated more regularly. I have had success with the Manhatten 

group working with the KMS for quarterly reporting--they are resoureceful, professional, and friendly.

The websites for quarterly and annual reporting (KMS and G5) are clunky and often slow. For the KMS site, it is 

sometimes unclear how to report the numbers. In the past, once we enter some items in draft form and 

wanted to revise before submitting, we had to call a KMS customer rep to do this for us. Both websites are 

generally slow and difficult to navigate.

Offer the most recent statistics for ELs and bilingual students in the U.S. with the references.

Make it more intuitive

Some of the information is outdated and some items are hard to find.

I am not a website expert. From my professor perspective, its just fine.

Ease of navigation can always be streamlined.

Looked for abstracts for prior grants.... hard to find and is incomplete. Looked fir basic info on EL demographics 

- couldn't find.

Improve navigation, narrow down topics.

It could follow web design best practices and provide information in an intuitive, visually appealing manner.

I'm not sure. The resources there are excellent

Provide explanations and definitions that are connected to federal reporting requirements.

Update design and declutter each page. Reduce the number of layers to go through to find information. 

Update with news and announcements more frequently. Regular features on NPD projects (on a rotating basis) 

would be a nice addition, and would show others who visit the site that we're actually doing this work (and not 

just that we were awarded the funds for it).

I am generally OK with it and it does generally work for me quite well. I didn't use it much at first, but now 

return to it more frequently.

Website seems fine. I have more difficulty getting communications directly

I appreciate having copies of successful grant applications available.

I often find it easier to google the specific information I want to find versus going to the OELA website to find it. 

For example, getting the staff directory is easier if I simply search 'OELA staff directory' or 'NPD staff directory' 

rather than going to the website directly. It would also be helpful of OELA had a page with different headers 

from the Dept. of Education, as the needs of those seeking information on student loans, for example, is likely 

quite different from the information that grantees, grant seekers, and educators are trying to find when 

navigating to the OELA and/or NPD page.

Have a place specific to NPD grantees with updates and info such as deadlines, calendars, etc.

No suggestions

N/A

Have had difficulty logging in to G5.Gov for Annual Performance Report. Problem solved quickly. However, 

major problem with Knowledge Mgmt System. Have still not been able to upload accurate budget figures.

Seems like it requires more clicks than necessary to locate resources on the site. Maybe simplifying the number 

of pages connected to OELA's main would help.

I think it is about the look of the site, the searchability of the site, and intuitive nature. I just think it needs an 

upgrade.
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 183

-

None

Q36. Other (please specify): Which of the following best describes your job role?

Project Director

University faculty

Project Investigator

PI/Professor

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

NPD11. What, if any, improvements have you seen in OELA over the last year?

None observed.

I think that the budget mechanism for the KMS site could be more user-friendly as you must take your overall 

budget and deduct and add to come up with the a ccurate numbers. They should have a calculation allowing 

you to enter your last year, new year, new expenditures, projected so that the calculation will happen the same 

way that we calculate it

Our program officer, [redacted], is just wonderful. He has the right mix of providing support, but also maintains 

a critical eye. Its hard to improve on what he does.

Appreciate the work on Gifted ELs, the Family Toolkit, and the EL Data Resources. Very useful and accessible 

resources.

I have seen an improvement in KMS.

They are working to improve the quarterly reporting system, KMS.

The online reporting system appears to have stabilized (hopefully).

more responsive POs

Webinars are more frequent, but seem to be focused on technical issues of reports. Many of those on the 

webinars seem to have very little knowledge of grant reporting processes. Many seem to have little knowledge 

of online reporting systems of any sort. Their questions become tiring to me, as I have much grant 

writing/management/reporting experience (even with NPD itself) and don't need the same type of detailed 

information that they do. As a result, I don't find the webinars to be helpful to me. I would rather see webinars 

that focus on some of the working features of NPD projects, with collaboration on conceptualization, content, 

and even management. This type of collaborative time could lead to some interesting possibilities for research 

across insitutions/projects, and would serve to advance our field and the NPD program itself. Some such 

webinars might be optional--and might focus on just one type of project component. The program officers 

might even look across projects to suggest that certain directors participate in certain topic-focused webinars 

based on commonalities they see among those projects or research questions that might come about by 

comparison of different approaches to the various components.

At first the entering of data on the OIE PDPDCS website was challenging, probably because so many of us were 

trying to get into the site at once to enter critical data. Each month this became easier as me and staff became 

more familiar with it.

OELA has published some excellent publications this year and conducted seminars about reporting and budget 

reallocation requests. I am looking forward to the Directors Meeting in November. I have not had any problems 

at all.

The new KMS monitoring system is a big improvement.

Not applicable

Excellent video presentation.
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 184

Have not seen any improvements. However, my project officer is excellent.

No improvements to suggest

The KMS system is vastly improved and easier to work with. That Webinar was AMAZING!
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 185

Native American and Alaska Native Children in School Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q13. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Modernize the website. The platform is very outdated.

Not sure

Found information helpful, and easy to navigate online

I am still uncertain why we are working in KMS and G5. for report submissions. The sites are not extremely 

difficult to work in, however they tend to log out quickly while I am looking through documents or rewording a 

sentence, etc. Just an inconvenience, but not a major issue.

Update links to grant programs

Information needs to be more current.

It is the most confusing and unfriendly site I have used. I don't know where to click to find our grant sites. Too 

many clicks.

I find the KMS reporting tool extremely confusing.

No comment

Q36. Other (please specify): Which of the following best describes your job role?

District federal programs Director

School Principal

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

NAM11. What, if any, improvements have you seen in OELA over the last year?

Huge improvement in technical assistance and accuracy of information.

I have not recognized any major changes then it seems more friendlier in doing the reports.

We were given a new program manager a couple of months ago and it has made a tremendous positive 

difference in the feedback and support we are receiving. I would have scored the services much higher, 

however over the past year, and in reality the term of the grant, we were on our own. [redacted] is our 

program manager now and is always so professional, positive and very helpful.

KMS seems to be a good tool.

KMS has improved, thanks!

Responsiveness to tribal need for language instruction, not just English Language Learner programs.

Increased communications

No comment.
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 186

21st Century Community Learning Centers

CORE QUESTIONS

Q13. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Update information and resources more frequently.

Make it more user friendly.

Overtime keep the toolkits updated. Currently they are very relevant and up to date.

Nothing

I haven't spent enough time on it to be able to provide improvement suggestions

More updated resources such as a non-regulatory guidance.

Mixed messages about old 21st CCLC guidance from 2003. We were told (by prior director) that it would come 

down. It remains up. Not sure whether to refer to it or not. ED has done a better job recently posting items that 

are shared with SEA coordinators on the website in a reasonable amount of time. My score is an improvement 

from how I would have scored it in the past because it seems that more information is available (guidance, 

resources, events) than in the past.

The font is small and not very user friendly. The website has not changed in a while. The content should be 

refreshed and offer more technical assistance.

Current website offers minimal resources, but contracted website is being used in a helpful way.

More information can be available on the web

Provide a direct tab to 21st CCLC on the homepage.

n/a

Instead of sending us to the document with the CFR, send us to the searchable e-CFR. MUCH much friendlier to 

navigate. https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?SID=6214841a79953f26c5c230d72d6b70a1&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title02/2cfr200_main_02.tpl

build search terms, check for outdated links

Conferences, SEA meetings, presentations, etc.

Placing all the necessary program guidance and templates for SEA and Sub-Grantees in one area.

It takes months for content to be updated and included on the site.

Links to contractor websites with resources

No suggestions

Update resources, include legislative updates related to what is happening on Capital Hill as it pertains to 21 st 

CCLC.

Please add links to Y4Y site everywhere on the US Ed 21st CCLC site! Please continue to do a wonderful job. 

The 21st CCLC US Department of Ed staff is the best!

Less text and simply easy to read links to relevant sections of ESSA and the Uniform Grants Guidance

The website is difficult to navigate. It would be helpful if specific tabs were available for after school programs 

or if staff could be located by name.

I imagine there are limitations as far as look and layout. However, it is not very user friendly. Maybe if 

information was provided in a tool bar structure based on content. There are too many links to everything. You 

click one link, have to scroll down and click another. Then it's hard to get back to where you started. Not sure if 

this helped...........just that it is not user friendly at all.

Would like to see guidance on key administrative issues related to 21st CCLC programs.

Make it easier to get to the 21st CCLC page. If I didn't know that I needed to do a search for 21st CC LC once I get 

to the ed.gov webpage, I would not know how to get to this information.

It just needs more information, documents, guidance, etc. It's kind of bare.
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 187

Q36. Other (please specify): Which of the following best describes your job role?

LEA Staff

Assistant Superintendent -supervises program director

Assistant Program Manager

Program Specialist
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 188

Charter Schools Program (CSP) Grants to State Entities

CORE QUESTIONS

Q13. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

The web site is good but could be a bit more intuitive. I want it to read my mind more. I know that sounds 

ridiculous but - you asked.

A common thing I am looking for are applications and feedback from past CSP SEA/SE grant competitions. I 

know at one time, I could find this information, but many times, I have attempted to find this information on the 

site and cannot find it. It seems like certain pages get refreshed and then the old content disappears. It also has 

felt that way at times in terms of historic policy guidance (Dear Colleague Letters and such). I know that we have 

the SE/SEA Exchange. If some content gets pulled off the public site, perhaps it could be moved/archived to the 

SE/SEA Exchange?

Presently I am trying to complete the self pace courses. The site has not been accessible the last two times i 

tried to access it May 2 and 3, and 6th. If there is a navigation issue I don't see any instructions on how to 

maneuver around it.

It's user pretty user friendly.

More links to drilldown on specific information.

so much information and having to search different terms and the results aren't always relevant. Also the 

reading through the Register is difficult

Have a really good search function. Keep it updated. Explain what each office does.

My only complaint is I wish I could link to all of the fund/awards on one page. Maybe a searchable database or 

site. Otherwise, the layout is easy to follow.

I am a new grant manager and have not had the opportunity or need to go to the website.

Improve search function to refine results. Post updates in a timely fashion.

The website should be kept current and be updated regularly. It is also difficult to navigate when searching for 

specific information.

Q36. Other (please specify): Which of the following best describes your job role?

Grant Manager
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 189

Comprehensive Literacy State Development

CORE QUESTIONS

Q13. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

It can be hard to find resources if you don't know the specific name of the program where those resources lie.

I have been able to locate resources and assistance without difficulty. When I have used the help/support, I 

have received excellent support.

None

I have no problem with the website.

The website for the grant is organized well. Pretty easy to get to where we need to go without too many clicks. 

The Department website as a whole is more clunky-takes many clicks to get where you need to know.
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 190

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

SR9. What technical assistance topics can the SRCL program provide during meetings and SRCL 

Communities of Practice events to support the states more effectively?

The TA assigned to my state has not provided high-quality assistance. When we attend other TA CoPs, they are 

much more effective.

Early Learning Evidence Based literacy instruction and assessment

Our current TA provider is exceptional. Our calls are meaningful and we receive support as needed in a timely 

fashion.

Our CoPs provide examples and evidence-based practices for several topic areas. These are much appreciated!

Clarification response on Questions

we are still struggling with how to insist on evidence-based practices in a local control state. I think this is a topic 

plaguing many of us.

more information on adolescent literacy supports
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 191

Demonstration Grants for Indian Children/Special Projects for Indian 

Children

CORE QUESTIONS

Q13. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Grantee should only receive direct accurate information from their assigned FPO. Multiple emails from 

different persons are confusing. Mid-year APR put the grantee in a difficult situation having to predict meeting 

yearly goals and objectives.

With accurate and up-to-date information and contacts.

It is the most cumbersome site. It doesn't point to grantee information on the front page. You must click 

numerous times to get anywhere that grantees need. Put a hyperlink please.

Ensure all forms that need to be submitted for Annual performance reports are accessible in the reporting 

section. Make sure directions are clear for annual performance reports and all other required reporting. Make 

sure program coordinator information is accurate.

Continuous updates

I have mostly used the department's technical assistance provider cOp website for assistance in grant 

operations. I used the department's website while writing the grant, but that was over a year ago.

Ensure that all information is up to date and corresponds with information received with grant applications.

The website is easy to maneuver and can easily find what you need. Just takes a little time to get used to as you 

would with any kind of changes. Great job...

Updated information. Post upcoming training that would benefit effective program evaluation. More 

explanation of how to report GPRA measure on Annual Report.

The website is good as is.

n/a

The links work quite well, and that is how I normally access wha t I need to get. There is a lot to read to get to 

the links, so maybe streamline that somehow. The navigation boxes off to the side are very helpful as is.

I have not suggestions on this at this time

No recommendations.

I find it somewhat busy and visually cluttered.

Please make a separate section for OIE with all the links available and easy to use. Update regularly contacts and 

upcoming information.

Perhaps separating the programs within the website so it is apparent when you get to the website that you are 

indeed accessing the appropriate information. The website is not user friendly and not easy to navigate.

I haven't used the website.

The site is clean- cut and concise. It's easy to navigate and find information.

As an example of how 'unfresh' the Office of Indian Education Demonstration grant page is, on the Legislation, 

Regulations, and Guidance page the Notice of Inviting Applications is from April of 2015. Most of the items on 

the Resource page are from 2015, and it refers to Title VII, not Title VI. In the Key Staff directory, our previous 

program officer [redacted] is listed, and our current one [redacted] is not -so this has dated information as well. 

The Performance Plan page has 2009 as the most recent information. Has the Performance Plan been updated 

since then? You would think it would have been updated in 10 years time. The Awards page hasn't been 

updated since 2016. The Funding Status page hasn't been updated since 2017. These examples are just what is 

seen on the website. With regards to knowledge, the former Program Officer [redacted] told us we had to go 

out to bid on contracts with our grant consortium partners -the co-applicants of the grant who were LEAs. 

There is only one Humboldt County Office of Education, and one School District serving the high schools in our 

grant program, yet she insisted we go through a formal bidding process when these contracts were with our coapplicants, as if there was another school district serving our schools, or another office of education. That email 

debate delayed our project three months. So, no, information provided by staff was NOT good. [redacted] is 

MUCH better, more responsive, and less antagonistic than [redacted] who was impatient and hostile with our 
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 192

Program Director on the phone, sighing heavily each time a question was asked. Thank you for this opportunity 

to provide feedback on the Office of Indian Education. We are very pleased with our new Program Officer and 

look forward to working with her.

Have up to date contact information for employees.

There are some missing links for some items

Layout the information by grant/program with specific related information/resources.

Provide correct reporting dates. Do not do updates during hi volume access times necessary for getting 

information on reporting.

What I was looking for was how to acknowledge OIE on outreach materials. I think it would be very helpful if 

you organized your site (with regard to this particular grant) in a clear and lineal search pattern, e.g. Dept. of 

Ed/OIE/grants/Indian Demo Grant. On that page, in addition to general info about that grant program, I would 

ask if the site visitor is a current grantee or a potential applicant. The next window would have search options 

such as: Acknowledgement Requirements/Forms/Reporting requirements/Upcoming dates (meetings, 

conferences, report deadlines, etc.)/Contact info.

I'm not sure what I would say to how to improve it, but it had a steep learning curve for me. It was hard to 

know where to look for what I was searching for.

Do not use it much.

I a OK with the site as it is now. Nothing I think needs a major overhaul.

Q36. Other (please specify): Which of the following best describes your job role?

Director of Education
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 193

Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q13. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

I have not used the website recently because it is not easy to navigate.

Please add links to NCHE and NAECHY sites everywhere on the US Ed 21st CCLC site! Please continue to do a 

wonderful job. The 'Education for Homeless Children and Youth' US Department of Ed staff is the best!

Why can't I have direct access to my federal program manager? I feel positive that he knows the program 

better than the person I have to go through who will determine who I can talk to/what I need. I have been in 

this position for several years - I already know what I need and who can help me. I will use the resources that I 

already know and trust - not this system. What are you guys thinking?? Sorry...

Easier navigation.

Would like to see a more simplified way to search for legislative information.

Add dates of items posted More clearly labeled content Back button

It is too convoluted. It's hard to use the search engine and even harder to find what I'm looking for.

n/a

More user friendly to navigate to various programs.

nothing comes to mind

It would be most helpful to include more up-to-date information on monitoring and prior monitoring reports to 

ensure improvement for programs across the nation.

search option does not bring up most relevant, recent links

Text is too small and navigation is confusing so I avoid this website.

Remove all your old links. 90% of the time when I do a google search for something, the link is to an old link 

from your website. It gets frustrating, so I end up using other sources to find the information I need.

Post a copy of Title IX, Part A on the site. If it is there, I cannot find it. It was reauthorized in 2015 and yet, no 

copy on the site.

The low rating is not really the fault of USED; rather the change in administration that negated so much of the 

non-regulatory guidance following reauthorization we had received initial access to. Now when you open most 

NR guidance, it will have the caveat on the top of the front page about rescinding, but then it is up to the SEA to 

go through and try to connect it to statute do discern what is currently applicable and what is not. It would have 

been better for me if USED deleted or struck through the parts of NR guidance that wasn't current, or rewrote 

the NR so it is current. I primarily find information on the ED TA center, NCHE, which has the ability to be 

more liberal user friendly.

It is very difficult trying to find program pages on the website. A header/hyperlink should be located on the 

home page alongside 'Student Loans, Grants, Laws, and Data'.

it can be hard to get to what you want if you don't know the exact wording of what you are looking for.

Difficult to find information using the key phrases.

Q36. Other (please specify): Which of the following best describes your job role?

State Coordinator Homeless Education
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 194

English Language Acquisition State Grants (Title III State Formula 

Grants)

CORE QUESTIONS

Q13. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Add tabs for the different audiences. Send emails to highlight new information posted such as allocation tables, 

etc..

Increased organization of materials and accessibility on small screens

List all newest most relevant articles first or hide items not in current year in an archive section by year

The website works well for my needs.

Remove outdated material. Enhance search features. If outdated materials remain, at least strike out 

incorrect or superseded information Where pieces of information relate to others, list related materials

Having one all encompassing section that lists all the relevant laws, guidance and policies that apply to Title III 

would be especially helpful. This has been discussed for several years and we were informed that work was in 

process but such a page has not yet been provided.

Thank you for the amendment to the Title III part A guidance regarding assessment, it was very much needed.

The website could offer enhanced search capabilities. Continue to provide space holders for documents which 

are being vetted.

At this time I have no suggestions. I have been able to find what I need from the website. I really do like the 

toolkits that have been created.

More user friendly may make it easier to locate information.

Very difficult to locate all relevant information about Title III on the ed.gov website including the current text of 

the law.

When I have searched the site using search terms, the searches tend to yield older statutory information rather 

than updated resources. However, at other times, I am able to access the updated resources, so I have found my 

experience with the website to be somewhat inconsistent.

Q36. Other (please specify): Which of the following best describes your job role?

ESSA Director

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

ELA5. Think about services offered in the previous year (e g , opportunities for peer learning, 

collaboration calls, grantee meetings, communities of practice, webinars, publication of nonregulatory guidance, support transitioning to the Every Student Succeeds

There are no Title III/EL communities of practice offered to all states

Presentations shared at CCSSO meetings. In person meeting.

Communication when questions are sent to the Department; guidance documents for implementation of Title III

Grantee meeting

I have not even heard of most of the services above. I attended a meeting regarding the transition to ESSA and it 

was somewhat helpful, but was not near enough information for what we needed. I also attended a meeting on 

peer review which was also helpful, but could have been better with follow up over time as we were working on 
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 195

it such as supporting peer learning and conversations. Non-regulatory guidance is challenging to refer to due to 

administrative inconsistencies.

The Combined Programs meeting was an opportunity to bring the titles together to hear about each other. 

Involvement in NCSTIIID, NABE, La Cosecha, TESOL, SCASS, etc. has been very beneficial to relationship building 

and sharing of information. The collaboration with OELA is invaluable and provides solid support and 

resources.

Publication of guidance documents that expand on interpretation of allowable and supplemental.

Timely responses with examples through email and personal attention during the Combined Meetings--this 

provides balanced technical assistance.

I am not in the habit of contacting the federal government for support but fund the EL toolkit very valuable.

English Learner Toolkits are very helpful.

[Redacted] while providing guidance on Title III has been responsive, accurate, and very timely in assisting with 

specific situations regarding questions not easily found on the USED website, statute, or non reg guidance. Her 

assistance has been invaluable.

The one session for Title III staff that was face to face at the early December meeting in DC.

presence at combined federal meeting

Webinars and non-regulatory guidance have been particularly helpful.

Contact with OESE has generally been positive.

ELA6. How can the Department’s servicesbe improved over the next year to better meet the 

needs of your State as you implement your Title III grant? (Please cite specific recommendations)

Create in person sessions and webinars for Title I and Title III to coordinate efforts to serve ELs.

Draft sample communication that SEAs can share with LEAs, schools, and parents

Webinars, podcasts -so hard to get away for an expensive trip to DC

Our districts struggle to expend Title III funds because the requirements are extremely restrictive. Would be 

helpful to see how other states and districts are using these funds.

Offer realistic program support rather than legal advice and quoting the law. We work with real kids and real 

teachers in real schools. The laws in place should have real solutions on how to implement them in schools. For 

example, topics on ELs with disabilities have been discussed for many years and the USDE has provided what the 

law requires but nothing in realistic solutions as to how to identify, serve, or exit them. When we create laws, 

we need to be able to implement them as well. I realize this is monumentally challenging, but extremely 

important! It's easy to pass laws when you don't have to deal with how they are implemented or enforced. 

Offer more opportunities for states to get together for networking and peer learning. Communities of Practice 

are great for those who are participating; what about all of the others? Webinars? What webinars?

Offering a one stop shop for all things relevant to Title III on the web would be invaluable. Maybe a walk 

through the legislation with hyperlinks to additional information which supports the implementation or oversite 

of the information. (Title VI, OCR, NCELA, Lau etc.) Relationship building between state staff and program 

administrator at USED could increase trust levels. More face to face opportunities to interact and hear from 

experts and network. Updated guidance on topics impacted by ESSA (foreign exchange students, family 

engagement, clarification on the changed in direct and indirect costs and help communicating to finance, etc.) 

.

Would need more guidance in topics related to Section 1.4: -Supporting the development and implementation 

of pre-school programs -Offering programs to help ELs achieve success in post-secondary education -

Improving instruction of ELs with disabilities -Providing recognition, which may include providing financial 

awards, to recipients of subgrants under section 3115 that have significantly improved the achievement and 

progress of ELs Thank you!

Continuing to keep up with the changes is a huge challenge, thanks for doing your best!
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 196

I just need to reach out more because I have never made contact

Title III specific webinars.

Continue with timely and accurate responses when a question is posed. This has been instrumental in assisting 

districts with situations that I have been unable to find in statute or non reg guidance.

Having a resource for new Title III Directors on a timeline for what needs to be accomplished with links to 

resources for those tasks.

Need resources and face to face training, peer structure, feedback from field. Use OME as a model for service.

The reorganization of the OESE has weakened a system that was going well.
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 197

Grants for State Assessments

CORE QUESTIONS

Q13. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

It really wasn't too bad once you got in and had to use it more than a few times. On ce you enter the site, 

finding your grant required knowing the DUNS# (LONG NUMBER) or other complicated identifiers--which was 

cumbersome. HOWEVER, it is understandable that this would be the case on a FEDERAL DATABASE. Once you 

were into your personal file set, the site was fairly user friendly and intuitive. It was a matter of using the tools 

often vs. 'stopping in' to do something after having been away for a long time and trying to remember what you 

were supposed to do. Familiarity is key, and honestly, that isn't the 'site's' fault.

Since there is so much information and it is not always clear how to navigate, a really good search capability that 

allows us to go right to documents needed without navigating is helpful.

Having a clear link off of the main ESSA page would be very helpful.

Structure with the end user in mind -specifically, order of items, tasks, information and resources should flow 

for the end user.

The layout of the website and the navigation could be vastly improved through a new UI/UX design. Currently, 

it is very reminiscent of Web 1.0 interfaces.

Please include Title IV information on the website and provide internal coherence to access all titles (Title I - Part 

C, part D.)

I went to locate 'required federal assessed subjects areas for students' found an FAQ page, and there was no 

question on which subjects areas were required to be assessed. This portion could be more public friednly so 

the state can direct stakeholders to source inforation for commonly asked quesitons.

From main pages, I frequently have to make too many clicks to get to the desired information. For that reason, I 

shutter to think what the impact would be if I lost my bookmarks.

no suggestions at this time

Website has a great look and user experience is very positive...maybe include an optional navigation panel but 

not really necessary

I have not found a way to get to the Standards, Assessment, and Accountability webpage from the main site 

without doing a search and sifting through. Luckily I have this bookmarked, but often have to share it with 

others in my Agency.

The initial registration process was difficult. I used my name in the email and it was set up using my full name. I 

had to have my password reset before I could get into the site initially. I was able to find the documents 

needed for the grant once I got into the system.

I find most items by googling...I do not navigate the site as I do not find it to be intuitive.

Q36. Other (please specify): Which of the following best describes your job role?

Assistant State Superintendent

Directors across the program areas
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 198

i3/Education Innovation and Research

CORE QUESTIONS

Q13. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

The Department does a good job making the dense information required as user friendly as possible.

Provide opportunities to receive hard copies of materials...as well as electronic..

I think by running periodically this type of survey where grantees would have the opportunities to make future 

recommendations for improvement.

Ease navigation. More white space. Design it to be user friendly.

Improve the navigation system

Improve file structure/navigation to make information easier to find.

If someone is new to the Department of Ed, they have a difficult time understanding the short descriptions and 

abbreviations. The content is communicated through the eyes of someone with an understanding of how the 

Department works and someone who knows exactly how to navigate the site for the information they need. 

Novice users struggle to find clear information on the site.

More searchable maybe --the organization by programs can be confusing.

It would be great if the site had updated content.

Program office are always trying to make sure you succeed. Thank you

It just seems like a lot of information is presented at once; perhaps a strong search function can help as well.

1. Keep it up-to-date. 2. Plan itfrom the user's perspective.

I have no difficulty locating information on the website.

For grantees, having critical information in 3 or 4 different places (federal register, RFP, FAQ, supporting online 

resources) makes it very cumbersome. it would helpful if all of the relevant guidance for an applicant could be 

put into a single place or resource. This would save time and lead to higher quality applications for funds.

The website provides a clear map to each section of information. The search features appear limited but the 

information available is current and helpful.

Insure that content is current. [Not necessarily i3/EIR-related, but projections of funding possibilities seems outof-date.]

Have a section for current grantees with information on various webinars, reports, requirements, etc.

I don't use the website much, but the navigation is somewhat clunky and doesn't always seem intuitive.
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 199

Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agency

CORE QUESTIONS

Q13. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Update all guidance that is no longer required. Old guidance documents still pop up when dong a search and 

this confuses state and LEA staff when trying to answer questions.

Make current material easier to locate. I often find myself immersed in old NCLB content.

I'm not sure I know that the department has a website and where it is located.

Up to date information

When using the website, all you get in searches are lists of pages. It's basically just posted documents.

Archive old guidance, etc., that is no longer applicable to optimize the search engine. Sometimes when 

searching it pulls up a lot of information that is really not what you need.

It would be good to have a ESSA section of the website with subsections for each of the Titles represented in 

ESSA. This would probably assist with navigation.

Easier to navigate to specific offices and better search results

A site map might help. A site map that is actually easy to use (most site maps are not helpful). Currently there 

appears to be no organization to the site.

Update information and provide more meaningful guidance.

Given the complexity of information, I do not think a website can necessarily be easily navigated. My ranking of 

your site is probably not an indication of USED specifically. I think it is difficult in any capacity to provide 

information, flow of information, freshness of content, etc. on any website.

Multiple clicks before I get to specific information regarding grants--i.e. grant allocations - even when I 'search' 

the information is not always the most current available.

The org chart for OESE is not updated; with the reorganization it is not clear who is leading which office.

Direct links to needed material rather than going threw so many layers to get there
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 200

Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Education Agencies (LEAs)

CORE QUESTIONS

Q13. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Not sure

It is really hard to navigate the website, wish they could make things a l ittle easier and user friendly.

The outlay is a little confusing. Maybe highlighted or features should be at the the top. Also more news on 

proactive schools and student success stories.

no suggestions

No problems at this time.

its good

I think more emails to programs that the website has updated information and how to access it.

Provide upcoming webinars early so that dates can be added to our school calendars.

I have no suggestions for improvement at this time. The website meets my needs very well.

I have needed very little personal contact, but the online resources couldn't be any more helpful!!! Great job.

More video conferencing.

The login time in needs to be extended when working on the grant. It times out to quick. Also, the list of 

personnel needs to include 'Specialist' as a choice.

I am satisfied.

I don't like these web sites where part of it is managed on one site and part of it on another and you have to go 

to a third place to request a drawdown. Another peeve is having to change password every 90 or 120 days. Pain 

in the neck when I only go on the site 2-4 times a year. Seems each year I have to re-acquaint myself with the 

process because Indian Ed is different than Impact Aid which is different than REAP (SRSA), CARS, Erate, and 

other state or federal grants. They all seem to be on a different time schedule, too. Nice to spread the workload 

through-out the year, but hard to remember all the steps.

N/A

no suggestions at this time.

I am familiar with system and currently have I issues or suggestions

Whenever I have to change my username and password, the program will not accept my new information (even 

though I am following all the requirements) and I have to call the help line. They always reset the info for me 

and it always works. So, it would be to have the program work when that info has to be changed.

1)Internet Explorer is completely outdated and it was very inconvenient and time-consuming to have to borrow 

a PC every time I had to go into the application. 2)The amount of ti me it took to participate in the webinars and 

sift through the mountain of text for such a short application was not a good use of my time as public employee. 

I'm sure all of this could be remedied by creating a more modern website. I do have to say that I ended up 

calling customer support more than referring to all the manuals and lengthy FAQs. Everyone was incredibly 

responsive and friendly.

Almost too much going on...really have to read each little thing to discover, no that's not what I am looking for.

You have to click on a lot tabs it would be easier if it was just one or two clicks. Also sometime things are under 

a section that may make sense to Ed but to the end user you wouldn't know a department is going under a 

certain office. In other words more transparency on where departments are located with ED.

I have been satisfied with the Department for the information/help I have needed in the past.

No needs at this time

It's good!

By making the materials more user-friendly and easier to locate on the site.

No sure; maybe FAQ's reference by subject. I may need to use the sites more to become familiar with where to 

find things.
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 201

It would be helpful to have all resources available in one place, rather than separate sites for the Application, 

and the resources/materials. Also, the number of links and articles are so vast, that it can become 

overwhelming and tedious to try to sort through to figure out what is relevant and applicable. Perhaps a 

different way of organizing the materials so they are sorted by category.

Create a task list for what needs to be done and dates due. The state department puts out a calendar with due 

dates and tasks.

Q36. Other (please specify): Which of the following best describes your job role?

Grants Developement Officer

Federal Programs Director

resource coordinator

Specialist II

Director of Grants

Tribal Education Dept Director

Program Director of the department
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 202

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

IEFG8. What professional development training or conferences do you or your staff attend locally, 

regionally or nationally to improve the performance of your programs (i.e., State Conferences, 

National Associations, Federal Program Conferences, etc.)?

NIEA, MIEA

Not Sure

State conferences

New Mexico stakeholders would appreciate more input and knowledge on what OIE works on to provide 

equitable opportunities to students. How those are measured and how other states manage funds.

State JOM Conference and NIEA Conference

Local trainings pertaining to instruction.

none to date

State Conferences and National Associations

State Conferences

Would like to attend National Indian Education Association for PD. This allows program to see other programs 

nationwide and what they are doing. State conferences are fine to attend, but we tend to see some of the same 

training in state. It would be great to see a national Title VI Indian Education conference.

ESEA Federal Programs conference in AK

None at this time

state conferences

NA

There is not a lot of professional development training on culturally relevant pedagogy.

Some out of state training.

Anything pertaining to Indian Education Title VI.

none

State conferences to address federal programs would be very beneficial.

none at this time but are interested in attending.

State and Federal Conferences

State conferences national conferences

Not aware of any

state conferences and national associations

State Dept. of Education Conferences, State School Board Association Conferences

The G5 website is too busy, too much going on on the main page.

Indian Ed regional conferences

State Conferences/attend meetings pertaining to federal programs.

NONE

California Conference on American Indian Education and National Indian Education Association Convention

State conferences

National conferences as well as local conferences

California Conference on Indian Education

National Indian Education Association yearly conference. Utah State Board of Education monthly Title VI 

meetings. District policy supports travel to 1 out of state conference a year out of district funds with exceptions 

at the discretion of a supervisor who may or may not be familiar with Indian Education;; that may limit 

professional development training because there are limited Title VI Indian Education professional development 
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 203

opportunities in Utah. Indian educators have had to create professional development for educators at our 

expense with little or no financial support from state or district. entities. State provided professional 

development workshops may be a solution. Diversity may be addressed in other offerings not specifically 

targeting Indian Education.

State conferences sponsored/hosted by our SEA.

NIEA Conference, NC Indian Unity Conference, attend NC State Advisory Council on Indian Education meetings 

and/or workshops/summits. The district's ED Camp Equity Conference.

Bureau of Indian Education Summer Conference International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) 

Conference

NJOM and State JOM

IEFG9. Over the next year, what can OIE do to better meet your technical assistance and program 

improvement needs?

Unsure

Not sure

I always felt supported and was grateful for the staff and their knowledge. It was awesome to speak to someone 

who was familiar with our area and could support me in a positive way.

Please try to get correspondences and surveys to schools by May as most Oklahoma schools and staff are out for 

the summer at some point in May.

No problems at this time.

the only issue i have is that OIE is eastern time zone, we are in the pacific zone. by the time we get into the 

office the OIE is already halfway through the day. Other than that its great

Technical assistance is fine. Program improvement needs are for additional funds to serve the Tribe located in a 

rural and remote section of California with challenges for access to many services needed.

Increased information about the website and availably of information.

OIE can provide meetings to grantees on successful programs and what they are doing.

Improving the EASIE site so that it can be used on more browsers.

None at this time

Stay exactly the same as this year- it went better then ever.

NA

Conduct regional workshops for Title VI programs.

Give more time for submission.

not sure-only been in program 2 years. Will have to negotiate first 'annual report' this fall so not sure what that 

will bring.

N/A

I have no suggestions at this time.

none

Na

N/a

I thought the human, one-on-one technical assistance was wonderful-the reminders of due dates, the 

responsiveness over the phone, everyone was great. It was just such a clunky process that I think updating your 

technology would benefit participation.

I believe the staff and assistance is of good quality.

N/a

Continue doing what you are doing now. OIE has been helpful to me in the past.

No needs at this time

Would love to see a list of projects that other schools/tribes are implementing. Best practice models.
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 204

I have nothing specific at this time. OIE has always been pleasant and very helpful any time I have contacted 

them throughout the year.

Better communication

Our parent committee struggles with the fact that we cannot serve student's whose families self-identify as 

Native. Not all families are able to get membership cards, but are deeply connected with their heritage.

Responses to my questions have been timely and offer the policy references needed to address concerns. There 

is always the offer for further response if my questions require more information or clarification. The offer for 

further discussion is always made and appreciated. Since my professional development opportunities are 

limited, I appreciate the specific workshops offered at NIEA which occurs before the grant deadlines, or a pre 

conference workshop specifically dealing with changes, direction and questions about the Title VI grant and 

program.

I cannot think of any improvements right now. OIE has been very responsive and helpful. Thank you!

Grasp a better understanding of urban LEA's, where the Indian student population represents dozens of Indian 

tribes vs tribal community LEA's, where the population is normally larger and there may be just several different 

tribes. Taking note that urban districts may have some different program needs as opposed to those tribal 

community LEA's.

Have a clear straight answer for the qualifying students and OIE do presentations at the NJOM instead of us 

hearing from Lobbyist
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 205

Magnet Schools Assistance Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q13. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Most recently (it has been about 2 weeks since I checked), the website had not even been updated with the new 

staff. Also, outside of when we were initially interested in applying, there is no information on the site that I 

find useful. But I am honestly unsure what to suggest, since the MSAP Center site seems to be where we are 

directed for most information. I think that things would be more confusing if we had to access two different 

sites, and needed to figure out/remember what information we could access on each site.

More resources for grantees, information about best practice

I am not clear since the re-org what is actually happening.

The website is easy to navigate. At this time I have no suggestions to improve.

Greater depth of information

The MSAP Center website is difficult to navigate to find the most recent webinars. It would be helpful if they 

were organized by date or if there was a keyword search for webinars.

The link for eligibility is a bit skimpy; it would be nice to link to documentation with more details. Also, the 

'resource' link is not hyperlinked.

Nothing at this time.

At times, the directions or content might be phrased more directly.

There is so much content it is sometimes overwhelming.

A better way of searching the site Many items we look for seem to be embedded within the site and take a 

longer time than necessary to search for and find

There is always need for improvement and I see the department's best strategy for improvement is to provide 

relevant and recent research and scholarly articles as well as updated information for all grantees to access. I 

sought assistance with a recruitment idea and the only information I found was from 2009 in a blog post format. 

All other resources are great, but an update to what's available as well as the validity of the information would 

help all grantees.

The website is user friendly and provides the ability to navigate through with ease. There is not much that 

needs to be done to improve the website.

Q36. Other (please specify): Which of the following best describes your job role?

admin
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 206

Migrant Education Programs (Title I, Part C)

CORE QUESTIONS

Q13. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

On the MEP policy Q&As, please add the date of publication, per answer.

No comments atthis time

Place documents where they can be easy to find.

Make the page more user-friendly. When looking for particular information you have to 'click' too many times 

before you get to the content.

My responses are relative to RESULTs website.

More update program material.

So much information to sift through. It would be great if general questions could be added in a search box 

rather than just a word or two to point one in the correct direction to locate answers more quickly.

- Increase flow/logic, facilitate navigation and more updated guidance and information

On top of monitoring, provide time for 'office hours' where individual States can sign up for one-on-one meeting 

time with OME via video conferencing.

Post new contents in a timely fashion.

Resources to improve or enhance the Migrant Education Program.

Over the last 12 months I have found the website improve. It is very user-friendly, easy to navigate and has a 

wealth of information.

more user friendly, more appealing and adding kids and education related pictures

Continue to promote it during the ADM and actually demonstrate new features in the general session.

The amount of information is overwhelming, so if ED can consolidate guidance rather than cite that prior 

guidance is still active, so that certain topics are a one-stop shop rather than needing to access multiple 

different documents. This would greatly reduce the number of resources that then makes items easier to 

access.
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 207

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

MEP1. The Coordination Work Group (CWG) represents Migrant Education Program (MEP) State 

Directors across nine US regions. The CWG facilitates interstate coordination for the purpose of 

gathering voices from all States in making recommendations to the Office of Migrant Education 

(OME). In addition, OME works with the CWG members to gain insight into States’ priorities, 

challenges, and successes.

Given that new MEP Directors come in at various points in time, we suggest that all states have the opportunity 

to join the CWG on any given year.

No comments at this time.

I wasn't aware of the CWG until very recently, and didn't know who my representative was. It would have been 

helpful to have spoken with them as part of an orientation to the position.

As difficult it seems, the CWG leader needs to report back to the region they represent so everyone knows the 

outcome of the meetings.

I think communication between states and CWG in my region and needs to improve.

Setting priorities for CIG grant competitions which assist smaller states with program implementation

None at the moment. I appreciate the opportunity to communicate with the CWG and OME

I think the CWG is a very effective model and allows for efficient communication and planning.

More face to face meetings and virtual meetings. Better selection of representatives.

Provide support/resources to help CWG Representatives in gathering needs from strayers they represent

Hearing from the CWG directly during trainings is helpful, especially as a new director, in learning what is 

working well in other places.

unknown as I am still very new to my position

- increase coordination and targeted outreach efforts with new directors.

Our region is represented well, and our input is sought.

Keep this group going. I look forward to my interaction with the CWG and what information they have to offer.

The CWG members do not necessarily represent the voices of all component States given the absence of 

consistent and comprehensive sharing of information.

Allow more time to respond or provide feedback.

None

Continue engaging the CWG with OME and maybe have some time at a national meeting to have the CWG leads 

meet with their states in an effort to build a relationship and discuss their role so it is not so hard for the leads 

to gather the busy people together to discuss topics on a regular basis.

While the CWG meetings are a good idea, perhaps Skype or other technology would work just as well.

more frequent meetings and creating online group for go to questions

Schedule meetings with CWG during IMEC and/or NASDME Conference to be more time efficient.

It is great that OME reaches out to these representatives to make suggestions and give guidance. The ADM is 

much better because of this group!

It would be helpful to have written expectations of CWG leads. What should they be doing? How often should 

they communicate with team members? Conceptually, I think this is an importantsupport mechanism and has 

great potential. I'm just not sure I've really seen it in action in the last 12 months.

Structured opportunities for CWG members to better facilitate discussion with their respective states. Providing 

facilitator materials so that those members know when/how to interact with the other states to make this 

coordination more effective (considering that the members all have a lot on their plates)
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 208

MEP4. What is the most useful method for OME to communicate pertinent information, such as 

new developments or policy, to you (e.g., webinars, in-person presentations, listserv, mass emails 

to G5 program contacts, conference calls, website posting)?

Listserv and webinars.

webinars listserv website posting

webinars, listserv

It is great to have these options-Webinars, in-person presentations, listserv, mass emails to G5 program 

contacts, conference calls, website posting, conferences, etc.

Webinars, Listserv, emails, and conference calls.

Email

Webinars provide visual information which is very helpful to follow the discussion and understand the topic. 

Emails are very helpful too since I don't frequently check the Results website unless I am looking for a resource 

or information.

Webinars; conference calls; in person

All modes of communication have their place, but I especially like webinars and OME staff participation in faceto-face meetings and ADM.

in person and listserve

In-person presentations and follow-up webinars

Website, conferences----in person

Mass emails, webinars and in-person presentations.

Create a consistent mode of delivery. Clarify purpose and result and resolve technical difficulty issues on 

webinars, etc. Possibly create regional convening that have robust professional development and coaching 

session for states. Shepard cohort of states more purposefully w/support from OME (regional convenings, etc). 

Webinars and in-person presentations are very helpful.

email

Listserv, webinars, in-person training, results website

I appreciate time to read about it, then tal k about it. I seem to need it multiple times in different modes.

All of the above, including one-on-one consultation as necessary.

In-person presentation is ranked #1 and email is #2 since it's not required traveling and time constraints.

email

In-person

Webinars, conference calls, posting to Web sites

All of the methods work well. I enjoy webinars and in-person. Maybe the webinars can be held in smaller groups 

with states that have similar demographics or by regions.

webinars has been great. especially having them recorder to watch later as well.

in-person presentation and webinars.

Webinars and in person presentation. Emails are also good.

Listservs and webinars

listserve and webinars. Always love in-person but sometime that is not always ideal.

listserv, confdrence calls, webinars

1) Face to face meetings - ADM, NASDME, Title I conference. Having the team out available and sharing. 2) 

emails with attachments 3) follow up opportunities with webinar discussions

It's current method, of the listserv, is wonderful. Very well organized. It is literally the ONE office at USED that is 

effective in this manner.
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 209

Neglected and Delinquent State and Local Agency Programs

CORE QUESTIONS

Q13. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

it's fine

Updating the reference material for the Title I, Part D, Subpart 1-2 program. Provide topical webinars such as 

transition, trauma, education in facilities. Assistance with data reporting to the U.S. Department of Education.

I honestly don't use the Department website very often.

What is the website? Maybe someone communicates the website is there as a resource?

Updated materials and resources.

Website is clear and concise.

Relevant guidance is not available from USDE to support LEAs and SEAs in their work.

The Department can make the site more user friendly. It is difficult to determine which is the latest version of 

laws or if any changes or amendments have been made to laws.

na

Upload recent monitoring reports and new monitoring materials. Update Non-regulatory Guidance.

Working with NDTAC has not been successful. Answers or responses to emails have been minimal. Some 

answers even incorrect. The previous USED contact for N & D never returned a call or email when posed with a 

question. Thus far with the reorganization of USED, the responses I have received regarding guidance from the 

new program officers has been excellent. They have provided quick and thorough responses, which has been 

much appreciated. Improvement to the NDTAC website could be made by providing current information. There 

are some dead links. Within the USED website, a more user friendly website may assist with obtaining the 

information necessary to obtain guidance without having to send an email to the USED contact for the program, 

thus providing more efficiency. Overall, I am satisfied with the USED website and my ability to navigate it.

It would be nice to receive an overview of the overall organization of it because that helps when searching for 

items.

?

I havebeen searching for the latest Title I Part D information for 30 minutes and no such luck. Lots of broken 

links on the web page. Maybe if there was Title ID under ESSA page it'd help...?? Include some collaborative 

partner website links, ED Title ID monitoring template/state monitoring results (if they are somewhere I can't 

find them), State Plans for Title ID in one place, list of ED Title ID program contacts (never could find it), etc.
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 210

Payments for Federal Property (Section 7002)

CORE QUESTIONS

Q13. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Make it easier to view the pages as you are working on them. Make it easier to get from page to page. 

Automatic save page in draft form, then submit when complete.

I have never had any problems with the website and have always been able to submit my report. The only 

time I had an issue was the second year I had to submit. Being relatively new I was following what I had done 

last year. Well for some reason there had been an extension to submit the report that prior year. I followed the 

extended date. Well anyway, it made my report late and docked us 10%. I corresponded with the agency and 

basically it was tough luck. No discussion. Despite the fact it was the one and only time. I believe there were 

numerous people who had submitted their report late that year. Well anyway. Hard lesson learned, but I 

make sure I know when the due date is now.

the website is not user friendly. It should use less jargon so that people understand what topics apply to them 

and where to go (where to click) on the website.

It works fine for me at this time!

I would like to be able to print out all the information with one click...not have to open each area.

I'm not sure if the problems we had were due to the site or our poor internet connectivity. We were unable to 

access the internet at times due to weather and the damage caused by the Carr Fire to the internet 

infrastructure that passes through Whiskeytown National Recreation Area.

You guys do a super job of supporting is in the field with Impact Aid issues. We appreciate all you do in 

administering these funds.

I know it's probably asking a lot from a security standpoint but having to consistently re-establish passwords for 

those of us who use the site only a few times a year and then requiring us to establish a password unique to the 

24 previously used passwords can be difficult to track. Especially if you don't write them down which I don't and 

know you shouldn't.

I've been able to find what I needed as applicable to Impact Aid

I listing of all the federal properties on the website.

Simplify grant search engine.

I do not have any suggestions. It is easy to use.

Keep it simple as possible.

In short, it looks like a website from a decade ago. Sometimes hard to find information. It just needs to act and 

look like a modern website.

Clearer navigation routes

Q36. Other (please specify): Which of the following best describes your job role?

Chief Financial Officer

Accountant

Accountant

Assistant to the Bus. Admin.

Director

Assistant Superintendent

Accounting Manager

Staff Accountant

Treasurer/CFO
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 211

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

PFP6a. Please explain.

Webinars were well presented and there was time allotted for Q&A

the website is hard to follow but sitting through a webinar helped me find some answers

Previously the amount of information required changed almost yearly. The set parameters for information 

makes working with the local assessor to garner the information much easier.

All presentations and webinars have been informative. I especially like the semi-annual conferences of which I 

have attended 8 over my 18 years.

The info was very clear and thankfully, little has changed in the past few years

I walks you through the site and how to fill out the forms.

It was very helpful.

Very detailed and clear.

The webinar I attended provided detailed information about the application process.

we were able to ask questions and get clarity seeing them in person.

We have been doing this for over a decade, so we know what to do. At first doing adjustments to the federal 

property had it's challenges. The Impact Aid staff in the past was not always as knowledgeable as I would have 

hoped. I worked with [redacted] directly in the past, as well as [redacted] to get the answers I needed.

PFP8. What additional communications would you like to receive regarding the status of your 

application, prior to receiving a payment?

I feel the department is communicating well

I am pleased with the communication.

There are three federal properties in my school district but only one name for all three. I am always a bit anxious 

when I submit the application that I'm not submitting for all three properties. However, the total acreage I 

submit is for all three properties. I'm also no sure how to increase the number of acres for which we are 

claiming Impact Aid. Recently, the federal government purchased more land in my district and I'm unsure how 

to go about claiming aid.

None at this time.

I would like to receive notification that the application was complete and approved in addition to the 

confirmation of receipt upon submission.

fine as is

Thank you for your assistance.

Would like to have training sessions offered for new people and established emailed to us

Like all of us I know they are busy, if turn around time was a little shorter that would be great.

In the past the payments were received late (spring, six months after the Federal Budget was approved) and you 

were never sure what you would get. Since the new language went into effect 6 -7 years ago our payments are 

consistent in value and we actually received our payment one month after the budget was passed. That is huge 

progress from the past.

Email will be sufficient.
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 212

Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 7003)

CORE QUESTIONS

Q13. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Nothing at this time

Having the information refreshed on timely matter. Having a box were you are able to look up information and 

it is responsive and accurate.

It's a good website.

I have a hard time determining a projection of what the award will be for budgeting. The online payment 

calculator in the resources section is extremely outdated (I think 2000-2004 are the years in the drop down if I 

remember correctly). There is a page with the weighted student unit but there is no information on the local 

contribution rate. I have no way to even estimate what the award could possibly be. There are many outdated 

resources on the resources page.

If one is not familiar with Impact Aid, the process is murky, and the site only offers cursory information. In-depth 

information about the application (even if it required the log-in that the actual application does) would be 

helpful. We also went through our first field review this spring, and there was absolutely no information on that 

on the web site; the only information we had was a memo that came through e-mail, so there were times we 

had to rely on a paid consultant who has been through multiple Impact Aid reviews, applications, etc. to address 

questions that could have easily been answered on the website, if it had that information.

Organization of the site.

Its fine, I just would rather talk to someone in person when I have issues. When I do, they are always very 

helpful. Thank you, [redacted] Superintendent Browning Public Schools

It shows no representation of the population we serve. It would be great to have quick links to other states to 

allow for ease of information access (we currently go to FLDOE to navigate). The webinars are perfect. A Q&A 

could benefit.

Easier to locate the grant pages and downloadable forms.

I have nothing to add here

I have not experienced any issues since I have been working with Impact Aid. I have been in my position for two 

(2) years, and thus far, everything has been smoothly.

Up to date information Logical searching for program content

The State of Illinois has changed the funding formula to Evidence Based Funding. The School District's funding is 

based upon enrollment rather than attendance. The District continues to track attendance for the regular and 

summer school, but it is not required or submitted to the State of Illinois. The attendance averages for the 

school year and summer school year are still required for the Impact Aid application. The District will continue to 

compile the information for future applications. If the application will not need this information, please let us 

know in the summer months that the information will no longer be needed.

you have to share so much information it hard for a specific question to be easy to find not matter what you do. 

I feel the website is as easy as it can be.

More detailed information about Impact aid program and the school District's it impacts such as the annual 

report that details how much each state received and how much each school in a state received. Next would be 

access to a Portal.

By making the look up more responsive. Having the menu lists more comprehensive

n/a

N/A

The information on the website is difficult to find. There are too many links to other areas within the 

Department of Ed that are on each page. It makes it seem as if the links are going to help answer questions 

regarding Impacted Schools but instead lead away from that area into totally unrelated areas.

It would be helpful to have a simple users guide that walks through the application along with the related 

documents that need uploaded. An 'Idiots Guide to Completing the Impact Aid Application' would be helpful.
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 213

not sure

x

More direct links

Q36. Other (please specify): Which of the following best describes your job role?

Assistant Superintendent

Admin Asst

Assistant Superintendent

Director of Student Services

Chief Financial Officer

Assistant Superintendent, School Choice

Assistant Superintendent

Admin Asst.

Business Secretary

Student Attendance Data

Principal
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 214

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

FCC10. Please explain.

I was very impressed that I received a phone call from the D.C. office at 5pm my time, knowing they were two 

hours ahead of my time zone regarding information for the Impact Aid audit. The person who called was so 

pleasant and I appreciated her desire to finish her task so we could get back on track for payments.

The consultant was confusing and did not provide accurate information. Responses and feedback was not timely 

resulting in difficulty correcting problems.

We were able to communicate by phone to clarify and understand how to prepare for the conference call.

Yes, the letter explained what was needed for the field review.

We had to send documentation of the students and the process that was used to collect the data. Everything 

was included in the letter of what was needed, and we were able to layout the exhibits accordingly.

They let us know of what they needed So we prepared it and everything went smooth

a format of what was requested was provided.

Yes - plenty of information

FCC12. Please explain.

The field review is next month.

Had to repeatedly contact person to get the outcome and guidance then the information was conflicting among 

what was said on site, via phone, and in the report.

I am unaware of any reviews as I am new to this position. I have only been in this position for 2 years now.

No communication has been made with our district.

Our district did not have a review.

Did not have review in the last year.

no idea

Was not contacted at this time

FCC15. Please provide any additional specific suggestions for how the Impact Aid Program can 

improve customer service.

I prefer an email so I can better understand what's required from me.

List of specific questions and answers regarding the Program.

I have always found the Impact Aid Program staff to be efficient and pleasant.

I have to emphasize that, while the Impact Aid staff does a fantastic job of addressing any question we have, I'd 

love to be able to find some of those basic informational questions on the website. There also was some real 

confusion on Table 5 in the instruction materials for the application and how/when students with disabilities are 

counted. Clarification on that would have helped us throughout the process and we would have been better 

able to streamline our organizational process for the application. It was also confusing for a couple of sites 

where people are employed by the federal government and it appeared to be a federal building (e.g. Social 

Security Administration), but the property itself was not federal property. Some help in this arena for future 

applications would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

Timelines for communication with audit. Ensure all individuals are trained and provide the same information to 

districts.
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 215

Impact Aid staff is awesome, the G5 system has some issues with regards to submitting through them.

We are pleased with the service level.

More ability to reach someone in customer service when needed.

I did not experience any issues. Based on what was requested, I was able to get all supporting documents and 

send them back.

being able to look at last years application without having to go back and fourth to review and compare. have a 

documents side by side when completing form. Everything I have had to do with the support has been great.

Certify button is deceptive

WE are just on different time zones.

n/a

The person conducting my review was very helpful in directing me to the proper source for our missing 

information.

N/A

Provide more training opportunities for the application process, more timely response of status and overview of 

application.

I have noted inconsistencies in application instructions concerning dates. Also, there should be more detail 

available either in the instructions, website, or in FAQs that could help districts determine exactly what students 

to count. I have my own 'application preparation notes' that I need to refer to each year to complete the next 

application.

I have none. In my experience, the staff does a great job in assisting customers.

Employees are always helpful!
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 216

Promise Neighborhoods

CORE QUESTIONS

Q13. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

I don't frequently use the website. Perhaps ED might consider sending emails when new content is added.

User interface could use a refresh. Also, perhaps reorganizing pages in a way that's designed from the grantee's 

perspective. For example, we were at some point looking for guidance on a particular issue and had to do some 

searching around, which wasn't too difficult to find, but in the process noticed that it seemed to be more 

designed from the perspective of DOE. In other words, the most visible content was that which seemed more 

relevant in the sphere of Department of Education.

Create an easier way to access the online drawdowns rather than the current process used of needing to create 

a new code so frequently

refresh content more often

Q36. Other (please specify): Which of the following best describes your job role?

PI
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 217

REAP-Rural and Low Income School (RLIS) Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q13. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Responding quickly and providing information that allows SEA's the time they need to implement at the state 

level. Districts submit their applications for SRSA grants by the end of April. It is the second week of June and 

SEA's do not have a final list for LEAs eligible for RLIS grants so that SEA's can get allocations out to districts for 

the July 1 date.

The non-regulatory guidance could be re-written. However, they did place the power point about what SEAs and 

LEAs need to know, so it is sufficient.

Solicit the help in navigation from someone fresh and new to education or the specific program.

The website has been useful. I would like to see the website include the most recent updates to Guidance 

(dated) and a means for accessing outdated Guidance and previous webinars and archived resources for SEA's. 

There have been times when there has been information that I was looking for and could not find it on the 

website. There are outdated Guidance documents.

By providing more timely updating of eligibility spreadsheets.

When I started as the Title V Coordinator, the website was a bit confusing. Possibly making it user-friendly 

would help out a lot. Eventually, I did grasp how to navigate, but improvements could be made.

More FAQs posted so that we don't have to ask a question that has already been addressed multiple times.

I get many, many emails about things being added, edited to the site that do not apply to me. I still do not know 

when or what information you need from me at the state level. Put key dates and information needed on the 

website. If it has been there, make it noticeable, since I missed it! I can't be the only one. I try to stay on top of 

this grant, but it is not easy. Help your state folks, please! We are often in charge of much more than this grant. 

Do things and do them again to communicate early with us. Thank you.

There is very little information at the site. I use the MAX.gov resources for this program much more than the 

ED.gov site.

It would be great to have emails answered.

There is some portion of the REAP content that is very outdated. Much of the time, current resources are not 

available. The REAP team does include some of its current resources on our Max.gov web pages but things are 

hard to find on Ed.gov. USDE should try and keep the website more current.

current real time technical assistance, updated Q &A easy to access

To be more specific in defining search criteria

If there was a way to have it updated more frequently and have an 'table of contents' of some sort to make 

finding things easier would be helpful.

Generally, it is easy to use. I might suggest that each page be a bit more streamlined. This survey, for example, 

has a really 'clean' look. That is pleasant. Sometimes there is just a lot of information on the page on the 

website as it is.

I feel that better menu options and links to division pages would be helpful.

It should be more user friendly with access to historical information and allocations.
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 218

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

RLIS1. How could we make the REAP webinars more beneficial to you?

The webinars are helpful. It would be helpful to have the Powerpoint in advance so that notes can be taken.

I am completely satisfied with the webinars and other customer service I receive from the REAP team. The only 

thing I think that could improve them is having more examples of allowable activities. In the past year or two, it 

seems they have been working hard to improve, and I think they are succeeding.

They are already very beneficial

Provide more comprehensive and frequent guidance as it relates to RLIS.

Include walk through of application process for districts - never get to see this, though districts ask about it. 

Include examples of use of funds by applicants and what's allowable and not allowable. Include common 

problems to avoid when applying and drawing funds and how to avoid them.

More examples about uses of funds

I am satisfied with the webinars.

They are excellent! Keep up the good work.

The only area that I think needs improvement is the promptness with which ED staff reply to staff at the state 

level. The REAP team may not be adequately staffed, so it may not be their fault that it sometimes (not always) 

takes a long time to respond to emails and phone calls.

I get many, many emails about things being added, edited to the site that do not apply to me. I still do not know 

when or what information you need from me at the state level. Put key da tes and information needed on the 

website. If it has been there, make it noticeable, since I missed it! I can't be the only one. I try to stay on top of 

this grant, but it is not easy. Help your state folks, please! We are often in charge of much more than this grant. 

Do things and do them again to communicate early with us. Thank you.

better organization

They are fine.

Post immediately after webinar for easy access.

The webinars are great especially the 'What the SEA Needs to Know' presentation that is annually given. They 

are very well presented and informative.

examples and/or Q&A requests from other SEAs section of webinar

Talking more about the financial prospect would be more helpful to me

If some sort of agenda was sent out ahead of time so folks would know what to expect to see if it was 

something they needed to be sure to attend or review would be very helpful

It is always helpful when their is information about fiscal compliance in the webinars.

Expand on uses of funds.

Provide more guidance around the state definition of rural. What is looked for? What are some criteria?

More information about HOW allocations are created would be helpful; the whole system of using MAX.gov to 

get allocations is unlike any other grant and is cumbersome and unnecessary. Additional support on how to 

create allocations and determine eligibility would be helpful.

RLIS5. What could the REAP team do to improve the content of technical assistance?

I have had a new consultant this year. There is very little communication from my consultant unless I call with a 

question. Occasional updates would be helpful.

I think they are doing a great job. the phone call meetings and the newsletter are great. My program officer is 

knowledgeable and always takes the time to talk with me if I have a question. The Rural Outreach office 

([redacted]) has been a great addition. I love the newsletter that was recently initiated.

They do a good job

Provide face-to-face technical assistance sessions at least annually.
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 219

Provide examples of how the grants are actually being used by applicants.

Nothing. They meet our needs.

I get many, many emails about things being added, edited to the site that do not apply to me. I still do not know 

when or what information you need from me at the state level. Put key dates and information needed on the 

website. If it has been there, make it noticeable, since I missed it! I can't be the only one. I try to stay on top of 

this grant, but it is not easy. Help your state folks, please! We are often in charge of much more than this grant. 

Do things and do them again to communicate early with us. Thank you.

Current content is very straight forward.

The REAP team has always provided timely answers to my email and phone requests. I appreciate the team 

members' responsiveness. This helps me to do my job here at the state level. Thank you.

Again it's keeping the REAP section of the Ed.gov up to date. Things like the presentations from the REAP 

webinars should be accessible there as opposed to just on the Max.gov site.

please continue to respond in a timely manner (very much appreciated)

Some questions posed on the MAX.gov site go unanswered which is unfortunate as those folks would like a 

reply of some sort. When others are being replied to it makes people wonder about the choice of who to 

respond to.

Sometimes, the calls do not seem to relate to my state or problems. It is more helpful to have information that I 

can relate to my subgrantees rather than hearing about community programs in a state that is very far away and 

dissimilar.

The application process in grants.gov was much clearer to the LEAs this year. However, this area can still be 

improved.

I haven't asked many questions, but the responsiveness to the questions have been slow.

Improve the use of MAX.gov and streamline the allocation and eligibility processes.

RLIS6. Other (please specify):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.

I get many, many emails about things being added, edited to the site that do not apply to me. I still do not know 

when or what information you need from me at the state level. Put key dates and information needed on the 

website. If it has been there, make

RLIS7. How can we improve the content and navigation of our online resource, 

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/reaprlisp/index.html, in order to make your experience more useful?

N/A

Make sure it is current.

When updates are available, provide them more quickly.

The site works great for us.

I get many, many emails about things being added, edited to the site that do not apply to me. I still do not know 

when or what information you need from me at the state level. Put key dates and information needed on the 

website. If it has been there, make it noticeable, since I missed it! I can't be the only one. I try to stay on top of 

this grant, but it is not easy. Help your state folks, please! We are often in charge of much more than this grant. 

Do things and do them again to communicate early with us. Thank you.

No response

Keep it up to date!

Please update the REAP grant performance measures guidance/expectations

No modifications needed.
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 220

RLIS8. What recommendations would you like to make to the REAP program staff to assist you in 

administering your grant effectively?

Timing of the grants would be helpful. I know they have been working on it, but we still are getting our final lists 

late for funding applications for the following year.

I think the REAP program staff is doing a good job. My program officer, [redacted], is great to work with.

Technical assistance on how and what to provide technical assistance to LEAs on.

Nothing more than what's already mentioned. The program staff are very helpful.

Nothing. Their responses are timely and information is relayed in a very ea sy to understand format.

I get many, many emails about things being added, edited to the site that do not apply to me. I still do not know 

when or what information you need from me at the state level. Put key dates and information needed on the 

website. If it has been there, make it noticeable, since I missed it! I can't be the only one. I try to stay on top of 

this grant, but it is not easy. Help your state folks, please! We are often in charge of much more than this grant. 

Do things and do them again to communicate early with us. Thank you.

No response

None at this time.

continue to respond in timely manner please

Faster response to our inquiries

Provide drawdown balances to the SEAs automatically starting after the school year or June 1st.

Hold more, quarterly, capacity building webinars regarding the REAP program.

Revisit how you help SEAs navigate MAX.gov and the eligibility process (State definition, best practices for 

formulas, etc.)
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 221

REAP-Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q13. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

No improvements needed

mapping system to locate information

It is not easy to navigate. Too many steps to get where you want to go. The grant website is even more 

cumbersome.

The website currently meets our needs.

I like consistency in the websites, where there are similarity in sites that makes navigation easier.

The workspace put into the actual grant app is confusing. Could be much easier.

how to actually access the grant , it is dicussed and shown but the whole manage thing gets me every year.

The people that I worked with did a very good job. My concern was that I attempted to complete the REAP 

application on a number of occasions but could not. I though these were errors on my part and didn't contact 

anyone by email. When I realized that the DUNS I was working under had expired I didn't have time to make 

corrections. I was unaware that my DUNS had expired in that I had several emails stating that it was to expire 

on Aug. 19th which was over three months from the May REAP deadline. An expired DUNS is what prevented 

me from moving forward in the system.

You are going fine.

It's very confusing overall, and there's no re-submit button when you need to make a change.

Less repetitiveness.

Trying to get from one thing to another is not very smooth at times. Instructions are not always completely clear 

but I was able to figure it out.

The initial application process is a difficult first step. The rest of the application is easy to use.

Fewer steps to get to the application once logged in.

When instructing on a webinar show how to get into an actual grant. Every year this takes me 30 minutes to get 

to the correct area after watching the webinar and asking questions.

I would like a way to login and have my grant show up under my account or my grants section. I have trouble 

finding the grant if I don't have a direct link.

I absolutely love the SRSA application because it is so straight forward. I have never had to call for assistance 

because it is so easy to follow... especially the document that tells you exactly what to put in each of the boxes. 

Why can't every grant application be like that? My request would be to have a space on Grants.gov where a 

school could enter its BEDS code and the applications that apply to them would automatically appear. It would 

eliminate the searching for grants, opportunity numbers, etc.

Once the webinar gave the location of the website and I was able to find it, the website was very easy to use

I found the website clear and easy to use.

I found it easier when others shared the issues they had with the program. Also finding our NUMBER in all 

schools in 50 states took forever on the EXCEL form.... I think you could make it easier than that.

Probably not necessarily the Dept of Ed site, but trying to access the SRSA funds have to deal with the 

Grants.gov and the g5.gov and login.gov.... how many sites does it take to make things happen?

n/a

Nothing that I know of.

It is not easy to start the application process and go out of the website and then come back and find where you 

can get to the application form again to continue. Another Business Manager and myself spent quite a bit of 

time figuring that out. Was easier once we knew how to do it!

Difficult to find applications

Finding a phone contact number wasn't the easiest.
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 222

Make it more user friendly and intuitive.

add status What happens after submission?

There are at times too many clicks to navigate to needed sites.

Changing passwords too often causes trouble, and there are many websites connected to the whole process. 

For example we have to have A Grants.gov account, a G5.gov account, and a Sam.gov account which seems like 

way too many for the same program.

Q36. Other (please specify): Which of the following best describes your job role?

Principal

Board Clerk

Principal/Curriculum

Administrative Assistant

Board Clerk

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

SRSA3. How could we make REAP webinars more beneficial to you?

No change, are given many opportunities with days. Due to availability.

Have the materials prior to the webinar so that they can be printed and notes taken on the materials during the 

webinar.

Sufficient

no issues

Whole process used to be simple, now its a bunch of paperwork. Then extended deadlines for those who do not 

complete process. Why have a deadline?

Have them available on line and break by content, access g5, access your area of grant and grant aplication

My situation fell outside the normal bounds. The prior year I had filed our paperwork out correctly months in 

advance but it was deleted because the vast majority of schools failed to file the paperwork by the deadline. 

We resubmitted and met deadlines. I believe that the circumstances under which we failed to meet the 

deadlines was the result of blocked access due to an invalid DUNS number which had expired but I was under 

the assumption that it was not to expire until several months from now based on several emails that I had 

received.

Let us have power points ahead of time so we can make notes.

Use an actual application and enter the data and add to a you tube channel so you can repeat and watch as 

needed. Again hardest part is accessing the grant, even watching the first webinar and the questions people 

were struggling with access and how to create.

I did like the webinar. It was very informative and I was glad to receive a copy afterwards that I could reference.

I was unable to watch the webinar this year. I registered for it but when I tried to log in, it would never connect. 

I wondered if it was because I work on a mac at home instead of a pc. I don't know if that was the issue, but I 

was irritated that I couldn't watch it. So I guess my response would be.... make sure you have a fool proof way 

to view the webinar. Please make sure they're recorded and available to watch at a later date for people like 

me that missed the one she registered for.

The webinars go through the process step by step, just keep up the good work

More explanation of what is needed to navigate associated online government systems would be helpful.
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 223

n/a

One I watched was touted as 'how to' but seemed to include a lot of 'this is going to be updated' and 'this might 

change' so wasn't real clear

n/a

It's always helpful to have a choice of morning. Maybe 9 or 10 am EST.

They have been very helpful -to the point where I didn't need the webinar this year in order to complete my 

grant application....It has become much easier in the past five years. Thank you

Make sure that we can view them at other times if we ca nnot make it to the scheduled webinar.

Webinars are very helpful

they are great.

I would like a list/print out of what EXACTLY REAP funds can be used for. There is no good literature on the 

subject

I thought I had completed submission, but kept receiving emails to submit. I submitted two more times, then I 

called in and found out what was wrong. I submitted again. I was worried if I had submitted correctly. It would 

be nice to just be told there are errors please resubmit and then informed I have submitted correctly with a 

description of when and how I will know if I will receive the grant. Thanks

They are good.............

Webinars are good

I don't know.

SRSA4. Other (please specify):How frequently should we hold REAP webinars?

When applications are open for submission to assist in the process

by grant availability

The attached directions sent were the most helpful.

a few when the app season approaches...
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 224

Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools

CORE QUESTIONS

Q13. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

On the OII page, there seems to be a dead link for office contacts.

What is provided is either dense or vague language that is open to interpretation. It's not enough to provide the 

written regulation -- if it's not translated into what that means for your grant then it's not that helpful.

N/A

Faster content posted.

Make it more user friendly to navigate,more intuitive, and able to click on less things to get to where I need.

It works well.

I haven't accessed ed.gov in years

Encourage State REAP coordinators to share innovative use of funds by LEAs.

Q36. Other (please specify): Which of the following best describes your job role?

Grants Manager
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 225

School Climate Transformation Grants (LEA)

CORE QUESTIONS

Q13. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Make it easier to navigate/search for the information.

Please make upgrades to the G5 system to make it more user friendly.

More info about grants.

No comment.

Websites are always a bit tricky and there is always some room for making them easier to navigate.

Have not visited it yet.

Website has been very helpful.

include links to other resources

I feel the website is very easy to use at this time.

respond to my emails and telephone calls.

It is extremely difficult to just gain access let alone navigate once there.

I actually cannot find what I need most of the time. I wish there was more on there.

Please make a better attempt to keeep grantees informed of changes in the department so that we can plan for 

future programming more accurately.

Have live feeds, notifications when things have been updated and clear headings. It doesn't look live or 

interactive.

The G% systems needs to be modernized. User interface could be more intuitive.

Provide updated information regularly, add better graphics and links to content. This information needs to be 

more time-sensitive. Much of the information is from 2017.

I wish it was easier to log in--much too restrictive

Q36. Other (please specify): Which of the following best describes your job role?

District Director over Grant

Assistant Superintendent
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 226

Student Support and Academic Enrichment

CORE QUESTIONS

Q13. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Material is very old. Surely there are newer references available to be posted.

The AIR website created for Title IV-A is easier to use than the USED website. It would be helpful to have a 

crosswalk document with examples of using multiple Titles and funding sources to build a research-based 

program.

Include information regarding Title IVA and Equitable services regulations. Reporting requirement, and 

monitoring guidance.

It would be beneficial to have easier access to updated responses to questions through an easy-to-locate FAQ 

section or similar.

There are not many resources related this program to locate on the website.

Updating with any new and relevant documents.

I do not use these resources.

It's not clear of the audience. Is it for state grantees or the general public? Maybe put stuff that state grantees 

need in one place and group by grant types.

Create multiple ways to access/obtain resources.One way by topics (allowances, tools, resources, etc); another 

by state collaboratives so we can see each others applications and ways of monitoring.

By making the program searchable by Title IV-A as well as student support and academic enrichment grants. By 

linking to national technical assistance websites.

The website needs to be updated with more relevant information and be more user-friendly. Information on the 

SSAE program and updated FAQs would be extremely helpful.
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 227

Supporting Effective Educator Development Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q13. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

none

I don't have any recommendations at this time.

I think with the recent re-org there some things were not where I first looked.

I don't really use the website.

Make it user-friendly, easier to search. Allow users to add content that could be vetted -such as a wiki.

I think the website is well-designed and provides critical information.

Data is outdated and the look of the website is old

Update content. Streamline navigation.

Have some drop down tabs

Q36. Other (please specify): Which of the following best describes your job role?

Scientist

PI
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 228

Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants

CORE QUESTIONS

Q13. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Make it easier to access the ESEA legislation as authorized by ESSA as opposed to the version that was 

generated by congress.

Providing relevant up-to-date information for search topics

It is not user friendly, all the content is documents, it is not intuitive, and it is ugly.

The search function is almost worthless. When you input a topic, information is returned that is out of date and 

not relevant. I only use the ED website to go to the ESSA page. I don't take the time to dig around and find this 

office's web page. Not easy to find.

Improve navigation.

It's time to provide examples of how LEAs can blend funds.

intuitive way to find material - labels don't make sense always

It is recommended that NCLB information be archived. Much of the information for Title II is out dated.

Truly I couldn't find the website! Tried. Why not just list the names of the websites in one area, and have them 

linked to the correct pages?

Remove outdated NCLB content.

Provide up to date information

Q36. Other (please specify): Which of the following best describes your job role?

IIA grant Administrator
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 229

Child Care Access Means Parents in School

CORE QUESTIONS

Q13. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Have an FAQs section that answers questions about basic CCAMPIS grant management/rules and points 

grantees to appropriate sections in the Uniform Guidance/EDGAR that support the answer.

Key words search engine

I was not aware a website existed with resources for programs with CCAMPIS. An orientation for programs new 

to CCAMPIS would be helpful.

It works well for me as is.

The website is user friendly. No recommendations at this time.

more current information; content organized into sections under headings; more user-friendly language and 

directions; less acronyms.

I have found the Dept's website to be very good in the past, I have had OFSDS Grants in the past. This is my first 

CCAMPIS grant, and I find that the website has nothing up to date. I would love to have a dedicated page for 

grantees, with model programs etc. As a new grantee, I have been fortunate to rely on current grantees as well 

as the Dept of Ed staff for guidance. Thanks

Different links take you to outdated information and then the user is forced to navigate back to the home page 

and try to find updated information. It can be frustrating.

New Grant Recipient-sorry. Very unfamiliar with the website-so perhaps an overview for new grantees.

N/A

I can not think of anything specific.

The website is a little cumbersome to deal with, but I think the realities of security are important. Since I do 

most of my reports by sending directly to my program person, I rarely use the website.

The Dept. of Education grant information should be up to date. When I was seeking CCAMPIS grant information 

there was only old information regarding the CCAMPIS.

Greater information about the specifics of applying for the grant. More frequent updates.

As a new program we were not provided any information or guidance for start-up. We have tried to access 

information on the web without success. We have also been unsuccessful in trying to find similar programs.

It is confusing if you don't know exactly what you are looking for and the exact name

I have not as yet needed to use the website

it would be helpful to have most asked questions

At this point, I have not used the website, other than to search for contact information.

Somehow show upcoming grant opportunities and anticipated release dates.

No need.

Offer an up to date news area around the time when reports are due or when new grant cycles are up for 

renewal, budget cut, or other major happenings. Otherwise, we rely on rumors (so skepticism sets in about 

knowing what is coming).

I am not sure where to find information. For example, I have been given no directions on how to write an 

interim report--is there a template? Where is the template housed, etc.

I cannot think of anything right now

Update data, more comprehensive data

Improve user interface and design. Help grantees connect to other grantees and share project information.

I don't really use the website at all

No suggestions at this time.

Placing colors to everything that corresponds to the same program. To not only find by theme but also by color.

I do not have any suggestions at this time as I have only used it a few times.
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 230

It is not user friendly. It is very intimidating as well, usually, I leave the cite as I do not want to click on 

something that is irreversible or problematic for the Grant. The opportunities I have visited the cite, navigation 

requires too may clicks and some pages are too wordy. While I have not completed the annual report, when 

prompted, I did go in to the cite and was not able to get very far. I was not prompted to not complete the report 

as I had not been a part of CCAMPIS for a year yet. I could not understand why I was told to complete the 

annual report. I attempted to find out if I was invited to the US Dept Ed Conference, again there was no 

information for me to see if I was cleared for travel. It has been a bumpy transition to visit the website without 

feeling uncomfortable.

I find that links do not consistently work.

Have had little interaction with the website.

Better search function

I find it difficult to access current information about the CCAMPIS grant online, outside of the full language of 

the grant application or explanation of the grant. And sometimes a search takes me all of the Department of 

Education website.

Keep it current and more expediently.

The website appeasers to be easy to navigate we just have not the need to navigate the website.

More detailed information about programmatic expectations

Continue to improve navigation for information.

I have no specific suggestions.

The department could improve the website by creating TABS clearly labeled with area Grant Directors will need 

to navigate.

NA

make navigation easier

Better instructions and guidance on what needs to be submitted for programs at different levels. Examples of 

items to compare and review to help in processes as well.

Less clutter on the main page.

Improved tools to navigate important resources. Redesign of site so resources are easily found.

Separate information out, feels overwhelming to read-so many topics and information going on

Not applicable

It is difficult to access the site and hard to navigate.

clearer; easier access from the start

I don't need to access the site very often but each time I find that I have to hunt to find what I'm looking for. Not 

sure what the freshness of content would include?

make the site more user-friendly and organized

I have access to a G5 user database as a grant awardee. I have no idea what I am supposed to do with this 

access, or why i have it, but i do know it expires from time to time. explain the purpose of this website and how i 

am supposed to use it. i imagine there is either a requirement or a benefit that i am unaware of.

Make the website simpler. Too many steps to access material . Most current information is not always reflective 

on site.

No concerns for improvement at this time.

No comments. Glad that I was able to access CCAMPIS via one click through the search engine.

More up to date information. Specific information on how to use funds and receive support.

By frequently updating the website so that it shares: status of CCAMPIS grant current funding; new grant 

awards, APR/interim reports going out, webinars. In the past I have received information about CCAMPIS from

others sources before learning from the DOE. Other sources include: IWPR or the National Coalition for Campus 

Children's Centers list serve.

I think more advanced notice and information about application and reporting deadlines. Thank you.

Making it easy to find the information and the documents.
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 231

Updated data from previous performance measures. Updated forms. Coordinated release of info with RFPs on 

grants.gov

More updates on upcoming grant opportunities/awards. If none are available then possibly a note indicating 

the site is being updated as much as possible.

Providing information relating to the CCAMPIS Program; as a new grantee the information was limited or nonexistent; A specific CCAMPIS site would be helpful. Thank you

For first time CCAMPIS recipients, this is overwhelming! I highly recommend for an informational orientation @ 

Washington, DC. Ex. access to GAN, vouchering system, criteria for proper expenditures, and APR.

Considering the number of times I have used it, which is few. I have not suggestions.

Break up the text-it is text heavy and a bit difficult to sort through.

As a whole I think that it is easy to uses this website. I don't see any issues concerning the website.

Q36. Other (please specify): Which of the following best describes your job role?

Child Care Director

Principal Investigator

Faculty-Grant Director

Program Director

Executive director

College Project Manager

Center Director

Center Director

Administrator

Center director/PI

Center Director/Project Director

Acting Center Director

Director, Children\'s Center

Co PI

program manager

Program Director

Asst. Dean/Department Chair

PI

Project
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 232

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

CCAMPIS2. How can we improve the Child Care Access Means Parents in Schools (CCAMPIS) 

website (including links) to help you identify program resources and meet your technical 

assistance needs?

Two very important things: 1) We need training for new CCAMPIS directors similar to what there is for TRIO 

programs (UB and SSS). 2) There should be a listserve so that CCAMPIS directors from different CCAMPIS 

programs can easily communicate with each other to get ideas for their programs and budgets.

key words search engine

I was not aware there is a specific website for CCAMPIS resources. An orientation and FAQ page would be great 

for new programs. An on-line group for programs in CCAMPIs to share projects, resources, challenges would be 

helpful too.

It works well for me as is.

I recommend the website offering contacts to other CCAMPIS grantees who are willing to give technical 

assistance on various CCAMPIS program components, such as parent support group. I think the website should 

offer best practices on various CCAMPIS program components, such as parent support group, etc.

Highlight CCAMPIS programs activities that are unique or effective; post a calendar of due dates; provide 

information on the data to be collected for reporting at the beginning of the grant instead of receiving it in the 

annual report form at the end of the year; post ideas for 'allowed' expenses that might provide innovative 

services to support student-parents.

See my previous response

A list of frequently asked questions would be helpful.

Continue to grow and fund the program. Building a stronger network of quality early learning programs on site 

on college campuses helps strengthen our voice for quality early learning in our state. Not to mention how 

critical it is for student success.

N/A

I can not think of anything specific.

Not sure.

Assure it is up to date

Greater detail in information regarding application process and requirements.

As a new program, the program specialist should have provided initial information about available groups (N4C) 

and online resources plus scheduled monthly calls.

no current suggestions

I have no suggestions for this question

common questions. info required in annual report. who to call when have questions. info on when should 

expect return call or email...is it a week, a month, never? Website needs to define what each of the drop 

downs takes you too. Takes several attempts to find what I am seeking.

I have not had any issues thus far.

I'm not sure how the website could be improved.

No suggestions at this time.

The best support that I could get are expectations for writing reports, e.g., is there a template or specific 

format? I've had two contacts share different expectations.

I cannot think of anything

Make it more clear that there are resources available.

Links to accreditors for different age groups Links to other projects Links to information about upcoming grant 

competitions

technical assistance is fantastic!!

NO suggestions at this time.
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 233

I would like to know when reports are due - and the preferred format - well in advance of the due date.

Place photos on top of the titles and colors by theme Put the information in several languages to help diversity

I do not have any suggestions at this time.

Not user friendly, very intimidating and questions posed are not clear.

Update information; check all links to ensure they are working;

We need to explore the website further to give a detailed answer.

Better instructions related to reporting requirements

It's not the website, but the emails.I always worry about missing a CCAMPIS one in the hundreds I get daily. I did 

not get one for the interim report. And, I kept getting ones to fill out this survey, but didn't get the survey until 

now. That was confusing.

The website for me was user friendly.

N/A

Satisfied with all services.

No suggestions at this time.

Maybe a training for new Directors on what the program requirements and needs are , as well as deadliness and 

reports due items.

timely replies to email and phone calls. It would be nice if we could have a mentor program person to speak 

with at the college level. I fond my own at N4C but it would have been very helpful to much earlier in the 

learning process.

Direct links to individuals assigned specifically to our program (Identifying what the individual role is in the 

process and protocol to discuss and ask questions)

Not sure yet, maybe after another 6 months I will have more input

N/A

include links to reports, etc

Respond to emails when questions are asked.

I would like clearer instructions for when I hit walls or obstacles, whether i can pivot or change course to use 

funds to support the same mission. i would love examples of what other schools have done. vouchers. how does 

that work? i also think there's a huge burden of this on me as a new person, to just reach out to my contact 

more.

Perhaps give a tutorial relating to accessing resources on the website.

The program officer changes frequently. It would benefit our program if it was consistent.

No suggestions for improvement at this time.

Perhaps adding a CCAMPIS link to the landing/home page would provide quicker and easy access to 

information.

Provide detailed information in a timely manner. Be more approachable. Don''t assume we know all the answers 

especially when new recipients of this grant.

More frequent updates as stated previously

We are thrilled with this grant and grateful for the services we are able to provide to our students. Thank you.

More direct contact with grantees by doing site visits and annual conferences

Resources to provide technical assistance in managing the grant funds. Part of the grant criteria requires 

technical assistance and training to project directors. This requirement could be confusing. If a program has 

never received grant funding how would they know what type of training to seek. Most institutions do not have 

specific training for grant administration and reports

Simplified list of program resources and technical assistance needs.

haven't even looked at it - not sure I knew about it

No opinion.

Really just aesthetics. Headings that lead directly to the specific content.
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 234

No comments
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 235

Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions

CORE QUESTIONS

Q13. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

I find it simple to use already.

Make the website more user friendly.

Links to documents usually don't work. There should an easy access link to the rules and regulations for each 

program. The RFA and application instructions should be easily accessible from the Program website.

Provide more up-to-date information.

There is nothing to improve. It is good as it was.

Continue current practices

Easier to find specific content

The website is quite user-friendly.

I get confused between the G5 site and the Ed.Gov site when it comes to program reporting versus financials

Greater concision in representing budget requirements and regulations.

More information, more examples, more current.

I do not use the website very often, so I haven't explored it very thoroughly. From my limited experience, it 

seems well-designed.

I have not had any glitches on the website.

Better navigation and more detail on the links to improve accuracy of search.

More information and resources. Information about successful programs and helpful data. Also, more 

information about what the reporting format is for IPR and APR's that is accurate and more readily available in 

advance.

I would like to see if it's possible to have more detailed examples of allowable costs. I believe I wouldn't have to 

reach out to DOE for verification if I could find the information myself.

Updates

It would be a nice addition to list fellow HSIs and what their projects are about to encourage networking.

I have no recommendation, we are pleased with the website.

It would be helpful to have separate links to the very different aspects that the Department of Education 

website focuses upon, e.g.,It would be good to have separate links and resources for Title III and V grant 

materials.

I don't think you need to.

Keep the information more up to date

The site needs to be clear and user friendly

The lack of response by the PO has been a challenge, rarely those this person pick up the phone or responds to 

emails.

The website is very dated. Would be great to have more interactive resources, chat features, and ability to have 

information and resources that are downloadable. Really beneficial to have copies of presentations, standard 

operating procedure manuals, and first year materials for new awardees and first time Directors.

Improve user friendliness.

The website takes forever to load - upgrade the DOE servers for starters! There is a significant lack of resources

for institutions, programs and project directors that support ongoing work to develop Hispanic serving 

institutions. There should be links to exemplary DHSI grant programs at various institutions that can serve as 

exemplars for others, current publications representing a variety of sources (white papers, works in progress, 

peer reviewed journal publications) that can serve to support this work and other multi-media resources (video 

vignettes, etc.) that serve as guides and exemplars for all that are doing this development work at the institution 

level.
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 236

When using the 'Search' feature, it would be very helpful to have the results listed in the most relevant and/or 

most current order. In the Forecast of Funding page (https://www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/find/edliteforecast.html?src=ft) needs to be updated, with actual competitions that have a projected date of release (a lot 

of old, outdated, past competitions are still posted). For continuation awards/funding , those should be clearly 

defined and not left without application open and closing dates, and other pertinent information. Continuation 

award listings should not be intertwined with forecasted grant competitions.

Keep the information updated with announcement and less text that needs to be read to get to links to 

resources.

The model of the page is functional, easy to use, a bit heavy due to the large volume of information that 

contains.

user freindly

Create a site map or key to help users find things quicker.

N/A

Provide easier access to a calendar of events with related upcoming webinars/trainings and previously recorded 

trainings.

The website can be improved by having updates and scheduled deadlines for HSI recipients

No comment at this time

It is very hard to find information. It should be more user friendly.

better site navigation

I don't have any problem searching the DE website. For me, it is easy to find information on it.

Several times, the site wouldn't load; the UI and UE are mediocre at best.

keeping it up to date, visually it has a lot of text to read through to find what you are looking for.

often tines the security controls seem a bit much, but i understand the concern.

No suggestions.

pretty easy to navigate and find things

Topic headings are not always straightforward. Sometimes must depend on process of elimination to find what 

I am looking for.

Improve the search engine.

It is difficult to find needed links.

N/A

Keep it current.

The content needs to be more streamlined. The sections are too dense, especially when reading on a mobile 

site.

The information sometimes lags behind public resources.

NA

The Department sends out notices when time-sensitive materials are freshly posted. This is a help. Perhaps 

when there are changes in policy or procedure, these can be contrasted with what the previous ones were to 

give us some perspective as to the reason for the changes, etc.

Update website information as soon as new proposals are released. Sometimes the information is dated.

The design is awful - very cluttered and very text heavy -too many elements to try and read and follow. Links 

and page names are not intuitive.

It's fine.

There is too much detail in the 'navigation' portion when one is trying to locate what is needed. The detail 

should be provided in a 'read more or to learn more' click option.

I think that website could provide direct links to webinars and also a potential newsletter available for recipients 

to receive on a weekly or monthly basis

Display contact information on the website.
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 237

none

In the past, I have attempted to find archived copies of webinars regarding APR submission and I have not been 

able to find them. It would be most helpful for these types of webinars to be made available and accessible via 

the department website.

Make it way more user friendly. It is a mess.

I found navigation a little confusing, but was able to find what I needed in the end.

create a portal system to organize the materials/information by category

Honestly, I have worked with the different funding agencies for s o long that I am used to the websites and the 

idiosyncrasies. One suggestion is having a temporary banner on the main page announcing the grants, as they 

are released. By far the Department of Education grant is much better than NIH!

No suggestions.

Q36. Other (please specify): Which of the following best describes your job role?

Grant Director

University Administrator

Faculty/Grant PI
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 238

GEAR UP

CORE QUESTIONS

Q13. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Helpful hints for narrowing searches. Relevant FAQs.

Make it more comprehensive to include resources related to GEARUP

Make materials more straightforward, easier to find

n/a

Include more resources and a web chat so one could get immediate responses to questions.

I really feel like I am flying blind with regard to this grant and being a new awardee. Especially with the G5 

system. It's cumbersome and doesn't let the institution adequately manage its grant processes. There should be 

a Master account for each entity that can manage the other accounts. I have occasionally been able to find 

information I needed.

n/a

I honestly don't even know what's available.

n/a

I am not a website designer and do not feel qualified to answer. Thank you anyways.

Utilize best practices in web design that is focused on user needs.

More intuitive content

Perhaps update it weekly, if appropriate.

Site is so large that I found it difficult to quickly find the GEAR UP information needed. Possibly have clearer 

divisions by departments and within those, bold the subdivisions.

Other federal grants I've worked on (AmeriCorps) had a searchable database that would pull policies, share 

resources, and provide guidance. It would be very helpful if something similar could be created for GEAR UP so 

we can better access policy information when needed. I often feel I am sifting through very fine print to find an 

answer to what seems like a simple question.

Keep it updated with the most current information that we should know.

Make it more user friendly. Easier to search for things.

I have not used it much at all as it has not been helpful. Maybe have a super user group meet with the USDOE to 

figure this out?

The GEAR UP Annual Performance Report site reflects the following: Fantastic support & high marks for quick 

responses to IT issues; The APR itself has numerous errors on the site that don't align well with what we were 

told was required; the US ED site reflects old data and technology & is hard to navigate around as the 

regulations are hard to find & sort.

The website layout is fine. Typically, I can find out where things are by clicking the links to relevant information 

such as award lists, legislation and regulations, etc. It would be helpful to have the program specialists' 

responsible grantee match available so that grantees may find out which program specialist is working with 

which grantees.

Make Gear Up resources easier to find. Add specific strategies for reaching Gear Up objectives. Provide a place 

for sharing ideas for grantees.

More information about other GEAR UP projects - contact info, project design information and resources.

N/A

The website for the Department of education is actually really easy to work through!!

It just is not user-friendly. The timeout feature and passwords are not conducive to going into specific systems 

on an irregular basis. The website is text heavy with unnecessary instructions instead of having a landing page 

with links to required resources.

Post FAQ from grantees, so everyone can see the answers
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 239

None at this time.

I believe the headlines could be bolder for older eyes to see. The format seems to be fairly simple but needs to 

be bolder to catch the attention of the readers.

Actually, I am pleased that I have been able to obtain what I need. The website is easy to use and it has the 

resources that I need.

It would be great to have a portal where grantees could log in to view program data, budget information, and

have a place to submit Grant Adjustment Notices...similar to the U.S. Department of Justice portal.

It would be great to have some quick tips sheets that clearly interpret and outline things like match, allowable 

expenses and other topics where guidance tends to vary.

One list of all grantees, their award year and the updated PI contact information. Everything regarding awards is 

so outdated. When writing for new grants, you need to be aware of who has a grant and who they are currently 

partnering with.

n/a

Many of the documents seem dated and repetitive. It would be good to do a general refresh of the site.

Better headers. It's difficult to know what the headers mean without really checking all of them out.

FAQ section could probably fuse several questions before searching.

The website is user friendly and provides up to date information. At this time, I do not have a recommendation 

for improvement.

Less clicks to get where you need to go.

Provide easily accessible program policies applicable to GEAR UP.

The website should be updated at least on an annual basis.

Clearly defined unallowable GEAR UP activities and services.

This could be on our end but the website site loads slowly. As such, sometimes I give up and look for answers 

on other sites.

Q36. Other (please specify): Which of the following best describes your job role?

Principal Investigator

Director of Curriculum and Instruction
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 240

National Resource Centers Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q13. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Fewer blocks of text - including hyperlinked text. Integrating drop down menus.

I find the new home page more difficult to read than the old one, due to design, font size, colors used, etc. The 

need to change passwords so frequently is very annoying. I know it's for security reasons, but I'm not convinced

that SO MUCH security is necessary for this site.

Sometimes finding directions within the website takes work. Also, we have had problems with things not being 

changed when we have had to un-submit a report. For instance, when we marked in some PMF forms 

erroneously, we could not fully change the responses and just had to alert the program officer. Furthermore, 

some of the changes I made when another report was un-submitted did not actually change on the report when 

the report was released again. The nice part about the reporting system is how you are guided from one screen 

to the next as you complete the form.

No complaints!

Better search engines; clearer links between program description pages and application access screens; more 

user friendly in general

Making it a bit more user friendly. Not requiring constant changes to IRIS passwords would be helpful.

1. The PAM should be online and interactive - every reference to another document should be underscored with 

a live and active link to the reference, and an indication of where to find the material (rather than just a link to a 

200-page document, a reference to a section where the material is). 2. The maps of IFLE programs should be in 

a more accessible format for reference and reporting. Right now if you want to know how many NRCs there are 

in the US you need to count by hand. 3. The website needs to be more updated; for example, the contact list is 

currently out of date, there is application information for the last Title VI competition still posted in present 

tense, etc. 4. The website needs to be more navigable -sometimes the only way to retrace one's steps is 

through the backspace key. 5. Information needs to be more 'findable'. Title VI applications are not intuitively 

located on the website - you have to dig around for them.

Material about ED grant programs on the site does not always seem to be easy to find or updated regularly. 

Particularly when waiting for a competition to open - as with the NRC/FLAS programs last year - it would be 

helpful to post prominent updates on the site about when Requests for Proposals are expected to be published.

The website is good. More suggestion on items to search would help.

Navigation streams are hard to follow, information is frequently out-of-date, information hard to find, not easy 

to navigate

Provide a bit more information--and if older material still applies (such as a PAM) at least indicate that.

Important links should be in a larger or bold font. Text boxes should be expandable so that we can read all of 

our entry at once.

Don't remove info just because it becomes politically expedient to do so!

Ensure that links are updated and relevant documents related to grant competition guidelines, regulations, and 

outcomes are posted in a timely fashion.

Not a resource generally frequented.

I feel like some things are very difficult to find, even when googling for specific documents.

Some of the resources are outdated or contradict themselves, such as the Program Administration Manual, 

which last we checked has not been updated since the 2014-17 edition. We understand that an update is in 

development and look forward to its release.

Not always clear how up to date materials on the site are, need to be refreshed more actively or dated more 

clearly.

Update content, results available from a Google search, better navigation.

It would be great if the FLAS program could start each cycle with a webinar for new managers to better 

understand what is required for reporting on the grants.
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 241

I was recently on your website trying to find the applications of the 2018-2022 Title VI NRC awardees and had 

difficulty tracking them down. I found the navigation pathways not as intuitive as I had hoped.

Information on International Programs is fairly jumbled together and not intuitively organized. Surely a web 

designer could come up with a more user-friendly website that promotes ease of navigation.

More program officers

While it is overall an easy site to navigate once one is oriented, I believe visual cues could be made simpler.

Adding a section on upcoming competitions would be good.

The website could be more user friendly by improving the navigation system.

Updating the grantee guidebook

I don't use the website and so cannot say.

Better information on travel rules and regulations (e.g. Fly America Act)

I don't have any problems with the web site.

Update the program administrator's manual and make it easier to find. Make the iris system more intuitive.

Provide a map of the information provided, and cross link pages so there are multiple paths to various kinds of 

information.

A comprehensive FAQ for NRC- and FLAS-related issues for current grantees. Interactive, if possible.

Better navigation and fresher content though I am not sure this is specific to OPE but rather a larger issue at the 

DoE

I would be wonderful if the Department could post a list of current Title III and Title V institutions. It is rather 

difficult to find an updated and reliable listing of those institutions and it would facilitate grantees' efforts to 

develop new or expand existing partnerships in response to Title VI priorities.

Q36. Other (please specify): Which of the following best describes your job role?

Assistant Director

Associate Director

Title VI outreach director

Assistant Director

Associate Director

programmer

assistant director of center

Outreach Director

Assistant Director

Associate Director
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 242

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

NRC8. Is the process for the dissemination of the NRC tracking survey helpful? If not, please 

provide suggestions for easing the process.

I am not even entirely sure what is meant by NRC tracking survey.

N/A

I'm not sure what is meant by NRC tracking survey. Is that this survey? If so, it was very confusing. I kept 

receiving messages informing me about the survey, saying that not everyone would be asked to complete it, 

etc., but I kept receiving themessages. Today's message indicated a low response rate. I wrote back saying I 

had never been sent the link and wondering if I should complete it. I'm doing that now, but only because I was 

pro-active and let them know I had not received the link. Communication could be clearer.

It was fine.

Yes

Assuming this questions refers to the FLAS tracking survey, it could be improved by: 1. the survey should be 

administered directly by the Office of Postsecondary Education, not the individual NRC programs; and 2. 

Detailed results should be shared with the individual NRC programs in a clear and timely manner.

I am not sure what you mean by tracking survey. We have the interim reports for both NRC and FLAS, final 

reports for both NRC and FLAS, and this satisfaction survey. I do not recall a tracking survey.

I am not sure what survey this question refers to, unless perhaps it is a reference to the FLAS alumni tracking 

survey? If so, the process is generally helpful, although having to track FLAS alumni from other institutions for a 

number of years who only ever came to our institution for a single summer program is somewhat burdensome.

I think it is helpful.

Unaware of NRC tracking survey

Not sure what this question refers to--IRIS???

With regard to the reporting of results after the survey is conducted, it would be more helpful to have a 

breakdown by Center rather than by University (although I'm aware this is a manpower and resource issue).

Yes

?

The timing of the survey was complicated as it coincided with the end of the Academic Year.

It would be helpful to be able to get the survey data by award number (Center).

No. The expectations of each university/center in this regard are too high.

Yes.

yes

Yes, it is helpful.

Yes, it is very helpful.

The process is fine.

NRC17. The NRC program selection criteria. (Please provide comments to explain your score.)

I am new to working with the NRC program and am therefore unfamiliar with the program selection criteria.

Not sure. I think for the last competition the questions were grouped differently and that sometimes led to 

confusion for those of us who have been writing these proposals for a long time (this was my 9th competition!).

I think the selection for scoring is very clear. I think that the guidance regarding money could be a bit clearer, i.e. 

some schools asked for more than the maximum amount listed in the RFP for NRC and FLAS and received it. Our 

center remained within the parameters of the RFP.
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 243

We are satisfied within our own NRC, but have heard from some colleagues in unsuccessful applicant centers 

that the reasons for their rejection weren't completely clear.

There is an inherent contradiction in the criteria that require the NRC applicants both to demonstrate capacity 

and to apply for funds to build capacity in the given world area.

This is hard to say. As a current NRC I am pleased we were chosen - we obviously met the criteria. However, part 

of meeting the criteria is also ensuring that your faculty are doing things that align with the priorities, and 

oftentimes there are great projects happening that do not fall under the stated DOE priorities and therefore get 

short shrift during the application process.

I would suggest that other sections of the selection criteria, such as language instruction and area studies 

instruction, should have greater weight relative to the impact and evaluation section, which seems to have an 

excessively high weight relative to all other criteria. Foreign language and area studies training are among the 

core functions of NRCs.

I think the program is excellent but limited only in the amount of funds provided. So much more could be 

accomplished with more funding. Given the globalization of our world, more funding and focus is need in this 

area.

More specific feedback on how to improve application, how scores are translated into budget received

There is a tension between supporting the strongest centers vs. wanting to use federal funds to support the 

establishment and expansion of newer centers.

The NRC program selection criteria are exceptionally clear and easy to understand. Moreover, they address the 

areas of interest and need which our Center believes to be important.

When applying as a consortium the page limit restricts our capacity to demonstrate the full strength of 

participating institutions.

Since the [redacted] budget cuts in the NRC program we have been less able to support the core NRC program 

areas of language and course instruction although the program continues to provide a vital support to our 

campus programs.

We were unsuccessful with our FLAS application, and the reasons for not receiving it wereunclear.

The NRC proposal asks a lot of the people who are writing the proposal--we are experts in the work of our 

center and in the work of other relevant departments (regionally relevant) but there are many other areas we 

need to report on from throughout the university where we are not experts (and about which we have no 

control). So to ask us us to comment on things that are not directly applicable to regional studies is often 

difficult and tedious and irrelevant.

The selection criteria are outdated and not in sync with the realities and challenges facing universities in the 

21st century.

I am so glad that there is funding for foreign language study and for resource centers focused on area studies. 

This is a key area for our country and I have been very impressed with how the NRC/FLAS grants work.

My problem is not with the selection criteria, per se, but rather with the way the point system, which is so rigid, 

results in a vast amount of busy work that is useless for any purpose other than getting these grants. Worse yet,

a VAST amount of work goes into a course list and faculty directory that are not even scored! What astounds me 

about this grant is that DoE requires a huge amount of busy work in order to get funds whose use is then 

incredibly restricted, or pigeonholed into activities (MSI collaborations! Teacher institutes! Collaborations with 

schools of education!) that it is very hard to find engaged partners for. So we do all this work to get funds that 

then have to be directed toward activities that MSIs/teachers/schools of education are not particularly 

interested in, all so that we can justify why we are getting the grant in our reports (and do not even get me 

started on the absurdity of the amount of information required in the October reports) and hopefully position 

ourselves to receive the grant again... except that if we get it again, it will have to be spent on the same 

restricted programs that it's very hard to get people engaged with. It's this endless feedback loop.

The criteria were aligned to the needs of our nation.

The selection process is well explained and the points are fairly distributed.

While the criteria is clear, the evaluation parameters muddy the waters, because programs are designed to suit 

what can be measured .

The NRC program selection criteria are, on the whole, clearly stated and rationally conceived to maximize the 

effectiveness of language and area/international studies research and instruction and enhance their societal 
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 244

impact in positive ways. There is, however, considerable ambiguity where the absolute priority is concerned. 

Any comprehensive inter- or multidisciplinary research or instructional programming on any world region - all of 

which have been arbitrarily partitioned for investigative and political expediency - will reflect and engage 

diverse views and perspectives. Applicants and reviewers will naturally interpret the intent behind this priority 

in a multitude of ways, some of which may be discordant. Is intent to illuminate the views of the socially, 

racially, ethnically, linguistically, and politically diverse societies corresponding to a world region? To reflect and 

engage diverse intellectual and political perspectives among researchers and instructors at the NRC? How do 

peer reviewers, program officers, and other US Department of Education personnel involved in the review 

process interpret the intent of the priority, and how do they evaluate the applicants' response to it?

The selection criteria is clearly outlined and available. We do have a question about the amount to apply for. 

Some NRCs ask for amounts above the stated high award level, and we see that in some cases they are awarded 

that or higher. We do appreciate the transparency in reporting NRC awards.

Selection criteria favors institutions that have long standing area studies programs

I assume the competition results in a very complex selection process and there is no perfect approach. As 

would be the case in any peer-reviewed competition, bias, lack of understanding of Title VI, compressed 

timelines, etc., may result in irregularities. Overall, however, I am really satisfied with selection criteria and the 

department does a great job managing such a complex public program.
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 245

Strengthening Institutions Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q13. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Update the look and feel of the User Interface (UI).

Not sure.

It is not very intuitive, think of it from the user experience, especially someone who does not visit the site on a 

regular basis.

I find it difficult to locate information specific to Title III. I also struggle with clarity of information related to my 

specific grant type.

test

The Title III webpage is good. Submitting the initial grant application was a challenge because the system 

required very specific computer settings and browsers. We had a difficult time finding a computer that would 

allow us to input and upload the grant application.

Links to needed material are not clearly delineated.

I think the Department of ED website is fine, the one that is confusing to navigate is the G5.

Make it simpler to navigate to arrive at your designation.

Clarity and easier navigation

Maintaining the site with the most up-to-date info

Timeliness of information regarding newly issued RFPs on ed.gov would be very helpful.

Being a first time user I would have found it better to have had someone lead me through a short training.

no suggestions. I think the website is very useful.

Overall, I think it is very good.

Provide a link from the website to access the Annual Report. It would make it easier.

Better navigation tools and clearer direction to access certain information.

I am very happy with the website. It is fresh, informative, well designed and relevant. No improvement 

recommendations at this time.

I rarely use the website, so I don't have any recommendations for improvement.

As a grantee (rather than just an applicant), it would be helpful to have a password-protected portal that let me 

log in and view information related to draw-downs, links to specific legal guidance, etc.

My main interaction with the DOE is in the filing of the annual report. I found the report a little arduous, and I 

often had to report on things that have no relevance to my grant.

No noted improvement suggestions at this time.

It would be good to have a more robust bank of questions which are asked by the SIP managers with the 

accurate answers. Oftentimes, SIP managers don't know how to phrase questions or what terms to use in 

searches.

Information could be updated more frequently and display current versions of guidance.

Update information provided. Add fresh content.

None applicable

Send updated information directly to grantees instead of requiring a search

I have no recommendations at this time. I think it is a great website and I use it extensively.

Thus far after working with this program over the last two years, I have seen improvement of the site 

constantly. Keep up the good work!

FAQs, a moderated community site for grant recipients

N/A

Perhaps put the information about the security on the first page along with the log-in --instead of the next.
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 246

Works fine for me.

It would be great to see how other institutions are using grant money. Be inspired, learn from others and 

perhaps integrate the ideas.

No suggestions at this time. I find the site to be well organized and easy to use.

I am new to the system, so I think that most of my challenges are not related to the site as much as they are 

related to my familiarity with the site.

My main challenge, and I suspect for all, is the sheer volume of regulatory information. I rely on our institutional 

program officer to assist here, but often need to dig into the website and links myself. Not sure what the fix is 

here, other than reducing the sheer volume of rules, or at least streamlining them.

It was difficult to find the APR this year. The APR site, I think, was separate from the usual Department site. A 

link from the DOE site to the APR would have been helpful, or some clear messaging about wher e to access the 

APR forms.

Reduce the amount of information or, at a minimum, categorize it better. For example, the home page could 

read something like... I am a... (choose one) College Representative Government Representative Grant 

Writer Grantee

More clear and direct communication

A list of All allowable and unallowable activities would be great.

At this time the website is user friendly as it relates to my specific job duties and responsibilities.

Better navigation through website; perhaps an org-type chart to be able to click on a topic and get to the 

answers quicker

I generally use the website to search for grant opportunities. Some of the competition-specific sites (like UISFL, 

Title III SIP) don't seem to be updated frequently. The chart of opportunities from all the ED offices is not 

updated often enough--many are 'TBD' as far as deadlines. Since most opportunities only have a few months 

between the time the competition opens to the submission deadline, it would be incredibly helpful to have a 

decent idea in advance as to possible deadline dates.

I have not had to use the department of Ed site.

n/a

The website is not easy to navigate and is not intuitive for someone who does not get on the website often. In 

addition, resources should be easier to navigate to and have pages that introduce purpose, and content.

the site is OK. As I gained familiarity with the programs it was easier to navigate.

I am a new project director so I haven't used the site yet.

Better layout and more consistent use of font style/size

The website contains a lot of information. The website is organized well but may need to be broken down into 

small subsets to make it flow a little easier.

N/A

Improved search-ability through use of drop down menus, FAQs, categorized information. Also perhaps 

summary content rather than having to read the full legalese.

No concerns.

No ideas for improvement at the moment.

I have found it easy to navigate

It is difficult to log-in especially when I need to continually update/change my password.

I believe the website is fine. There was a challenge submitting our annual report at the beginning of the year 

when the government was shut down but the issue was explained to us with plenty of notification.

When I have needed the website it is easy to use once you get past all the security measures.

A more user friendly interface.

Webinars or Conferences regarding Title III reporting posted on website.

I have not used the website sufficiently to comment.

More sample resources
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 247

With the ease in being able to contact 'real knowledgeable people' the website works well. However, much on 

the content is often confusing and contact has to be made to clarify issues.

Two things: 1) Expand the range and number of resources provided. Even if only listing links to other articles on 

the web by titles that might be of interest to Title III SIP recipients, that would be useful and would increase my 

usage of the site. Examples of potentially helpful sources for such links: eCampus, EvoLLLution, Educause, IMS 

Global, etc. 2) Frequency of new content needs to be improved; often, entering the site means seeing nothing 

new for the past year or so.

Q36. Other (please specify): Which of the following best describes your job role?

Dean

Site Grant Director

project director

Project Director

Project Mgr/Dir
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 248

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

SIP7. Briefly describe the reason(s) for your rating of the above listed post award guidelines and 

the performance reports.

Clear and concise guidelines as to expectations are made by the DOE. We think that the requirements for the 

performance reports are reasonable.

Our biggest frustration with the annual performance report is the requirement to report at least two targeted 

outcomes for all four focus areas (academic quality, student services, institutional management, and fiscal 

stability). Our project does not have initiatives directly addressing all four areas, which makes establishing 

measures for these areas challenging, particularly since instructions indicate we should report on outcomes that 

are 'most reflective of your activities supported by Title III/V funds.'

There have been problems with the APR site.

I was not part of the grant application or the first year after receiving the grant. It would be helpful to know 

what the performance report is going to request/require at the beginning of the year rather than the end. At 

times we found ourselves scrambling for data or unable to answer questions because we didn't know we were 

going to be asked to report on particular activities.

The post award guidelines are clear and concise. The post award conference call allowed our college 

administrators to ask pertinent questions and move forward to project activities. Monthly performance 

reporting is appropriate for staying on task with data collection to accurately gauge project activities.

I wasn't around when we received Post-award guidelines, nor have I ever seen them. The report is confusing, 

the questions don't seem directly related to the work our project is focused on, and we haven't received any 

feedback after submission.

There was a bit of a gap between the award and when a program officer was confirmed. The PPT deck was 

helpful as a starting point. Performance reports are important. Perhaps it would make sense to develop 

separate guidelines for Interim Performance Reports since it wasn't always clear what from the Annual 

Performance Report would not need to be included in the IPR. Separate guidelines would save time for both 

program officers and grantees.

I found the instructions for the IPR slightly confusing for a first year Project Director. The instructions were 

written for the annual report and final report and didn't all appear to apply to the IPR report. I would 

recommend specific instructions on the completion of the IPR.

The performance report questions (at least in the first and second year) seem somewhat redundant and I am 

not always sure what data is being requested.

The post award guidelines were actionable and easy to do and the performance reports were fairly straight 

forward (although there was not a place to put some of the information that I was asked for).

I feel that I am answering the similar questions multiple times

I haven't received post-award guidelines and our grant ends in a matte of months. I also believe the APR system 

is incredibly frustrating and the timelines have been challenging.

The reporting guidelines aren't always clear, and sometimes it's hard to tell if the info is accurate. For example, 

one question asked me to reference something from 2009, and I didn't know if that was a typo or if I was 

actually supposed to pull info from 2009. In addition, the reporting guidelines made reference to 2 different 

types of reporting: annual and final. However, I was completing the midterm, so it was difficult to understand 

how to answer some of the questions, especially since we had yet to complete our first year and had very little 

data to give thus far. The midterm report didn't seem to be consistent with what I would have expected. 

Instead, I am guessing that we were asked to complete the same report that will also be due as our annual 

report at the end of the year, but because of that, many of the questions were difficult to answer given where 

we were at with our project.

I think the expectations of Strengthening Institutions are very clear in terms of reporting the format of the APR 

was somewhat daunting,

My university is its fifth year of a SIP grant. During that 4 1/2 periods of time, we have been assigned three 

different program officers. The first was generally supportive and responsive to initial questions as we 

transitioned into the program. The second one really had little communication, positive or negative, with the 
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 249

local grant project manager (i.e., largely absent in information and support). The third typically responded 

fairly quickly to communication. In the 'meeting the program officer' telephone call, it was clear that the new 

officer had not read the grant application carefully (only scanned it), and had not read any of the previously filed 

interim or annual performance reports). Effective feedback to the university was lacking.

Some Acronyms I knew nothing about and had to go other places to discover what they mean

I think the items that we are required to report on are relevant and helpful in assessing the performance on the 

grant. I believe it would be helpful to have better directions on completing all sections of the APR. Some 

questions or parts of the APR are difficult to complete due to a lack of understanding of what you are wanting 

us to measure or how you want us to measure them in order to fit your matrix.

Much of the Annual Report doesn't apply to our grant. We would have to manipulate our wording to fit the 

specific sections, so we could report on our goals and achievements.

Lacking in clear guidelines and directions with limited time to prepare reports. Also, the form is difficult to use 

and/or duplicate offline; not user-friendly.

In regards to performance reports, deadline, contact information, and email reminders were clear and 

consistent. What was unclear was formatting and templates. I was unsure how they wanted to receive budget 

information (i.e Excel document, Word document, etc.).

Directions and information was clear and concise.

Although it is a lot of data collection I think it is useful and purposeful. The Performance Reporting helps the 

institution to maintain focus and remain on track. The data collected provides insights into the institution's 

progress and is reflective of the improvements being made as a result of the program.

The grant is very new and therefore reporting has been limited at this time.

Some confusion about what activities are permissible under guidelines. Difficulty in matching our activities to 

reporting categories.

I find the performance reports difficult to fill out and the directions are confusing and hard to follow. Some of 

the data being asked for does not apply to my grant goals and objectives, and it is difficult to come up with this 

data to report it in a meaningful way.

I wasn't here when we were awarded the grant, so I can't speak to post award guidelines. My program officer 

has been helpful when I'm had questions about the APR.

I had not known to expect to need to be prepared for an interim performance report. Fortunately, I had already 

done surveys that provided me with responses that allowed me to answer the questions on the report. It came 

to us very near the end of the school year so had I not completed the surveys I took, there would not have been 

sufficient time to capture information.

While it must be difficult to design a 'one size fits all' document I think the annual reporting data and document 

still needs some work.

When I became a new director, there was no outreach or even acknowledgement when I reached out. The APR 

did not ask for data relevant to our project and did not give enough guidelines to accurately collect data.

I was surprised by the nature of the questions in the performance report, because I am requir ed to choose and 

report on measures that have no relevance to my grant.

The Title III Interim Performance Report was clear, easy to navigate, and straight forward in the information 

required.

I appreciate the ability to enter my grant's objectives into the APR to show what we are accomplishing. I don't 

remember being able to do that with our previous grant. However, some of the questions that have to be 

answered are very generic and sometimes difficult to determine the best answer.

I find the annual reports to be logical and reasonable.

The 6 mo report was easy to complete and detailed instructions were provided.

The Annual Performance Report is designed to serve a broad range of projects. Thereby, making it challenging 

to align project activities with the responses that are requested.

Limited experience. We have only submitted an initial 6-month report.

I'm not aware of ANY post-award guidance, updates, news, etc. from ED, and have received ZERO 

communication other than notifications about the APR site opening, due date, APR reminder.

The award guidelines are well stated and provide clear instructions for completion.
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 250

have not been happy with the transitioning to another reporting tool. Annual inconsistencies make it difficult to 

measure our success.

We're in year 4 of a 5 year grant and I don't currently have post-award guideline information. I'm assuming that 

will come as we near the end of the grant. I feel the performance report questions and analysis are in line with 

what I would expect.

N/A

The interim/annual reports are very hard to navigate and are not user friendly. In addition, it is very hard to 

determine what questions to answer and how to answer them. The financial section seems like it asks the same 

questions 3 different ways and always comes out to the same end. It is a hard form to complete.

It was odd to have to change our goals during the tenure of our grant. We had to make up goals in a sense in 

order to fit in each of the many boxes.

The guidelines were clear and we have justsubmitted our first performance report.

I understand the difficulty of creating a report that covers the diversity of SIP grants - but current report is 

repetitive and sometimes difficult to adapt to project activities.

Superior performance overall.

Weare only 6 months into grant and have very little performance to report at this time regarding data 

collection and analysis.

For the former, the shear scale of materials can be overwhelming. When I have a specific question, I need to rely 

on our campus post-award person most of the time. When I have had a need to get info from my program 

officer, the timeliness is uneven, probably as a function of workload on their end. As for performance reports, so 

far that has been mostly OK, although the performance objectives section was somewhat confusing to 

complete.

I am unaware of post-award guidelines (our grant will end next year). The performance report has changed 

over the past several years. Being made aware of the changes in advance would be helpful to assist us in 

accessing supporting data beyond what is in our program objectives.

Our project team was able to easily read and review the instructions and to complete the forms. If we had a 

question, our program officer responded quickly to our questions. She was very attentive and was able to 

explain what information was to be included.

The reporting process doesn't feel very helpful. HOwever the instructions are clear.

We have not had an official conversation about our APR and very little discussion about budgets. I recommend 

we have a monthly or quarterly scheduled conference call to discuss project status. I am also interested in 

collaborating with colleagues across the country on effectively managing grants. I've suggested we have 

quarterly calls to check in with other grant recipient project directors. I trust my Program Manager and 

appreciate her support in administrating this grant. It is my understanding she has a large caseload and could 

use some help or redistribution of work load to provide a stronger level of service. We need feedback on our 

APR but have yet to receive anything and hope they understand administering this grant is challenging 

especially when we can not always anticipate challenges to manage the grant. We are working towa rd our goals 

and making progress. However, sometimes there are set backs that are out of our control. She is very 

professional and I hope there is a chance to meet in person later this year at a conference hosted by the DOE in 

DC.

The post award guidelines are good and the performance reports were a little hard to fill in the first time. Our 

educational contact gave us an in depth training session on how to fill out the first performance report which 

was extremely helpful.

The only reason I did not give this section a '10' is because directors have to input some information before 

gaining access to other sections of the report.

Information on best practices from other awardees is always welcomed.

Not always clear what is needed in the annual report based on the format that is used. Would like to be able to 

show accomplishments and ongoing activities and whether they are on target more easily than filling out boxes 

with specific questions that might not be completely relevant to the project.

I have only had to submit an interim progress report, but it was very unclear to me what the expectations were. 

The guidelines seem clear for the annual reports, but not so much for the interim. I have no idea if what I 

submitted was acceptable!
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 251

Perhaps the interim report in the first year of the project could benefit from a change of focus. All of our project 

efforts to that point were related to hiring new personnel and planning and beginning to implement project 

activities. Therefore, some of the information that was asked for in this report did not make sense (data related 

to goals, for example). This made the process of completing the report a bit confusing, although my project 

officer did an excellent job answering my (and other project directors') questions about this.

The post-award guidance in the GAN was very specific and helpful. The data collection and analysis required for 

the annual performance report tracks our regular internal reporting and is relevant to our project outcomes.

Clear, systematic and logical guidance

New annual report system is easy to use. Prompts for the various areas are stable. So far the post-award 

guidelines have been straightforward.

I wasn't the original project director so there may have been other guidelines I'm not aware of. To be fair, I 

haven't done a search of the website. The only thing I have right now is a copy of powerpoint slides from a 

webinar for grantees. I think the performance report asks appropriate questions.

APR should be made available within 30 days of the end of the current year

Information and directions have been very clear.

I would have preferred more guidance on completing my first annual evaluation.

A number of reporting requirements in the APR are redundant. Further, there are broad institutional questions 

that are not applicable to our specific project but nevertheless require data collection and the perception that 

this data relates to our objectives.

No concerns to this point.

I am still in process of determining what feedback/reporting is needed to 'finish-out' our 1-year extension to a 

TItle III-A grant. Also the performance report seemed focused on grant outcomes and guidelines.

Post-award guidelines appear straightforward; program directors from SIP have emailed information about 

specific reports. I just wish the contact about reporting was earlier in order to have more time to collect the 

requested data. I also wish there was feedback after submission of reports. I'm assuming no news is good 

news.

When I have needed to ask a question/s to our Federal Program Officer she is always prompt and thorough in 

her responses.

It would be helpful to be able to download a pdf of the questions that are in the portal before we start entering 

responses into the system. I had to do screen shots to be able to read all questions. Some of us prefer to write 

out our responses in a word document. Nothing worse than working on a response -then having to go to 

another screen to answer more questions and having to click out of that page to go back to re-read your earlier 

response. Would be easier to know all questions up front before entering them into the portal.

Many if not most of the categories in the performance report do NOT apply to our Strengthening Institutions 

grant. I have to really stretch to complete the mandatory categories.

The guidelines are clear and when we have a question or when we are unsure about certain funding issues, we 

always receive a response.

The data required to meet the objectives are clear.

There was a glitch on openning up the APR reports for the past two years, but everything was understandable 

once it opened. I wish there would be a conference on Title III awards that deals with FAQ, reporting 

information, etc. It would have been helpful when we first received the grant.

Post-award guidelines were clear and concise, any questions I had regarding that or performance reports were 

answered in a timely manner and in a way that was understandable.

Since I am so new to this process, I am not sure I understand all that is expected by my program officer. I have 

not received any feedback re the interim report submitted before April 30, so I am assuming that is good news.

Very clear directions

Anytime I have had a question or needed clarification someone has been able to assist me in a quick and 

knowable manner.

It seems like the workload is so great for the Program Officers that they are unable to provide feedback or 

suggestions proactively. They do respond when questions are asked of them.
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 252

There seems to be a square-peg-round-hole aspect to the information and formatting requested in the APRs 

(though the most recent revision was an improvement!). The reason I feel this way is that many of the questions 

read like what one would expect to see in an APR for a research grant in the sciences, whereas our grant ---

while certainly including aspects of research to determine our effectiveness in providing the services which the 

grant supports ---requires much more performance reporting as opposed to research findings. Consequently, it 

sometimes feels we can't adequately share the success we're having because the success criteria are skewed 

toward research results. One thing that helped in this regard, though, in the most recent APR update, is the 

ability to upload attachments where these things can be shared. I hope the attachments are actually considered 

and examined as they were definitely the best way for us to share about our success in the most recent APR.

Outcomes related to grades, infrastructure, etc. not applicable to our project, but there are options to indicated 

'other' data as needed

SIP8. About what topic(s) or purpose(s) do you most often contact Program staff?

Questions about reallocating budget funds.

Budget questions, change in personnel

Policy questions are most typical.

Budget adjustments and travel approval.

Approval to make minor changes to a position's qualifications and for budget modifications (mostly requests to 

move dollars from staffing to make purchases).

none... Other than a couple of technical problems with our APR, we have had no contact with staff beyond the 

occasional interaction with our Program Officer. We had 3 Program Officers during the first 4 years of our grant. 

I am wondering now what additional support or resources there might have been

Conference/Training Approvals Reactivate access codes/passwords to portals

General questions. I think they do the best they can, but they seem to be understaffed (not their fault). There 

is sometimes a lag in the response time or not all questions are answers.

Grant modifications- interpretation of objectives and allowable cost and budget modifications (allocations)

To reset my password.

Proposed changes and questions about reporting.

Adjustments to original proposal and clarification on federal policies.

Questions regarding policy

to request budget modifications and provide updates

I contact our liaison to ask clarifying questions around what is required to fulfill our grant.

Budget matters.

Grant questions, budget changes, travel approvals

So far, the only contact we've attempted is to change the project director on record. We have yet to receive a 

response as of today.

Budgetary issues.

When the university developed its SIP application, we have included travel to Title III SIP project directors 

conferences, which were formerly held, to assure that local activities and processes complied with federal 

regulations and practice. To our knowledge (and based upon communication with the assigned program 

officers), no such director's conference had been conducted, which was a disappointment and left local 

personnel 'in the dark' about SIP good practices.

Interim Progress Report and the APR

I rarely contact the program officer. However, I have contacted him before concerning budget related questions 

and APR clarifications.

Clarify spending regulations
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 253

budget adjustments for rollover dollars, or questions on the Annual Report, especially how to report on the final 

year after my job is done

Endowment regulations; program changes and guidance.

Budget related questions. I mostly reach out to request budget amendments that are in alignment with grant 

activities and objectives.

Questions concerning grant expenses.

Budget and staffing recommendations in support of the objectives.

Clarification of permissible activities. Permission for budget reallocations Approval for larger expenditures.

Budget modifications

Questions about what the grant will cover.

Budget adjustments.

Guidance for whether something is allowable; information about the need for budget revision.

Explanation (clarification) of data requested

APR questions; updating our GAN

Changes and approvals

Questions about policies and requirements

Budget questions.

budget

Travel Authorizations

Changes needed to our grant.

Specific processes.

Budget revision requests

Request to modify project activities and budget revisions.

Mostly about deadlines and reporting timelines.

Report due dates, modification requests

With budget revision requests.

Questions regarding modifications to budget or timeline.

General information about program deliverables.

Travel and change of objecives

Generally has to do with needing further explanation regarding a question on the performance report.

Basically, for clarification or a problem getting a section to complete to move on.

Changes to budget, personnel, and goals.

Budget, APR, etc.

Revisions to budget

question on the annual reports

Changes to project from original grant application.

To date, have not had much, if any contact with Program staff, other than our program officer.

budget carry over

What is allowed and not allowed in terms of funds. We wrote the grant in Jan 2017 and it was awarded in Sep 

2018. Things have changed a bit and the SIP staff are great in helping us with those changes.

Budget adjustments/questions

budget

Varies

Budget
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 254

Financial expenditure and need to move funds from one source to another based on new circumstances.

Help accessing the website or finding information on the website

Logistics

We contact program staff when we are requesting prior approval for expenditures or to make budget 

adjustments. We also contact our program officer when making a hiring decision to ensure we are in compliance 

with the expectations of the program. Our program officer provides great technical assistance!!!

Change in budgets, priorities, timelines.

Deadlines, extensions, etc.

Questions about carryover amounts Personnel

Budgets. APR clarification.

Budget questions

Budget related topics.

Budget Modifications

Budget questions

No-cost extension and guidelines on end of grant issues and re-submissions or new submissions.

Policy and Procedure, Financial, Budget Modification

Reporting

Processes and information related to reports and budget change questions

General questions to clarify information that is being requested.

budget change requests

Deadlines

Budget Augmentation APR

extending sub-project timelines; budget reallocation

Changes in grant personnel, allowability of specific activities, budget.

Approval of funding requests

Budget

APR, login information.

technical issues

Allowable expense, budget amendments, clarification on policy.

Monthly reports are sent to update Program Officer on a new program.

Use of funds - allow-ability.

Either to confirm reporting details or to request a budget amendment etc.

-Amendments to budget items -Clarification about report questions -Completion of eligibility each year

Program changes.

Questions regarding the appropriate use of budget funds

Budget revisions

Request changes to grant proposal.

Completing the performance report and/or request for out-of-state travel.

Our most recent inquires has been related to a request for a no-cost extension.

Questions asking for approval to hire a position, or to rarely make a change in the budget.

regulations

Reporting issues, budget discussions, and allowable expenses.

Request for changes, interpretations of EDGAR
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 255

Questions pertaining to grant compliance

General questions about program guidelines.

Requesting minimal changes in implementation. I have submitted budget change request forms, and the 

program officer was very helpful with those.

When APR portal access will occur

The first year technical issues with the site were an issue. Currently, I often contact my Program Director for 

clarification on grant rules and APR questions. They ( I have had two ) have been very helpful, pleasant and 

patient with my questions and understanding of the issue we are working to clarify.

Approval of travel or change in personnel.

Permissions to make adjustments that will help us function better to meet the goals of the grant.

SIP9. How can we improve our SIP website, including links, to help you identify program 

resources and meet your technical assistance needs?

N/A

I just tried clicking on this link from the Grants Forecast page of the USDOE website: https://ies.ed.gov/funding/ 

and the link failed.

It would be good to have a webinar for all the people with new Title III grants and then a twice per yea r webinar 

for those who are continuing with the grant.

I'm not sure why I would ever go there.

See earlier response. Perhaps sample reports would be helpful in the resource section.

FAQs for post awards

I think it is fine as is.

Make it easier to navigate through the sections.

Clear and easy navigation

For reporting, it would be helpful to have maybe a FAQs section that would collect questions asked by other 

institutions that could possible be helpful to everyone with similar questions. Also, maybe i nclude some 

examples of finished reports to show what is expected.

Again, timeliness of information, especially regarding new competitions.

I do not have any constructive suggestions here as I am just getting started

n/a

It would be nice, if in the last year of the grant, the director would receive an Annual Report to complete before 

the grant runs out. All data would have been collected previously, so it would be easier on grant recipients to 

finish the report before the funds for their job ends.

Templates would be great. Better guidance on report submissions. Also, knowing when reports will be expected 

during the year.

I think all is provided. Just needs to be easier to navigate for new users.

Maintain current information in the What's New link. The current link takes you to the Supplemental Award 

letter from April 2018. Supplemental award submissions were closed May 2018.

I've never used this site.

I think you should promote the resources you have on the SIP website, because frankly I've never referenced 

the resources. I didn't know about them.

I would very much appreciate direction to guidelines related to expenditures that are allowable vs disallowed, 

and opportunities for training. I have previous Title III history, but am always eager to be aware if anything has 

changed so that I can be sure to remain in compliance. I realize the website cites which EDGAR statues are 

applicable, but there is so much information contained in the forms we are sent upon notification that it would 

be very easy to miss something important. Additionally, upon receipt of a grant award, it would be helpful to 
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 256

receive some sort of a 'welcome' document beyond just the basic notification letter and forms. These projects 

are apt to be quite large and involve a lot of detail, record-keeping, spending, etc., and some form of 

professional development for project directors on the front end of their award - and follow-up conferences -

would be helpful. The webinars provided for applicants during the application process are so very helpful. 

Perhaps treating each year's new awardees as a cohort and offering something similar for each year of their 

funding would be good. For instance, a webinar prior to the interim progress report we submitted in April 

explaining what we needed to be prepared to answer, etc., allowing for some Q&A time, would've been 

fabulous.

Links or contacts for other institutions with similar grant objectives

I don't know how to answer this question -sorry!

None noted at this time.

Please have a large set of questions which SIP coordinators asked in the past with correct answers.

NA

Nothing identified, so far.

a section on new guidance would be helpful. a section with more information on expanded authorities would be 

helpful.

Post recorded webinars that address FAQs.

None applicable

Larger print would be good, decrease amount of information on pages

Can't think of anything at this time.

Offer a SIP conference or workshop at least once a year.

It would be nice to be able to save without the pa ge closing or starting over.

FAQs, a moderated community site for SIP grant recipients

N/A

not sure

Can't really think of anything.

I didn't even know there were program resources. I would love to know what others are doing with the grant 

money.

The website is fine.

No obvious changes are needed.

I am too new to the system to have any suggestions at this time.

Perhaps richer examples on what constitutes a good vs. a poor answer in a section.

It is a really good website now. Can't think of anything right now.

I think it would be hard to put the types of budget/program change questions on the website. Each are so 

unique.

N/A

I am not sure. I did not realize we had a SIP site other than what is in the G5.

I think that it would be helpful to have more practical info. Sometimes when reading through the CFR the 

language is not clear and you feel that it didn't really answer your question.

At this time very satisfied with the technical assistance I have received from SIP/DOE

Revamp the website into an org-like chart with links to more directly map to questions.

n/a

search of US DOE site found SIP site quickly. Navigation and info OK on the site

I haven't spent time on the site so I'm not qualified to comment.

Notification when program officer changes with contact.
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 257

The SIP website contains a lot of information. I might suggest a little more organization of breaking the content 

into smaller pieces.

N/A

Nothing at this time.

No suggestions or ideas on that at this time. Thank you.

None..it has worked well for us

As noted for the reporting question - have a downloadable pdf of all questions available so one can prepare 

offline -then enter responses into the portal.

No comment.

To my knowledge, the SIP website is fine.

I have not had an issue with this.

N/A- the website is sufficient for our needs

No improvements to suggest.

Update dates in a more timely manner.

Always allow us to contact a 'real' person.

Provide information on the site about SIP exemplary projects along with commentary about why the projects 

are good. Reading a few of these could help grant recipients better understand ED's intents and judgments 

about how grant projects are proceeding and about what kind of results stand out to ED and for what reason(s).

SIP11. Please explain your response.

All communications from our Program Officer are consistent over time.

Our program officer has responded quickly to our inquiries and has been clear about any additional information 

needed.

I'm not sure what information I should be receiving. Primary contact has been around the release of the APR, 

questions/clarifications regarding submitted APR, and then review of a spending reallocation proposal. 

Program Office has been helpful, but slow in responding.

My Program Officer communicates updates promptly.

I only receive feedback when I'm being asked to submit a report.

Our representative has been helpful and responsive and a pleasure to work with.

Yes, I have received information that is relevant to our grant and making us aware of key deadlines, etc.

The only info/correspondence that we've received were the instructions for the midterm report.

The Program Officer has been very clear and consistent when responding to questions.

The university has had three different program officer during the grant's timeframe. The first strived to provide 

timely information as the university transitioned into the program. The relation was generally collegial and 

helpful, but would not be described as 'warm or supportive.' The second was essentially AWOL. The third did 

establish a telephone conference call as a 'get to know each other,' which I appreciated. The program officer 

had scanned the original grant application, but had not review previous program officer communication files, 

nor reviewed interim or annual performance reports. The last one was unaware of previously approved 

strategies to achieve stated activities and outcomes.

Our Program officer is very good about relaying information to us

our program officer is always responsive and provides consistent information to our questions.

I have not received responses to questions and/or responses to requests for meetings.

During reporting periods and updates from the Department of Ed, communication has been clear.

[redacted] has been great to work with. She is thorough, knowledgeable, professional, understanding, patient, 

and quick to respond. She is consistent in her advice, recommendations, and feedback.
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 258

Generally I would say 'yes' but there have been a couple of times when I've requested better understanding and 

received a cut-and-paste of statutes and / or guidelines. My problem had been tha t I needed help interpreting 

them to determine if a specific expenditure was allowable. I must say that the current SIP staff has been more 

responsive and given better responses than I have ever received from this office. I have had occasion to need 

their assistance as both an applicant and award recipient a number of times over the past 15 years, and the 

improvement is marked and noticeable even from what I experienced 3-4 years ago.

I remain unsure of how to report carryover funds in the budget aspect of the APR. I did as directed by my 

project director but it didn't seem to be the best way to handle it.

I've never received contradictory information

On the few questions that have arisen the SIP Program Office has answered.

I am uncertain as to what would constitute 'consistent Information.' I rarely hear from the SIP Program Office, I 

assume that means that there is no information to be shared.

There was an instance when I received an email that explained I had neglacted a due date, but the information 

was not correct.

The only information received from the SIP program office was regarding the APR and submission system. There 

was barely enough information about that, since there was no communication telling grantees that it would be 

late, ED was still working on it, etc. I constantly feel that I am missing important information, might not be up to 

date on guidance, and might not be listed on all the distribution lists.

[Name redacted] is a well informed program officer who provides accurate information and always provide 

timely responses to inquiries. His guidance and support has and continues to play an important role with our 

project's successful fulfillment of the stated goals and objectives.

Always responding

I received little information from the office. Only a reminder to complete reports.

No sure what you mean by consistent. Would this be considered not having to prompt communication first? 

The first contact usually beings once it is time for the APR.

The SIP staff is very responsive and timely in answering questions.

It is consistent whether it is on the website or through email.

Have not had to contact the SIP Program Office

I have not received much information at all in terms of the last year.

The answers to our questions are very clear and consistent.

Our Program officer has been very responsive.

Generally we get what we need when.

The only communications I receive are regarding the opening of the APR.

Our program officer takes the time to explain the information if we do not understand. She also provides 

guidance on how to structure our information or prior approval requests and e-mails. Above all, she has never 

seen us as a nuisance. Every time we interact with her, we are learning best practices to do our work the right 

way. She has always been consistent in her delivery of information and her time in responding.

Yes. Even though we changed program officers -they have been outstanding. Sometimes follow up on email is 

a little slow, however I understand the volume of questions they are working with.

I don't have any reason not to believe that I have not received consistent information.

Our original contact was totally unresponsive but we were assigned a new person ([Name redacted]) and she is 

fantastic!! Thank you for rectifying the problem.

When questions have been raised, she has responded promptly.

Received informative responses to questions we asked and and that the PO could anticipate to help us.

Clear and useful information

I have not received consistent information, communication, or emails.

I have received official updates. The only weird contact was a letter stating the grant had not spent a specific 

percentage of funds this year. Our college had spent the appropriate amount -- query to my Program Officer 

confirmed this.
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 259

I've only been working on the grant for 3+ months, so it's hard to comment on this at this point.

I've had the same program officer and the person has given me consistent information and has been extremely 

helpful.

This is not necessarily inconsistent information, but we did have multiple communications in effort to update 

contact information when our institution's president changed. After a number of communications through our 

APR and directly with our program officer, our former president was still receiving grant information.

emails and phone calls

I am notified of pending changes, protocols and any relevant information needed for my grant or our APR

Always helpful and knowledgeable

Sometimes the information sent to me does not apply to our grant.

Typically receive the award announcement each year and recently a request about information related to the 

SIP budget.

[redacted] has always responded in a timely manner to questions and often takes the initiative to keep us 

informed of program updates. It's been an absolute pleasure working with her. When I attend grant 

conferences, I'm simply amazed at all the problems I hear from other grantees, and can happily brag how 

wonderful my Education Program Specialist is. She's a rock star! During the past year, I don't remember 

receiving inconsistent information.

I answered yes, because of the consistent contact I've had with our program officer. I also have received 

consistent information regarding deadlines.

Since I have only had the grantfor a few months, I have to believe it is consistent and meets expectations. But I 

do not have something to benchmark it to.

Our program officer [redacted] has been absolutely wonderful with conveying information, expectations, and 

her responses to requests for approval emails have been very timely.

My Program Officer is amazing and has always answered emails and worked with me through grant issues we 

have encountered or questioned. I can not imagine trying to figure this process out with their input and 

kindness.

SIP explained the delay in the online APR submission process due to the site and form updating.

timely info on progress report due dates, notification of grant renewal, etc
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 260

IDEA-Part C Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q13. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Is there an index of what is posted where (ed.gov vs. GRADS vs. TA centers vs. IDEASTHATWORK)?

I don't really use it

The website is pretty easy to navigate and user friendly. I can pretty much understand all the content I need 

from the website.

Would it be possible to have more resources related to practice in early intervention? More Part C resources.

add links to research based evidence, compile list of FAQs states ask OSEP with responses, provide access to 

relevant journal articles to assist with policy and guidance, add links for OSEP TA Centers and their current focus

More easily searchable.

The prominence of USDOE on the website causes the intermingling of too many topics not relevant to IDEA Part 

C including K-12 general and special ed, student loans, etc. It also, from the landing page doesn't allow the user 

to clearly know the route to Part C, Part B 619, or Part B K-12 information. Because of the lack of an organization 

structure that breaks downaccording to IDEA parts and the inclusion/prominence of non-special education 

information, significant navigation is required to find the information that one needs. From my experience, 

there's a lot of guess work involved in determining what to click and a lot of time wasted going down rabbit 

trails.

USDOE has made improvements in locating things more centrally, but some things are still in several places and 

finding updates is not easy. The GRADS360 system is not easy to navigate and the reports generated for the 

Annual Performance Report are not stakeholder-friendly at all.

I do not use this website.

Have an easier time finding information quickly. Should be no more than 2 clicks of he mouse.

It has already been greatly improved from its previous version.

I often have to use the search window to find exactly what I need, but once I know where to go to find it I can 

easily get it next time.

States are struggling to keep their programs running. We are needing to re-evaluate our programs to ensure we 

are as efficient as possible. I would like this site to include a real description of State Part C programs. Staff 

qualifications (for service coordinators and providers); percentage of staff that are shared with other programs; 

funding structure (we would love to have someone propose a common method to determine cost per child); 

etc...

So far i feel that the website is easy to maneuver. I find what i need and have not come across any issues

the search function doesn't always show the topic I enter

Lots of resources that are not organized in a way that is meaningful to me. I appreciate when the Part C 

resources are grouped together.

Decrease the number of clicks to find information The new Ideas That Work site for new Part C Coordinators is 

coming together, however more resources could be used here to expand and improve the experience

improve functionality and ease of finding information, navigation and linking to other TA websites.

The main website is clunky and confusing. After the update/changes, the information has become more 

cumbersome to sift through. Also, while they are separate websites, Grads360 and Max.gov are awful. They are 

not user-friendly for new staff and Grads has substantial issues/bugs during the APR development and reporting 

process every year. I will say that the new collaborative space is great and the new resources are very helpful. 

I do appreciate the effort and collaboration that went into creating this resource.

This survey is not clear on which website you are referring to. www.ed.gov or are your referring to Grads360? 

Grads360 is not easy to navigate and not user friendly, many glitches and errors can happen. When submitting 

SPP/APR halfway through it randomly signed me in as another state and I accidentally submitted their SPP/APR 

for them, it took a few hours to fix that glitch.

Separate out age groups so viewers can relate to content based on the age group.
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 261

I don't have any suggestions at this time.

Searching is sometimes difficult and it brings outdated material.

NA

I am new to the site so I'm not sure at this time.

The pages of GRADS 360 interface well, but the headings and information for links to other 

programs/information could perhaps be more consistent with regard to font size, color, and bold/regular text. 

There are several subprograms off to the right which are importantly provided, but perhaps a link or brief 

listings that simply takes one to those programs would lessen what appears to be overcrowding on the Home 

page. Submitting APR entries into GRADS 360 can be challenging with the formatting in the text boxes. Setting 

parameters that limit the text to a single font or size could be helpful, or allowing the text to be highlighted and 

then formatted in a preferred font/size would allow for a more professional-looking submission.

Put new and relevant information on front. Make terms easier to search.

Q36. Other (please specify): Which of the following best describes your job role?

Part C Coordinator

Part C Coodinator for State

program coordinator
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 262

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

IDEAC4. Think about the types of technical assistance and support provided by OSEP such as 

Dear Colleague letters, Question and Answer documents, MSIP monthly TA calls, OSEP-Director’s 

newsletter, topical webinars, etc. Which types of assistance were most effective in helping you 

meet federal requirements and/or improve program quality?

TA calls, emails, face to face workshops and leadership meetings

OSEP newsletter, TA Calls

the information is generally not presented in an interesting manner and there is often too much content on the 

webinars and the directors calls. It is often presented In a vacuum according to federal guidelines which do not 

always match the needs of the filed.

Written documentation and instructions

Dear Colleague letters and Q & As are typically helpful and can be used to support policy development but there 

have not been any recently focusing on Part C that I am aware of.

TA calls and topical webinars were very effective for me. The TAs assigned to our state are amazing and they 

usually respond back right away when I email them for assistance.

Monthly TA call, webinars, Dear Colleague letters

Q and A documents helpful. Most webinars are relevant -- need more on current issues like eligibility and 

service provider capacity

The 'dear colleague' letters are especially helpful as are the monthly TA calls.

Although I haven't had significant experience with the above technical assistance, the monthly TA calls and 

topical webinars that I've participated in have been informative. My most valuable experiences have been 

through the OSEP Leadership Conference and the sessions presented by OSEP. Everyone that I've interacted 

with at OSEP has been well-informed, supportive, friendly and have helped me to wade through the TAspeak/legalese which so often bogs down documents, communications, and tools issued by OSEP.

Monthly calls. Program quality improvements occur mostly through the federally-funded TA centers

MSIP monthly TA calls, topical webinars, calls with OSEP state contact person

Monthly TA calls and FAQs.

monthly webinars/conference call led by [redacted], assistance by Team Lead [redacted], Dear Colleague letters

Planning and following up on any changes in guidance or requirements for federal reports

I would have to say our monthly TA calls are the most beneficial. However, over the past 10 years there has 

been a shift at OSEP from working with states to a pure compliance organization. Everything runs through legal. 

Everything must be submitted in writing. I was hoping to see a 'kinder/gentler' OSEP, but have not seen this. 

Our families feel overwhelmed by the huge parent rights document, the beyond awkward OSEP transition 

guidance, prior written notices, etc.... I would love to see some guidance written with Part C Coordinators and 

families on how we can support our families in accordance with IDEA without overwhelming them.

The communication with the State Lead. She assusts by providind clb. Aridication znd guidance when i come 

across situations that i am unsure about.

My state contact is thorough in responding to my questions and does so in a timely manner. He keeps up with 

what is happening in my state.

Calls with the State Lead wherein she desribes many of the resources available that would be impactful for 

Montana. She knowsthe Part C program in Montana very well including the State's strengths and the State's 

areas that need improvement. She is very intentional in providing technical assistance that will be of great 

benefit.

Our state lead makes time for us as needed. She is very responsive, answers questions, and seeks other subject 

matter experts when needed to provide TA to our state. I would not say that the items listed above are all that 

helpful in meeting our federal requirements. If I had to pick one I would say the MSIP TA calls.

Dear Colleague letters
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 263

Dear Colleague letters are helpful for historical information. Monthly TA calls are helpful with timelines and 

processes. The best support and information I get is from our designated lead -she is incredibly helpful and 

encouraging. We could not ask for a better OSEP lead and without our connection to her none of the other 

supports/resources would be as helpful.

Monthly phone calls with [redacted], Alabama State Contact, have been the most beneficial, as she has been a 

great support to our state!

Support from Technical Assistance agencies (i.e., DaSy, ECTA, ITCA, etc.) Webinars

Joint Statements regarding collaboration were very helpful.

Monthly call have worked as this is our opportunity to review, discuss, and ask questions on various topics. 

Additionally, we also communicate via email which also helps meeting our needs (i.e., ability to ask questions 

and receive a response).

Topical webinars

Consistent contact would help. Response to questions. My state l ead does not follow up. Hardly any contact 

during the year.

na

TA calls

Monthly TA Calls

IDEAC5. Which types of assistance were least helpful?

The Part C Application form is a MS WORD document... and a bad one at that...

I don't really find the assistance that helpful.

N/A

N/A

none

anything that I can read from a letter or powerpoint myself

Some of the webinars have been less helpful.

Hands down, DMS. It hasn't provided any practical benefit to my program, is often confusing, and sometimes 

viewed by external stakeholders as 'findings against' or deficits.

Topical webinars when provided instead of monthly calls

ed.gov website

SSIP guidance.

State Contact rarely contacts me except if there is a problem.

monthly calls with OSEP, the topics have not been relevant to the work we are doing

The TA calls.

I have not received assistance that was least helpful

nothing

Dear Colleague letters for Part B .

Calls with our state lead calls with TA centers ITCA

monthly calls

Because Grads360 and Max.gov are so clunky it reduces the amount of help the assistance providers can give. 

Many times bugs/issues are not fixable and a workaround is necessary. In addition, some problems remain 

unfixed after multiple years.

Those that did not indicate the unique build of the state's but rather grouped ideas in a way that could be taken 

out of context to read 'required' rather than 'recommended'.
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 264

None that I can think of because when needed, we will move from email to phone conversations.

Just respond.Understand my program.Take the time to know the state infrastructure. more communication.

State lead response.

FAQs
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 265

IDEA-State Directors of Special Education (Part B)

CORE QUESTIONS

Q13. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Information specific areas need to be refined.

Coordinate the various sites to facilitate the location of data, legislation, and information.

*Improved Search Vehicle *Alternative Response when website or portions of the website are unavailable

I understand the Department makes changes to its website to make it easier for users to access multiple sites in 

one place but every time a change is made it's harder for me to find the site I need to finish my work. I think it 

will be helpful if users are provided frequent awareness to understand the new changes ahead of time to 

navigate the website better. Thank you.

if you don't know exactly what you are looking for it is hard to find. A repository for Official Memos that is 

searchable for key words would be of tremendous benefit!

The search tool does not seem to capture what I am looking for at times. It seems as if I search for a long time 

without truly finding whatI am looking for.

Fresher content, organized in intuitive ways

Get some professional help in organizing for people who are trying to find answers without bothering 

individuals. It seems that phone numbers of people who could be contacted are now missing.

It needs the laws, regulations and guidance in one place that is easy to navigate.

I seem to have difficulty locating certain sets of information, even when using the 'Search' feature.

Too many clicks. I don't know the right search terms to find wha t I need. Maybe a list of search terms right off 

the dashboard would help.

I like it. Easy to navigate. easy to find things. thank you, [redacted]

na

How about having a separated resources/page for Part B and Part C, etc. Under those, we can find all r elevant 

guidance and updated regulations under each part. Maybe to also include or link to state related resources and 

initiatives that can be shared with other states or entities. If there is a link or resource page for parents, then its 

good.

Provide notices via email of new postings or announcements.

improve links and search capabilities

I would like to see a better search feature.

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

IDEAB5. Think about the types of technical assistance and support provided by OSEP such as 

Dear Colleague letters, Question and Answer documents, MSIP monthly TA calls, OSEP-Director’s 

newsletter, topical webinars, etc. Which types of assistance were most effective in helping you 

meet federal requirements and/or improve program quality?

Discussions with our state contact.

Monthly TA calls and Q & A

Information dissemination documents such as Dear Colleague letters and webinars.

Calls

Dear Colleague Letters and Q and A documents are most effective in improving program quality and 

compliance. TA calls (monthly).
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 266

Since I'm new at my position I'm not aware of or how to access Dear Colleague letters or Question and Answer 

documents. Monthly TA calls and topical webinars are not practical because of time differences due to our 

geographical location. Direct communication with our State Lead or OSEP staff through email or specifically 

scheduled TA calls to accommodate the time differences have been most effective for us.

Discussions around SPP/APR data

[redacted] goes above and beyond in providing support to states. When she is not personally able to answer a 

question, she finds the answer from with USDOE and then replies in a timely fashion.

Monthly TA calls with our State Lead and others brought to the conversation.

Dear Colleague letters are the MOST helpful

There are a few critical pieces of information related to the process for applying that should be stated directly or 

else linked directly rather than stating information related to '...' can be found '...' which generally is not a direct 

link to the information but a general link with references that do not totally match the words used in the 

directions.

We hope that we can continue to access the support from all of the technical assistance centers. They are also 

incredibly helpful.

Direct, person-to-person help. However, my state lead only contacts me when there's a problem or I initiate. 

I'm not thrilled with that TA. Documents are more helpful but I something need clarification and have trouble 

getting it.

Dear Colleague Letters are most helpful as they provide states a backbone from which to provide their own 

guidance. Calls with state OSEP contact are always helpful as we have a great one.

All of them are helpful. Dear Colleague letter provide essential policy implementation considerations --which 

are not widely available.

MSIP monthly TA calls and topical webinars.

Q and A docs, Dear Colleague letter, TA calls

Often, there is a lengthy amount of time before receiving a response to policy interpretation questions.

Dear Colleague Letters, OSEP Director newsletter.

IDEAB6. Which types of assistance were least helpful?

Information that is posted to the website and not directly sent to state directors.

All were helpful. I can't say that any was least helpful.

Technical Difficulties which impact the delivery of the monthly TA phone calls.

Topical Webinars that targets all the States because of time differences. When the time is good for everyone 

it's usually isn't for us because it would be 4:00 or 5:00 am. I understand the situation so I usually req uest for 

recordings and they have been good at making them available.

webinars

Dear Colleague letters.

TA calls are the least helpful. The information is not new, the communication is tough and generally, they are a 

waste of time.

blogs. random website posts.

SSIP

One of the most effective types of face to face sessions are those offered by USDoE and OESE and OSEP at the 

National ESEA Conference. Those are great.

The Directors' letters because we often have follow up questions that can't be addressed in such letters.

n/a

Monthly calls.
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 267

IDEAB17. Describe the impact it might have on the State if OSEP were to fully automate the IDEA 

formula grant submission and approval process.

It would reduce the burden on staff time required to complete the application and gather signatures.

Time saving and more efficient

It would simplify the submittal process.

It would be very helpful. Submission by mail has been cumbersome and expensive.

It would be wonderful.

This would be a welcomed initiative to assist with the process however, we would need to review/revise 

internal approval processes currently in place.

I think that will be good for it will save time and papers but it will be a big adjustment for us if it happens in the 

near future for we have limited access to fast and reliable internet.

It depends on how the automation process would be rolled out and the type of technical assistance available.

only if it keeps up with staff turnover would it be a good thing for us.

This would make it easier to get the information to OSEP. We are always rushing with our Superintendent to 

have it signed and get in the mail for overnight service.

The IDEA formula grant submission process is not overly cumbersome, I am not sure that this will have a huge 

impact.

Automating typically works out well when the technology works. Would this remove the need for a wet-ink 

signature?

It would make the process much more efficient.

it would be helpful, as long as real person help was available.

Great

Good luck with that

It would make everything much more easier for states to prepare and submit grants. I hope this will happen 

soon.

efficient

Aligning the IDEA grant submission with other requirements (APR/SSIP) would assist states in connecting the 

work with the resources. Having all requirements accessed through one portal would make the work more 

meaningful and manageable.

It would be much appreciated and much more efficient.

Helpful, efficient.
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 268

RSA Vocational Rehabilitation Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Q13. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

The Department sometimes relies on emails sent to SLA's as guidance. A repository of those emails would be 

beneficial.

Make the search function easier to use.

Not so much scrolling around. Use font size and style that is clearer.

It is really difficult to search the site because of the way it is embedded in DOE. I wonder if it could have a more 

stand alone look and feel Some sections are out of date or the guidance is not available - you get an error 

clicking on the link

Make the Ad Hoc Query content current.

Reports could be more recent

It needs an overhaul, things are archived. You need to start over so people can easily find the information they 

need.

It is accessible but friendly for blind users.

What we need from RSA is solid guidance on issues that the state fa ces with regard to administering the VR 

Program. A FAQ section would be great as it seems that the issues states face are often universal. Right now 

we have to dig through each state's monitoring review to see if we can find one that has the same issues we are 

having.

There is a disconnect from the technical assistance that is available on the TA Funded sites like WINTAC, YTAC, 

etc. and the information that is on the RSA website. Maybe that is purposeful? But it creates an image of RSA as 

the compliance arm of the program and that the TA centers are the ones providing practical technical 

assistance. And while the TA centers are wonderful, and we value their support, they do not always carry the 

authority of information that is vetted on the RSA website. This creates a divide between the relationship 

between state programs and RSA. At the end of the day we would like to have a better state and federal 

partnership to support people with disabilities.

It is very easy to attractive and easy to navigate. I am always able to find the information that I need.

1) Ad Hoc Data queries are extremely difficult to perform and the available reports are not well formatted. 2) 

sub regulatory guidance is not available on the website, and formal guidance is incomplete. However it doesn't 

matter as RSA takes literally years to issue formal guidance, and when finally issued, that guidance is overly 

narrow and restrictive, based on a narrow read of the statute rather than based on sound practices, and any 

strategic vision for the program.

provide guidance regarding how to find information on the site update state information

Would recommend using data analytics to feature those items most accessed in more prominent locations. 

Search feature functionality with key terms could be improved.

Providing clear search criteria so when we are looking for something published in 2019, we only get that year, 

not the past 10 years all jumbled together.

Better labeling of topics. Group topics into catagories that make sense.

Once I get to RSA's pages I can usually find what I need (although the site isn't very dynamic in terms of updated 

resources and guidance for states). It is getting stuck in the ED site loop and OSERS that is clunky. The ED home 

page gives no indication that either VR or AEL are in the agency. If I click on the How Do I Find link it takes me to 

the Top Tasks page, VR doesn't even show up and neither does AEL, just OSERS. If I didn't have the direct link for 

RSA or use Google, it would not be easy or intuitive to find information about these two WIOA programs.

update promising practices and add more FAQs or guidance on specific ways pre-ets funds can be used for 

authorized services, perhaps with some specific examples.

Provide more current information on monitoring reports and state data. Make it easier to find national level 

data. Ad Hoc queries don't always work.
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 269

Make the site more intuitive and user friendly. Also use key word searches to bring up materials especially as it 

relates to use of Grants, rules, procedures etc.... Finally, for Federal reporting have definitions related to subject 

question for ease of interpretation and answers.

No specific recommendations

Provide timely information; update information more frequently; provide information in one spot or better 

descriptors of where information can be found-currently have to click around to find what you are looking for

Make relevant information more assessible

Have more current information. The data that is available is not timely, therefore not beneficial.

Cumbersome log in process, updating passwords hard to find, slow reset time. Not an easy interface.

Organized better, user friendly.

Q36. Other (please specify): Which of the following best describes your job role?

Policy

senior management
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 270

Appendix D: 

Explanation of Significant

Difference Scores
Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2019 271

Explanation of Significant Difference Scores

There are tables depicted throughout this report that compare 2019 to 2018 scores and note significant 

differences. The following provides some background on how CFI calculates and reports significant 

differences.

Whether a significant difference exists between two scores (mean scores reported on a 0 to 100 scale) 

depends on the sample size, the standard deviation and the level of significance selected. CFI employed 

a 90 percent level of confidence to check for significant difference on all questions. This is the standard 

level used in most of our studies. However, standard deviation and sample size vary from question to 

question. Therefore, some questions may show a small difference in scores as being significant, while 

others show a much larger difference not being significantly different. 

In CFI’s studies standard deviation, which is a measure of how dispersed scores are around the mean, 

typically ranges from 15 to 30 points for any given question as reported on a 0 to 100 scale. A higher 

standard deviation results in a larger confidence interval around a score (less precision), so a larger 

difference in scores would be required to be significant. 

To further illustrate how the dispersion of scores affects significance testing between two sets of scores, 

two examples are provided. In the first example, for a given question, 350 responses were collected in 

both year one and year two. Ratings for the question were very similar among respondents in both years 

so the standard deviation was 15 points in both years, e.g. there was little dispersion around the mean. In 

this case if we used a 90 percent level of confidence to test for significance, a difference in scores 

between years one and two of less than 2 points would be required to be significant. 

Now in the second example, the same number of responses (350) is collected each year but for this 

question the ratings are not very similar among respondents. In fact, the standard deviation is 30 points 

instead of 15 in both years, so scores are more dispersed around the mean. Now using the same 90% 

level of confidence to test for significance would require nearly a four-point (3.7) difference in scores 

between years one and two to be significant.

With respect to sample size, larger sample sizes result in smaller confidence intervals. Thus, larger 

sample sizes require smaller differences in score to be significant.